Just watching the Olympics highlights. Good to see a jolly public schoolgirl winning the modern pentathlon.
Shame they didn't show the German on the horse but looking at the one that French was on it was a fantastic show jumper so I'm going with user error.
Who cares who she is.
I really rather liked the way Laura Muir and Faith Kipyegon went round the track together. For me these small things will always be the things that make me smile. (I was going to say "the best" here, but that's not it)
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.
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.
I don't think they are on this site. I think they are in your head.
Good save, though. You commited yourself to a 100% interventionist, dirigiste position on second homes and then very elegantly wriggled out of it by claiming that you were going to even out the balance by building new homes, not by interfering in free market transactions. Well done.
I never backed an interventionist position though you may have misread it.
Read back the text:
Malmesbury: Previously more houses were built for extra households. Davey: Except second home owners. Me: No, second home owners take a home out of housing stock [so it still needs more housing being built as a result]
Anyway since you've come out as being OK with every household in Britain owning two houses each, you're clearly now every bit in favour of construction as I am.
You are in favour of every household in Britain being able to own one or two homes each aren't you? Not just yourself?
You seem to be bullying me from the left, now. Hard to keep up. but, yes, I think second home ownership should be open to all, like the Ritz hotel.
Like the Ritz, or the Premier Inn.
So you have no issues with there being enough construction, including in your own area, to ensure there's two houses available for purchase per household?
Yes of course I do you numptoid wazzock, I live in the heart of the Dartmoor National Park, generally and rightly regarded as an invaluable national asset. The fact that it is "my back yard" is kind of secondary to that, don't you think? Why do you hate nature so much?
So it's fine for you to live in a national park but not others?
As it happens I've said before any AONB I'm ok with not having construction in, but having no restrictions everywhere else.
Your hypocrisy is amusing though. If you really want Dartmoor to be uninhabited you should probably vacate your premises.
You are ridiculous. Do you genuinely not see that Dartmoor would actually not be Dartmoor any more if everybody built a house on it?
And it's market forces that dictate who lives on Dartmoor and who doesn't. I thought you were OK with those?
Isn't Dartmoor an AONB? If so, then the AONB exception would apply. Any parts of Dartmoor or elsewhere that aren't an AONB should have a free market though in my eyes yes.
No, it's a National Park, which is an AONB on steroids. You don't understand the most basic nuts and bolts points about any of this, do you?
Absolutely which would mean under my proposal it's except from the free market of construction. What part of that did you not understand? 🤔🤦♂️
Though you should probably move out if you want the land to be uninhabited.
Philip. You can't have a free for all in house building because there are negative externalities which the government must manage.
The fair way to deal with negative externalities is taxation.
Then the government can manage any externalities as it sees fit.
On topic: I heard Sunak on Magic today when I was in the car. Christ, he's got an annoying voice. I wonder if this is already priced in? Perhaps other voters are more forgiving.
Unionist parties the only group losing percentage share. #tacticalvoting
I think we need a thread on.the shocking state of the Lib Dems in Scotland. . Why , with margin of error at 3pc....The Lib Dems could effectively be on zero votes....
On topic: I heard Sunak on Magic today when I was in the car. Christ, he's got an annoying voice. I wonder if this is already priced in? Perhaps other voters are more forgiving.
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.
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.
I don't think they are on this site. I think they are in your head.
Good save, though. You commited yourself to a 100% interventionist, dirigiste position on second homes and then very elegantly wriggled out of it by claiming that you were going to even out the balance by building new homes, not by interfering in free market transactions. Well done.
I never backed an interventionist position though you may have misread it.
Read back the text:
Malmesbury: Previously more houses were built for extra households. Davey: Except second home owners. Me: No, second home owners take a home out of housing stock [so it still needs more housing being built as a result]
Anyway since you've come out as being OK with every household in Britain owning two houses each, you're clearly now every bit in favour of construction as I am.
You are in favour of every household in Britain being able to own one or two homes each aren't you? Not just yourself?
You seem to be bullying me from the left, now. Hard to keep up. but, yes, I think second home ownership should be open to all, like the Ritz hotel.
Like the Ritz, or the Premier Inn.
So you have no issues with there being enough construction, including in your own area, to ensure there's two houses available for purchase per household?
Yes of course I do you numptoid wazzock, I live in the heart of the Dartmoor National Park, generally and rightly regarded as an invaluable national asset. The fact that it is "my back yard" is kind of secondary to that, don't you think? Why do you hate nature so much?
So it's fine for you to live in a national park but not others?
