Clearly movement from both the Tories and Labour to UKIP there so Henry Bolton may not be flogging a dead horse after all, especially with both parties committed to a transition period.
Clearly some movement from Labour to the Greens too.
I do wonder if "Francis Urhquat" who posts here will feel the need for a new username?
Its all a bit awkward isn't it...
Don’t change it to Jimmy Savile or Bill Cosby.
Technically it is Frank Underwood not Francis Urquhart who has been a bad boy.
As you say, House of Cards is definitely finished now. Unless they try some weird rewrite where Frank gets assassinated in the first 30s of the new season.
I think naming oneself after any politician or hollywood celeb at the moment is rather a dangerous move.
Francis Urwuhart was assassinated in the final series of the British version on the orders of his wife.
We're confusing far too many issues here and are in danger of changing the relationships between men and women for the worse. I can see a time where the only dating will be online. Anything more traditional will require a lawyer present.
What has happened with children where men are reluctant to even smile in their direction will soon apply to male/female contacts. Which man hasn't made a pass at a woman or vice versa? Sometimes they might read the signals wrongly but that shouldn't be a police matter or a case for dismissal.
I was with my little niece at a fair recently and she was on a ride. When it finished she was left on her own because the man running the ride wouldn't pick her up and bring her to me. I had to clambour over the machinery and pick her up myself. I was embarrassed for him.
In Italy and Spain and to a lesser extent France it's completely different. The females at the companies I work for hug you when they greet you link arms when they walk beside you kiss you when they like something you've done and go to sleep on you on airoplanes......
...And they love children. It's a nice cheerful environment to work in
My Spanish producer tells what she considers the hilarious story of when she met the family of her Old Etonian English boyfriend. He shook hands with his Mother!
You are in John Humphreys territory here and his claim is absurd. The usual rules of courting still apply, ask politely to break the ice, if the offer is declined desist. In the late 70s and 80s my peers, middle class grammar school boys saw initial rejection as a challenge, that should have been unacceptable then, it is now!
I was brought up to realise the antics of Hopkins are grossly unacceptable, O'Mara cowardly (as he hid behind electronic anonymity) and Fallon rude and boorish. All are wrong and they always were, even if once they were brushed off as merely 'boys will be boys'!
Fallon should be suspended by the party for being a dick!
Being a dick is hardly a reason to suspend someone.
As to your first paragraph, plenty of people have formed lasting relationships with people who initially turned them down.
You are being obtuse.It is back to no meaning no!
O'Mara has been suspended for gross 'dickheadery' and so should Fallon!
The human race would rapidly die out if we adopted your theories.
That is b@llocks!
I think that you must be living in a monastery.
Yeah, alongside JRM, and both of us have managed to continue the human race without being boorish or threatening.
In these days of Tinder and internet dating, it's not as though there's any need to hit on one's work colleagues in the search for a partner / quick fling. Best to be polite and friendly at work and save the naughty stuff for those who are definitely up for it!
I am going to sound so old-fashioned I know. But internet dating sounds so sad. Whatever happened to serendipity, falling for someone unexpected, rather than just looking for someone who matches your predetermined list of desirable characteristics?
Without wishing to go all @SeanT on you all, I have had a number of significant men in my life and none of them would have fitted some predetermined template. And all were lovely in different ways. It is the process of getting to know people and exploration and not writing people off at first glance that makes courtship such fun.
As I say, hopelessly old-fashioned.......
It's not sad at all. As it happens, after being widowed many years ago, I met a wonderful woman a few months ago through internet dating who I'm pretty sure will remain my new long-term partner. We make each other very happy.
The old-fashioned way would have been for me to have become a lonely old man while she continued to live in misery with her oaf of an ex-husband. No thanks.
My son-in-law is in the same position, and is, in his early 50’s far too young, and too lively, to be alone. He too has, through online dating met someone and they seem to be suiting each other very well.
She came to one of our family ‘do’s’ recently and seemed very nice.
Our son-in-law was a wonderful husband to our daughter, but MND took her from all of us a few years ago and now all we want is his happiness. His children have flown the nest, and indeed one of them is ‘nesting' himself.
M<r E, I really, really hope it all works out for you and wish you well.
One young relative of mine, when he was a first year at uni a decade or so ago, used to use the chatup line - and I quote “Do you want to f*** tonight?” on ladies in nightclubs half an hour before closing time. He used to get hundreds of slaps round the face but never left on his own! He said it was just a numbers game.
I have no problem with that approach. Most of the women said "no" and he moved on. One said "yes" so both of them were happy.
The approach may have been boorish, but "No" meant "No" and he understood that. That is what really matters. (I am assuming that since he was playing a numbers game, he had to move along fairly quickly and had no time to pester the woman into changing her mind)
Yes, nothing really wrong with it, consensual although some of the ladies were undoubtedly rather worse for wear, but I was just completely shocked by the whole idea of such a direct approach - and the willingness of some women to engage with that approach! It won’t surprise you to know that the young man concerned now works in sales.
The most successful salesmen I have known have used the same approach - they never wasted time trying to convince people, they simply looked for those who were ready to buy.
In these days of Tinder and internet dating, it's not as though there's any need to hit on one's work colleagues in the search for a partner / quick fling. Best to be polite and friendly at work and save the naughty stuff for those who are definitely up for it!
Tinder is completely shite if you want to have a decent relationship. It's especially bad for men when every woman on there gets 100s of messages a day to choose from.
A lot of people used to meet their partners at work, now it is increasingly going to be frowned on and probably eventually legislated against. No wonder the birth rate is going down rapidly.
The problem usually is that the authorities go from one extreme to another.From nothing happening to Saville , whilst he was alive, to the BBC filming live the searching of Sir Cliff Richards house .
One young relative of mine, when he was a first year at uni a decade or so ago, used to use the chatup line - and I quote “Do you want to f*** tonight?” on ladies in nightclubs half an hour before closing time. He used to get hundreds of slaps round the face but never left on his own! He said it was just a numbers game.
I have no problem with that approach. Most of the women said "no" and he moved on. One said "yes" so both of them were happy.
The approach may have been boorish, but "No" meant "No" and he understood that. That is what really matters. (I am assuming that since he was playing a numbers game, he had to move along fairly quickly and had no time to pester the woman into changing her mind)
Yes, nothing really wrong with it, consensual although some of the ladies were undoubtedly rather worse for wear, but I was just completely shocked by the whole idea of such a direct approach - and the willingness of some women to engage with that approach! It won’t surprise you to know that the young man concerned now works in sales.
The most successful salesmen I have known have used the same approach - they never wasted time trying to convince people, they simply looked for those who were ready to buy.
Tinder is a hopeless case for men and I strongly advise them not to bother with it.
It is completely a numbers game, very much like the example of the man in the club going "do you want to f*** tonight?" Which is no way to meet a quality woman anyway. But moreover, the odds are stacked against you and as gamblers, you should know a losing bet when you see one.
