Perhaps the most curious thing about EdM's Labour leadership is how its been based on cowardice and complacency.
Cowardice in that there's been a complete refusal to think about anything.
Complacency in that its been assumed that Labour would retain all its 2010 and would automatically get a large slice of 2010 LibDems.
Morning all
One of the most marked features of this forum is the strong anti-Labour bias. There are very few (apart from Nick P) who have been positive about Ed Miliband from the start. While a negative reaction from the strong pro-Conservative lobby is to be expected and can therefore be pretty much ignored, it's curious how little others have come to the Labour leader's defence.
Being LOTO for five years isn't easy - ask David Cameron. He was the beneficiary of events to a very large extent. Had the 2010 election taken place against any other economic background, it's possible to argue he'd have struggled to get near 10 Downing Street.
I do agree on the complacency front - Blair's Labour Party was able to garner the votes of millions of ex-Conservatives but as Nick P has observed, there seem very few 2010 Tories willing to contemplate a direct switch.
I don't agree on the "cowardice" except to say there should have been a much stronger mea culpa with regard to the Blair/Brown years. It wasn't until Cameron that Conservatives were even prepared to admit mistakes were made in the Thatcher/Major years - I suspect some on here still regard 79-97 as a "golden age" - but any Party in power for years finding itself in Opposition has to begin by accepting and understanding the mistakes.
All of that said, I don't judge the calibre of a future Prime Minister on how he looks or how he eats a bacon sandwich - I've seen nothing that suggests Ed Miliband wouldn't be a competent Prime Minister. That doesn't mean I support him but compare him now to Cameron in early 2010 and there's not a huge amount between them in my view. At least Ed has had Cabinet experience which is more than David Cameron had when he became PM.
"1) 4 out 10 women in prison convictions were linked to a need to support their children, usually theft or money related 2) Women aren't in for violence or sexual crimes 3) 45% of women are convicted of a new crime within 12 months of release 4) the above is linked to the fact, ex male prisoners are three times likely to have a job after release than women, the figures are 27% for men, and 9% women 5) Women prisoners prior to first sentence, are likely to have drug, drink and mental health problems than male prisoners."
1) What percentage of this is true for men, comparing only valid populations (ie men and women who have kids)? 2) People who don't commit crimes aren't imprisoned for them. Gosh. 3) Again, what's the figure for men? Why is reoffending important only for women? And why should being a potential serial criminal be considered grounds for leniency after the first crime? It's an argument for longer sentences and/or better rehabilitation, not soft treatment. 4) So, 73% of around 80,000 men do not have a job, versus 91% of about 4,000 women. People who commit crimes deserve the penalty, not to be let off because it might adversely affect their employment prospects. That's over 56,000 men against around 3,600 women. 5) Indeed and they're twice as likely as men to get a psych intervention during the court process which will lead to more such problems being identified. Plus, the two most common psych conditions (depression and stress) are more common in women than men. These are mitigating factors which will be considered during the judicial process.
It's a demented act to look at the prison population, overwhelmingly male, and decide action *must* be done to reduce the female population. Women already benefit from more lenient sentences and are a clear minority of the prison population. This is politically correct sexism.
1) For men it is less than 1 in 33. So 3% vs 40% 3) 21% 4) That's why looking at % figures is better 5) Nope they do not, the criminal justice only finds these things if we're lucky, in prison, sometimes not until the second or third visit.
Note, the coalition has done some wonderful things on helping young male offenders end their vicious cycle.
So they aren't engaging politically correct sexism.
Sadly it is true. I can already think of one case I saw when I was at college in which the result would be reversed and the police would have essentially forced him into a plea bargain before a key witness decided to come forward. This man would now be a convicted rapist on the sex offenders register unable to work instead of being an airline pilot for BA. All because of a manipulative 16 year old girl (he was also 16 at the time) who didn't want to tell her boyfriend she had cheated on him at a party.
Jesus Christ. This government is far, far worse than I could ever have envisioned. They've completely signed up to leftist identity politics where anything that helps a member of an "Oppressed Group" against a member of a "Privileged Group" is A Good Thing, liberal rights be damned.
Yup, I'm not even sure you can blame the Liberals on this one, the Justice department is supposed to be a Tory one. The worst part is that the three mainstream parties are all singing from the same hymn sheet as well.
Thinking back on the case I mentioned, the witness (accuser's best friend) only came forwards when it looked like he was definitely going to be found guilty. I guess she would not have been able to live with her conscience should he have been wrongfully prosecuted. Under the new system the police would have made him take a plea bargain within a week of the accusation, he would avoid jail/juvenile detention but still be a convicted rapist and on the sex offenders register, the best friend would have had no pressure to come forwards and "betray" her best friend (I believe that was the exact word used, along with others) since he would not be incarcerated.
Probably women ex-prisoners don't have jobs as often because they don't need them. As they have the kids, they also get the child benefit and the council house.
The fathers have to house themselves so they need to get a job.
Perhaps the most curious thing about EdM's Labour leadership is how its been based on cowardice and complacency.
Cowardice in that there's been a complete refusal to think about anything.
Complacency in that its been assumed that Labour would retain all its 2010 and would automatically get a large slice of 2010 LibDems.
Being LOTO for five years isn't easy - ask David Cameron. He was the beneficiary of events to a very large extent. Had the 2010 election taken place against any other economic background, it's possible to argue he'd have struggled to get near 10 Downing Street.
Well that's nonsense, prior to the economic crisis, the Tories had a 28% lead.
During the economic crisis, Labour saw an increase in their vote share, and at one point, had a lead again.
Think the rape change was reasonable myself. “What made you think she consented?” doesn’t seem like an unfair question to ask.
and when the inevitable reply comes back
I said "Do you fancy a shag" She said "Yes"
Not sure how that moves anything forward.
The CPS will have to consider whether there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction, especially where juries are reluctant to convict on the basis of just "she said, he said".
Perhaps the most curious thing about EdM's Labour leadership is how its been based on cowardice and complacency.
Cowardice in that there's been a complete refusal to think about anything.
Complacency in that its been assumed that Labour would retain all its 2010 and would automatically get a large slice of 2010 LibDems.
Morning all
One of the most marked features of this forum is the strong anti-Labour bias. There are very few (apart from Nick P) who have been positive about Ed Miliband from the start. While a negative reaction from the strong pro-Conservative lobby is to be expected and can therefore be pretty much ignored, it's curious how little others have come to the Labour leader's defence.
Being LOTO for five years isn't easy - ask David Cameron. He was the beneficiary of events to a very large extent. Had the 2010 election taken place against any other economic background, it's possible to argue he'd have struggled to get near 10 Downing Street.
I do agree on the complacency front - Blair's Labour Party was able to garner the votes of millions of ex-Conservatives but as Nick P has observed, there seem very few 2010 Tories willing to contemplate a direct switch.
I don't agree on the "cowardice" except to say there should have been a much stronger mea culpa with regard to the Blair/Brown years. It wasn't until Cameron that Conservatives were even prepared to admit mistakes were made in the Thatcher/Major years - I suspect some on here still regard 79-97 as a "golden age" - but any Party in power for years finding itself in Opposition has to begin by accepting and understanding the mistakes.
All of that said, I don't judge the calibre of a future Prime Minister on how he looks or how he eats a bacon sandwich - I've seen nothing that suggests Ed Miliband wouldn't be a competent Prime Minister. That doesn't mean I support him but compare him now to Cameron in early 2010 and there's not a huge amount between them in my view. At least Ed has had Cabinet experience which is more than David Cameron had when he became PM.
While you're right about the strong anti-EdM bias on this site I will point out that I've always said EdM was the better of the two brothers.
Which is why I'm surprised that he has taken on the worst, IMO, character flaws of his elder brother, indeed the very flaws which stopped him becoming Labour leader.
Think the rape change was reasonable myself. “What made you think she consented?” doesn’t seem like an unfair question to ask.
and when the inevitable reply comes back
I said "Do you fancy a shag" She said "Yes"
Not sure how that moves anything forward.
The CPS will have to consider whether there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction, especially where juries are reluctant to convict on the basis of just "she said, he said".
The case of the footballer we are not allowed to discuss suggests otherwise.
"1) 4 out 10 women in prison convictions were linked to a need to support their children, usually theft or money related 2) Women aren't in for violence or sexual crimes 3) 45% of women are convicted of a new crime within 12 months of release 4) the above is linked to the fact, ex male prisoners are three times likely to have a job after release than women, the figures are 27% for men, and 9% women 5) Women prisoners prior to first sentence, are likely to have drug, drink and mental health problems than male prisoners."
1) What percentage of this is true for men, comparing only valid populations (ie men and women who have kids)? 2) People who don't commit crimes aren't imprisoned for them. Gosh. 3) Again, what's the figure for men? Why is reoffending important only for women? And why should being a potential serial criminal be considered grounds for leniency after the first crime? It's an argument for longer sentences and/or better rehabilitation, not soft treatment. 4) So, 73% of around 80,000 men do not have a job, versus 91% of about 4,000 women. People who commit crimes deserve the penalty, not to be let off because it might adversely affect their employment prospects. That's over 56,000 men against around 3,600 women. 5) Indeed and they're twice as likely as men to get a psych intervention during the court process which will lead to more such problems being identified. Plus, the two most common psych conditions (depression and stress) are more common in women than men. These are mitigating factors which will be considered during the judicial process.
It's a demented act to look at the prison population, overwhelmingly male, and decide action *must* be done to reduce the female population. Women already benefit from more lenient sentences and are a clear minority of the prison population. This is politically correct sexism.
I've no doubt that the overall crime rate is higher among men than women. I have difficulty believing that it is 20 times higher, which is what the figures for the respective prison populations imply.
4,000 prisoners really doesn't sound like very many.
The female on male crime offence that's equivalent to rape but isn't considered a crime is when the woman lies about being on the pill in order to get pregnant, then does so and claims resources off the man for the next 21 years. With this or with rape someone is helping themselves to someone else's reproductive resources. That should be a crime too really,with the same burden of proof ("Prove he knew you weren't on the pill") and damages reclaimable from the mother or custody in lieu.
The left really does seem to have run amok in this country's legal establishment. They keep banging on about how cohabiting couples should have the same "protections" as married ones. Cohabitants can have those "protections" any time they want them, simply by getting married. What they don't want is the appalling exposures that come with them, eg expropriation in the event of separation.
This is not about "protection" at all but about finding work for divorce lawyers at men's expense and risk in a world where men are increasingly and sensibly reluctant to marry.
Mr. Eagles, not too surprised by the 3% versus 40% stat, given the well-known anti-male bias in custody battles. So, one institutional sexism begets a second.
At university, some time ago now, it was stated in Forensic Psych that women were more than twice as likely as men to receive a psych intervention during the court process and be assessed for mental illness (or fiction, in the case of kleptomania). Perhaps that has changed since.
Hughes' view is politically correct bullshit. Female criminals aren't mindless, helpless animals who are forced to commit crimes because they love their kids and because men are bastards. They're people who make choices, just as male criminals do.
Mr. Eagles, not too surprised by the 3% versus 40% stat, given the well-known anti-male bias in custody battles. So, one institutional sexism begets a second.
