Howdy, Stranger!

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

What do we think of Isam’s CON majority bet? – politicalbetting.com

1246710

Comments

  • Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Is the gist of this defence that the Epstein money that paid off Giuffre was bogof for Andrew's dubious activities also? Jeffrey, what a guy, helping a pal out from beyond the grave!


    STV News
    @STVNews
    1h
    Lawyers for Duke of York say a woman who accuses him of sexually assaulting her has a prior agreement 'releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability'.

    There are plenty of high profile celebrities and businessmen and politicians who associated with Epstein, not just Prince Andrew, I expect they would all be happy if that agreement was held to have legal force
    It rather depends on what the agreement says. All I have read suggests that it may refer to trafficking so it might act as a sort of estoppel against making such allegations against others (eg Andrew). But it may well not work wrt to sexual assault allegations.

    Also if you are not party to the agreement how can you enforce it. The law is quite complicated - at least over here - re the enforcement of a contract by someone who is not a party to it.

    There may also be a public policy angle to this. Should a contract really stop a court determining the truth of an allegation of a crime? This is similar to the arguments around NDAs. But this brings me back to a point I have made before. If she is alleging rape by Andrew then this should be investigated by the police and a criminal court not determined by a civil court. Damages are not the proper remedy for such a crime.

    I obviously don't know the details of the case. But I am a bit troubled by both the apparent tactics of Andrew's lawyers (arguing technical points) because while they may be valid as tactics I don't know what the overall strategy is. And his accuser seeking money from him at the last minute when the limitation period is about to expire. She should be referring this matter to the criminal authorities. People have been investigated, charged and convicted for crimes committed long ago. Claiming that the lapse of time is why she hasn't done so doesn't wash I'm afraid. It is hard but not impossible.

    I find something really unpleasant in the idea that such serious crimes can be dealt with through the payment of money - both because it risks letting men off the hook and/or because it uses the threat of bad publicity and a finding on the balance of possibilities rather than the harder criminal test as a way of putting pressure on someone who may well be innocent. Neither are good. It harks back to a pre-modern justice age.
    I agree with most of that but take issue with the idea the alleged victim shouldn't seek civil restitution (before the time limit lapses) just because justice via the criminal justice system hasn't been achieved yet. The alleged victim has referred this matter to the criminal authorities - is it her fault that the system has been gummed up and not reached a conclusion yet?

    Both civil and criminal avenues rightly exist within the law and sometimes victims can't get justice via one channel, which is bad. Should we amplify that miscarriage of justice by denying them justice via the other channel too because of the failure of the first one?

    Not to forget of course that the US puts much more strength behind its Statute of Limitations than we do. So justice delayed there truly is justice denied - forever.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,268
    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.

    The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
    Start with Miss Ocasio-Cortez - who I just remembered has a salary of $174,000 per year, before tax.

    I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
    Two seconds of research tells me the dress (and the ticket) was by Aurora James. The politics of it get to complex for a quick post.
    If you wear a dress by an invited designer, as AOC did, you get a free ticket

    She did look great. She’s highly attractive. But it is also a terrible look for Democrats in general. Rich New Yorkers lecturing poor white Trumpites by attending billionaire balls while declaring ‘tax the rich’ on a $10k designer dress?? The insane hypocrisy is off the dial. It goes up to 11. The Dems could lose in 2024 just coz of shit like this
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,286



    The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
    Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.

    Why is it surprising or notable that she speaks the same language as her mother?
  • Scott_xP said:

    Government delays Brexit border controls for food checks on imports.
    But the border control posts were not ready - In August we revealed Dover not ready till July earliest and downsized. Holyhead not started either. Only just found a site near the retail park at Parc Cybi
    https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1428433809595318282

    Why do you keep posting this crap? What does it mean to you?

    As an independent trading nation the UK is free to impose checks, or to not impose checks, as we determine. If the UK decides its not in our best interests to impose checks, we can choose not to do so.

    That's what taking back control means. It means making our own decisions, not having them foisted upon us by others.

    Are you still so naive as to not understand that?
    I think this is a case of can't impose import checks, not won't.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,094
    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    F1: Stroll (Lawrence) has factory plans with the intent of making Aston Martin winners in 3-5 years:
    https://twitter.com/Motor_Sport/status/1437665416202145792

    Not impossible. Dietrich Mateschitz[sp] showed that with Red Bull. A difference is that Stroll has his son as a driver, but it's intriguing that he's gone for Aston Martin with the aim of making them almost a British version of Ferrari.

    It's possible but not with how Aston Martin are set up as a Mercedes B team. They'd need for the works team to exit the sport but keep making engines and for McLaren to self-immolate as they did from 2014 until this season.
    They’ve also outsourced the power units for their new road cars to Mercedes, the whole structure of the companies rely on each other extensively.
    AM are now just a branding and marketing organisation. MB rely on them for nothing beyond very slightly reducing the unit price of M178s. 250,000 employees vs 3,000.
    Is it now like previous Lotus, with the Team essentially separate from the Business?
  • Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:



    The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
    Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.

    Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.

    There is nothing new about this.

    The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
    It’s all because she’s sensationally pretty. Before I get accused of perving on HTG’s, let me stress I am simply making a point about media. If you’re very attractive, and, in particular, if you’re a very attractive young woman, your chances of being in the papers or on TV are multiplied hugely. Papers and tv know that pix of HTGs are popular with women as well as men. Catnip for homo sapiens. We have evolved to admire them

    Look at the pictures of AOC in the Met Gala in that dress. They’re everywhere. Yes, because they’re controversial, but also - mainly? - because AOC is quite young and very beautiful

    The net has only amplified this tendency. Youtube ‘influencers’ are nearly all young, and hot
    It might also be because it looks as though she can perform well in the media. Many years ago, when Sampras retired, some commentators on radio 5 said they were quite glad to see the back of him, as he was not a good media performer - a bit boring, perhaps. That's a sh*t attitude for them to have.

    Although some people, like Kimi Raikkonen, make not performing for the media their trademark. ;)

    Top sports stars also need to be media performers nowadays, as if the media is a voracious animal that needs to be fed 24/7. It's also an animal that bites.
  • Sandpit said:

    isam said:



    The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
    Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.

    That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
    That’s because no-one despises (legal) immigrants, except for Nick Griffin and those who think Tommy Robinson is a left-winger. They are all here to try and better themselves and their families.

    People despise governments who lie to them about immigration levels, and don’t understand that adding several million unskilled immigrants with no planning will drive down wages and overwhelm public services.
    The reducto ad absurdium has got as absurd as it can be.

    The argument seems to be that if anyone who is not wholly and purely of ethnically indigenous lineage achieves anything in these isles then, if we celebrate this, it's a slam-dunk argument for open borders and if we don't then it's racism.

    It wouldn't stand-up at a sixth form debating club.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    Andy_JS said:



    The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
    Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.

    Why is it surprising or notable that she speaks the same language as her mother?
    It's a surprise when you look at her future income prospects and discover that she can be used to target the Chinese as well as Western World markets.

    If she is expected to earn £100m from endorsement deals I suspect her language skills will double that.
  • Scott_xP said:

    Government delays Brexit border controls for food checks on imports.
    But the border control posts were not ready - In August we revealed Dover not ready till July earliest and downsized. Holyhead not started either. Only just found a site near the retail park at Parc Cybi
    https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1428433809595318282

    Why do you keep posting this crap? What does it mean to you?

    As an independent trading nation the UK is free to impose checks, or to not impose checks, as we determine. If the UK decides its not in our best interests to impose checks, we can choose not to do so.

    That's what taking back control means. It means making our own decisions, not having them foisted upon us by others.

    Are you still so naive as to not understand that?
    I think this is a case of can't impose import checks, not won't.
    Its our choice. If we wanted to prioritise imposing checks we could. If we don't want to, we don't have to.

    Which is precisely what I said for years on this website and was assured by many people like Scott that I was wrong. I kept saying that the solution for NI and 'not being ready at Dover' and other issues like it is simply to turn a blind eye and not impose checks. It was Remainers who kept screaming that checks would need to be imposed and even that the WTO rules meant we had to impose them.

    Now that what I and other Leavers said has come to pass, the same Remainers who were screaming that what we proposed couldn't be done, are objecting to what we proposed actually happening to try and twist that into proving they were right all along. 🤦‍♂️

    I couldn't give less of a f**k if we never impose these checks, if they're not in our interest to impose. That's called taking back control. We choose what checks matter to us, not them.
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362

    On topic. Isam is right. It’s becoming clear from mid term polling that a comfortable Con majority is nailed on.

    I am getting shocked how people on this blog have forgotten how it works. If there is to be a change between elections, there has to be reason for change. Because the maxim in politics is a voters trust is hard to gain and easily lost.

    Take as example how the Lib Dems had about 50 seats and they were reduced to about a dozen, hats were eaten etc. There was no quick bounce back in those seats. Some of those seats now look gone for good. Why should Labour bounce back in those seats they lost last time, what actually changes for them to regain those voters trust? Labour under the Corbynista’s especially their last manifesto and election campaign 2019, totally ripped up credibility with voters. Once you rip up credibility as being a solid government in waiting, and voters start voting elsewhere, especially on being able to manage the economy, something is now gone that needs to be brought back, and it’s a lot of work to bring back that credibility and trust.

    Which brings us neatly to bet’s placed today. The polling is screaming nothing has changed, those voters Labour and Libdems lost are still gone to the Torys and will vote Tory today – this in spite of fact its difficult mid term without swing back to government that can come nearer the end of term, where mid term polls so often show meaningless opposition leads as voters creep into don’t know only to creep back on election day, Labour aren’t even getting those mid term meaningless double digit leads.

    But it s even worse for Labour than that – what are they actively doing to regain voters trust? They are a do nothing hopelessly liassez faire non entity at the moment. If you think of the traction Blair and Miliband got in opposition, it was down to wrong footing government by means of bringing out original policy proposals to the problems of the day, Miliband with Energy Bills or housing crisis for example. Yet lazy posters on here say but the Torys just nick those policy’s, like they nicked Milibands energy bills policy. No! that’s not the point. The point is it built credibility with voters as a government in waiting.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited September 2021
    Leon said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.

    The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
    Start with Miss Ocasio-Cortez - who I just remembered has a salary of $174,000 per year, before tax.

    I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
    Two seconds of research tells me the dress (and the ticket) was by Aurora James. The politics of it get to complex for a quick post.
    If you wear a dress by an invited designer, as AOC did, you get a free ticket

    She did look great. She’s highly attractive. But it is also a terrible look for Democrats in general. Rich New Yorkers lecturing poor white Trumpites by attending billionaire balls while declaring ‘tax the rich’ on a $10k designer dress?? The insane hypocrisy is off the dial. It goes up to 11. The Dems could lose in 2024 just coz of shit like this
    Plus 'tax the rich' excluding those earning $100,000 - $399,000 ie below the annual $174,000 a member of Congress like AOC makes but well above what the average American makes. I certainly think the GOP will retake the House at least next year
    https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1437539604492607492?s=20
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,257
    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:



    The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
    Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.

    Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.

    There is nothing new about this.

    The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
    It’s all because she’s sensationally pretty. Before I get accused of perving on HTG’s, let me stress I am simply making a point about media. If you’re very attractive, and, in particular, if you’re a very attractive young woman, your chances of being in the papers or on TV are multiplied hugely. Papers and tv know that pix of HTGs are popular with women as well as men. Catnip for homo sapiens. We have evolved to admire them

    Look at the pictures of AOC in the Met Gala in that dress. They’re everywhere. Yes, because they’re controversial, but also - mainly? - because AOC is quite young and very beautiful

    The net has only amplified this tendency. Youtube ‘influencers’ are nearly all young, and hot
    I might regret asking, but what is a 'HTG'?

    Given the context, I'm reluctant to google it on a work VPN...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Leon said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.

    The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
    Start with Miss Ocasio-Cortez - who I just remembered has a salary of $174,000 per year, before tax.

    I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
    Two seconds of research tells me the dress (and the ticket) was by Aurora James. The politics of it get to complex for a quick post.
    If you wear a dress by an invited designer, as AOC did, you get a free ticket

    She did look great. She’s highly attractive. But it is also a terrible look for Democrats in general. Rich New Yorkers lecturing poor white Trumpites by attending billionaire balls while declaring ‘tax the rich’ on a $10k designer dress?? The insane hypocrisy is off the dial. It goes up to 11. The Dems could lose in 2024 just coz of shit like this
    It’s definitely the sort of image that will end up in Republican attack ads in 2024 - not in New York, but in the swing states.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,094

    isam said:

    One thing that might temper the amount I bet on this is we just got a £1250 final gas bill upon leaving our rented accommodation! This is despite paying £90 a month Direct Debit. They even mailed us to say the meter reading looked too high, but it is correct. Not had the heating on for 6 months, and the cooker was electric. Does a hot bath most nights cost that much????

    Assuming both your initial and final meter readings were correct that seems very high. Possibly a very old and inefficient boiler?

    If you still lived there I'd be wondering about a leak too.

    I suppose the other possibility is the calibration on the meter could be wrong, and so measuring two units where you've used one, but seems unlikely.
    The usual problem is that it is Estimated, and you have been using less.

    I have just had £250 knocked off my balance at home, because their estimate did not properly account for my solar array.

    Check that the final reading is not Estimated (has an E next to the number on the bill). If not, then get in touch and make them update it.

    (Same with electricity whilst you are at it).

    If you do not have a physical final reading, go back with your triangular key and get one now. Gas meters are usually outside. Take a photo, of course.

    ATB.
  • Selebian said:

    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:



    The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
    Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.

    Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.

    There is nothing new about this.

    The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
    It’s all because she’s sensationally pretty. Before I get accused of perving on HTG’s, let me stress I am simply making a point about media. If you’re very attractive, and, in particular, if you’re a very attractive young woman, your chances of being in the papers or on TV are multiplied hugely. Papers and tv know that pix of HTGs are popular with women as well as men. Catnip for homo sapiens. We have evolved to admire them

    Look at the pictures of AOC in the Met Gala in that dress. They’re everywhere. Yes, because they’re controversial, but also - mainly? - because AOC is quite young and very beautiful

    The net has only amplified this tendency. Youtube ‘influencers’ are nearly all young, and hot
    I might regret asking, but what is a 'HTG'?

    Given the context, I'm reluctant to google it on a work VPN...
    Urban Dictionary defines it as "Honest To God" or "Have To Go". https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Htg

    Leon seems to want to define it as Hot Teenage Girl.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,268
    edited September 2021

    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:



    The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
    Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.

    Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.

    There is nothing new about this.

    The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
    It’s all because she’s sensationally pretty. Before I get accused of perving on HTG’s, let me stress I am simply making a point about media. If you’re very attractive, and, in particular, if you’re a very attractive young woman, your chances of being in the papers or on TV are multiplied hugely. Papers and tv know that pix of HTGs are popular with women as well as men. Catnip for homo sapiens. We have evolved to admire them

    Look at the pictures of AOC in the Met Gala in that dress. They’re everywhere. Yes, because they’re controversial, but also - mainly? - because AOC is quite young and very beautiful

    The net has only amplified this tendency. Youtube ‘influencers’ are nearly all young, and hot
    It might also be because it looks as though she can perform well in the media. Many years ago, when Sampras retired, some commentators on radio 5 said they were quite glad to see the back of him, as he was not a good media performer - a bit boring, perhaps. That's a sh*t attitude for them to have.

