This stuff will be the reason the EU will REALLY be laughing at us.
FFS, you call THAT a sex scandal?
They have their own issues - no one is immune to this
Media may be less hysterical over poor behaviour that is short of actual illegality however, depending on the country. Holland's infidelity didn't factor into his popularity or lack thereof, if I recall correctly, as an example.
Surely Fallon by resigning in this way has led to the bar being lowered for anybody elses behaviour. I remember the Secretary of State for Brexit one David Davis being reprimanded by the press for his behaviour. Maybe DD is going to have to resign as well? Here is the link below:
Jeez, is there anyone in politics who’s happily married and only shagging their wife?
David Cameron.
Sadly he doesn’t count any more, unless he fancies a job on the red benches?
I've sent Sir Michael Fallon a message urging him to resign as an MP, I think Dave, George, or Ruth win the by election.
Then GAME ON.
Oh, you kidder you. Surely from your own words neither Cameron or Osborn have seemed interested in a return to frontline politics (Osborne in particular, since if he gave in a slightest care to, he would never have quit earlier this year), and as for Davidson, well, the reasons against her 'abandoning' Scotland at this stage remain now as they did in June.
Many years ago, a Chinese war lord was leading an invasion force when he realised that he had extended his supply lines too far. After considering his options, he called for his faithful quartermaster. The War Lord told his retainer, "I am sorry, but I have made a mistake, to correct it I need your head. Your family name, reputation and finances will be honoured". The troops realised that if the war lord was able to kill a good friend for making an error, then they should be aware what would be done to a dissenter. The War Lord went on to many victories...... Meanwhile, in the present, the Tories continue to collapse...
Jeez, is there anyone in politics who’s happily married and only shagging their wife?
David Cameron.
Sadly he doesn’t count any more, unless he fancies a job on the red benches?
I've sent Sir Michael Fallon a message urging him to resign as an MP, I think Dave, George, or Ruth win the by election.
Then GAME ON.
Oh, you kidder you. Surely from your own words neither Cameron or Osborn have seemed interested in a return to frontline politics (Osborne in particular, since if he gave in a slightest care to, he would never have quit earlier this year), and as for Davidson, well, the reasons against her 'abandoning' Scotland at this stage remain now as they did in June.
I'd welcome Dave back, but it ain't happening.
Dave and George love their country and party, they'd work their bollocks off to stop Corbyn becoming PM.
Jeez, is there anyone in politics who’s happily married and only shagging their wife?
David Cameron.
Sadly he doesn’t count any more, unless he fancies a job on the red benches?
I've sent Sir Michael Fallon a message urging him to resign as an MP, I think Dave, George, or Ruth win the by election.
Then GAME ON.
Oh, you kidder you. Surely from your own words neither Cameron or Osborn have seemed interested in a return to frontline politics (Osborne in particular, since if he gave in a slightest care to, he would never have quit earlier this year), and as for Davidson, well, the reasons against her 'abandoning' Scotland at this stage remain now as they did in June.
I'd welcome Dave back, but it ain't happening.
Why would anyone worth their salt enter politics today?
and paving the way for some young blood on the Tory front bench, someone who might eventually replace May and destroy Corbyn. (Thus saving the Labour Party).
We have a government that are essentially incapable of governing because they are consumed by these endless crises created by two factors; democracy and social media.
It used to be that if you wanted to accuse someone of sexual harrassment, no one would publish your story. No one. You were just howling in the wind. The long standing rules of defamation applied - if its a crime, prove it in court. Otherwise STFU.
Now anyone can say anything about anything and it can then cause a crisis that brings down the government. Any comment by anyone - no matter how true or false - and no matter how long ago it was made - can bring someone down. Look at O'Mara. Look at Fallon. I'm not trying to excuse what they have done, I'm just pointing out the problems the fallout has created.
The end game is that you just have no coherant government. Interestingly, Iceland might be the first example of this. The establishment party has 30% of the vote, in decline. The other parties are just random upstart groups of politicians and their supporters. The last coalition had three parties, a majority of one, and lasted a year. In the elections, the minor coalition party got wiped out. The next coalition will have at least four parties, if they can even agree to form a government. Iceland may only have 300,000 people, but it is still a soveriegn nation. It is part of NATO. The chinese are circling. It is a player in the arctic.
We have weak and indecisive governments, consumed by perpetual crises, who do not have the trust of voters and fall prey to every misguided public whim no matter what the cost.
I absolutely see this as the end of the west. It is falling apart much faster than I could ever envisage. Who knows what happens next. God help us.
Many years ago, a Chinese war lord was leading an invasion force when he realised that he had extended his supply lines too far. After considering his options, he called for his faithful quartermaster. The War Lord told his retainer, "I am sorry, but I have made a mistake, to correct it I need your head. Your family name, reputation and finances will be honoured". The troops realised that if the war lord was able to kill a good friend for making an error, then they should be aware what would be done to a dissenter. The War Lord went on to many victories...... Meanwhile, in the present, the Tories continue to collapse...
Wait, the warlord killed a good friend not because the friend made an error, but because the warlord himself made the error? What an arsehole!
Jeez, is there anyone in politics who’s happily married and only shagging their wife?
David Cameron.
Sadly he doesn’t count any more, unless he fancies a job on the red benches?
I've sent Sir Michael Fallon a message urging him to resign as an MP, I think Dave, George, or Ruth win the by election.
Then GAME ON.
Oh, you kidder you. Surely from your own words neither Cameron or Osborn have seemed interested in a return to frontline politics (Osborne in particular, since if he gave in a slightest care to, he would never have quit earlier this year), and as for Davidson, well, the reasons against her 'abandoning' Scotland at this stage remain now as they did in June.
I'd welcome Dave back, but it ain't happening.
Dave and George love their country and party, they'd work their bollocks off to stop Corbyn becoming PM.
We don’t really know what the public are thinking at the moment, but a large number of people thinking something doesn’t neccessarily make it right.
Also I don’t think that JFK example works as a simply ‘politicians love sex’ example. It has much, much more darker over tones of exploitation and its behaviours like that which are the reason why it’s so important to have the conversation about sexual harrasment, sexual assault, rape and objectification that’s going on.
Also, if you can’t flirt with someone without touching their knee, well, you must be rubbish at flirting.
Questioning some of these things that people consider ‘social norms’ is a good thing, and we should always review what we consider to be ‘norms’. There are many things that today are considered unacceptable, that were not in the past.
It feels like for some it’s not the act of being sexist/misogynistic that is bad, but merely extreme manifestations of sexism and misogyny are bad.
Jeez, is there anyone in politics who’s happily married and only shagging their wife?
David Cameron.
Sadly he doesn’t count any more, unless he fancies a job on the red benches?
I've sent Sir Michael Fallon a message urging him to resign as an MP, I think Dave, George, or Ruth win the by election.
Then GAME ON.
