Eastern Ukraine was part of Russia for centuries. Prediction: Russia will within the next few years take it and the rest of the world has no plan, and will have no plan to intervene.
It is noteworthy that not a word from the west has made any promises to Ukraine of actual help.
Russia has been putting a huge amount of investment into the Black Sea area around Sochi to turn it into a tourist destination. I'm sure in the long term they want to extend their control over the whole north coast.
The possibility certainly shouldn't be discounted. In crude terms, the linguistic map of Ukraine is northern half Ukrainian speaking, southern half Russian speaking. This divide has also been clearly reflected in Ukrainian elections in the past.
I don't disbelieve you but I do find it bizarre that they want more landmass. Is Russia getting a bit pokey? Need a couple more bedrooms and a garden big enough for a climbing frame?
Ukraine is fertile. The breadbasket of the Russias. And also the spiritual heart of Russia: Kievan Rus
I can see why Putin covets it. And of course if he seizes it, that continues the narrative of Putin the Conqueror, reclaiming lost pride. Not an unknown technique with autocrats
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
Ideally, anyone not in your immediate work area, including a chain of command which goes down all the way to the bottom (ie the most junior employees) and up to middle management. Anyone who's roughly equal to you in another department is fine. Basically the rule is whether you could conceivably wreck their career out of spite if they say no, and therefore whether they are likely to feel any inducement to say yes against their better judgment.
Flirting: not during work hours. Pub after work is easier. Lunch and breaks are a grey area.
It's actually not that complicated and mostly just common sense in terms of understanding what advances are and are not likely to be appreciated. There was a transition period where these questions were real, but almost everyone under 40 now has never worked in an office environment where this wasn't problematic. And those over 40 should axiomatically not be indulging in moonshots at interns.
*axiomatically*
The furious certainty is unnerving
If you say so. I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances, other than she's worried about the consequences of saying no. And either way she has the option of suing the company for failing to prevent him doing so, and the resulting tribunal would very likely side with the junior. It's abuse of power, and a liability for your employer.
You think it is impossible for a younger man to fancy an older woman? OK, fair enough
No, but the reverse case is much more common (jncluding the one that triggered this debate).
So it IS possible then? And it is presumably possible for younger women to fancy older men, unless you have truly bizarre beliefs about gender differences.
Ergo, this statement of yours is false: "I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances"
Go on then, put some numbers on it:
- 40 year old manager in a large organisation, either sex - 22 year old graduate, not directly reporting into the manager but within the same broad segment, the opposite sex to the manager - Essentially no prior social contact between the two, and limited direct professional contact
Manager sends some texts like the one the member for Delyn tried, only better worded. What are the chances that:
a) Graduate says yes, and is happy about it b) Graduate says no, and thinks no more of it c) Graduate says yes, but only because they are worried about consequences of saying no d) Graduate says no, and worries they've irrevocably ruined their career already
Probability of A is (I reckon) less than 1%. B is a neutral outcome, and maybe 40% chance. C and D are bad outcomes and collectively I reckon the remaining 59.x% Recommendation: do not proceed.
Jesus Christ. I'm not going to put percentages on it. I only wanted to make the point that Love is where it Falls, and all kinds of humans fancy all kinds of unexpected other humans, even to the extent of - shudder - younger people fancying older people
But let's just cancel messy romantic seductions and do it all by politically correct online questionnaire, so we can ensure a growing percentage of young people are so timid, scared and confused they end up miserable and alone and having no sex at all, as is actually happening, right now
Charisma, charm, & personality are dirty words now - unfair advantages/privileges. We are living in a spreadsheet world where the stinky, unattractive nerds demand equal access to the hot totty!
This is just a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation.
If you're physically attractive, charismatic, and charming, you'll have no problem meeting people to date, and therefore can avoid people you are in a position of power over in the workplace.
It really isn't complicated.
We have dating apps now. You can literally browse through women and/or men at your leisure whilst sitting on the bog.
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This will not harm Labour's prospects of taking back the seat next time. Back in 1986 I was runner up to David Hanson to be Labour PPC there.
Labour won't take that seat back next time ... because it won't exist.
If the Tories are lucky, when the game of musical chairs ends for the NE Walian seats next time, there isn't one for Rob Roberts.
More likely he’s fighting Mark Tami for a new ‘Deeside’ seat while James Davies and/or Robin Millar takes on the largeish chunk in the West.
Hopefully he will lose, but I don’t know. Alyn and Deeside was a bare save this time and it’s gradually trending blue anyway, even leaving aside the largeish Brexit Party vote. It’s one I think might fall in the assembly elections next month.
Is it me, or does Rob Roberts have the look of a young Andrew RT Davies and/or Paul Davies?
It smacks of Max Boyce's outside half factory but for Welsh reactionary Tories.
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This will not harm Labour's prospects of taking back the seat next time. Back in 1986 I was runner up to David Hanson to be Labour PPC there.
Labour won't take that seat back next time ... because it won't exist.
If the Tories are lucky, when the game of musical chairs ends for the NE Walian seats next time, there isn't one for Rob Roberts.
More likely he’s fighting Mark Tami for a new ‘Deeside’ seat while James Davies and/or Robin Millar takes on the largeish chunk in the West.
Hopefully he will lose, but I don’t know. Alyn and Deeside was a bare save this time and it’s gradually trending blue anyway, even leaving aside the largeish Brexit Party vote. It’s one I think might fall in the assembly elections next month.
The predecessor seat - East Flint - nealy fell to the Tories in 1959. Eirenie White survived by just 75 votes.
The whole situation in Alyn and Deeside is fraught anyway - the whole Carl Sargeant situation is going to be hanging over it, especially as his son is the Labour AM.
If Brexit party voters turn out and vote Tory - which are two big ‘ifs’ but again, the local factors at play make it possible - I think it will go.
Conversely, I still think Labour have a realistic chance of hanging on to Delyn and Clwyd South.
Plus, I'm astonished to learn that some people are prejudiced against the former polytechnics and only think red brick/Russell group universities are the only place to recruit from.
Can you image such snobbish and elitist people exist?
Someone back in 2019 suggested to me that on application forms we shouldn't even ask what subject they read at university, just the degree classification.
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This will not harm Labour's prospects of taking back the seat next time. Back in 1986 I was runner up to David Hanson to be Labour PPC there.
Labour won't take that seat back next time ... because it won't exist.
If the Tories are lucky, when the game of musical chairs ends for the NE Walian seats next time, there isn't one for Rob Roberts.
More likely he’s fighting Mark Tami for a new ‘Deeside’ seat while James Davies and/or Robin Millar takes on the largeish chunk in the West.
Hopefully he will lose, but I don’t know. Alyn and Deeside was a bare save this time and it’s gradually trending blue anyway, even leaving aside the largeish Brexit Party vote. It’s one I think might fall in the assembly elections next month.
Is it me, or does Rob Roberts have the look of a young Andrew RT Davies and/or Paul Davies?
It smacks of Max Boyce's outside half factory but for Welsh reactionary Tories.
The Civil Service's name-blind recruitment thing is so weird. My CV just looks wrong without my name and the name of my universities, etc.
But you do give the degree title, don't you? I know your law so not really an issue, but I think it's wrong that PPEists still get to implicitly advertise their Oxford degrees.
Dangerously close to accidental Partridge here, but a budding author could do worse than pen an updated version of Animal Farm set in the jungle
The Lions have their manes cut to a standardised length, and their teeth & claws removed, the brightly coloured birds have their feathers dyed grey, the alpha male gorillas are given testosterone reducers... you get the idea
None of them are attracted to each other, no one brings home the food and so on
The Civil Service's name-blind recruitment thing is so weird. My CV just looks wrong without my name and the name of my universities, etc.
