Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The Great Graduate Divide: Why the Tories might fare better with Sunak – politicalbetting.com

1246

Comments

  • Just back from 20 km of solid walking in the Dales.

    Olympics.

    Cycling madison -utterly imperious

    Relays – lovely stuff, good to see Kilty win an Olympic medal

    Pentathlon – thought we’d medal, didn’t expect an OR performance, brilliant

    19 golds is ON, 20 harder, obv., but not impossible.
  • ydoethur said:

    DougSeal said:

    98 viewers...


    I played football with Kit Yates.

    I know, right!?!
    Really? I would usually play it with a sort of rubber/leather ball, myself.
    so you've seen my first touch ...
  • Just back from 20 km of solid walking in the Dales.

    Olympics.

    Cycling madison -utterly imperious

    Relays – lovely stuff, good to see Kilty win an Olympic medal

    Pentathlon – thought we’d medal, didn’t expect an OR performance, brilliant

    19 golds is ON, 20 harder, obv., but not impossible.

    What colour medal did you win for this Olympic event? I watched the 50km city walking one last night....
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,395

    MrEd said:

    felix said:

    DougSeal said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    Having watched the Olympics in the States, this is mild.
    Roger is a sensitive soul - he hates everything about his country with a vengeance.
    Poor Roger - France is massively underperforming in these Games. Maybe he should move to Italy.
    But he hates the French.....
    No he loves them - apparently it's the cradle of all things civilised - c'mon you must 've been to Calais - it's so not Hartlepool.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,663

    ydoethur said:

    DougSeal said:

    98 viewers...


    I played football with Kit Yates.

    I know, right!?!
    Really? I would usually play it with a sort of rubber/leather ball, myself.
    so you've seen my first touch ...
    I don't want to know... :hushed:
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,063

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Roger said:

    Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


    Redfield & Wilton Strategies
    @RedfieldWilton

    Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

    Too much: 45%
    An appropriate level: 31%
    Not enough: 10%

    Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
    76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
    'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
    The point is that only 10% want more
    I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?

    I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
    The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
    You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.

    I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.

    Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.

    I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
    House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.

    Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.

    So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'
    What ridiculous xenophobia.

    There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.
    There is nothing xenephobic about prioritising affordable new housing for rent and buy to those who were born in the area or who have lived and contributed to it for a long people.

    Most of the new housing to buy is being bought up by Londoners anyway, I am not saying ban Londoners from buying new homes or second homes (although a few areas have done so https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/plan-ban-more-second-homes-5678147 ) merely to focus new affordable homes on locals.
    If a Londoner wants to move to Devon or Kent or Surrey are they not your fellow compatriots? What's wrong with that?

    Why do you hate your fellow countrymen so much that you wish to deny them the chance to buy a home wherever they want to do so?
    Philip, I agree that if you want to move to anywhere in the country and buy a house then that's perfectly acceptable. What I have issue with are second and third home purchases, because it effectively depopulates areas and makes it more difficult to retain local services like shops and pubs etc.
    In the crazy old days, they did the utterly impossible, when more people moved to an area.

    They built houses to match the number of incomers.

    Idiots, eh?
    That sounds a good strategy, it's a shame it doesn't happen now. Mind you I would distinguish between incomers and second home owners.
    How would you distinguish? It's not so simple as they have a house and visit 2 weeks a year, usually.

    Consider Mary and Mike. Mike works in IT in London, Mary is a nurse. They have a house in the sticks, which they currently visit every other weekend. The plane is that Mary will get a job in the local hospital (part time), and Mike will largely work from home, and that's how they will have the space to start a family. They will keep a 1 bed flat in London, for work, and gradually move to spending 2/3rd of their time in the house in the sticks.... eventually.

    Are they second homers?
    I think if they have two homes they are second homers by definition. The question is which is their second home and which their first? Perhaps it will be London house prices they are pushing out of the reach of locals with their city pad.
    I'm not judging them, I'd quite like to have a place in the country, somewhere to potter about in and spend some long summer holidays at, maybe earn some air bnb income. But there is no doubt that this kind of thing creates problems, and if local people want to put some measures in place to gently discourage it then that's their choice. If we did buy somewhere in Cornwall, say, I'd probably try to get a clifftop chalet not a house in a village, to try to minimise the impact on the local housing market.
    The issue is trying to distinguish between "real" second homers and people moving into a community. Even if someone moves to place, they may well visit their old haunts for a while.

    In the case of Mary and Mike (my fictitious example above) - they are evolving into real residents....

    Clifftop chalets are quite upsetting to the locals in Cornwall, by the way. Many are built in place of older residences for locals, others take up nice spots. You can imagine the feeling when the council announces that they are not allowing more houses to be built, just after few expensive holiday homes are sold. Sorry, you will effect the locals if you buy there....
    Yeah it's a tough one. The place I'm interested in has chalets which are over 100 years old and they have always been holiday homes - I know this because my great grandfather bought one in the 1920s. In those days they were affordable for someone like him, a dockyard worker from Devonport, now they are super expensive of course.
    I'm not sure there's a big moral distinction between buying one and renting it out, and staying in one as a paying guest of some other outsider owner as we do now. I love the place because my family has been staying there for at least 5 generations and I'd love to maintain that tangible link.
    Buy one and rent it to a local couple cheap, so they get to live in a big house for the most of the year when you aren't there?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,291
    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
    Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

    It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

    What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
    Yes, well, nothing must get in the way of one's favourite restaurant for the luvvies, must it?
    Look forward to you guys presenting your blacklist of restaurants to avoid since you seem to be ‘woke’ to the bad uns.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,110
    Sandpit said:

    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
    Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

    It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

    What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
    Yes, well, nothing must get in the way of one's favourite restaurant for the luvvies, must it?
    Mind you I can recall someone's reaction to MeToo and the "persecution" of Roman Polanski. So the luvvies might not be so much hypocritical as extending their standards to other industries....
    Some of the most enlightening reactions of the whole ‘Me Too’ thing, were the actresses who said very little, having benefited massively over the years from the ‘casting couch’ method of auditioning for roles, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.
    Enlightening how? They were collaborators, you mean? So it's wrong to lay all the blame on men? Or it just showed how deep the malaise was?
  • Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Sweden Canada in the football right now

    yesterday had a really good round-up of all the other team sports. Enjoyed.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638

    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


    Redfield & Wilton Strategies
    @RedfieldWilton

    Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

    Too much: 45%
    An appropriate level: 31%
    Not enough: 10%

    Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
    For once, I agree with Roger. Most people should answer "don't know" to these sorts of questions.
    Polling wouldn't be able to ask any questions if it required in depth knowledge....its a proxy for how people generally feel, which in this case they don't want ever higher levels of immigration.
    That's right, I think. It's a proxy for how people feel generally about immigration.

    45% don't like the idea. 10% love the idea. 31% are not fussed.

    You can do the maths. This is why Brexit happened and why the party who took ownership of it will be hard to shift under FPTP.
    I would suggest 31% consider immigration to be at an appropriate level is far from 'not fussed'
    Not in every case, no, but I bet it is in many cases. When you ask someone "is the current level of immigration into the UK too high or too low or about right?", will they (i) know what the level is and (ii) assess this against their considered view of what the country needs? Or will they just say Too High if they dislike immigration, Too Low if they like it, or About Right if it's not an issue they feel strongly about?

    I reckon mainly the latter. Also the numbers sound about right. 45% of the public rather dislike the notion of immigration. See it as the country being penetrated. No room. Charity begins at home. All of this. 10% positively welcome the idea of people 'comin over here' from all over the world. The Bien Peasants. And 31% don't have immigration as one of their big concerns.

    I'm probably running too far with this but I think I'm running in broadly the right direction.
    Most people have no idea what the level of immigration is, especially the people who think it's too high.
    Quite wrong actually. A meme that is as comfortable to slip into as an old pair of shoes, but ill informed. It's the people who are happy with the status quo who underestimate immigration levels

    In the run up to the referendum we were told that people who were citing immigration as a reason for voting Leave were misguided by anecdotes, whereas the data showed the level of immigration was wildly overstated.Keith Vaz was at the airport greeting the single Romanian who flew here on the day that country was granted access to Free Movement, for example, and it made a splash in all the Remain papers

    Now we have Jonathan Portes and the FT, both heavily in favour of the EU and FOM, admitting the level of EU migration was far in excess of the governments estimates. In fact Portes has been saying so for quite a long while

    "By March, there had been 5.3m applications from almost 5m individuals for “settled” or “pre-settled” status (some people applied twice). By all accounts, there has been a last-minute rush since then.

    Yet in 2019, the Home Office estimated the total pool of people eligible to apply for the scheme was only between 3.5m and 4.1m. Applications by people from Romania and Bulgaria had reached about 918,000 and 284,000 respectively by March, while the latest official estimates of their resident populations were 370,000 and 122,000 respectively. Some applications will be from eligible family members or from people who have left the UK. Even so, it seems clear the UK’s population and migration estimates have been “wholly inadequate since at least the mid-2010s”, as economist Jonathan Portes has written."

    https://www.ft.com/content/1c489fb7-2840-4810-b3e6-a036803edf5c
    "The public have a very poor understanding of the scale and nature of immigration. Surveys regularly show we think between a quarter and third of the population are immigrants – when the actual figures are closer to 13 per cent. And these misperceptions extend to our view of the make-up of immigrants. The most mentioned are refugees or asylum-seekers, despite these being the least common immigrant type. The least mentioned group are people who come here to study, when in fact students were the largest category of migrant to the UK in 2011."

    https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2014/11/28/perceptions-and-reality-ten-things-we-should-know-about-attitudes-to-immigration-in-the-uk/

    Was the sort of thing I was referring to.
    Yes, but that seems to be from the time (2014?) when academics were misinforming the public that EU immigration was not as high as the public thought!
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,872

    Sandpit said:

    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
    Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

    It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

    What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
    Yes, well, nothing must get in the way of one's favourite restaurant for the luvvies, must it?
    Mind you I can recall someone's reaction to MeToo and the "persecution" of Roman Polanski. So the luvvies might not be so much hypocritical as extending their standards to other industries....
    Some of the most enlightening reactions of the whole ‘Me Too’ thing, were the actresses who said very little, having benefited massively over the years from the ‘casting couch’ method of auditioning for roles, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.
    For each person that went along with it and made millions, there were hundreds who were simply abused. By scumbags.

    There is a reason that in decent companies having an affair by some working below you in the hierarchy is a sackable offence.
    Maybe in large businesses.

    But I know lots of people who met their significant other that way. I know lots of people who married someone they first met through work and that applied.
    Most companies require relationships to be reported to HR, and are not allowed to be within the line management structure - you’re not allowed to date someone who reports to you, one or other of you needs to move departments.

    More complicated are ‘affairs’ where one or both parties are married to others, that’s the HR nightmare and the sort of thing that, at larger companies, quite some amount of time is devoted to resolving.

  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,337

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Roger said:

    Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


    Redfield & Wilton Strategies
    @RedfieldWilton

    Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

    Too much: 45%
    An appropriate level: 31%
    Not enough: 10%

    Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
    76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
    'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
    The point is that only 10% want more
    I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?

    I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
    The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
    You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.

    I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.

    Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.

    I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
    House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.

    Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.

    So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'
    What ridiculous xenophobia.

    There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.
    There is nothing xenephobic about prioritising affordable new housing for rent and buy to those who were born in the area or who have lived and contributed to it for a long people.

    Most of the new housing to buy is being bought up by Londoners anyway, I am not saying ban Londoners from buying new homes or second homes (although a few areas have done so https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/plan-ban-more-second-homes-5678147 ) merely to focus new affordable homes on locals.
    If a Londoner wants to move to Devon or Kent or Surrey are they not your fellow compatriots? What's wrong with that?

    Why do you hate your fellow countrymen so much that you wish to deny them the chance to buy a home wherever they want to do so?
    Philip, I agree that if you want to move to anywhere in the country and buy a house then that's perfectly acceptable. What I have issue with are second and third home purchases, because it effectively depopulates areas and makes it more difficult to retain local services like shops and pubs etc.
    In the crazy old days, they did the utterly impossible, when more people moved to an area.