    Although some people, like Kimi Raikkonen, make not performing for the media their trademark. ;)

    Top sports stars also need to be media performers nowadays, as if the media is a voracious animal that needs to be fed 24/7. It's also an animal that bites.
    It definitely helps a whole lot if you have an assured media persona. Tho, as you say, you can get away with the opposite - being a sullen curmudgeon. Somewhere in between - striving but really awkward, is probably the worst

    The media ideal is to be pretty, young, female, intelligent, articulate, personable, charming, confident, educated, mixed-race, superbly talented in a global sport, and - can we dream? - bilingual in English and Chinese, tapping into the world’s two biggest markets

    You can see why marketing execs are going bonkers over Raducanu. Who else has ever ticked ALL these boxes?
  • Scott_xP said:

    Government delays Brexit border controls for food checks on imports.
    But the border control posts were not ready - In August we revealed Dover not ready till July earliest and downsized. Holyhead not started either. Only just found a site near the retail park at Parc Cybi
    https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1428433809595318282

    Why do you keep posting this crap? What does it mean to you?

    As an independent trading nation the UK is free to impose checks, or to not impose checks, as we determine. If the UK decides its not in our best interests to impose checks, we can choose not to do so.

    That's what taking back control means. It means making our own decisions, not having them foisted upon us by others.

    Are you still so naive as to not understand that?
    You post some great stuff, and you post some guff.

    The UK is allowing the EU to cripple its ability to export, but due to a lack of planning and construction is unable to implement reciprocal checks on imports. In short whilst we have insisted that they close the border and treat us like a 3rd country, we have been unable to do the same. A massive cost on UK business exporters but free reign for EU imports.

    Is that what taking back control means?
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.

    The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
    Start with Miss Ocasio-Cortez - who I just remembered has a salary of $174,000 per year, before tax.

    I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
    Two seconds of research tells me the dress (and the ticket) was by Aurora James. The politics of it get to complex for a quick post.
    If you wear a dress by an invited designer, as AOC did, you get a free ticket

    She did look great. She’s highly attractive. But it is also a terrible look for Democrats in general. Rich New Yorkers lecturing poor white Trumpites by attending billionaire balls while declaring ‘tax the rich’ on a $10k designer dress?? The insane hypocrisy is off the dial. It goes up to 11. The Dems could lose in 2024 just coz of shit like this
    It’s definitely the sort of image that will end up in Republican attack ads in 2024 - not in New York, but in the swing states.
    The US is rapidly becoming a different place to the UK, I suspect any photos of that would be at best neutral for the GOP, if you follow twitter there is a lot of talk about taxing the very rich to support not the poor but the "middle classes"

    And most people in America are that middle class.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,268

    Selebian said:

    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:



    The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
    Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.

    Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.

    There is nothing new about this.

    The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
    It’s all because she’s sensationally pretty. Before I get accused of perving on HTG’s, let me stress I am simply making a point about media. If you’re very attractive, and, in particular, if you’re a very attractive young woman, your chances of being in the papers or on TV are multiplied hugely. Papers and tv know that pix of HTGs are popular with women as well as men. Catnip for homo sapiens. We have evolved to admire them

    Look at the pictures of AOC in the Met Gala in that dress. They’re everywhere. Yes, because they’re controversial, but also - mainly? - because AOC is quite young and very beautiful

    The net has only amplified this tendency. Youtube ‘influencers’ are nearly all young, and hot
    I might regret asking, but what is a 'HTG'?

    Given the context, I'm reluctant to google it on a work VPN...
    Urban Dictionary defines it as "Honest To God" or "Have To Go". https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Htg

    Leon seems to want to define it as Hot Teenage Girl.
    I didn’t define it. It was coined by Sandy Rentool, I think?

    It’s a useful initialism as it allows us to discuss the media obsession with HTGs without looking like a Pornhub forum
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,094
    edited September 2021
    HYUFD said:


    Leon said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.

    The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
    Start with Miss Ocasio-Cortez - who I just remembered has a salary of $174,000 per year, before tax.

    I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
    Two seconds of research tells me the dress (and the ticket) was by Aurora James. The politics of it get to complex for a quick post.
    If you wear a dress by an invited designer, as AOC did, you get a free ticket

    She did look great. She’s highly attractive. But it is also a terrible look for Democrats in general. Rich New Yorkers lecturing poor white Trumpites by attending billionaire balls while declaring ‘tax the rich’ on a $10k designer dress?? The insane hypocrisy is off the dial. It goes up to 11. The Dems could lose in 2024 just coz of shit like this
    Plus 'tax the rich' excluding those earning $100,000 - $399,000 ie below the annual $174,000 a member of Congress like AOC makes but well above what the average American makes. I certainly think the GOP will retake the House at least next year
    https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1437539604492607492?s=20
    Wasn't Corbyn's "Tax the rich" policy threshold just above the MP salary ?

    Plus ca change...
  • Scott_xP said:

    Government delays Brexit border controls for food checks on imports.
    But the border control posts were not ready - In August we revealed Dover not ready till July earliest and downsized. Holyhead not started either. Only just found a site near the retail park at Parc Cybi
    https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1428433809595318282

    Why do you keep posting this crap? What does it mean to you?

    As an independent trading nation the UK is free to impose checks, or to not impose checks, as we determine. If the UK decides its not in our best interests to impose checks, we can choose not to do so.

    That's what taking back control means. It means making our own decisions, not having them foisted upon us by others.

    Are you still so naive as to not understand that?
    You post some great stuff, and you post some guff.

    The UK is allowing the EU to cripple its ability to export, but due to a lack of planning and construction is unable to implement reciprocal checks on imports. In short whilst we have insisted that they close the border and treat us like a 3rd country, we have been unable to do the same. A massive cost on UK business exporters but free reign for EU imports.

    Is that what taking back control means?
    Yes it is what taking back control means.

    Taking back control means being free to impose whatever checks are in our own interests. And changing whatever rules are in our own interests.

    If a check is not in our interest, or a rule change is not in our interest, then cutting off our own nose to spite our face is not worth doing.
  • Selebian said:

    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:



    The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
    Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.

    Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.

    There is nothing new about this.

    The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
    It’s all because she’s sensationally pretty. Before I get accused of perving on HTG’s, let me stress I am simply making a point about media. If you’re very attractive, and, in particular, if you’re a very attractive young woman, your chances of being in the papers or on TV are multiplied hugely. Papers and tv know that pix of HTGs are popular with women as well as men. Catnip for homo sapiens. We have evolved to admire them

    Look at the pictures of AOC in the Met Gala in that dress. They’re everywhere. Yes, because they’re controversial, but also - mainly? - because AOC is quite young and very beautiful

    The net has only amplified this tendency. Youtube ‘influencers’ are nearly all young, and hot
    I might regret asking, but what is a 'HTG'?

    Given the context, I'm reluctant to google it on a work VPN...
    Urban Dictionary defines it as "Honest To God" or "Have To Go". https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Htg

    Leon seems to want to define it as Hot Teenage Girl.
    Sean is “late” Woody Allen. Eugh yuck.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.

    The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
    Start with Miss Ocasio-Cortez - who I just remembered has a salary of $174,000 per year, before tax.

    I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
    Two seconds of research tells me the dress (and the ticket) was by Aurora James. The politics of it get to complex for a quick post.
    If you wear a dress by an invited designer, as AOC did, you get a free ticket

    She did look great. She’s highly attractive. But it is also a terrible look for Democrats in general. Rich New Yorkers lecturing poor white Trumpites by attending billionaire balls while declaring ‘tax the rich’ on a $10k designer dress?? The insane hypocrisy is off the dial. It goes up to 11. The Dems could lose in 2024 just coz of shit like this
    It’s definitely the sort of image that will end up in Republican attack ads in 2024 - not in New York, but in the swing states.
    The US is rapidly becoming a different place to the UK, I suspect any photos of that would be at best neutral for the GOP, if you follow twitter there is a lot of talk about taxing the very rich to support not the poor but the "middle classes"

    And most people in America are that middle class.
    The US has a very different view of wealth and how it is acquired.

    You'd have thought that Nancy Pelosi showing off her zillion dollar kitchen, during lockdown, complete with a selection of boutique ice cream in her special ice cream freezer was a bit off for the party of the poor. But it had no effect.

    Made Duck House bloke look poverty stricken.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.

    The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
    Start with Miss Ocasio-Cortez - who I just remembered has a salary of $174,000 per year, before tax.

    I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
    Two seconds of research tells me the dress (and the ticket) was by Aurora James. The politics of it get to complex for a quick post.
    If you wear a dress by an invited designer, as AOC did, you get a free ticket

    She did look great. She’s highly attractive. But it is also a terrible look for Democrats in general. Rich New Yorkers lecturing poor white Trumpites by attending billionaire balls while declaring ‘tax the rich’ on a $10k designer dress?? The insane hypocrisy is off the dial. It goes up to 11. The Dems could lose in 2024 just coz of shit like this
    It’s definitely the sort of image that will end up in Republican attack ads in 2024 - not in New York, but in the swing states.
    The US is rapidly becoming a different place to the UK, I suspect any photos of that would be at best neutral for the GOP, if you follow twitter there is a lot of talk about taxing the very rich to support not the poor but the "middle classes"

    And most people in America are that middle class.
    What Americans call Middle Class, the British call Working Class.

    They’re С1s, C2s and Ds - those who get up and go to work in the morning, neither in the top 15% nor the bottom 15%.
  • Leon said:

    isam said:



    The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
    Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.

    That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
    She identifies as British and was born on Canada.

    Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.

    Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
    There's a weird assumption amongst some on the Left that British identity must be somehow based on racial purity.

    It says more about them than anyone else.
    It’s also repugnant. ‘She’s not really British’. You what? We’ve just spent 50 fucking years learning (rightly) that anyone who legally migrates here is British. End of. That’s it. Race is irrelevant

    This is a victory for the progressive left and I salute it. Emma R is an outstanding example of how this can work so well.

    Now the same progressives say ‘nah she’s not *really* British look at her racial background’, just because they hate Brexit. Fuck them
    Loyalty to the country, identifying with the land, its culture, its values and institutions, is all that matters.

    Purity of racial lineage is entirely irrelevant.

    [Incidentally, it wouldn't surprise me if some on the Marxist Left eventually get round to saying she's not a "real migrant" or she's been gaslit because she's patriotic and a royalist. It's how they think.]
  • Leon said:

    isam said:



    The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
    Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.

    That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
    She identifies as British and was born on Canada.

    Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.

    Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
    There's a weird assumption amongst some on the Left that British identity must be somehow based on racial purity.

    It says more about them than anyone else.
    It’s also repugnant. ‘She’s not really British’. You what? We’ve just spent 50 fucking years learning (rightly) that anyone who legally migrates here is British. End of. That’s it. Race is irrelevant

    This is a victory for the progressive left and I salute it. Emma R is an outstanding example of how this can work so well.

    Now the same progressives say ‘nah she’s not *really* British look at her racial background’, just because they hate Brexit. Fuck them
    Its the opposite. The right bang on about ethnicity and nationalism and race.

    The reason why her migrant status and ethnic background are being raised by progressives is to show the hypocrisy of the people who openly voted to get rid of the Romanians and now cheer one.

    And before anyone says "managed migration policy" I don't hear knuckle-draggers demanding the right kind of Romanians be allowed in. They just want them gone.

    What she demonstrates is that you can be a migrant and naturalise. She is British because she chooses to be. That is a good thing. Yet other people who may also have the same skills and potential are shut out. They don't get the choice.

    And its the same with the hypocrites in the cabinet. Javid makes a great deal of being the son of a bus driver, whilst ensuring that future sons of bus drivers are banned from having the same opportunities he had.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    Con will win the next election with a reduced (but still comfortable) majority (maybe 30-40 seats?)

    Boris will retire sometime mid-parliament (2026) and Labour will win the 2028/2029 general election under Burnham.

    2030's *might* be a Labour decade!
  • eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.

    The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
    Start with Miss Ocasio-Cortez - who I just remembered has a salary of $174,000 per year, before tax.

    I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
    Two seconds of research tells me the dress (and the ticket) was by Aurora James. The politics of it get to complex for a quick post.
    If you wear a dress by an invited designer, as AOC did, you get a free ticket

    She did look great. She’s highly attractive. But it is also a terrible look for Democrats in general. Rich New Yorkers lecturing poor white Trumpites by attending billionaire balls while declaring ‘tax the rich’ on a $10k designer dress?? The insane hypocrisy is off the dial. It goes up to 11. The Dems could lose in 2024 just coz of shit like this
    It’s definitely the sort of image that will end up in Republican attack ads in 2024 - not in New York, but in the swing states.
    The US is rapidly becoming a different place to the UK, I suspect any photos of that would be at best neutral for the GOP, if you follow twitter there is a lot of talk about taxing the very rich to support not the poor but the "middle classes"

    And most people in America are that middle class.
    If the US does introduce a wealth tax realistically it will be on those with around $50m+. It is the ultra rich that are being targeted not those who are well off. Given this group have had effective govt subsidies of trillions of dollars through QE inflated asset prices over the last decade it is unsurprising this is popular.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625

    isam said:



    The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
    Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.

    That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
    She identifies as British and was born on Canada.

    Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.

    Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
    There's a weird assumption amongst some on the Left that British identity must be somehow based on racial purity.

    It says more about them than anyone else.
    IKARRA!!!!!!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,268
    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.

    The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
    Start with Miss Ocasio-Cortez - who I just remembered has a salary of $174,000 per year, before tax.

    I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
    Two seconds of research tells me the dress (and the ticket) was by Aurora James. The politics of it get to complex for a quick post.
    If you wear a dress by an invited designer, as AOC did, you get a free ticket

    She did look great. She’s highly attractive. But it is also a terrible look for Democrats in general. Rich New Yorkers lecturing poor white Trumpites by attending billionaire balls while declaring ‘tax the rich’ on a $10k designer dress?? The insane hypocrisy is off the dial. It goes up to 11. The Dems could lose in 2024 just coz of shit like this
    It’s definitely the sort of image that will end up in Republican attack ads in 2024 - not in New York, but in the swing states.
    The US is rapidly becoming a different place to the UK, I suspect any photos of that would be at best neutral for the GOP, if you follow twitter there is a lot of talk about taxing the very rich to support not the poor but the "middle classes"

    And most people in America are that middle class.
    No, the GOP loves to hate on AOC. It wins them votes because she is provocative - tho she is also popular on her own side. The dress is different. It feels like a terrible media mistake by her - unusually so, because she’s normally very sure-footed in choosing her battles

    What was she thinking?
  • Leon is genuinely creepy, the way he talks about a teenage girl is making me feel very uncomfortable
  • Scott_xP said:

    I just spoke on the grim irony of this announcement in the NI Assembly.

    DUP's toxic narrative construction on the Protocol is part of the same continuum as the below.

    Denying and deflecting the consequences of the Brexit they championed.
    https://twitter.com/MatthewOToole2/status/1437714718110662660

    You are so monotonous
  • Leon said:

    isam said:



    The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
    Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.

    That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
    She identifies as British and was born on Canada.

    Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.

    Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
    There's a weird assumption amongst some on the Left that British identity must be somehow based on racial purity.

    It says more about them than anyone else.
    It’s also repugnant. ‘She’s not really British’. You what? We’ve just spent 50 fucking years learning (rightly) that anyone who legally migrates here is British. End of. That’s it. Race is irrelevant

    This is a victory for the progressive left and I salute it. Emma R is an outstanding example of how this can work so well.