But you do give the degree title, don't you? I know your law so not really an issue, but I think it's wrong that PPEists still get to implicitly advertise their Oxford degrees.
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
Ideally, anyone not in your immediate work area, including a chain of command which goes down all the way to the bottom (ie the most junior employees) and up to middle management. Anyone who's roughly equal to you in another department is fine. Basically the rule is whether you could conceivably wreck their career out of spite if they say no, and therefore whether they are likely to feel any inducement to say yes against their better judgment.
Flirting: not during work hours. Pub after work is easier. Lunch and breaks are a grey area.
It's actually not that complicated and mostly just common sense in terms of understanding what advances are and are not likely to be appreciated. There was a transition period where these questions were real, but almost everyone under 40 now has never worked in an office environment where this wasn't problematic. And those over 40 should axiomatically not be indulging in moonshots at interns.
*axiomatically*
The furious certainty is unnerving
If you say so. I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances, other than she's worried about the consequences of saying no. And either way she has the option of suing the company for failing to prevent him doing so, and the resulting tribunal would very likely side with the junior. It's abuse of power, and a liability for your employer.
You think it is impossible for a younger man to fancy an older woman? OK, fair enough
No, but the reverse case is much more common (jncluding the one that triggered this debate).
So it IS possible then? And it is presumably possible for younger women to fancy older men, unless you have truly bizarre beliefs about gender differences.
Ergo, this statement of yours is false: "I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances"
Go on then, put some numbers on it:
- 40 year old manager in a large organisation, either sex - 22 year old graduate, not directly reporting into the manager but within the same broad segment, the opposite sex to the manager - Essentially no prior social contact between the two, and limited direct professional contact
Manager sends some texts like the one the member for Delyn tried, only better worded. What are the chances that:
a) Graduate says yes, and is happy about it b) Graduate says no, and thinks no more of it c) Graduate says yes, but only because they are worried about consequences of saying no d) Graduate says no, and worries they've irrevocably ruined their career already
Probability of A is (I reckon) less than 1%. B is a neutral outcome, and maybe 40% chance. C and D are bad outcomes and collectively I reckon the remaining 59.x% Recommendation: do not proceed.
Jesus Christ. I'm not going to put percentages on it. I only wanted to make the point that Love is where it Falls, and all kinds of humans fancy all kinds of unexpected other humans, even to the extent of - shudder - younger people fancying older people
But let's just cancel messy romantic seductions and do it all by politically correct online questionnaire, so we can ensure a growing percentage of young people are so timid, scared and confused they end up miserable and alone and having no sex at all, as is actually happening, right now
Charisma, charm, & personality are dirty words now - unfair advantages/privileges. We are living in a spreadsheet world where the stinky, unattractive nerds demand equal access to the hot totty!
Who's unattractive???
If you are disabled, a person of colour, a particular gender or sexuality you can sue for discrimination as they are characteristics you can't change. Why shouldn't being ugly,stupid, or old or ginger haired be equally protected as they are also things you can't change
This is the argument of the incel movement. Sex as a human right, a fundamental ingredient for happiness, just like food, shelter, freedom, suffrage. You should not be deprived of sex because of an accident of birth, any more than you should be deprived of the vote because you are black or female
it is actually quite persuasive, however mad it first appears. I talk as someone who is fortunately not incel, so I am not preaching up my own chances.
The counter-argument is that sex is different because it needs a willing human partner, but the incels say In that case the government should pay hookers lots of money to give us sex
And that's the point where I find it difficult to object, logically, to their argumentation, even if it seems bonkers
Plus, I'm astonished to learn that some people are prejudiced against the former polytechnics and only think red brick/Russell group universities are the only place to recruit from.
Can you image such snobbish and elitist people exist?
Someone back in 2019 suggested to me that on application forms we shouldn't even ask what subject they read at university, just the degree classification.
We can't be having that. Everyone knows my 2:2 in mechanical engineering is equivalent to a 1st in a tinpot degree such as philosophy or history...
Dangerously close to accidental Partridge here, but a budding author could do worse than pen an updated version of Animal Farm set in the jungle
The Lions have their manes cut to a standardised length, and their teeth & claws removed, the brightly coloured birds have their feathers dyed grey, the alpha male gorillas are given testosterone reducers... you get the idea
None of them are attracted to each other, no one brings home the food and so on
This is the argument of the incel movement. Sex as a human right, a fundamental ingredient for happiness, just like food, shelter, freedom, suffrage. You should not be deprived of sex because of an accident of birth, any more than you should be deprived of the vote because you are black or female
it is actually quite persuasive, however mad it first appears. I talk as someone who is fortunately not incel, so I am not preaching up my own chances.
The counter-argument is that sex is different because it needs a willing human partner, but the incels say In that case the government should pay hookers lots of money to give us sex
And that's the point where I find it difficult to object, logically, to their argumentation, even if it seems bonkers
My mother would tell you the answer to this is arranged marriages.
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
Ideally, anyone not in your immediate work area, including a chain of command which goes down all the way to the bottom (ie the most junior employees) and up to middle management. Anyone who's roughly equal to you in another department is fine. Basically the rule is whether you could conceivably wreck their career out of spite if they say no, and therefore whether they are likely to feel any inducement to say yes against their better judgment.
Flirting: not during work hours. Pub after work is easier. Lunch and breaks are a grey area.
It's actually not that complicated and mostly just common sense in terms of understanding what advances are and are not likely to be appreciated. There was a transition period where these questions were real, but almost everyone under 40 now has never worked in an office environment where this wasn't problematic. And those over 40 should axiomatically not be indulging in moonshots at interns.
*axiomatically*
The furious certainty is unnerving
If you say so. I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances, other than she's worried about the consequences of saying no. And either way she has the option of suing the company for failing to prevent him doing so, and the resulting tribunal would very likely side with the junior. It's abuse of power, and a liability for your employer.
You think it is impossible for a younger man to fancy an older woman? OK, fair enough
No, but the reverse case is much more common (jncluding the one that triggered this debate).
So it IS possible then? And it is presumably possible for younger women to fancy older men, unless you have truly bizarre beliefs about gender differences.
Ergo, this statement of yours is false: "I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances"
Go on then, put some numbers on it:
- 40 year old manager in a large organisation, either sex - 22 year old graduate, not directly reporting into the manager but within the same broad segment, the opposite sex to the manager - Essentially no prior social contact between the two, and limited direct professional contact
Manager sends some texts like the one the member for Delyn tried, only better worded. What are the chances that:
a) Graduate says yes, and is happy about it b) Graduate says no, and thinks no more of it c) Graduate says yes, but only because they are worried about consequences of saying no d) Graduate says no, and worries they've irrevocably ruined their career already
Probability of A is (I reckon) less than 1%. B is a neutral outcome, and maybe 40% chance. C and D are bad outcomes and collectively I reckon the remaining 59.x% Recommendation: do not proceed.
Jesus Christ. I'm not going to put percentages on it. I only wanted to make the point that Love is where it Falls, and all kinds of humans fancy all kinds of unexpected other humans, even to the extent of - shudder - younger people fancying older people
But let's just cancel messy romantic seductions and do it all by politically correct online questionnaire, so we can ensure a growing percentage of young people are so timid, scared and confused they end up miserable and alone and having no sex at all, as is actually happening, right now
Charisma, charm, & personality are dirty words now - unfair advantages/privileges. We are living in a spreadsheet world where the stinky, unattractive nerds demand equal access to the hot totty!
Who's unattractive???
If you are disabled, a person of colour, a particular gender or sexuality you can sue for discrimination as they are characteristics you can't change. Why shouldn't being ugly,stupid, or old or ginger haired be equally protected as they are also things you can't change
This is the argument of the incel movement. Sex as a human right, a fundamental ingredient for happiness, just like food, shelter, freedom, suffrage. You should not be deprived of sex because of an accident of birth, any more than you should be deprived of the vote because you are black or female
it is actually quite persuasive, however mad it first appears. I talk as someone who is fortunately not incel, so I am not preaching up my own chances.