At university, some time ago now, it was stated in Forensic Psych that women were more than twice as likely as men to receive a psych intervention during the court process and be assessed for mental illness (or fiction, in the case of kleptomania). Perhaps that has changed since.
Hughes' view is politically correct bullshit. Female criminals aren't mindless, helpless animals who are forced to commit crimes because they love their kids and because men are bastards. They're people who make choices, just as male criminals do.
Again that's wrong.
For most prisoner who are lone parents, it usually a case of one parent has abandoned them/the child(ren)
Mr. Bond, entirely agree about the nonsense that keeps being raised about imposing marriage in all but name upon couples who co-habit but choose not to marry.
Who'd be a man? Commit the same crime as a woman, and you're likelier to go to prison, and for longer. Divorce, and she'll get the kids [which the likes of Hughes et al now want to become a get out of jail free card for women]. Have a one night stand, and we're moving towards a situation where you need to prove your innocence.
Sadly it is true. I can already think of one case I saw when I was at college in which the result would be reversed and the police would have essentially forced him into a plea bargain before a key witness decided to come forward. This man would now be a convicted rapist on the sex offenders register unable to work instead of being an airline pilot for BA. All because of a manipulative 16 year old girl (he was also 16 at the time) who didn't want to tell her boyfriend she had cheated on him at a party.
Jesus Christ. This government is far, far worse than I could ever have envisioned. They've completely signed up to leftist identity politics where anything that helps a member of an "Oppressed Group" against a member of a "Privileged Group" is A Good Thing, liberal rights be damned.
Yup, I'm not even sure you can blame the Liberals on this one, the Justice department is supposed to be a Tory one. The worst part is that the three mainstream parties are all singing from the same hymn sheet as well.
Thinking back on the case I mentioned, the witness (accuser's best friend) only came forwards when it looked like he was definitely going to be found guilty. I guess she would not have been able to live with her conscience should he have been wrongfully prosecuted. Under the new system the police would have made him take a plea bargain within a week of the accusation, he would avoid jail/juvenile detention but still be a convicted rapist and on the sex offenders register, the best friend would have had no pressure to come forwards and "betray" her best friend (I believe that was the exact word used, along with others) since he would not be incarcerated.
And as we know laws tend to be enforced by the 'fashionable' standards of the plods and CPS.
I've seen nothing that suggests Ed Miliband wouldn't be a competent Prime Minister.
* boggle *
To the extent that there is anti-Labour bias here, it's only what there would have been between 1976 and 1995, had this site been around, and for the same reasons: that Labour was a manifestly vicious and spiteful party, led by shouty immature twerps.
@AnasSarwar 08:10: Anas Sarwar I can confirm that Sarwar snr. has resigned as Governor of Punjab. An honest man, doing the honest thing. More details soon...
What has he allegedly done?
Not sure. Still, we know he is an honest man: being acquitted of electoral fraud tells us that.
The female on male crime offence that's equivalent to rape but isn't considered a crime is when the woman lies about being on the pill in order to get pregnant, then does so and claims resources off the man for the next 21 years.
Oh please.
And the bloke wouldn't have heard of condoms I suppose?
Really, this male chauvinist victimhood drivel on the Right is hilarious.
Ukip "Weather Czar" - Nigel Bonkers-Cum-Nuttjob claiming Rutland is about to be engulfed by a snow storm :
"I have it on good authority that notorious Rutland shirt-lifting MP, Alan Duncan yesterday sent out constituency leaflets featuring a gay snowman wearing a rainbow alliance woolly hat and French carrot for a nose.
This is a clear provocation and Rutland is now doomed to days of grotesque fun involving sledges, toboggans and skis that is entirely unnatural to the English way of life. Duncan should be deported to Lapland immediately."
Scrap Trident, ditch Barnett, reverse the cuts – the price of power for Miliband and Cameron in a hung parliament
With polls predicting another hung parliament, The Telegraph reveals what the SNP, Greens, Plaid Cymru, Ukip and the DUP will demand in return for their support
Mr. M, generally a fair point although there are rare cases of women using the aforementioned material to then get themselves pregnant. The man does not consent to this, but the child is his and he is on the hook legally.
Rare, as I said, but it does happen.
Condom-splitting and hormone imbalances leading to the pill not working are probably more common.
Stodge: "I've seen nothing that suggests Ed Miliband wouldn't be a competent Prime Minister."
Perhaps you should direct your view from East Ham to Scotland ?
What has been happening to the Labour Party under Ed's leadership?
There has been an election to the Scottish Parliament while Ed was Leader. It was a debacle. And there has been an IndyRef. Ed's appearances were a debacle. The final act will take place in May. It will be a debacle.
I find it difficult to understand how the complete demolition of a party that once ruled Scotland can be considered as anything other than a sign of gross incompetence.
It is true Labour's Scottish Problem has been building over the years. It is true that it is not all Ed's fault.
But he has been in charge for all the debacles and there is no indication he has any idea whatsoever of how to fix the problem.
(It is not just right leaning posters who think Ed is crap).
Think the rape change was reasonable myself. “What made you think she consented?” doesn’t seem like an unfair question to ask.
and when the inevitable reply comes back
I said "Do you fancy a shag" She said "Yes"
Not sure how that moves anything forward.
The CPS will have to consider whether there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction, especially where juries are reluctant to convict on the basis of just "she said, he said".
The case of the footballer we are not allowed to discuss suggests otherwise.
Not the police, the CPS or political correctness but a jury of his peers considered all the evidence and unanimously convicted him.
One of the most marked features of this forum is the strong anti-Labour bias. There are very few (apart from Nick P) who have been positive about Ed Miliband from the start.
Er, that's not a forum bias.
There are very few anywhere in the World that have been positive about Ed Miliband from the start.
Labour MPs didn't want him.
Labour Party members didn't want him.
He's a duffer. I know, you know it, his colleagues know it, the public knows it.
And the award for the least truthful end to a tweet goes to..
Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch) 28/01/2015 22:20 Love. Miliband trots out girl as prop at his conference speech, doesn't bother to contact her; now she's voting Tory dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2…
Think the rape change was reasonable myself. “What made you think she consented?” doesn’t seem like an unfair question to ask.
and when the inevitable reply comes back
I said "Do you fancy a shag" She said "Yes"
Not sure how that moves anything forward.
The CPS will have to consider whether there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction, especially where juries are reluctant to convict on the basis of just "she said, he said".
The case of the footballer we are not allowed to discuss suggests otherwise.
Not the police, the CPS or political correctness but a jury of his peers considered all the evidence and unanimously convicted him.
Indeed, on the basis of "he said, she said" or more accurately "he and his mate said, she said" in just the manner you said juries were reluctant to commit.
Think the rape change was reasonable myself. “What made you think she consented?” doesn’t seem like an unfair question to ask.
and when the inevitable reply comes back
I said "Do you fancy a shag" She said "Yes"
Not sure how that moves anything forward.
The CPS will have to consider whether there is a reasonable prospect of a conviction, especially where juries are reluctant to convict on the basis of just "she said, he said".
The case of the footballer we are not allowed to discuss suggests otherwise.
Not the police, the CPS or political correctness but a jury of his peers considered all the evidence and unanimously convicted him.
Indeed, on the basis of "he said, she said" or more accurately "he and his mate said, she said" in just the manner you said juries were reluctant to commit.
Juries hear the witnesses, place the evidence in context and decide. A reluctance to convict doesn't mean a jury will not do so.
The female on male crime offence that's equivalent to rape but isn't considered a crime is when the woman lies about being on the pill in order to get pregnant, then does so and claims resources off the man for the next 21 years.
Oh please.
And the bloke wouldn't have heard of condoms I suppose?
Really, this male chauvinist victimhood drivel on the Right is hilarious.
'Its ok I'm on the pill'
'You might be lying, I'd better glove up just in case...'
A senior Ukip Environment & Weather spokesman this morning claimed that the overnight earthquake in the East Midlands was the result of a weather dance by a local gay MP. In an exclusive interview from South Thanet Nigel Bonkers-cum-Nuttjob said :
"This huge tremor in Rutland was caused by local gay MP Alan Duncan. My understanding is that this homosexualist was seen dancing under a glitter ball in the Gay Hussar night club in Oakham singing "It's raining men Hallelujah".
Clearly the extensive gyrating by this influential gay man has caused the tectonic plates to shift in Rutland. He should be deported to San Francisco where his brand of politics and earth moving activities would be more suited."
The female on male crime offence that's equivalent to rape but isn't considered a crime is when the woman lies about being on the pill in order to get pregnant, then does so and claims resources off the man for the next 21 years.
Oh please.
And the bloke wouldn't have heard of condoms I suppose?
Really, this male chauvinist victimhood drivel on the Right is hilarious.
'Its ok I'm on the pill'
'You might be lying, I'd better glove up just in case...'
Like a mills and boon novel...
My experience is that sex is very rarely like a Mills & Boon novel. Thank goodness.
The female on male crime offence that's equivalent to rape but isn't considered a crime is when the woman lies about being on the pill in order to get pregnant, then does so and claims resources off the man for the next 21 years.
Oh please.
And the bloke wouldn't have heard of condoms I suppose?
Really, this male chauvinist victimhood drivel on the Right is hilarious.
Ben, I don't know whether you've ever dun it wiv a laydee, but the type of man who invariably has a condom about him, along with a clean handkerchief and sixpence in case he needs to make a phone call, is the type of man who gets very little occasion to use it, ever.
"1) 4 out 10 women in prison convictions were linked to a need to support their children, usually theft or money related 2) Women aren't in for violence or sexual crimes 3) 45% of women are convicted of a new crime within 12 months of release 4) the above is linked to the fact, ex male prisoners are three times likely to have a job after release than women, the figures are 27% for men, and 9% women 5) Women prisoners prior to first sentence, are likely to have drug, drink and mental health problems than male prisoners."
1) What percentage of this is true for men, comparing only valid populations (ie men and women who have kids)? 2) People who don't commit crimes aren't imprisoned for them. Gosh. 3) Again, what's the figure for men? Why is reoffending important only for women? And why should being a potential serial criminal be considered grounds for leniency after the first crime? It's an argument for longer sentences and/or better rehabilitation, not soft treatment. 4) So, 73% of around 80,000 men do not have a job, versus 91% of about 4,000 women. People who commit crimes deserve the penalty, not to be let off because it might adversely affect their employment prospects. That's over 56,000 men against around 3,600 women. 5) Indeed and they're twice as likely as men to get a psych intervention during the court process which will lead to more such problems being identified. Plus, the two most common psych conditions (depression and stress) are more common in women than men. These are mitigating factors which will be considered during the judicial process.
It's a demented act to look at the prison population, overwhelmingly male, and decide action *must* be done to reduce the female population. Women already benefit from more lenient sentences and are a clear minority of the prison population. This is politically correct sexism.
I've no doubt that the overall crime rate is higher among men than women. I have difficulty believing that it is 20 times higher, which is what the figures for the respective prison populations imply.
4,000 prisoners really doesn't sound like very many.
As a magistrate I find that a lot of women avoid prison sentences, or a subjected to suspended sentences, simply because of child care issues, especially when they are single mothers.