    Now the same progressives say ‘nah she’s not *really* British look at her racial background’, just because they hate Brexit. Fuck them
    Its the opposite. The right bang on about ethnicity and nationalism and race.

    The reason why her migrant status and ethnic background are being raised by progressives is to show the hypocrisy of the people who openly voted to get rid of the Romanians and now cheer one.

    And before anyone says "managed migration policy" I don't hear knuckle-draggers demanding the right kind of Romanians be allowed in. They just want them gone.

    What she demonstrates is that you can be a migrant and naturalise. She is British because she chooses to be. That is a good thing. Yet other people who may also have the same skills and potential are shut out. They don't get the choice.

    And its the same with the hypocrites in the cabinet. Javid makes a great deal of being the son of a bus driver, whilst ensuring that future sons of bus drivers are banned from having the same opportunities he had.
    Her father works in finance and would get in under a "managed immigration system".

    I think its the left not the right who have an issue with those who work in finance.
  • Mr. W, aye. A prime example of political journalism and bovine excrement overlapping.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    Scott_xP said:

    I just spoke on the grim irony of this announcement in the NI Assembly.

    DUP's toxic narrative construction on the Protocol is part of the same continuum as the below.

    Denying and deflecting the consequences of the Brexit they championed.
    https://twitter.com/MatthewOToole2/status/1437714718110662660

    You are so monotonous
    Absolutely Big G. Banging on about a political issue which has huge repercussions for the various political parties, not to say the inhabitants of Northern Ireland and which illustrates the political impasse of one of the government's policies (I use the term lightly).

    And all on a political blog. Absurd.
  • Scott_xP said:

    Government delays Brexit border controls for food checks on imports.
    But the border control posts were not ready - In August we revealed Dover not ready till July earliest and downsized. Holyhead not started either. Only just found a site near the retail park at Parc Cybi
    https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1428433809595318282

    Why do you keep posting this crap? What does it mean to you?

    As an independent trading nation the UK is free to impose checks, or to not impose checks, as we determine. If the UK decides its not in our best interests to impose checks, we can choose not to do so.

    That's what taking back control means. It means making our own decisions, not having them foisted upon us by others.

    Are you still so naive as to not understand that?
    You post some great stuff, and you post some guff.

    The UK is allowing the EU to cripple its ability to export, but due to a lack of planning and construction is unable to implement reciprocal checks on imports. In short whilst we have insisted that they close the border and treat us like a 3rd country, we have been unable to do the same. A massive cost on UK business exporters but free reign for EU imports.

    Is that what taking back control means?
    Yes it is what taking back control means.

    Taking back control means being free to impose whatever checks are in our own interests. And changing whatever rules are in our own interests.

    If a check is not in our interest, or a rule change is not in our interest, then cutting off our own nose to spite our face is not worth doing.
    OK. So how are one-sided checks only against our exports in our interest?
  • FishingFishing Posts: 4,555
    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.

    The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
    Start with Miss Ocasio-Cortez - who I just remembered has a salary of $174,000 per year, before tax.

    I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
    Two seconds of research tells me the dress (and the ticket) was by Aurora James. The politics of it get to complex for a quick post.
    If you wear a dress by an invited designer, as AOC did, you get a free ticket

    She did look great. She’s highly attractive. But it is also a terrible look for Democrats in general. Rich New Yorkers lecturing poor white Trumpites by attending billionaire balls while declaring ‘tax the rich’ on a $10k designer dress?? The insane hypocrisy is off the dial. It goes up to 11. The Dems could lose in 2024 just coz of shit like this
    It’s definitely the sort of image that will end up in Republican attack ads in 2024 - not in New York, but in the swing states.
    The US is rapidly becoming a different place to the UK, I suspect any photos of that would be at best neutral for the GOP, if you follow twitter there is a lot of talk about taxing the very rich to support not the poor but the "middle classes"

    And most people in America are that middle class.
    It's a slight difference in terminology - Americans refer to the "middle class" to describe what we would call the "upper working class".

    America is indeed a different place to the UK in many ways though eerily familiar, especially to England, in many others.
  • Mr. Royale, aye. And identity politics is utterly backward. Defining people by their demographics is also a key tenet of critical race idiocy.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:



    The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
    Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.

    Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.

    There is nothing new about this.

    The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
    It’s all because she’s sensationally pretty. Before I get accused of perving on HTG’s, let me stress I am simply making a point about media. If you’re very attractive, and, in particular, if you’re a very attractive young woman, your chances of being in the papers or on TV are multiplied hugely. Papers and tv know that pix of HTGs are popular with women as well as men. Catnip for homo sapiens. We have evolved to admire them

    Look at the pictures of AOC in the Met Gala in that dress. They’re everywhere. Yes, because they’re controversial, but also - mainly? - because AOC is quite young and very beautiful

    The net has only amplified this tendency. Youtube ‘influencers’ are nearly all young, and hot
    Oh sure. I get that. It was the suggestion that being multilingual and having foreign parents is a new thing I was commenting on.

    Many of those at the Met Gala were appallingly badly dressed, though . Really quite hideous. Outstandingly vulgar. And the make up was ghastly. Very very few had any beauty or elegance. So much money, so much primping - and to so little effect.

    It really isn't hard to look good. Having a full length mirror helps. Also an Italian mother.

    Just last week a designer friend of mine saw a photo of me at my wedding and stated that I looked like Audrey Hepburn. Which is (a) the first time this has been said and (b) brought some small cheer in what has been a dismal few weeks.

    But then I also got my first spam "I've seen you masturbating on the internet. Please pay money to my Bitcoin account or else" mail. It's a funny old world.

    (PS I don't and I didn't.)
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,094
    Vaccines "More Europe" is proposed.

    EuCo setting up their version of BARDA (Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority) - the people who intervened in USA vaccine supply.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGjpYrdLu7E (vacuous video)
  • Leon said:

    isam said:



    The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
    Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.

    That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
    She identifies as British and was born on Canada.

    Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.

    Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
    There's a weird assumption amongst some on the Left that British identity must be somehow based on racial purity.

    It says more about them than anyone else.
    It’s also repugnant. ‘She’s not really British’. You what? We’ve just spent 50 fucking years learning (rightly) that anyone who legally migrates here is British. End of. That’s it. Race is irrelevant

    This is a victory for the progressive left and I salute it. Emma R is an outstanding example of how this can work so well.

    Now the same progressives say ‘nah she’s not *really* British look at her racial background’, just because they hate Brexit. Fuck them
    Its the opposite. The right bang on about ethnicity and nationalism and race.

    The reason why her migrant status and ethnic background are being raised by progressives is to show the hypocrisy of the people who openly voted to get rid of the Romanians and now cheer one.

    And before anyone says "managed migration policy" I don't hear knuckle-draggers demanding the right kind of Romanians be allowed in. They just want them gone.

    What she demonstrates is that you can be a migrant and naturalise. She is British because she chooses to be. That is a good thing. Yet other people who may also have the same skills and potential are shut out. They don't get the choice.

    And its the same with the hypocrites in the cabinet. Javid makes a great deal of being the son of a bus driver, whilst ensuring that future sons of bus drivers are banned from having the same opportunities he had.
    Her father works in finance and would get in under a "managed immigration system".

    I think its the left not the right who have an issue with those who work in finance.
    No I understand what her parents do for a living. She was 2. We get her skills because of her parents job. Today's 2 year old future child prodigy whose parents don't work in finance will represent another country as we don't want them here. Same with a future Sajid Javid. You dad drives a bus or a truck? Worthless.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880
    MattW said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Sandpit said:

    MaxPB said:

    F1: Stroll (Lawrence) has factory plans with the intent of making Aston Martin winners in 3-5 years:
    https://twitter.com/Motor_Sport/status/1437665416202145792

    Not impossible. Dietrich Mateschitz[sp] showed that with Red Bull. A difference is that Stroll has his son as a driver, but it's intriguing that he's gone for Aston Martin with the aim of making them almost a British version of Ferrari.

    It's possible but not with how Aston Martin are set up as a Mercedes B team. They'd need for the works team to exit the sport but keep making engines and for McLaren to self-immolate as they did from 2014 until this season.
    They’ve also outsourced the power units for their new road cars to Mercedes, the whole structure of the companies rely on each other extensively.
    AM are now just a branding and marketing organisation. MB rely on them for nothing beyond very slightly reducing the unit price of M178s. 250,000 employees vs 3,000.
    Is it now like previous Lotus, with the Team essentially separate from the Business?
    i'm sure one of our resident tax-evaders-complaining-about-tyres experts can opine better than me but am f1 has nothing to do with the car business at all and is basically the wreckage of the force india team with a rebrand.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Is the gist of this defence that the Epstein money that paid off Giuffre was bogof for Andrew's dubious activities also? Jeffrey, what a guy, helping a pal out from beyond the grave!


    STV News
    @STVNews
    1h
    Lawyers for Duke of York say a woman who accuses him of sexually assaulting her has a prior agreement 'releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability'.

    There are plenty of high profile celebrities and businessmen and politicians who associated with Epstein, not just Prince Andrew, I expect they would all be happy if that agreement was held to have legal force
    It rather depends on what the agreement says. All I have read suggests that it may refer to trafficking so it might act as a sort of estoppel against making such allegations against others (eg Andrew). But it may well not work wrt to sexual assault allegations.

    Also if you are not party to the agreement how can you enforce it. The law is quite complicated - at least over here - re the enforcement of a contract by someone who is not a party to it.

    There may also be a public policy angle to this. Should a contract really stop a court determining the truth of an allegation of a crime? This is similar to the arguments around NDAs. But this brings me back to a point I have made before. If she is alleging rape by Andrew then this should be investigated by the police and a criminal court not determined by a civil court. Damages are not the proper remedy for such a crime.

    I obviously don't know the details of the case. But I am a bit troubled by both the apparent tactics of Andrew's lawyers (arguing technical points) because while they may be valid as tactics I don't know what the overall strategy is. And his accuser seeking money from him at the last minute when the limitation period is about to expire. She should be referring this matter to the criminal authorities. People have been investigated, charged and convicted for crimes committed long ago. Claiming that the lapse of time is why she hasn't done so doesn't wash I'm afraid. It is hard but not impossible.

    I find something really unpleasant in the idea that such serious crimes can be dealt with through the payment of money - both because it risks letting men off the hook and/or because it uses the threat of bad publicity and a finding on the balance of possibilities rather than the harder criminal test as a way of putting pressure on someone who may well be innocent. Neither are good. It harks back to a pre-modern justice age.
    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6184602-Jeffrey-Epstein-non-prosecution-agreement.html

    Co-conspirators clause bottom of page 5. I'd have said the law of privity was rather uncomplicated - if you aren't a party you can't enforce terms even explicitly for your benefit. I suppose epsteins estate could intervene but good luck with that.

    Maxwell's right to rely on the NPA has bee expressly rejected, apparently on privity grounds

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/16/ghislaine-maxwell-judge-rejects-bid-to-dismiss-charges

    Rape victims have few enough rights that we can afford to reduce them by removing the right to sue. Your harks back to a pre modern justice age is my has been established law since way before Magna Carta.
  • Scott_xP said:

    Government delays Brexit border controls for food checks on imports.
    But the border control posts were not ready - In August we revealed Dover not ready till July earliest and downsized. Holyhead not started either. Only just found a site near the retail park at Parc Cybi
    https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1428433809595318282

    Why do you keep posting this crap? What does it mean to you?

    As an independent trading nation the UK is free to impose checks, or to not impose checks, as we determine. If the UK decides its not in our best interests to impose checks, we can choose not to do so.

    That's what taking back control means. It means making our own decisions, not having them foisted upon us by others.

    Are you still so naive as to not understand that?
    You post some great stuff, and you post some guff.

    The UK is allowing the EU to cripple its ability to export, but due to a lack of planning and construction is unable to implement reciprocal checks on imports. In short whilst we have insisted that they close the border and treat us like a 3rd country, we have been unable to do the same. A massive cost on UK business exporters but free reign for EU imports.

    Is that what taking back control means?
    Yes it is what taking back control means.

    Taking back control means being free to impose whatever checks are in our own interests. And changing whatever rules are in our own interests.

    If a check is not in our interest, or a rule change is not in our interest, then cutting off our own nose to spite our face is not worth doing.
    OK. So how are one-sided checks only against our exports in our interest?
    We get all of the advantages of being able to determine our own rules and policies, without any of the counterproductive faff of having to impose checks we don't want to have.

    If they wish to do checks on their side of the border, that's their choice.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:



    The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
    Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.

    Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.

    There is nothing new about this.

    The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
    It’s all because she’s sensationally pretty. Before I get accused of perving on HTG’s, let me stress I am simply making a point about media. If you’re very attractive, and, in particular, if you’re a very attractive young woman, your chances of being in the papers or on TV are multiplied hugely. Papers and tv know that pix of HTGs are popular with women as well as men. Catnip for homo sapiens. We have evolved to admire them

    Look at the pictures of AOC in the Met Gala in that dress. They’re everywhere. Yes, because they’re controversial, but also - mainly? - because AOC is quite young and very beautiful

    The net has only amplified this tendency. Youtube ‘influencers’ are nearly all young, and hot
    Oh sure. I get that. It was the suggestion that being multilingual and having foreign parents is a new thing I was commenting on.

    Many of those at the Met Gala were appallingly badly dressed, though . Really quite hideous. Outstandingly vulgar. And the make up was ghastly. Very very few had any beauty or elegance. So much money, so much primping - and to so little effect.

    It really isn't hard to look good. Having a full length mirror helps. Also an Italian mother.

    Just last week a designer friend of mine saw a photo of me at my wedding and stated that I looked like Audrey Hepburn. Which is (a) the first time this has been said and (b) brought some small cheer in what has been a dismal few weeks.

    But then I also got my first spam "I've seen you masturbating on the internet. Please pay money to my Bitcoin account or else" mail. It's a funny old world.

    (PS I don't and I didn't.)
    .

    😂
  • Selebian said:

    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:



    The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
    Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.

    Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.

    There is nothing new about this.

    The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
    It’s all because she’s sensationally pretty. Before I get accused of perving on HTG’s, let me stress I am simply making a point about media. If you’re very attractive, and, in particular, if you’re a very attractive young woman, your chances of being in the papers or on TV are multiplied hugely. Papers and tv know that pix of HTGs are popular with women as well as men. Catnip for homo sapiens. We have evolved to admire them

    Look at the pictures of AOC in the Met Gala in that dress. They’re everywhere. Yes, because they’re controversial, but also - mainly? - because AOC is quite young and very beautiful

    The net has only amplified this tendency. Youtube ‘influencers’ are nearly all young, and hot
    I might regret asking, but what is a 'HTG'?

    Given the context, I'm reluctant to google it on a work VPN...
    Urban Dictionary defines it as "Honest To God" or "Have To Go". https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Htg

    Leon seems to want to define it as Hot Teenage Girl.
    "Hard to Get".
  • TOPPING said:

    Scott_xP said:

    I just spoke on the grim irony of this announcement in the NI Assembly.

    DUP's toxic narrative construction on the Protocol is part of the same continuum as the below.

    Denying and deflecting the consequences of the Brexit they championed.
    https://twitter.com/MatthewOToole2/status/1437714718110662660

    You are so monotonous
    Absolutely Big G. Banging on about a political issue which has huge repercussions for the various political parties, not to say the inhabitants of Northern Ireland and which illustrates the political impasse of one of the government's policies (I use the term lightly).