As it happens I've said before any AONB I'm ok with not having construction in, but having no restrictions everywhere else.
Your hypocrisy is amusing though. If you really want Dartmoor to be uninhabited you should probably vacate your premises.
You are ridiculous. Do you genuinely not see that Dartmoor would actually not be Dartmoor any more if everybody built a house on it?
And it's market forces that dictate who lives on Dartmoor and who doesn't. I thought you were OK with those?
Isn't Dartmoor an AONB? If so, then the AONB exception would apply. Any parts of Dartmoor or elsewhere that aren't an AONB should have a free market though in my eyes yes.
No, it's a National Park, which is an AONB on steroids. You don't understand the most basic nuts and bolts points about any of this, do you?
Absolutely which would mean under my proposal it's except from the free market of construction. What part of that did you not understand? 🤔🤦♂️
Though you should probably move out if you want the land to be uninhabited.
Moron. You pretend to have an informed position on English planning laws and you don't know what a national park is. LOL.
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.
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.
I don't think they are on this site. I think they are in your head.
Good save, though. You commited yourself to a 100% interventionist, dirigiste position on second homes and then very elegantly wriggled out of it by claiming that you were going to even out the balance by building new homes, not by interfering in free market transactions. Well done.
I never backed an interventionist position though you may have misread it.
Read back the text:
Malmesbury: Previously more houses were built for extra households. Davey: Except second home owners. Me: No, second home owners take a home out of housing stock [so it still needs more housing being built as a result]
Anyway since you've come out as being OK with every household in Britain owning two houses each, you're clearly now every bit in favour of construction as I am.
You are in favour of every household in Britain being able to own one or two homes each aren't you? Not just yourself?
You seem to be bullying me from the left, now. Hard to keep up. but, yes, I think second home ownership should be open to all, like the Ritz hotel.
Like the Ritz, or the Premier Inn.
So you have no issues with there being enough construction, including in your own area, to ensure there's two houses available for purchase per household?
Yes of course I do you numptoid wazzock, I live in the heart of the Dartmoor National Park, generally and rightly regarded as an invaluable national asset. The fact that it is "my back yard" is kind of secondary to that, don't you think? Why do you hate nature so much?
So it's fine for you to live in a national park but not others?
As it happens I've said before any AONB I'm ok with not having construction in, but having no restrictions everywhere else.
Your hypocrisy is amusing though. If you really want Dartmoor to be uninhabited you should probably vacate your premises.
You are ridiculous. Do you genuinely not see that Dartmoor would actually not be Dartmoor any more if everybody built a house on it?
And it's market forces that dictate who lives on Dartmoor and who doesn't. I thought you were OK with those?
Isn't Dartmoor an AONB? If so, then the AONB exception would apply. Any parts of Dartmoor or elsewhere that aren't an AONB should have a free market though in my eyes yes.
No, it's a National Park, which is an AONB on steroids. You don't understand the most basic nuts and bolts points about any of this, do you?
Absolutely which would mean under my proposal it's except from the free market of construction. What part of that did you not understand? 🤔🤦♂️
Though you should probably move out if you want the land to be uninhabited.
Philip. You can't have a free for all in house building because there are negative externalities which the government must manage.
The fair way to deal with negative externalities is taxation.
Then the government can manage any externalities as it sees fit.
Absolutely. Thus pricing out people who want to build anywhere so we're back where we started.
Take a field next door to you that people want to build on. They will have to create sewers and drainage and water and electricity and schools and roads.
I'm guessing the tax for that, borne by the builders, will render the development uneconomic.
On topic: I heard Sunak on Magic today when I was in the car. Christ, he's got an annoying voice. I wonder if this is already priced in? Perhaps other voters are more forgiving.
Blair was annoying - but still won three times!
Whatever it was Labour did to Blair shouldn't be legal.
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.)
Yep. The go-to putdown of self-aiding comfortable cynicism is "don't be naive". Hats off for rejecting it. I have now completely forgotten our private schools tumble. 🙂
Perhaps neither of you are being naive and that is why this problem is so prevalent. It is in the interest of some women (a very small minority) to exploit their looks knowingly and, as the instigator, with their own full consent and knowledge of the consequences. It is in the interests of some men (and the evidence suggests this is a significant minority) to exploit good looking women for their own sexual gratification. The actions of both these groups reinforce the behaviours and consequences of the other. That some women are willing to exploit their sexuality for advancement provides implicit permission which emboldens some men to require it. That some men are so emboldened provides patterns of behaviour and antecedents that inform other women that this is accepted behaviour and the route to success.