    They built houses to match the number of incomers.

    Idiots, eh?
    That sounds a good strategy, it's a shame it doesn't happen now. Mind you I would distinguish between incomers and second home owners.
    How would you distinguish? It's not so simple as they have a house and visit 2 weeks a year, usually.

    Consider Mary and Mike. Mike works in IT in London, Mary is a nurse. They have a house in the sticks, which they currently visit every other weekend. The plane is that Mary will get a job in the local hospital (part time), and Mike will largely work from home, and that's how they will have the space to start a family. They will keep a 1 bed flat in London, for work, and gradually move to spending 2/3rd of their time in the house in the sticks.... eventually.

    Are they second homers?
    I think if they have two homes they are second homers by definition. The question is which is their second home and which their first? Perhaps it will be London house prices they are pushing out of the reach of locals with their city pad.
    I'm not judging them, I'd quite like to have a place in the country, somewhere to potter about in and spend some long summer holidays at, maybe earn some air bnb income. But there is no doubt that this kind of thing creates problems, and if local people want to put some measures in place to gently discourage it then that's their choice. If we did buy somewhere in Cornwall, say, I'd probably try to get a clifftop chalet not a house in a village, to try to minimise the impact on the local housing market.
    The issue is trying to distinguish between "real" second homers and people moving into a community. Even if someone moves to place, they may well visit their old haunts for a while.

    In the case of Mary and Mike (my fictitious example above) - they are evolving into real residents....

    Clifftop chalets are quite upsetting to the locals in Cornwall, by the way. Many are built in place of older residences for locals, others take up nice spots. You can imagine the feeling when the council announces that they are not allowing more houses to be built, just after few expensive holiday homes are sold. Sorry, you will effect the locals if you buy there....
    Yeah it's a tough one. The place I'm interested in has chalets which are over 100 years old and they have always been holiday homes - I know this because my great grandfather bought one in the 1920s. In those days they were affordable for someone like him, a dockyard worker from Devonport, now they are super expensive of course.
    I'm not sure there's a big moral distinction between buying one and renting it out, and staying in one as a paying guest of some other outsider owner as we do now. I love the place because my family has been staying there for at least 5 generations and I'd love to maintain that tangible link.
    Buy one and rent it to a local couple cheap, so they get to live in a big house for the most of the year when you aren't there?
    Well they're not exactly big houses, more like wooden sheds. They're quite tiny actually, and like I say are not really designed for 365-day living.
    It's probably all a beautiful unobtainable dream anyway.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,663
    OK, PB, here is a question.

    I have been trying to work out which active county cricketers made their debuts before T20 was a thing in 2003.

    So far, combing through various databases, I have come up with the following three:

    Darren Stevens (obviously)
    James Anderson
    James Hildreth.

    I'm sure there must be others - can anyone think of any?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,274
    DougSeal said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    Having watched the Olympics in the States, this is mild.
    At least it is presumably not like that episode of 30 Rock, where it was revealed the USA invented a bunch of phony sports to play for the domestic audience, to get more medals.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,110

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Surely, since he is not married so he can do as he wishes as long as he doesnt break e law. What age girl is it reasonable for him to date?
    In his 60s? I probably wouldn't be delighted if my 19 year old daughter brought him home..
    As a general rule of thumb half your age plus seven is what stops it from being creepy.
    Is that how old your wife is then, Philip?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,337
    isam said:

    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


    Redfield & Wilton Strategies
    @RedfieldWilton

    Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

    Too much: 45%
    An appropriate level: 31%
    Not enough: 10%

    Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
    For once, I agree with Roger. Most people should answer "don't know" to these sorts of questions.
    Polling wouldn't be able to ask any questions if it required in depth knowledge....its a proxy for how people generally feel, which in this case they don't want ever higher levels of immigration.
    That's right, I think. It's a proxy for how people feel generally about immigration.

    45% don't like the idea. 10% love the idea. 31% are not fussed.

    You can do the maths. This is why Brexit happened and why the party who took ownership of it will be hard to shift under FPTP.
    I would suggest 31% consider immigration to be at an appropriate level is far from 'not fussed'
    Not in every case, no, but I bet it is in many cases. When you ask someone "is the current level of immigration into the UK too high or too low or about right?", will they (i) know what the level is and (ii) assess this against their considered view of what the country needs? Or will they just say Too High if they dislike immigration, Too Low if they like it, or About Right if it's not an issue they feel strongly about?

    I reckon mainly the latter. Also the numbers sound about right. 45% of the public rather dislike the notion of immigration. See it as the country being penetrated. No room. Charity begins at home. All of this. 10% positively welcome the idea of people 'comin over here' from all over the world. The Bien Peasants. And 31% don't have immigration as one of their big concerns.

    I'm probably running too far with this but I think I'm running in broadly the right direction.
    Most people have no idea what the level of immigration is, especially the people who think it's too high.
    Quite wrong actually. A meme that is as comfortable to slip into as an old pair of shoes, but ill informed. It's the people who are happy with the status quo who underestimate immigration levels

    In the run up to the referendum we were told that people who were citing immigration as a reason for voting Leave were misguided by anecdotes, whereas the data showed the level of immigration was wildly overstated.Keith Vaz was at the airport greeting the single Romanian who flew here on the day that country was granted access to Free Movement, for example, and it made a splash in all the Remain papers

    Now we have Jonathan Portes and the FT, both heavily in favour of the EU and FOM, admitting the level of EU migration was far in excess of the governments estimates. In fact Portes has been saying so for quite a long while

    "By March, there had been 5.3m applications from almost 5m individuals for “settled” or “pre-settled” status (some people applied twice). By all accounts, there has been a last-minute rush since then.

    Yet in 2019, the Home Office estimated the total pool of people eligible to apply for the scheme was only between 3.5m and 4.1m. Applications by people from Romania and Bulgaria had reached about 918,000 and 284,000 respectively by March, while the latest official estimates of their resident populations were 370,000 and 122,000 respectively. Some applications will be from eligible family members or from people who have left the UK. Even so, it seems clear the UK’s population and migration estimates have been “wholly inadequate since at least the mid-2010s”, as economist Jonathan Portes has written."

    https://www.ft.com/content/1c489fb7-2840-4810-b3e6-a036803edf5c
    "The public have a very poor understanding of the scale and nature of immigration. Surveys regularly show we think between a quarter and third of the population are immigrants – when the actual figures are closer to 13 per cent. And these misperceptions extend to our view of the make-up of immigrants. The most mentioned are refugees or asylum-seekers, despite these being the least common immigrant type. The least mentioned group are people who come here to study, when in fact students were the largest category of migrant to the UK in 2011."

    https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2014/11/28/perceptions-and-reality-ten-things-we-should-know-about-attitudes-to-immigration-in-the-uk/

    Was the sort of thing I was referring to.
    Yes, but that seems to be from the time (2014?) when academics were misinforming the public that EU immigration was not as high as the public thought!
    1 or 2 million extra EU immigrants isn't going to bridge the gap between 13% of the population and 25%-33% though is it? That's a gap of 8-13 million people.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,636
    Just seen CANZUK beat the EU in penalties in the women's football.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,992
    kinabalu said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Surely, since he is not married so he can do as he wishes as long as he doesnt break e law. What age girl is it reasonable for him to date?
    In his 60s? I probably wouldn't be delighted if my 19 year old daughter brought him home..
    As a general rule of thumb half your age plus seven is what stops it from being creepy.
    Is that how old your wife is then, Philip?
    That's just a nasty slur.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,872
    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
    Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

    It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

    What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
    Yes, well, nothing must get in the way of one's favourite restaurant for the luvvies, must it?
    Mind you I can recall someone's reaction to MeToo and the "persecution" of Roman Polanski. So the luvvies might not be so much hypocritical as extending their standards to other industries....
    Some of the most enlightening reactions of the whole ‘Me Too’ thing, were the actresses who said very little, having benefited massively over the years from the ‘casting couch’ method of auditioning for roles, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.
    Enlightening how? They were collaborators, you mean? So it's wrong to lay all the blame on men? Or it just showed how deep the malaise was?
    The people happiest with the casting couch audition situation, were the girls who would happily audition lying down, and make millions by doing so. That doesn’t mean it was anything but a disgusting situation.
  • Cases graph looking more and more like late November...
  • Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
    Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

    It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

    What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
    Yes, well, nothing must get in the way of one's favourite restaurant for the luvvies, must it?
    Mind you I can recall someone's reaction to MeToo and the "persecution" of Roman Polanski. So the luvvies might not be so much hypocritical as extending their standards to other industries....
    Some of the most enlightening reactions of the whole ‘Me Too’ thing, were the actresses who said very little, having benefited massively over the years from the ‘casting couch’ method of auditioning for roles, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.
    For each person that went along with it and made millions, there were hundreds who were simply abused. By scumbags.

    There is a reason that in decent companies having an affair by some working below you in the hierarchy is a sackable offence.
    Maybe in large businesses.

    But I know lots of people who met their significant other that way. I know lots of people who married someone they first met through work and that applied.
    Most companies require relationships to be reported to HR, and are not allowed to be within the line management structure - you’re not allowed to date someone who reports to you, one or other of you needs to move departments.

    More complicated are ‘affairs’ where one or both parties are married to others, that’s the HR nightmare and the sort of thing that, at larger companies, quite some amount of time is devoted to resolving.

    That works for large businesses where people can be transferred to alternative departments, not for small businesses which don't exactly have many alternatives people can be deployed at.
  • BREAKING: Florida reports 22,783 new coronavirus cases, the biggest one-day increase on record, and 199 new deaths
  • isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


    Redfield & Wilton Strategies
    @RedfieldWilton

    Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

    Too much: 45%
    An appropriate level: 31%
    Not enough: 10%

    Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
    For once, I agree with Roger. Most people should answer "don't know" to these sorts of questions.
    Polling wouldn't be able to ask any questions if it required in depth knowledge....its a proxy for how people generally feel, which in this case they don't want ever higher levels of immigration.
    That's right, I think. It's a proxy for how people feel generally about immigration.

    45% don't like the idea. 10% love the idea. 31% are not fussed.

    You can do the maths. This is why Brexit happened and why the party who took ownership of it will be hard to shift under FPTP.
    I would suggest 31% consider immigration to be at an appropriate level is far from 'not fussed'
    Not in every case, no, but I bet it is in many cases. When you ask someone "is the current level of immigration into the UK too high or too low or about right?", will they (i) know what the level is and (ii) assess this against their considered view of what the country needs? Or will they just say Too High if they dislike immigration, Too Low if they like it, or About Right if it's not an issue they feel strongly about?

    I reckon mainly the latter. Also the numbers sound about right. 45% of the public rather dislike the notion of immigration. See it as the country being penetrated. No room. Charity begins at home. All of this. 10% positively welcome the idea of people 'comin over here' from all over the world. The Bien Peasants. And 31% don't have immigration as one of their big concerns.

    I'm probably running too far with this but I think I'm running in broadly the right direction.
    Most people have no idea what the level of immigration is, especially the people who think it's too high.
    Quite wrong actually. A meme that is as comfortable to slip into as an old pair of shoes, but ill informed. It's the people who are happy with the status quo who underestimate immigration levels

    In the run up to the referendum we were told that people who were citing immigration as a reason for voting Leave were misguided by anecdotes, whereas the data showed the level of immigration was wildly overstated.Keith Vaz was at the airport greeting the single Romanian who flew here on the day that country was granted access to Free Movement, for example, and it made a splash in all the Remain papers

    Now we have Jonathan Portes and the FT, both heavily in favour of the EU and FOM, admitting the level of EU migration was far in excess of the governments estimates. In fact Portes has been saying so for quite a long while

    "By March, there had been 5.3m applications from almost 5m individuals for “settled” or “pre-settled” status (some people applied twice). By all accounts, there has been a last-minute rush since then.