    And all on a political blog. Absurd.
    He is still monotonous
  • Scott_xP said:

    Government delays Brexit border controls for food checks on imports.
    But the border control posts were not ready - In August we revealed Dover not ready till July earliest and downsized. Holyhead not started either. Only just found a site near the retail park at Parc Cybi
    https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1428433809595318282

    Why do you keep posting this crap? What does it mean to you?

    As an independent trading nation the UK is free to impose checks, or to not impose checks, as we determine. If the UK decides its not in our best interests to impose checks, we can choose not to do so.

    That's what taking back control means. It means making our own decisions, not having them foisted upon us by others.

    Are you still so naive as to not understand that?
    You post some great stuff, and you post some guff.

    The UK is allowing the EU to cripple its ability to export, but due to a lack of planning and construction is unable to implement reciprocal checks on imports. In short whilst we have insisted that they close the border and treat us like a 3rd country, we have been unable to do the same. A massive cost on UK business exporters but free reign for EU imports.

    Is that what taking back control means?
    Brexit has completely skewed the market in favour of our competitors in the EU - our exporters get bogged down in an Everest of red tape and documentation, theirs get a free run. The Leavers have imposed a kind of topsy-turvy, night-into-day protectionism. Real Alice-in-Wonderland stuff.
  • Imagine it was your daughter being talked about in this way, I certainly wouldn't like it. I understand it will happen regardless but I thought we were a bit better than that on PB.

    Can't we just recognise somebody for their significant achievement, that they're going to be very rich as a result and leave it at that?
  • Scott_xP said:

    Government delays Brexit border controls for food checks on imports.
    But the border control posts were not ready - In August we revealed Dover not ready till July earliest and downsized. Holyhead not started either. Only just found a site near the retail park at Parc Cybi
    https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1428433809595318282

    Why do you keep posting this crap? What does it mean to you?

    As an independent trading nation the UK is free to impose checks, or to not impose checks, as we determine. If the UK decides its not in our best interests to impose checks, we can choose not to do so.

    That's what taking back control means. It means making our own decisions, not having them foisted upon us by others.

    Are you still so naive as to not understand that?
    You post some great stuff, and you post some guff.

    The UK is allowing the EU to cripple its ability to export, but due to a lack of planning and construction is unable to implement reciprocal checks on imports. In short whilst we have insisted that they close the border and treat us like a 3rd country, we have been unable to do the same. A massive cost on UK business exporters but free reign for EU imports.

    Is that what taking back control means?
    Brexit has completely skewed the market in favour of our competitors in the EU - our exporters get bogged down in an Everest of red tape and documentation, theirs get a free run. The Leavers have imposed a kind of topsy-turvy, night-into-day protectionism. Real Alice-in-Wonderland stuff.
    And yet doesn't the data show that our trade deficit narrowed, not widened, post-Brexit?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Leon said:

    isam said:



    The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
    Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.

    That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
    She identifies as British and was born on Canada.

    Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.

    Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
    There's a weird assumption amongst some on the Left that British identity must be somehow based on racial purity.

    It says more about them than anyone else.
    It’s also repugnant. ‘She’s not really British’. You what? We’ve just spent 50 fucking years learning (rightly) that anyone who legally migrates here is British. End of. That’s it. Race is irrelevant

    This is a victory for the progressive left and I salute it. Emma R is an outstanding example of how this can work so well.

    Now the same progressives say ‘nah she’s not *really* British look at her racial background’, just because they hate Brexit. Fuck them
    Its the opposite. The right bang on about ethnicity and nationalism and race.

    The reason why her migrant status and ethnic background are being raised by progressives is to show the hypocrisy of the people who openly voted to get rid of the Romanians and now cheer one.

    And before anyone says "managed migration policy" I don't hear knuckle-draggers demanding the right kind of Romanians be allowed in. They just want them gone.

    What she demonstrates is that you can be a migrant and naturalise. She is British because she chooses to be. That is a good thing. Yet other people who may also have the same skills and potential are shut out. They don't get the choice.

    And its the same with the hypocrites in the cabinet. Javid makes a great deal of being the son of a bus driver, whilst ensuring that future sons of bus drivers are banned from having the same opportunities he had.
    Sorry, that's moronic. Nobody openly voted to get rid of anyone, they voted to leave the EU, and importantly SHE IS NOT FUCKING ROMANIAN AND NEVER WAS and it is racism to say otherwise.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,257

    Selebian said:

    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:



    The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
    Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.

    Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.

    There is nothing new about this.

    The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
    It’s all because she’s sensationally pretty. Before I get accused of perving on HTG’s, let me stress I am simply making a point about media. If you’re very attractive, and, in particular, if you’re a very attractive young woman, your chances of being in the papers or on TV are multiplied hugely. Papers and tv know that pix of HTGs are popular with women as well as men. Catnip for homo sapiens. We have evolved to admire them

    Look at the pictures of AOC in the Met Gala in that dress. They’re everywhere. Yes, because they’re controversial, but also - mainly? - because AOC is quite young and very beautiful

    The net has only amplified this tendency. Youtube ‘influencers’ are nearly all young, and hot
    I might regret asking, but what is a 'HTG'?

    Given the context, I'm reluctant to google it on a work VPN...
    Urban Dictionary defines it as "Honest To God" or "Have To Go". https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Htg

    Leon seems to want to define it as Hot Teenage Girl.
    Yep, I regret asking... But thanks anyway.
  • Leon said:

    isam said:



    The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
    Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.

    That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
    She identifies as British and was born on Canada.

    Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.

    Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
    There's a weird assumption amongst some on the Left that British identity must be somehow based on racial purity.

    It says more about them than anyone else.
    It’s also repugnant. ‘She’s not really British’. You what? We’ve just spent 50 fucking years learning (rightly) that anyone who legally migrates here is British. End of. That’s it. Race is irrelevant

    This is a victory for the progressive left and I salute it. Emma R is an outstanding example of how this can work so well.

    Now the same progressives say ‘nah she’s not *really* British look at her racial background’, just because they hate Brexit. Fuck them
    Its the opposite. The right bang on about ethnicity and nationalism and race.

    The reason why her migrant status and ethnic background are being raised by progressives is to show the hypocrisy of the people who openly voted to get rid of the Romanians and now cheer one.

    And before anyone says "managed migration policy" I don't hear knuckle-draggers demanding the right kind of Romanians be allowed in. They just want them gone.

    What she demonstrates is that you can be a migrant and naturalise. She is British because she chooses to be. That is a good thing. Yet other people who may also have the same skills and potential are shut out. They don't get the choice.

    And its the same with the hypocrites in the cabinet. Javid makes a great deal of being the son of a bus driver, whilst ensuring that future sons of bus drivers are banned from having the same opportunities he had.
    Her father works in finance and would get in under a "managed immigration system".

    I think its the left not the right who have an issue with those who work in finance.
    No I understand what her parents do for a living. She was 2. We get her skills because of her parents job. Today's 2 year old future child prodigy whose parents don't work in finance will represent another country as we don't want them here. Same with a future Sajid Javid. You dad drives a bus or a truck? Worthless.
    Did Sajid Javid's dad come here under Freedom of Movement? No. Is the US in the EU? No. Do people still migrate there? Yes. You can have immigration outside the EU.

    And while there are some knuckle-draggers out there, most people didn't vote to send Romanians home. Six million people have applied for settled status meaning about 10% of the population is a recently-arrived EU citizen. It just means we can control the flow a bit better in the future.
  • MonkeysMonkeys Posts: 755
    Polling is much better for Boris mid-term than it ought to be so I expect Con Majority on the day. If the polling moves towards Labour then the odds would lengthen but if it hasn't happened now - remember the more Left-leaning papers were screaming Boris was trying to kill us for a lot of this parliament - I'm not sure that it will, for long enough. There will be some Labour leads if only due to random noise during the parliament but they'd have to be sustained for a good few months to affect the betting enough.

    We aren't all dead, and we've Brexited, so even though Boris might not want to have done that much the gods have decided he had to.

    I read earlier that someone would have to be earning 128k a year for the NI raise to hit someone to equal the UC £20 a week cut. He's good at politics I think. And Starmer just seems to be waiting for us to realise Boris is a crook. Unfortunately, we know and we don't care.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Is the gist of this defence that the Epstein money that paid off Giuffre was bogof for Andrew's dubious activities also? Jeffrey, what a guy, helping a pal out from beyond the grave!


    STV News
    @STVNews
    1h
    Lawyers for Duke of York say a woman who accuses him of sexually assaulting her has a prior agreement 'releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability'.

    There are plenty of high profile celebrities and businessmen and politicians who associated with Epstein, not just Prince Andrew, I expect they would all be happy if that agreement was held to have legal force
    It rather depends on what the agreement says. All I have read suggests that it may refer to trafficking so it might act as a sort of estoppel against making such allegations against others (eg Andrew). But it may well not work wrt to sexual assault allegations.

    Also if you are not party to the agreement how can you enforce it. The law is quite complicated - at least over here - re the enforcement of a contract by someone who is not a party to it.

    There may also be a public policy angle to this. Should a contract really stop a court determining the truth of an allegation of a crime? This is similar to the arguments around NDAs. But this brings me back to a point I have made before. If she is alleging rape by Andrew then this should be investigated by the police and a criminal court not determined by a civil court. Damages are not the proper remedy for such a crime.

    I obviously don't know the details of the case. But I am a bit troubled by both the apparent tactics of Andrew's lawyers (arguing technical points) because while they may be valid as tactics I don't know what the overall strategy is. And his accuser seeking money from him at the last minute when the limitation period is about to expire. She should be referring this matter to the criminal authorities. People have been investigated, charged and convicted for crimes committed long ago. Claiming that the lapse of time is why she hasn't done so doesn't wash I'm afraid. It is hard but not impossible.

    I find something really unpleasant in the idea that such serious crimes can be dealt with through the payment of money - both because it risks letting men off the hook and/or because it uses the threat of bad publicity and a finding on the balance of possibilities rather than the harder criminal test as a way of putting pressure on someone who may well be innocent. Neither are good. It harks back to a pre-modern justice age.
    I agree with most of that but take issue with the idea the alleged victim shouldn't seek civil restitution (before the time limit lapses) just because justice via the criminal justice system hasn't been achieved yet. The alleged victim has referred this matter to the criminal authorities - is it her fault that the system has been gummed up and not reached a conclusion yet?

    Both civil and criminal avenues rightly exist within the law and sometimes victims can't get justice via one channel, which is bad. Should we amplify that miscarriage of justice by denying them justice via the other channel too because of the failure of the first one?

    Not to forget of course that the US puts much more strength behind its Statute of Limitations than we do. So justice delayed there truly is justice denied - forever.
    As far as I know she hasn't referred the matter to the U.K. criminal authorities in respect of the sexual assault allegedly taking place in the U.K. Has she done so in the US? It doesn't normally take them decades to investigate.

    I am wary about using the civil law to determine criminal matters. If someone is a rapist they should not remain free simply by paying money. That is little better than the sort of "honour" system you get in Pakistan. Nor should someone have their character tarnished so seriously on the balance of probabilities and by a judge alone. Alleged criminal behaviour is not simply the concern of the two parties involved.
  • Selebian said:

    Selebian said:

    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:



    The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
    Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.

    Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.

    There is nothing new about this.

    The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
    It’s all because she’s sensationally pretty. Before I get accused of perving on HTG’s, let me stress I am simply making a point about media. If you’re very attractive, and, in particular, if you’re a very attractive young woman, your chances of being in the papers or on TV are multiplied hugely. Papers and tv know that pix of HTGs are popular with women as well as men. Catnip for homo sapiens. We have evolved to admire them

    Look at the pictures of AOC in the Met Gala in that dress. They’re everywhere. Yes, because they’re controversial, but also - mainly? - because AOC is quite young and very beautiful

    The net has only amplified this tendency. Youtube ‘influencers’ are nearly all young, and hot
    I might regret asking, but what is a 'HTG'?

    Given the context, I'm reluctant to google it on a work VPN...
    Urban Dictionary defines it as "Honest To God" or "Have To Go". https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Htg

    Leon seems to want to define it as Hot Teenage Girl.
    Yep, I regret asking... But thanks anyway.
    When certain people on this site are more perverted than Urban Dictionary then it really shows how far into the sewer certain people are going.

    As a father of girls, I find this whole discussion really disturbing and uncomfortable.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    In my view Sturgeon would not make SindyRef2 a requirement for supporting a minority Labour Queen's Speech because then that gives Labour the chance to say "No Deal" and dare the SNP to vote them down.
  • paulyork64paulyork64 Posts: 2,461
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    tlg86 said:

    Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.

    Blair owned Scotland in those days.
    The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.

    They will want a referendum, and money of course.
    The most obvious way Starmer never gets near power is via C&S with the SNP.
    He'll do the deal if that's what required to get him into No.10.

    Labour need 280 seats. That's it.
    This argument comes up all the time, and I don't get it:

    2024: Starmer becomes PM of a minority government with SNP support
    2025: 2nd Scottish referendum is held, and Leave wins
    2027: Negotiations on Scottish independence conclude, Scotland leaves the UK, and give up their seats at Westminster

    STarmer now has, instead of 280+59 seats out of 650, has 280 out of 591, and no majority.

    So how does Starmer govern from them on? Unless he thinks that by then he'll have a chance at a majority in England and Wales alone. I guess the SNP could be persuaded to hang around for another couple of years in exchange for ... something, but then what?

    Put simply: the price of SNP support is independence. Labour may have no chance of a majority with no/few MPs in Scotland, but equally they have even less chance of a pure majority without Scotland in the picture at all. So how could they possibly agree to C&S?
    This is why there won’t be C&S. Labour will just dare the SNP to vote then down, which if Labour have 280 seats they can explain to their voters why they wanted the Tories back.

    The days of formal arrangements are over. It’s possible - although unlikely - Labour bring the LDs in but nobody else than that.

    Personally I think Lib Dems should force PR in such a scenario, then have an election on that in the future
    could Labour make SNP help in voting through PR for UK be the price of Sindy2?
    Not necessarily.

    For starters if Labour has won enough seats to form a government then a number of Labour MPs elected under FPTP would lose their seats under PR and therefore could join the Tories and vote it down even if it had SNP support.

    In 1997 for example Labour won over 60% of the seats under FPTP but only 43% of MPs would have been Labour under PR
    but that is comparing a landslide which included winning most of Scotland with the scenario of Labour having a minority government with virtually no Scottish seats.
    Even without winning most of Scotland Labour won 62% of English seats in 1997 under FPTP, under PR only 43% of English seats would have been Labour.

    Plus to win enough seats to be able to form even a minority government a lot of Labour MPs will have been elected for the first time under FPTP some of whom may then lose their seats under PR to the Greens or LDs
    1997 is irrelevant. if Labour got say 38% of the vote and Conservative got say 40% of the vote and Labour needed SNP support to form a government (and possibly LD) how many Labour MPs would have to lose seats in a switch to PR? nothing like 62% down to 43%.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited September 2021
    Fishing said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    eek said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.

    The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
    Start with Miss Ocasio-Cortez - who I just remembered has a salary of $174,000 per year, before tax.

