Worth recalling that Starmer's speech was reasonably well received on here.
Yes, and by me, amongst others. I thought - and said here - Starmer did pretty well. He’s not a great orator, he’s lacking in humour, but he came across as decent, sincere (tho later on I recalled Starmer’s demand for a 2nd referendum so I resiled on that). Starmer also spoke far too long, and didn’t offer any detail
Boris gabbled his speech, he threw away good, funny, profound or important lines. Why does he do this? I think others are right: he’s used to addressing drunken dinners. His peroration was weak and, like Starmer, the speech lacked detail.
But Boris told a good and upbeat story (unlike Starmer), he made his audience, in the hall and at home, actually laugh. It’s pretty clear which party will be going home in better spirits, and which party is happier with its leader
The economy has to absolutely tank for Labour to have a chance of winning. That might happen, of course
And that's the point.
If things are going well, any incumbent will look like a winner, even if they are an incoherent oaf.
When things go badly, that's when politicians earn their corn. People can read the polls of 2020 in different ways, but I think they show BoJo gradually spaffing away the bump he got as we all rallied round the flag at the start of the crisis.
And sunny optimism works brilliantly in sunny times. Try the same thing when lots of people are struggling, it makes you look a bit of a psycho. So the next election depends on what it always depended on- does Bozzanomics work?
But Boris has already shown he can survive bad times. The UKG fucked up early covid, didn’t close the borders in time, killed people in care homes. Disgraceful. We also had the worst economic slump in the G7. Meanwhile Brexit has been endless ear-ache and people have been queuing hours for petrol (a crisis which severely dented ‘Teflon’ Tony Blair)
Yet Boris sails serenely on. He is protected by the praetorian guard of Leave voters, but he also has some undefinable charisma which sustains him. He is a phenomenon. He’s also clearly regained his vim after his Covid infection
If he stays in office til the next GE he will be extremely hard to defeat - as things stand
Yes, 'the praetorian guard of Leave voters' nails it. The Brexit wars were massively divisive with no one prepared to surrender an inch. Boris - in what was probably the greatest act of political shrewdness of the modern age - moulded himself into the very embodiment of Brexit. 52% of the country now cannot find flaws in Boris without finding flaws in their own judgment and intelligence. Boris is literally a kind of political god. I don't think the western world has seen anything like it.
Trump is exactly the same phenomenon. Worse though, because his vision is far darker than Johnson's. I view Johnson as a threat to good government. Trump is a threat to democracy itself.
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.
The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.
Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:
If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.
There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.
It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.
They need sacking
*If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.
Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
As always with the Police. It is instructive to ask. What would be the consequences if it were an equivalent case in an educational setting?
I think we'd get in trouble for pinning a student to the floor, never mind harassing her on Tinder afterwards. Different standards...
(Actually, we'd probably get sacked for getting within 2m of a student; our uni is still being strict on Covid social distancing)
Just watched Boris' speech. Genuinely laugh out loud funny. Some references in there for the geeks (noticed Nadine Dorries looked genuinely confused at the Hereward the "Woke"). The ending was genuinely uplifting and positive. Keir's speech last week was more about slaying the demons in his own party. Quite a difference.
The odd thing with Boris is that his schtick seems to work very well with a large portion of the population (including a lot of people who dislike him politically - they can't help finding him funny) but falls completely flat with a sizeable minority, as well as - it seems - with most people watching from foreign countries.
My wife is an example. Whereas I can laugh at some of his clowning and grudgingly respect his natural charisma, she can't even face seeing or hearing him. It's a visceral reaction that even the likes of Gove or Cummings don't elicit. Look at the UN general assembly too: the style just doesn't travel abroad.
Even the near abroad - he really isn't liked in Scotland.
BREAKING: A member of police staff has been issued with a gross misconduct notice over their handling of Plymouth gunman Jake Davison’s application for a shotgun certificate and the later decision to return it to him weeks before the killings, the @IOPC_Help said.
Just watched Boris' speech. Genuinely laugh out loud funny. Some references in there for the geeks (noticed Nadine Dorries looked genuinely confused at the Hereward the "Woke"). The ending was genuinely uplifting and positive. Keir's speech last week was more about slaying the demons in his own party. Quite a difference.
The odd thing with Boris is that his schtick seems to work very well with a large portion of the population (including a lot of people who dislike him politically - they can't help finding him funny) but falls completely flat with a sizeable minority, as well as - it seems - with most people watching from foreign countries.
My wife is an example. Whereas I can laugh at some of his clowning and grudgingly respect his natural charisma, she can't even face seeing or hearing him. It's a visceral reaction that even the likes of Gove or Cummings don't elicit. Look at the UN general assembly too: the style just doesn't travel abroad.