    Yet in 2019, the Home Office estimated the total pool of people eligible to apply for the scheme was only between 3.5m and 4.1m. Applications by people from Romania and Bulgaria had reached about 918,000 and 284,000 respectively by March, while the latest official estimates of their resident populations were 370,000 and 122,000 respectively. Some applications will be from eligible family members or from people who have left the UK. Even so, it seems clear the UK’s population and migration estimates have been “wholly inadequate since at least the mid-2010s”, as economist Jonathan Portes has written."

    https://www.ft.com/content/1c489fb7-2840-4810-b3e6-a036803edf5c
    "The public have a very poor understanding of the scale and nature of immigration. Surveys regularly show we think between a quarter and third of the population are immigrants – when the actual figures are closer to 13 per cent. And these misperceptions extend to our view of the make-up of immigrants. The most mentioned are refugees or asylum-seekers, despite these being the least common immigrant type. The least mentioned group are people who come here to study, when in fact students were the largest category of migrant to the UK in 2011."

    https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2014/11/28/perceptions-and-reality-ten-things-we-should-know-about-attitudes-to-immigration-in-the-uk/

    Was the sort of thing I was referring to.
    Trouble is it is like all the pointless arguments we used to have about population density or, indeed, second homes. It depends where you live.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638

    isam said:

    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


    Redfield & Wilton Strategies
    @RedfieldWilton

    Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

    Too much: 45%
    An appropriate level: 31%
    Not enough: 10%

    Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
    For once, I agree with Roger. Most people should answer "don't know" to these sorts of questions.
    Polling wouldn't be able to ask any questions if it required in depth knowledge....its a proxy for how people generally feel, which in this case they don't want ever higher levels of immigration.
    That's right, I think. It's a proxy for how people feel generally about immigration.

    45% don't like the idea. 10% love the idea. 31% are not fussed.

    You can do the maths. This is why Brexit happened and why the party who took ownership of it will be hard to shift under FPTP.
    I would suggest 31% consider immigration to be at an appropriate level is far from 'not fussed'
    Not in every case, no, but I bet it is in many cases. When you ask someone "is the current level of immigration into the UK too high or too low or about right?", will they (i) know what the level is and (ii) assess this against their considered view of what the country needs? Or will they just say Too High if they dislike immigration, Too Low if they like it, or About Right if it's not an issue they feel strongly about?

    I reckon mainly the latter. Also the numbers sound about right. 45% of the public rather dislike the notion of immigration. See it as the country being penetrated. No room. Charity begins at home. All of this. 10% positively welcome the idea of people 'comin over here' from all over the world. The Bien Peasants. And 31% don't have immigration as one of their big concerns.

    I'm probably running too far with this but I think I'm running in broadly the right direction.
    Most people have no idea what the level of immigration is, especially the people who think it's too high.
    Quite wrong actually. A meme that is as comfortable to slip into as an old pair of shoes, but ill informed. It's the people who are happy with the status quo who underestimate immigration levels

    In the run up to the referendum we were told that people who were citing immigration as a reason for voting Leave were misguided by anecdotes, whereas the data showed the level of immigration was wildly overstated.Keith Vaz was at the airport greeting the single Romanian who flew here on the day that country was granted access to Free Movement, for example, and it made a splash in all the Remain papers

    Now we have Jonathan Portes and the FT, both heavily in favour of the EU and FOM, admitting the level of EU migration was far in excess of the governments estimates. In fact Portes has been saying so for quite a long while

    "By March, there had been 5.3m applications from almost 5m individuals for “settled” or “pre-settled” status (some people applied twice). By all accounts, there has been a last-minute rush since then.

    Yet in 2019, the Home Office estimated the total pool of people eligible to apply for the scheme was only between 3.5m and 4.1m. Applications by people from Romania and Bulgaria had reached about 918,000 and 284,000 respectively by March, while the latest official estimates of their resident populations were 370,000 and 122,000 respectively. Some applications will be from eligible family members or from people who have left the UK. Even so, it seems clear the UK’s population and migration estimates have been “wholly inadequate since at least the mid-2010s”, as economist Jonathan Portes has written."

    https://www.ft.com/content/1c489fb7-2840-4810-b3e6-a036803edf5c
    "The public have a very poor understanding of the scale and nature of immigration. Surveys regularly show we think between a quarter and third of the population are immigrants – when the actual figures are closer to 13 per cent. And these misperceptions extend to our view of the make-up of immigrants. The most mentioned are refugees or asylum-seekers, despite these being the least common immigrant type. The least mentioned group are people who come here to study, when in fact students were the largest category of migrant to the UK in 2011."

    https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2014/11/28/perceptions-and-reality-ten-things-we-should-know-about-attitudes-to-immigration-in-the-uk/

    Was the sort of thing I was referring to.
    Yes, but that seems to be from the time (2014?) when academics were misinforming the public that EU immigration was not as high as the public thought!
    1 or 2 million extra EU immigrants isn't going to bridge the gap between 13% of the population and 25%-33% though is it? That's a gap of 8-13 million people.
    True. It seems members of the public surveyed overestimate, whilst the government's statistics undercount
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,110

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
    Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

    It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

    What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
    What should a right-on type do then if they fancy eating out?
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638

    Cases graph looking more and more like late November...

    Calm down Sir Keir, we have vaccines now
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,063

    Cases graph looking more and more like late November...

    You mean like this?

    image

    Why do you think that?
  • kinabalu said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Surely, since he is not married so he can do as he wishes as long as he doesnt break e law. What age girl is it reasonable for him to date?
    In his 60s? I probably wouldn't be delighted if my 19 year old daughter brought him home..
    As a general rule of thumb half your age plus seven is what stops it from being creepy.
    Is that how old your wife is then, Philip?
    LOL no. And no she wasn't that when we first met either.

    Two and half year age gap between us which is no issue for thirty something's, nor for twenty something's which is what we were when we met.

    But if we'd been dating when I was sixteen, that would have been creepy.

    The thing is with half your age plus seven is as you get older the gap that is required to be considered creepy grows. An eighty year old and a seventy year old isn't creepy, a twenty year old and a ten year old is.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
    Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

    It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

    What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
    What should a right-on type do then if they fancy eating out?
    Ask her first
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660

    BREAKING: Florida reports 22,783 new coronavirus cases, the biggest one-day increase on record, and 199 new deaths

    Florida population about 22 million so multiply by 3 for equivalent UK figures.

    The UK's highest single day was 68k cases.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,707

    kinabalu said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Surely, since he is not married so he can do as he wishes as long as he doesnt break e law. What age girl is it reasonable for him to date?
    In his 60s? I probably wouldn't be delighted if my 19 year old daughter brought him home..
    As a general rule of thumb half your age plus seven is what stops it from being creepy.
    Is that how old your wife is then, Philip?
    LOL no. And no she wasn't that when we first met either.

    Two and half year age gap between us which is no issue for thirty something's, nor for twenty something's which is what we were when we met.

    But if we'd been dating when I was sixteen, that would have been creepy.

    The thing is with half your age plus seven is as you get older the gap that is required to be considered creepy grows. An eighty year old and a seventy year old isn't creepy, a twenty year old and a ten year old is.
    Never think about your upper age bracket. It goes up two years every year!
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,992
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
    Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

    It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

    What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
    What should a right-on type do then if they fancy eating out?
    That's a good question. We all interact with many businesses: how can we be sure that the staff are not being abused or taken advantage of?

    But the problems in restaurants have been known for decades - from management taking tips, to 'management' giving their tips too freely. It is something, if you are a lowly cook, you need to put up with.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,572
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
    And you according to ... you. The flings of Leon, as it were.
    I'm not Olympian. Not like some friends.

    But a consistent high quality, over time (except these last desperate months, natch)
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,636
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
    Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

    It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

    What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
    What should a right-on type do then if they fancy eating out?
    Greggs on a park bench.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,291
    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
    Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

    It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

    What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
    What should a right-on type do then if they fancy eating out?
    Ask her first
    Masters of the universe righties in like Flynn presumably.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,572

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Surely, since he is not married so he can do as he wishes as long as he doesnt break e law. What age girl is it reasonable for him to date?
    In his 60s? I probably wouldn't be delighted if my 19 year old daughter brought him home..
    As a general rule of thumb half your age plus seven is what stops it from being creepy.
    No, that was Tolstoy's recommended age of bride, for a man, to ensure a happy marriage
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,110
    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
    Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

    It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

    What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
    Yes, well, nothing must get in the way of one's favourite restaurant for the luvvies, must it?
    Mind you I can recall someone's reaction to MeToo and the "persecution" of Roman Polanski. So the luvvies might not be so much hypocritical as extending their standards to other industries....
    Some of the most enlightening reactions of the whole ‘Me Too’ thing, were the actresses who said very little, having benefited massively over the years from the ‘casting couch’ method of auditioning for roles, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.
    Enlightening how? They were collaborators, you mean? So it's wrong to lay all the blame on men? Or it just showed how deep the malaise was?
    The people happiest with the casting couch audition situation, were the girls who would happily audition lying down, and make millions by doing so. That doesn’t mean it was anything but a disgusting situation.
    That, my good friend, is a truly misguided and reprehensible sentiment. I'm not up for getting animated about it this evening but it really really is.
  • Just back from 20 km of solid walking in the Dales.

    Olympics.

    Cycling madison -utterly imperious

    Relays – lovely stuff, good to see Kilty win an Olympic medal

    Pentathlon – thought we’d medal, didn’t expect an OR performance, brilliant

    19 golds is ON, 20 harder, obv., but not impossible.

    We're on 18 and we've two boxing finalists and the knitting bloke jumping in the water. Cycling. Yeah, 20 is feasible.
  • kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
    Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

    It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

    What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
    What should a right-on type do then if they fancy eating out?
    Take your date to the supermarket and fill up a trolley for the local food bank
  • tlg86 said:

    kinabalu said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Surely, since he is not married so he can do as he wishes as long as he doesnt break e law. What age girl is it reasonable for him to date?
    In his 60s? I probably wouldn't be delighted if my 19 year old daughter brought him home..
    As a general rule of thumb half your age plus seven is what stops it from being creepy.
    Is that how old your wife is then, Philip?
    LOL no. And no she wasn't that when we first met either.

    Two and half year age gap between us which is no issue for thirty something's, nor for twenty something's which is what we were when we met.

    But if we'd been dating when I was sixteen, that would have been creepy.

    The thing is with half your age plus seven is as you get older the gap that is required to be considered creepy grows. An eighty year old and a seventy year old isn't creepy, a twenty year old and a ten year old is.
    Never think about your upper age bracket. It goes up two years every year!
    Yikes. As a 39 year old that puts my lower age bracket as 26 which feels about right, but my upper age bracket as 64.

    May not be creepy but no thanks. LOL.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,992
    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
    Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

    It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

    What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
    Yes, well, nothing must get in the way of one's favourite restaurant for the luvvies, must it?
    Mind you I can recall someone's reaction to MeToo and the "persecution" of Roman Polanski. So the luvvies might not be so much hypocritical as extending their standards to other industries....
    Some of the most enlightening reactions of the whole ‘Me Too’ thing, were the actresses who said very little, having benefited massively over the years from the ‘casting couch’ method of auditioning for roles, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.
    Enlightening how? They were collaborators, you mean? So it's wrong to lay all the blame on men? Or it just showed how deep the malaise was?
    The people happiest with the casting couch audition situation, were the girls who would happily audition lying down, and make millions by doing so. That doesn’t mean it was anything but a disgusting situation.
    That, my good friend, is a truly misguided and reprehensible sentiment. I'm not up for getting animated about it this evening but it really really is.
    It's the idea they'd 'happily' do it, if the alternative was not doing it.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,478
    .

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    Would Lineker have to stop selling bags of fat to children if he became PM?
    Absolutely, and Johnson should get the gig. No half measures.
  • .