    I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
    Two seconds of research tells me the dress (and the ticket) was by Aurora James. The politics of it get to complex for a quick post.
    If you wear a dress by an invited designer, as AOC did, you get a free ticket

    She did look great. She’s highly attractive. But it is also a terrible look for Democrats in general. Rich New Yorkers lecturing poor white Trumpites by attending billionaire balls while declaring ‘tax the rich’ on a $10k designer dress?? The insane hypocrisy is off the dial. It goes up to 11. The Dems could lose in 2024 just coz of shit like this
    It’s definitely the sort of image that will end up in Republican attack ads in 2024 - not in New York, but in the swing states.
    The US is rapidly becoming a different place to the UK, I suspect any photos of that would be at best neutral for the GOP, if you follow twitter there is a lot of talk about taxing the very rich to support not the poor but the "middle classes"

    And most people in America are that middle class.
    It's a slight difference in terminology - Americans refer to the "middle class" to describe what we would call the "upper working class".

    America is indeed a different place to the UK in many ways though eerily familiar, especially to England, in many others.
    Indeed, unless you are on welfare or a multi millionaire or billionaire then in US terms you are middle class
  • Selebian said:

    Selebian said:

    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:



    The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
    Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.

    Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.

    There is nothing new about this.

    The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
    It’s all because she’s sensationally pretty. Before I get accused of perving on HTG’s, let me stress I am simply making a point about media. If you’re very attractive, and, in particular, if you’re a very attractive young woman, your chances of being in the papers or on TV are multiplied hugely. Papers and tv know that pix of HTGs are popular with women as well as men. Catnip for homo sapiens. We have evolved to admire them

    Look at the pictures of AOC in the Met Gala in that dress. They’re everywhere. Yes, because they’re controversial, but also - mainly? - because AOC is quite young and very beautiful

    The net has only amplified this tendency. Youtube ‘influencers’ are nearly all young, and hot
    I might regret asking, but what is a 'HTG'?

    Given the context, I'm reluctant to google it on a work VPN...
    Urban Dictionary defines it as "Honest To God" or "Have To Go". https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Htg

    Leon seems to want to define it as Hot Teenage Girl.
    Yep, I regret asking... But thanks anyway.
    I'm going for a run but I agree, what a weird way to put across a point.

    If it was a boy, or his own daughter, would Leon say such a thing? Of course not, I don't like how this language is seeping in here. Really degrades the quality of the debate and makes me question the kind of people that we have posting - I am encouraged most seem to agree with what I am saying.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578

    Imagine it was your daughter being talked about in this way, I certainly wouldn't like it. I understand it will happen regardless but I thought we were a bit better than that on PB.

    Can't we just recognise somebody for their significant achievement, that they're going to be very rich as a result and leave it at that?

    Well said.
  • Scott_xP said:

    Government delays Brexit border controls for food checks on imports.
    But the border control posts were not ready - In August we revealed Dover not ready till July earliest and downsized. Holyhead not started either. Only just found a site near the retail park at Parc Cybi
    https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1428433809595318282

    Why do you keep posting this crap? What does it mean to you?

    As an independent trading nation the UK is free to impose checks, or to not impose checks, as we determine. If the UK decides its not in our best interests to impose checks, we can choose not to do so.

    That's what taking back control means. It means making our own decisions, not having them foisted upon us by others.

    Are you still so naive as to not understand that?
    You post some great stuff, and you post some guff.

    The UK is allowing the EU to cripple its ability to export, but due to a lack of planning and construction is unable to implement reciprocal checks on imports. In short whilst we have insisted that they close the border and treat us like a 3rd country, we have been unable to do the same. A massive cost on UK business exporters but free reign for EU imports.

    Is that what taking back control means?
    Yes it is what taking back control means.

    Taking back control means being free to impose whatever checks are in our own interests. And changing whatever rules are in our own interests.

    If a check is not in our interest, or a rule change is not in our interest, then cutting off our own nose to spite our face is not worth doing.
    OK. So how are one-sided checks only against our exports in our interest?
    Why would checking imports, from a place we have a tariff-free quota-free trade deal with, help that?
  • TOPPING said:

    Absolutely Big G. Banging on about a political issue which has huge repercussions for the various political parties, not to say the inhabitants of Northern Ireland and which illustrates the political impasse of one of the government's policies (I use the term lightly).

    And all on a political blog. Absurd.

    It's only monotonous when it is something that user disagrees with. But certainly not so when they want to analyse the one pollster that has better ratings for the Tories than others, then they're able to go on about it for hours!
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:



    The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
    Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.

    That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
    She identifies as British and was born on Canada.

    Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.

    Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
    There's a weird assumption amongst some on the Left that British identity must be somehow based on racial purity.

    It says more about them than anyone else.
    It’s also repugnant. ‘She’s not really British’. You what? We’ve just spent 50 fucking years learning (rightly) that anyone who legally migrates here is British. End of. That’s it. Race is irrelevant

    This is a victory for the progressive left and I salute it. Emma R is an outstanding example of how this can work so well.

    Now the same progressives say ‘nah she’s not *really* British look at her racial background’, just because they hate Brexit. Fuck them
    Its the opposite. The right bang on about ethnicity and nationalism and race.

    The reason why her migrant status and ethnic background are being raised by progressives is to show the hypocrisy of the people who openly voted to get rid of the Romanians and now cheer one.

    And before anyone says "managed migration policy" I don't hear knuckle-draggers demanding the right kind of Romanians be allowed in. They just want them gone.

    What she demonstrates is that you can be a migrant and naturalise. She is British because she chooses to be. That is a good thing. Yet other people who may also have the same skills and potential are shut out. They don't get the choice.

    And its the same with the hypocrites in the cabinet. Javid makes a great deal of being the son of a bus driver, whilst ensuring that future sons of bus drivers are banned from having the same opportunities he had.
    This is all in your head.
    Indeed. Rochdale is fighting some caricature of ‘right wing belief’ which is all in his mind. Literally delusional.

    It reminds me of Remoaners who think Brexiteers are all dim, 60-something empire nostalgics who want to reinvade Kenya and bring back Bakelite phones. I’ve never met a single Brexiteer - or Leave voter - who thinks like that. Yet that is the demon in the brains of your A C Graylings

    It’s partly why - against the odds - Remain lost. They conjured up a demonic opponent who made them feel morally superior - and smarter. But that wasn’t their actual opponent

    De-humanising your opponent, is as old as the first time a chimp fixed up a tree branch to hit another chimp with it.

    Hence the 2-Minutes-Hate stuff some in the Labour party go for re Tories.

    Or the Black Blok stuff about "banksters"
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Is the gist of this defence that the Epstein money that paid off Giuffre was bogof for Andrew's dubious activities also? Jeffrey, what a guy, helping a pal out from beyond the grave!


    STV News
    @STVNews
    1h
    Lawyers for Duke of York say a woman who accuses him of sexually assaulting her has a prior agreement 'releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability'.

    There are plenty of high profile celebrities and businessmen and politicians who associated with Epstein, not just Prince Andrew, I expect they would all be happy if that agreement was held to have legal force
    It rather depends on what the agreement says. All I have read suggests that it may refer to trafficking so it might act as a sort of estoppel against making such allegations against others (eg Andrew). But it may well not work wrt to sexual assault allegations.

    Also if you are not party to the agreement how can you enforce it. The law is quite complicated - at least over here - re the enforcement of a contract by someone who is not a party to it.

    There may also be a public policy angle to this. Should a contract really stop a court determining the truth of an allegation of a crime? This is similar to the arguments around NDAs. But this brings me back to a point I have made before. If she is alleging rape by Andrew then this should be investigated by the police and a criminal court not determined by a civil court. Damages are not the proper remedy for such a crime.

    I obviously don't know the details of the case. But I am a bit troubled by both the apparent tactics of Andrew's lawyers (arguing technical points) because while they may be valid as tactics I don't know what the overall strategy is. And his accuser seeking money from him at the last minute when the limitation period is about to expire. She should be referring this matter to the criminal authorities. People have been investigated, charged and convicted for crimes committed long ago. Claiming that the lapse of time is why she hasn't done so doesn't wash I'm afraid. It is hard but not impossible.

    I find something really unpleasant in the idea that such serious crimes can be dealt with through the payment of money - both because it risks letting men off the hook and/or because it uses the threat of bad publicity and a finding on the balance of possibilities rather than the harder criminal test as a way of putting pressure on someone who may well be innocent. Neither are good. It harks back to a pre-modern justice age.
    I agree with most of that but take issue with the idea the alleged victim shouldn't seek civil restitution (before the time limit lapses) just because justice via the criminal justice system hasn't been achieved yet. The alleged victim has referred this matter to the criminal authorities - is it her fault that the system has been gummed up and not reached a conclusion yet?

    Both civil and criminal avenues rightly exist within the law and sometimes victims can't get justice via one channel, which is bad. Should we amplify that miscarriage of justice by denying them justice via the other channel too because of the failure of the first one?

    Not to forget of course that the US puts much more strength behind its Statute of Limitations than we do. So justice delayed there truly is justice denied - forever.
    As far as I know she hasn't referred the matter to the U.K. criminal authorities in respect of the sexual assault allegedly taking place in the U.K. Has she done so in the US? It doesn't normally take them decades to investigate.

    I am wary about using the civil law to determine criminal matters. If someone is a rapist they should not remain free simply by paying money. That is little better than the sort of "honour" system you get in Pakistan. Nor should someone have their character tarnished so seriously on the balance of probabilities and by a judge alone. Alleged criminal behaviour is not simply the concern of the two parties involved.
    To play devil’s advocate, the American case that immediately springs to mind, is that of OJ Simpson.

    To turn your question around, should the family of Mrs Brown Simpson be denied restitution for their loss, purely because the criminal trial jury found him not guilty?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,268
    Cyclefree said:

    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:



    The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
    Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.

    Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.

    There is nothing new about this.

    The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
    It’s all because she’s sensationally pretty. Before I get accused of perving on HTG’s, let me stress I am simply making a point about media. If you’re very attractive, and, in particular, if you’re a very attractive young woman, your chances of being in the papers or on TV are multiplied hugely. Papers and tv know that pix of HTGs are popular with women as well as men. Catnip for homo sapiens. We have evolved to admire them

    Look at the pictures of AOC in the Met Gala in that dress. They’re everywhere. Yes, because they’re controversial, but also - mainly? - because AOC is quite young and very beautiful

    The net has only amplified this tendency. Youtube ‘influencers’ are nearly all young, and hot
    Oh sure. I get that. It was the suggestion that being multilingual and having foreign parents is a new thing I was commenting on.

    Many of those at the Met Gala were appallingly badly dressed, though . Really quite hideous. Outstandingly vulgar. And the make up was ghastly. Very very few had any beauty or elegance. So much money, so much primping - and to so little effect.

    It really isn't hard to look good. Having a full length mirror helps. Also an Italian mother.

    Just last week a designer friend of mine saw a photo of me at my wedding and stated that I looked like Audrey Hepburn. Which is (a) the first time this has been said and (b) brought some small cheer in what has been a dismal few weeks.

    But then I also got my first spam "I've seen you masturbating on the internet. Please pay money to my Bitcoin account or else" mail. It's a funny old world.

    (PS I don't and I didn't.)
    Dismal few weeks? I’m sorry to hear that. I thought the daughter’s biz was doing better?
  • Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Is the gist of this defence that the Epstein money that paid off Giuffre was bogof for Andrew's dubious activities also? Jeffrey, what a guy, helping a pal out from beyond the grave!


    STV News
    @STVNews
    1h
    Lawyers for Duke of York say a woman who accuses him of sexually assaulting her has a prior agreement 'releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability'.

    There are plenty of high profile celebrities and businessmen and politicians who associated with Epstein, not just Prince Andrew, I expect they would all be happy if that agreement was held to have legal force
    It rather depends on what the agreement says. All I have read suggests that it may refer to trafficking so it might act as a sort of estoppel against making such allegations against others (eg Andrew). But it may well not work wrt to sexual assault allegations.

    Also if you are not party to the agreement how can you enforce it. The law is quite complicated - at least over here - re the enforcement of a contract by someone who is not a party to it.

    There may also be a public policy angle to this. Should a contract really stop a court determining the truth of an allegation of a crime? This is similar to the arguments around NDAs. But this brings me back to a point I have made before. If she is alleging rape by Andrew then this should be investigated by the police and a criminal court not determined by a civil court. Damages are not the proper remedy for such a crime.

    I obviously don't know the details of the case. But I am a bit troubled by both the apparent tactics of Andrew's lawyers (arguing technical points) because while they may be valid as tactics I don't know what the overall strategy is. And his accuser seeking money from him at the last minute when the limitation period is about to expire. She should be referring this matter to the criminal authorities. People have been investigated, charged and convicted for crimes committed long ago. Claiming that the lapse of time is why she hasn't done so doesn't wash I'm afraid. It is hard but not impossible.

    I find something really unpleasant in the idea that such serious crimes can be dealt with through the payment of money - both because it risks letting men off the hook and/or because it uses the threat of bad publicity and a finding on the balance of possibilities rather than the harder criminal test as a way of putting pressure on someone who may well be innocent. Neither are good. It harks back to a pre-modern justice age.
    I agree with most of that but take issue with the idea the alleged victim shouldn't seek civil restitution (before the time limit lapses) just because justice via the criminal justice system hasn't been achieved yet. The alleged victim has referred this matter to the criminal authorities - is it her fault that the system has been gummed up and not reached a conclusion yet?

    Both civil and criminal avenues rightly exist within the law and sometimes victims can't get justice via one channel, which is bad. Should we amplify that miscarriage of justice by denying them justice via the other channel too because of the failure of the first one?

    Not to forget of course that the US puts much more strength behind its Statute of Limitations than we do. So justice delayed there truly is justice denied - forever.
    As far as I know she hasn't referred the matter to the U.K. criminal authorities in respect of the sexual assault allegedly taking place in the U.K. Has she done so in the US? It doesn't normally take them decades to investigate.

    I am wary about using the civil law to determine criminal matters. If someone is a rapist they should not remain free simply by paying money. That is little better than the sort of "honour" system you get in Pakistan. Nor should someone have their character tarnished so seriously on the balance of probabilities and by a judge alone. Alleged criminal behaviour is not simply the concern of the two parties involved.
    Did the alleged crime take place in the UK? Or the US? I thought it was in the US.

    As far as I know she has reported this to the authorities in the US and the US prosecutors have been interested in speaking to Prince Andrew for quite a while now, but he's avoiding speaking to them.

    If she's reported it to the proper authorities already, then shouldn't she be capable or seeking civil restitution within the time limit? Rather than waiting, potentially indefinitely, for the criminal proceedings to reach a conclusion by which time it will be too late to seek civil restitution as the time limit will have lapsed.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950

    TOPPING said:

    Scott_xP said:

    I just spoke on the grim irony of this announcement in the NI Assembly.

    DUP's toxic narrative construction on the Protocol is part of the same continuum as the below.

    Denying and deflecting the consequences of the Brexit they championed.
    https://twitter.com/MatthewOToole2/status/1437714718110662660

    You are so monotonous
    Absolutely Big G. Banging on about a political issue which has huge repercussions for the various political parties, not to say the inhabitants of Northern Ireland and which illustrates the political impasse of one of the government's policies (I use the term lightly).

    And all on a political blog. Absurd.
    He is still monotonous
    Big G post #1: You are so monotonous
    Big G post #2: He is still monotonous
  • gealbhangealbhan Posts: 2,362
    edited September 2021
    Some More on topic. I think I am the only poster who is today.