TL;DR from a mathematical study done a couple of years ago:
"It was determined that the bottom 80% of men (in terms of attractiveness) are competing for the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men. The Gini coefficient for the Tinder economy based on “like” percentages was calculated to be 0.58. This means that the Tinder economy has more inequality than 95.1% of all the world’s national economies."
One young relative of mine, when he was a first year at uni a decade or so ago, used to use the chatup line - and I quote “Do you want to f*** tonight?” on ladies in nightclubs half an hour before closing time. He used to get hundreds of slaps round the face but never left on his own! He said it was just a numbers game.
I have no problem with that approach. Most of the women said "no" and he moved on. One said "yes" so both of them were happy.
The approach may have been boorish, but "No" meant "No" and he understood that. That is what really matters. (I am assuming that since he was playing a numbers game, he had to move along fairly quickly and had no time to pester the woman into changing her mind)
Yes, nothing really wrong with it, consensual although some of the ladies were undoubtedly rather worse for wear, but I was just completely shocked by the whole idea of such a direct approach - and the willingness of some women to engage with that approach! It won’t surprise you to know that the young man concerned now works in sales.
The most successful salesmen I have known have used the same approach - they never wasted time trying to convince people, they simply looked for those who were ready to buy.
Tinder is a hopeless case for men and I strongly advise them not to bother with it.
It is completely a numbers game, very much like the example of the man in the club going "do you want to f*** tonight?" Which is no way to meet a quality woman anyway. But moreover, the odds are stacked against you and as gamblers, you should know a losing bet when you see one.
TL;DR from a mathematical study done a couple of years ago:
"It was determined that the bottom 80% of men (in terms of attractiveness) are competing for the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men. The Gini coefficient for the Tinder economy based on “like” percentages was calculated to be 0.58. This means that the Tinder economy has more inequality than 95.1% of all the world’s national economies."
When Corbyn becomes PM perhaps he can tackle these shocking levels of inequality?
In these days of Tinder and internet dating, it's not as though there's any need to hit on one's work colleagues in the search for a partner / quick fling. Best to be polite and friendly at work and save the naughty stuff for those who are definitely up for it!
Tinder is completely shite if you want to have a decent relationship. It's especially bad for men when every woman on there gets 100s of messages a day to choose from.
A lot of people used to meet their partners at work, now it is increasingly going to be frowned on and probably eventually legislated against. No wonder the birth rate is going down rapidly.
"A lot of people used to meet their partners at work, now it is increasingly going to be frowned on and probably eventually legislated against.'
That's to confuse arsehole behaviour by people in positions of power who have an over-inflated opinion of their own worth/desirability, with simply meeting and getting along with people at work (which is what most people do).
It's perfectly possible to get to know someone and eventually become romantically involved without abuse or inappropriate behaviour.
The problem usually is that the authorities go from one extreme to another.From nothing happening to Saville , whilst he was alive, to the BBC filming live the searching of Sir Cliff Richards house .
It's not just the authorities - overreaction is human nature.
In these days of Tinder and internet dating, it's not as though there's any need to hit on one's work colleagues in the search for a partner / quick fling. Best to be polite and friendly at work and save the naughty stuff for those who are definitely up for it!
Tinder is completely shite if you want to have a decent relationship. It's especially bad for men when every woman on there gets 100s of messages a day to choose from.
A lot of people used to meet their partners at work, now it is increasingly going to be frowned on and probably eventually legislated against. No wonder the birth rate is going down rapidly.
I'm not sure that workplace relationships are frowned on as long as the people involved are open about it and one partner does not line manage the other. This actually one area in which things have become more liberal - in the early 1980s a couple of colleagues in a company I was then working for began an affair and when the management found out the woman was forced to leave. That would not happen now.
One young relative of mine, when he was a first year at uni a decade or so ago, used to use the chatup line - and I quote “Do you want to f*** tonight?” on ladies in nightclubs half an hour before closing time. He used to get hundreds of slaps round the face but never left on his own! He said it was just a numbers game.
I have no problem with that approach. Most of the women said "no" and he moved on. One said "yes" so both of them were happy.
The approach may have been boorish, but "No" meant "No" and he understood that. That is what really matters. (I am assuming that since he was playing a numbers game, he had to move along fairly quickly and had no time to pester the woman into changing her mind)
Yes, nothing really wrong with it, consensual although some of the ladies were undoubtedly rather worse for wear, but I was just completely shocked by the whole idea of such a direct approach - and the willingness of some women to engage with that approach! It won’t surprise you to know that the young man concerned now works in sales.
The most successful salesmen I have known have used the same approach - they never wasted time trying to convince people, they simply looked for those who were ready to buy.
Tinder is a hopeless case for men and I strongly advise them not to bother with it.
It is completely a numbers game, very much like the example of the man in the club going "do you want to f*** tonight?" Which is no way to meet a quality woman anyway. But moreover, the odds are stacked against you and as gamblers, you should know a losing bet when you see one.
TL;DR from a mathematical study done a couple of years ago:
"It was determined that the bottom 80% of men (in terms of attractiveness) are competing for the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men. The Gini coefficient for the Tinder economy based on “like” percentages was calculated to be 0.58. This means that the Tinder economy has more inequality than 95.1% of all the world’s national economies."
It probably takes some pretty rigorous self examination to be able to admit you're in the bottom half (or 1/5 or 4/5s) of loveliness.
One young relative of mine, when he was a first year at uni a decade or so ago, used to use the chatup line - and I quote “Do you want to f*** tonight?” on ladies in nightclubs half an hour before closing time. He used to get hundreds of slaps round the face but never left on his own! He said it was just a numbers game.
I have no problem with that approach. Most of the women said "no" and he moved on. One said "yes" so both of them were happy.
The approach may have been boorish, but "No" meant "No" and he understood that. That is what really matters. (I am assuming that since he was playing a numbers game, he had to move along fairly quickly and had no time to pester the woman into changing her mind)
Yes, nothing really wrong with it, consensual although some of the ladies were undoubtedly rather worse for wear, but I was just completely shocked by the whole idea of such a direct approach - and the willingness of some women to engage with that approach! It won’t surprise you to know that the young man concerned now works in sales.
The most successful salesmen I have known have used the same approach - they never wasted time trying to convince people, they simply looked for those who were ready to buy.
Tinder is a hopeless case for men and I strongly advise them not to bother with it.
It is completely a numbers game, very much like the example of the man in the club going "do you want to f*** tonight?" Which is no way to meet a quality woman anyway. But moreover, the odds are stacked against you and as gamblers, you should know a losing bet when you see one.
TL;DR from a mathematical study done a couple of years ago:
"It was determined that the bottom 80% of men (in terms of attractiveness) are competing for the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men. The Gini coefficient for the Tinder economy based on “like” percentages was calculated to be 0.58. This means that the Tinder economy has more inequality than 95.1% of all the world’s national economies."