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    Would Lineker have to stop selling bags of fat to children if he became PM?
    Absolutely, and Johnson should get the gig. No half measures.
    What would that do to Walkers' sales?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,872

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
    Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

    It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

    What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
    Yes, well, nothing must get in the way of one's favourite restaurant for the luvvies, must it?
    Mind you I can recall someone's reaction to MeToo and the "persecution" of Roman Polanski. So the luvvies might not be so much hypocritical as extending their standards to other industries....
    Some of the most enlightening reactions of the whole ‘Me Too’ thing, were the actresses who said very little, having benefited massively over the years from the ‘casting couch’ method of auditioning for roles, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.
    For each person that went along with it and made millions, there were hundreds who were simply abused. By scumbags.

    There is a reason that in decent companies having an affair by some working below you in the hierarchy is a sackable offence.
    Maybe in large businesses.

    But I know lots of people who met their significant other that way. I know lots of people who married someone they first met through work and that applied.
    Most companies require relationships to be reported to HR, and are not allowed to be within the line management structure - you’re not allowed to date someone who reports to you, one or other of you needs to move departments.

    More complicated are ‘affairs’ where one or both parties are married to others, that’s the HR nightmare and the sort of thing that, at larger companies, quite some amount of time is devoted to resolving.

    That works for large businesses where people can be transferred to alternative departments, not for small businesses which don't exactly have many alternatives people can be deployed at.
    Yes, and at small businesses these things can be utterly toxic to employee relations.

    A friend of mine once worked in a small team, I think it was three or four, one of whom became the manager’s girlfriend. The others in the team eventually got fed up of the overt favouritism and raised the issue with the CEO, after which there was an almighty row that led to the whole team being made redundant.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,136

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Roger said:

    Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


    Redfield & Wilton Strategies
    @RedfieldWilton

    Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

    Too much: 45%
    An appropriate level: 31%
    Not enough: 10%

    Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
    76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
    'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
    The point is that only 10% want more
    I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?

    I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
    The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
    You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.

    I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.

    Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.

    I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
    House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.

    Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.

    So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'
    What ridiculous xenophobia.

    There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.
    There is nothing xenephobic about prioritising affordable new housing for rent and buy to those who were born in the area or who have lived and contributed to it for a long people.

    Most of the new housing to buy is being bought up by Londoners anyway, I am not saying ban Londoners from buying new homes or second homes (although a few areas have done so https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/plan-ban-more-second-homes-5678147 ) merely to focus new affordable homes on locals.
    If a Londoner wants to move to Devon or Kent or Surrey are they not your fellow compatriots? What's wrong with that?

    Why do you hate your fellow countrymen so much that you wish to deny them the chance to buy a home wherever they want to do so?
    Philip, I agree that if you want to move to anywhere in the country and buy a house then that's perfectly acceptable. What I have issue with are second and third home purchases, because it effectively depopulates areas and makes it more difficult to retain local services like shops and pubs etc.
    In the crazy old days, they did the utterly impossible, when more people moved to an area.

    They built houses to match the number of incomers.

    Idiots, eh?
    That sounds a good strategy, it's a shame it doesn't happen now. Mind you I would distinguish between incomers and second home owners.
    I wouldn't.

    A second home owner takes a home out of the stockpile available for anyone else.
    You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.

    I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 30,063

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
    Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

    It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

    What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
    What should a right-on type do then if they fancy eating out?
    That's a good question. We all interact with many businesses: how can we be sure that the staff are not being abused or taken advantage of?

    But the problems in restaurants have been known for decades - from management taking tips, to 'management' giving their tips too freely. It is something, if you are a lowly cook, you need to put up with.
    I recall a really nice pizza place I found in Thailand. The kitchen was open planned in the middle of the place.

    The Italian guy who ran it was henpecked in perfect Italian style by his Thai wife (who berated him non-stop in perfect Italian).... even down to the apron full of flour.... The even more ancient Italian sidekick who shuffled about the place doing various jobs, ignoring the strife made the whole thing into a perfect comedy.

    Very good pizza.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,110

    kinabalu said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Surely, since he is not married so he can do as he wishes as long as he doesnt break e law. What age girl is it reasonable for him to date?
    In his 60s? I probably wouldn't be delighted if my 19 year old daughter brought him home..
    As a general rule of thumb half your age plus seven is what stops it from being creepy.
    Is that how old your wife is then, Philip?
    That's just a nasty slur.
    It isn't! It's a joke and not even that edgy. Just a gentle kid of the Philip.

    Cf "people define rich as those earning £1 more than them".

    See?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,572

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
    Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

    It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

    What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
    Yes, well, nothing must get in the way of one's favourite restaurant for the luvvies, must it?
    Mind you I can recall someone's reaction to MeToo and the "persecution" of Roman Polanski. So the luvvies might not be so much hypocritical as extending their standards to other industries....
    Some of the most enlightening reactions of the whole ‘Me Too’ thing, were the actresses who said very little, having benefited massively over the years from the ‘casting couch’ method of auditioning for roles, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.
    Enlightening how? They were collaborators, you mean? So it's wrong to lay all the blame on men? Or it just showed how deep the malaise was?
    The people happiest with the casting couch audition situation, were the girls who would happily audition lying down, and make millions by doing so. That doesn’t mean it was anything but a disgusting situation.
    That, my good friend, is a truly misguided and reprehensible sentiment. I'm not up for getting animated about it this evening but it really really is.
    It's the idea they'd 'happily' do it, if the alternative was not doing it.
    I would never defend the likes of Weinstein, who is a horrible serial rapist and deserves every second of his enormous jail time

    But there ARE young women who make the moves with older men, hoping for advancement (especially in the entertainment industry). I know one woman who basically slept her way to the top. She was the seducer, not the guys. And she admits it, happily

    That complicates it - sometimes
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 41,872
    Play abandoned at Trent Bridge. Maybe rain can save England after all?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,572

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Roger said:

    Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


    Redfield & Wilton Strategies
    @RedfieldWilton

    Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

    Too much: 45%
    An appropriate level: 31%
    Not enough: 10%

    Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
    76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
    'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
    The point is that only 10% want more
    I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?

    I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
    The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
    You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.

    I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.

    Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.

    I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
    House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.

    Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.

    So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'
    What ridiculous xenophobia.

    There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.
    There is nothing xenephobic about prioritising affordable new housing for rent and buy to those who were born in the area or who have lived and contributed to it for a long people.

    Most of the new housing to buy is being bought up by Londoners anyway, I am not saying ban Londoners from buying new homes or second homes (although a few areas have done so https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/plan-ban-more-second-homes-5678147 ) merely to focus new affordable homes on locals.
    If a Londoner wants to move to Devon or Kent or Surrey are they not your fellow compatriots? What's wrong with that?

    Why do you hate your fellow countrymen so much that you wish to deny them the chance to buy a home wherever they want to do so?
    Philip, I agree that if you want to move to anywhere in the country and buy a house then that's perfectly acceptable. What I have issue with are second and third home purchases, because it effectively depopulates areas and makes it more difficult to retain local services like shops and pubs etc.
    In the crazy old days, they did the utterly impossible, when more people moved to an area.

    They built houses to match the number of incomers.

    Idiots, eh?
    That sounds a good strategy, it's a shame it doesn't happen now. Mind you I would distinguish between incomers and second home owners.
    I wouldn't.

    A second home owner takes a home out of the stockpile available for anyone else.
    You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.

    I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
    Your second home should be taxed extremely heavily. Who needs TWO homes? If you are greedy enough to want one, then you should pay through the nose in taxes, to compensate locals who might be priced out of their neighbourhoods if too many people are as greedy as you
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,145

    Just back from 20 km of solid walking in the Dales.

    Olympics.

    Cycling madison -utterly imperious

    Relays – lovely stuff, good to see Kilty win an Olympic medal

    Pentathlon – thought we’d medal, didn’t expect an OR performance, brilliant

    19 golds is ON, 20 harder, obv., but not impossible.

    There's a decent chance of 20. There are no athletics events left in which the British competitors are close to being favourites, but there are still opportunities remaining in boxing (two finals,) four track cycling events, diving (Tom Daley,) the team show jumping competition, and men's modern pentathlon.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,094
    2.5million over-50s (11 per cent) have not yet got their second jab

    D Mail
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 35,291
    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Surely, since he is not married so he can do as he wishes as long as he doesnt break e law. What age girl is it reasonable for him to date?
    In his 60s? I probably wouldn't be delighted if my 19 year old daughter brought him home..
    As a general rule of thumb half your age plus seven is what stops it from being creepy.
    No, that was Tolstoy's recommended age of bride, for a man, to ensure a happy marriage
    With one of the notably miserable marriages, did ol’ Leo observe his own recommendation?
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,924
    I have had a successful day in that I made it to the pub for lunch and also clicked Buy Now on some of that Zimbabwean hot sauce, hopefully arriving in time for tomorrow’s bbq. In the interests of paying it on, I must recommend Benenden Sauce, makes even a drab salad something exquisite.

    It doesn’t seem to be stocked by Bezos but you can find it easily enough:

    https://www.waitrose.com/ecom/products/harringtons-original-benenden-sauce/082668-42047-42048
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,572

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Surely, since he is not married so he can do as he wishes as long as he doesnt break e law. What age girl is it reasonable for him to date?
    In his 60s? I probably wouldn't be delighted if my 19 year old daughter brought him home..
    As a general rule of thumb half your age plus seven is what stops it from being creepy.
    No, that was Tolstoy's recommended age of bride, for a man, to ensure a happy marriage
    With one of the notably miserable marriages, did ol’ Leo observe his own recommendation?
    I'd have to check, but my guess is yes he probably came quite close to following his own forrmula

    His marriage was famously happy in its early years (they were both highly sexed) it started going wrong when Leon got religion, which meant sporadic celibacy (wife not happy) and then he decided to live like a peasant, scything corn, cobbling his own shoes, muttering into his beard

    Yet she stuck with him to the end

    His libido was incredible. As a younger man when he was walking past the kitchens he would ask a friend to come with him, in case he was stirred to overwhelming desire by the bare legs of the scullery maids, which would otherwise be too tempting to resist, and he would run in and ravish a couple
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,110

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
    Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

    It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

    What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
    What should a right-on type do then if they fancy eating out?
    Take your date to the supermarket and fill up a trolley for the local food bank
    🙂 - OK. Tough life for these Bien Peasants then. Perhaps easier to stop with all the 'caring' nonsense, relax into guilt-free affluence and vote Conservative.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Roger said:

    Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


    Redfield & Wilton Strategies
    @RedfieldWilton

    Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

    Too much: 45%
    An appropriate level: 31%
    Not enough: 10%

    Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
    76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
    'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
    The point is that only 10% want more
    I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?

    I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
    The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
    You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.

    I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.

    Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.

    I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
    House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.

    Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.

    So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'
    What ridiculous xenophobia.

    There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.
    There is nothing xenephobic about prioritising affordable new housing for rent and buy to those who were born in the area or who have lived and contributed to it for a long people.

    Most of the new housing to buy is being bought up by Londoners anyway, I am not saying ban Londoners from buying new homes or second homes (although a few areas have done so https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/plan-ban-more-second-homes-5678147 ) merely to focus new affordable homes on locals.
    If a Londoner wants to move to Devon or Kent or Surrey are they not your fellow compatriots? What's wrong with that?

    Why do you hate your fellow countrymen so much that you wish to deny them the chance to buy a home wherever they want to do so?
    Philip, I agree that if you want to move to anywhere in the country and buy a house then that's perfectly acceptable. What I have issue with are second and third home purchases, because it effectively depopulates areas and makes it more difficult to retain local services like shops and pubs etc.
    In the crazy old days, they did the utterly impossible, when more people moved to an area.

    They built houses to match the number of incomers.

    Idiots, eh?
    That sounds a good strategy, it's a shame it doesn't happen now. Mind you I would distinguish between incomers and second home owners.
    I wouldn't.

    A second home owner takes a home out of the stockpile available for anyone else.
    You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.

    I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
    I think you misunderstood the comment and who it was in response to.

    I have no qualms whatsoever in you or Ishmael or anyone else owning two, three, four or more homes if that's what you want. Own as many as you please and are prepared to pay the taxes on.