Good point. I've noticed that it works on *some* Americans, and also some Europeans. But definitely a minority. They tend to be people not too upset by Brexit
A lot of the Boris-haters in Europe are blinded by loathing of Brexit, a lot of the haters in America presume he is "Britain Trump", and are deeply surprised when they discover he is not
Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.
And you know what? He'll be right.....
Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?
Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
Because "horrors" aren't happening.
You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could. You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.
There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
If they aren't happening why are the government saying (rightly) that they are happening as part of the plan?
Don't you understand the difference between "horrors" and "stresses and strains".
If you want to get fit and you choose to exercise then that stresses and strains your muscles, but it isn't a horror, nor is it the wrong thing to do.
Unmitigated bollocks, even by your exacting standards.
What I will say, though, is that it feels like the mood is shifting.
It’s not visible in the polls, but it is among Tory opinion formers.
The press is starting to look a bit hostile. The Mail is printing anti-Boris articles, the Telegraph and the Spectator are starting to give space to hostile pieces.
Some of the Tories I follow on Twitter are starting to ask themselves what the hell is going on. There are beyond the limits to the ideological flexibility being required of them.
One thing has become noticeable over the past few days. It is all very well to say massive pay rises. Wealthy businesses and their shareholders didn't become so by paying a penny more than they could get away with.
And the biggest employer of all would need big tax hikes to pay for any rises. Those tax hikes wont hit the retired client vote so it will be down to high and medium earning workers.
The high pay the government wants doesn't apply to its own employees silly.
Electorally that doesn't play long term, not just because of millions of disgruntled and left out public sector workers, but because all of us have been promised new hospitals, more police, new bus and train routes, better care homes etc. We won't be able to retain what we have let alone do the new stuff if private sector pay is booming and public sector pay is restrained.
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.
The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.
Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:
If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.
There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.
It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.
They need sacking
*If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.
Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
As always with the Police. It is instructive to ask. What would be the consequences if it were an equivalent case in an educational setting?
Is the minimum age on Tinder 16 or 18 ?
Was thinking of adult education. Out on your ear. Lickety split.
What I will say, though, is that it feels like the mood is shifting.
It’s not visible in the polls, but it is among Tory opinion formers.
The press is starting to look a bit hostile. The Mail is printing anti-Boris articles, the Telegraph and the Spectator are starting to give space to hostile pieces.
Some of the Tories I follow on Twitter are starting to ask themselves what the hell is going on. There are beyond the limits to the ideological flexibility being required of them.
One thing has become noticeable over the past few days. It is all very well to say massive pay rises. Wealthy businesses and their shareholders didn't become so by paying a penny more than they could get away with.
That, but I think the issue is that the idea you can wage-rise yourself to prosperity is economic junk, and most everyone serious knows it.
To hear it from the PM and (a little softer) from the CoE is disturbing. And then, coupled with the increasing news of inflation, it’s adding up to “this is not the Toryism I’ve spent my adult life espousing”.
Bollocks.
The laissez-faire principle I've backed all my life is to let the market sort it out.
If the market sorting it out means wage fall when we have three million unemployment then that's supply and demand. If it means wages rise when we have full employment and a million vacancies then that is also supply and demand.
I’m trying to think of postwar, non-UK European leaders with charisma. It’s quite hard
De Gaulle, obviously
Gorbachev
Lech Walesa
Then I start to run out. Germany has had a run of solid leaders who don’t quite cut it. Schroeder, Kohl, Merkel
I guess Berlusconi maybe - which is a warning for Boris-lovers
If we widen the definition of Europe a bit (Eurovision Europe) then Netanyahu definitely meets the definition, as of course did Milosevic. Arguably Ceausescu too.
Ian Paisley?
Best PM the UK never had Alexander Elliot Anderson Salmond surely?
Labour have to highlight the New-conservative class who donate to the party.
Make it so whenever a voter sees Johnson they remember the Russian money, the hedge fund and financier money and the developer money. And they understand that it isn't given because of oligarchic love of sound governance but to further influence the rules of the country.
Call him Boris incessantly but do it to reference the wealth the party receives from a ruling class that has already corrupted one system and would do to ours.
yeah, I would avoid highlighting any Labour policies as well.
Just watched Boris' speech. Genuinely laugh out loud funny. Some references in there for the geeks (noticed Nadine Dorries looked genuinely confused at the Hereward the "Woke"). The ending was genuinely uplifting and positive. Keir's speech last week was more about slaying the demons in his own party. Quite a difference.