I should perhaps mention that a lot of male crime is also hormone related (testosterone)
The female on male crime offence that's equivalent to rape but isn't considered a crime is when the woman lies about being on the pill in order to get pregnant, then does so and claims resources off the man for the next 21 years.
Oh please.
And the bloke wouldn't have heard of condoms I suppose?
Really, this male chauvinist victimhood drivel on the Right is hilarious.
'Its ok I'm on the pill'
'You might be lying, I'd better glove up just in case...'
Like a mills and boon novel...
My experience is that sex is very rarely like a Mills & Boon novel. Thank goodness.
I'm reeling from the fact that you and Isam read/have read Mills and Boon novels.
Well that's nonsense, prior to the economic crisis, the Tories had a 28% lead.
During the economic crisis, Labour saw an increase in their vote share, and at one point, had a lead again.
Factually inaccurate as per usual.
The Conservatives enjoyed a small but steady lead over Labour after Cameron became leader and up till the resignation of Blair. Brown enjoyed a significant but short-lived "honeymoon" in the summer/early autumn of 2007 but that ended with the Northern Rock crisis.
The worsening of the economic crisis during 2008 was mirrored in a growing Conservative lead up to the collapse of Lehmann Brothers. When the crisis really broke, the Labour numbers recovered and the Tory numbers dipped because, as often happens in times of crisis, people rally back to the Government of the day.
The Expenses Scandal of 2009 caused the second big dip in Labour support (it also hurt the Tories slightly).
The female on male crime offence that's equivalent to rape but isn't considered a crime is when the woman lies about being on the pill in order to get pregnant, then does so and claims resources off the man for the next 21 years.
Oh please.
And the bloke wouldn't have heard of condoms I suppose?
Really, this male chauvinist victimhood drivel on the Right is hilarious.
'Its ok I'm on the pill'
'You might be lying, I'd better glove up just in case...'
Like a mills and boon novel...
My experience is that sex is very rarely like a Mills & Boon novel. Thank goodness.
I'm reeling from the fact that you and Isam read/have read Mills and Boon novels.
You should always have the broadest possible range of cultural reference points (he said, while tenderly holding her in his firm, brawny arms while soulfully undressing her with his soft brown eyes).
Sadly it is true. I can already think of one case I saw when I was at college in which the result would be reversed and the police would have essentially forced him into a plea bargain before a key witness decided to come forward. This man would now be a convicted rapist on the sex offenders register unable to work instead of being an airline pilot for BA. All because of a manipulative 16 year old girl (he was also 16 at the time) who didn't want to tell her boyfriend she had cheated on him at a party.
Jesus Christ. This government is far, far worse than I could ever have envisioned. They've completely signed up to leftist identity politics where anything that helps a member of an "Oppressed Group" against a member of a "Privileged Group" is A Good Thing, liberal rights be damned.
The difference between the Tories and Labour is primarily centred around their donor and supporter base: public sector unions/3rd sector and academic/journalistic elites for Labour, and Hedge Funds/Financiers/Businessmen and Pensioners for the Tories.
Any difference is mainly economic. There is a preference for a smaller state and lower tax for the Tories, and the opposite for Labour, but both will put the financial protection of their interest groups first.
Both have virtually no distinction on the prevailing socio-cultural consensus: "ideas" or "values" politics."
The female on male crime offence that's equivalent to rape but isn't considered a crime is when the woman lies about being on the pill in order to get pregnant, then does so and claims resources off the man for the next 21 years.
Oh please.
And the bloke wouldn't have heard of condoms I suppose?
Really, this male chauvinist victimhood drivel on the Right is hilarious.
Ben, I don't know whether you've ever dun it wiv a laydee, but the type of man who invariably has a condom about him, along with a clean handkerchief and sixpence in case he needs to make a phone call, is the type of man who gets very little occasion to use it, ever.
Duane Dibbley: Just let me check. Thermos, sandwiches, corn plasters, telephone money, dandruff brush, animal footprint chart and... one triple thick condom. You never know.
A senior Ukip Environment & Weather spokesman this morning claimed that the overnight earthquake in the East Midlands was the result of a weather dance by a local gay MP. In an exclusive interview from South Thanet Nigel Bonkers-cum-Nuttjob said :
"This huge tremor in Rutland was caused by local gay MP Alan Duncan. My understanding is that this homosexualist was seen dancing under a glitter ball in the Gay Hussar night club in Oakham singing "It's raining men Hallelujah".
Clearly the extensive gyrating by this influential gay man has caused the tectonic plates to shift in Rutland. He should be deported to San Francisco where his brand of politics and earth moving activities would be more suited."
Tut, tut, Plato. It shows that you, like most PB major party supporters, still don't take UKIP seriously. It also shows in a meaningful way, how you still brush off the impact of UKIP voters at the GE.
In this thread on England 2005, Mike Simpson is blind to the effect that UKIP will have on Labour in the Midlands and further north, even if they win few seats there.
Fallopian-deprived ape Simon Hughes has called for the number of women in prison to be halved. Despite there being more than 20 men incarcerated for every one woman. And women getting lighter custodial sentences.
The random firing of neurons which approximates in the skull of Hughes to what normal people enjoy as 'reasoning' has led him to claim this: "Female offenders are a "special case" and should be treated differently to men because many had been victims themselves, he told BBC Radio 5 live Breakfast."
It's true, ovaries do attract victimhood, whereas testicle deflect being criminal activity from their bearer, whilst filling the plum-possessor with nasty criminal desire of his own (which, of course, are only committed against women).
We could always judge people by the content of their characters, rather than the content of their trousers.
"When asked why female offenders should be treated differently to men Mr Hughes said: "Women are a special case for very good, evidenced reasons. Firstly, many more women who go to prison have themselves been victims. They've often been abused or in violent partnerships.
"Secondly, many more women have caring responsibilities than men do.""
The first is also true of men. A huge minority (around 40%, give or take) of domestic abuse victims are men. The second is giving women a huge unfair advantage in the field of custody and then using that blatant sexist prejudice to justify leniency for criminal behaviour!
Well that's nonsense, prior to the economic crisis, the Tories had a 28% lead.
During the economic crisis, Labour saw an increase in their vote share, and at one point, had a lead again.
Factually inaccurate as per usual.
The Conservatives enjoyed a small but steady lead over Labour after Cameron became leader and up till the resignation of Blair. Brown enjoyed a significant but short-lived "honeymoon" in the summer/early autumn of 2007 but that ended with the Northern Rock crisis.
The worsening of the economic crisis during 2008 was mirrored in a growing Conservative lead up to the collapse of Lehmann Brothers. When the crisis really broke, the Labour numbers recovered and the Tory numbers dipped because, as often happens in times of crisis, people rally back to the Government of the day.
The Expenses Scandal of 2009 caused the second big dip in Labour support (it also hurt the Tories slightly).
The female on male crime offence that's equivalent to rape but isn't considered a crime is when the woman lies about being on the pill in order to get pregnant, then does so and claims resources off the man for the next 21 years.
Oh please.
And the bloke wouldn't have heard of condoms I suppose?
Really, this male chauvinist victimhood drivel on the Right is hilarious.
'Its ok I'm on the pill'
'You might be lying, I'd better glove up just in case...'
Like a mills and boon novel...
My experience is that sex is very rarely like a Mills & Boon novel. Thank goodness.
I'm reeling from the fact that you and Isam read/have read Mills and Boon novels.
You should always have the broadest possible range of cultural reference points (he said, while tenderly holding her in his firm, brawny arms while soulfully undressing her with his soft brown eyes).
That's why I read the Twilight and 50 Shades of Grey Novels.
Well that's nonsense, prior to the economic crisis, the Tories had a 28% lead.
During the economic crisis, Labour saw an increase in their vote share, and at one point, had a lead again.
Factually inaccurate as per usual.
The Conservatives enjoyed a small but steady lead over Labour after Cameron became leader and up till the resignation of Blair. Brown enjoyed a significant but short-lived "honeymoon" in the summer/early autumn of 2007 but that ended with the Northern Rock crisis.
The worsening of the economic crisis during 2008 was mirrored in a growing Conservative lead up to the collapse of Lehmann Brothers. When the crisis really broke, the Labour numbers recovered and the Tory numbers dipped because, as often happens in times of crisis, people rally back to the Government of the day.
The Expenses Scandal of 2009 caused the second big dip in Labour support (it also hurt the Tories slightly).
So you think the first Brown honeymoon ended because of Northern Rock and not the election that never was?
Okaay.
Most voters barely know who the prime minister is, they certainly wont have noticed the political machinations around the non-election, most of them probably noticed their mortgage and saving rates going batsh*t and queues of people outside banks. Hell even my old mum, who knows nothing about politics has been asking about how to arrange her saving to make sure she doesn't lose any money if her bank goes bust.
The female on male crime offence that's equivalent to rape but isn't considered a crime is when the woman lies about being on the pill in order to get pregnant, then does so and claims resources off the man for the next 21 years.
Oh please.
And the bloke wouldn't have heard of condoms I suppose?
Really, this male chauvinist victimhood drivel on the Right is hilarious.
'Its ok I'm on the pill'
'You might be lying, I'd better glove up just in case...'
Like a mills and boon novel...
Anybody who doesn't glove up on a one night stand is a complete moron.
The female on male crime offence that's equivalent to rape but isn't considered a crime is when the woman lies about being on the pill in order to get pregnant, then does so and claims resources off the man for the next 21 years.
Oh please.
And the bloke wouldn't have heard of condoms I suppose?
Really, this male chauvinist victimhood drivel on the Right is hilarious.
'Its ok I'm on the pill'
'You might be lying, I'd better glove up just in case...'
Like a mills and boon novel...
My experience is that sex is very rarely like a Mills & Boon novel. Thank goodness.
I'm reeling from the fact that you and Isam read/have read Mills and Boon novels.
You should always have the broadest possible range of cultural reference points (he said, while tenderly holding her in his firm, brawny arms while soulfully undressing her with his soft brown eyes).
Her tender heart swooned as he guided her hand towards his trouser pocket then powerfully yet skilfully produced and thrust the consent form printed from his laptop earlier that evening into her as yet unconfirmed willing or unwilling grasp
Further steps down the road to feminist nirvana today. The place Where No Woman is Guilty of Anything Ever.
In years to come, when a woman commits a murder, the police will search for the man Whose Fault It Was Really. The man who 'oppressed' her into doing it.
Well that's nonsense, prior to the economic crisis, the Tories had a 28% lead.
During the economic crisis, Labour saw an increase in their vote share, and at one point, had a lead again.
Factually inaccurate as per usual.
The Conservatives enjoyed a small but steady lead over Labour after Cameron became leader and up till the resignation of Blair. Brown enjoyed a significant but short-lived "honeymoon" in the summer/early autumn of 2007 but that ended with the Northern Rock crisis.
The worsening of the economic crisis during 2008 was mirrored in a growing Conservative lead up to the collapse of Lehmann Brothers. When the crisis really broke, the Labour numbers recovered and the Tory numbers dipped because, as often happens in times of crisis, people rally back to the Government of the day.
The Expenses Scandal of 2009 caused the second big dip in Labour support (it also hurt the Tories slightly).
Northern Rock crisis and Brown's inevitable bottle job.