Oh, you kidder you. Surely from your own words neither Cameron or Osborn have seemed interested in a return to frontline politics (Osborne in particular, since if he gave in a slightest care to, he would never have quit earlier this year), and as for Davidson, well, the reasons against her 'abandoning' Scotland at this stage remain now as they did in June.
I'd welcome Dave back, but it ain't happening.
Dave and George love their country and party, they'd work their bollocks off to stop Corbyn becoming PM.
Except George was happy for a woman he despises to run what he happily called a bad campaign, and didn't want to be in parliament to fight Corbyn at that time. He has other priorities, he will serve in a different way, whatever, that's fine, but self evidently he chose not to work to stop Corbyn then. Dave, well, he'd been out of it a bit longer at that time, I suppose he might have changed his mind, but I struggle to see it.
Jeez, is there anyone in politics who’s happily married and only shagging their wife?
David Cameron.
Sadly he doesn’t count any more, unless he fancies a job on the red benches?
I've sent Sir Michael Fallon a message urging him to resign as an MP, I think Dave, George, or Ruth win the by election.
Then GAME ON.
Oh, you kidder you. Surely from your own words neither Cameron or Osborn have seemed interested in a return to frontline politics (Osborne in particular, since if he gave in a slightest care to, he would never have quit earlier this year), and as for Davidson, well, the reasons against her 'abandoning' Scotland at this stage remain now as they did in June.
I'd welcome Dave back, but it ain't happening.
Dave is welcome back, but TCO has burned all the bridges there are to burn.
Jeez, is there anyone in politics who’s happily married and only shagging their wife?
David Cameron.
Sadly he doesn’t count any more, unless he fancies a job on the red benches?
I've sent Sir Michael Fallon a message urging him to resign as an MP, I think Dave, George, or Ruth win the by election.
Then GAME ON.
Oh, you kidder you. Surely from your own words neither Cameron or Osborn have seemed interested in a return to frontline politics (Osborne in particular, since if he gave in a slightest care to, he would never have quit earlier this year), and as for Davidson, well, the reasons against her 'abandoning' Scotland at this stage remain now as they did in June.
I'd welcome Dave back, but it ain't happening.
Why would anyone worth their salt enter politics today?
Ideological fervour.
It does seem a job that is hardly worth it - I try not to give them too much credit, but while the pay is ok and you get publicity and connections, your reputation is garbage as an MP and you won't even get credit for the good things you do.
I'm not even opposed entirely to the job being a little bit of a burden, that's why it is a public service, not a cool job for wonks, but it can be a cruel job even to the undeserving.
His wikipedia page has already gotten confused - Secretary of State for Defence from July 1901 - November 1934 seems wrong.
Considering there was no 'Secretary of State for Defence' until 1964 that seems unlikely on a number of levels!
(There was a Minister of Defence and a Secretary of State for War. The two were combined, along with the Admiralty and Air Ministry, after Profumo.)
Sec of State for War : So much less mealy mouthed in those far off days!
That was one of the things Orwell was satirizing in Nineteen Eighty-Four: the next logical step after changing the armed forces' ministry from "War" -> "Defence" would be "Peace".
Jeez, is there anyone in politics who’s happily married and only shagging their wife?
David Cameron.
Sadly he doesn’t count any more, unless he fancies a job on the red benches?
I've sent Sir Michael Fallon a message urging him to resign as an MP, I think Dave, George, or Ruth win the by election.
Then GAME ON.
Oh, you kidder you. Surely from your own words neither Cameron or Osborn have seemed interested in a return to frontline politics (Osborne in particular, since if he gave in a slightest care to, he would never have quit earlier this year), and as for Davidson, well, the reasons against her 'abandoning' Scotland at this stage remain now as they did in June.
I'd welcome Dave back, but it ain't happening.
Dave and George love their country and party, they'd work their bollocks off to stop Corbyn becoming PM.
George certainly doesn't love his country. He was a crap Chancellor, a truly crap Conservative and cared for no one and nothing but himself. One of the good things about the past year is it has revealed his true nature as a posh, bitter tosser who cares nothing for his country or his party.
Jeez, is there anyone in politics who’s happily married and only shagging their wife?
David Cameron.
Sadly he doesn’t count any more, unless he fancies a job on the red benches?
I've sent Sir Michael Fallon a message urging him to resign as an MP, I think Dave, George, or Ruth win the by election.
Then GAME ON.
Oh, you kidder you. Surely from your own words neither Cameron or Osborn have seemed interested in a return to frontline politics (Osborne in particular, since if he gave in a slightest care to, he would never have quit earlier this year), and as for Davidson, well, the reasons against her 'abandoning' Scotland at this stage remain now as they did in June.
I'd welcome Dave back, but it ain't happening.
Dave and George love their country and party, they'd work their bollocks off to stop Corbyn becoming PM.
George certainly doesn't love his country. He was a crap Chancellor, a truly crap Conservative and cared for no one and nothing but himself. One of the good things about the past year is it has revealed his true nature as a posh, bitter tosser who cares nothing for his country or his party.
Call me Mr Suspicious, Richard, but do I get the feeling you're not perhaps his biggest fan?
We don’t really know what the public are thinking at the moment, but a large number of people thinking something doesn’t neccessarily make it right.
Also I don’t think that JFK example works as a simply ‘politicians love sex’ example. It has much, much more darker over tones of exploitation and its behaviours like that which are the reason why it’s so important to have the conversation about sexual harrasment, sexual assault, rape and objectification that’s going on.
Also, if you can’t flirt with someone without touching their knee, well, you must be rubbish at flirting.
Questioning some of these things that people consider ‘social norms’ is a good thing, and we should always review what we consider to be ‘norms’. There are many things that today are considered unacceptable, that were not in the past.
It feels like for some it’s not the act of being sexist/misogynistic that is bad, but merely extreme manifestations of sexism and misogyny are bad.
Fallon apologising, and others who have done similar apologising, seems reasonable. Others who have done more extreme things should be sacked or resign. But I don't think it an unwarranted fear that there may develop undue pressure to judge and sack people for less than optimal behaviour, or that the hunt for such may trivialize those who have suffered at the hands of those who have more extremely manifested, as you put it.
Not all transgressions are equal is something that I think is probably a good thing to keep in mind in these times.
Jeez, is there anyone in politics who’s happily married and only shagging their wife?
David Cameron.
Sadly he doesn’t count any more, unless he fancies a job on the red benches?
I've sent Sir Michael Fallon a message urging him to resign as an MP, I think Dave, George, or Ruth win the by election.
Then GAME ON.
Oh, you kidder you. Surely from your own words neither Cameron or Osborn have seemed interested in a return to frontline politics (Osborne in particular, since if he gave in a slightest care to, he would never have quit earlier this year), and as for Davidson, well, the reasons against her 'abandoning' Scotland at this stage remain now as they did in June.
I'd welcome Dave back, but it ain't happening.
Dave and George love their country and party, they'd work their bollocks off to stop Corbyn becoming PM.