The odd thing with Boris is that his schtick seems to work very well with a large portion of the population (including a lot of people who dislike him politically - they can't help finding him funny) but falls completely flat with a sizeable minority, as well as - it seems - with most people watching from foreign countries.
My wife is an example. Whereas I can laugh at some of his clowning and grudgingly respect his natural charisma, she can't even face seeing or hearing him. It's a visceral reaction that even the likes of Gove or Cummings don't elicit. Look at the UN general assembly too: the style just doesn't travel abroad.
Good point. I've noticed that it works on *some* Americans, and also some Europeans. But definitely a minority. They tend to be people not too upset by Brexit
A lot of the Boris-haters in Europe are blinded by loathing of Brexit, a lot of the haters in America presume he is "Britain Trump", and are deeply surprised when they discover he is not
It's only the English who really like him. Kind of like how people like the smell of their own farts.
Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.
And you know what? He'll be right.....
Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?
Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
Because "horrors" aren't happening.
You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could. You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.
There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
If they aren't happening why are the government saying (rightly) that they are happening as part of the plan?
Don't you understand the difference between "horrors" and "stresses and strains".
If you want to get fit and you choose to exercise then that stresses and strains your muscles, but it isn't a horror, nor is it the wrong thing to do.
Unmitigated bollocks, even by your exacting standards.
You think stresses and strains and horrors are synonymous?
Remind me never to exercise with you. Or go out with you on Halloween. Because I'm assuming one of those will be very disappointing.
I’m trying to think of postwar, non-UK European leaders with charisma. It’s quite hard
De Gaulle, obviously
Gorbachev
Lech Walesa
Then I start to run out. Germany has had a run of solid leaders who don’t quite cut it. Schroeder, Kohl, Merkel
I guess Berlusconi maybe - which is a warning for Boris-lovers
If we widen the definition of Europe a bit (Eurovision Europe) then Netanyahu definitely meets the definition, as of course did Milosevic. Arguably Ceausescu too.
Ian Paisley?
He might bridle at the suggestion he is "non-UK". No, no, no.
"UK Eyes Only" - in "Brits" by Peter Taylor, he relays the story of "Joan", a civvie lady from NI working for the security services, who was scolded by her Brit superiors for opening mail stamped "UK Eyes Only".
Just watched Boris' speech. Genuinely laugh out loud funny. Some references in there for the geeks (noticed Nadine Dorries looked genuinely confused at the Hereward the "Woke"). The ending was genuinely uplifting and positive. Keir's speech last week was more about slaying the demons in his own party. Quite a difference.
The odd thing with Boris is that his schtick seems to work very well with a large portion of the population (including a lot of people who dislike him politically - they can't help finding him funny) but falls completely flat with a sizeable minority, as well as - it seems - with most people watching from foreign countries.
My wife is an example. Whereas I can laugh at some of his clowning and grudgingly respect his natural charisma, she can't even face seeing or hearing him. It's a visceral reaction that even the likes of Gove or Cummings don't elicit. Look at the UN general assembly too: the style just doesn't travel abroad.
Good point. I've noticed that it works on *some* Americans, and also some Europeans. But definitely a minority. They tend to be people not too upset by Brexit
A lot of the Boris-haters in Europe are blinded by loathing of Brexit, a lot of the haters in America presume he is "Britain Trump", and are deeply surprised when they discover he is not
I suspect a lot of charisma is culturally and nationally-specific. Trump's charisma definitely didn't travel. Nor does, say Xi Jinping's or Modi's. Berlusconi may have been seen as quite amusing but nobody outside Italy bought his persona. Nor the homespun charm of George W (except for Blair). The exceptions are rare but I think Putin, Thatcher, early Blair, Bill Clinton, Obama and a couple of others have managed to transcend borders.
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.
The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.
Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:
If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.
There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.
It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.
They need sacking
*If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.
Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
As always with the Police. It is instructive to ask. What would be the consequences if it were an equivalent case in an educational setting?
I think we'd get in trouble for pinning a student to the floor, never mind harassing her on Tinder afterwards. Different standards...
(Actually, we'd probably get sacked for getting within 2m of a student; our uni is still being strict on Covid social distancing)
I am still awaiting my Nobel prize for having solved
1) COVID in schools 2) harassment of teachers by students 3) harassment of students by teachers 4) harassment of students by students 5) Violence for 2-4 above 6) Truancy from schools
There are a number of big problems facing the government that might torpedo Johnstone and possibly the Tories at the next election depending on timing. The most certain is the enormous and unavoidable crisis that will occur over energy and the "green agenda". No amount of bombast can overturn reality. The current path is very likely to lead to enormous price increases and intermittent supply (blackouts). The timing will depend to some extent on weather. The government can hose more money at the energy sector from central funds to avoid direct payment of costs by consumers but what will that do to public finances? Will it even be possible? Mothballed coal powered power stations will be brought online in a humiliating climbdown but is there enough reserve capacity in the system? One positive factor for the Tories is that all the opposition parties are urging faster decarbonisation... Something has got to give, but what?