    Starmer’s problem in that he has no personality, so he will always lose out as to who would make the better Prime Minister because of that, because GE voting for so many voters come down to its either her or him, or him or him. But to offset that Starmer is doing nothing to make Labour electable again, by tackling every single reason why voters wont vote Labour at the next GE. He hasn’t got to grips with controlling his own Party yet, he still has the inept vote losing Angela Rayner as his deputy, but has a typical do nothing policy about it. It’s easily solved. The party came up with the perfect way to remove the ridiculous elected deputy, just a two thirds vote in NEC – imagine US president not allowed their pick veep and get one dumped on them by their party and disaster that would be – but as it was too close to the last election they bottled it so didn’t do it. Now its mid term Starmer needs to be taking control and getting such baggage out the way. He needs to be actively demonstrating that things have changed to win voters minds back. He needs to remove Rayner and appoint a better spokesperson he can trust. He needs to demonstrate he has control of the Party, NEC and policy. At the moment, in voters minds, Starmer doesn’t have control over any of that, and it makes him and Labour unelectable.

    Labour’s policy positions are still exactly the same in voters minds as the last general Election manifesto. No? Those were put on the table, nothing else has been put on the table since.

    Labour are an anti Brexit, pro EU party? No? Well in voters minds they were, what has changed. What has rabidly pro EU Starmer actually said about Brexit and Global Britain recently? There is only one example, and that is where Labour would have joined EU in vaccine procurement. That is what is in voters minds when it comes to Brexit positioning.

    Just some example of many things Starmer must do for Labour to become electable again. The lazy do nothing approach is rightly getting the proper hammering in these disastrous mid term polls for Labour.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,165

    Selebian said:

    Selebian said:

    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:



    The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
    Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.

    Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.

    There is nothing new about this.

    The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
    It’s all because she’s sensationally pretty. Before I get accused of perving on HTG’s, let me stress I am simply making a point about media. If you’re very attractive, and, in particular, if you’re a very attractive young woman, your chances of being in the papers or on TV are multiplied hugely. Papers and tv know that pix of HTGs are popular with women as well as men. Catnip for homo sapiens. We have evolved to admire them

    Look at the pictures of AOC in the Met Gala in that dress. They’re everywhere. Yes, because they’re controversial, but also - mainly? - because AOC is quite young and very beautiful

    The net has only amplified this tendency. Youtube ‘influencers’ are nearly all young, and hot
    I might regret asking, but what is a 'HTG'?

    Given the context, I'm reluctant to google it on a work VPN...
    Urban Dictionary defines it as "Honest To God" or "Have To Go". https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Htg

    Leon seems to want to define it as Hot Teenage Girl.
    Yep, I regret asking... But thanks anyway.
    When certain people on this site are more perverted than Urban Dictionary then it really shows how far into the sewer certain people are going.

    As a father of girls, I find this whole discussion really disturbing and uncomfortable.
    Are you more disturbed by the fact that Leon is saying it as it is on an internet site or the reality of the situation?

    I'm a pragmatist, so it doesn't bother me that Emma's future wealth is dependent upon her looks as well as her tennis. But it is the case whether we like it or not.
  • Leon said:

    isam said:



    The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
    Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.

    That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
    She identifies as British and was born on Canada.

    Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.

    Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
    There's a weird assumption amongst some on the Left that British identity must be somehow based on racial purity.

    It says more about them than anyone else.
    It’s also repugnant. ‘She’s not really British’. You what? We’ve just spent 50 fucking years learning (rightly) that anyone who legally migrates here is British. End of. That’s it. Race is irrelevant

    This is a victory for the progressive left and I salute it. Emma R is an outstanding example of how this can work so well.

    Now the same progressives say ‘nah she’s not *really* British look at her racial background’, just because they hate Brexit. Fuck them
    Its the opposite. The right bang on about ethnicity and nationalism and race.

    The reason why her migrant status and ethnic background are being raised by progressives is to show the hypocrisy of the people who openly voted to get rid of the Romanians and now cheer one.

    And before anyone says "managed migration policy" I don't hear knuckle-draggers demanding the right kind of Romanians be allowed in. They just want them gone.

    What she demonstrates is that you can be a migrant and naturalise. She is British because she chooses to be. That is a good thing. Yet other people who may also have the same skills and potential are shut out. They don't get the choice.

    And its the same with the hypocrites in the cabinet. Javid makes a great deal of being the son of a bus driver, whilst ensuring that future sons of bus drivers are banned from having the same opportunities he had.
    This is all in your head.
    Which bit? Are we letting bus / truck drivers in then? No? Thats the future Saj going elsewhere then isn't it?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited September 2021

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Endillion said:

    tlg86 said:

    Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.

    Blair owned Scotland in those days.
    The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.

    They will want a referendum, and money of course.
    The most obvious way Starmer never gets near power is via C&S with the SNP.
    He'll do the deal if that's what required to get him into No.10.

    Labour need 280 seats. That's it.
    This argument comes up all the time, and I don't get it:

    2024: Starmer becomes PM of a minority government with SNP support
    2025: 2nd Scottish referendum is held, and Leave wins
    2027: Negotiations on Scottish independence conclude, Scotland leaves the UK, and give up their seats at Westminster

    STarmer now has, instead of 280+59 seats out of 650, has 280 out of 591, and no majority.

    So how does Starmer govern from them on? Unless he thinks that by then he'll have a chance at a majority in England and Wales alone. I guess the SNP could be persuaded to hang around for another couple of years in exchange for ... something, but then what?

    Put simply: the price of SNP support is independence. Labour may have no chance of a majority with no/few MPs in Scotland, but equally they have even less chance of a pure majority without Scotland in the picture at all. So how could they possibly agree to C&S?
    This is why there won’t be C&S. Labour will just dare the SNP to vote then down, which if Labour have 280 seats they can explain to their voters why they wanted the Tories back.

    The days of formal arrangements are over. It’s possible - although unlikely - Labour bring the LDs in but nobody else than that.

    Personally I think Lib Dems should force PR in such a scenario, then have an election on that in the future
    could Labour make SNP help in voting through PR for UK be the price of Sindy2?
    Not necessarily.

    For starters if Labour has won enough seats to form a government then a number of Labour MPs elected under FPTP would lose their seats under PR and therefore could join the Tories and vote it down even if it had SNP support.

    In 1997 for example Labour won over 60% of the seats under FPTP but only 43% of MPs would have been Labour under PR
    but that is comparing a landslide which included winning most of Scotland with the scenario of Labour having a minority government with virtually no Scottish seats.
    Even without winning most of Scotland Labour won 62% of English seats in 1997 under FPTP, under PR only 43% of English seats would have been Labour.

    Plus to win enough seats to be able to form even a minority government a lot of Labour MPs will have been elected for the first time under FPTP some of whom may then lose their seats under PR to the Greens or LDs
    1997 is irrelevant. if Labour got say 38% of the vote and Conservative got say 40% of the vote and Labour needed SNP support to form a government (and possibly LD) how many Labour MPs would have to lose seats in a switch to PR? nothing like 62% down to 43%.
    Labour MPs would still lose their seats.

    Say Labour got 280 seats under FPTP but only 38% of the vote that is 43% of the seats under FPTP and over 10% of Labour MPs losing their seats under a switch to PR.

    Even more SNP MPs would lose their seats to Unionists under PR, so no reason for the SNP to vote against FPTP for Westminster either
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    kinabalu said:

    MrEd said:

    Sandpit said:

    tlg86 said:

    That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.

    The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
    Start with Miss Ocasio-Cortez - who I just remembered has a salary of $174,000 per year, before tax.

    I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
    Her campaign has over $5m in the bank and you can see the top contributors if you are really interested. They want her to represent their views, which she is doing with the dress. Not a fan at all of US political fundraising, but her funds are raised far more democratically than most of their politicians.

    https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/summary?cid=N00041162&cycle=2022&type=C
    So she should be spending $30K on a ball ticket (and then we have the dress).

    Woman of the People!

    Actually, if she wants to do that, fine. But she can stop moralising and telling the rest of us how she is so much a better person.
    Socialist girls must NOT look glam and go to parties. It's just not right!
    "Actually, if she wants to do that, fine."

    Need to read a bit more closely what I said...she should just stop the moralising
  • Scott_xP said:

    Government delays Brexit border controls for food checks on imports.
    But the border control posts were not ready - In August we revealed Dover not ready till July earliest and downsized. Holyhead not started either. Only just found a site near the retail park at Parc Cybi
    https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1428433809595318282

    Why do you keep posting this crap? What does it mean to you?

    As an independent trading nation the UK is free to impose checks, or to not impose checks, as we determine. If the UK decides its not in our best interests to impose checks, we can choose not to do so.

    That's what taking back control means. It means making our own decisions, not having them foisted upon us by others.

    Are you still so naive as to not understand that?
    You post some great stuff, and you post some guff.

    The UK is allowing the EU to cripple its ability to export, but due to a lack of planning and construction is unable to implement reciprocal checks on imports. In short whilst we have insisted that they close the border and treat us like a 3rd country, we have been unable to do the same. A massive cost on UK business exporters but free reign for EU imports.

    Is that what taking back control means?
    Yes it is what taking back control means.

    Taking back control means being free to impose whatever checks are in our own interests. And changing whatever rules are in our own interests.

    If a check is not in our interest, or a rule change is not in our interest, then cutting off our own nose to spite our face is not worth doing.
    OK. So how are one-sided checks only against our exports in our interest?
    Why would checking imports, from a place we have a tariff-free quota-free trade deal with, help that?
    Precisely.

    We're not doing these checks and yet our trade deficit has (I believe) narrowed.
    They are doing these checks and yet their trade surplus has (I believe) fallen.

    Maybe these checks just aren't that useful and they should never be implemented?

    If they wish to keep cutting off their nose on their side of the border they're free to do so. We aren't obliged to do the same as we've taken back control.
  • Scott_xP said:

    Government delays Brexit border controls for food checks on imports.
    But the border control posts were not ready - In August we revealed Dover not ready till July earliest and downsized. Holyhead not started either. Only just found a site near the retail park at Parc Cybi
    https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1428433809595318282

    Why do you keep posting this crap? What does it mean to you?

    As an independent trading nation the UK is free to impose checks, or to not impose checks, as we determine. If the UK decides its not in our best interests to impose checks, we can choose not to do so.

    That's what taking back control means. It means making our own decisions, not having them foisted upon us by others.

    Are you still so naive as to not understand that?
    You post some great stuff, and you post some guff.

    The UK is allowing the EU to cripple its ability to export, but due to a lack of planning and construction is unable to implement reciprocal checks on imports. In short whilst we have insisted that they close the border and treat us like a 3rd country, we have been unable to do the same. A massive cost on UK business exporters but free reign for EU imports.

    Is that what taking back control means?
    Brexit has completely skewed the market in favour of our competitors in the EU - our exporters get bogged down in an Everest of red tape and documentation, theirs get a free run. The Leavers have imposed a kind of topsy-turvy, night-into-day protectionism. Real Alice-in-Wonderland stuff.
    Philip thinks this is a good thing! Huge cost on British business, completely one-sided trade conditions in favour of imports from the EU.
  • Cyclefree said:

    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:



    The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
    Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.

    Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.

    There is nothing new about this.

    The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
    It’s all because she’s sensationally pretty. Before I get accused of perving on HTG’s, let me stress I am simply making a point about media. If you’re very attractive, and, in particular, if you’re a very attractive young woman, your chances of being in the papers or on TV are multiplied hugely. Papers and tv know that pix of HTGs are popular with women as well as men. Catnip for homo sapiens. We have evolved to admire them

    Look at the pictures of AOC in the Met Gala in that dress. They’re everywhere. Yes, because they’re controversial, but also - mainly? - because AOC is quite young and very beautiful

    The net has only amplified this tendency. Youtube ‘influencers’ are nearly all young, and hot
    Oh sure. I get that. It was the suggestion that being multilingual and having foreign parents is a new thing I was commenting on.

    Many of those at the Met Gala were appallingly badly dressed, though . Really quite hideous. Outstandingly vulgar. And the make up was ghastly. Very very few had any beauty or elegance. So much money, so much primping - and to so little effect.

    It really isn't hard to look good. Having a full length mirror helps. Also an Italian mother.

    Just last week a designer friend of mine saw a photo of me at my wedding and stated that I looked like Audrey Hepburn. Which is (a) the first time this has been said and (b) brought some small cheer in what has been a dismal few weeks.

    But then I also got my first spam "I've seen you masturbating on the internet. Please pay money to my Bitcoin account or else" mail. It's a funny old world.

    (PS I don't and I didn't.)
    Thanks for the clarification.
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,436
    edited September 2021
    tlg86 said:

    Selebian said:

    Selebian said:

    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:



    The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
    Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.

    Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.

    There is nothing new about this.

    The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
    It’s all because she’s sensationally pretty. Before I get accused of perving on HTG’s, let me stress I am simply making a point about media. If you’re very attractive, and, in particular, if you’re a very attractive young woman, your chances of being in the papers or on TV are multiplied hugely. Papers and tv know that pix of HTGs are popular with women as well as men. Catnip for homo sapiens. We have evolved to admire them

    Look at the pictures of AOC in the Met Gala in that dress. They’re everywhere. Yes, because they’re controversial, but also - mainly? - because AOC is quite young and very beautiful

    The net has only amplified this tendency. Youtube ‘influencers’ are nearly all young, and hot
    I might regret asking, but what is a 'HTG'?

    Given the context, I'm reluctant to google it on a work VPN...
    Urban Dictionary defines it as "Honest To God" or "Have To Go". https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Htg

    Leon seems to want to define it as Hot Teenage Girl.
    Yep, I regret asking... But thanks anyway.
    When certain people on this site are more perverted than Urban Dictionary then it really shows how far into the sewer certain people are going.

    As a father of girls, I find this whole discussion really disturbing and uncomfortable.
    Are you more disturbed by the fact that Leon is saying it as it is on an internet site or the reality of the situation?

    I'm a pragmatist, so it doesn't bother me that Emma's future wealth is dependent upon her looks as well as her tennis. But it is the case whether we like it or not.
    With the greatest of respect, I think that's completely different to the way Leon put it, which came across like leering at a young woman, who has after all just completed her A-Levels. As I said above, he wouldn't say it about his own daughter or I am sure Philip's daughter say (my apologies for using you as an example Philip but I know you mentioned you had daughters above), so why say it here?

    Does it make any difference to his point? No, so why say it? He does this over and over again, it's really quite creepy.

    I think it's totally inappropriate, creepy and just not on. I really find the conversation very uncomfortable - and I will keep saying so.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    gealbhan said:

    Some More on topic. I think I am the only poster who is today.

    Starmer’s problem in that he has no personality, so he will always lose out as to who would make the better Prime Minister because of that, because GE voting for so many voters come down to its either her or him, or him or him. But to offset that Starmer is doing nothing to make Labour electable again, by tackling every single reason why voters wont vote Labour at the next GE. He hasn’t got to grips with controlling his own Party yet, he still has the inept vote losing Angela Rayner as his deputy, but has a typical do nothing policy about it. It’s easily solved. The party came up with the perfect way to remove the ridiculous elected deputy, just a two thirds vote in NEC – imagine US president not allowed their pick veep and get one dumped on them by their party and disaster that would be – but as it was too close to the last election they bottled it so didn’t do it. Now its mid term Starmer needs to be taking control and getting such baggage out the way. He needs to be actively demonstrating that things have changed to win voters minds back. He needs to remove Rayner and appoint a better spokesperson he can trust. He needs to demonstrate he has control of the Party, NEC and policy. At the moment, in voters minds, Starmer doesn’t have control over any of that, and it makes him and Labour unelectable.