Absolutely not right or ok. But it is not as simplistic as 'men are pigs'. While I believe that men's bad behaviour in this regard is both more prevalent and worse, there are two sets of unacceptable behaviour which can reinforce each other to produce a toxic environment.
And before anyone complains, I am not suggesting that the women's bad behaviour necessarily precedes the men's. It clearly does not in most cases.
No argument with that. But the macro is men have primary power and that of women is both lesser and derives from the primary source. I'd say it's the essence of feminism to recognize and seek to overturn this.
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!
And struggles with what "derivative" means when it comes to power. Ah well. It's Friday.
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!
And struggles with what "derivative" means when it comes to power. Ah well. It's Friday.
Oh Fuck It's Friday.
PB virtual bar franchise.
We should all be reading a good book. 🙂
Which one did you have in mind and how did you propose to make us all read it simultaneously?
Boringly on topic, a Sunak led Tory party has a much higher ceiling than a Johnson one, but perhaps not a significantly better chance of a majority. I am one of those who really, really dislike this government, but could imagine voting for a Sunak government if it tackled the cronyism, division and lack of coherent strategy that is inevitable with Boris.
Sunak will clearly do better in Remainia, and currently would do no worse in the Red Wall. However Boris may well be better at re-inventing himself to whatever positions are needed in 2023/4 than Sunak.
At the moment, Rishi is still something of a blank space where we can all project our fantasies. He might be more Remania-friendly, but on the other hand he was part of the Vote Leave team. He might be better in the Red Wall, and I suspect he will deliver for the Tesside/N Yorks bit of it. He might be fiscally orthodox, he might be a keen tax cutter. And if he's not happy with the current cronyism etc, he has a funny way of showing it. We just don't know what he would be like. And the record of governments regenerating in office is mixed, at best.
Thatcher to Major worked, and got the Conservatives another term in office. But to most people, Major was a new face- he'd been Foreign Secretary for about 3 months and Chancellor for a year. He was also able to sink the Poll Tax, so it felt like a new government.
May to Johnson also felt like a new government- heck, he'd been firing potshots at TM from the backbenches for ages. New faces, new words, all that jazz.
Cameron to May... much less so. We all knew who TM was. There was a change of emphasis, but it didn't feel like a new government. And the fact that May won by being the only candidate whose campaign didn't spontaneously explode didn't help her define herself.
And Blair to Brown had been signposted for a decade. We all knew it was coming, it was really the same government with a different figurehead. So once the initial excitement settled, it wasn't enough of a change to satisfy "time for a change".
So- if BoJo were to gogo, would Sunak slake our collective thirst for novelty? I'm not sure he would. What bit of Johnsonism does he ceremonially take out to the Downing St gardens and shoot?
Maybe the worst thing for his career was getting into No 11 too early.
"This major faux pas, which it most assuredly is, has come at a time when Conservative strategists had been hoping that more frequent visits to Scotland by the PM and more exchanges with opinion formers would dilute the general antagonism towards him north of the border. " (Telegraph)
Genuine
They are so clueless one almost feels sorry for the wee lambs.
On topic: I heard Sunak on Magic today when I was in the car. Christ, he's got an annoying voice. I wonder if this is already priced in? Perhaps other voters are more forgiving.
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.)
Yep. The go-to putdown of self-aiding comfortable cynicism is "don't be naive". Hats off for rejecting it. I have now completely forgotten our private schools tumble. 🙂
Perhaps neither of you are being naive and that is why this problem is so prevalent. It is in the interest of some women (a very small minority) to exploit their looks knowingly and, as the instigator, with their own full consent and knowledge of the consequences. It is in the interests of some men (and the evidence suggests this is a significant minority) to exploit good looking women for their own sexual gratification. The actions of both these groups reinforce the behaviours and consequences of the other. That some women are willing to exploit their sexuality for advancement provides implicit permission which emboldens some men to require it. That some men are so emboldened provides patterns of behaviour and antecedents that inform other women that this is accepted behaviour and the route to success.
Absolutely not right or ok. But it is not as simplistic as 'men are pigs'. While I believe that men's bad behaviour in this regard is both more prevalent and worse, there are two sets of unacceptable behaviour which can reinforce each other to produce a toxic environment.
And before anyone complains, I am not suggesting that the women's bad behaviour necessarily precedes the men's. It clearly does not in most cases.
No argument with that. But the macro is men have primary power and that of women is both lesser and derives from the primary source. I'd say it's the essence of feminism to recognize and seek to overturn this.
I doubt I've been master of my intellectual trousers for a whole day when in a relationship with the fairer sex.