The dip *just* before the expenses crisis in Labour matches the Derek Draper/McBride stuff (red line goes down in two chunks, the first doesn't actually match a drop in the blue line).
I'm trying to remember what, if anything, caused the drop around January of 2009.
The female on male crime offence that's equivalent to rape but isn't considered a crime is when the woman lies about being on the pill in order to get pregnant, then does so and claims resources off the man for the next 21 years.
Oh please.
And the bloke wouldn't have heard of condoms I suppose?
Really, this male chauvinist victimhood drivel on the Right is hilarious.
'Its ok I'm on the pill'
'You might be lying, I'd better glove up just in case...'
Like a mills and boon novel...
My experience is that sex is very rarely like a Mills & Boon novel. Thank goodness.
I'm reeling from the fact that you and Isam read/have read Mills and Boon novels.
You should always have the broadest possible range of cultural reference points (he said, while tenderly holding her in his firm, brawny arms while soulfully undressing her with his soft brown eyes).
Her tender heart swooned as he guided her hand towards his trouser pocket then powerfully yet skilfully produced and thrust the consent form printed from his laptop earlier that evening into her as yet unconfirmed willing or unwilling grasp
LOL!
I am unconvinced even that would cut the mustard in the current climate, the obvious rejoiner to producing a signed consent form would be to allege duress.
The female on male crime offence that's equivalent to rape but isn't considered a crime is when the woman lies about being on the pill in order to get pregnant, then does so and claims resources off the man for the next 21 years.
Oh please.
And the bloke wouldn't have heard of condoms I suppose?
Really, this male chauvinist victimhood drivel on the Right is hilarious.
'Its ok I'm on the pill'
'You might be lying, I'd better glove up just in case...'
Like a mills and boon novel...
Anybody who doesn't glove up on a one night stand is a complete moron.
Anyone who hasnt done it is probably a bit of a bore
The female on male crime offence that's equivalent to rape but isn't considered a crime is when the woman lies about being on the pill in order to get pregnant, then does so and claims resources off the man for the next 21 years.
Oh please.
And the bloke wouldn't have heard of condoms I suppose?
Really, this male chauvinist victimhood drivel on the Right is hilarious.
'Its ok I'm on the pill'
'You might be lying, I'd better glove up just in case...'
Like a mills and boon novel...
My experience is that sex is very rarely like a Mills & Boon novel. Thank goodness.
I'm reeling from the fact that you and Isam read/have read Mills and Boon novels.
You should always have the broadest possible range of cultural reference points (he said, while tenderly holding her in his firm, brawny arms while soulfully undressing her with his soft brown eyes).
Her tender heart swooned as he guided her hand towards his trouser pocket then powerfully yet skilfully produced and thrust the consent form printed from his laptop earlier that evening into her as yet unconfirmed willing or unwilling grasp
LOL!
I am unconvinced even that would cut the mustard in the current climate, the obvious rejoiner to producing a signed consent form would be to allege duress.
Most people have mobile phones that have cameras you can make video footage with.
Just record her giving you consent.
Although, FYI, some women get upset when you begin a sentence with "Can I videotape you....."
Global warming coming down from the skies for the third (or fourth) time this winter in Yorkshire.
Weren't we told it was to become a once a decade event ?
Nearly two-thirds of the way through and the temperature this winter in England is about 0.8C above average.
That is cooler than last winter, when the temperature only just dipped below average on a mere five days, and for the season as a whole was almost 2.0C above average.
A senior Ukip Environment & Weather spokesman this morning claimed that the overnight earthquake in the East Midlands was the result of a weather dance by a local gay MP. In an exclusive interview from South Thanet Nigel Bonkers-cum-Nuttjob said :
"This huge tremor in Rutland was caused by local gay MP Alan Duncan. My understanding is that this homosexualist was seen dancing under a glitter ball in the Gay Hussar night club in Oakham singing "It's raining men Hallelujah".
Clearly the extensive gyrating by this influential gay man has caused the tectonic plates to shift in Rutland. He should be deported to San Francisco where his brand of politics and earth moving activities would be more suited."
Tut, tut, Plato. It shows that you, like most PB major party supporters, still don't take UKIP seriously. It also shows in a meaningful way, how you still brush off the impact of UKIP voters at the GE.
In this thread on England 2005, Mike Simpson is blind to the effect that UKIP will have on Labour in the Midlands and further north, even if they win few seats there.
Poking fun at political parties is part of the great tapestry of the British way of life and you are to be congratulated on being a member of a party that has greatly added to the gaiety of the nation.
The female on male crime offence that's equivalent to rape but isn't considered a crime is when the woman lies about being on the pill in order to get pregnant, then does so and claims resources off the man for the next 21 years.
Oh please.
And the bloke wouldn't have heard of condoms I suppose?
Really, this male chauvinist victimhood drivel on the Right is hilarious.
'Its ok I'm on the pill'
'You might be lying, I'd better glove up just in case...'
Like a mills and boon novel...
Anybody who doesn't glove up on a one night stand is a complete moron.
Anyone who hasnt done it is probably a bit of a bore
The female on male crime offence that's equivalent to rape but isn't considered a crime is when the woman lies about being on the pill in order to get pregnant, then does so and claims resources off the man for the next 21 years.
Oh please.
And the bloke wouldn't have heard of condoms I suppose?
Really, this male chauvinist victimhood drivel on the Right is hilarious.
'Its ok I'm on the pill'
'You might be lying, I'd better glove up just in case...'
Like a mills and boon novel...
My experience is that sex is very rarely like a Mills & Boon novel. Thank goodness.
I'm reeling from the fact that you and Isam read/have read Mills and Boon novels.
You should always have the broadest possible range of cultural reference points (he said, while tenderly holding her in his firm, brawny arms while soulfully undressing her with his soft brown eyes).
Her tender heart swooned as he guided her hand towards his trouser pocket then powerfully yet skilfully produced and thrust the consent form printed from his laptop earlier that evening into her as yet unconfirmed willing or unwilling grasp
LOL!
I am unconvinced even that would cut the mustard in the current climate, the obvious rejoiner to producing a signed consent form would be to allege duress.
This is one of these subjects where half of pb's regulars seem to be full-on mental.
Meanwhile, back on planet earth, the rest of the population will carry on having bad drunken sex the same as usual, and in the unlikely event that a particularly ungallant Romeo finds that his one night Juliet has asked for the police to consider whether he had overstepped the mark, our hypothetical Romeo is going to find that he has to go into a bit more excruciating detail with Her Majesty's finest about why he thought that she was up for whatever he thought was on the cards.
But if he has a decent enough explanation given how the night naturally progressed, it's highly unlikely that the matter is going to go any further.
I really don't see the fuss about getting the authorities to investigate a bit more closely whether a serious crime has taken place.
The Telegraph's reporting of the DPP's proposed guidance appears to be sensationalist (I say this having been angry myself when I first read the story). Neither the burden of proof nor the charging criteria are changing; all that is changing is that the police are being given guidance to:
(i) really test the basis on which the accused believed the complainant was consenting. Frankly the police should be doing that whenever consent is in issue; and
(ii) provide clarity as to the kind of relationships where consent needs to be examined more closely.
At the heart of this is the point that whilst the justice system must presume innocence, the police should not, and should investigate allegations thoroughly. If the evidential standard is not met, the CPS should not prosecute.
More troubling was some of the language the DPP used in introducing the guidance, but that's for another day.
The female on male crime offence that's equivalent to rape but isn't considered a crime is when the woman lies about being on the pill in order to get pregnant, then does so and claims resources off the man for the next 21 years.
Oh please.
And the bloke wouldn't have heard of condoms I suppose?
Really, this male chauvinist victimhood drivel on the Right is hilarious.
'Its ok I'm on the pill'
'You might be lying, I'd better glove up just in case...'
Like a mills and boon novel...
Anybody who doesn't glove up on a one night stand is a complete moron.
Anyone who hasnt done it is probably a bit of a bore
You lot above must have the love lives of an ant. I've never used a condom after the one and and only time of my first affair when I was 17. Bare back ever since, and proud of it.
On topic, one possible factor from 2005 that may be different in 2015 is LibDems in Lab/Con marginals voting tactically for Lab. You can't get expect lefty LibDems to vote tactically for you if there aren't any lefty LibDems.
"1) 4 out 10 women in prison convictions were linked to a need to support their children, usually theft or money related 2) Women aren't in for violence or sexual crimes 3) 45% of women are convicted of a new crime within 12 months of release 4) the above is linked to the fact, ex male prisoners are three times likely to have a job after release than women, the figures are 27% for men, and 9% women 5) Women prisoners prior to first sentence, are likely to have drug, drink and mental health problems than male prisoners."
1) What percentage of this is true for men, comparing only valid populations (ie men and women who have kids)? 2) People who don't commit crimes aren't imprisoned for them. Gosh. 3) Again, what's the figure for men? Why is reoffending important only for women? And why should being a potential serial criminal be considered grounds for leniency after the first crime? It's an argument for longer sentences and/or better rehabilitation, not soft treatment. 4) So, 73% of around 80,000 men do not have a job, versus 91% of about 4,000 women. People who commit crimes deserve the penalty, not to be let off because it might adversely affect their employment prospects. That's over 56,000 men against around 3,600 women. 5) Indeed and they're twice as likely as men to get a psych intervention during the court process which will lead to more such problems being identified. Plus, the two most common psych conditions (depression and stress) are more common in women than men. These are mitigating factors which will be considered during the judicial process.
It's a demented act to look at the prison population, overwhelmingly male, and decide action *must* be done to reduce the female population. Women already benefit from more lenient sentences and are a clear minority of the prison population. This is politically correct sexism.
I've no doubt that the overall crime rate is higher among men than women. I have difficulty believing that it is 20 times higher, which is what the figures for the respective prison populations imply.
4,000 prisoners really doesn't sound like very many.
As a magistrate I find that a lot of women avoid prison sentences, or a subjected to suspended sentences, simply because of child care issues, especially when they are single mothers.
I should perhaps mention that a lot of male crime is also hormone related (testosterone)
So the fact that a woman who is convicted of a crime has childcare issues is already treated as a mitigating factor.
The female on male crime offence that's equivalent to rape but isn't considered a crime is when the woman lies about being on the pill in order to get pregnant, then does so and claims resources off the man for the next 21 years.
Oh please.
And the bloke wouldn't have heard of condoms I suppose?
Really, this male chauvinist victimhood drivel on the Right is hilarious.
'Its ok I'm on the pill'
'You might be lying, I'd better glove up just in case...'
Like a mills and boon novel...
Anybody who doesn't glove up on a one night stand is a complete moron.
Anyone who hasnt done it is probably a bit of a bore
You lot above must have the love lives of an ant. I've never used a condom after the one and and only time of my first affair when I was 17. Bare back ever since, and proud of it.
The female on male crime offence that's equivalent to rape but isn't considered a crime is when the woman lies about being on the pill in order to get pregnant, then does so and claims resources off the man for the next 21 years.
Oh please.
And the bloke wouldn't have heard of condoms I suppose?
Really, this male chauvinist victimhood drivel on the Right is hilarious.
'Its ok I'm on the pill'
'You might be lying, I'd better glove up just in case...'
Like a mills and boon novel...