When Corbyn becomes PM perhaps he can tackle these shocking levels of inequality?
There's a Ted Chiang short story called “Liking What You See: A Documentary” based around that premise. Like most of Chiang's work, I seem to remember it was a pretty good read.
It is completely a numbers game, very much like the example of the man in the club going "do you want to f*** tonight?" Which is no way to meet a quality woman anyway. But moreover, the odds are stacked against you and as gamblers, you should know a losing bet when you see one.
TL;DR from a mathematical study done a couple of years ago:
"It was determined that the bottom 80% of men (in terms of attractiveness) are competing for the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men. The Gini coefficient for the Tinder economy based on “like” percentages was calculated to be 0.58. This means that the Tinder economy has more inequality than 95.1% of all the world’s national economies."
When Corbyn becomes PM perhaps he can tackle these shocking levels of inequality?
The problem, to put it bluntly, is that most men are horny and will (when their friends aren't watching) "go with" a woman of significantly less attractiveness. Tinder facilitates this.
This has the result of, shall we say, less desirable women in real life gaining a disproportionate number of matches from men looking for a bit of action on the sly. These women then gain a distorted impression of their own attractiveness (while simultaneously wondering why Mr Hottie doesn't stick around past the initial pump-and-dump), thus distorting the sexual marketplace for guys and girls alike.
It is a fascinating study in distortions in the marketplace, for the economically inclined.
I have found nothing is as effective as walking up to a girl in a bar and saying "hello". Particularly when wearing a rather nice watch.
In these days of Tinder and internet dating, it's not as though there's any need or it!
I am going to sound so old-fashioned I know. But internet dating sounds so sad. Whatever happened to serendipity, falling for someone unexpected, rather than just looking for someone who matches your predetermined list of desirable characteristics?
Without wishing to go all @SeanT on you all, I have had a number of significant men in my life and none of them would have fitted some predetermined template. And all were lovely in different ways. It is the process of getting to know people and exploration and not writing people off at first glance that makes courtship such fun.
As I say, hopelessly old-fashioned.......
I know a couple who met online, not through Internet dating and looking for a partner, but because they played an online roLe playing game together, got to know each other a bit for real, eventually met in person after some transatlantic flights, and are now married with kids.
That was kind of new and old fashioned.
It sounds rather sweet.
Well at least the 'female' wasn't a 25 stone 55 year old bloke called Chuck, living in his mums basement
I went to a management conference in 2009 and the board were up on stage giving out the message "you need to trust us during this difficult time". The colleague sat next to me pointed out (because he knew) that at least 80% of those on stage had cheated or were cheating on their partners, usually with member(s) of their staff. As my colleague said: how can they expect to be trusted?".
It's the same with politicians imo. The seek our trust to do the right thing during difficult times - they need to evidence high levels of trustworthiness.
In these days of Tinder and internet dating, it's not as though there's any need to hit on one's work colleagues in the search for a partner / quick fling. Best to be polite and friendly at work and save the naughty stuff for those who are definitely up for it!
Tinder is completely shite if you want to have a decent relationship. It's especially bad for men when every woman on there gets 100s of messages a day to choose from.
A lot of people used to meet their partners at work, now it is increasingly going to be frowned on and probably eventually legislated against. No wonder the birth rate is going down rapidly.
I'm not sure that workplace relationships are frowned on as long as the people involved are open about it and one partner does not line manage the other. This actually one area in which things have become more liberal - in the early 1980s a couple of colleagues in a company I was then working for began an affair and when the management found out the woman was forced to leave. That would not happen now.
In the US (where else?) I think it's quite common to have "no dating" rules for employees.
It is completely a numbers game, very much like the example of the man in the club going "do you want to f*** tonight?" Which is no way to meet a quality woman anyway. But moreover, the odds are stacked against you and as gamblers, you should know a losing bet when you see one.
TL;DR from a mathematical study done a couple of years ago:
"It was determined that the bottom 80% of men (in terms of attractiveness) are competing for the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men. The Gini coefficient for the Tinder economy based on “like” percentages was calculated to be 0.58. This means that the Tinder economy has more inequality than 95.1% of all the world’s national economies."
When Corbyn becomes PM perhaps he can tackle these shocking levels of inequality?
The problem, to put it bluntly, is that most men are horny and will (when their friends aren't watching) "go with" a woman of significantly less attractiveness. Tinder facilitates this.
This has the result of, shall we say, less desirable women in real life gaining a disproportionate number of matches from men looking for a bit of action on the sly. These women then gain a distorted impression of their own attractiveness (while simultaneously wondering why Mr Hottie doesn't stick around past the initial pump-and-dump), thus distorting the sexual marketplace for guys and girls alike.
It is a fascinating study in distortions in the marketplace, for the economically inclined.
I have found nothing is as effective as walking up to a girl in a bar and saying "hello". Particularly when wearing a rather nice watch.
This was all making sense until you got to the 'nice watch' bit. Do women really think 'cor, look at that watch!' ?
And of course you can buy her cartoons. They make great Christmas gifts, although I think the original of the one atop this thread could be a valuable investment depending how far this story goes.
And of course you can buy her cartoons. They make great Christmas gifts, although I think the original of the one atop this thread could be a valuable investment depending how far this story goes.
Yes, it was a shame they were cut short Scott, but you can understand why.
The original of that cartoon was sold this morning (to an MP, no less!) but I guess she might do you a copy.....for a small consideration!
Rather like Westminster, Hollywood has been covering up some very dodgy stuff for decades now. It’s all about to come tumbling down like a, umm, what’s the expression...?
I went to a management conference in 2009 and the board were up on stage giving out the message "you need to trust us during this difficult time". The colleague sat next to me pointed out (because he knew) that at least 80% of those on stage had cheated or were cheating on their partners, usually with member(s) of their staff. As my colleague said: how can they expect to be trusted?".
It's the same with politicians imo. The seek our trust to do the right thing during difficult times - they need to evidence high levels of trustworthiness.
But "trustworthiness" is not absolute - people can be trustworthy in some aspects of their personality and not in others. I trust my colleagues to manage money but I have no idea if they are cheating on their partners and even if they were this would not affect my view of their trustworthiness when money was concerned. Indeed, if such irrelevant considerations led me to dismiss someone they would have a cast iron case against me at an ET.
Its reported that Jeremy Corbyn promoted his ally Kelvin Hopkins to the shadow cabinet AFTER allegations of sexual harrassment were made against Hopkins. Corbyn is shown on BBC news shuffling along the street refusing to answer questions.
In these days of Tinder and internet dating, it's not as though there's any need to hit on one's work colleagues in the search for a partner / quick fling. Best to be polite and friendly at work and save the naughty stuff for those who are definitely up for it!
Tinder is completely shite if you want to have a decent relationship. It's especially bad for men when every woman on there gets 100s of messages a day to choose from.