On topic: I heard Sunak on Magic today when I was in the car. Christ, he's got an annoying voice. I wonder if this is already priced in? Perhaps other voters are more forgiving.
Blair was annoying - but still won three times!
Strangely, Sunak sounds quite like Blair. Close your eyes and listen...
On topic: I heard Sunak on Magic today when I was in the car. Christ, he's got an annoying voice. I wonder if this is already priced in? Perhaps other voters are more forgiving.
Interesting times ahead for me. An Employment Tribunal in Reading has just held it an unfair dismissal when an employer last May failed to furlough someone as an alternative to redundancy. First instance, not binding, but still…
On topic: I heard Sunak on Magic today when I was in the car. Christ, he's got an annoying voice. I wonder if this is already priced in? Perhaps other voters are more forgiving.
Blair was annoying - but still won three times!
Strangely, Sunak sounds quite like Blair. Close your eyes and listen...
Unionist parties the only group losing percentage share. #tacticalvoting
I think we need a thread on.the shocking state of the Lib Dems in Scotland. . Why , with margin of error at 3pc....The Lib Dems could effectively be on zero votes....
Wrong blog proprietor for that particular article.
Interesting times ahead for me. An Employment Tribunal in Reading has just held it an unfair dismissal when an employer last May failed to furlough someone as an alternative to redundancy. First instance, not binding, but still…
Sounds like a good time to be an employment lawyer!
On topic: I heard Sunak on Magic today when I was in the car. Christ, he's got an annoying voice. I wonder if this is already priced in? Perhaps other voters are more forgiving.
Blair was annoying - but still won three times!
Strangely, Sunak sounds quite like Blair. Close your eyes and listen...
On topic: I heard Sunak on Magic today when I was in the car. Christ, he's got an annoying voice. I wonder if this is already priced in? Perhaps other voters are more forgiving.
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!
And struggles with what "derivative" means when it comes to power. Ah well. It's Friday.
Oh Fuck It's Friday.
PB virtual bar franchise.
We should all be reading a good book. 🙂
PB Book Club once a month, velour leisure wear, Tesco Chardonnay, and we can all slip in references to our hot flushes.
I recall having a lovely lunch by a beach near Antibes with a French PR girl. It was an idyllic day and I made the usual cliched remark about ‘being so lucky to live here’
She pulled a face and said ‘are you crazy? No one can afford to live here. Only Russians live here’
She told me she had a daily commute of 50km through thick traffic, from some dull interior town, where she could just about afford a flat
I hope you at least paid the bill.
The French state paid. Merci, la France
Incidentally, the PR girl said there was no way should afford the lunch either, on her wages. It was about £100 for a couple of salads, some fish, some rose wine. Very nice, but £100?
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.)
Yep. The go-to putdown of self-aiding comfortable cynicism is "don't be naive". Hats off for rejecting it. I have now completely forgotten our private schools tumble. 🙂
Perhaps neither of you are being naive and that is why this problem is so prevalent. It is in the interest of some women (a very small minority) to exploit their looks knowingly and, as the instigator, with their own full consent and knowledge of the consequences. It is in the interests of some men (and the evidence suggests this is a significant minority) to exploit good looking women for their own sexual gratification. The actions of both these groups reinforce the behaviours and consequences of the other. That some women are willing to exploit their sexuality for advancement provides implicit permission which emboldens some men to require it. That some men are so emboldened provides patterns of behaviour and antecedents that inform other women that this is accepted behaviour and the route to success.
Absolutely not right or ok. But it is not as simplistic as 'men are pigs'. While I believe that men's bad behaviour in this regard is both more prevalent and worse, there are two sets of unacceptable behaviour which can reinforce each other to produce a toxic environment.
And before anyone complains, I am not suggesting that the women's bad behaviour necessarily precedes the men's. It clearly does not in most cases.
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.)
Yep. The go-to putdown of self-aiding comfortable cynicism is "don't be naive". Hats off for rejecting it. I have now completely forgotten our private schools tumble. 🙂
Perhaps neither of you are being naive and that is why this problem is so prevalent. It is in the interest of some women (a very small minority) to exploit their looks knowingly and, as the instigator, with their own full consent and knowledge of the consequences. It is in the interests of some men (and the evidence suggests this is a significant minority) to exploit good looking women for their own sexual gratification. The actions of both these groups reinforce the behaviours and consequences of the other. That some women are willing to exploit their sexuality for advancement provides implicit permission which emboldens some men to require it. That some men are so emboldened provides patterns of behaviour and antecedents that inform other women that this is accepted behaviour and the route to success.