The counter-argument is that sex is different because it needs a willing human partner, but the incels say In that case the government should pay hookers lots of money to give us sex
And that's the point where I find it difficult to object, logically, to their argumentation, even if it seems bonkers
Incels are just inadequate whinging men who hate women because they do not know how to handle them. . Useless sacks of shit.
Right off to see what is going down near my old patch. Should be interesting.
The Civil Service's name-blind recruitment thing is so weird. My CV just looks wrong without my name and the name of my universities, etc.
But you do give the degree title, don't you? I know your law so not really an issue, but I think it's wrong that PPEists still get to implicitly advertise their Oxford degrees.
The Open University also offers PPE.
I know, but most people will see it and think Oxford. Same for Natural Sciences and Cambridge.
Plus, I'm astonished to learn that some people are prejudiced against the former polytechnics and only think red brick/Russell group universities are the only place to recruit from.
Can you image such snobbish and elitist people exist?
Someone back in 2019 suggested to me that on application forms we shouldn't even ask what subject they read at university, just the degree classification.
Of course, where this doesn't work is internal applications...
The Civil Service's name-blind recruitment thing is so weird. My CV just looks wrong without my name and the name of my universities, etc.
But you do give the degree title, don't you? I know your law so not really an issue, but I think it's wrong that PPEists still get to implicitly advertise their Oxford degrees.
The Open University also offers PPE.
I know, but most people will see it and think Oxford. Same for Natural Sciences and Cambridge.
As a pleb, I didn't know Oxford was the only university (more or less) that offered PPE.
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
Ideally, anyone not in your immediate work area, including a chain of command which goes down all the way to the bottom (ie the most junior employees) and up to middle management. Anyone who's roughly equal to you in another department is fine. Basically the rule is whether you could conceivably wreck their career out of spite if they say no, and therefore whether they are likely to feel any inducement to say yes against their better judgment.
Flirting: not during work hours. Pub after work is easier. Lunch and breaks are a grey area.
It's actually not that complicated and mostly just common sense in terms of understanding what advances are and are not likely to be appreciated. There was a transition period where these questions were real, but almost everyone under 40 now has never worked in an office environment where this wasn't problematic. And those over 40 should axiomatically not be indulging in moonshots at interns.
*axiomatically*
The furious certainty is unnerving
If you say so. I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances, other than she's worried about the consequences of saying no. And either way she has the option of suing the company for failing to prevent him doing so, and the resulting tribunal would very likely side with the junior. It's abuse of power, and a liability for your employer.
You think it is impossible for a younger man to fancy an older woman? OK, fair enough
No, but the reverse case is much more common (jncluding the one that triggered this debate).
So it IS possible then? And it is presumably possible for younger women to fancy older men, unless you have truly bizarre beliefs about gender differences.
Ergo, this statement of yours is false: "I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances"
Go on then, put some numbers on it:
- 40 year old manager in a large organisation, either sex - 22 year old graduate, not directly reporting into the manager but within the same broad segment, the opposite sex to the manager - Essentially no prior social contact between the two, and limited direct professional contact
Manager sends some texts like the one the member for Delyn tried, only better worded. What are the chances that:
a) Graduate says yes, and is happy about it b) Graduate says no, and thinks no more of it c) Graduate says yes, but only because they are worried about consequences of saying no d) Graduate says no, and worries they've irrevocably ruined their career already
Probability of A is (I reckon) less than 1%. B is a neutral outcome, and maybe 40% chance. C and D are bad outcomes and collectively I reckon the remaining 59.x% Recommendation: do not proceed.
Jesus Christ. I'm not going to put percentages on it. I only wanted to make the point that Love is where it Falls, and all kinds of humans fancy all kinds of unexpected other humans, even to the extent of - shudder - younger people fancying older people
But let's just cancel messy romantic seductions and do it all by politically correct online questionnaire, so we can ensure a growing percentage of young people are so timid, scared and confused they end up miserable and alone and having no sex at all, as is actually happening, right now
Charisma, charm, & personality are dirty words now - unfair advantages/privileges. We are living in a spreadsheet world where the stinky, unattractive nerds demand equal access to the hot totty!
Who's unattractive???
If you are disabled, a person of colour, a particular gender or sexuality you can sue for discrimination as they are characteristics you can't change. Why shouldn't being ugly,stupid, or old or ginger haired be equally protected as they are also things you can't change
This is the argument of the incel movement. Sex as a human right, a fundamental ingredient for happiness, just like food, shelter, freedom, suffrage. You should not be deprived of sex because of an accident of birth, any more than you should be deprived of the vote because you are black or female
it is actually quite persuasive, however mad it first appears. I talk as someone who is fortunately not incel, so I am not preaching up my own chances.
The counter-argument is that sex is different because it needs a willing human partner, but the incels say In that case the government should pay hookers lots of money to give us sex
And that's the point where I find it difficult to object, logically, to their argumentation, even if it seems bonkers
Incels are just inadequate whinging men who hate women because they do not know how to handle them. . Useless sacks of shit.
Right off to see what is going down near my old patch. Should be interesting.
And it is arguments like this that make me side with the incels. Go shoot up a mall, they all hate you anyway
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
Ideally, anyone not in your immediate work area, including a chain of command which goes down all the way to the bottom (ie the most junior employees) and up to middle management. Anyone who's roughly equal to you in another department is fine. Basically the rule is whether you could conceivably wreck their career out of spite if they say no, and therefore whether they are likely to feel any inducement to say yes against their better judgment.
Flirting: not during work hours. Pub after work is easier. Lunch and breaks are a grey area.
It's actually not that complicated and mostly just common sense in terms of understanding what advances are and are not likely to be appreciated. There was a transition period where these questions were real, but almost everyone under 40 now has never worked in an office environment where this wasn't problematic. And those over 40 should axiomatically not be indulging in moonshots at interns.
*axiomatically*
The furious certainty is unnerving
If you say so. I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances, other than she's worried about the consequences of saying no. And either way she has the option of suing the company for failing to prevent him doing so, and the resulting tribunal would very likely side with the junior. It's abuse of power, and a liability for your employer.
You think it is impossible for a younger man to fancy an older woman? OK, fair enough
No, but the reverse case is much more common (jncluding the one that triggered this debate).
So it IS possible then? And it is presumably possible for younger women to fancy older men, unless you have truly bizarre beliefs about gender differences.
Ergo, this statement of yours is false: "I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances"
Go on then, put some numbers on it:
- 40 year old manager in a large organisation, either sex - 22 year old graduate, not directly reporting into the manager but within the same broad segment, the opposite sex to the manager - Essentially no prior social contact between the two, and limited direct professional contact
Manager sends some texts like the one the member for Delyn tried, only better worded. What are the chances that:
a) Graduate says yes, and is happy about it b) Graduate says no, and thinks no more of it c) Graduate says yes, but only because they are worried about consequences of saying no d) Graduate says no, and worries they've irrevocably ruined their career already
Probability of A is (I reckon) less than 1%. B is a neutral outcome, and maybe 40% chance. C and D are bad outcomes and collectively I reckon the remaining 59.x% Recommendation: do not proceed.
Jesus Christ. I'm not going to put percentages on it. I only wanted to make the point that Love is where it Falls, and all kinds of humans fancy all kinds of unexpected other humans, even to the extent of - shudder - younger people fancying older people
But let's just cancel messy romantic seductions and do it all by politically correct online questionnaire, so we can ensure a growing percentage of young people are so timid, scared and confused they end up miserable and alone and having no sex at all, as is actually happening, right now
Charisma, charm, & personality are dirty words now - unfair advantages/privileges. We are living in a spreadsheet world where the stinky, unattractive nerds demand equal access to the hot totty!