George certainly doesn't love his country. He was a crap Chancellor, a truly crap Conservative and cared for no one and nothing but himself. One of the good things about the past year is it has revealed his true nature as a posh, bitter tosser who cares nothing for his country or his party.
And Dave is severely damaged goods. The man who made the most catastrophic electoral misjudgment of modern times is not likely to get much of a hearing. Remainers hate him for losing the referendum and leavers hate him for trying to win it.
His wikipedia page has already gotten confused - Secretary of State for Defence from July 1901 - November 1934 seems wrong.
Considering there was no 'Secretary of State for Defence' until 1964 that seems unlikely on a number of levels!
(There was a Minister of Defence and a Secretary of State for War. The two were combined, along with the Admiralty and Air Ministry, after Profumo.)
Sec of State for War : So much less mealy mouthed in those far off days!
That was one of the things Orwell was satirizing in Nineteen Eighty-Four: the next logical step after changing the armed forces' ministry from "War" -> "Defence" would be "Peace".
According to the Labour manifesto ( I swear I don't sit with it open all the time, but given Labour's stronger position thesedays its worth another read) they have:
...created a Minister for Peace and Disarmament to lead this work[conflict prevention and resolution, post conflict peacebuilding, and justice for the victims of war crimes]
Jeez, is there anyone in politics who’s happily married and only shagging their wife?
David Cameron.
Sadly he doesn’t count any more, unless he fancies a job on the red benches?
I've sent Sir Michael Fallon a message urging him to resign as an MP, I think Dave, George, or Ruth win the by election.
Then GAME ON.
Oh, you kidder you. Surely from your own words neither Cameron or Osborn have seemed interested in a return to frontline politics (Osborne in particular, since if he gave in a slightest care to, he would never have quit earlier this year), and as for Davidson, well, the reasons against her 'abandoning' Scotland at this stage remain now as they did in June.
I'd welcome Dave back, but it ain't happening.
Dave and George love their country and party, they'd work their bollocks off to stop Corbyn becoming PM.
George certainly doesn't love his country. He was a crap Chancellor, a truly crap Conservative and cared for no one and nothing but himself. One of the good things about the past year is it has revealed his true nature as a posh, bitter tosser who cares nothing for his country or his party.
Call me Mr Suspicious, Richard, but do I get the feeling you're not perhaps his biggest fan?
His wikipedia page has already gotten confused - Secretary of State for Defence from July 1901 - November 1934 seems wrong.
Considering there was no 'Secretary of State for Defence' until 1964 that seems unlikely on a number of levels!
(There was a Minister of Defence and a Secretary of State for War. The two were combined, along with the Admiralty and Air Ministry, after Profumo.)
Sec of State for War : So much less mealy mouthed in those far off days!
That was one of the things Orwell was satirizing in Nineteen Eighty-Four: the next logical step after changing the armed forces' ministry from "War" -> "Defence" would be "Peace".
According to the Labour manifesto ( I swear I don't sit with it open all the time, but given Labour's stronger position thesedays its worth another read) they have:
...created a Minister for Peace and Disarmament to lead this work[conflict prevention and resolution, post conflict peacebuilding, and justice for the victims of war crimes]
His wikipedia page has already gotten confused - Secretary of State for Defence from July 1901 - November 1934 seems wrong.
Considering there was no 'Secretary of State for Defence' until 1964 that seems unlikely on a number of levels!
(There was a Minister of Defence and a Secretary of State for War. The two were combined, along with the Admiralty and Air Ministry, after Profumo.)
Sec of State for War : So much less mealy mouthed in those far off days!
That was one of the things Orwell was satirizing in Nineteen Eighty-Four: the next logical step after changing the armed forces' ministry from "War" -> "Defence" would be "Peace".
According to the Labour manifesto ( I swear I don't sit with it open all the time, but given Labour's stronger position thesedays its worth another read) they have:
...created a Minister for Peace and Disarmament to lead this work[conflict prevention and resolution, post conflict peacebuilding, and justice for the victims of war crimes]
So we're almost there.
Soinds good to me
It's not a terrible idea, but the name Minister of Peace is inherently slightly amusing to me
We don’t really know what the public are thinking at the moment, but a large number of people thinking something doesn’t neccessarily make it right.
Also I don’t think that JFK example works as a simply ‘politicians love sex’ example. It has much, much more darker over tones of exploitation and its behaviours like that which are the reason why it’s so important to have the conversation about sexual harrasment, sexual assault, rape and objectification that’s going on.
Also, if you can’t flirt with someone without touching their knee, well, you must be rubbish at flirting.
Questioning some of these things that people consider ‘social norms’ is a good thing, and we should always review what we consider to be ‘norms’. There are many things that today are considered unacceptable, that were not in the past.
It feels like for some it’s not the act of being sexist/misogynistic that is bad, but merely extreme manifestations of sexism and misogyny are bad.
You are young and ( believe) Hindi or Muslim? I suspect you are extremely unrepresentative of British public opinion, which is now as libertine and tolerant as any in the west.
I’m not Hindi or Muslim. My family aren’t religious and I’m mixed race (black and white).
Also, every generation believes in their own tolerance and liberalism. John Stuart Mill probably thought you can’t get anymore liberal than him. Joseph Conrad throught his attitudes to race in Heart of Darkness were progressive.
P.S I don’t profess to represent public opinion, my whole point was about challenging social norms, which are generally the norms lots of people consider acceptable. However, I think many members of the public would consider what you reported of JFK to be unacceptable.
His wikipedia page has already gotten confused - Secretary of State for Defence from July 1901 - November 1934 seems wrong.
Considering there was no 'Secretary of State for Defence' until 1964 that seems unlikely on a number of levels!
(There was a Minister of Defence and a Secretary of State for War. The two were combined, along with the Admiralty and Air Ministry, after Profumo.)
Sec of State for War : So much less mealy mouthed in those far off days!
That was one of the things Orwell was satirizing in Nineteen Eighty-Four: the next logical step after changing the armed forces' ministry from "War" -> "Defence" would be "Peace".
According to the Labour manifesto ( I swear I don't sit with it open all the time, but given Labour's stronger position thesedays its worth another read) they have:
...created a Minister for Peace and Disarmament to lead this work[conflict prevention and resolution, post conflict peacebuilding, and justice for the victims of war crimes]
We don’t really know what the public are thinking at the moment, but a large number of people thinking something doesn’t neccessarily make it right.
Also I don’t think that JFK example works as a simply ‘politicians love sex’ example. It has much, much more darker over tones of exploitation and its behaviours like that which are the reason why it’s so important to have the conversation about sexual harrasment, sexual assault, rape and objectification that’s going on.
Also, if you can’t flirt with someone without touching their knee, well, you must be rubbish at flirting.
Questioning some of these things that people consider ‘social norms’ is a good thing, and we should always review what we consider to be ‘norms’. There are many things that today are considered unacceptable, that were not in the past.
It feels like for some it’s not the act of being sexist/misogynistic that is bad, but merely extreme manifestations of sexism and misogyny are bad.