In Great Britain and many of its former colonies, “judgement” is still the correct spelling, but ever since Noah Webster decreed the first E superfluous, Americans have omitted it. Many of Webster’s crotchets have faded away (each year fewer people use the spelling “theater,” for instance), but even the producers of Terminator 2: Judgment Day chose the traditional American spelling. If you write “judgement” you should also write “colour.”
Boris promised a big northern transport announcement this conference.
There wasn’t one.
What happened to those rumoured defections? I've not seen a Labour to Tory defection in my lifetime and will be surprised if I ever see one. Labour are tribal in a way that Tories really are not.
Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.
And you know what? He'll be right.....
Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?
Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
Because "horrors" aren't happening.
You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could. You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.
There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.
All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.
And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
The parallels with cult psychology are fascinating.
True believers like Marquee Mark are simultaneously able to believe there are no problems with the British economy, and that the problems are an inevitable and much-welcomed transition to paradise.
It’s a psychologist’s wet dream.
MarqueeMark just said the last 40 years were wrong. So Thatcher then. 27 of them Tory ruled. So who better than the Tories to sort it out? Meanwhile some have been saying for 42 years that we're on the wrong track. These people are obviously deluded, and can't possibly have any solutions.
The reason the Tories are not just the oldest and most successful party in the UK but one of if the not oldest and most successful party in the democratic world is because they're capable of being pragmatic and changing where required.
That's the difference between the sensible Tories on this website and some zealots like HYUFD that want to define Tories by 18th century dogmas.
Thatcher was the countries greatest postwar PM, but she made mistakes and missed opportunities. Just because she did something, doesn't make it wrong to change it later on. We've had over 40 years since Thatcher started her reforms to see what has worked and what hasn't.
Pragmatism rather than dogmatism is the Conservative's greatest strength.
That’s harsh on HY, who comes across as more pragmatic, especially economically than yourself.
Are you sure you are not tying yourself to someone with wax wings, and it’s your credibility posting here which is dead when Bojo drops and drowns?
How can it be economic illiterate when Red Robo, Tony Benn and Scargill promises it, but not economically illiterate when Bojo promises it?
I advocate for market rate for wages. If wages are going up because we're in a competitive labour market with full employment then that's fantastic. If we have unemployment then wages should go down to get the unemployed into work. Supply and demand.
If you can tell me when "Red Robo, Tony Benn and Scargill" promised such a laissez-faire attitude then I'd love to see it.
If you advocate for laissez-faire attitudes when that means wages going down, then how can you not stick with a laissez-faire attitude when that means wages going up? If you only do it in one direction you're not laissez-faire you're exploiting it one way for your own agenda.
It's OK banging on about the free market provided you make some sort of token attempt to grasp its limitations.
Who said
'People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices'?
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.
The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.
Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:
If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.
There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.
It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.
They need sacking
*If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.
Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
Hang on a minute. Doesn't Tinder require you to actively 'swipe' on someone before they can contact you? Her story doesn't make sense.
She's a Gold Tinder member, there's certain privileges there which allow you to see who likes you.
Just watched Boris' speech. Genuinely laugh out loud funny. Some references in there for the geeks (noticed Nadine Dorries looked genuinely confused at the Hereward the "Woke"). The ending was genuinely uplifting and positive. Keir's speech last week was more about slaying the demons in his own party. Quite a difference.
The odd thing with Boris is that his schtick seems to work very well with a large portion of the population (including a lot of people who dislike him politically - they can't help finding him funny) but falls completely flat with a sizeable minority, as well as - it seems - with most people watching from foreign countries.
My wife is an example. Whereas I can laugh at some of his clowning and grudgingly respect his natural charisma, she can't even face seeing or hearing him. It's a visceral reaction that even the likes of Gove or Cummings don't elicit. Look at the UN general assembly too: the style just doesn't travel abroad.
Good point. I've noticed that it works on *some* Americans, and also some Europeans. But definitely a minority. They tend to be people not too upset by Brexit
A lot of the Boris-haters in Europe are blinded by loathing of Brexit, a lot of the haters in America presume he is "Britain Trump", and are deeply surprised when they discover he is not
I suspect a lot of charisma is culturally and nationally-specific. Trump's charisma definitely didn't travel. Nor does, say Xi Jinping's or Modi's. Berlusconi may have been seen as quite amusing but nobody outside Italy bought his persona. Nor the homespun charm of George W (except for Blair). The exceptions are rare but I think Putin, Thatcher, early Blair, Bill Clinton, Obama and a couple of others have managed to transcend borders.