Who's unattractive???
If you are disabled, a person of colour, a particular gender or sexuality you can sue for discrimination as they are characteristics you can't change. Why shouldn't being ugly,stupid, or old or ginger haired be equally protected as they are also things you can't change
This is the argument of the incel movement. Sex as a human right, a fundamental ingredient for happiness, just like food, shelter, freedom, suffrage. You should not be deprived of sex because of an accident of birth, any more than you should be deprived of the vote because you are black or female
it is actually quite persuasive, however mad it first appears. I talk as someone who is fortunately not incel, so I am not preaching up my own chances.
The counter-argument is that sex is different because it needs a willing human partner, but the incels say In that case the government should pay hookers lots of money to give us sex
And that's the point where I find it difficult to object, logically, to their argumentation, even if it seems bonkers
I was more just pointing out its the logical extension of discrimination by factors you can't change
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This will not harm Labour's prospects of taking back the seat next time. Back in 1986 I was runner up to David Hanson to be Labour PPC there.
Labour won't take that seat back next time ... because it won't exist.
If the Tories are lucky, when the game of musical chairs ends for the NE Walian seats next time, there isn't one for Rob Roberts.
More likely he’s fighting Mark Tami for a new ‘Deeside’ seat while James Davies and/or Robin Millar takes on the largeish chunk in the West.
Hopefully he will lose, but I don’t know. Alyn and Deeside was a bare save this time and it’s gradually trending blue anyway, even leaving aside the largeish Brexit Party vote. It’s one I think might fall in the assembly elections next month.
Flintshire and Wrexham will get 3 seats (down 1 as they currently have Wrexham, Delyn, Alyn and the vast majority of Clwyd South)
Due to the geography, I would expect Delyn to keep the entirity of the current seat and then add 20k voters from Alyn and Deeside. Realistically it has to be Connah's Quay and Shotton. I would expect this to flip the seat to Lab but you should then have a better Con opportunity in the Flint S and N Wrexham seat.
It is then possible to do a swap and put all of Deeside in the Delyn seat and Mold in the other seat which again makes the first safer for Lab and the second safer for Con
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
Ideally, anyone not in your immediate work area, including a chain of command which goes down all the way to the bottom (ie the most junior employees) and up to middle management. Anyone who's roughly equal to you in another department is fine. Basically the rule is whether you could conceivably wreck their career out of spite if they say no, and therefore whether they are likely to feel any inducement to say yes against their better judgment.
Flirting: not during work hours. Pub after work is easier. Lunch and breaks are a grey area.
It's actually not that complicated and mostly just common sense in terms of understanding what advances are and are not likely to be appreciated. There was a transition period where these questions were real, but almost everyone under 40 now has never worked in an office environment where this wasn't problematic. And those over 40 should axiomatically not be indulging in moonshots at interns.
*axiomatically*
The furious certainty is unnerving
If you say so. I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances, other than she's worried about the consequences of saying no. And either way she has the option of suing the company for failing to prevent him doing so, and the resulting tribunal would very likely side with the junior. It's abuse of power, and a liability for your employer.
You think it is impossible for a younger man to fancy an older woman? OK, fair enough
No, but the reverse case is much more common (jncluding the one that triggered this debate).
So it IS possible then? And it is presumably possible for younger women to fancy older men, unless you have truly bizarre beliefs about gender differences.
Ergo, this statement of yours is false: "I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances"
Go on then, put some numbers on it:
- 40 year old manager in a large organisation, either sex - 22 year old graduate, not directly reporting into the manager but within the same broad segment, the opposite sex to the manager - Essentially no prior social contact between the two, and limited direct professional contact
Manager sends some texts like the one the member for Delyn tried, only better worded. What are the chances that:
a) Graduate says yes, and is happy about it b) Graduate says no, and thinks no more of it c) Graduate says yes, but only because they are worried about consequences of saying no d) Graduate says no, and worries they've irrevocably ruined their career already
Probability of A is (I reckon) less than 1%. B is a neutral outcome, and maybe 40% chance. C and D are bad outcomes and collectively I reckon the remaining 59.x% Recommendation: do not proceed.
P(A) is much greater than 1% if the manager is female and the graduate male, would guess its double figures. Probably higher than 1% if the manager is male and graduate female too. In all but a tiny fraction of industries option d is an extreme overreaction, there are very few careers that can be irrevocably ruined by one such interaction, and they are not in large organisations.
As always this should be about balance and judgement, and most workplaces and managers now get the balance better than they did 20+ years ago. There is a danger society takes it too far though.
This is the argument of the incel movement. Sex as a human right, a fundamental ingredient for happiness, just like food, shelter, freedom, suffrage. You should not be deprived of sex because of an accident of birth, any more than you should be deprived of the vote because you are black or female
it is actually quite persuasive, however mad it first appears. I talk as someone who is fortunately not incel, so I am not preaching up my own chances.
The counter-argument is that sex is different because it needs a willing human partner, but the incels say In that case the government should pay hookers lots of money to give us sex
And that's the point where I find it difficult to object, logically, to their argumentation, even if it seems bonkers
My mother would tell you the answer to this is arranged marriages.
Fortunately I dodged that bullet.
Your mother has a point. I tend not to agree with it, but it is a point
Unless the intern was specifically Rob Roberts' I don't see anything wrong here.
I've mentioned this on here before, but on my one visit to Portcullis House it was very obvious that being a good looking young woman was an advantage for getting employed.
It was very much like Oxford University in that respect.
That seems a bit off but unless Rob Roberts was responsible for getting this lady an internship it's not much to do with him.
Plus, I'm astonished to learn that some people are prejudiced against the former polytechnics and only think red brick/Russell group universities are the only place to recruit from.
Can you image such snobbish and elitist people exist?
Someone back in 2019 suggested to me that on application forms we shouldn't even ask what subject they read at university, just the degree classification.
We can't be having that. Everyone knows my 2:2 in mechanical engineering is equivalent to a 1st in a tinpot degree such as philosophy or history...
Bah, everyone knows law based degrees are the best degrees in the world.
This is the argument of the incel movement. Sex as a human right, a fundamental ingredient for happiness, just like food, shelter, freedom, suffrage. You should not be deprived of sex because of an accident of birth, any more than you should be deprived of the vote because you are black or female
it is actually quite persuasive, however mad it first appears. I talk as someone who is fortunately not incel, so I am not preaching up my own chances.
The counter-argument is that sex is different because it needs a willing human partner, but the incels say In that case the government should pay hookers lots of money to give us sex
And that's the point where I find it difficult to object, logically, to their argumentation, even if it seems bonkers
My mother would tell you the answer to this is arranged marriages.
Fortunately I dodged that bullet.
Your mother has a point. I tend not to agree with it, but it is a point
Gods my mother would have made I point of finding the ugliest woman she could for me to marry. We didn't get on well
Unless the intern was specifically Rob Roberts' I don't see anything wrong here.
I've mentioned this on here before, but on my one visit to Portcullis House it was very obvious that being a good looking young woman was an advantage for getting employed.
It was very much like Oxford University in that respect.
That seems a bit off but unless Rob Roberts was responsible for getting this lady an internship it's not much to do with him.
I think it's more an eye candy thing. Much nicer to have a pretty young woman in the office.
My son is doing census work. Today he was sent off to walk round Holborn and Soho with 150 addresses to check.
Several hours in and he had visited them all with no-one barring a few workmen answering. So his manager asked him to visit them all again. Which he has done. And is expected to keep on doing until, presumably, these empty properties will be stuffed full of forms reminding the non-existent residents to fill in their census forms.