    Labour’s policy positions are still exactly the same in voters minds as the last general Election manifesto. No? Those were put on the table, nothing else has been put on the table since.

    Labour are an anti Brexit, pro EU party? No? Well in voters minds they were, what has changed. What has rabidly pro EU Starmer actually said about Brexit and Global Britain recently? There is only one example, and that is where Labour would have joined EU in vaccine procurement. That is what is in voters minds when it comes to Brexit positioning.

    Just some example of many things Starmer must do for Labour to become electable again. The lazy do nothing approach is rightly getting the proper hammering in these disastrous mid term polls for Labour.

    I don't think that Starmer has no personality. It is just that as a lawyer he had practised suppressing it in a professional context. He has to unlearn a bit of that, I think.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Is the gist of this defence that the Epstein money that paid off Giuffre was bogof for Andrew's dubious activities also? Jeffrey, what a guy, helping a pal out from beyond the grave!


    STV News
    @STVNews
    1h
    Lawyers for Duke of York say a woman who accuses him of sexually assaulting her has a prior agreement 'releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability'.

    There are plenty of high profile celebrities and businessmen and politicians who associated with Epstein, not just Prince Andrew, I expect they would all be happy if that agreement was held to have legal force
    It rather depends on what the agreement says. All I have read suggests that it may refer to trafficking so it might act as a sort of estoppel against making such allegations against others (eg Andrew). But it may well not work wrt to sexual assault allegations.

    Also if you are not party to the agreement how can you enforce it. The law is quite complicated - at least over here - re the enforcement of a contract by someone who is not a party to it.

    There may also be a public policy angle to this. Should a contract really stop a court determining the truth of an allegation of a crime? This is similar to the arguments around NDAs. But this brings me back to a point I have made before. If she is alleging rape by Andrew then this should be investigated by the police and a criminal court not determined by a civil court. Damages are not the proper remedy for such a crime.

    I obviously don't know the details of the case. But I am a bit troubled by both the apparent tactics of Andrew's lawyers (arguing technical points) because while they may be valid as tactics I don't know what the overall strategy is. And his accuser seeking money from him at the last minute when the limitation period is about to expire. She should be referring this matter to the criminal authorities. People have been investigated, charged and convicted for crimes committed long ago. Claiming that the lapse of time is why she hasn't done so doesn't wash I'm afraid. It is hard but not impossible.

    I find something really unpleasant in the idea that such serious crimes can be dealt with through the payment of money - both because it risks letting men off the hook and/or because it uses the threat of bad publicity and a finding on the balance of possibilities rather than the harder criminal test as a way of putting pressure on someone who may well be innocent. Neither are good. It harks back to a pre-modern justice age.
    I agree with most of that but take issue with the idea the alleged victim shouldn't seek civil restitution (before the time limit lapses) just because justice via the criminal justice system hasn't been achieved yet. The alleged victim has referred this matter to the criminal authorities - is it her fault that the system has been gummed up and not reached a conclusion yet?

    Both civil and criminal avenues rightly exist within the law and sometimes victims can't get justice via one channel, which is bad. Should we amplify that miscarriage of justice by denying them justice via the other channel too because of the failure of the first one?

    Not to forget of course that the US puts much more strength behind its Statute of Limitations than we do. So justice delayed there truly is justice denied - forever.
    As far as I know she hasn't referred the matter to the U.K. criminal authorities in respect of the sexual assault allegedly taking place in the U.K. Has she done so in the US? It doesn't normally take them decades to investigate.

    I am wary about using the civil law to determine criminal matters. If someone is a rapist they should not remain free simply by paying money. That is little better than the sort of "honour" system you get in Pakistan. Nor should someone have their character tarnished so seriously on the balance of probabilities and by a judge alone. Alleged criminal behaviour is not simply the concern of the two parties involved.
    Did the alleged crime take place in the UK? Or the US? I thought it was in the US.

    As far as I know she has reported this to the authorities in the US and the US prosecutors have been interested in speaking to Prince Andrew for quite a while now, but he's avoiding speaking to them.

    If she's reported it to the proper authorities already, then shouldn't she be capable or seeking civil restitution within the time limit? Rather than waiting, potentially indefinitely, for the criminal proceedings to reach a conclusion by which time it will be too late to seek civil restitution as the time limit will have lapsed.
    The entire reason behind the civil case is because a recent Child Victims Act gave another chance for the case to be created.

    The Huffington Post has a good overview at https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/prince-andrew-lawsuit-virginia-giuffre_uk_613bb8d2e4b0dda4cbce9faa
  • Anyway, now I am off for a wet run
  • Leon said:

    isam said:



    The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
    Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.

    That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
    She identifies as British and was born on Canada.

    Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.

    Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
    There's a weird assumption amongst some on the Left that British identity must be somehow based on racial purity.

    It says more about them than anyone else.
    It’s also repugnant. ‘She’s not really British’. You what? We’ve just spent 50 fucking years learning (rightly) that anyone who legally migrates here is British. End of. That’s it. Race is irrelevant

    This is a victory for the progressive left and I salute it. Emma R is an outstanding example of how this can work so well.

    Now the same progressives say ‘nah she’s not *really* British look at her racial background’, just because they hate Brexit. Fuck them
    Its the opposite. The right bang on about ethnicity and nationalism and race.

    The reason why her migrant status and ethnic background are being raised by progressives is to show the hypocrisy of the people who openly voted to get rid of the Romanians and now cheer one.

    And before anyone says "managed migration policy" I don't hear knuckle-draggers demanding the right kind of Romanians be allowed in. They just want them gone.

    What she demonstrates is that you can be a migrant and naturalise. She is British because she chooses to be. That is a good thing. Yet other people who may also have the same skills and potential are shut out. They don't get the choice.

    And its the same with the hypocrites in the cabinet. Javid makes a great deal of being the son of a bus driver, whilst ensuring that future sons of bus drivers are banned from having the same opportunities he had.
    Her father works in finance and would get in under a "managed immigration system".

    I think its the left not the right who have an issue with those who work in finance.
    No I understand what her parents do for a living. She was 2. We get her skills because of her parents job. Today's 2 year old future child prodigy whose parents don't work in finance will represent another country as we don't want them here. Same with a future Sajid Javid. You dad drives a bus or a truck? Worthless.
    Did Sajid Javid's dad come here under Freedom of Movement? No. Is the US in the EU? No. Do people still migrate there? Yes. You can have immigration outside the EU.
    Great! And are we letting drivers migrate to the UK? No.

    Like I said, Javid is denying his life opportunities to future sons of bus drivers. We don't want unskilled people like the Javid's here, they contribute nothing, all they do is take all the jobs and take all the benefits.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,880

    Selebian said:

    Selebian said:

    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:



    The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
    Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.

    Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.

    There is nothing new about this.

    The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
    It’s all because she’s sensationally pretty. Before I get accused of perving on HTG’s, let me stress I am simply making a point about media. If you’re very attractive, and, in particular, if you’re a very attractive young woman, your chances of being in the papers or on TV are multiplied hugely. Papers and tv know that pix of HTGs are popular with women as well as men. Catnip for homo sapiens. We have evolved to admire them

    Look at the pictures of AOC in the Met Gala in that dress. They’re everywhere. Yes, because they’re controversial, but also - mainly? - because AOC is quite young and very beautiful

    The net has only amplified this tendency. Youtube ‘influencers’ are nearly all young, and hot
    I might regret asking, but what is a 'HTG'?

    Given the context, I'm reluctant to google it on a work VPN...
    Urban Dictionary defines it as "Honest To God" or "Have To Go". https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Htg

    Leon seems to want to define it as Hot Teenage Girl.
    Yep, I regret asking... But thanks anyway.
    When certain people on this site are more perverted than Urban Dictionary then it really shows how far into the sewer certain people are going.

    stop kink shaming. its not 2016
  • MattWMattW Posts: 18,094
    Taz said:

    DavidL said:

    I agree with the consensus somewhat boringly. It is very unlikely that the Tories lose a majority of 80 in a single election. It is even more unlikely that they lose what is going to be closer to a majority of 90+ following the boundary changes. Starmer is boring and totally lacking in ideas. He is completely relying upon this government self destructing and picking up the pieces by default. This is not impossible but very much odds against.

    When Blair was dominant we had a Labour government implementing some pretty Toryish ideas such as public sector reform as well as some more centrist ones. It left the Tories nowhere to go but to howl at the moon about minority interests. Now we have a Tory government implementing Labour ideas such as higher taxes and higher public spending. How does Labour defeat that? Some Tories are disillusioned as we see somewhat disproportionately on these threads but Boris is running a centrist administration with strands for different folks. He is going to be almost impossible to beat short of the wheels coming off in a massive way.

    The problem for the Tories is that Boris hasn't a fucking clue how to actually deliver things. The debacle over the tax rise for social care that doesn't give a penny to social care and thus fucks further the NHS being a prime example.

    On paper they absolutely should win again. Big majority, broad base, ineffective opposition. And yet people now expect delivery of the promises they backed. Boris and the clown car have no idea how to do this, people get quickly bored of empty rhetoric even when they used to like the speaker, it can go south and quickly.

    Unless of course the inevitable happens. The Tories are very good at removing the leader when they are the problem. The Tory government adopting many labour policies absolutely could be a route to another 10 years, but not if they are seen as incompetent and uncaring. The Coffey gaffe yesterday does them no favours. But switch the leader? Then I'd anticipate isam's bet winning.
    And the 1992 win required the Conservatives to ditch not only their leader, but their flagship policy. And whilst Rishi was undoubtedly heir (all too) apparent until last week, that seems a lot less obvious today. And even then, the Conservative majority fell by 80 seats.

    That doesn't mean that the Conservatives will lose their majority next time. A lot of it depends on whether it's better to think of politics as being near the end of Year 2 in a 5 year cycle, or in Year 1 of a 3 year cycle after a Covid hibernation.

    But yes. A Conservative win next time is likely, but I'm not sure it's overwhelmingly so. And it depends a lot on when the current trend breaks.
    I know @Charles tried to dismiss it, but the Coffey comment was my canary dying in the coal mine. I know the red wall having lived most of my life in various bits of it. Punters do not like to be patronised or fobbed off. When they do they show their displeasure - hence the general binning of Labour. But also the swathe of independent groups who often are formed when local Tories are pillocks.

    You cannot tell people on UC that the cut is just 2 hours work. Because it isn't. Patronising hard-working red wallers, telling them that black is white is a sure way to abruptly lose their vote.

    Tories need to be very careful. Punters have been promised levelling up money AND Brexit benefits to jobs, communities and the NHS. Unless that shows up there will be trouble. But significantly worse will be what Coffey shows they are likely to do - deny there are any problems. "We haven't delivered but x is the excuse" is better than "oh look, a new hospital!" as they open a new ward.
    That final paragraph. Absolutely. I live in Red Wall in the north east and we were promised, and I do mean promised, all of this if we voted leave. I went remain as I didn’t trust them but many thought it worth a punt. If your reality is minimum wage jobs or agency work what do you have to lose. You’ve already got the sneering contempt of remainers anyway. After the 2008 crash the economy Raced ahead in the south and up here it meandered. Woe betide them if they fail to deliver.
    Agree with that. It is all about perceived delivery.

    So the Election is for the Tories to lose, not vice-versa.

    One small (?) thing not mentioned so far is travel to the Europe mainland. If that is not reasonably straightforward reasonably soon, I can see Boris being blamed.

    If the EuCo have their delayed electronic border in place and £10 or whatever gets an instant Schengen Visa (if that is the system), then I see that as shoring up the Tories. If all the ordinary people from the Red Wall end up waiting for hours to get to Spain or Portugal on holiday, then there may be a problem.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,772

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:



    The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
    Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.

    That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
    She identifies as British and was born on Canada.

    Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.

    Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
    There's a weird assumption amongst some on the Left that British identity must be somehow based on racial purity.

    It says more about them than anyone else.
    It’s also repugnant. ‘She’s not really British’. You what? We’ve just spent 50 fucking years learning (rightly) that anyone who legally migrates here is British. End of. That’s it. Race is irrelevant

    This is a victory for the progressive left and I salute it. Emma R is an outstanding example of how this can work so well.

    Now the same progressives say ‘nah she’s not *really* British look at her racial background’, just because they hate Brexit. Fuck them
    Its the opposite. The right bang on about ethnicity and nationalism and race.

    The reason why her migrant status and ethnic background are being raised by progressives is to show the hypocrisy of the people who openly voted to get rid of the Romanians and now cheer one.

    And before anyone says "managed migration policy" I don't hear knuckle-draggers demanding the right kind of Romanians be allowed in. They just want them gone.

    What she demonstrates is that you can be a migrant and naturalise. She is British because she chooses to be. That is a good thing. Yet other people who may also have the same skills and potential are shut out. They don't get the choice.

    And its the same with the hypocrites in the cabinet. Javid makes a great deal of being the son of a bus driver, whilst ensuring that future sons of bus drivers are banned from having the same opportunities he had.
    This is all in your head.
    Indeed. Rochdale is fighting some caricature of ‘right wing belief’ which is all in his mind. Literally delusional.

    It reminds me of Remoaners who think Brexiteers are all dim, 60-something empire nostalgics who want to reinvade Kenya and bring back Bakelite phones. I’ve never met a single Brexiteer - or Leave voter - who thinks like that. Yet that is the demon in the brains of your A C Graylings

    It’s partly why - against the odds - Remain lost. They conjured up a demonic opponent who made them feel morally superior - and smarter. But that wasn’t their actual opponent

    De-humanising your opponent, is as old as the first time a chimp fixed up a tree branch to hit another chimp with it.

    Hence the 2-Minutes-Hate stuff some in the Labour party go for re Tories.

    Or the Black Blok stuff about "banksters"
    It's absolutely fatal to your political cause if you actually start believing in your own propaganda.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Is the gist of this defence that the Epstein money that paid off Giuffre was bogof for Andrew's dubious activities also? Jeffrey, what a guy, helping a pal out from beyond the grave!


    STV News
    @STVNews
    1h
    Lawyers for Duke of York say a woman who accuses him of sexually assaulting her has a prior agreement 'releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability'.

    There are plenty of high profile celebrities and businessmen and politicians who associated with Epstein, not just Prince Andrew, I expect they would all be happy if that agreement was held to have legal force
    It rather depends on what the agreement says. All I have read suggests that it may refer to trafficking so it might act as a sort of estoppel against making such allegations against others (eg Andrew). But it may well not work wrt to sexual assault allegations.

    Also if you are not party to the agreement how can you enforce it. The law is quite complicated - at least over here - re the enforcement of a contract by someone who is not a party to it.

    There may also be a public policy angle to this. Should a contract really stop a court determining the truth of an allegation of a crime? This is similar to the arguments around NDAs. But this brings me back to a point I have made before. If she is alleging rape by Andrew then this should be investigated by the police and a criminal court not determined by a civil court. Damages are not the proper remedy for such a crime.

    I obviously don't know the details of the case. But I am a bit troubled by both the apparent tactics of Andrew's lawyers (arguing technical points) because while they may be valid as tactics I don't know what the overall strategy is. And his accuser seeking money from him at the last minute when the limitation period is about to expire. She should be referring this matter to the criminal authorities. People have been investigated, charged and convicted for crimes committed long ago. Claiming that the lapse of time is why she hasn't done so doesn't wash I'm afraid. It is hard but not impossible.