My experience is that sex is very rarely like a Mills & Boon novel. Thank goodness.
I'm reeling from the fact that you and Isam read/have read Mills and Boon novels.
You should always have the broadest possible range of cultural reference points (he said, while tenderly holding her in his firm, brawny arms while soulfully undressing her with his soft brown eyes).
Her tender heart swooned as he guided her hand towards his trouser pocket then powerfully yet skilfully produced and thrust the consent form printed from his laptop earlier that evening into her as yet unconfirmed willing or unwilling grasp
LOL!
I am unconvinced even that would cut the mustard in the current climate, the obvious rejoiner to producing a signed consent form would be to allege duress.
Most people have mobile phones that have cameras you can make video footage with.
Just record her giving you consent.
Although, FYI, some women get upset when you begin a sentence with "Can I videotape you....."
Have you had a great deal of success with chat up lines of this nature.
A senior Ukip Environment & Weather spokesman this morning claimed that the overnight earthquake in the East Midlands was the result of a weather dance by a local gay MP. In an exclusive interview from South Thanet Nigel Bonkers-cum-Nuttjob said :
"This huge tremor in Rutland was caused by local gay MP Alan Duncan. My understanding is that this homosexualist was seen dancing under a glitter ball in the Gay Hussar night club in Oakham singing "It's raining men Hallelujah".
Clearly the extensive gyrating by this influential gay man has caused the tectonic plates to shift in Rutland. He should be deported to San Francisco where his brand of politics and earth moving activities would be more suited."
Tut, tut, Plato. It shows that you, like most PB major party supporters, still don't take UKIP seriously. It also shows in a meaningful way, how you still brush off the impact of UKIP voters at the GE.
In this thread on England 2005, Mike Simpson is blind to the effect that UKIP will have on Labour in the Midlands and further north, even if they win few seats there.
Poking fun at political parties is part of the great tapestry of the British way of life and you are to be congratulated on being a member of a party that has greatly added to the gaiety of the nation.
Don't be a twerp JackW, I wasn't taking apart your spoof, only that Plato said, she was at first taken in by it. Nothing to do with the spoof itself. You are the one who needs to lighten up; seriously.
The female on male crime offence that's equivalent to rape but isn't considered a crime is when the woman lies about being on the pill in order to get pregnant, then does so and claims resources off the man for the next 21 years. With this or with rape someone is helping themselves to someone else's reproductive resources. That should be a crime too really,with the same burden of proof ("Prove he knew you weren't on the pill") and damages reclaimable from the mother or custody in lieu.
The left really does seem to have run amok in this country's legal establishment. They keep banging on about how cohabiting couples should have the same "protections" as married ones. Cohabitants can have those "protections" any time they want them, simply by getting married. What they don't want is the appalling exposures that come with them, eg expropriation in the event of separation.
This is not about "protection" at all but about finding work for divorce lawyers at men's expense and risk in a world where men are increasingly and sensibly reluctant to marry.
Not just Marry! Don't get involved at all. Men on Strike.
On topic, one possible factor from 2005 that may be different in 2015 is LibDems in Lab/Con marginals voting tactically for Lab. You can't get expect lefty LibDems to vote tactically for you if there aren't any lefty LibDems.
It's an interesting article. Has anything happened in the past 12 months that has made it easier for the Tories to win seats like Eastleigh? IE The seats they held when they last had a majority, but have hitherto been a long way from winning back.
The female on male crime offence that's equivalent to rape but isn't considered a crime is when the woman lies about being on the pill in order to get pregnant, then does so and claims resources off the man for the next 21 years.
Oh please.
And the bloke wouldn't have heard of condoms I suppose?
Really, this male chauvinist victimhood drivel on the Right is hilarious.
'Its ok I'm on the pill'
'You might be lying, I'd better glove up just in case...'
Like a mills and boon novel...
My experience is that sex is very rarely like a Mills & Boon novel. Thank goodness.
I'm reeling from the fact that you and Isam read/have read Mills and Boon novels.
You should always have the broadest possible range of cultural reference points (he said, while tenderly holding her in his firm, brawny arms while soulfully undressing her with his soft brown eyes).
Her tender heart swooned as he guided her hand towards his trouser pocket then powerfully yet skilfully produced and thrust the consent form printed from his laptop earlier that evening into her as yet unconfirmed willing or unwilling grasp
The female on male crime offence that's equivalent to rape but isn't considered a crime is when the woman lies about being on the pill in order to get pregnant, then does so and claims resources off the man for the next 21 years.
Oh please.
And the bloke wouldn't have heard of condoms I suppose?
Really, this male chauvinist victimhood drivel on the Right is hilarious.
'Its ok I'm on the pill'
'You might be lying, I'd better glove up just in case...'
Like a mills and boon novel...
Anybody who doesn't glove up on a one night stand is a complete moron.
Anyone who hasnt done it is probably a bit of a bore
You lot above must have the love lives of an ant. I've never used a condom after the one and and only time of my first affair when I was 17. Bare back ever since, and proud of it.
HIV much of an issue in the 60's
Edit to change decade.
No HIV then, and the time was the beginning of the 50's.
On topic, one possible factor from 2005 that may be different in 2015 is LibDems in Lab/Con marginals voting tactically for Lab. You can't get expect lefty LibDems to vote tactically for you if there aren't any lefty LibDems.
Indeed, isn't the reverse in fact likely to be the case, bearing in mind the much publicised (by OGH) drift of lefty LibDems to Labour which has already taken place, tactical voting by their remaining number is more likely to be predominantly of a righty LibDem nature?
The female on male crime offence that's equivalent to rape but isn't considered a crime is when the woman lies about being on the pill in order to get pregnant, then does so and claims resources off the man for the next 21 years.
Oh please.
And the bloke wouldn't have heard of condoms I suppose?
Really, this male chauvinist victimhood drivel on the Right is hilarious.
'Its ok I'm on the pill'
'You might be lying, I'd better glove up just in case...'
Like a mills and boon novel...
My experience is that sex is very rarely like a Mills & Boon novel. Thank goodness.
I'm reeling from the fact that you and Isam read/have read Mills and Boon novels.
You should always have the broadest possible range of cultural reference points (he said, while tenderly holding her in his firm, brawny arms while soulfully undressing her with his soft brown eyes).
Her tender heart swooned as he guided her hand towards his trouser pocket then powerfully yet skilfully produced and thrust the consent form printed from his laptop earlier that evening into her as yet unconfirmed willing or unwilling grasp
LOL!
I am unconvinced even that would cut the mustard in the current climate, the obvious rejoiner to producing a signed consent form would be to allege duress.
Most people have mobile phones that have cameras you can make video footage with.
Just record her giving you consent.
Although, FYI, some women get upset when you begin a sentence with "Can I videotape you....."
Have you had a great deal of success with chat up lines of this nature.
A senior Ukip Environment & Weather spokesman this morning claimed that the overnight earthquake in the East Midlands was the result of a weather dance by a local gay MP. In an exclusive interview from South Thanet Nigel Bonkers-cum-Nuttjob said :
"This huge tremor in Rutland was caused by local gay MP Alan Duncan. My understanding is that this homosexualist was seen dancing under a glitter ball in the Gay Hussar night club in Oakham singing "It's raining men Hallelujah".
Clearly the extensive gyrating by this influential gay man has caused the tectonic plates to shift in Rutland. He should be deported to San Francisco where his brand of politics and earth moving activities would be more suited."
Tut, tut, Plato. It shows that you, like most PB major party supporters, still don't take UKIP seriously. It also shows in a meaningful way, how you still brush off the impact of UKIP voters at the GE.
In this thread on England 2005, Mike Simpson is blind to the effect that UKIP will have on Labour in the Midlands and further north, even if they win few seats there.
Poking fun at political parties is part of the great tapestry of the British way of life and you are to be congratulated on being a member of a party that has greatly added to the gaiety of the nation.
Don't be a twerp JackW, I wasn't taking apart your spoof, only that Plato said, she was at first taken in by it. Nothing to do with the spoof itself. You are the one who needs to lighten up; seriously.
Touchy this morning aren't we.
In fact @Plato said no such thing. She read spoof and then read BBC link for the full story.
"1) 4 out 10 women in prison convictions were linked to a need to support their children, usually theft or money related 2) Women aren't in for violence or sexual crimes 3) 45% of women are convicted of a new crime within 12 months of release 4) the above is linked to the fact, ex male prisoners are three times likely to have a job after release than women, the figures are 27% for men, and 9% women 5) Women prisoners prior to first sentence, are likely to have drug, drink and mental health problems than male prisoners."
1) What percentage of this is true for men, comparing only valid populations (ie men and women who have kids)? 2) People who don't commit crimes aren't imprisoned for them. Gosh. 3) Again, what's the figure for men? Why is reoffending important only for women? And why should being a potential serial criminal be considered grounds for leniency after the first crime? It's an argument for longer sentences and/or better rehabilitation, not soft treatment. 4) So, 73% of around 80,000 men do not have a job, versus 91% of about 4,000 women. People who commit crimes deserve the penalty, not to be let off because it might adversely affect their employment prospects. That's over 56,000 men against around 3,600 women. 5) Indeed and they're twice as likely as men to get a psych intervention during the court process which will lead to more such problems being identified. Plus, the two most common psych conditions (depression and stress) are more common in women than men. These are mitigating factors which will be considered during the judicial process.
It's a demented act to look at the prison population, overwhelmingly male, and decide action *must* be done to reduce the female population. Women already benefit from more lenient sentences and are a clear minority of the prison population. This is politically correct sexism.
I've no doubt that the overall crime rate is higher among men than women. I have difficulty believing that it is 20 times higher, which is what the figures for the respective prison populations imply.
4,000 prisoners really doesn't sound like very many.
As a magistrate I find that a lot of women avoid prison sentences, or a subjected to suspended sentences, simply because of child care issues, especially when they are single mothers.
I should perhaps mention that a lot of male crime is also hormone related (testosterone)
Throughout history, most crime has been committed by young men who are physically and sexually aggressive.
Alcohol and drugs don't generally help matters, they destroy whatever rationality in some remains, but they don't tend to have many commitments so it's much easier to justify holding them accountable for their actions.
The female on male crime offence that's equivalent to rape but isn't considered a crime is when the woman lies about being on the pill in order to get pregnant, then does so and claims resources off the man for the next 21 years.
Oh please.
And the bloke wouldn't have heard of condoms I suppose?
Really, this male chauvinist victimhood drivel on the Right is hilarious.
'Its ok I'm on the pill'
'You might be lying, I'd better glove up just in case...'
Like a mills and boon novel...
My experience is that sex is very rarely like a Mills & Boon novel. Thank goodness.
I'm reeling from the fact that you and Isam read/have read Mills and Boon novels.
You should always have the broadest possible range of cultural reference points (he said, while tenderly holding her in his firm, brawny arms while soulfully undressing her with his soft brown eyes).
Her tender heart swooned as he guided her hand towards his trouser pocket then powerfully yet skilfully produced and thrust the consent form printed from his laptop earlier that evening into her as yet unconfirmed willing or unwilling grasp
Ha my mum read hundreds of them, so I got the gist from the back covers!