    But every home owned by a second home owner can not subsequently be owned by someone else. So every home owned by you as a second home means that a new home really ought to be constructed in order to be available to others as their first home.

    I have no qualms about that. I am on the right economically in this I think there should be a completely free market in housing, no planning constraints. If you want to build a second home on your own land that should be your prerogative in my opinion.

    What's interesting though is the self confessed NIMBYs on this site who own two homes and are horrified at the idea of others building just one for themselves.
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,395
    edited August 2021

    2.5million over-50s (11 per cent) have not yet got their second jab

    D Mail

    Does that mean not offered or not taken up? Clearly bad either way but if it's the latter they're in the hands of the almighty.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,572
    moonshine said:

    I have had a successful day in that I made it to the pub for lunch and also clicked Buy Now on some of that Zimbabwean hot sauce, hopefully arriving in time for tomorrow’s bbq. In the interests of paying it on, I must recommend Benenden Sauce, makes even a drab salad something exquisite.

    It doesn’t seem to be stocked by Bezos but you can find it easily enough:

    https://www.waitrose.com/ecom/products/harringtons-original-benenden-sauce/082668-42047-42048

    I hope you like the sauce! Go easy with it at first, especially the smoky one. Very rich and intense, but mmmmm
  • kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
    Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

    It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

    What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
    What should a right-on type do then if they fancy eating out?
    Take your date to the supermarket and fill up a trolley for the local food bank
    🙂 - OK. Tough life for these Bien Peasants then. Perhaps easier to stop with all the 'caring' nonsense, relax into guilt-free affluence and vote Conservative.
    That's the spirit!
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,992
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
    Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

    It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

    What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
    Yes, well, nothing must get in the way of one's favourite restaurant for the luvvies, must it?
    Mind you I can recall someone's reaction to MeToo and the "persecution" of Roman Polanski. So the luvvies might not be so much hypocritical as extending their standards to other industries....
    Some of the most enlightening reactions of the whole ‘Me Too’ thing, were the actresses who said very little, having benefited massively over the years from the ‘casting couch’ method of auditioning for roles, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.
    Enlightening how? They were collaborators, you mean? So it's wrong to lay all the blame on men? Or it just showed how deep the malaise was?
    The people happiest with the casting couch audition situation, were the girls who would happily audition lying down, and make millions by doing so. That doesn’t mean it was anything but a disgusting situation.
    That, my good friend, is a truly misguided and reprehensible sentiment. I'm not up for getting animated about it this evening but it really really is.
    It's the idea they'd 'happily' do it, if the alternative was not doing it.
    I would never defend the likes of Weinstein, who is a horrible serial rapist and deserves every second of his enormous jail time

    But there ARE young women who make the moves with older men, hoping for advancement (especially in the entertainment industry). I know one woman who basically slept her way to the top. She was the seducer, not the guys. And she admits it, happily

    That complicates it - sometimes
    Perhaps, just perhaps, that's because they know that's the only way they'll get advancement? Perhaps if other avenues were open to them, they wouldn't do it?
  • Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Surely, since he is not married so he can do as he wishes as long as he doesnt break e law. What age girl is it reasonable for him to date?
    In his 60s? I probably wouldn't be delighted if my 19 year old daughter brought him home..
    As a general rule of thumb half your age plus seven is what stops it from being creepy.
    No, that was Tolstoy's recommended age of bride, for a man, to ensure a happy marriage
    That may have been how it was originally construed but it still works nowadays as a guide as to that which is creepy and isn't.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,636

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
    Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

    It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

    What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
    What should a right-on type do then if they fancy eating out?
    That's a good question. We all interact with many businesses: how can we be sure that the staff are not being abused or taken advantage of?

    But the problems in restaurants have been known for decades - from management taking tips, to 'management' giving their tips too freely. It is something, if you are a lowly cook, you need to put up with.
    I recall a really nice pizza place I found in Thailand. The kitchen was open planned in the middle of the place.

    The Italian guy who ran it was henpecked in perfect Italian style by his Thai wife (who berated him non-stop in perfect Italian).... even down to the apron full of flour.... The even more ancient Italian sidekick who shuffled about the place doing various jobs, ignoring the strife made the whole thing into a perfect comedy.

    Very good pizza.
    Thai green curry pizza. Cracking.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,110
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
    Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

    It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

    What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
    Yes, well, nothing must get in the way of one's favourite restaurant for the luvvies, must it?
    Mind you I can recall someone's reaction to MeToo and the "persecution" of Roman Polanski. So the luvvies might not be so much hypocritical as extending their standards to other industries....
    Some of the most enlightening reactions of the whole ‘Me Too’ thing, were the actresses who said very little, having benefited massively over the years from the ‘casting couch’ method of auditioning for roles, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.
    Enlightening how? They were collaborators, you mean? So it's wrong to lay all the blame on men? Or it just showed how deep the malaise was?
    The people happiest with the casting couch audition situation, were the girls who would happily audition lying down, and make millions by doing so. That doesn’t mean it was anything but a disgusting situation.
    That, my good friend, is a truly misguided and reprehensible sentiment. I'm not up for getting animated about it this evening but it really really is.
    It's the idea they'd 'happily' do it, if the alternative was not doing it.
    I would never defend the likes of Weinstein, who is a horrible serial rapist and deserves every second of his enormous jail time

    But there ARE young women who make the moves with older men, hoping for advancement (especially in the entertainment industry). I know one woman who basically slept her way to the top. She was the seducer, not the guys. And she admits it, happily

    That complicates it - sometimes
    It doesn't complicate it. Not really. Because the "it" is a set-up where men had the power and the power that women had was merely a derivative of this.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,572

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
    Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

    It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

    What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
    Yes, well, nothing must get in the way of one's favourite restaurant for the luvvies, must it?
    Mind you I can recall someone's reaction to MeToo and the "persecution" of Roman Polanski. So the luvvies might not be so much hypocritical as extending their standards to other industries....
    Some of the most enlightening reactions of the whole ‘Me Too’ thing, were the actresses who said very little, having benefited massively over the years from the ‘casting couch’ method of auditioning for roles, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.
    Enlightening how? They were collaborators, you mean? So it's wrong to lay all the blame on men? Or it just showed how deep the malaise was?
    The people happiest with the casting couch audition situation, were the girls who would happily audition lying down, and make millions by doing so. That doesn’t mean it was anything but a disgusting situation.
    That, my good friend, is a truly misguided and reprehensible sentiment. I'm not up for getting animated about it this evening but it really really is.
    It's the idea they'd 'happily' do it, if the alternative was not doing it.
    I would never defend the likes of Weinstein, who is a horrible serial rapist and deserves every second of his enormous jail time

    But there ARE young women who make the moves with older men, hoping for advancement (especially in the entertainment industry). I know one woman who basically slept her way to the top. She was the seducer, not the guys. And she admits it, happily

    That complicates it - sometimes
    Perhaps, just perhaps, that's because they know that's the only way they'll get advancement? Perhaps if other avenues were open to them, they wouldn't do it?
    No, you're being naive. There are women who definitely exploit their looks to speed their careers

    Let's say you're a hot looking 21 year old in TV or movies. Let's say there are many many girls as good as you, at the same level as you, and just as entitled to promotion as you - maybe more so (cleverer etc). But perhaps they aren't as hot as you

    So you decide to use your beauty to seduce the big producer, and in his pathetic gratitude he gives you a plum role or a sudden promotion in the TV company.

    Who is exploiting whom, here? It's not easy to say
  • pingping Posts: 3,177
    edited August 2021
    On second homes

    It’s one of those problems that get largely resolved when we exit the zero interest rate environment.

    It’s been a disaster for the young and assetless especially when combined with a government that isn’t willing to do anything to actively suppress house price inflation.

    Personally, I’d tax housing at a level just high enough to squeeze out the buy to letters and casual too-much-spare-money-in-the-bank-earning-nothing second home owners. 3% of the value per year would do it. Then use the proceeds to reduce income tax.

    Or we could just put up interest rates to something more sensible and solve the problem that way.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,572
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
    Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

    It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

    What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
    Yes, well, nothing must get in the way of one's favourite restaurant for the luvvies, must it?
    Mind you I can recall someone's reaction to MeToo and the "persecution" of Roman Polanski. So the luvvies might not be so much hypocritical as extending their standards to other industries....
    Some of the most enlightening reactions of the whole ‘Me Too’ thing, were the actresses who said very little, having benefited massively over the years from the ‘casting couch’ method of auditioning for roles, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.
    Enlightening how? They were collaborators, you mean? So it's wrong to lay all the blame on men? Or it just showed how deep the malaise was?
    The people happiest with the casting couch audition situation, were the girls who would happily audition lying down, and make millions by doing so. That doesn’t mean it was anything but a disgusting situation.
    That, my good friend, is a truly misguided and reprehensible sentiment. I'm not up for getting animated about it this evening but it really really is.
    It's the idea they'd 'happily' do it, if the alternative was not doing it.
    I would never defend the likes of Weinstein, who is a horrible serial rapist and deserves every second of his enormous jail time

    But there ARE young women who make the moves with older men, hoping for advancement (especially in the entertainment industry). I know one woman who basically slept her way to the top. She was the seducer, not the guys. And she admits it, happily

    That complicates it - sometimes
    It doesn't complicate it. Not really. Because the "it" is a set-up where men had the power and the power that women had was merely a derivative of this.
    God you're dumb

    Both sides have power, it has always been this way

    Men have the material power, the money and rank (or they did, generally). They exploit it.

    But young women have the sexual power, they have the beauty men will literally kill for. And some young women exploit that, too

    Thus: human history.
  • I know it's a useless construct, but it does seem amazing to me that the UK plus AUS has more golds and more medals than any single country.

    More impressive than the "EU total" anyway..
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 45,245

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Surely, since he is not married so he can do as he wishes as long as he doesnt break e law. What age girl is it reasonable for him to date?
    In his 60s? I probably wouldn't be delighted if my 19 year old daughter brought him home..
    As a general rule of thumb half your age plus seven is what stops it from being creepy.
    No, that was Tolstoy's recommended age of bride, for a man, to ensure a happy marriage
    That may have been how it was originally construed but it still works nowadays as a guide as to that which is creepy and isn't.
    My wife is a year older than me. Personally I have always revelled in being a boy toy.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,636
    Bozo's pit closure comment being covered on Look North.

    Hopefully some of those suffering from false consciousness are watching.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,328
    I’d really prefer R to be consistently below 1 before the schools go back. This flattening does not provide a helpful point for that particular vector to resume
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,572
    edited August 2021
    A Biblical ton of rain just fell on north London. And then it stopped.

    This summer weather is decidedly ODD
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,136
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Roger said:

    Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


    Redfield & Wilton Strategies
    @RedfieldWilton

    Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

    Too much: 45%
    An appropriate level: 31%
    Not enough: 10%

    Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
    76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
    'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
    The point is that only 10% want more
    I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?

    I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
    The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
    You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.

    I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.

    Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.

    I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
    House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.

    Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.

    So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'
    What ridiculous xenophobia.

    There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.
    There is nothing xenephobic about prioritising affordable new housing for rent and buy to those who were born in the area or who have lived and contributed to it for a long people.

    Most of the new housing to buy is being bought up by Londoners anyway, I am not saying ban Londoners from buying new homes or second homes (although a few areas have done so https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/plan-ban-more-second-homes-5678147 ) merely to focus new affordable homes on locals.
    If a Londoner wants to move to Devon or Kent or Surrey are they not your fellow compatriots? What's wrong with that?

    Why do you hate your fellow countrymen so much that you wish to deny them the chance to buy a home wherever they want to do so?
    Philip, I agree that if you want to move to anywhere in the country and buy a house then that's perfectly acceptable. What I have issue with are second and third home purchases, because it effectively depopulates areas and makes it more difficult to retain local services like shops and pubs etc.
    In the crazy old days, they did the utterly impossible, when more people moved to an area.

    They built houses to match the number of incomers.

    Idiots, eh?
    That sounds a good strategy, it's a shame it doesn't happen now. Mind you I would distinguish between incomers and second home owners.
    I wouldn't.