A lot of people used to meet their partners at work, now it is increasingly going to be frowned on and probably eventually legislated against. No wonder the birth rate is going down rapidly.
BBC reporting on Hopkins includes his accuser going public and states that Jeremy Corbyn did know of the accusations when he promoted Hopkins to the shadow cabinet
"A House of Commons spokesman said: "The House Authorities take their responsibility for the welfare of those who work in and visit the Commons Estate very seriously."
BBC reporting on Hopkins includes his accuser going public and states that Jeremy Corbyn did know of the accusations when he promoted Hopkins to the shadow cabinet
And that he was only suspended last night after the party became aware that the accuser had given an interview to a national newspaper.
Its reported that Jeremy Corbyn promoted his ally Kelvin Hopkins to the shadow cabinet AFTER allegations of sexual harrassment were made against Hopkins. Corbyn is shown on BBC news shuffling along the street refusing to answer questions.
Prime minister in waiting?
He would be waiting a long time for you or big g to ever give him a fair hearing , never mind PM.
BBC reporting on Hopkins includes his accuser going public and states that Jeremy Corbyn did know of the accusations when he promoted Hopkins to the shadow cabinet
And that he was only suspended last night after the party became aware that the accuser had given an interview to a national newspaper.
The cover-up is the story. Again.
Fire up the independent Chakrabarti inquiry machine...
In these days of Tinder and internet dating, it's not as though there's any need to hit on one's work colleagues in the search for a partner / quick fling. Best to be polite and friendly at work and save the naughty stuff for those who are definitely up for it!
Tinder is completely shite if you want to have a decent relationship. It's especially bad for men when every woman on there gets 100s of messages a day to choose from.
A lot of people used to meet their partners at work, now it is increasingly going to be frowned on and probably eventually legislated against. No wonder the birth rate is going down rapidly.
Its reported that Jeremy Corbyn promoted his ally Kelvin Hopkins to the shadow cabinet AFTER allegations of sexual harrassment were made against Hopkins. Corbyn is shown on BBC news shuffling along the street refusing to answer questions.
Prime minister in waiting?
He would be waiting a long time for you or big g to ever give him a fair hearing , never mind PM.
Fair hearing? The Corbynista line on everything is to blame it all a la Trump on fake news, media conspiracy or unfair hearing. Corbyn the eternal victim. The reality is that he is totally unfit to be prime minister and that if he ever achieves power, he will pave the way for Tory rule for decades. "Remember Jeremy Corbyn" will be the slogan in every Tory election broadcast for a generation. (and I'm a Labour voter.)
I went to a management conference in 2009 and the board were up on stage giving out the message "you need to trust us during this difficult time". The colleague sat next to me pointed out (because he knew) that at least 80% of those on stage had cheated or were cheating on their partners, usually with member(s) of their staff. As my colleague said: how can they expect to be trusted?".
It's the same with politicians imo. The seek our trust to do the right thing during difficult times - they need to evidence high levels of trustworthiness.
But "trustworthiness" is not absolute - people can be trustworthy in some aspects of their personality and not in others. I trust my colleagues to manage money but I have no idea if they are cheating on their partners and even if they were this would not affect my view of their trustworthiness when money was concerned. Indeed, if such irrelevant considerations led me to dismiss someone they would have a cast iron case against me at an ET.
We'll probably have to disagree on this one. I accept we all break promises and cheat to some extent but most of us manage to keep that to very minor matters. If someone cheats on their partner is says something about their willingness to pursue their own ends at the expense of others; if they think they can get away with it they will.
Its reported that Jeremy Corbyn promoted his ally Kelvin Hopkins to the shadow cabinet AFTER allegations of sexual harrassment were made against Hopkins. Corbyn is shown on BBC news shuffling along the street refusing to answer questions.
Prime minister in waiting?
He would be waiting a long time for you or big g to ever give him a fair hearing , never mind PM.
Fair hearing? The Corbynista line on everything is to blame it all a la Trump on fake news, media conspiracy or unfair hearing. Corbyn the eternal victim. The reality is that he is totally unfit to be prime minister and that if he ever achieves power, he will pave the way for Tory rule for decades. "Remember Jeremy Corbyn" will be the slogan in every Tory election broadcast for a generation. (and I'm a Labour voter.)
Haha, if the Tories thought that was true they'd call a GE and usher him in is asap to bring about that 'Tory rule for decades'.
As it is, after this lot depart leaving a post-Brexit shambles it might well be 'no Tory rule for decades'!
Roger's post in summary: "Why can't women just do what I think they should, and everyone will be happy"
LOL, its not just Roger who seems to feel that way either. It’s truly stunning how an overall debate which is supposed to be about safety and respect in the work place is being turned into ‘what about men and their ability to get sex’ because they might not be able to touch up women’s knees anymore, or make random sexual comments to women in the work place. If a guy has to touch someone on the knee in order to indicate they fancy them, that guy isn’t very good at flirting and really needs to improve.
Likewise, it’s stunning that seemingly any behaviour bar the most extreme (rape) appears to be regarded at a minimum as not serious nor a cause for concern among some. foxinthesoxuk rightly noted that it’s the offences on the ‘smaller’ scale that can create the environment in which leads to the bigger offences being committed.
It’s not prudery to expect to go work, and to be able to do your job peacefully without someone making the workplace revolve around their libido.
Also, a very good point by stodge re political point scoring. Interestingly I see it’s been done in some cases by those who are in the ‘witch hunt/you’re all prudes!!!!!!’ corner while simultaneously outraged that the press aren’t making it party political against their political opponents.
Its reported that Jeremy Corbyn promoted his ally Kelvin Hopkins to the shadow cabinet AFTER allegations of sexual harrassment were made against Hopkins. Corbyn is shown on BBC news shuffling along the street refusing to answer questions.
Prime minister in waiting?
He would be waiting a long time for you or big g to ever give him a fair hearing , never mind PM.
I do not support Corbyn with his hard left Marxist view of the World and even more so John McDonnell who is even worse.
However, I fail to see the connection with the present story of him appointing Hopkins after the sexual abuse was known and his Office doing nothing until caught out in the last few days.
This is the story as so many on here say - it is the cover up that is the issue
I went to a management conference in 2009 and the board were up on stage giving out the message "you need to trust us during this difficult time". The colleague sat next to me pointed out (because he knew) that at least 80% of those on stage had cheated or were cheating on their partners, usually with member(s) of their staff. As my colleague said: how can they expect to be trusted?".
It's the same with politicians imo. The seek our trust to do the right thing during difficult times - they need to evidence high levels of trustworthiness.
But "trustworthiness" is not absolute - people can be trustworthy in some aspects of their personality and not in others. I trust my colleagues to manage money but I have no idea if they are cheating on their partners and even if they were this would not affect my view of their trustworthiness when money was concerned. Indeed, if such irrelevant considerations led me to dismiss someone they would have a cast iron case against me at an ET.