The female on male crime offence that's equivalent to rape but isn't considered a crime is when the woman lies about being on the pill in order to get pregnant, then does so and claims resources off the man for the next 21 years. With this or with rape someone is helping themselves to someone else's reproductive resources. That should be a crime too really,with the same burden of proof ("Prove he knew you weren't on the pill") and damages reclaimable from the mother or custody in lieu.
The left really does seem to have run amok in this country's legal establishment. They keep banging on about how cohabiting couples should have the same "protections" as married ones. Cohabitants can have those "protections" any time they want them, simply by getting married. What they don't want is the appalling exposures that come with them, eg expropriation in the event of separation.
This is not about "protection" at all but about finding work for divorce lawyers at men's expense and risk in a world where men are increasingly and sensibly reluctant to marry.
Not just Marry! Don't get involved at all. Men on Strike.
Global warming coming down from the skies for the third (or fourth) time this winter in Yorkshire.
Weren't we told it was to become a once a decade event ?
Nearly two-thirds of the way through and the temperature this winter in England is about 0.8C above average.
That is cooler than last winter, when the temperature only just dipped below average on a mere five days, and for the season as a whole was almost 2.0C above average.
Still time for some catching up on last winter, I fancy - especially since, IIRC, the really cold part of last year's winter occurred towards the very end of the season.
IME I've never met a man on a one-night stand who wanted to glove-up. Ever. I used to say 'there are two of here right now, I don't want three of us in the morning' to make it plain that we weren't going anywhere without Marigolds.
Never had anyone refuse to do so. The notion of proving consent is laughable. And glad that I'm too ancient for one-night stands and not a bloke. Frankly, AIDS put me right off in the 90s. Having close relatives die from sex is a free-range passion killer.
The female on male crime offence that's equivalent to rape but isn't considered a crime is when the woman lies about being on the pill in order to get pregnant, then does so and claims resources off the man for the next 21 years.
Oh please.
And the bloke wouldn't have heard of condoms I suppose?
Really, this male chauvinist victimhood drivel on the Right is hilarious.
'Its ok I'm on the pill'
'You might be lying, I'd better glove up just in case...'
Like a mills and boon novel...
Anybody who doesn't glove up on a one night stand is a complete moron.
Anyone who hasnt done it is probably a bit of a bore
It's self-evident the justice system is biased against men.
Firstly, women with children get lenient treatment, whereas men with children don't.
Secondly, women who commit crimes due to hormonal issues get lenient treatment, whereas men don't. Why should men be blamed for having higher levels of testosterone in their bodies?
If a new mother kills or injures her child, "it can't really be her fault". If a new father does the same, he's just a vicious criminal who needs to be locked up forever.
A senior Ukip Environment & Weather spokesman this morning claimed that the overnight earthquake in the East Midlands was the result of a weather dance by a local gay MP. In an exclusive interview from South Thanet Nigel Bonkers-cum-Nuttjob said :
"This huge tremor in Rutland was caused by local gay MP Alan Duncan. My understanding is that this homosexualist was seen dancing under a glitter ball in the Gay Hussar night club in Oakham singing "It's raining men Hallelujah".
Clearly the extensive gyrating by this influential gay man has caused the tectonic plates to shift in Rutland. He should be deported to San Francisco where his brand of politics and earth moving activities would be more suited."
Tut, tut, Plato. It shows that you, like most PB major party supporters, still don't take UKIP seriously. It also shows in a meaningful way, how you still brush off the impact of UKIP voters at the GE.
In this thread on England 2005, Mike Simpson is blind to the effect that UKIP will have on Labour in the Midlands and further north, even if they win few seats there.
Poking fun at political parties is part of the great tapestry of the British way of life and you are to be congratulated on being a member of a party that has greatly added to the gaiety of the nation.
Don't be a twerp JackW, I wasn't taking apart your spoof, only that Plato said, she was at first taken in by it. Nothing to do with the spoof itself. You are the one who needs to lighten up; seriously.
The female on male crime offence that's equivalent to rape but isn't considered a crime is when the woman lies about being on the pill in order to get pregnant, then does so and claims resources off the man for the next 21 years.
Oh please.
And the bloke wouldn't have heard of condoms I suppose?
Really, this male chauvinist victimhood drivel on the Right is hilarious.
'Its ok I'm on the pill'
'You might be lying, I'd better glove up just in case...'
Like a mills and boon novel...
My experience is that sex is very rarely like a Mills & Boon novel. Thank goodness.
I'm reeling from the fact that you and Isam read/have read Mills and Boon novels.
You should always have the broadest possible range of cultural reference points (he said, while tenderly holding her in his firm, brawny arms while soulfully undressing her with his soft brown eyes).
Her tender heart swooned as he guided her hand towards his trouser pocket then powerfully yet skilfully produced and thrust the consent form printed from his laptop earlier that evening into her as yet unconfirmed willing or unwilling grasp
LOL!
I am unconvinced even that would cut the mustard in the current climate, the obvious rejoiner to producing a signed consent form would be to allege duress.
This is one of these subjects where half of pb's regulars seem to be full-on mental.
Meanwhile, back on planet earth, the rest of the population will carry on having bad drunken sex the same as usual, and in the unlikely event that a particularly ungallant Romeo finds that his one night Juliet has asked for the police to consider whether he had overstepped the mark, our hypothetical Romeo is going to find that he has to go into a bit more excruciating detail with Her Majesty's finest about why he thought that she was up for whatever he thought was on the cards.
But if he has a decent enough explanation given how the night naturally progressed, it's highly unlikely that the matter is going to go any further.
I really don't see the fuss about getting the authorities to investigate a bit more closely whether a serious crime has taken place.
IME I've never met a man on a one-night stand who wanted to glove-up. Ever. I used to say 'there are two of here right now, I don't want three of us in the morning' to make it plain that we weren't going anywhere without Marigolds.
Never had anyone refuse to do so. The notion of proving consent is laughable. And glad that I'm too ancient for one-night stands and not a bloke. Frankly, AIDS put me right off in the 90s. Having close relatives die from sex is a free-range passion killer.
The female on male crime offence that's equivalent to rape but isn't considered a crime is when the woman lies about being on the pill in order to get pregnant, then does so and claims resources off the man for the next 21 years.
Oh please.
And the bloke wouldn't have heard of condoms I suppose?
Really, this male chauvinist victimhood drivel on the Right is hilarious.
'Its ok I'm on the pill'
'You might be lying, I'd better glove up just in case...'
Like a mills and boon novel...
Anybody who doesn't glove up on a one night stand is a complete moron.
Anyone who hasnt done it is probably a bit of a bore
The female on male crime offence that's equivalent to rape but isn't considered a crime is when the woman lies about being on the pill in order to get pregnant, then does so and claims resources off the man for the next 21 years.
Oh please.
And the bloke wouldn't have heard of condoms I suppose?
Really, this male chauvinist victimhood drivel on the Right is hilarious.
'Its ok I'm on the pill'
'You might be lying, I'd better glove up just in case...'
Like a mills and boon novel...
My experience is that sex is very rarely like a Mills & Boon novel. Thank goodness.
I'm reeling from the fact that you and Isam read/have read Mills and Boon novels.
You should always have the broadest possible range of cultural reference points (he said, while tenderly holding her in his firm, brawny arms while soulfully undressing her with his soft brown eyes).
Her tender heart swooned as he guided her hand towards his trouser pocket then powerfully yet skilfully produced and thrust the consent form printed from his laptop earlier that evening into her as yet unconfirmed willing or unwilling grasp
LOL!
I am unconvinced even that would cut the mustard in the current climate, the obvious rejoiner to producing a signed consent form would be to allege duress.
Most people have mobile phones that have cameras you can make video footage with.
Just record her giving you consent.
Although, FYI, some women get upset when you begin a sentence with "Can I videotape you....."
Have you had a great deal of success with chat up lines of this nature.
The Telegraph's reporting of the DPP's proposed guidance appears to be sensationalist (I say this having been angry myself when I first read the story). Neither the burden of proof nor the charging criteria are changing; all that is changing is that the police are being given guidance to:
(i) really test the basis on which the accused believed the complainant was consenting. Frankly the police should be doing that whenever consent is in issue; and
(ii) provide clarity as to the kind of relationships where consent needs to be examined more closely.
At the heart of this is the point that whilst the justice system must presume innocence, the police should not, and should investigate allegations thoroughly. If the evidential standard is not met, the CPS should not prosecute.
More troubling was some of the language the DPP used in introducing the guidance, but that's for another day.
My issue is that the new guidance will be coupled with plea bargains by the police/CPS and a lot of people innocent people will end up being convinced into pleading guilty to avoid a court case which they will be told they will lose under the new rules. I trust neither the police nor the CPS.
The biggest issue I have though is that this guidance is clearly aimed at increasing the conviction rate, which means it is about the numbers/targets rather than justice. A justice model based on conviction rate targets will lead to innocent people being incarcerated or on the sexual offences register.
You say: "I've seen nothing that suggests Ed Miliband wouldn't be a competent Prime Minister. That doesn't mean I support him but compare him now to Cameron in early 2010 and there's not a huge amount between them in my view. At least Ed has had Cabinet experience which is more than David Cameron had when he became PM."
I couldn't disagree more. At this stage in 2010 the Conservatives had completed their policy review, a clear policy platform and a united front bench, were visibly a potential government in waiting and were treated as such by the media (to their detriment). Cameron himself enjoyed positive leader ratings.
Labour cannot claim any of these things. Internal sources tell us the policy review has been a shambles. Policy pronouncements, such as they are, are piecemeal, inconsistent and illogical (the energy price freeze alone is a classic example of ignorance and incompetence). Half the shadow cabinet, including some of the supposed big hitters, are absent. The leader of the Scottish Labour party has publicly declared independence. Miliband is widely derided across the nation, with approval levels that would alarm IDS, and is even less popular than the Conservative prime minister in Scotland. He is frequently criticised from within his own party in the strongest terms. Tellingly a great many big hitters within the Labour movement have moved on, showing no signs of wishing to return to parliament or senior positions while Ed is in charge. Cameron had the confidence and the authority to include Hague, IDS and Ken Clarke in his shadow cabinet and/or first cabinet; meanwhile a very capable shadow cabinet could be formed by the experience Labour former ministers who are currently occupying themselves with other matters. The differences between them are stark.
I'd be interested to hear your case for Ed having been a competent leader of the Labour party.
The female on male crime offence that's equivalent to rape but isn't considered a crime is when the woman lies about being on the pill in order to get pregnant, then does so and claims resources off the man for the next 21 years.
Oh please.
And the bloke wouldn't have heard of condoms I suppose?
Really, this male chauvinist victimhood drivel on the Right is hilarious.
'Its ok I'm on the pill'
'You might be lying, I'd better glove up just in case...'
Like a mills and boon novel...
My experience is that sex is very rarely like a Mills & Boon novel. Thank goodness.
I'm reeling from the fact that you and Isam read/have read Mills and Boon novels.
You should always have the broadest possible range of cultural reference points (he said, while tenderly holding her in his firm, brawny arms while soulfully undressing her with his soft brown eyes).
Her tender heart swooned as he guided her hand towards his trouser pocket then powerfully yet skilfully produced and thrust the consent form printed from his laptop earlier that evening into her as yet unconfirmed willing or unwilling grasp
LOL!