Whether these leads to any more census forms being filled in, I have no idea. But it will do wonders for Son's fitness, if he can survive the Dante-esque quality of the job.
Plus, I'm astonished to learn that some people are prejudiced against the former polytechnics and only think red brick/Russell group universities are the only place to recruit from.
Can you image such snobbish and elitist people exist?
Someone back in 2019 suggested to me that on application forms we shouldn't even ask what subject they read at university, just the degree classification.
Of course, where this doesn't work is internal applications...
Yup, there's so much over thinking in places when it comes to recruitment and pay.
Unless the intern was specifically Rob Roberts' I don't see anything wrong here.
I've mentioned this on here before, but on my one visit to Portcullis House it was very obvious that being a good looking young woman was an advantage for getting employed.
It was very much like Oxford University in that respect.
That seems a bit off but unless Rob Roberts was responsible for getting this lady an internship it's not much to do with him.
I think it's more an eye candy thing. Much nicer to have a pretty young woman in the office.
Although you're probably right that something insidious is at work, it may also be that young professionals who live in London and have the skills to secure jobs at the heart of government tend to share the personality trait that they look after themselves and their appearance.
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This will not harm Labour's prospects of taking back the seat next time. Back in 1986 I was runner up to David Hanson to be Labour PPC there.
Labour won't take that seat back next time ... because it won't exist.
If the Tories are lucky, when the game of musical chairs ends for the NE Walian seats next time, there isn't one for Rob Roberts.
More likely he’s fighting Mark Tami for a new ‘Deeside’ seat while James Davies and/or Robin Millar takes on the largeish chunk in the West.
Hopefully he will lose, but I don’t know. Alyn and Deeside was a bare save this time and it’s gradually trending blue anyway, even leaving aside the largeish Brexit Party vote. It’s one I think might fall in the assembly elections next month.
The predecessor seat - East Flint - nealy fell to the Tories in 1959. Eirenie White survived by just 75 votes.
The whole situation in Alyn and Deeside is fraught anyway - the whole Carl Sargeant situation is going to be hanging over it, especially as his son is the Labour AM.
If Brexit party voters turn out and vote Tory - which are two big ‘ifs’ but again, the local factors at play make it possible - I think it will go.
Conversely, I still think Labour have a realistic chance of hanging on to Delyn and Clwyd South.
That tragedy is over 3 years ago now and the son held the seat comfortably at the by-election which followed. In so far as it remains an issue , would there not be a sympathy vote for the candidate?
The Civil Service's name-blind recruitment thing is so weird. My CV just looks wrong without my name and the name of my universities, etc.
But you do give the degree title, don't you? I know your law so not really an issue, but I think it's wrong that PPEists still get to implicitly advertise their Oxford degrees.
The Open University also offers PPE.
I know, but most people will see it and think Oxford. Same for Natural Sciences and Cambridge.
As a pleb, I didn't know Oxford was the only university (more or less) that offered PPE.
Just shows...
Oh I'm a pleb too. I didn't know what PPE was until I was halfway through the lower sixth, sadly too late for me to pick better A Levels to apply for it.
This is the argument of the incel movement. Sex as a human right, a fundamental ingredient for happiness, just like food, shelter, freedom, suffrage. You should not be deprived of sex because of an accident of birth, any more than you should be deprived of the vote because you are black or female
it is actually quite persuasive, however mad it first appears. I talk as someone who is fortunately not incel, so I am not preaching up my own chances.
The counter-argument is that sex is different because it needs a willing human partner, but the incels say In that case the government should pay hookers lots of money to give us sex
And that's the point where I find it difficult to object, logically, to their argumentation, even if it seems bonkers
My mother would tell you the answer to this is arranged marriages.
Fortunately I dodged that bullet.
Your mother has a point. I tend not to agree with it, but it is a point
She's on a mission to get me married off.
The downside of the end of lockdown, she can start ambushing me with potential wives, again.
The Civil Service's name-blind recruitment thing is so weird. My CV just looks wrong without my name and the name of my universities, etc.
But you do give the degree title, don't you? I know your law so not really an issue, but I think it's wrong that PPEists still get to implicitly advertise their Oxford degrees.
The Open University also offers PPE.
I know, but most people will see it and think Oxford. Same for Natural Sciences and Cambridge.
Bath offers Nat sci too. Pretty sure it’s a ploy to hoover up those who don’t get into oxbridge...
Unless the intern was specifically Rob Roberts' I don't see anything wrong here.
I've mentioned this on here before, but on my one visit to Portcullis House it was very obvious that being a good looking young woman was an advantage for getting employed.
It was very much like Oxford University in that respect.
That seems a bit off but unless Rob Roberts was responsible for getting this lady an internship it's not much to do with him.
Tlg is right tho. I got the same impression when I went to Westminster about 15 years ago. A notably high proportion of attractive young women, a notably high proportion of seedy older men with high sex drives, the men not very attractive, but clearly randy: politics is showbiz for ugly people, after all
However, the young women did not seem especially unhappy. Lots of powerful or at least kinda powerful men lusting after them, in a highly interesting environment with great architecture in the middle of London, could be worse
Most of them - of all genders - seemed to be having a fun time, and they were all utterly drenched in booze. Perhaps it is different in the evenings
The Civil Service's name-blind recruitment thing is so weird. My CV just looks wrong without my name and the name of my universities, etc.
But you do give the degree title, don't you? I know your law so not really an issue, but I think it's wrong that PPEists still get to implicitly advertise their Oxford degrees.
The Open University also offers PPE.
So do loads of dodgy firms with completely legitimate links to government ministers and MPs. But they charge a lot more than the OU.
My son is doing census work. Today he was sent off to walk round Holborn and Soho with 150 addresses to check.
Several hours in and he had visited them all with no-one barring a few workmen answering. So his manager asked him to visit them all again. Which he has done. And is expected to keep on doing until, presumably, these empty properties will be stuffed full of forms reminding the non-existent residents to fill in their census forms.
Whether these leads to any more census forms being filled in, I have no idea. But it will do wonders for Son's fitness, if he can survive the Dante-esque quality of the job.
Do you know if they doing anything with this data? For example, to estimate how many properties in London are unoccupied?
Telegraph reporting that under 40s may also be made ineligible for AZ. Again I understand why they would do it, however, I'm just not sure it's going to make a difference given that we'll have Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax under 40s by the time we get our turn. AZ doesn't make sense froma logistical perspective for under 40s getting vaccines in May to June waiting for second doses from July to September.
It would be better, again, to just deprovision our age groups from it quietly on the basis of better logistics with the other three and better outright efficacy of 91% vs 80% from being infected at all for a group of people who will be the most likely to spread it.
My son is doing census work. Today he was sent off to walk round Holborn and Soho with 150 addresses to check.
Several hours in and he had visited them all with no-one barring a few workmen answering. So his manager asked him to visit them all again. Which he has done. And is expected to keep on doing until, presumably, these empty properties will be stuffed full of forms reminding the non-existent residents to fill in their census forms.
Whether these leads to any more census forms being filled in, I have no idea. But it will do wonders for Son's fitness, if he can survive the Dante-esque quality of the job.
Do you know if they doing anything with this data? For example, to estimate how many properties in London are unoccupied?
This is the argument of the incel movement. Sex as a human right, a fundamental ingredient for happiness, just like food, shelter, freedom, suffrage. You should not be deprived of sex because of an accident of birth, any more than you should be deprived of the vote because you are black or female
it is actually quite persuasive, however mad it first appears. I talk as someone who is fortunately not incel, so I am not preaching up my own chances.
The counter-argument is that sex is different because it needs a willing human partner, but the incels say In that case the government should pay hookers lots of money to give us sex
And that's the point where I find it difficult to object, logically, to their argumentation, even if it seems bonkers
My mother would tell you the answer to this is arranged marriages.