We'll probably have to disagree on this one. I accept we all break promises and cheat to some extent but most of us manage to keep that to very minor matters. If someone cheats on their partner is says something about their willingness to pursue their own ends at the expense of others; if they think they can get away with it they will.
Indeed so. If someone can’t be trusted by his own wife, then why on earth does he think that anyone else would want to trust him?
So I guess David Davis will be resigning as Brexit Secretary soon and triggering a by election?
The government's data protection bill was meant to give people control over their information. Instead it will strip millions of their rights.
The supposed intention of the legislation is to "empower people to take control of their data". But schedule 2.4 removes data protection rights from individuals when their personal information is processed for "the maintenance of effective immigration control" or "the investigation or detection of activities that would interfere with effective immigration control".
In technical terms, that means any government agency processing data for immigration purposes will be free of those pesky data protection obligations we've developed through successive Acts of parliament – and signed up to through the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
In practice the exemption will create a two-tier data rights regime. When an agency relies on the exemption, individuals will lose their right to know what information is held about them, who is processing it and why.
They will not be able to correct or erase information held about them – which doesn't bode well considering how much of the data held on us is out of date or just plain wrong.
The Home Office is a notoriously poor data controller. There are countless examples. Just last month Dr Mohsen Danaie was told he had "no lawful basis to be in the UK". He would be forcibly removed if he didn't leave voluntarily. Dr Danaie is a research scientist – and has a work visa valid until 2019.
I went to a management conference in 2009 and the board were up on stage giving out the message "you need to trust us during this difficult time". The colleague sat next to me pointed out (because he knew) that at least 80% of those on stage had cheated or were cheating on their partners, usually with member(s) of their staff. As my colleague said: how can they expect to be trusted?".
It's the same with politicians imo. The seek our trust to do the right thing during difficult times - they need to evidence high levels of trustworthiness.
But "trustworthiness" is not absolute - people can be trustworthy in some aspects of their personality and not in others. I trust my colleagues to manage money but I have no idea if they are cheating on their partners and even if they were this would not affect my view of their trustworthiness when money was concerned. Indeed, if such irrelevant considerations led me to dismiss someone they would have a cast iron case against me at an ET.
We'll probably have to disagree on this one. I accept we all break promises and cheat to some extent but most of us manage to keep that to very minor matters. If someone cheats on their partner is says something about their willingness to pursue their own ends at the expense of others; if they think they can get away with it they will.
Indeed so. If someone can’t be trusted by his own wife, then why on earth does he think that anyone else would want to trust him?
Personally I went off Chris Huhne when I found that he had left his wife fighting cancer for his secretary. Having voted for him in the leadership contest I felt that such poor conduct in his personal life affected my opinion of his professional judgement. And then of course everything came out about dodging the speeding points. I did wonder whether there was a link, or at least his personal conduct should have been a warning flag?
I seem to be a bit more in-keeping with the new Puritanism than I thought.
Fortunately the Catholic-burning aspect is as yet unaffected.
I'm surprised it's taken so long, Lewes has been a lefty sort of place for about 20 years.
Is blacking up worse than burning effigies of the Pope and Catholics? Because the whole unpleasant event is essentially a celebration of a rather nasty period in history when Catholics were tortured and killed for real!
So I guess David Davis will be resigning as Brexit Secretary soon and triggering a by election?
Snip
Amber Rudd’s department, she needs to get a serious grip on the immigration systems - the data contained within them is clearly bollox in far too many cases.
In these days of Tinder and internet dating, it's not as though there's any need to hit on one's work colleagues in the search for a partner / quick fling. Best to be polite and friendly at work and save the naughty stuff for those who are definitely up for it!
I am going to sound so old-fashioned I know. But internet dating sounds so sad. Whatever happened to serendipity, falling for someone unexpected, rather than just looking for someone who matches your predetermined list of desirable characteristics?
Without wishing to go all @SeanT on you all, I have had a number of significant men in my life and none of them would have fitted some predetermined template. And all were lovely in different ways. It is the process of getting to know people and exploration and not writing people off at first glance that makes courtship such fun.
As I say, hopelessly old-fashioned.......
It's not sad at all. As it happens, after being widowed many years ago, I met a wonderful woman a few months ago through internet dating who I'm pretty sure will remain my new long-term partner. We make each other very happy.
The old-fashioned way would have been for me to have become a lonely old man while she continued to live in misery with her oaf of an ex-husband. No thanks.
My son-in-law is in the same position, and is, in his early 50’s far too young, and too lively, to be alone. He too has, through online dating met someone and they seem to be suiting each other very well.
She came to one of our family ‘do’s’ recently and seemed very nice.
Our son-in-law was a wonderful husband to our daughter, but MND took her from all of us a few years ago and now all we want is his happiness. His children have flown the nest, and indeed one of them is ‘nesting' himself.
M
I'm very sorry that you had to lose your daughter at such a young age. The loss of a child has got to be the one thing worse than losing your wife/husband. And, yes, it sounds like your son-in-law's situation mirrors my own very closely. Thank you for your good wishes!
The allegations about Jeremy Corbyn's handling of Kelvin Hopkins are appalling. They deserve the closest scrutiny.
If proved, they should (but won't) be a resigning matter.
What are the allegations?
"Labour MP Jess Phillips said promoting Mr Hopkins "didn't look good to the victim". She told Sky News: "I know, because I have spoken to her and met her, that at the time she felt that her complaint had been handled the way she wanted it to."
Corbyn won’t resign, but the way Labour appear to have handled a lot of these allegations just reinforces the my overall reluctance to support the party.
It was much easier in the last parliament , when you could sack someone for a tweet showing a picture of an England flag.
I think the point in that case was that the shadow foreign secretary was sneering and looking down her nose at people who displayed England flags on their homes.
Corbyn won’t resign, but the way Labour appear to have handled a lot of these allegations just reinforces the my overall reluctance to support the party.
It will depend on how many more complaints of cover ups there are but the Evening Standard headline and the BBC interview with Hopkins accuser are not a good look
The allegations about Jeremy Corbyn's handling of Kelvin Hopkins are appalling. They deserve the closest scrutiny.
If proved, they should (but won't) be a resigning matter.
It will depend on the scale of cover up and media pressure
I really don't think media pressure will have the slightest effect on Jezza.
No, we can agree on that. This will be like the expenses scandal - politicians in general will be damaged rather than one particular party.
Though I think people will be less surprised about this than they were about expenses - unwanted sexual advances can occur in all walks of life but most people do not have access to uncontrolled expense accounts.
One young relative of mine, when he was a first year at uni a decade or so ago, used to use the chatup line - and I quote “Do you want to f*** tonight?” on ladies in nightclubs half an hour before closing time. He used to get hundreds of slaps round the face but never left on his own! He said it was just a numbers game.
I have no problem with that approach. Most of the women said "no" and he moved on. One said "yes" so both of them were happy.