    I find something really unpleasant in the idea that such serious crimes can be dealt with through the payment of money - both because it risks letting men off the hook and/or because it uses the threat of bad publicity and a finding on the balance of possibilities rather than the harder criminal test as a way of putting pressure on someone who may well be innocent. Neither are good. It harks back to a pre-modern justice age.
    I agree with most of that but take issue with the idea the alleged victim shouldn't seek civil restitution (before the time limit lapses) just because justice via the criminal justice system hasn't been achieved yet. The alleged victim has referred this matter to the criminal authorities - is it her fault that the system has been gummed up and not reached a conclusion yet?

    Both civil and criminal avenues rightly exist within the law and sometimes victims can't get justice via one channel, which is bad. Should we amplify that miscarriage of justice by denying them justice via the other channel too because of the failure of the first one?

    Not to forget of course that the US puts much more strength behind its Statute of Limitations than we do. So justice delayed there truly is justice denied - forever.
    As far as I know she hasn't referred the matter to the U.K. criminal authorities in respect of the sexual assault allegedly taking place in the U.K. Has she done so in the US? It doesn't normally take them decades to investigate.

    I am wary about using the civil law to determine criminal matters. If someone is a rapist they should not remain free simply by paying money. That is little better than the sort of "honour" system you get in Pakistan. Nor should someone have their character tarnished so seriously on the balance of probabilities and by a judge alone. Alleged criminal behaviour is not simply the concern of the two parties involved.
    You canbe as wary as you like, the law is as it is and has been for millennia. You are a great champion of the jury system which simultaneously thinks random citizens are wise and just enough to determine charges leading to life sentences, and so stupid that highly relevant evidence routinely has to be witheld from them because the evidence is partly probative and partly prejudicial, and they are too stupid to be able to accentuate the probative and eliminate the prejudicial. And they all have to be discharged and start again if the Sun publishes a piece saying the defendant dunnit and just one of them might have seen it, because thay are stupid enough to believe what they read in the Sun. A judge alone sounds a better bet to me.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,074
    IshmaelZ said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Is the gist of this defence that the Epstein money that paid off Giuffre was bogof for Andrew's dubious activities also? Jeffrey, what a guy, helping a pal out from beyond the grave!


    STV News
    @STVNews
    1h
    Lawyers for Duke of York say a woman who accuses him of sexually assaulting her has a prior agreement 'releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability'.

    There are plenty of high profile celebrities and businessmen and politicians who associated with Epstein, not just Prince Andrew, I expect they would all be happy if that agreement was held to have legal force
    It rather depends on what the agreement says. All I have read suggests that it may refer to trafficking so it might act as a sort of estoppel against making such allegations against others (eg Andrew). But it may well not work wrt to sexual assault allegations.

    Also if you are not party to the agreement how can you enforce it. The law is quite complicated - at least over here - re the enforcement of a contract by someone who is not a party to it.

    There may also be a public policy angle to this. Should a contract really stop a court determining the truth of an allegation of a crime? This is similar to the arguments around NDAs. But this brings me back to a point I have made before. If she is alleging rape by Andrew then this should be investigated by the police and a criminal court not determined by a civil court. Damages are not the proper remedy for such a crime.

    I obviously don't know the details of the case. But I am a bit troubled by both the apparent tactics of Andrew's lawyers (arguing technical points) because while they may be valid as tactics I don't know what the overall strategy is. And his accuser seeking money from him at the last minute when the limitation period is about to expire. She should be referring this matter to the criminal authorities. People have been investigated, charged and convicted for crimes committed long ago. Claiming that the lapse of time is why she hasn't done so doesn't wash I'm afraid. It is hard but not impossible.

    I find something really unpleasant in the idea that such serious crimes can be dealt with through the payment of money - both because it risks letting men off the hook and/or because it uses the threat of bad publicity and a finding on the balance of possibilities rather than the harder criminal test as a way of putting pressure on someone who may well be innocent. Neither are good. It harks back to a pre-modern justice age.
    https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6184602-Jeffrey-Epstein-non-prosecution-agreement.html

    Co-conspirators clause bottom of page 5. I'd have said the law of privity was rather uncomplicated - if you aren't a party you can't enforce terms even explicitly for your benefit. I suppose epsteins estate could intervene but good luck with that.

    Maxwell's right to rely on the NPA has bee expressly rejected, apparently on privity grounds

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/16/ghislaine-maxwell-judge-rejects-bid-to-dismiss-charges

    Rape victims have few enough rights that we can afford to reduce them by removing the right to sue. Your harks back to a pre modern justice age is my has been established law since way before Magna Carta.
    Thanks.

    Rape victims have the right to make an allegation to the police and have it properly investigated. That is, frankly, the right they need.

    Has this been done? If so, what investigation has been done? I can well believe the police doing the square root of bugger all. I just don't know.

    As for the privity point, yes this seems a very technical and unattractive argument to run, as well as likely unsuccessful.

    I would not remove the right to sue. I just think this is a matter which should more properly be determined by the criminal courts following a proper investigation, if there is sufficient evidence in which a jury properly directed could convict. Rape is a serious crime - and if someone is guilty of it they should go to prison. Not be allowed to get away with paying some money. We all have an interest in seeing such matters dealt with properly.

    Allowing someone to pay money as a pay-off is frankly another way of allowing them to pay for sex. Just paying later and rather more than in advance.
  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    isam said:



    The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
    Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.

    That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
    She identifies as British and was born on Canada.

    Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.

    Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
    There's a weird assumption amongst some on the Left that British identity must be somehow based on racial purity.

    It says more about them than anyone else.
    It’s also repugnant. ‘She’s not really British’. You what? We’ve just spent 50 fucking years learning (rightly) that anyone who legally migrates here is British. End of. That’s it. Race is irrelevant

    This is a victory for the progressive left and I salute it. Emma R is an outstanding example of how this can work so well.

    Now the same progressives say ‘nah she’s not *really* British look at her racial background’, just because they hate Brexit. Fuck them
    Its the opposite. The right bang on about ethnicity and nationalism and race.

    The reason why her migrant status and ethnic background are being raised by progressives is to show the hypocrisy of the people who openly voted to get rid of the Romanians and now cheer one.

    And before anyone says "managed migration policy" I don't hear knuckle-draggers demanding the right kind of Romanians be allowed in. They just want them gone.

    What she demonstrates is that you can be a migrant and naturalise. She is British because she chooses to be. That is a good thing. Yet other people who may also have the same skills and potential are shut out. They don't get the choice.

    And its the same with the hypocrites in the cabinet. Javid makes a great deal of being the son of a bus driver, whilst ensuring that future sons of bus drivers are banned from having the same opportunities he had.
    This is all in your head.
    Indeed. Rochdale is fighting some caricature of ‘right wing belief’ which is all in his mind. Literally delusional.

    It reminds me of Remoaners who think Brexiteers are all dim, 60-something empire nostalgics who want to reinvade Kenya and bring back Bakelite phones. I’ve never met a single Brexiteer - or Leave voter - who thinks like that. Yet that is the demon in the brains of your A C Graylings

    It’s partly why - against the odds - Remain lost. They conjured up a demonic opponent who made them feel morally superior - and smarter. But that wasn’t their actual opponent

    Absolutely. I've made it all up. Nobody voted Brexit to get rid of the foreigners in their midst. All those TV and radio vox pops and phone ins where people say that didn't happen. That Farage "Breaking Point" poster is a figment of my deranged imagination.
  • Scott_xP said:

    Government delays Brexit border controls for food checks on imports.
    But the border control posts were not ready - In August we revealed Dover not ready till July earliest and downsized. Holyhead not started either. Only just found a site near the retail park at Parc Cybi
    https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1428433809595318282

    Why do you keep posting this crap? What does it mean to you?

    As an independent trading nation the UK is free to impose checks, or to not impose checks, as we determine. If the UK decides its not in our best interests to impose checks, we can choose not to do so.

    That's what taking back control means. It means making our own decisions, not having them foisted upon us by others.

    Are you still so naive as to not understand that?
    You post some great stuff, and you post some guff.

    The UK is allowing the EU to cripple its ability to export, but due to a lack of planning and construction is unable to implement reciprocal checks on imports. In short whilst we have insisted that they close the border and treat us like a 3rd country, we have been unable to do the same. A massive cost on UK business exporters but free reign for EU imports.

    Is that what taking back control means?
    Yes it is what taking back control means.

    Taking back control means being free to impose whatever checks are in our own interests. And changing whatever rules are in our own interests.

    If a check is not in our interest, or a rule change is not in our interest, then cutting off our own nose to spite our face is not worth doing.
    OK. So how are one-sided checks only against our exports in our interest?
    Why would checking imports, from a place we have a tariff-free quota-free trade deal with, help that?
    Wow. This "tariff-free quota free" trade deal. Would you like me to direct you to the government web page where you look up how much tariff you need to pay?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,739
    Lewis Hamilton bought a whole table at the New York Met Gala in order to showcase young Black designers 🙌 https://twitter.com/ESPNF1/status/1437715643642548229/photo/1
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Dura_Ace said:

    Selebian said:

    Selebian said:

    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:



    The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
    Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.

    Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.

    There is nothing new about this.

    The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
    It’s all because she’s sensationally pretty. Before I get accused of perving on HTG’s, let me stress I am simply making a point about media. If you’re very attractive, and, in particular, if you’re a very attractive young woman, your chances of being in the papers or on TV are multiplied hugely. Papers and tv know that pix of HTGs are popular with women as well as men. Catnip for homo sapiens. We have evolved to admire them

    Look at the pictures of AOC in the Met Gala in that dress. They’re everywhere. Yes, because they’re controversial, but also - mainly? - because AOC is quite young and very beautiful

    The net has only amplified this tendency. Youtube ‘influencers’ are nearly all young, and hot
    I might regret asking, but what is a 'HTG'?

    Given the context, I'm reluctant to google it on a work VPN...
    Urban Dictionary defines it as "Honest To God" or "Have To Go". https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Htg

    Leon seems to want to define it as Hot Teenage Girl.
    Yep, I regret asking... But thanks anyway.
    When certain people on this site are more perverted than Urban Dictionary then it really shows how far into the sewer certain people are going.

    stop kink shaming. its not 2016
    The conversations about Miss Raducanu would have been a whole load more inappropriate five years ago.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,268
    Anecdata

    Ronnie Scott’s club last night. My first gig since…. 2019. A different decade. Jesus.

    A good jazz band with some skilled musicians, no more than that, but it was quite moving because the first thing the band leader said was: Bear with us, we haven’t done this in 19 months. It was their first post-covid gig as well. Same for most of the audience. Not a dry eye in the house. After half an hour the band shifted up a gear, got in the groove, smiles all round. Yay

    Then we repaired to the Groucho which was eerily and sadly quiet… at first. Yet by 11pm it was rocking and they were re-opening spaces.

    Life - slowly - returns

  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,578
    gealbhan said:

    Some More on topic. I think I am the only poster who is today.

    Starmer’s problem in that he has no personality, so he will always lose out as to who would make the better Prime Minister because of that, because GE voting for so many voters come down to its either her or him, or him or him. But to offset that Starmer is doing nothing to make Labour electable again, by tackling every single reason why voters wont vote Labour at the next GE. He hasn’t got to grips with controlling his own Party yet, he still has the inept vote losing Angela Rayner as his deputy, but has a typical do nothing policy about it. It’s easily solved. The party came up with the perfect way to remove the ridiculous elected deputy, just a two thirds vote in NEC – imagine US president not allowed their pick veep and get one dumped on them by their party and disaster that would be – but as it was too close to the last election they bottled it so didn’t do it. Now its mid term Starmer needs to be taking control and getting such baggage out the way. He needs to be actively demonstrating that things have changed to win voters minds back. He needs to remove Rayner and appoint a better spokesperson he can trust. He needs to demonstrate he has control of the Party, NEC and policy. At the moment, in voters minds, Starmer doesn’t have control over any of that, and it makes him and Labour unelectable.

    Labour’s policy positions are still exactly the same in voters minds as the last general Election manifesto. No? Those were put on the table, nothing else has been put on the table since.

    Labour are an anti Brexit, pro EU party? No? Well in voters minds they were, what has changed. What has rabidly pro EU Starmer actually said about Brexit and Global Britain recently? There is only one example, and that is where Labour would have joined EU in vaccine procurement. That is what is in voters minds when it comes to Brexit positioning.

    Just some example of many things Starmer must do for Labour to become electable again. The lazy do nothing approach is rightly getting the proper hammering in these disastrous mid term polls for Labour.

    Ah yes, the topic.

    Yes, I am with you on this. If you think of Labour as a brand, then it is in a poor position at the moment. A lot of its former buyers (the WWC) see it as now fundamentally hostile to their views and, quite frankly, to them as individuals. Another core segment of its support (educated professional urbanites and students) now have what is many ways a product more aligned with their values (the Greens) which leaves its other core consumer base (the ethnic minority vote) slowly eroding and, as shown by B&S, open to voting for an anti-woke, left wing candidate (Galloway and the SSE Asian Muslim vote).

    Now, if you had a strong CEO / leader at the helm, as you had with Kinnock, Blair and - and many will disagree - Corbyn, you can reverse that. However, Labour doesn't. It has SKS who has not got the strength nor personality to impose his will.

    By the way, on Corbyn. I say he helped Labour because he gave them a strong identity. My view is that Labour lost seats in 2019 not because everyone thought Corbyn was an anti-semitic, terrorist loving politician - they knew that in 2017 and, arguably, his views should have played even more against him in that election given we had two major terrorist attacks by groups to whom it might be argued Corbyn was 'nuanced' - but because he lost the pro-Brexit WWC who had seen him as one of theirs in 2017 but who thought Corbyn had betrayed them by 2019 because of Labour's Brexit tactics which were devised by....SKS.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Selebian said:

    Selebian said:

    Leon said:

    Cyclefree said:



    The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning.
    Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.

    Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.

    There is nothing new about this.

    The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
    It’s all because she’s sensationally pretty. Before I get accused of perving on HTG’s, let me stress I am simply making a point about media. If you’re very attractive, and, in particular, if you’re a very attractive young woman, your chances of being in the papers or on TV are multiplied hugely. Papers and tv know that pix of HTGs are popular with women as well as men. Catnip for homo sapiens. We have evolved to admire them

    Look at the pictures of AOC in the Met Gala in that dress. They’re everywhere. Yes, because they’re controversial, but also - mainly? - because AOC is quite young and very beautiful

    The net has only amplified this tendency. Youtube ‘influencers’ are nearly all young, and hot
    I might regret asking, but what is a 'HTG'?

    Given the context, I'm reluctant to google it on a work VPN...
    Urban Dictionary defines it as "Honest To God" or "Have To Go". https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Htg

    Leon seems to want to define it as Hot Teenage Girl.
    Yep, I regret asking... But thanks anyway.
    When certain people on this site are more perverted than Urban Dictionary then it really shows how far into the sewer certain people are going.

    As a father of girls, I find this whole discussion really disturbing and uncomfortable.
    Piss off.

    As a descendant of people I find any reference to death on this forum really disturbing and uncomfortable, because a large proportion of my ancestors have died. I can't see what paraphilia you detect in a mature male fancying hot teenage girls btw, but perhaps they should all be swathed in yards of black material to be on the safe side?
  • Anyway, now I am off for a wet run

    The real thing, presumably!
  • Scott_xP said:

    Lewis Hamilton bought a whole table at the New York Met Gala in order to showcase young Black designers 🙌 https://twitter.com/ESPNF1/status/1437715643642548229/photo/1

    He appears to have my gran's net curtain on one leg.
This discussion has been closed.