Fortunately I dodged that bullet.
Your mother has a point. I tend not to agree with it, but it is a point
She's on a mission to get me married off.
The downside of the end of lockdown, she can start ambushing me with potential wives, again.
Hire someone to be your wife for the night and totally fall out with your parents and refuse to ever meet them again problem solved. Your parents now think you are married to a woman that won't meet them you are actually young free and single
The Civil Service's name-blind recruitment thing is so weird. My CV just looks wrong without my name and the name of my universities, etc.
But you do give the degree title, don't you? I know your law so not really an issue, but I think it's wrong that PPEists still get to implicitly advertise their Oxford degrees.
The Open University also offers PPE.
I know, but most people will see it and think Oxford. Same for Natural Sciences and Cambridge.
As a pleb, I didn't know Oxford was the only university (more or less) that offered PPE.
Just shows...
Oh I'm a pleb too. I didn't know what PPE was until I was halfway through the lower sixth, sadly too late for me to pick better A Levels to apply for it.
My history teacher kept on pushing me to apply to read literae humaniores, it was because of that I learned about PPE.
The reality is that one half of NI largely voted to Remain and the other half largely to Leave. The GFA worked for both sides and was predicated on both the UK and Ireland being in the EU at the time. If the GFA was truly the priority for everyone then as soon as that was superseded by a Leave decision it was incumbent on both the UK and Ireland, together with the support of the EU, to find an updated GFA that treated both sides equitably - that would have meant mitigating both an Irish land border and an Irish sea border (so both sides felt fairly treated) with a special status for the island of Ireland within the single market.
Instead, the EU viewed NI and its peace process as a useful political weapon and the UK viewed NI as expendable in dodging that bullet.
The former will now simply feel vindicated, and try and use it to extract concessions if the UK re-approaches it, and the latter will blame the EU's intransigence for the trouble and feel forced to act unilaterally to mitigate it. So the milk will sour further before it gets better.
This is the argument of the incel movement. Sex as a human right, a fundamental ingredient for happiness, just like food, shelter, freedom, suffrage. You should not be deprived of sex because of an accident of birth, any more than you should be deprived of the vote because you are black or female
it is actually quite persuasive, however mad it first appears. I talk as someone who is fortunately not incel, so I am not preaching up my own chances.
The counter-argument is that sex is different because it needs a willing human partner, but the incels say In that case the government should pay hookers lots of money to give us sex
And that's the point where I find it difficult to object, logically, to their argumentation, even if it seems bonkers
My mother would tell you the answer to this is arranged marriages.
Fortunately I dodged that bullet.
Your mother has a point. I tend not to agree with it, but it is a point
She's on a mission to get me married off.
The downside of the end of lockdown, she can start ambushing me with potential wives, again.
Hire someone to be your wife for the night and totally fall out with your parents and refuse to ever meet them again problem solved. Your parents now think you are married to a woman that won't meet them you are actually young free and single
Not really an option, as I live under the same roof as my parents, and they are pretty much the primary carers of my kids.
Telegraph reporting that under 40s may also be made ineligible for AZ. Again I understand why they would do it, however, I'm just not sure it's going to make a difference given that we'll have Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax under 40s by the time we get our turn. AZ doesn't make sense froma logistical perspective for under 40s getting vaccines in May to June waiting for second doses from July to September.
It would be better, again, to just deprovision our age groups from it quietly on the basis of better logistics with the other three and better outright efficacy of 91% vs 80% from being infected at all for a group of people who will be the most likely to spread it.
Jesus fucking Christ.
Based on what data? They showed us data which explained that this ban only - marginally - made sense for those 18-29 in a low Covid environment, and no one else. Has the data suddenly changed?
I said yesterday this all stank. I said: either JCVI know something we don't, or they have just made a catastrophic PR error.
So what is it now, they knew something all along and it wasn't revealed? What the F are they playing at?
The reality is that one half of NI largely voted to Remain and the other half largely to Leave. The GFA worked for both sides and was predicated on both the UK and Ireland being in the EU at the time. If the GFA was truly the priority for everyone then as soon as that was superseded by a Leave decision it was incumbent on both the UK and Ireland, together with the support of the EU, to find an updated GFA that treated both sides equitably - that would have meant mitigating both an Irish land border and an Irish sea border (so both sides felt fairly treated) with a special status for the island of Ireland within the single market.
Instead, the EU viewed NI and its peace process as a useful political weapon and the UK viewed NI as expendable in dodging that bullet.
The former will now simply feel vindicated, and try and use it to extract concessions if the UK re-approaches it, and the latter will blame the EU's intransigence for the trouble and feel forced to act unilaterally to mitigate it. So the milk will sour further before it gets better.
No-one has learned anything. It's pathetic.
The talk about northern ireland seems to miss a fundamental point. On both sides there are a couple of thousand bolshy types willing to resort to violence. Believing those bolshy types should be able to dictate to the other 65 million of us what we are allowed to do is wrong and giving in to people saying do what I say or I will be violent.
Chipping in on the Rob Roberts thing - I get the argument that we shouldn't outlaw workplace flirting, but I think there's a real problem in Parliament specifically that means MPs should be held to a much higher standard than "normal" workplaces. MPs have small offices, usually less than 5 people, and they operate both as bosses and as HR managers. If you work for an MP and you want to complain about their behaviour, you're supposed to complain to them. And as we've seen with the Rob Roberts thing, if you try to take the complaint to the party or the press, it just gets brushed over and there are no consequences for the perpetrator, while you almost certaintly will lose your job and find it very difficult to get future employment in Parliament.
Fundamentally the entire hiring system in Parliament is broken and it's wrong that MPs are so dominant over their staff. A sensible reform would be to have IPSA hire staff and MPs employ from within the IPSA pool, with IPSA retaining HR and disciplinary powers; but this will never happen because it'd actually give staff a practical way to report abuses.
My son is doing census work. Today he was sent off to walk round Holborn and Soho with 150 addresses to check.
Several hours in and he had visited them all with no-one barring a few workmen answering. So his manager asked him to visit them all again. Which he has done. And is expected to keep on doing until, presumably, these empty properties will be stuffed full of forms reminding the non-existent residents to fill in their census forms.
Whether these leads to any more census forms being filled in, I have no idea. But it will do wonders for Son's fitness, if he can survive the Dante-esque quality of the job.
He needs to track down @Dura_Ace Smokey & The Bandit style.
This is the argument of the incel movement. Sex as a human right, a fundamental ingredient for happiness, just like food, shelter, freedom, suffrage. You should not be deprived of sex because of an accident of birth, any more than you should be deprived of the vote because you are black or female
it is actually quite persuasive, however mad it first appears. I talk as someone who is fortunately not incel, so I am not preaching up my own chances.
The counter-argument is that sex is different because it needs a willing human partner, but the incels say In that case the government should pay hookers lots of money to give us sex
And that's the point where I find it difficult to object, logically, to their argumentation, even if it seems bonkers
My mother would tell you the answer to this is arranged marriages.
Telegraph reporting that under 40s may also be made ineligible for AZ. Again I understand why they would do it, however, I'm just not sure it's going to make a difference given that we'll have Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax under 40s by the time we get our turn. AZ doesn't make sense froma logistical perspective for under 40s getting vaccines in May to June waiting for second doses from July to September.
It would be better, again, to just deprovision our age groups from it quietly on the basis of better logistics with the other three and better outright efficacy of 91% vs 80% from being infected at all for a group of people who will be the most likely to spread it.
Jesus fucking Christ.
Based on what data? They showed us data which explained that this ban only - marginally - made sense for those 18-29 in a low Covid environment, and no one else. Has the data suddenly changed?
I said yesterday this all stank. I said: either JVIC know something we don't, or they have just made a catastrophic PR error.