Yes, probably true
Thatcher is the only UK leader who has appealed widely abroad, in my lifetime. The only one who - when you said you were British in furrin parts - you would get spontaneous positive remarks from foreigners, about your PM
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.
The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.
Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:
If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.
There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.
It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.
They need sacking
*If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.
Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
Hang on a minute. Doesn't Tinder require you to actively 'swipe' on someone before they can contact you? Her story doesn't make sense.
She's a Gold Tinder member, there's certain privileges there which allow you to see who likes you.
You sound like an expert...
It’s the last desperate throw of the dice for sad nerds who can’t pull a hamstring…
Boris is showbiz. Absolutely no doubt about that. Cracking jokes, magnetic stage presence.
Totally unfit to be PM but who TF cares.
I care. Ok, so he has charisma and can be genuinely funny. Not quite a 'fill the Albert Hall' type performer but, yep, a funny bloke. For a politician VERY funny. But I don't give two figs about that and neither imo should anyone else. Why are we looking for laughs in our politicians? Why is this remotely important? Are we little kids at the panto or something? The upshot of being in thrall to the Johnson persona, this "Boris" thing he has off to a fine art, is wholly negative in that it allows him (but not us) to escape the consequences of his shameless mendacity and lazy incompetence. And what depresses me is how many seem to think this is fine, it's just fantastic (!) how he floats free of the normal rules, or maybe they're so busy chuckling at his shtick they don't even notice what's going on. All I can suggest is these people go on YouTube, or whatever, and catch some great comedy there, there's so much of it available these days, what with the internet and all, or read a comic novel, or go see a real rib-tickler of a movie, slapstick, satire, romcom, whatever floats the boat, get their fill of shits and giggles like that, instead of seeking it in the upper echelons of Westminster politics. Otherwise, I fear the worst. Boris Johnson is no monster but his effect on the environment is toxic. He's kind of infantilizing public life and doing same to a sizable chunk of the population. He's turning lots of brains, some of them in otherwise good working order, to mush.
Boris promised a big northern transport announcement this conference.
There wasn’t one.
What happened to those rumoured defections? I've not seen a Labour to Tory defection in my lifetime and will be surprised if I ever see one. Labour are tribal in a way that Tories really are not.
I couldn't figure out what the benefit to the defectors would be.
Politically it would exile them. It wouldn't harm Starmer as much as people quoting the party to be Independent - the defectors would be seen as Tory Traitors.
Financially it would kick them out of politics, unless they got a peerage from the Tories. And their contacts in politics would be gone - making them valueless in the commercial sector.
There are a number of big problems facing the government that might torpedo Johnstone and possibly the Tories at the next election depending on timing. The most certain is the enormous and unavoidable crisis that will occur over energy and the "green agenda".
Agreed, if they go down the route of nuclear. Boris trumpeting that as the way forward was the point in his speech when my heart sank. Hopefully wiser counsels will prevail over coming months to prevent what is a huge and unnecessary burden on the taxpayer, both in massive taxpayer payments to build them, then to dismantle them.
No nuclear plant on the planet has ever been built without massive Government subsidies. It was completely at odds with everything else in his speech.
In Great Britain and many of its former colonies, “judgement” is still the correct spelling, but ever since Noah Webster decreed the first E superfluous, Americans have omitted it. Many of Webster’s crotchets have faded away (each year fewer people use the spelling “theater,” for instance), but even the producers of Terminator 2: Judgment Day chose the traditional American spelling. If you write “judgement” you should also write “colour.”
Just watched Boris' speech. Genuinely laugh out loud funny. Some references in there for the geeks (noticed Nadine Dorries looked genuinely confused at the Hereward the "Woke"). The ending was genuinely uplifting and positive. Keir's speech last week was more about slaying the demons in his own party. Quite a difference.
The odd thing with Boris is that his schtick seems to work very well with a large portion of the population (including a lot of people who dislike him politically - they can't help finding him funny) but falls completely flat with a sizeable minority, as well as - it seems - with most people watching from foreign countries.
My wife is an example. Whereas I can laugh at some of his clowning and grudgingly respect his natural charisma, she can't even face seeing or hearing him. It's a visceral reaction that even the likes of Gove or Cummings don't elicit. Look at the UN general assembly too: the style just doesn't travel abroad.