    A second home owner takes a home out of the stockpile available for anyone else.
    You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.

    I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
    Your second home should be taxed extremely heavily. Who needs TWO homes? If you are greedy enough to want one, then you should pay through the nose in taxes, to compensate locals who might be priced out of their neighbourhoods if too many people are as greedy as you
    OK Chairman Mao. Why don't we just let the state own everything? Why should you have a holiday abroad, perhaps several a year in normal times, when others can't afford one? Why should you be allowed to eat in restaurants where the cost of one course or a bottle of wine would feed a poor family for a fortnight?

    Why should you be allowed to do any of these things? Perhaps because you worked for what you got, or maybe you just got lucky? Or maybe you are just being ironic? I guess it is Friday night and you might just have had too many glasses of Blue Nunn
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,094
    felix said:

    2.5million over-50s (11 per cent) have not yet got their second jab

    D Mail

    Does that mean not offered or not taken up? Clearly bad either way but if it's the latter they're in the hands of the almighty.
    It'll be the latter I suspect. I doubt there is anyone over 50 not invited now other than people not on the radar and those who cannot take the vaccine due to existing condition.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,992
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
    Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

    It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

    What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
    Yes, well, nothing must get in the way of one's favourite restaurant for the luvvies, must it?
    Mind you I can recall someone's reaction to MeToo and the "persecution" of Roman Polanski. So the luvvies might not be so much hypocritical as extending their standards to other industries....
    Some of the most enlightening reactions of the whole ‘Me Too’ thing, were the actresses who said very little, having benefited massively over the years from the ‘casting couch’ method of auditioning for roles, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.
    Enlightening how? They were collaborators, you mean? So it's wrong to lay all the blame on men? Or it just showed how deep the malaise was?
    The people happiest with the casting couch audition situation, were the girls who would happily audition lying down, and make millions by doing so. That doesn’t mean it was anything but a disgusting situation.
    That, my good friend, is a truly misguided and reprehensible sentiment. I'm not up for getting animated about it this evening but it really really is.
    It's the idea they'd 'happily' do it, if the alternative was not doing it.
    I would never defend the likes of Weinstein, who is a horrible serial rapist and deserves every second of his enormous jail time

    But there ARE young women who make the moves with older men, hoping for advancement (especially in the entertainment industry). I know one woman who basically slept her way to the top. She was the seducer, not the guys. And she admits it, happily

    That complicates it - sometimes
    Perhaps, just perhaps, that's because they know that's the only way they'll get advancement? Perhaps if other avenues were open to them, they wouldn't do it?
    No, you're being naive. There are women who definitely exploit their looks to speed their careers

    Let's say you're a hot looking 21 year old in TV or movies. Let's say there are many many girls as good as you, at the same level as you, and just as entitled to promotion as you - maybe more so (cleverer etc). But perhaps they aren't as hot as you

    So you decide to use your beauty to seduce the big producer, and in his pathetic gratitude he gives you a plum role or a sudden promotion in the TV company.

    Who is exploiting whom, here? It's not easy to say
    So, in your view, women should use their looks to shag their way to the top, regardless of any intelligence or skills they might have? And the lucky, dumb men are just fortunate?

    You're the one being naïve. Wilfully, I believe. (It feels odd calling you naïve, but there you go...)

    It shouldn't be that way, as all to quickly 'willing' becomes 'exploited'. Which is exactly how Weinstein et al got their conquests. "Oh, you want the job? Sure, you'll have to compete with that girl. And you know what she does..."

    People selling their bodies or suffering abuse to get or keep a job is wrong.

    (Although I do wonder how the military fits into the above.)
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,572

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Roger said:

    Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


    Redfield & Wilton Strategies
    @RedfieldWilton

    Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

    Too much: 45%
    An appropriate level: 31%
    Not enough: 10%

    Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
    76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
    'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
    The point is that only 10% want more
    I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?

    I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
    The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
    You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.

    I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.

    Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.

    I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
    House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.

    Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.

    So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'
    What ridiculous xenophobia.

    There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.
    There is nothing xenephobic about prioritising affordable new housing for rent and buy to those who were born in the area or who have lived and contributed to it for a long people.

    Most of the new housing to buy is being bought up by Londoners anyway, I am not saying ban Londoners from buying new homes or second homes (although a few areas have done so https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/plan-ban-more-second-homes-5678147 ) merely to focus new affordable homes on locals.
    If a Londoner wants to move to Devon or Kent or Surrey are they not your fellow compatriots? What's wrong with that?

    Why do you hate your fellow countrymen so much that you wish to deny them the chance to buy a home wherever they want to do so?
    Philip, I agree that if you want to move to anywhere in the country and buy a house then that's perfectly acceptable. What I have issue with are second and third home purchases, because it effectively depopulates areas and makes it more difficult to retain local services like shops and pubs etc.
    In the crazy old days, they did the utterly impossible, when more people moved to an area.

    They built houses to match the number of incomers.

    Idiots, eh?
    That sounds a good strategy, it's a shame it doesn't happen now. Mind you I would distinguish between incomers and second home owners.
    I wouldn't.

    A second home owner takes a home out of the stockpile available for anyone else.
    You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.

    I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
    Your second home should be taxed extremely heavily. Who needs TWO homes? If you are greedy enough to want one, then you should pay through the nose in taxes, to compensate locals who might be priced out of their neighbourhoods if too many people are as greedy as you
    OK Chairman Mao. Why don't we just let the state own everything? Why should you have a holiday abroad, perhaps several a year in normal times, when others can't afford one? Why should you be allowed to eat in restaurants where the cost of one course or a bottle of wine would feed a poor family for a fortnight?

    Why should you be allowed to do any of these things? Perhaps because you worked for what you got, or maybe you just got lucky? Or maybe you are just being ironic? I guess it is Friday night and you might just have had too many glasses of Blue Nunn
    Stone cold sober

    I have been thinking about this issue, and the way people like my niece are having their lives damaged by property price rises in Cornwall - a process which is hugely accelerated by second home owners like you

    When I go on holiday I bring money to the destination I visit, I benefit the local economy. You just parasitise the beauty of a place with your 2nd home greed, and you make life less liveable for the locals in a profound way

    Your second home should be taxed til you squeal in pain
  • pingping Posts: 3,177

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Roger said:

    Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


    Redfield & Wilton Strategies
    @RedfieldWilton

    Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

    Too much: 45%
    An appropriate level: 31%
    Not enough: 10%

    Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
    76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
    'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
    The point is that only 10% want more
    I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?

    I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
    The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
    You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.

    I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.

    Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.

    I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
    House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.

    Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.

    So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'
    What ridiculous xenophobia.

    There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.
    There is nothing xenephobic about prioritising affordable new housing for rent and buy to those who were born in the area or who have lived and contributed to it for a long people.

    Most of the new housing to buy is being bought up by Londoners anyway, I am not saying ban Londoners from buying new homes or second homes (although a few areas have done so https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/plan-ban-more-second-homes-5678147 ) merely to focus new affordable homes on locals.
    If a Londoner wants to move to Devon or Kent or Surrey are they not your fellow compatriots? What's wrong with that?

    Why do you hate your fellow countrymen so much that you wish to deny them the chance to buy a home wherever they want to do so?
    Philip, I agree that if you want to move to anywhere in the country and buy a house then that's perfectly acceptable. What I have issue with are second and third home purchases, because it effectively depopulates areas and makes it more difficult to retain local services like shops and pubs etc.
    In the crazy old days, they did the utterly impossible, when more people moved to an area.

    They built houses to match the number of incomers.

    Idiots, eh?
    That sounds a good strategy, it's a shame it doesn't happen now. Mind you I would distinguish between incomers and second home owners.
    I wouldn't.

    A second home owner takes a home out of the stockpile available for anyone else.
    You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.

    I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
    Your second home should be taxed extremely heavily. Who needs TWO homes? If you are greedy enough to want one, then you should pay through the nose in taxes, to compensate locals who might be priced out of their neighbourhoods if too many people are as greedy as you
    OK Chairman Mao. Why don't we just let the state own everything? Why should you have a holiday abroad, perhaps several a year in normal times, when others can't afford one? Why should you be allowed to eat in restaurants where the cost of one course or a bottle of wine would feed a poor family for a fortnight?

    Why should you be allowed to do any of these things? Perhaps because you worked for what you got, or maybe you just got lucky? Or maybe you are just being ironic? I guess it is Friday night and you might just have had too many glasses of Blue Nunn
    When the wealthy are using housing as a mechanism to extract rents from the poor, the government needs to step in.

    That is what is happening.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,636
    DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Surely, since he is not married so he can do as he wishes as long as he doesnt break e law. What age girl is it reasonable for him to date?
    In his 60s? I probably wouldn't be delighted if my 19 year old daughter brought him home..
    As a general rule of thumb half your age plus seven is what stops it from being creepy.
    No, that was Tolstoy's recommended age of bride, for a man, to ensure a happy marriage
    That may have been how it was originally construed but it still works nowadays as a guide as to that which is creepy and isn't.
    My wife is a year older than me. Personally I have always revelled in being a boy toy.
    And do you describe your wife as a Cougar?

    Full disclosure - I'm almost 5 years younger than my wife.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,136
    Leon said:

    A Biblical ton of rain just fell on north London. And then it stopped.

    This summer weather is decidedly ODD

    Is a Biblical ton recognised as similar to a metric tonne or an imperial ton ?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,110

    kinabalu said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Surely, since he is not married so he can do as he wishes as long as he doesnt break e law. What age girl is it reasonable for him to date?
    In his 60s? I probably wouldn't be delighted if my 19 year old daughter brought him home..
    As a general rule of thumb half your age plus seven is what stops it from being creepy.
    Is that how old your wife is then, Philip?
    LOL no. And no she wasn't that when we first met either.

    Two and half year age gap between us which is no issue for thirty something's, nor for twenty something's which is what we were when we met.

    But if we'd been dating when I was sixteen, that would have been creepy.

    The thing is with half your age plus seven is as you get older the gap that is required to be considered creepy grows. An eighty year old and a seventy year old isn't creepy, a twenty year old and a ten year old is.
    Ok. It's a rule then. It's written. As it happens it's bang on for my current (and forever) wife when we started our thing. Me 31 her 23. Phew!
  • DavidL said:

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Surely, since he is not married so he can do as he wishes as long as he doesnt break e law. What age girl is it reasonable for him to date?
    In his 60s? I probably wouldn't be delighted if my 19 year old daughter brought him home..
    As a general rule of thumb half your age plus seven is what stops it from being creepy.
    No, that was Tolstoy's recommended age of bride, for a man, to ensure a happy marriage
    That may have been how it was originally construed but it still works nowadays as a guide as to that which is creepy and isn't.
    My wife is a year older than me. Personally I have always revelled in being a boy toy.
    Mine is 4 plus years older and very special even after 57 years of marriage

    And a very kind and generous Scot who dislikes the divisive nature of the Nationalists
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,572
    edited August 2021

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
    Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

    It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

    What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
    Yes, well, nothing must get in the way of one's favourite restaurant for the luvvies, must it?
    Mind you I can recall someone's reaction to MeToo and the "persecution" of Roman Polanski. So the luvvies might not be so much hypocritical as extending their standards to other industries....
    Some of the most enlightening reactions of the whole ‘Me Too’ thing, were the actresses who said very little, having benefited massively over the years from the ‘casting couch’ method of auditioning for roles, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.
    Enlightening how? They were collaborators, you mean? So it's wrong to lay all the blame on men? Or it just showed how deep the malaise was?
    The people happiest with the casting couch audition situation, were the girls who would happily audition lying down, and make millions by doing so. That doesn’t mean it was anything but a disgusting situation.
    That, my good friend, is a truly misguided and reprehensible sentiment. I'm not up for getting animated about it this evening but it really really is.
    It's the idea they'd 'happily' do it, if the alternative was not doing it.
    I would never defend the likes of Weinstein, who is a horrible serial rapist and deserves every second of his enormous jail time

    But there ARE young women who make the moves with older men, hoping for advancement (especially in the entertainment industry). I know one woman who basically slept her way to the top. She was the seducer, not the guys. And she admits it, happily

    That complicates it - sometimes
    Perhaps, just perhaps, that's because they know that's the only way they'll get advancement? Perhaps if other avenues were open to them, they wouldn't do it?
    No, you're being naive. There are women who definitely exploit their looks to speed their careers

    Let's say you're a hot looking 21 year old in TV or movies. Let's say there are many many girls as good as you, at the same level as you, and just as entitled to promotion as you - maybe more so (cleverer etc). But perhaps they aren't as hot as you

    So you decide to use your beauty to seduce the big producer, and in his pathetic gratitude he gives you a plum role or a sudden promotion in the TV company.