So what is it now, they knew something all along and it wasn't revealed? What the F are they playing at?
Because the differential risk changes for each group as COVID prevalence decreases. The clotting issue carries a 0.8 in 100k risk for 30-39 year olds, currently with 2 in 10000 COVID prevalence the risk factor is 2.7 in 100000. If COVID prevalence drops to 1 in 20000 the balance of risk moves in favour of using other vaccines. There's a pretty high chance this will happen soon.
The reality is that one half of NI largely voted to Remain and the other half largely to Leave. The GFA worked for both sides and was predicated on both the UK and Ireland being in the EU at the time. If the GFA was truly the priority for everyone then as soon as that was superseded by a Leave decision it was incumbent on both the UK and Ireland, together with the support of the EU, to find an updated GFA that treated both sides equitably - that would have meant mitigating both an Irish land border and an Irish sea border (so both sides felt fairly treated) with a special status for the island of Ireland within the single market.
Instead, the EU viewed NI and its peace process as a useful political weapon and the UK viewed NI as expendable in dodging that bullet.
The former will now simply feel vindicated, and try and use it to extract concessions if the UK re-approaches it, and the latter will blame the EU's intransigence for the trouble and feel forced to act unilaterally to mitigate it. So the milk will sour further before it gets better.
No-one has learned anything. It's pathetic.
The talk about northern ireland seems to miss a fundamental point. On both sides there are a couple of thousand bolshy types willing to resort to violence. Believing those bolshy types should be able to dictate to the other 65 million of us what we are allowed to do is wrong and giving in to people saying do what I say or I will be violent.
Agreed, but lots of moderates back them or are acquiescing, sadly, as they've concluded that politics isn't working for them and no-one's listened so they have to resort to other means.
Telegraph reporting that under 40s may also be made ineligible for AZ. Again I understand why they would do it, however, I'm just not sure it's going to make a difference given that we'll have Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax under 40s by the time we get our turn. AZ doesn't make sense froma logistical perspective for under 40s getting vaccines in May to June waiting for second doses from July to September.
It would be better, again, to just deprovision our age groups from it quietly on the basis of better logistics with the other three and better outright efficacy of 91% vs 80% from being infected at all for a group of people who will be the most likely to spread it.
Is this because the prevalence keeps dropping, thus changing the relative risk?
If we got down to a very small number of cases then by that argument nobody should get jabbed with any vaccine, because they must all have risks of some sort.
Telegraph reporting that under 40s may also be made ineligible for AZ. Again I understand why they would do it, however, I'm just not sure it's going to make a difference given that we'll have Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax under 40s by the time we get our turn. AZ doesn't make sense froma logistical perspective for under 40s getting vaccines in May to June waiting for second doses from July to September.
It would be better, again, to just deprovision our age groups from it quietly on the basis of better logistics with the other three and better outright efficacy of 91% vs 80% from being infected at all for a group of people who will be the most likely to spread it.
Is this because the prevalence keeps dropping, thus changing the relative risk?
If we got down to a very small number of cases then by that argument nobody should get jabbed with any vaccine, because they must all have risks of some sort.
The reality is that one half of NI largely voted to Remain and the other half largely to Leave. The GFA worked for both sides and was predicated on both the UK and Ireland being in the EU at the time. If the GFA was truly the priority for everyone then as soon as that was superseded by a Leave decision it was incumbent on both the UK and Ireland, together with the support of the EU, to find an updated GFA that treated both sides equitably - that would have meant mitigating both an Irish land border and an Irish sea border (so both sides felt fairly treated) with a special status for the island of Ireland within the single market.
Instead, the EU viewed NI and its peace process as a useful political weapon and the UK viewed NI as expendable in dodging that bullet.
The former will now simply feel vindicated, and try and use it to extract concessions if the UK re-approaches it, and the latter will blame the EU's intransigence for the trouble and feel forced to act unilaterally to mitigate it. So the milk will sour further before it gets better.
Telegraph reporting that under 40s may also be made ineligible for AZ. Again I understand why they would do it, however, I'm just not sure it's going to make a difference given that we'll have Moderna, Pfizer and Novavax under 40s by the time we get our turn. AZ doesn't make sense froma logistical perspective for under 40s getting vaccines in May to June waiting for second doses from July to September.
It would be better, again, to just deprovision our age groups from it quietly on the basis of better logistics with the other three and better outright efficacy of 91% vs 80% from being infected at all for a group of people who will be the most likely to spread it.
Is this because the prevalence keeps dropping, thus changing the relative risk?
If we got down to a very small number of cases then by that argument nobody should get jabbed with any vaccine, because they must all have risks of some sort.
How are New Zealand dealing with this dilemma?
Which vaccines has NZ procured ?
I don't know, that's not the point.
If there are no cases, then by the relative risk argument being deployed here, there would be too much risk in taking ANY vaccine.
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
Ideally, anyone not in your immediate work area, including a chain of command which goes down all the way to the bottom (ie the most junior employees) and up to middle management. Anyone who's roughly equal to you in another department is fine. Basically the rule is whether you could conceivably wreck their career out of spite if they say no, and therefore whether they are likely to feel any inducement to say yes against their better judgment.
Flirting: not during work hours. Pub after work is easier. Lunch and breaks are a grey area.
It's actually not that complicated and mostly just common sense in terms of understanding what advances are and are not likely to be appreciated. There was a transition period where these questions were real, but almost everyone under 40 now has never worked in an office environment where this wasn't problematic. And those over 40 should axiomatically not be indulging in moonshots at interns.
*axiomatically*
The furious certainty is unnerving
If you say so. I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances, other than she's worried about the consequences of saying no. And either way she has the option of suing the company for failing to prevent him doing so, and the resulting tribunal would very likely side with the junior. It's abuse of power, and a liability for your employer.
You think it is impossible for a younger man to fancy an older woman? OK, fair enough
No, but the reverse case is much more common (jncluding the one that triggered this debate).
So it IS possible then? And it is presumably possible for younger women to fancy older men, unless you have truly bizarre beliefs about gender differences.
Ergo, this statement of yours is false: "I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances"
Go on then, put some numbers on it:
- 40 year old manager in a large organisation, either sex - 22 year old graduate, not directly reporting into the manager but within the same broad segment, the opposite sex to the manager - Essentially no prior social contact between the two, and limited direct professional contact
Manager sends some texts like the one the member for Delyn tried, only better worded. What are the chances that:
a) Graduate says yes, and is happy about it b) Graduate says no, and thinks no more of it c) Graduate says yes, but only because they are worried about consequences of saying no d) Graduate says no, and worries they've irrevocably ruined their career already
Probability of A is (I reckon) less than 1%. B is a neutral outcome, and maybe 40% chance. C and D are bad outcomes and collectively I reckon the remaining 59.x% Recommendation: do not proceed.
Jesus Christ. I'm not going to put percentages on it. I only wanted to make the point that Love is where it Falls, and all kinds of humans fancy all kinds of unexpected other humans, even to the extent of - shudder - younger people fancying older people
But let's just cancel messy romantic seductions and do it all by politically correct online questionnaire, so we can ensure a growing percentage of young people are so timid, scared and confused they end up miserable and alone and having no sex at all, as is actually happening, right now
Charisma, charm, & personality are dirty words now - unfair advantages/privileges. We are living in a spreadsheet world where the stinky, unattractive nerds demand equal access to the hot totty!
Who's unattractive???
If you are disabled, a person of colour, a particular gender or sexuality you can sue for discrimination as they are characteristics you can't change. Why shouldn't being ugly,stupid, or old or ginger haired be equally protected as they are also things you can't change
This is the argument of the incel movement. Sex as a human right, a fundamental ingredient for happiness, just like food, shelter, freedom, suffrage. You should not be deprived of sex because of an accident of birth, any more than you should be deprived of the vote because you are black or female
it is actually quite persuasive, however mad it first appears. I talk as someone who is fortunately not incel, so I am not preaching up my own chances.