Good point. I've noticed that it works on *some* Americans, and also some Europeans. But definitely a minority. They tend to be people not too upset by Brexit
A lot of the Boris-haters in Europe are blinded by loathing of Brexit, a lot of the haters in America presume he is "Britain Trump", and are deeply surprised when they discover he is not
I suspect a lot of charisma is culturally and nationally-specific. Trump's charisma definitely didn't travel. Nor does, say Xi Jinping's or Modi's. Berlusconi may have been seen as quite amusing but nobody outside Italy bought his persona. Nor the homespun charm of George W (except for Blair). The exceptions are rare but I think Putin, Thatcher, early Blair, Bill Clinton, Obama and a couple of others have managed to transcend borders.
Yes, probably true
Thatcher is the only UK leader who has appealed widely abroad, in my lifetime. The only one who - when you said you were British in furrin parts - you would get spontaneous positive remarks from foreigners, about your PM
Boris is showbiz. Absolutely no doubt about that. Cracking jokes, magnetic stage presence.
Totally unfit to be PM but who TF cares.
I care. Ok, so he has charisma and can be genuinely funny. Not quite a 'fill the Albert Hall' type performer but, yep, a funny bloke. For a politician VERY funny. But I don't give two figs about that and neither imo should anyone else. Why are we looking for laughs in our politicians? Why is this remotely important? Are we little kids at the panto or something? The upshot of being in thrall to the Johnson persona, this "Boris" thing he has off to a fine art, is wholly negative in that it allows him (but not us) to escape the consequences of his shameless mendacity and lazy incompetence. And what depresses me is how many seem to think this is fine, it's just fantastic (!) how he floats free of the normal rules, or maybe they're so busy chuckling at his shtick they don't even notice what's going on. All I can suggest is these people go on YouTube, or whatever, and catch some great comedy there, there's so much of it available these days, what with the internet and all, or read a comic novel, or go see a real rib-tickler of a movie, slapstick, satire, romcom, whatever floats the boat, get their fill of shits and giggles like that, instead of seeking it in the upper echelons of Westminster politics. Otherwise, I fear the worst. Boris Johnson is no monster but his effect on the environment is toxic. He's kind of infantilizing public life and doing same to a sizable chunk of the population. He's turning lots of brains, some of them in otherwise good working order, to mush.
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.
The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.
Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:
If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.
There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.
It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.
They need sacking
*If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.
Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
Hang on a minute. Doesn't Tinder require you to actively 'swipe' on someone before they can contact you? Her story doesn't make sense.
She's a Gold Tinder member, there's certain privileges there which allow you to see who likes you.
You sound like an expert...
A few of my female friends are on Tinder (Platinum level) and they share their screenshots/accounts and ask me for my thoughts.
Sadly I'm fully aware of the horrors on Tinder.
My LGBTQI friends overshare with their Grindr accounts as well.
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.
The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.
Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:
If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.
There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.
It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.
They need sacking
*If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.
Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
Hang on a minute. Doesn't Tinder require you to actively 'swipe' on someone before they can contact you? Her story doesn't make sense.
She's a Gold Tinder member, there's certain privileges there which allow you to see who likes you.
Ok, I know little about this, but that gets me wondering - William's comment suggests she wouldn't normally know people were picking on her profile unless she also expressed an interest, yours suggests she could know, due to membership level. But would the people allegedly picking on her know her membership level and that she would therefore know their actions (if they did not, then the idea of doing it deliberately to intimidate etc seems to fall apart).
I thought Tinder gave you profiles that you swipe left or right (profiles coming up at random? within some geographical area? on some kind of matching of age/interests?). So how do you go about finding and harassing a particular person? Or can you in fact search (by name? surely no? but by other descriptives that would let you find someone if you knew enough about them?) What happens if you swipe [whichever way indicates interest]? Does that person get notified? Or do you get prioritised to be presented to them for swiping? If the latter then she could have suddenly found her choices full of police officers, assuming tey were somehow able to get her profile up first?
Boris promised a big northern transport announcement this conference.
There wasn’t one.
What happened to those rumoured defections? I've not seen a Labour to Tory defection in my lifetime and will be surprised if I ever see one. Labour are tribal in a way that Tories really are not.
The defection thing was an odd one. Difficult to know if it emanated from the hard Left trying to destabilize Sir Keir or Boris zealots believing their own propaganda. Either way it seemed all rather fantastical.
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.
The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.
Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:
If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.
There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.
It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.
They need sacking
*If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.
Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
Hang on a minute. Doesn't Tinder require you to actively 'swipe' on someone before they can contact you? Her story doesn't make sense.