Fallon apologising, and others who have done similar apologising, seems reasonable. Others who have done more extreme things should be sacked or resign. But I don't think it an unwarranted fear that there may develop undue pressure to judge and sack people for less than optimal behaviour, or that the hunt for such may trivialize those who have suffered at the hands of those who have more extremely manifested, as you put it.
Not all transgressions are equal is something that I think is probably a good thing to keep in mind in these times.
There’s got to be more on Fallon, let’s see what tomorrow’s papers bring.
A resigning matter is harassment, a relationship with a power difference (intern, junior staffer) or an assault. A clumsy pass at a feisty middle-aged columnist who shrugged it off doesn’t meet that standard.
Other allegations published without naming names are more serious, and if those relate to Ministers they’re in trouble too. The alleged cover-up of a rape is the most serious we’ve seen so far, but that doesn’t refer to an MP rather a party official.
We don’t really know what the public are thinking at the moment, but a large number of people thinking something doesn’t neccessarily make it right.
Also I don’t think that JFK example works as a simply ‘politicians love sex’ example. It has much, much more darker over tones of exploitation and its behaviours like that which are the reason why it’s so important to have the conversation about sexual harrasment, sexual assault, rape and objectification that’s going on.
Also, if you can’t flirt with someone without touching their knee, well, you must be rubbish at flirting.
Questioning some of these things that people consider ‘social norms’ is a good thing, and we should always review what we consider to be ‘norms’. There are many things that today are considered unacceptable, that were not in the past.
It feels like for some it’s not the act of being sexist/misogynistic that is bad, but merely extreme manifestations of sexism and misogyny are bad.
Fallon apologising, and others who have done similar apologising, seems reasonable. Others who have done more extreme things should be sacked or resign. But I don't think it an unwarranted fear that there may develop undue pressure to judge and sack people for less than optimal behaviour, or that the hunt for such may trivialize those who have suffered at the hands of those who have more extremely manifested, as you put it.
Not all transgressions are equal is something that I think is probably a good thing to keep in mind in these times.
There’s got to be more on Fallon, let’s see what tomorrow’s papers bring.
A resigning matter is harassment, a relationship with a power difference (intern, junior staffer) or an assault. A clumsy pass at a feisty middle-aged columnist who shrugged it off doesn’t meet that standard.
Other allegations published without naming names are more serious, and if those relate to Ministers they’re in trouble too. The alleged cover-up of a rape is the most serious we’ve seen so far,
We don’t really know what the public are thinking at the moment, but a large number of people thinking something doesn’t neccessarily make it right.
Also I don’t think that JFK example works as a simply ‘politicians love sex’ example. It has much, much more darker over tones of exploitation and its behaviours like that which are the reason why it’s so important to have the conversation about sexual harrasment, sexual assault, rape and objectification that’s going on.
Also, if you can’t flirt with someone without touching their knee, well, you must be rubbish at flirting.
Questioning some of these things that people consider ‘social norms’ is a good thing, and we should always review what we consider to be ‘norms’. There are many things that today are considered unacceptable, that were not in the past.
It feels like for some it’s not the act of being sexist/misogynistic that is bad, but merely extreme manifestations of sexism and misogyny are bad.
Fallon apologising, and others who have done similar apologising, seems reasonable. Others who have done more extreme things should be sacked or resign. But I don't think it an unwarranted fear that there may develop undue pressure to judge and sack people for less than optimal behaviour, or that the hunt for such may trivialize those who have suffered at the hands of those who have more extremely manifested, as you put it.
Not all transgressions are equal is something that I think is probably a good thing to keep in mind in these times.
There’s got to be more on Fallon, let’s see what tomorrow’s papers bring.
A resigning matter is harassment, a relationship with a power difference (intern, junior staffer) or an assault. A clumsy pass at a feisty middle-aged columnist who shrugged it off doesn’t meet that standard.
Other allegations published without naming names are more serious, and if those relate to Ministers they’re in trouble too. The alleged cover-up of a rape is the most serious we’ve seen so far,
And John Mann's allegation of a labour MP's foreign trip
At least we can all take comfort that this investigation into the moral collapse of the political class is being undertaken by those self-appointed guardians of morality....
...journalists.
Hard to imagine a somewhat inebriated journo touching a colleague's knee.
I would take Dave back in a heartbeat, never going to happen though. Part of him may feel he has something left to give in service to his country, but with a young family and all that stress gone he would be mad to go back into politics.
We don’t really know what the public are thinking at the moment, but a large number of people thinking something doesn’t neccessarily make it right.
Also I don’t think that JFK example works as a simply ‘politicians love sex’ example. It has much, much more darker over tones of exploitation and its behaviours like that which are the reason why it’s so important to have the conversation about sexual harrasment, sexual assault, rape and objectification that’s going on.
Also, if you can’t flirt with someone without touching their knee, well, you must be rubbish at flirting.
Questioning some of these things that people consider ‘social norms’ is a good thing, and we should always review what we consider to be ‘norms’. There are many things that today are considered unacceptable, that were not in the past.
It feels like for some it’s not the act of being sexist/misogynistic that is bad, but merely extreme manifestations of sexism and misogyny are bad.
Fallon apologising, and others who have done similar apologising, seems reasonable. Others who have done more extreme things should be sacked or resign. But I don't think it an unwarranted fear that there may develop undue pressure to judge and sack people for less than optimal behaviour, or that the hunt for such may trivialize those who have suffered at the hands of those who have more extremely manifested, as you put it.
Not all transgressions are equal is something that I think is probably a good thing to keep in mind in these times.
There’s got to be more on Fallon, let’s see what tomorrow’s papers bring.
A resigning matter is harassment, a relationship with a power difference (intern, junior staffer) or an assault. A clumsy pass at a feisty middle-aged columnist who shrugged it off doesn’t meet that standard.
Other allegations published without naming names are more serious, and if those relate to Ministers they’re in trouble too. The alleged cover-up of a rape is the most serious we’ve seen so far,
Shadsy has a book up for next defence sec.
I am on Tobias Ellwood at 11.
Wasn't Rory Stewart angling for the ability to zap British jihadis the other day? Give him the tools to do the job.....
We don’t really know what the public are thinking at the moment, but a large number of people thinking something doesn’t neccessarily make it right.
Also I don’t think that JFK example works as a simply ‘politicians love sex’ example. It has much, much more darker over tones of exploitation and its behaviours like that which are the reason why it’s so important to have the conversation about sexual harrasment, sexual assault, rape and objectification that’s going on.
Also, if you can’t flirt with someone without touching their knee, well, you must be rubbish at flirting.
Questioning some of these things that people consider ‘social norms’ is a good thing, and we should always review what we consider to be ‘norms’. There are many things that today are considered unacceptable, that were not in the past.
It feels like for some it’s not the act of being sexist/misogynistic that is bad, but merely extreme manifestations of sexism and misogyny are bad.