The approach may have been boorish, but "No" meant "No" and he understood that. That is what really matters. (I am assuming that since he was playing a numbers game, he had to move along fairly quickly and had no time to pester the woman into changing her mind)
Yes, nothing really wrong with it, consensual although some of the ladies were undoubtedly rather worse for wear, but I was just completely shocked by the whole idea of such a direct approach - and the willingness of some women to engage with that approach! It won’t surprise you to know that the young man concerned now works in sales.
The most successful salesmen I have known have used the same approach - they never wasted time trying to convince people, they simply looked for those who were ready to buy.
Similar experience - a work colleague’s line was “Hello my name is Joe Bloggs do you want to sleep with me?”
Now a multimillionaire (he was far from that then!)
It was much easier in the last parliament , when you could sack someone for a tweet showing a picture of an England flag.
I think the point in that case was that the shadow foreign secretary was sneering and looking down her nose at people who displayed England flags on their homes.
Roger's post in summary: "Why can't women just do what I think they should, and everyone will be happy"
LOL, its not just Roger who seems to feel that way either. It’s truly stunning how an overall debate which is supposed to be about safety and respect in the work place is being turned into ‘what about men and their ability to get sex’ because they might not be able to touch up women’s knees anymore, or make random sexual comments to women in the work place. If a guy has to touch someone on the knee in order to indicate they fancy them, that guy isn’t very good at flirting and really needs to improve.
Likewise, it’s stunning that seemingly any behaviour bar the most extreme (rape) appears to be regarded at a minimum as not serious nor a cause for concern among some. foxinthesoxuk rightly noted that it’s the offences on the ‘smaller’ scale that can create the environment in which leads to the bigger offences being committed.
It’s not prudery to expect to go work, and to be able to do your job peacefully without someone making the workplace revolve around their libido.
Also, a very good point by stodge re political point scoring. Interestingly I see it’s been done in some cases by those who are in the ‘witch hunt/you’re all prudes!!!!!!’ corner while simultaneously outraged that the press aren’t making it party political against their political opponents.
It was much easier in the last parliament , when you could sack someone for a tweet showing a picture of an England flag.
I think the point in that case was that the shadow foreign secretary was sneering and looking down her nose at people who displayed England flags on their homes.
Or was she?
The point is the comment could (and was) easily interpreted as such
Roger's post in summary: "Why can't women just do what I think they should, and everyone will be happy"
LOL, its not just Roger who seems to feel that way either. It’s truly stunning how an overall debate which is supposed to be about safety and respect in the work place is being turned into ‘what about men and their ability to get sex’ because they might not be able to touch up women’s knees anymore, or make random sexual comments to women in the work place. If a guy has to touch someone on the knee in order to indicate they fancy them, that guy isn’t very good at flirting and really needs to improve.
Likewise, it’s stunning that seemingly any behaviour bar the most extreme (rape) appears to be regarded at a minimum as not serious nor a cause for concern among some. foxinthesoxuk rightly noted that it’s the offences on the ‘smaller’ scale that can create the environment in which leads to the bigger offences being committed.
It’s not prudery to expect to go work, and to be able to do your job peacefully without someone making the workplace revolve around their libido.
Also, a very good point by stodge re political point scoring. Interestingly I see it’s been done in some cases by those who are in the ‘witch hunt/you’re all prudes!!!!!!’ corner while simultaneously outraged that the press aren’t making it party political against their political opponents.
We seem to be in agreement.
I thought you made a fantastic point earlier on, that re a lot of men’s ‘worrying’ about social interactions - that women have had to pretty much ‘worry’ about social interactions for a long time now.
One young relative of mine, when he was a first year at uni a decade or so ago, used to use the chatup line - and I quote “Do you want to f*** tonight?” on ladies in nightclubs half an hour before closing time. He used to get hundreds of slaps round the face but never left on his own! He said it was just a numbers game.
I have no problem with that approach. Most of the women said "no" and he moved on. One said "yes" so both of them were happy.
The approach may have been boorish, but "No" meant "No" and he understood that. That is what really matters. (I am assuming that since he was playing a numbers game, he had to move along fairly quickly and had no time to pester the woman into changing her mind)
Yes, nothing really wrong with it, consensual although some of the ladies were undoubtedly rather worse for wear, but I was just completely shocked by the whole idea of such a direct approach - and the willingness of some women to engage with that approach! It won’t surprise you to know that the young man concerned now works in sales.
Indeed. Target driven, managing his pipeline, looking after his territory and going for the close.
Corbyn won’t resign, but the way Labour appear to have handled a lot of these allegations just reinforces the my overall reluctance to support the party.
It will depend on how many more complaints of cover ups there are but the Evening Standard headline and the BBC interview with Hopkins accuser are not a good look
Corbyn’s supporters will never stop supporting him, so there will be no internal pressure to resign.
I voted Labour for 40 years. I have no one to vote for now because Jeremy Corbyn is totally unfit to be prime minister. Time for people to stop turning a blind eye to this man because of the student tuition and other voter bribes and for them to acknowledge that the worst possible thing that could happen to Labour would be for him to become prime minister.
Every now and again we get a glimpse of what it would be like if Corbyn was prime minister. The spectacle of Corbyn running away from the cameras as he was asked why he promoted Kelvin Hopkins underlines once more that if he ever walked into Number Ten he would toxify Labour for a generation and pave the way for decades of Tory rule.
Corbyn won’t resign, but the way Labour appear to have handled a lot of these allegations just reinforces the my overall reluctance to support the party.
It will depend on how many more complaints of cover ups there are but the Evening Standard headline and the BBC interview with Hopkins accuser are not a good look
Corbyn’s supporters will never stop supporting him, so there will be no internal pressure to resign.
Roger's post in summary: "Why can't women just do what I think they should, and everyone will be happy"
LOL, its not just Roger who seems to feel that way either. It’s truly stunning how an overall debate which is supposed to be about safety and respect in the work place is being turned into ‘what about men and their ability to get sex’ because they might not be able to touch up women’s knees anymore, or make random sexual comments to women in the work place. If a guy has to touch someone on the knee in order to indicate they fancy them, that guy isn’t very good at flirting and really needs to improve.
Likewise, it’s stunning that seemingly any behaviour bar the most extreme (rape) appears to be regarded at a minimum as not serious nor a cause for concern among some. foxinthesoxuk rightly noted that it’s the offences on the ‘smaller’ scale that can create the environment in which leads to the bigger offences being committed.
It’s not prudery to expect to go work, and to be able to do your job peacefully without someone making the workplace revolve around their libido.
Also, a very good point by stodge re political point scoring. Interestingly I see it’s been done in some cases by those who are in the ‘witch hunt/you’re all prudes!!!!!!’ corner while simultaneously outraged that the press aren’t making it party political against their political opponents.
We seem to be in agreement.