    Who is exploiting whom, here? It's not easy to say
    So, in your view, women should use their looks to shag their way to the top, regardless of any intelligence or skills they might have? And the lucky, dumb men are just fortunate?

    You're the one being naïve. Wilfully, I believe. (It feels odd calling you naïve, but there you go...)

    It shouldn't be that way, as all to quickly 'willing' becomes 'exploited'. Which is exactly how Weinstein et al got their conquests. "Oh, you want the job? Sure, you'll have to compete with that girl. And you know what she does..."

    People selling their bodies or suffering abuse to get or keep a job is wrong.

    (Although I do wonder how the military fits into the above.)
    You're not even listening to my argument. Unless you ban any sex between employees in the same company (which we are probably quite close to doing) then you will get situations like the one I adumbrate. A hot young woman who steals a march on her female rivals by seducing a powerful older guy (or woman, that happens too).

    I suppose the older man or woman could refuse, but that is asking quite a lot of human nature. And once two people are fucking, favouritism becomes inevitable. Everyone employs people they like, if they can
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,110
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
    And you according to ... you. The flings of Leon, as it were.
    I'm not Olympian. Not like some friends.

    But a consistent high quality, over time (except these last desperate months, natch)
    Could we tell by the way you use your walk?
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,136
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
    Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

    It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

    What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
    Yes, well, nothing must get in the way of one's favourite restaurant for the luvvies, must it?
    Mind you I can recall someone's reaction to MeToo and the "persecution" of Roman Polanski. So the luvvies might not be so much hypocritical as extending their standards to other industries....
    Some of the most enlightening reactions of the whole ‘Me Too’ thing, were the actresses who said very little, having benefited massively over the years from the ‘casting couch’ method of auditioning for roles, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.
    Enlightening how? They were collaborators, you mean? So it's wrong to lay all the blame on men? Or it just showed how deep the malaise was?
    The people happiest with the casting couch audition situation, were the girls who would happily audition lying down, and make millions by doing so. That doesn’t mean it was anything but a disgusting situation.
    That, my good friend, is a truly misguided and reprehensible sentiment. I'm not up for getting animated about it this evening but it really really is.
    It's the idea they'd 'happily' do it, if the alternative was not doing it.
    I would never defend the likes of Weinstein, who is a horrible serial rapist and deserves every second of his enormous jail time

    But there ARE young women who make the moves with older men, hoping for advancement (especially in the entertainment industry). I know one woman who basically slept her way to the top. She was the seducer, not the guys. And she admits it, happily

    That complicates it - sometimes
    It doesn't complicate it. Not really. Because the "it" is a set-up where men had the power and the power that women had was merely a derivative of this.
    God you're dumb

    Both sides have power, it has always been this way

    Men have the material power, the money and rank (or they did, generally). They exploit it.

    But young women have the sexual power, they have the beauty men will literally kill for. And some young women exploit that, too

    Thus: human history.
    You have a very traditional and heterosexual view of the world I must say. I am surprised this is the case because you recently seemed very besotted with Tom Daley, which I can understand!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,572

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
    Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

    It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

    What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
    Yes, well, nothing must get in the way of one's favourite restaurant for the luvvies, must it?
    Mind you I can recall someone's reaction to MeToo and the "persecution" of Roman Polanski. So the luvvies might not be so much hypocritical as extending their standards to other industries....
    Some of the most enlightening reactions of the whole ‘Me Too’ thing, were the actresses who said very little, having benefited massively over the years from the ‘casting couch’ method of auditioning for roles, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.
    Enlightening how? They were collaborators, you mean? So it's wrong to lay all the blame on men? Or it just showed how deep the malaise was?
    The people happiest with the casting couch audition situation, were the girls who would happily audition lying down, and make millions by doing so. That doesn’t mean it was anything but a disgusting situation.
    That, my good friend, is a truly misguided and reprehensible sentiment. I'm not up for getting animated about it this evening but it really really is.
    It's the idea they'd 'happily' do it, if the alternative was not doing it.
    I would never defend the likes of Weinstein, who is a horrible serial rapist and deserves every second of his enormous jail time

    But there ARE young women who make the moves with older men, hoping for advancement (especially in the entertainment industry). I know one woman who basically slept her way to the top. She was the seducer, not the guys. And she admits it, happily

    That complicates it - sometimes
    It doesn't complicate it. Not really. Because the "it" is a set-up where men had the power and the power that women had was merely a derivative of this.
    God you're dumb

    Both sides have power, it has always been this way

    Men have the material power, the money and rank (or they did, generally). They exploit it.

    But young women have the sexual power, they have the beauty men will literally kill for. And some young women exploit that, too

    Thus: human history.
    You have a very traditional and heterosexual view of the world I must say. I am surprised this is the case because you recently seemed very besotted with Tom Daley, which I can understand!
    See my prior post, just now. Of course this happens with homosexuals as well
  • ydoethur said:

    OK, PB, here is a question.

    I have been trying to work out which active county cricketers made their debuts before T20 was a thing in 2003.

    So far, combing through various databases, I have come up with the following three:

    Darren Stevens (obviously)
    James Anderson
    James Hildreth.

    I'm sure there must be others - can anyone think of any?

    Rikki Clarke.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 57,080
    edited August 2021
    Oooh look! Voodoo poll:

    Poll: Should Boris Johnson have met Nicola Sturgeon during his Scotland trip?

    https://twitter.com/heraldscotland/status/1423699389831258114?s=21
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,636
    Yorkshire Tory MPs desperately trying to dissociate themselves from Bozo's comments. Suck it up.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,110

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
    Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

    It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

    What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
    What should a right-on type do then if they fancy eating out?
    That's a good question. We all interact with many businesses: how can we be sure that the staff are not being abused or taken advantage of?

    But the problems in restaurants have been known for decades - from management taking tips, to 'management' giving their tips too freely. It is something, if you are a lowly cook, you need to put up with.
    I recall a really nice pizza place I found in Thailand. The kitchen was open planned in the middle of the place.

    The Italian guy who ran it was henpecked in perfect Italian style by his Thai wife (who berated him non-stop in perfect Italian).... even down to the apron full of flour.... The even more ancient Italian sidekick who shuffled about the place doing various jobs, ignoring the strife made the whole thing into a perfect comedy.

    Very good pizza.
    One of your better anecdotes. Clear and understandable. No enigmatic hinting at something enigmatic.
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,395

    felix said:

    2.5million over-50s (11 per cent) have not yet got their second jab

    D Mail

    Does that mean not offered or not taken up? Clearly bad either way but if it's the latter they're in the hands of the almighty.
    It'll be the latter I suspect. I doubt there is anyone over 50 not invited now other than people not on the radar and those who cannot take the vaccine due to existing condition.
    It is especially hard on the latter. I do feel for them and it is why I can find little sympathy for those who choose both to potentially harm themselves and others, as in that group.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,136
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Roger said:

    Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


    Redfield & Wilton Strategies
    @RedfieldWilton

    Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

    Too much: 45%
    An appropriate level: 31%
    Not enough: 10%

    Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
    76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
    'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
    The point is that only 10% want more
    I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?

    I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
    The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
    You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.

    I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.

    Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.

    I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
    House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.

    Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.

    So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'
    What ridiculous xenophobia.

    There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.
    There is nothing xenephobic about prioritising affordable new housing for rent and buy to those who were born in the area or who have lived and contributed to it for a long people.

    Most of the new housing to buy is being bought up by Londoners anyway, I am not saying ban Londoners from buying new homes or second homes (although a few areas have done so https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/plan-ban-more-second-homes-5678147 ) merely to focus new affordable homes on locals.
    If a Londoner wants to move to Devon or Kent or Surrey are they not your fellow compatriots? What's wrong with that?

    Why do you hate your fellow countrymen so much that you wish to deny them the chance to buy a home wherever they want to do so?
    Philip, I agree that if you want to move to anywhere in the country and buy a house then that's perfectly acceptable. What I have issue with are second and third home purchases, because it effectively depopulates areas and makes it more difficult to retain local services like shops and pubs etc.
    In the crazy old days, they did the utterly impossible, when more people moved to an area.

    They built houses to match the number of incomers.

    Idiots, eh?
    That sounds a good strategy, it's a shame it doesn't happen now. Mind you I would distinguish between incomers and second home owners.
    I wouldn't.

    A second home owner takes a home out of the stockpile available for anyone else.
    You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.

    I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
    Your second home should be taxed extremely heavily. Who needs TWO homes? If you are greedy enough to want one, then you should pay through the nose in taxes, to compensate locals who might be priced out of their neighbourhoods if too many people are as greedy as you
    OK Chairman Mao. Why don't we just let the state own everything? Why should you have a holiday abroad, perhaps several a year in normal times, when others can't afford one? Why should you be allowed to eat in restaurants where the cost of one course or a bottle of wine would feed a poor family for a fortnight?

    Why should you be allowed to do any of these things? Perhaps because you worked for what you got, or maybe you just got lucky? Or maybe you are just being ironic? I guess it is Friday night and you might just have had too many glasses of Blue Nunn
    Stone cold sober

    I have been thinking about this issue, and the way people like my niece are having their lives damaged by property price rises in Cornwall - a process which is hugely accelerated by second home owners like you

    When I go on holiday I bring money to the destination I visit, I benefit the local economy. You just parasitise the beauty of a place with your 2nd home greed, and you make life less liveable for the locals in a profound way

    Your second home should be taxed til you squeal in pain
    My second home is available for anyone to rent, so it allows people to have nice holidays. I provide a service and the people that stay bring money into the local area. So you are talking bollox and you are, as someone who boasts about your own opulence, a hypocrite.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,110
    isam said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
    Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

    It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

    What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
    What should a right-on type do then if they fancy eating out?
    Ask her first
    It's not terrific but it's a quantum leap from the earlier "javelin" offering.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,663

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Roger said:

    Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


    Redfield & Wilton Strategies
    @RedfieldWilton

    Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

    Too much: 45%
    An appropriate level: 31%
    Not enough: 10%

    Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
    76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
    'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
    The point is that only 10% want more
    I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?

    I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
    The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
    You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.

    I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.

    Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.

    I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
    House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.

    Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.

    So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'
    What ridiculous xenophobia.

    There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.
    There is nothing xenephobic about prioritising affordable new housing for rent and buy to those who were born in the area or who have lived and contributed to it for a long people.

    Most of the new housing to buy is being bought up by Londoners anyway, I am not saying ban Londoners from buying new homes or second homes (although a few areas have done so https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/plan-ban-more-second-homes-5678147 ) merely to focus new affordable homes on locals.
    If a Londoner wants to move to Devon or Kent or Surrey are they not your fellow compatriots? What's wrong with that?

    Why do you hate your fellow countrymen so much that you wish to deny them the chance to buy a home wherever they want to do so?
    Philip, I agree that if you want to move to anywhere in the country and buy a house then that's perfectly acceptable. What I have issue with are second and third home purchases, because it effectively depopulates areas and makes it more difficult to retain local services like shops and pubs etc.
    In the crazy old days, they did the utterly impossible, when more people moved to an area.

    They built houses to match the number of incomers.

    Idiots, eh?
    That sounds a good strategy, it's a shame it doesn't happen now. Mind you I would distinguish between incomers and second home owners.
    I wouldn't.