She's a Gold Tinder member, there's certain privileges there which allow you to see who likes you.
Ok, I know little about this, but that gets me wondering - William's comment suggests she wouldn't normally know people were picking on her profile unless she also expressed an interest, yours suggests she could know, due to membership level. But would the people allegedly picking on her know her membership level and that she would therefore know their actions (if they did not, then the idea of doing it deliberately to intimidate etc seems to fall apart).
I thought Tinder gave you profiles that you swipe left or right (profiles coming up at random? within some geographical area? on some kind of matching of age/interests?). So how do you go about finding and harassing a particular person? Or can you in fact search (by name? surely no? but by other descriptives that would let you find someone if you knew enough about them?) What happens if you swipe [whichever way indicates interest]? Does that person get notified? Or do you get prioritised to be presented to them for swiping? If the latter then she could have suddenly found her choices full of police officers, assuming tey were somehow able to get her profile up first?
Boris promised a big northern transport announcement this conference.
There wasn’t one.
What happened to those rumoured defections? I've not seen a Labour to Tory defection in my lifetime and will be surprised if I ever see one. Labour are tribal in a way that Tories really are not.
The defection thing was an odd one. Difficult to know if it emanated from the hard Left trying to destabilize Sir Keir or Boris zealots believing their own propaganda. Either way it seemed all rather fantastical.
My guess is it came from Labour centrists who think Starmer is a loser
Just watched Boris' speech. Genuinely laugh out loud funny. Some references in there for the geeks (noticed Nadine Dorries looked genuinely confused at the Hereward the "Woke"). The ending was genuinely uplifting and positive. Keir's speech last week was more about slaying the demons in his own party. Quite a difference.
The odd thing with Boris is that his schtick seems to work very well with a large portion of the population (including a lot of people who dislike him politically - they can't help finding him funny) but falls completely flat with a sizeable minority, as well as - it seems - with most people watching from foreign countries.
My wife is an example. Whereas I can laugh at some of his clowning and grudgingly respect his natural charisma, she can't even face seeing or hearing him. It's a visceral reaction that even the likes of Gove or Cummings don't elicit. Look at the UN general assembly too: the style just doesn't travel abroad.
Good point. I've noticed that it works on *some* Americans, and also some Europeans. But definitely a minority. They tend to be people not too upset by Brexit
A lot of the Boris-haters in Europe are blinded by loathing of Brexit, a lot of the haters in America presume he is "Britain Trump", and are deeply surprised when they discover he is not
I suspect a lot of charisma is culturally and nationally-specific. Trump's charisma definitely didn't travel. Nor does, say Xi Jinping's or Modi's. Berlusconi may have been seen as quite amusing but nobody outside Italy bought his persona. Nor the homespun charm of George W (except for Blair). The exceptions are rare but I think Putin, Thatcher, early Blair, Bill Clinton, Obama and a couple of others have managed to transcend borders.
I once overheard someone in a pub proclaim how much he liked Putin (this was during the Salisbury nerve-agent episode). I found it rather odd.
We have to accept that charisma wins elections and helps to keep leaders in power. The evidence is there for all to see. It's bloody frustrating when it's Boris doing it, but the answer must be to meet fire with fire. Jess Philips is the only prominent Labour politician with enough of the stuff to match Johnson. Not Burnham, not Rayner, definitely not Corbyn (I always found his delivery flat and uninspiring, he was simply a cypher for ideologies).
The Lib Dems need it even more otherwise nobody notices. Who were the two most well thought of leaders of the party in my lifetime? Ashdown and Kennedy. Both had charisma and positivity. Before them, Ian Thorpe.
Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.
And you know what? He'll be right.....
Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?
Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
Because "horrors" aren't happening.
You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could. You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.
There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.
All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.
And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
The parallels with cult psychology are fascinating.
True believers like Marquee Mark are simultaneously able to believe there are no problems with the British economy, and that the problems are an inevitable and much-welcomed transition to paradise.
It’s a psychologist’s wet dream.
MarqueeMark just said the last 40 years were wrong. So Thatcher then. 27 of them Tory ruled. So who better than the Tories to sort it out? Meanwhile some have been saying for 42 years that we're on the wrong track. These people are obviously deluded, and can't possibly have any solutions.
The reason the Tories are not just the oldest and most successful party in the UK but one of if the not oldest and most successful party in the democratic world is because they're capable of being pragmatic and changing where required.
That's the difference between the sensible Tories on this website and some zealots like HYUFD that want to define Tories by 18th century dogmas.
Thatcher was the countries greatest postwar PM, but she made mistakes and missed opportunities. Just because she did something, doesn't make it wrong to change it later on. We've had over 40 years since Thatcher started her reforms to see what has worked and what hasn't.