I thought you made a fantastic point earlier on, that re a lot of men’s ‘worrying’ about social interactions - that women have had to pretty much ‘worry’ about social interactions for a long time now.
Thanks - occasionally a shaft of enlightenment briefly penetrates the fog...
I voted Labour for 40 years. I have no one to vote for now because Jeremy Corbyn is totally unfit to be prime minister. Time for people to stop turning a blind eye to this man because of the student tuition and other voter bribes and for them to acknowledge that the worst possible thing that could happen to Labour would be for him to become prime minister.
Every now and again we get a glimpse of what it would be like if Corbyn was prime minister. The spectacle of Corbyn running away from the cameras as he was asked why he promoted Kelvin Hopkins underlines once more that if he ever walked into Number Ten he would toxify Labour for a generation and pave the way for decades of Tory rule.
So where does that leave sane members of the Cons and Lab both sets of whom believe their party has been retoxified?
In these days of Tinder and internet dating, it's not as though there's any need or it!
I am going to sound so old-fashioned I know. But internet dating sounds so sad. Whatever happened to serendipity, falling for someone unexpected, rather than just looking for someone who matches your predetermined list of desirable characteristics?
Without wishing to go all @SeanT on you all, I have had a number of significant men in my life and none of them would have fitted some predetermined template. And all were lovely in different ways. It is the process of getting to know people and exploration and not writing people off at first glance that makes courtship such fun.
As I say, hopelessly old-fashioned.......
I know a couple who met online, not through Internet dating and looking for a partner, but because they played an online roLe playing game together, got to know each other a bit for real, eventually met in person after some transatlantic flights, and are now married with kids.
That was kind of new and old fashioned.
It sounds rather sweet.
I met my wife online, way back in 1996. I went to a very small and rather obscure Welsh university and the year before she'd been on a training dig with some archaeology students from there. I had built a "personal homepage" (remember them?) that mentioned the university and she found it and emailed me to ask if I knew any of them and could I help her get in touch. I had left uni a few years before so didn't know those people but we kept on emailing and it went on from there. We've been living together since 2000 (thanks to Ireland's citizenship laws) and married since 2004, and we moved to the US, where she's from, nearly seven years ago now.
I voted Labour for 40 years. I have no one to vote for now because Jeremy Corbyn is totally unfit to be prime minister. Time for people to stop turning a blind eye to this man because of the student tuition and other voter bribes and for them to acknowledge that the worst possible thing that could happen to Labour would be for him to become prime minister.
Every now and again we get a glimpse of what it would be like if Corbyn was prime minister. The spectacle of Corbyn running away from the cameras as he was asked why he promoted Kelvin Hopkins underlines once more that if he ever walked into Number Ten he would toxify Labour for a generation and pave the way for decades of Tory rule.
So where does that leave sane members of the Cons and Lab both sets of whom believe their party has been retoxified?
Third party, perchance?
With Cable in charge, the LDs are going to struggle to convince anyone that they are fit to take up that mantle once again.
I voted Labour for 40 years. I have no one to vote for now because Jeremy Corbyn is totally unfit to be prime minister. Time for people to stop turning a blind eye to this man because of the student tuition and other voter bribes and for them to acknowledge that the worst possible thing that could happen to Labour would be for him to become prime minister.
Every now and again we get a glimpse of what it would be like if Corbyn was prime minister. The spectacle of Corbyn running away from the cameras as he was asked why he promoted Kelvin Hopkins underlines once more that if he ever walked into Number Ten he would toxify Labour for a generation and pave the way for decades of Tory rule.
So where does that leave sane members of the Cons and Lab both sets of whom believe their party has been retoxified?
Third party, perchance?
Yesterday's local elections showed a move to the lib dems
I voted Labour for 40 years. I have no one to vote for now because Jeremy Corbyn is totally unfit to be prime minister. Time for people to stop turning a blind eye to this man because of the student tuition and other voter bribes and for them to acknowledge that the worst possible thing that could happen to Labour would be for him to become prime minister.
Every now and again we get a glimpse of what it would be like if Corbyn was prime minister. The spectacle of Corbyn running away from the cameras as he was asked why he promoted Kelvin Hopkins underlines once more that if he ever walked into Number Ten he would toxify Labour for a generation and pave the way for decades of Tory rule.
So where does that leave sane members of the Cons and Lab both sets of whom believe their party has been retoxified?
Third party, perchance?
I believe there is a massive reconstruction of parties that will come if Corbyn gets his hands on power. It will be the end of the Labour Party. And no, it will not be a rebirth of the Lib Dems -they toxified themselves tenfold in the coalition. But there will be a new party.
I voted Labour for 40 years. I have no one to vote for now because Jeremy Corbyn is totally unfit to be prime minister. Time for people to stop turning a blind eye to this man because of the student tuition and other voter bribes and for them to acknowledge that the worst possible thing that could happen to Labour would be for him to become prime minister.
Every now and again we get a glimpse of what it would be like if Corbyn was prime minister. The spectacle of Corbyn running away from the cameras as he was asked why he promoted Kelvin Hopkins underlines once more that if he ever walked into Number Ten he would toxify Labour for a generation and pave the way for decades of Tory rule.
I voted Labour for 40 years. I have no one to vote for now because Jeremy Corbyn is totally unfit to be prime minister. Time for people to stop turning a blind eye to this man because of the student tuition and other voter bribes and for them to acknowledge that the worst possible thing that could happen to Labour would be for him to become prime minister.
Every now and again we get a glimpse of what it would be like if Corbyn was prime minister. The spectacle of Corbyn running away from the cameras as he was asked why he promoted Kelvin Hopkins underlines once more that if he ever walked into Number Ten he would toxify Labour for a generation and pave the way for decades of Tory rule.
So where does that leave sane members of the Cons and Lab both sets of whom believe their party has been retoxified?
Third party, perchance?
With Cable in charge, the LDs are going to struggle to convince anyone that they are fit to take up that mantle once again.
Whatever happened to scrapheap’s Dry but not obsessed with Europe and the Gays new Tory Party?
This was all making sense until you got to the 'nice watch' bit. Do women really think 'cor, look at that watch!' ?
I bought a flash watch, which my girl friends (not girlfriends) immediately named the fanny magnet.
20 years later, a single person sitting in a bar has commented on it.
He liked it a lot...
The only time I've ever had young women come up to me and engage in conversation out of the blue was when I was waiting outside a shop for my wife and her sister while looking after s-i-l's shih-tzu. I think they were more interested in the dog though.
Corbyn won’t resign, but the way Labour appear to have handled a lot of these allegations just reinforces the my overall reluctance to support the party.
It will depend on how many more complaints of cover ups there are but the Evening Standard headline and the BBC interview with Hopkins accuser are not a good look
Corbyn’s supporters will never stop supporting him, so there will be no internal pressure to resign.