The counter-argument is that sex is different because it needs a willing human partner, but the incels say In that case the government should pay hookers lots of money to give us sex
And that's the point where I find it difficult to object, logically, to their argumentation, even if it seems bonkers
Why should the government pay? Shouldn’t they just legalise prostitution?
My son is doing census work. Today he was sent off to walk round Holborn and Soho with 150 addresses to check.
Several hours in and he had visited them all with no-one barring a few workmen answering. So his manager asked him to visit them all again. Which he has done. And is expected to keep on doing until, presumably, these empty properties will be stuffed full of forms reminding the non-existent residents to fill in their census forms.
Whether these leads to any more census forms being filled in, I have no idea. But it will do wonders for Son's fitness, if he can survive the Dante-esque quality of the job.
Do you know if they doing anything with this data? For example, to estimate how many properties in London are unoccupied?
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This will not harm Labour's prospects of taking back the seat next time. Back in 1986 I was runner up to David Hanson to be Labour PPC there.
Labour won't take that seat back next time ... because it won't exist.
If the Tories are lucky, when the game of musical chairs ends for the NE Walian seats next time, there isn't one for Rob Roberts.
More likely he’s fighting Mark Tami for a new ‘Deeside’ seat while James Davies and/or Robin Millar takes on the largeish chunk in the West.
Hopefully he will lose, but I don’t know. Alyn and Deeside was a bare save this time and it’s gradually trending blue anyway, even leaving aside the largeish Brexit Party vote. It’s one I think might fall in the assembly elections next month.
The predecessor seat - East Flint - nealy fell to the Tories in 1959. Eirenie White survived by just 75 votes.
The whole situation in Alyn and Deeside is fraught anyway - the whole Carl Sargeant situation is going to be hanging over it, especially as his son is the Labour AM.
If Brexit party voters turn out and vote Tory - which are two big ‘ifs’ but again, the local factors at play make it possible - I think it will go.
Conversely, I still think Labour have a realistic chance of hanging on to Delyn and Clwyd South.
That tragedy is over 3 years ago now and the son held the seat comfortably at the by-election which followed. In so far as it remains an issue , would there not be a sympathy vote for the candidate?
There was, at the time. That’s how he held it.
Whether views will be the same after he sabotaged the independent inquiry through a series of lawsuits to the extent it had to be ended without reporting last year is another question.
Comments
I can see why Putin covets it. And of course if he seizes it, that continues the narrative of Putin the Conqueror, reclaiming lost pride. Not an unknown technique with autocrats
If you're physically attractive, charismatic, and charming, you'll have no problem meeting people to date, and therefore can avoid people you are in a position of power over in the workplace.
It really isn't complicated.
We have dating apps now. You can literally browse through women and/or men at your leisure whilst sitting on the bog.
It smacks of Max Boyce's outside half factory but for Welsh reactionary Tories.
If Brexit party voters turn out and vote Tory - which are two big ‘ifs’ but again, the local factors at play make it possible - I think it will go.
Conversely, I still think Labour have a realistic chance of hanging on to Delyn and Clwyd South.
https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/work/ziyad-marar-judged-job-applications-name-prejudice-131094
Plus, I'm astonished to learn that some people are prejudiced against the former polytechnics and only think red brick/Russell group universities are the only place to recruit from.
Can you image such snobbish and elitist people exist?
Someone back in 2019 suggested to me that on application forms we shouldn't even ask what subject they read at university, just the degree classification.
And appears to behave like one too.
So, yes.
Good night.
The Lions have their manes cut to a standardised length, and their teeth & claws removed, the brightly coloured birds have their feathers dyed grey, the alpha male gorillas are given testosterone reducers... you get the idea
None of them are attracted to each other, no one brings home the food and so on
it is actually quite persuasive, however mad it first appears. I talk as someone who is fortunately not incel, so I am not preaching up my own chances.
The counter-argument is that sex is different because it needs a willing human partner, but the incels say In that case the government should pay hookers lots of money to give us sex
And that's the point where I find it difficult to object, logically, to their argumentation, even if it seems bonkers
Fortunately I dodged that bullet.
Useless sacks of shit.
Right off to see what is going down near my old patch. Should be interesting.
Just shows...
Due to the geography, I would expect Delyn to keep the entirity of the current seat and then add 20k voters from Alyn and Deeside. Realistically it has to be Connah's Quay and Shotton. I would expect this to flip the seat to Lab but you should then have a better Con opportunity in the Flint S and N Wrexham seat.
It is then possible to do a swap and put all of Deeside in the Delyn seat and Mold in the other seat which again makes the first safer for Lab and the second safer for Con
As always this should be about balance and judgement, and most workplaces and managers now get the balance better than they did 20+ years ago. There is a danger society takes it too far though.
Several hours in and he had visited them all with no-one barring a few workmen answering. So his manager asked him to visit them all again. Which he has done. And is expected to keep on doing until, presumably, these empty properties will be stuffed full of forms reminding the non-existent residents to fill in their census forms.
Whether these leads to any more census forms being filled in, I have no idea. But it will do wonders for Son's fitness, if he can survive the Dante-esque quality of the job.
The downside of the end of lockdown, she can start ambushing me with potential wives, again.
However, the young women did not seem especially unhappy. Lots of powerful or at least kinda powerful men lusting after them, in a highly interesting environment with great architecture in the middle of London, could be worse
Most of them - of all genders - seemed to be having a fun time, and they were all utterly drenched in booze. Perhaps it is different in the evenings
It would be better, again, to just deprovision our age groups from it quietly on the basis of better logistics with the other three and better outright efficacy of 91% vs 80% from being infected at all for a group of people who will be the most likely to spread it.
The reality is that one half of NI largely voted to Remain and the other half largely to Leave. The GFA worked for both sides and was predicated on both the UK and Ireland being in the EU at the time. If the GFA was truly the priority for everyone then as soon as that was superseded by a Leave decision it was incumbent on both the UK and Ireland, together with the support of the EU, to find an updated GFA that treated both sides equitably - that would have meant mitigating both an Irish land border and an Irish sea border (so both sides felt fairly treated) with a special status for the island of Ireland within the single market.
Instead, the EU viewed NI and its peace process as a useful political weapon and the UK viewed NI as expendable in dodging that bullet.
The former will now simply feel vindicated, and try and use it to extract concessions if the UK re-approaches it, and the latter will blame the EU's intransigence for the trouble and feel forced to act unilaterally to mitigate it. So the milk will sour further before it gets better.
No-one has learned anything. It's pathetic.
Based on what data? They showed us data which explained that this ban only - marginally - made sense for those 18-29 in a low Covid environment, and no one else. Has the data suddenly changed?
I said yesterday this all stank. I said: either JCVI know something we don't, or they have just made a catastrophic PR error.
So what is it now, they knew something all along and it wasn't revealed? What the F are they playing at?
Fundamentally the entire hiring system in Parliament is broken and it's wrong that MPs are so dominant over their staff. A sensible reform would be to have IPSA hire staff and MPs employ from within the IPSA pool, with IPSA retaining HR and disciplinary powers; but this will never happen because it'd actually give staff a practical way to report abuses.
NEW THREAD
If we got down to a very small number of cases then by that argument nobody should get jabbed with any vaccine, because they must all have risks of some sort.
How are New Zealand dealing with this dilemma?
If there are no cases, then by the relative risk argument being deployed here, there would be too much risk in taking ANY vaccine.
That's not a long term strategy...
Whether views will be the same after he sabotaged the independent inquiry through a series of lawsuits to the extent it had to be ended without reporting last year is another question.