    A second home owner takes a home out of the stockpile available for anyone else.
    You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.

    I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
    Your second home should be taxed extremely heavily. Who needs TWO homes? If you are greedy enough to want one, then you should pay through the nose in taxes, to compensate locals who might be priced out of their neighbourhoods if too many people are as greedy as you
    OK Chairman Mao. Why don't we just let the state own everything?
    Pedant's revenge...
    It does.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,538
    kinabalu said:


    One of your better anecdotes. Clear and understandable. No enigmatic hinting at something enigmatic.

    Is your anecdote-grading service available to everyone, or does one have to be a subscriber to benefit from it?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,572
    edited August 2021

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Roger said:

    Despite the well publicised shortage of HGV drivers, agricultural workers and others this poll may come as a surprise to quite a few


    Redfield & Wilton Strategies
    @RedfieldWilton

    Does the British public think there is too much, not enough, or an appropriate level of immigration in the UK?

    Too much: 45%
    An appropriate level: 31%
    Not enough: 10%

    Unless you're an employer of immigrant labour which I would imagine is a very niche section of the population you're asking people to guess. It's like asking if the bus service from Aberystwith to Prestatyn is too frequent not frequent enough or just about right.
    76% consider there is too much or an appropriate level of immigration, no matter how you view it
    'Too much' is the same as 'appropriate'? Well, that's a radical development in the English language.
    The point is that only 10% want more
    I wonder how many people want more and want the land made available to ensure sufficient housing and infrastructure for people who do migrate here and the people already here?

    I suspect that's an incredibly limited Venn Diagram. I'm in it, but not sure who else is.
    The loveliness of it all is overwhelming, except that you then keep complaining you have nowhere to live. I wonder why that is.
    You seem to have misread everything I've written on the subject then.

    I live in the North, the Red Wall, and construction has been going great guns here. Its a booming success. And house prices have been suppressed as a result, which is a good thing.

    Its in other areas especially down South that the issues of despicable NIMBYs are leading to people of my generation having nowhere to live. I have friends and relatives down South that would struggle to pay a deposit to get a house with the prices as insane as they are down there because NIMBYs are blocking construction in order to protect their house prices - a despicable policy you shamelessly support.

    I want to see more construction allowed for the benefit of others of my generation and younger, not specifically for myself.
    House prices in the South East are mainly so high as it is in the London commuter belt and London has the highest gdp of any city in western Europe and comfortably the highest average wages in the UK.

    Many Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London therefore move to the South East and outer commuter belt in order to buy a property but that in turn keeps property prices unaffordable for locals who both work and live in the South East.

    So new housing should not only be focused on brownbelt land first but focused on affordable housing and locals who have lived in the local area at least 7 years ie 'local housing for local people'
    What ridiculous xenophobia.

    There is nothing wrong with people who are not 'local people'. If people want to 'get on their bike' and get a job in London and commute from London's commuter belt, then that is a good thing, not a bad one.
    There is nothing xenephobic about prioritising affordable new housing for rent and buy to those who were born in the area or who have lived and contributed to it for a long people.

    Most of the new housing to buy is being bought up by Londoners anyway, I am not saying ban Londoners from buying new homes or second homes (although a few areas have done so https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/plan-ban-more-second-homes-5678147 ) merely to focus new affordable homes on locals.
    If a Londoner wants to move to Devon or Kent or Surrey are they not your fellow compatriots? What's wrong with that?

    Why do you hate your fellow countrymen so much that you wish to deny them the chance to buy a home wherever they want to do so?
    Philip, I agree that if you want to move to anywhere in the country and buy a house then that's perfectly acceptable. What I have issue with are second and third home purchases, because it effectively depopulates areas and makes it more difficult to retain local services like shops and pubs etc.
    In the crazy old days, they did the utterly impossible, when more people moved to an area.

    They built houses to match the number of incomers.

    Idiots, eh?
    That sounds a good strategy, it's a shame it doesn't happen now. Mind you I would distinguish between incomers and second home owners.
    I wouldn't.

    A second home owner takes a home out of the stockpile available for anyone else.
    You are a bit confused on your politics aren't you @Philip_Thompson ? On the one hand you are right of the proverbial Mongol warlord, but on something that irritates you, you are further left than Jeremy Corbyn.

    I have a second home. I use it for my own family holidays and when I am not using I let it out to holiday makers who very much enjoy it. Other people have second, or many more homes which they then make available to people who are in the rental sector. Housing is simply a commodity. There are no more reasons for socialism in housing than there is in any other area.
    Your second home should be taxed extremely heavily. Who needs TWO homes? If you are greedy enough to want one, then you should pay through the nose in taxes, to compensate locals who might be priced out of their neighbourhoods if too many people are as greedy as you
    OK Chairman Mao. Why don't we just let the state own everything? Why should you have a holiday abroad, perhaps several a year in normal times, when others can't afford one? Why should you be allowed to eat in restaurants where the cost of one course or a bottle of wine would feed a poor family for a fortnight?

    Why should you be allowed to do any of these things? Perhaps because you worked for what you got, or maybe you just got lucky? Or maybe you are just being ironic? I guess it is Friday night and you might just have had too many glasses of Blue Nunn
    Stone cold sober

    I have been thinking about this issue, and the way people like my niece are having their lives damaged by property price rises in Cornwall - a process which is hugely accelerated by second home owners like you

    When I go on holiday I bring money to the destination I visit, I benefit the local economy. You just parasitise the beauty of a place with your 2nd home greed, and you make life less liveable for the locals in a profound way

    Your second home should be taxed til you squeal in pain
    My second home is available for anyone to rent, so it allows people to have nice holidays. I provide a service and the people that stay bring money into the local area. So you are talking bollox and you are, as someone who boasts about your own opulence, a hypocrite.
    No, you are inflating property prices in a desirable area of Britain, so that locals are priced out. You do not need a second home, so it is pure greed. I am not against greed per se, but in this case it really does damage lives

    I do not own a second home. I would not buy one in the UK partly for this reason. If I were to buy a 2nd home, it would be abroad and in an area that actively needs and asks for incomers - there are plenty of such places in the Med, and further afield
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,636
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Sandpit said:

    MrEd said:

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
    Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

    It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

    What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
    Yes, well, nothing must get in the way of one's favourite restaurant for the luvvies, must it?
    Mind you I can recall someone's reaction to MeToo and the "persecution" of Roman Polanski. So the luvvies might not be so much hypocritical as extending their standards to other industries....
    Some of the most enlightening reactions of the whole ‘Me Too’ thing, were the actresses who said very little, having benefited massively over the years from the ‘casting couch’ method of auditioning for roles, to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.
    Enlightening how? They were collaborators, you mean? So it's wrong to lay all the blame on men? Or it just showed how deep the malaise was?
    The people happiest with the casting couch audition situation, were the girls who would happily audition lying down, and make millions by doing so. That doesn’t mean it was anything but a disgusting situation.
    That, my good friend, is a truly misguided and reprehensible sentiment. I'm not up for getting animated about it this evening but it really really is.
    It's the idea they'd 'happily' do it, if the alternative was not doing it.
    I would never defend the likes of Weinstein, who is a horrible serial rapist and deserves every second of his enormous jail time

    But there ARE young women who make the moves with older men, hoping for advancement (especially in the entertainment industry). I know one woman who basically slept her way to the top. She was the seducer, not the guys. And she admits it, happily

    That complicates it - sometimes
    Perhaps, just perhaps, that's because they know that's the only way they'll get advancement? Perhaps if other avenues were open to them, they wouldn't do it?
    No, you're being naive. There are women who definitely exploit their looks to speed their careers

    Let's say you're a hot looking 21 year old in TV or movies. Let's say there are many many girls as good as you, at the same level as you, and just as entitled to promotion as you - maybe more so (cleverer etc). But perhaps they aren't as hot as you

    So you decide to use your beauty to seduce the big producer, and in his pathetic gratitude he gives you a plum role or a sudden promotion in the TV company.

    Who is exploiting whom, here? It's not easy to say
    So, in your view, women should use their looks to shag their way to the top, regardless of any intelligence or skills they might have? And the lucky, dumb men are just fortunate?

    You're the one being naïve. Wilfully, I believe. (It feels odd calling you naïve, but there you go...)

    It shouldn't be that way, as all to quickly 'willing' becomes 'exploited'. Which is exactly how Weinstein et al got their conquests. "Oh, you want the job? Sure, you'll have to compete with that girl. And you know what she does..."

    People selling their bodies or suffering abuse to get or keep a job is wrong.

    (Although I do wonder how the military fits into the above.)
    You're not even listening to my argument. Unless you ban any sex between employees in the same company (which we are probably quite close to doing) then you will get situations like the one I adumbrate. A hot young woman who steals a march on her female rivals by seducing a powerful older guy (or woman, that happens too).

    I suppose the older man or woman could refuse, but that is asking quite a lot of human nature. And once two people are fucking, favouritism becomes inevitable. Everyone employs people they like, if they can
    I'm still waiting for all of these hot young female colleagues to throw themselves in my direction.

    The chance to turn them down would be nice.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 32,110
    edited August 2021

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    I've been told that Lineker might be a match for Boris in the philandering stakes, though he aims for a younger segment of the "market" (not implying anything illegal, but I do know someone who's been told by his PR company to keep young, pretty, female employees away from him)
    Yes, absolute shagger. Ditto every single famous TV chef, as far as I can tell
    Kitchens are a really abusive place, anyway. Of course the top guy/gal are getting their share of the juniors.

    It's not right, but like MeToo and the casting couch, it is ignored.

    What makes me chortle are all the right-on types who go to restaurants and ignore this. If they were subjected to the sort of abuse junior cooks get, they'd be horrified.
    What should a right-on type do then if they fancy eating out?
    That's a good question. We all interact with many businesses: how can we be sure that the staff are not being abused or taken advantage of?

    But the problems in restaurants have been known for decades - from management taking tips, to 'management' giving their tips too freely. It is something, if you are a lowly cook, you need to put up with.
    Yes it does often seem to be a brutal, testosterone fuelled environment, the kitchen that produces one's dinner.

    And as for restaurants ...
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Leon said:

    A Biblical ton of rain just fell on north London. And then it stopped.

    This summer weather is decidedly ODD

    Fun fact: one inch of rain = 113 tons per acre. So it was a lot more than a ton.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 10,337

    .

    .

    tlg86 said:

    Roger said:

    Anyone following the Olympics on the BBC would not only think Team GB had won every medal they'd also think they were the only competitors

    They just showed a beach volleyball final between USA and Australia.

    Edit: Now China v Germany in the wiff waff.
    Rogeradumus strikes again.....
    I have to say, I have found myself watching Eurosport for the track cycling. Carlton Kirby can be a irritating in large doses but at least he knew who had gained a lap in the Madison unlike anyone on the BBC.
    Eurosport commentators ten times better than the BBC. They actually know, love and understand their sport.
    The BBC are hopeless at Sport and most any broadcaster would do better

    FTFY.

    Want sport? Any other broadcaster is better.
    Want drama? Netflix etc are better.
    Want news? PB etc are better.
    Want the weather? Can just ask Alexa.

    What exactly does the BBC excel at nowadays? The Proms I suppose, anything else?
    They enrich their favoured presenters rather well
    On this, why was Lineker ever paid TEN TIMES more than the PM?!?

    I know he's agreed a pay cut now, but he's still on well over a million a year. People don't watch MOTD to see Lineker's understandably smug face, or if they do they're not football fans.

    I may be very wrong, but I assume people watch it like I do to see clips of their team's performance that Saturday. I'd watch if it were presented by AI. It might be more entertaining that way
    Maybe they should arrange a job swap.

    I suspect Lineker would be happy with making rejoin policy decisions and Johnson would be happy with Lineker's income.

    A win, win as far as I am concerned.
    Would Lineker have to stop selling bags of fat to children if he became PM?
    Absolutely, and Johnson should get the gig. No half measures.
    I don't know about selling bags of fat. Johnson is a bag of fat.
This discussion has been closed.