Fallon apologising, and others who have done similar apologising, seems reasonable. Others who have done more extreme things should be sacked or resign. But I don't think it an unwarranted fear that there may develop undue pressure to judge and sack people for less than optimal behaviour, or that the hunt for such may trivialize those who have suffered at the hands of those who have more extremely manifested, as you put it.
Not all transgressions are equal is something that I think is probably a good thing to keep in mind in these times.
There’s got to be more on Fallon, let’s see what tomorrow’s papers bring.
A resigning matter is harassment, a relationship with a power difference (intern, junior staffer) or an assault. A clumsy pass at a feisty middle-aged columnist who shrugged it off doesn’t meet that standard.
Other allegations published without naming names are more serious, and if those relate to Ministers they’re in trouble too. The alleged cover-up of a rape is the most serious we’ve seen so far,
And John Mann's allegation of a labour MP's foreign trip
It's bewildering, really. The most serious allegation we've heard is that a member of Labour's NEC was raped and that the Labour Party's reaction was to get her to cover it up otherwise it would be bad for her. If true, that is a nasty form of blackmail and possible obstruction of justice, on top of a nasty and violent crime.
Labour seem to be pretending that this has nothing to do with them and that recent procedural changes mean that all is OK. Panglossian doesn't even begin to describe this level of delusion.
And now we find that it is a Cabinet Minister who has been making drunken advances to journalists (assuming there's nothing worse about to come out) who has to resign.
We don’t really know what the public are thinking at the moment, but a large number of people thinking something doesn’t neccessarily make it right.
Also I don’t think that JFK example works as a simply ‘politicians love sex’ example. It has much, much more darker over tones of exploitation and its behaviours like that which are the reason why it’s so important to have the conversation about sexual harrasment, sexual assault, rape and objectification that’s going on.
Also, if you can’t flirt with someone without touching their knee, well, you must be rubbish at flirting.
Questioning some of these things that people consider ‘social norms’ is a good thing, and we should always review what we consider to be ‘norms’. There are many things that today are considered unacceptable, that were not in the past.
It feels like for some it’s not the act of being sexist/misogynistic that is bad, but merely extreme manifestations of sexism and misogyny are bad.
Fallon apologising, and others who have done similar apologising, seems reasonable. Others who have done more extreme things should be sacked or resign. But I don't think it an unwarranted fear that there may develop undue pressure to judge and sack people for less than optimal behaviour, or that the hunt for such may trivialize those who have suffered at the hands of those who have more extremely manifested, as you put it.
Not all transgressions are equal is something that I think is probably a good thing to keep in mind in these times.
There’s got to be more on Fallon, let’s see what tomorrow’s papers bring.
A resigning matter is harassment, a relationship with a power difference (intern, junior staffer) or an assault. A clumsy pass at a feisty middle-aged columnist who shrugged it off doesn’t meet that standard.
Other allegations published without naming names are more serious, and if those relate to Ministers they’re in trouble too. The alleged cover-up of a rape is the most serious we’ve seen so far,
Shadsy has a book up for next defence sec.
I am on Tobias Ellwood at 11.
Wasn't Rory Stewart angling for the ability to zap British jihadis the other day? Give him the tools to do the job.....
We don’t really know what the public are thinking at the moment, but a large number of people thinking something doesn’t neccessarily make it right.
Also I don’t think that JFK example works as a simply ‘politicians love sex’ example. It has much, much more darker over tones of exploitation and its behaviours like that which are the reason why it’s so important to have the conversation about sexual harrasment, sexual assault, rape and objectification that’s going on.
Also, if you can’t flirt with someone without touching their knee, well, you must be rubbish at flirting.
Questioning some of these things that people consider ‘social norms’ is a good thing, and we should always review what we consider to be ‘norms’. There are many things that today are considered unacceptable, that were not in the past.
It feels like for some it’s not the act of being sexist/misogynistic that is bad, but merely extreme manifestations of sexism and misogyny are bad.
Fallon apologising, and others who have done similar apologising, seems reasonable. Others who have done more extreme things should be sacked or resign. But I don't think it an unwarranted fear that there may develop undue pressure to judge and sack people for less than optimal behaviour, or that the hunt for such may trivialize those who have suffered at the hands of those who have more extremely manifested, as you put it.
Not all transgressions are equal is something that I think is probably a good thing to keep in mind in these times.
There’s got to be more on Fallon, let’s see what tomorrow’s papers bring.
A resigning matter is harassment, a relationship with a power difference (intern, junior staffer) or an assault. A clumsy pass at a feisty middle-aged columnist who shrugged it off doesn’t meet that standard.
Other allegations published without naming names are more serious, and if those relate to Ministers they’re in trouble too. The alleged cover-up of a rape is the most serious we’ve seen so far, but that doesn’t refer to an MP rather a party official.
There may well be more on Fallon but cynics may wonder if he has agreed to step down over kneegate in order to create a precedent that will be used to rid the PM of more troublesome priests.
It's bewildering, really. The most serious allegation we've heard is that a member of Labour's NEC was raped and that the Labour Party's reaction was to get her to cover it up otherwise it would be bad for her. If true, that is a nasty form of blackmail and possible obstruction of justice, on top of a nasty and violent crime.
Labour seem to be pretending that this has nothing to do with them and that recent procedural changes mean that all is OK. Panglossian doesn't even begin to describe this level of delusion.
And now we find that it is a Cabinet Minister who has been making drunken advances to journalists (assuming there's nothing worse about to come out) who has to resign.
Bizarre.....
I did wonder whether Fallon quit to make the point that the Government is taking steps and Labour is just having another talking shop.
We don’t really know what the public are thinking at the moment, but a large number of people thinking something doesn’t neccessarily make it right.
Also I don’t think that JFK example works as a simply ‘politicians love sex’ example. It has much, much more darker over tones of exploitation and its behaviours like that which are the reason why it’s so important to have the conversation about sexual harrasment, sexual assault, rape and objectification that’s going on.
Also, if you can’t flirt with someone without touching their knee, well, you must be rubbish at flirting.
Questioning some of these things that people consider ‘social norms’ is a good thing, and we should always review what we consider to be ‘norms’. There are many things that today are considered unacceptable, that were not in the past.
It feels like for some it’s not the act of being sexist/misogynistic that is bad, but merely extreme manifestations of sexism and misogyny are bad.
Fallon apologising, and others who have done similar apologising, seems reasonable. Others who have done more extreme things should be sacked or resign. But I don't think it an unwarranted fear that there may develop undue pressure to judge and sack people for less than optimal behaviour, or that the hunt for such may trivialize those who have suffered at the hands of those who have more extremely manifested, as you put it.
Not all transgressions are equal is something that I think is probably a good thing to keep in mind in these times.
There’s got to be more on Fallon, let’s see what tomorrow’s papers bring.
A resigning matter is harassment, a relationship with a power difference (intern, junior staffer) or an assault. A clumsy pass at a feisty middle-aged columnist who shrugged it off doesn’t meet that standard.