Absolutely not right or ok. But it is not as simplistic as 'men are pigs'. While I believe that men's bad behaviour in this regard is both more prevalent and worse, there are two sets of unacceptable behaviour which can reinforce each other to produce a toxic environment.
And before anyone complains, I am not suggesting that the women's bad behaviour necessarily precedes the men's. It clearly does not in most cases.
No argument with that. But the macro is men have primary power and that of women is both lesser and derives from the primary source. I'd say it's the essence of feminism to recognize and seek to overturn this.
Agreed. I was trying to express the essence of your second sentence, but failed.
Mr. Divvie, aye, the Roman cavalry was worse than the Gallic cavalry. And the Numidian cavalry. And the Parthian cavalry.
Essentially, the Roman cavalry was pretty much the worst in Europe. Maybe the world. It was oddly bad. Not 100% useless but in stark contrast to the all-conquering infantry.
They used a four-horned saddle that helped to grip the rider and keep him in place.
Edited extra bit: also worth noting that Roman legions were paired with auxiliaries who furnished a larger number of significantly higher quality horse, which helped offset this weakness.
Interesting thought experiment:
If you were sent back in time to an arbitrary date, what invention would you personally be able to invent ahead of its time and procure wealth, status and world domination for yourself? In my case, it's embarrassing how few answers there are. I certainly couldn't teach the bronze age how to smelt iron or make glass. I think the stirrup would be the best I could do. I know in theory how to make gunpowder, but if you can't make guns that doesn't help much. ETA nor if you can't identify or manufacture any of the 3 ingredients.
The horse collar.
I'd go for the Arabic numerals, zero, decimal point and double entry book-keeping. And talk to some of the more serious businessmen.
There was a novel by an American SF writer about someone being transported back intime to Ancient Rome and finding it unexpectedly hard to introduce modern tech ideas for all sorts of reasons. I can't recall the author - Spinrad, Blish, someone of that 1960s-70s era.
Unionist parties the only group losing percentage share. #tacticalvoting
I think we need a thread on.the shocking state of the Lib Dems in Scotland. . Why , with margin of error at 3pc....The Lib Dems could effectively be on zero votes....
Comments
I really rather liked the way Laura Muir and Faith Kipyegon went round the track together. For me these small things will always be the things that make me smile. (I was going to say "the best" here, but that's not it)
Then the government can manage any externalities as it sees fit.
I wonder if this is already priced in? Perhaps other voters are more forgiving.
(Brotish Earmen, Officer Crabtree unable to "spook" French... )
Take a field next door to you that people want to build on. They will have to create sewers and drainage and water and electricity and schools and roads.
I'm guessing the tax for that, borne by the builders, will render the development uneconomic.
https://twitter.com/IndigoFast/status/1423727636723994627?s=20
(I do not know how they got away with some of these lines, but it’s the swearing not the attitudes.)
Thatcher to Major worked, and got the Conservatives another term in office. But to most people, Major was a new face- he'd been Foreign Secretary for about 3 months and Chancellor for a year. He was also able to sink the Poll Tax, so it felt like a new government.
May to Johnson also felt like a new government- heck, he'd been firing potshots at TM from the backbenches for ages. New faces, new words, all that jazz.
Cameron to May... much less so. We all knew who TM was. There was a change of emphasis, but it didn't feel like a new government. And the fact that May won by being the only candidate whose campaign didn't spontaneously explode didn't help her define herself.
And Blair to Brown had been signposted for a decade. We all knew it was coming, it was really the same government with a different figurehead. So once the initial excitement settled, it wasn't enough of a change to satisfy "time for a change".
So- if BoJo were to gogo, would Sunak slake our collective thirst for novelty? I'm not sure he would. What bit of Johnsonism does he ceremonially take out to the Downing St gardens and shoot?
Maybe the worst thing for his career was getting into No 11 too early.
Almost.
https://youtu.be/glz-DjY4i-s
Though I do wonder how well Sunak will hold onto his ratings when he stops buying free drinks for everyone in the house.
As for annoying voices, all he has to do to not sound annoying is to have Gavin Williamson introduce him.
Incidentally, the PR girl said there was no way should afford the lunch either, on her wages. It was about £100 for a couple of salads, some fish, some rose wine. Very nice, but £100?
This throd has been wooked!
There was a novel by an American SF writer about someone being transported back intime to Ancient Rome and finding it unexpectedly hard to introduce modern tech ideas for all sorts of reasons. I can't recall the author - Spinrad, Blish, someone of that 1960s-70s era.