I am unconvinced even that would cut the mustard in the current climate, the obvious rejoiner to producing a signed consent form would be to allege duress.
Most people have mobile phones that have cameras you can make video footage with.
Just record her giving you consent.
Although, FYI, some women get upset when you begin a sentence with "Can I videotape you....."
Have you had a great deal of success with chat up lines of this nature.
Yes. My chat up lines are legendary.
They are noted for their subtlety.
Like Austin Powers'.
I'll let you judge.
Your eyes are like spanners, every time you look at me my nuts tighten
The female on male crime offence that's equivalent to rape but isn't considered a crime is when the woman lies about being on the pill in order to get pregnant, then does so and claims resources off the man for the next 21 years.
Oh please.
And the bloke wouldn't have heard of condoms I suppose?
Really, this male chauvinist victimhood drivel on the Right is hilarious.
'Its ok I'm on the pill'
'You might be lying, I'd better glove up just in case...'
Like a mills and boon novel...
My experience is that sex is very rarely like a Mills & Boon novel. Thank goodness.
I'm reeling from the fact that you and Isam read/have read Mills and Boon novels.
You should always have the broadest possible range of cultural reference points (he said, while tenderly holding her in his firm, brawny arms while soulfully undressing her with his soft brown eyes).
Her tender heart swooned as he guided her hand towards his trouser pocket then powerfully yet skilfully produced and thrust the consent form printed from his laptop earlier that evening into her as yet unconfirmed willing or unwilling grasp
LOL!
I am unconvinced even that would cut the mustard in the current climate, the obvious rejoiner to producing a signed consent form would be to allege duress.
This is one of these subjects where half of pb's regulars seem to be full-on mental.
Meanwhile, back on planet earth, the rest of the population will carry on having bad drunken sex the same as usual, and in the unlikely event that a particularly ungallant Romeo finds that his one night Juliet has asked for the police to consider whether he had overstepped the mark, our hypothetical Romeo is going to find that he has to go into a bit more excruciating detail with Her Majesty's finest about why he thought that she was up for whatever he thought was on the cards.
But if he has a decent enough explanation given how the night naturally progressed, it's highly unlikely that the matter is going to go any further.
I really don't see the fuss about getting the authorities to investigate a bit more closely whether a serious crime has taken place.
Gay men are quite as capable of having bad experiences as heterosexual couples.
It's self-evident the justice system is biased against men.
Firstly, women with children get lenient treatment, whereas men with children don't.
Secondly, women who commit crimes due to hormonal issues get lenient treatment, whereas men don't. Why should men be blamed for having higher levels of testosterone in their bodies?
If a new mother kills or injures her child, "it can't really be her fault". If a new father does the same, he's just a vicious criminal who needs to be locked up forever.
That's true. There's a strong current amongst some feminists that views men as primitive beasts to be restrained and controlled, and is repelled by the idea of a real sexual dynamic between the two.
I view hard physical exercise/sport, military/combat video games, and sexual imagery as legitimate outlets for young men. Plenty of feminists see that as precisely the problem and would prefer men to be subservient and docile to their more 'evolved' world view.
The female on male crime offence that's equivalent to rape but isn't considered a crime is when the woman lies about being on the pill in order to get pregnant, then does so and claims resources off the man for the next 21 years.
Oh please.
And the bloke wouldn't have heard of condoms I suppose?
Really, this male chauvinist victimhood drivel on the Right is hilarious.
'Its ok I'm on the pill'
'You might be lying, I'd better glove up just in case...'
Like a mills and boon novel...
My experience is that sex is very rarely like a Mills & Boon novel. Thank goodness.
I'm reeling from the fact that you and Isam read/have read Mills and Boon novels.
You should always have the broadest possible range of cultural reference points (he said, while tenderly holding her in his firm, brawny arms while soulfully undressing her with his soft brown eyes).
Her tender heart swooned as he guided her hand towards his trouser pocket then powerfully yet skilfully produced and thrust the consent form printed from his laptop earlier that evening into her as yet unconfirmed willing or unwilling grasp
Ha my mum read hundreds of them, so I got the gist from the back covers!
The female on male crime offence that's equivalent to rape but isn't considered a crime is when the woman lies about being on the pill in order to get pregnant, then does so and claims resources off the man for the next 21 years.
Oh please.
And the bloke wouldn't have heard of condoms I suppose?
Really, this male chauvinist victimhood drivel on the Right is hilarious.
'Its ok I'm on the pill'
'You might be lying, I'd better glove up just in case...'
Like a mills and boon novel...
My experience is that sex is very rarely like a Mills & Boon novel. Thank goodness.
I'm reeling from the fact that you and Isam read/have read Mills and Boon novels.
You should always have the broadest possible range of cultural reference points (he said, while tenderly holding her in his firm, brawny arms while soulfully undressing her with his soft brown eyes).
Her tender heart swooned as he guided her hand towards his trouser pocket then powerfully yet skilfully produced and thrust the consent form printed from his laptop earlier that evening into her as yet unconfirmed willing or unwilling grasp
LOL!
I am unconvinced even that would cut the mustard in the current climate, the obvious rejoiner to producing a signed consent form would be to allege duress.
Most people have mobile phones that have cameras you can make video footage with.
Just record her giving you consent.
Although, FYI, some women get upset when you begin a sentence with "Can I videotape you....."
Have you had a great deal of success with chat up lines of this nature.
Yes. My chat up lines are legendary.
They are noted for their subtlety.
Don't you mean were legendary ..... you're a married man now are you not TSE?
@EdwardDebi: Ed Miliband asked if he will rule out coalition with SNP: "my priority is a majority Labour Government" #GE15
Ed's inability to give a straight answer is going to kill him.
Does anyone ever give a straight answer to that? That sounds like the standard response all major party politicians have given since forever. David Cameron hasn't answered it straight either, has he?
"1) 4 out 10 women in prison convictions were linked to a need to support their children, usually theft or money related 2) Women aren't in for violence or sexual crimes 3) 45% of women are convicted of a new crime within 12 months of release 4) the above is linked to the fact, ex male prisoners are three times likely to have a job after release than women, the figures are 27% for men, and 9% women 5) Women prisoners prior to first sentence, are likely to have drug, drink and mental health problems than male prisoners."
1) What percentage of this is true for men, comparing only valid populations (ie men and women who have kids)? 2) People who don't commit crimes aren't imprisoned for them. Gosh. 3) Again, what's the figure for men? Why is reoffending important only for women? And why should being a potential serial criminal be considered grounds for leniency after the first crime? It's an argument for longer sentences and/or better rehabilitation, not soft treatment. 4) So, 73% of around 80,000 men do not have a job, versus 91% of about 4,000 women. People who commit crimes deserve the penalty, not to be let off because it might adversely affect their employment prospects. That's over 56,000 men against around 3,600 women. 5) Indeed and they're twice as likely as men to get a psych intervention during the court process which will lead to more such problems being identified. Plus, the two most common psych conditions (depression and stress) are more common in women than men. These are mitigating factors which will be considered during the judicial process
4,000 prisoners really doesn't sound like very many.
As a magistrate I find that a lot of women avoid prison sentences, or a subjected to suspended sentences, simply because of child care issues, especially when they are single mothers.
I should perhaps mention that a lot of male crime is also hormone related (testosterone)
Throughout history, most crime has been committed by young men who are physically and sexually aggressive.
Alcohol and drugs don't generally help matters, they destroy whatever rationality in some remains, but they don't tend to have many commitments so it's much easier to justify holding them accountable for their actions.
Given that the criminal justice system already deals more leniently with female offenders than male ones (and that seems to have been the case for centuries -the old law on matrimonial coercion offered a complete defence to a wife) I can't take Simon Hughes' complaint seriously.
It's self-evident the justice system is biased against men.
Firstly, women with children get lenient treatment, whereas men with children don't.
Secondly, women who commit crimes due to hormonal issues get lenient treatment, whereas men don't. Why should men be blamed for having higher levels of testosterone in their bodies?
If a new mother kills or injures her child, "it can't really be her fault". If a new father does the same, he's just a vicious criminal who needs to be locked up forever.
That's true. There's a strong current amongst some feminists that views men as primitive beasts to be restrained and controlled, and is repelled by the idea of a real sexual dynamic between the two.
I view hard physical exercise/sport, military/combat video games, and sexual imagery as legitimate outlets for young men. Plenty of feminists see that as precisely the problem and would prefer men to be subservient and docile to their more 'evolved' world view.
Mrs Max's best friend is from Sweden and the number one complaint I hear from her is that Swedish men are all too effete which is why so many Swedish girls come here to find husbands. I know at least three guys who are dating Swedish women, so anecdotally I see her point.
Over there the equalities agenda seems to have gone so far as to emasculate men and force women who don't want that to look overseas.
Comments
One of the most marked features of this forum is the strong anti-Labour bias. There are very few (apart from Nick P) who have been positive about Ed Miliband from the start. While a negative reaction from the strong pro-Conservative lobby is to be expected and can therefore be pretty much ignored, it's curious how little others have come to the Labour leader's defence.
Being LOTO for five years isn't easy - ask David Cameron. He was the beneficiary of events to a very large extent. Had the 2010 election taken place against any other economic background, it's possible to argue he'd have struggled to get near 10 Downing Street.
I do agree on the complacency front - Blair's Labour Party was able to garner the votes of millions of ex-Conservatives but as Nick P has observed, there seem very few 2010 Tories willing to contemplate a direct switch.
I don't agree on the "cowardice" except to say there should have been a much stronger mea culpa with regard to the Blair/Brown years. It wasn't until Cameron that Conservatives were even prepared to admit mistakes were made in the Thatcher/Major years - I suspect some on here still regard 79-97 as a "golden age" - but any Party in power for years finding itself in Opposition has to begin by accepting and understanding the mistakes.
All of that said, I don't judge the calibre of a future Prime Minister on how he looks or how he eats a bacon sandwich - I've seen nothing that suggests Ed Miliband wouldn't be a competent Prime Minister. That doesn't mean I support him but compare him now to Cameron in early 2010 and there's not a huge amount between them in my view. At least Ed has had Cabinet experience which is more than David Cameron had when he became PM.
3) 21%
4) That's why looking at % figures is better
5) Nope they do not, the criminal justice only finds these things if we're lucky, in prison, sometimes not until the second or third visit.
Note, the coalition has done some wonderful things on helping young male offenders end their vicious cycle.
So they aren't engaging politically correct sexism.
I said "Do you fancy a shag"
She said "Yes"
Not sure how that moves anything forward.
Thinking back on the case I mentioned, the witness (accuser's best friend) only came forwards when it looked like he was definitely going to be found guilty. I guess she would not have been able to live with her conscience should he have been wrongfully prosecuted. Under the new system the police would have made him take a plea bargain within a week of the accusation, he would avoid jail/juvenile detention but still be a convicted rapist and on the sex offenders register, the best friend would have had no pressure to come forwards and "betray" her best friend (I believe that was the exact word used, along with others) since he would not be incarcerated.
The fathers have to house themselves so they need to get a job.
During the economic crisis, Labour saw an increase in their vote share, and at one point, had a lead again.