Other allegations published without naming names are more serious, and if those relate to Ministers they’re in trouble too. The alleged cover-up of a rape is the most serious we’ve seen so far,
And John Mann's allegation of a labour MP's foreign trip
Which may, or may not, be the same allegation about an unnamed MP that was in the Guardian this morning. Sexual assault of young staffer in a hotel room. Sadly it’s almost impossible to name the MP involved without identifying the victim, which is in most cases illegal if she doesn’t want to come forward.
Even a case of rape is difficult to prove after time has elapsed, the CPS find it hard to prosecute if there’s no witnesses and they don’t have a woman in front of them the next day with obvious injuries from a struggle. What does work though, is like in the Hollywood cases where several unconnected victims come forward alleging the same MO.
I would have thought May would be more likely to promote someone from within the Cabinet than bring someone straight into Defence. So someone like Patel at (12/1) or Brokenshire (not listed)
I really don't give a toss who fucks who, who spanks who and where, who likes it up the Athens bypass with an aubergine. I also can't get exercised by some minister putting his hand on an adult womans knee, FFS. Sex has to begin somewhere.
Rape and child abuse are clearly different, but all I see so far is tedious tittle-tattle. Politicians like sex, shock, politicians like kinky sex, shock, some are even gay, shock.
What is the story?
The story is that the government is weak. The media is after blood. And far too many politicians don't understand, not the line you state between legality and illegality, but the very wide grey area in between, which is behaving like a horny gentleman (or lady), and behaving like a twat. They are also terrified that the entirely consensual, non-vanilla, non-monogamous sex you describe simply will be exploited by our tabloids for circulation reasons.
"Politicians like sex, shock, politicians like kinky sex, shock, some are even gay, shock."
I'm sorry, but for many in this country that is quite a shock, and remains unacceptable. I don't like that attitude, and neither do you. But I reckon that is still were we are.
I would have thought May would be more likely to promote someone from within the Cabinet than bring someone straight into Defence. So someone like Patel at (12/1) or Brokenshire (not listed)
You can't move Brokenshire at the moment - NI needs his full attention.
His wikipedia page has already gotten confused - Secretary of State for Defence from July 1901 - November 1934 seems wrong.
Considering there was no 'Secretary of State for Defence' until 1964 that seems unlikely on a number of levels!
(There was a Minister of Defence and a Secretary of State for War. The two were combined, along with the Admiralty and Air Ministry, after Profumo.)
Sec of State for War : So much less mealy mouthed in those far off days!
That was one of the things Orwell was satirizing in Nineteen Eighty-Four: the next logical step after changing the armed forces' ministry from "War" -> "Defence" would be "Peace".
According to the Labour manifesto ( I swear I don't sit with it open all the time, but given Labour's stronger position thesedays its worth another read) they have:
...created a Minister for Peace and Disarmament to lead this work[conflict prevention and resolution, post conflict peacebuilding, and justice for the victims of war crimes]
So we're almost there.
I have a recollection that some country somewhere did have a Ministry of Peace or Ministry of Disarmament for a while in the 90s or 00s but Google and Wikipedia fail me.
It's bewildering, really. The most serious allegation we've heard is that a member of Labour's NEC was raped and that the Labour Party's reaction was to get her to cover it up otherwise it would be bad for her. If true, that is a nasty form of blackmail and possible obstruction of justice, on top of a nasty and violent crime.
Labour seem to be pretending that this has nothing to do with them and that recent procedural changes mean that all is OK. Panglossian doesn't even begin to describe this level of delusion.
And now we find that it is a Cabinet Minister who has been making drunken advances to journalists (assuming there's nothing worse about to come out) who has to resign.
Bizarre.....
I did wonder whether Fallon quit to make the point that the Government is taking steps and Labour is just having another talking shop.
I don't think that it how it will be seen. Labour seems to be doing its level best to ignore the rape allegation. And, yet, to me anyway, that seems to me to be far worse. A political party puts pressure on the victim of a serious crime not to report it to save her career and their blushes. A party which wants to be in government, which is forever proclaiming its belief in womens' rights, unlike the nasty party opposite, which wants to be in charge of making the law behaves like that to a victim and has such a contemptuous attitude to the law...... well, I find it appalling.
If that were my daughter it happened to, I would be incandescent with fury.
Meanwhile everyone's obsessing about whose knees were touched .......
We don’t really know what the public are thinking at the moment, but a large number of people thinking something doesn’t neccessarily make it right.
Also I don’t think that JFK example works as a simply ‘politicians love sex’ example. It has much, much more darker over tones of exploitation and its behaviours like that which are the reason why it’s so important to have the conversation about sexual harrasment, sexual assault, rape and objectification that’s going on.
Also, if you can’t flirt with someone without touching their knee, well, you must be rubbish at flirting.
Questioning some of these things that people consider ‘social norms’ is a good thing, and we should always review what we consider to be ‘norms’. There are many things that today are considered unacceptable, that were not in the past.
It feels like for some it’s not the act of being sexist/misogynistic that is bad, but merely extreme manifestations of sexism and misogyny are bad.
Fallon apologising, and others who have done similar apologising, seems reasonable. Others who have done more extreme things should be sacked or resign. But I don't think it an unwarranted fear that there may develop undue pressure to judge and sack people for less than optimal behaviour, or that the hunt for such may trivialize those who have suffered at the hands of those who have more extremely manifested, as you put it.
Not all transgressions are equal is something that I think is probably a good thing to keep in mind in these times.
There’s got to be more on Fallon, let’s see what tomorrow’s papers bring.
A resigning matter is harassment, a relationship with a power difference (intern, junior staffer) or an assault. A clumsy pass at a feisty middle-aged columnist who shrugged it off doesn’t meet that standard.
Other allegations published without naming names are more serious, and if those relate to Ministers they’re in trouble too. The alleged cover-up of a rape is the most serious we’ve seen so far,
Shadsy has a book up for next defence sec.
I am on Tobias Ellwood at 11.
Wasn't Rory Stewart angling for the ability to zap British jihadis the other day? Give him the tools to do the job.....
We don’t really know what the public are thinking at the moment, but a large number of people thinking something doesn’t neccessarily make it right.
Also I don’t think that JFK example works as a simply ‘politicians love sex’ example. It has much, much more darker over tones of exploitation and its behaviours like that which are the reason why it’s so important to have the conversation about sexual harrasment, sexual assault, rape and objectification that’s going on.
Also, if you can’t flirt with someone without touching their knee, well, you must be rubbish at flirting.
Questioning some of these things that people consider ‘social norms’ is a good thing, and we should always review what we consider to be ‘norms’. There are many things that today are considered unacceptable, that were not in the past.
It feels like for some it’s not the act of being sexist/misogynistic that is bad, but merely extreme manifestations of sexism and misogyny are bad.
You are young and ( believe) Hindi or Muslim? I suspect you are extremely unrepresentative of British public opinion, which is now as libertine and tolerant as any in the west.