Comments
On women, enjoyed a line in The Alexiad (first history, certainly in the West, by a woman):
“...as if some demi-god was dealing with a demi-ass”
Clearly some movement from Labour to the Greens too.
She came to one of our family ‘do’s’ recently and seemed very nice.
Our son-in-law was a wonderful husband to our daughter, but MND took her from all of us a few years ago and now all we want is his happiness. His children have flown the nest, and indeed one of them is ‘nesting' himself.
M<r E, I really, really hope it all works out for you and wish you well.
A lot of people used to meet their partners at work, now it is increasingly going to be frowned on and probably eventually legislated against. No wonder the birth rate is going down rapidly.
https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a
It is completely a numbers game, very much like the example of the man in the club going "do you want to f*** tonight?" Which is no way to meet a quality woman anyway. But moreover, the odds are stacked against you and as gamblers, you should know a losing bet when you see one.
TL;DR from a mathematical study done a couple of years ago:
"It was determined that the bottom 80% of men (in terms of attractiveness) are competing for the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men. The Gini coefficient for the Tinder economy based on “like” percentages was calculated to be 0.58. This means that the Tinder economy has more inequality than 95.1% of all the world’s national economies."
That's to confuse arsehole behaviour by people in positions of power who have an over-inflated opinion of their own worth/desirability, with simply meeting and getting along with people at work (which is what most people do).
It's perfectly possible to get to know someone and eventually become romantically involved without abuse or inappropriate behaviour.
This has the result of, shall we say, less desirable women in real life gaining a disproportionate number of matches from men looking for a bit of action on the sly. These women then gain a distorted impression of their own attractiveness (while simultaneously wondering why Mr Hottie doesn't stick around past the initial pump-and-dump), thus distorting the sexual marketplace for guys and girls alike.
It is a fascinating study in distortions in the marketplace, for the economically inclined.
I have found nothing is as effective as walking up to a girl in a bar and saying "hello". Particularly when wearing a rather nice watch.
It's the same with politicians imo. The seek our trust to do the right thing during difficult times - they need to evidence high levels of trustworthiness.
You'll need more in a 5* hotel in Hong Kong compared to a hostel in Kunming..
And of course you can buy her cartoons. They make great Christmas gifts, although I think the original of the one atop this thread could be a valuable investment depending how far this story goes.
20 years later, a single person sitting in a bar has commented on it.
He liked it a lot...
Worth repeating, though, to ensure its usage isn't unfairly curtailed.
The original of that cartoon was sold this morning (to an MP, no less!) but I guess she might do you a copy.....for a small consideration!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5044825/Kevin-Spacey-tried-rape-boy-15.html
Rather like Westminster, Hollywood has been covering up some very dodgy stuff for decades now. It’s all about to come tumbling down like a, umm, what’s the expression...?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/03/lewes-bonfire-society-agrees-to-stop-blacking-up-in-annual-parade
Fortunately the Catholic-burning aspect is as yet unaffected.
Prime minister in waiting?
Looked at a Sky News report after Eric Joyce's arrest in 2014.
http://news.sky.com/story/eric-joyce-mp-bailed-after-bar-fight-arrest-10451725
"A House of Commons spokesman said: "The House Authorities take their responsibility for the welfare of those who work in and visit the Commons Estate very seriously."
I have bought 7 others though
The cover-up is the story. Again.
I was just wondering if maybe women value punctuality a bit more than men? (My wife certainly does!)
The mentality of Puritanism never died out, even as the religious beliefs associated with it did.
As it is, after this lot depart leaving a post-Brexit shambles it might well be 'no Tory rule for decades'!
Likewise, it’s stunning that seemingly any behaviour bar the most extreme (rape) appears to be regarded at a minimum as not serious nor a cause for concern among some. foxinthesoxuk rightly noted that it’s the offences on the ‘smaller’ scale that can create the environment in which leads to the bigger offences being committed.
It’s not prudery to expect to go work, and to be able to do your job peacefully without someone making the workplace revolve around their libido.
Also, a very good point by stodge re political point scoring. Interestingly I see it’s been done in some cases by those who are in the ‘witch hunt/you’re all prudes!!!!!!’ corner while simultaneously outraged that the press aren’t making it party political against their political opponents.
However, I fail to see the connection with the present story of him appointing Hopkins after the sexual abuse was known and his Office doing nothing until caught out in the last few days.
This is the story as so many on here say - it is the cover up that is the issue
If proved, they should (but won't) be a resigning matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Fawkes_Night
The government's data protection bill was meant to give people control over their information. Instead it will strip millions of their rights.
The supposed intention of the legislation is to "empower people to take control of their data". But schedule 2.4 removes data protection rights from individuals when their personal information is processed for "the maintenance of effective immigration control" or "the investigation or detection of activities that would interfere with effective immigration control".
In technical terms, that means any government agency processing data for immigration purposes will be free of those pesky data protection obligations we've developed through successive Acts of parliament – and signed up to through the EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
In practice the exemption will create a two-tier data rights regime. When an agency relies on the exemption, individuals will lose their right to know what information is held about them, who is processing it and why.
They will not be able to correct or erase information held about them – which doesn't bode well considering how much of the data held on us is out of date or just plain wrong.
The Home Office is a notoriously poor data controller. There are countless examples. Just last month Dr Mohsen Danaie was told he had "no lawful basis to be in the UK". He would be forcibly removed if he didn't leave voluntarily. Dr Danaie is a research scientist – and has a work visa valid until 2019.
http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2017/11/03/buried-in-a-government-bill-an-immigration-rule-strips-milli
I seem to be a bit more in-keeping with the new Puritanism than I thought.
"Labour MP Jess Phillips said promoting Mr Hopkins "didn't look good to the victim".
She told Sky News: "I know, because I have spoken to her and met her, that at the time she felt that her complaint had been handled the way she wanted it to."
https://news.sky.com/story/jeremy-corbyn-silent-on-promotion-of-suspended-mp-kelvin-hopkins-11111200
So, if it's anonymous, what do you do about people who say yes..?
Though I think people will be less surprised about this than they were about expenses - unwanted sexual advances can occur in all walks of life but most people do not have access to uncontrolled expense accounts.
Now a multimillionaire (he was far from that then!)
Shouldn’t it be “May slammed for Labour sex pest”?
I thought you made a fantastic point earlier on, that re a lot of men’s ‘worrying’ about social interactions - that women have had to pretty much ‘worry’ about social interactions for a long time now.
Requiring someone to resign but not telling them why is not on.
This is not how 'innocent until proven guilty' works.
Every now and again we get a glimpse of what it would be like if Corbyn was prime minister. The spectacle of Corbyn running away from the cameras as he was asked why he promoted Kelvin Hopkins underlines once more that if he ever walked into Number Ten he would toxify Labour for a generation and pave the way for decades of Tory rule.
Third party, perchance?
"pave the way for decades of Tory rule"
You say that like it's a bad thing.
NEW THREAD