Which is why I'm surprised that he has taken on the worst, IMO, character flaws of his elder brother, indeed the very flaws which stopped him becoming Labour leader.
4,000 prisoners really doesn't sound like very many.
The left really does seem to have run amok in this country's legal establishment. They keep banging on about how cohabiting couples should have the same "protections" as married ones. Cohabitants can have those "protections" any time they want them, simply by getting married. What they don't want is the appalling exposures that come with them, eg expropriation in the event of separation.
This is not about "protection" at all but about finding work for divorce lawyers at men's expense and risk in a world where men are increasingly and sensibly reluctant to marry.
At university, some time ago now, it was stated in Forensic Psych that women were more than twice as likely as men to receive a psych intervention during the court process and be assessed for mental illness (or fiction, in the case of kleptomania). Perhaps that has changed since.
Hughes' view is politically correct bullshit. Female criminals aren't mindless, helpless animals who are forced to commit crimes because they love their kids and because men are bastards. They're people who make choices, just as male criminals do.
For most prisoner who are lone parents, it usually a case of one parent has abandoned them/the child(ren)
Who'd be a man? Commit the same crime as a woman, and you're likelier to go to prison, and for longer. Divorce, and she'll get the kids [which the likes of Hughes et al now want to become a get out of jail free card for women]. Have a one night stand, and we're moving towards a situation where you need to prove your innocence.
The scope for misuse of this is frightening.
To the extent that there is anti-Labour bias here, it's only what there would have been between 1976 and 1995, had this site been around, and for the same reasons: that Labour was a manifestly vicious and spiteful party, led by shouty immature twerps.
And the bloke wouldn't have heard of condoms I suppose?
Really, this male chauvinist victimhood drivel on the Right is hilarious.
Ukip "Weather Czar" - Nigel Bonkers-Cum-Nuttjob claiming Rutland is about to be engulfed by a snow storm :
"I have it on good authority that notorious Rutland shirt-lifting MP, Alan Duncan yesterday sent out constituency leaflets featuring a gay snowman wearing a rainbow alliance woolly hat and French carrot for a nose.
This is a clear provocation and Rutland is now doomed to days of grotesque fun involving sledges, toboggans and skis that is entirely unnatural to the English way of life. Duncan should be deported to Lapland immediately."
With polls predicting another hung parliament, The Telegraph reveals what the SNP, Greens, Plaid Cymru, Ukip and the DUP will demand in return for their support
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11372822/Scrap-Trident-ditch-Barnett-reverse-the-cuts-the-price-of-power-for-Miliband-and-Cameron-in-a-hung-parliament.html
Rare, as I said, but it does happen.
Condom-splitting and hormone imbalances leading to the pill not working are probably more common.
Perhaps you should direct your view from East Ham to Scotland ?
What has been happening to the Labour Party under Ed's leadership?
There has been an election to the Scottish Parliament while Ed was Leader. It was a debacle.
And there has been an IndyRef. Ed's appearances were a debacle. The final act will take place in May. It will be a debacle.
I find it difficult to understand how the complete demolition of a party that once ruled Scotland can be considered as anything other than a sign of gross incompetence.
It is true Labour's Scottish Problem has been building over the years. It is true that it is not all Ed's fault.
But he has been in charge for all the debacles and there is no indication he has any idea whatsoever of how to fix the problem.
(It is not just right leaning posters who think Ed is crap).
There are very few anywhere in the World that have been positive about Ed Miliband from the start.
Labour MPs didn't want him.
Labour Party members didn't want him.
He's a duffer. I know, you know it, his colleagues know it, the public knows it.
Louise Mensch (@LouiseMensch)
28/01/2015 22:20
Love. Miliband trots out girl as prop at his conference speech, doesn't bother to contact her; now she's voting Tory dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2…
Gulp ....
Because the earth moved
An earthquake with a magnitude of 3.8 has been recorded in the East Midlands, the British Geological Survey has confirmed.
The epicentre was near the town of Oakham, in Rutland, at 22:25 GMT on Wednesday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31032930
'You might be lying, I'd better glove up just in case...'
Like a mills and boon novel...
I should perhaps mention that a lot of male crime is also hormone related (testosterone)
However the earth has been moving regularly Chez JackW recently .... we've had the builders in !!
The Conservatives enjoyed a small but steady lead over Labour after Cameron became leader and up till the resignation of Blair. Brown enjoyed a significant but short-lived "honeymoon" in the summer/early autumn of 2007 but that ended with the Northern Rock crisis.
The worsening of the economic crisis during 2008 was mirrored in a growing Conservative lead up to the collapse of Lehmann Brothers. When the crisis really broke, the Labour numbers recovered and the Tory numbers dipped because, as often happens in times of crisis, people rally back to the Government of the day.
The Expenses Scandal of 2009 caused the second big dip in Labour support (it also hurt the Tories slightly).
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2005-2010
Any difference is mainly economic. There is a preference for a smaller state and lower tax for the Tories, and the opposite for Labour, but both will put the financial protection of their interest groups first.
Both have virtually no distinction on the prevailing socio-cultural consensus: "ideas" or "values" politics."
@JohnRentoul: Hope so. RT @PickardJE: Consensus seems to be that Blairite former ministers are already preparing for a post-defeat civil war.
In this thread on England 2005, Mike Simpson is blind to the effect that UKIP will have on Labour in the Midlands and further north, even if they win few seats there.
BTW good morning all.
Okaay.
Speaking of which, I'd best be off.
Most of them are very dull, but Belfast East has potential interest.
In years to come, when a woman commits a murder, the police will search for the man Whose Fault It Was Really. The man who 'oppressed' her into doing it.
Think I'm joking. Read what Hughes said again
The dip *just* before the expenses crisis in Labour matches the Derek Draper/McBride stuff (red line goes down in two chunks, the first doesn't actually match a drop in the blue line).
I'm trying to remember what, if anything, caused the drop around January of 2009.
Not only that, but sometimes words are superfluous to attractions with the opposite sex.
I am unconvinced even that would cut the mustard in the current climate, the obvious rejoiner to producing a signed consent form would be to allege duress.
Just record her giving you consent.
Although, FYI, some women get upset when you begin a sentence with "Can I videotape you....."
That is cooler than last winter, when the temperature only just dipped below average on a mere five days, and for the season as a whole was almost 2.0C above average.
Its getting to the point where any man who indulges in a drunken one night stand at all is a complete moron.
It was discussed on here recently, but more and more young men are deciding that women simply aren't worth it any more.
They just don;'t bother.
Poking fun at political parties is part of the great tapestry of the British way of life and you are to be congratulated on being a member of a party that has greatly added to the gaiety of the nation.
Meanwhile, back on planet earth, the rest of the population will carry on having bad drunken sex the same as usual, and in the unlikely event that a particularly ungallant Romeo finds that his one night Juliet has asked for the police to consider whether he had overstepped the mark, our hypothetical Romeo is going to find that he has to go into a bit more excruciating detail with Her Majesty's finest about why he thought that she was up for whatever he thought was on the cards.
But if he has a decent enough explanation given how the night naturally progressed, it's highly unlikely that the matter is going to go any further.
I really don't see the fuss about getting the authorities to investigate a bit more closely whether a serious crime has taken place.
The Telegraph's reporting of the DPP's proposed guidance appears to be sensationalist (I say this having been angry myself when I first read the story). Neither the burden of proof nor the charging criteria are changing; all that is changing is that the police are being given guidance to:
(i) really test the basis on which the accused believed the complainant was consenting. Frankly the police should be doing that whenever consent is in issue; and
(ii) provide clarity as to the kind of relationships where consent needs to be examined more closely.
At the heart of this is the point that whilst the justice system must presume innocence, the police should not, and should investigate allegations thoroughly. If the evidential standard is not met, the CPS should not prosecute.
More troubling was some of the language the DPP used in introducing the guidance, but that's for another day.
a mitigating factor.
Edit to change decade.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1594036756/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/276-4204688-4523944
They are noted for their subtlety.
In fact @Plato said no such thing. She read spoof and then read BBC link for the full story.
How's your prediction for 80 Ukip seats going ?
Alcohol and drugs don't generally help matters, they destroy whatever rationality in some remains, but they don't tend to have many commitments so it's much easier to justify holding them accountable for their actions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysistrata
Never had anyone refuse to do so. The notion of proving consent is laughable. And glad that I'm too ancient for one-night stands and not a bloke. Frankly, AIDS put me right off in the 90s. Having close relatives die from sex is a free-range passion killer.
Firstly, women with children get lenient treatment, whereas men with children don't.
Secondly, women who commit crimes due to hormonal issues get lenient treatment, whereas men don't. Why should men be blamed for having higher levels of testosterone in their bodies?
If a new mother kills or injures her child, "it can't really be her fault". If a new father does the same, he's just a vicious criminal who needs to be locked up forever.
You really need to get a grip on your paranoia. And give me credit for having two brain cells to rub together whilst I clean behind the fridge.
Marigolds o_O !
The biggest issue I have though is that this guidance is clearly aimed at increasing the conviction rate, which means it is about the numbers/targets rather than justice. A justice model based on conviction rate targets will lead to innocent people being incarcerated or on the sexual offences register.
You say: "I've seen nothing that suggests Ed Miliband wouldn't be a competent Prime Minister. That doesn't mean I support him but compare him now to Cameron in early 2010 and there's not a huge amount between them in my view. At least Ed has had Cabinet experience which is more than David Cameron had when he became PM."
I couldn't disagree more. At this stage in 2010 the Conservatives had completed their policy review, a clear policy platform and a united front bench, were visibly a potential government in waiting and were treated as such by the media (to their detriment). Cameron himself enjoyed positive leader ratings.
Labour cannot claim any of these things. Internal sources tell us the policy review has been a shambles. Policy pronouncements, such as they are, are piecemeal, inconsistent and illogical (the energy price freeze alone is a classic example of ignorance and incompetence). Half the shadow cabinet, including some of the supposed big hitters, are absent. The leader of the Scottish Labour party has publicly declared independence. Miliband is widely derided across the nation, with approval levels that would alarm IDS, and is even less popular than the Conservative prime minister in Scotland. He is frequently criticised from within his own party in the strongest terms. Tellingly a great many big hitters within the Labour movement have moved on, showing no signs of wishing to return to parliament or senior positions while Ed is in charge. Cameron had the confidence and the authority to include Hague, IDS and Ken Clarke in his shadow cabinet and/or first cabinet; meanwhile a very capable shadow cabinet could be formed by the experience Labour former ministers who are currently occupying themselves with other matters. The differences between them are stark.
I'd be interested to hear your case for Ed having been a competent leader of the Labour party.
Your eyes are like spanners, every time you look at me my nuts tighten
Ed's inability to give a straight answer is going to kill him.
Pregnancy, however, is less of a concern.
I view hard physical exercise/sport, military/combat video games, and sexual imagery as legitimate outlets for young men. Plenty of feminists see that as precisely the problem and would prefer men to be subservient and docile to their more 'evolved' world view.
The formula is just so precise if you consume enough of them. My mum read about 150 before attempting her first one.
Over there the equalities agenda seems to have gone so far as to emasculate men and force women who don't want that to look overseas.