I’m not Hindi or Muslim. My family aren’t religious and I’m mixed race (black and white).
Also, every generation believes in their own tolerance and liberalism. John Stuart Mill probably thought you can’t get anymore liberal than him. Joseph Conrad throught his attitudes to race in Heart of Darkness were progressive.
P.S I don’t profess to represent public opinion, my whole point was about challenging social norms, which are generally the norms lots of people consider acceptable. However, I think many members of the public would consider what you reported of JFK to be unacceptable.
I'm male, white and middle-aged, and I find your views accord very much with my own. Whatever people want to get up to with freely-given consent is fine, but anything that involves coercion or exploitation in any form is not fine. It's simple really.
I really don't give a toss who fucks who, who spanks who and where, who likes it up the Athens bypass with an aubergine. I also can't get exercised by some minister putting his hand on an adult womans knee, FFS. Sex has to begin somewhere.
Rape and child abuse are clearly different, but all I see so far is tedious tittle-tattle. Politicians like sex, shock, politicians like kinky sex, shock, some are even gay, shock.
What is the story?
The story is that the government is weak. The media is after blood. And far too many politicians don't understand, not the line you state between legality and illegality, but the very wide grey area in between, which is behaving like a horny gentleman (or lady), and behaving like a twat. They are also terrified that the entirely consensual, non-vanilla, non-monogamous sex you describe simply will be exploited by our tabloids for circulation reasons.
"Politicians like sex, shock, politicians like kinky sex, shock, some are even gay, shock."
I'm sorry, but for many in this country that is quite a shock, and remains unacceptable. I don't like that attitude, and neither do you. But I reckon that is still were we are.
That's definitely the case with the supposed one with a video of them engaging in watersports - not my bag, and I'd hope I would not unconsciously react to knowing that against them if I knew as its none of my concern, but they're probably right to hope no one finds out.
We don’t really know what the public are thinking at the moment, but a large number of people thinking something doesn’t neccessarily make it right.
Also I don’t think that JFK example works as a simply ‘politicians love sex’ example. It has much, much more darker over tones of exploitation and its behaviours like that which are the reason why it’s so important to have the conversation about sexual harrasment, sexual assault, rape and objectification that’s going on.
Also, if you can’t flirt with someone without touching their knee, well, you must be rubbish at flirting.
Questioning some of these things that people consider ‘social norms’ is a good thing, and we should always review what we consider to be ‘norms’. There are many things that today are considered unacceptable, that were not in the past.
It feels like for some it’s not the act of being sexist/misogynistic that is bad, but merely extreme manifestations of sexism and misogyny are bad.
Fallon apologising, and others who have done similar apologising, seems reasonable. Others who have done more extreme things should be sacked or resign. But I don't think it an unwarranted fear that there may develop undue pressure to judge and sack people for less than optimal behaviour, or that the hunt for such may trivialize those who have suffered at the hands of those who have more extremely manifested, as you put it.
Not all transgressions are equal is something that I think is probably a good thing to keep in mind in these times.
There’s got to be more on Fallon, let’s see what tomorrow’s papers bring.
A resigning matter is harassment, a relationship with a power difference (intern, junior staffer) or an assault. A clumsy pass at a feisty middle-aged columnist who shrugged it off doesn’t meet that standard.
Other allegations published without naming names are more serious, and if those relate to Ministers they’re in trouble too. The alleged cover-up of a rape is the most serious we’ve seen so far,
Shadsy has a book up for next defence sec.
I am on Tobias Ellwood at 11.
Wasn't Rory Stewart angling for the ability to zap British jihadis the other day? Give him the tools to do the job.....
I would have thought May would be more likely to promote someone from within the Cabinet than bring someone straight into Defence. So someone like Patel at (12/1) or Brokenshire (not listed)
You can't move Brokenshire at the moment - NI needs his full attention.
Well to a point - it'll be sectarian gridlock at worst and sectarian near gridlock at best whoever is keeping an eye on the place.
We don’t really know what the public are thinking at the moment, but a large number of people thinking something doesn’t neccessarily make it right.
Also I don’t think that JFK example works as a simply ‘politicians love sex’ example. It has much, much more darker over tones of exploitation and its behaviours like that which are the reason why it’s so important to have the conversation about sexual harrasment, sexual assault, rape and objectification that’s going on.
Also, if you can’t flirt with someone without touching their knee, well, you must be rubbish at flirting.
Questioning some of these things that people consider ‘social norms’ is a good thing, and we should always review what we consider to be ‘norms’. There are many things that today are considered unacceptable, that were not in the past.
It feels like for some it’s not the act of being sexist/misogynistic that is bad, but merely extreme manifestations of sexism and misogyny are bad.
You are young and ( believe) Hindi or Muslim? I suspect you are extremely unrepresentative of British public opinion, which is now as libertine and tolerant as any in the west.
I’m not Hindi or Muslim. My family aren’t religious and I’m mixed race (black and white).
Also, every generation believes in their own tolerance and liberalism. John Stuart Mill probably thought you can’t get anymore liberal than him. Joseph Conrad throught his attitudes to race in Heart of Darkness were progressive.
P.S I don’t profess to represent public opinion, my whole point was about challenging social norms, which are generally the norms lots of people consider acceptable. However, I think many members of the public would consider what you reported of JFK to be unacceptable.
I'm male, white and middle-aged, and I find your views accord very much with my own. Whatever people want to get up to with freely-given consent is fine, but anything that involves coercion or exploitation in any form is not fine. It's simple really.
I think pretty much any decent person, white, black, old or young, middle class or not, would have that view. Coercion and exploitation is beyond the pale. Consensual sex between adults is a matter for them.
We don’t really know what the public are thinking at the moment, but a large number of people thinking something doesn’t neccessarily make it right.
Also I don’t think that JFK example works as a simply ‘politicians love sex’ example. It has much, much more darker over tones of exploitation and its behaviours like that which are the reason why it’s so important to have the conversation about sexual harrasment, sexual assault, rape and objectification that’s going on.
Also, if you can’t flirt with someone without touching their knee, well, you must be rubbish at flirting.
Questioning some of these things that people consider ‘social norms’ is a good thing, and we should always review what we consider to be ‘norms’. There are many things that today are considered unacceptable, that were not in the past.
It feels like for some it’s not the act of being sexist/misogynistic that is bad, but merely extreme manifestations of sexism and misogyny are bad.
You are young and ( believe) Hindi or Muslim? I suspect you are extremely unrepresentative of British public opinion, which is now as libertine and tolerant as any in the west.
Not sure you're exactly uber-representative yourself, Sean...
We don’t really know what the public are thinking at the moment, but a large number of people thinking something doesn’t neccessarily make it right.
Also I don’t think that JFK example works as a simply ‘politicians love sex’ example. It has much, much more darker over tones of exploitation and its behaviours like that which are the reason why it’s so important to have the conversation about sexual harrasment, sexual assault, rape and objectification that’s going on.
Also, if you can’t flirt with someone without touching their knee, well, you must be rubbish at flirting.
Questioning some of these things that people consider ‘social norms’ is a good thing, and we should always review what we consider to be ‘norms’. There are many things that today are considered unacceptable, that were not in the past.
It feels like for some it’s not the act of being sexist/misogynistic that is bad, but merely extreme manifestations of sexism and misogyny are bad.
You are young and ( believe) Hindi or Muslim? I suspect you are extremely unrepresentative of British public opinion, which is now as libertine and tolerant as any in the west.
I’m not Hindi or Muslim. My family aren’t religious and I’m mixed race (black and white).
Also, every generation believes in their own tolerance and liberalism. John Stuart Mill probably thought you can’t get anymore liberal than him. Joseph Conrad throught his attitudes to race in Heart of Darkness were progressive.
P.S I don’t profess to represent public opinion, my whole point was about challenging social norms, which are generally the norms lots of people consider acceptable. However, I think many members of the public would consider what you reported of JFK to be unacceptable.
I'm male, white and middle-aged, and I find your views accord very much with my own. Whatever people want to get up to with freely-given consent is fine, but anything that involves coercion or exploitation in any form is not fine. It's simple really.
Yep, I agree. It’s not very hard to be respectable and considerate of others.
@SamCoatesTimes: No10 want the Michael Fallon resignation to be the first and last. But multiple sources say that No10 fear more may yet go for the cabinet
Comments
I have high standards of moral hygiene.
Then GAME ON.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-372005/Unmasked-The-girl-partied-David-Davis.html
I'd welcome Dave back, but it ain't happening.
We have a government that are essentially incapable of governing because they are consumed by these endless crises created by two factors; democracy and social media.
It used to be that if you wanted to accuse someone of sexual harrassment, no one would publish your story. No one. You were just howling in the wind. The long standing rules of defamation applied - if its a crime, prove it in court. Otherwise STFU.
Now anyone can say anything about anything and it can then cause a crisis that brings down the government. Any comment by anyone - no matter how true or false - and no matter how long ago it was made - can bring someone down. Look at O'Mara. Look at Fallon. I'm not trying to excuse what they have done, I'm just pointing out the problems the fallout has created.
The end game is that you just have no coherant government. Interestingly, Iceland might be the first example of this. The establishment party has 30% of the vote, in decline. The other parties are just random upstart groups of politicians and their supporters. The last coalition had three parties, a majority of one, and lasted a year. In the elections, the minor coalition party got wiped out. The next coalition will have at least four parties, if they can even agree to form a government. Iceland may only have 300,000 people, but it is still a soveriegn nation. It is part of NATO. The chinese are circling. It is a player in the arctic.
We have weak and indecisive governments, consumed by perpetual crises, who do not have the trust of voters and fall prey to every misguided public whim no matter what the cost.
I absolutely see this as the end of the west. It is falling apart much faster than I could ever envisage. Who knows what happens next. God help us.
Also I don’t think that JFK example works as a simply ‘politicians love sex’ example. It has much, much more darker over tones of exploitation and its behaviours like that which are the reason why it’s so important to have the conversation about sexual harrasment, sexual assault, rape and objectification that’s going on.
Also, if you can’t flirt with someone without touching their knee, well, you must be rubbish at flirting.
Questioning some of these things that people consider ‘social norms’ is a good thing, and we should always review what we consider to be ‘norms’. There are many things that today are considered unacceptable, that were not in the past.
It feels like for some it’s not the act of being sexist/misogynistic that is bad, but merely extreme manifestations of sexism and misogyny are bad.
It does seem a job that is hardly worth it - I try not to give them too much credit, but while the pay is ok and you get publicity and connections, your reputation is garbage as an MP and you won't even get credit for the good things you do.
I'm not even opposed entirely to the job being a little bit of a burden, that's why it is a public service, not a cool job for wonks, but it can be a cruel job even to the undeserving.
I'll get my coat.
Not all transgressions are equal is something that I think is probably a good thing to keep in mind in these times.
Unless some serious accusation emerges.
...created a Minister for Peace and Disarmament to lead this work[conflict
prevention and resolution, post conflict peacebuilding, and justice for the victims of war crimes]
So we're almost there.
Tears for Fears are touring next year...
Also, every generation believes in their own tolerance and liberalism. John Stuart Mill probably thought you can’t get anymore liberal than him. Joseph Conrad throught his attitudes to race in Heart of Darkness were progressive.
P.S I don’t profess to represent public opinion, my whole point was about challenging social norms, which are generally the norms lots of people consider acceptable. However, I think many members of the public would consider what you reported of JFK to be unacceptable.
Or not.
OK, OK, I'll stop.
A resigning matter is harassment, a relationship with a power difference (intern, junior staffer) or an assault. A clumsy pass at a feisty middle-aged columnist who shrugged it off doesn’t meet that standard.
Other allegations published without naming names are more serious, and if those relate to Ministers they’re in trouble too. The alleged cover-up of a rape is the most serious we’ve seen so far, but that doesn’t refer to an MP rather a party official.
I am on Tobias Ellwood at 11.
...journalists.
Hard to imagine a somewhat inebriated journo touching a colleague's knee.
https://www.itv.com/news/2017-10-31/woman-who-claims-she-was-sexually-assaulted-by-mp-accuses-parliament-of-failing-to-act/
Although if there are two like that out there, someone in the Met deserves a roasting for not knowing the law.
Actually do, they won't really punish you.
Labour seem to be pretending that this has nothing to do with them and that recent procedural changes mean that all is OK. Panglossian doesn't even begin to describe this level of delusion.
And now we find that it is a Cabinet Minister who has been making drunken advances to journalists (assuming there's nothing worse about to come out) who has to resign.
Bizarre.....
NF being an arse.
And to think the more stupid Kippers on here said those Breaking Point posters had no Nazi connotations.
I've backed Ellwood at 11-1, Lancaster is also way too long at 25s I think.
Even a case of rape is difficult to prove after time has elapsed, the CPS find it hard to prosecute if there’s no witnesses and they don’t have a woman in front of them the next day with obvious injuries from a struggle. What does work though, is like in the Hollywood cases where several unconnected victims come forward alleging the same MO.
Men. Women. Power and Sex: A #newsnight special on #bbc2
They are also terrified that the entirely consensual, non-vanilla, non-monogamous sex you describe simply will be exploited by our tabloids for circulation reasons.
"Politicians like sex, shock, politicians like kinky sex, shock, some are even gay, shock."
I'm sorry, but for many in this country that is quite a shock, and remains unacceptable.
I don't like that attitude, and neither do you. But I reckon that is still were we are.
If that were my daughter it happened to, I would be incandescent with fury.
Meanwhile everyone's obsessing about whose knees were touched .......
http://www.timesandstar.co.uk/news/Rory-Stewart-Ive-no-idea-why-my-name-is-on-Westminster-sex-claims-list-54fd35c7-e578-469b-abac-6c73474384b2-ds