Pragmatism rather than dogmatism is the Conservative's greatest strength.
That’s harsh on HY, who comes across as more pragmatic, especially economically than yourself.
Are you sure you are not tying yourself to someone with wax wings, and it’s your credibility posting here which is dead when Bojo drops and drowns?
How can it be economic illiterate when Red Robo, Tony Benn and Scargill promises it, but not economically illiterate when Bojo promises it?
I advocate for market rate for wages. If wages are going up because we're in a competitive labour market with full employment then that's fantastic. If we have unemployment then wages should go down to get the unemployed into work. Supply and demand.
If you can tell me when "Red Robo, Tony Benn and Scargill" promised such a laissez-faire attitude then I'd love to see it.
If you advocate for laissez-faire attitudes when that means wages going down, then how can you not stick with a laissez-faire attitude when that means wages going up? If you only do it in one direction you're not laissez-faire you're exploiting it one way for your own agenda.
It's OK banging on about the free market provided you make some sort of token attempt to grasp its limitations.
Who said
'People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices'?
What was he on about?
Who asked 'Who Governs Britain?'
What was he on about?
Adam Smith said that and there's a reason we have laws against oligopolies colluding with each other. I'm free market, but I'm not an anarchist.
As for Who Governs Britain, wasn't the answer rather famously "not you"?
Again though that was about unions seeking to buck the market. I don't want the market being bucked, whether it by unions striking or by employers seeking to undercut their employees by importing people as if they are a commodity to be traded.
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.
The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.
Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:
If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.
There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.
It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.
They need sacking
*If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.
Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
Hang on a minute. Doesn't Tinder require you to actively 'swipe' on someone before they can contact you? Her story doesn't make sense.
She's a Gold Tinder member, there's certain privileges there which allow you to see who likes you.
Ok, I know little about this, but that gets me wondering - William's comment suggests she wouldn't normally know people were picking on her profile unless she also expressed an interest, yours suggests she could know, due to membership level. But would the people allegedly picking on her know her membership level and that she would therefore know their actions (if they did not, then the idea of doing it deliberately to intimidate etc seems to fall apart).
I thought Tinder gave you profiles that you swipe left or right (profiles coming up at random? within some geographical area? on some kind of matching of age/interests?). So how do you go about finding and harassing a particular person? Or can you in fact search (by name? surely no? but by other descriptives that would let you find someone if you knew enough about them?) What happens if you swipe [whichever way indicates interest]? Does that person get notified? Or do you get prioritised to be presented to them for swiping? If the latter then she could have suddenly found her choices full of police officers, assuming tey were somehow able to get her profile up first?
Thanks, but I'm not much the wiser. A bit like giving someone from the 1500s a guide to the differences between economy, business and first class when they have no idea what an aeroplane is.
I think I'll assume that it is possible some Met Police officers behaved like shits and await further developments. Seems a good starting point.
Just watched Boris' speech. Genuinely laugh out loud funny. Some references in there for the geeks (noticed Nadine Dorries looked genuinely confused at the Hereward the "Woke"). The ending was genuinely uplifting and positive. Keir's speech last week was more about slaying the demons in his own party. Quite a difference.
The odd thing with Boris is that his schtick seems to work very well with a large portion of the population (including a lot of people who dislike him politically - they can't help finding him funny) but falls completely flat with a sizeable minority, as well as - it seems - with most people watching from foreign countries.
My wife is an example. Whereas I can laugh at some of his clowning and grudgingly respect his natural charisma, she can't even face seeing or hearing him. It's a visceral reaction that even the likes of Gove or Cummings don't elicit. Look at the UN general assembly too: the style just doesn't travel abroad.
Good point. I've noticed that it works on *some* Americans, and also some Europeans. But definitely a minority. They tend to be people not too upset by Brexit
A lot of the Boris-haters in Europe are blinded by loathing of Brexit, a lot of the haters in America presume he is "Britain Trump", and are deeply surprised when they discover he is not
I suspect a lot of charisma is culturally and nationally-specific. Trump's charisma definitely didn't travel. Nor does, say Xi Jinping's or Modi's. Berlusconi may have been seen as quite amusing but nobody outside Italy bought his persona. Nor the homespun charm of George W (except for Blair). The exceptions are rare but I think Putin, Thatcher, early Blair, Bill Clinton, Obama and a couple of others have managed to transcend borders.
I once overheard someone in a pub proclaim how much he liked Putin (this was during the Salisbury nerve-agent episode). I found it rather odd.
He projects a mystique, and a quiet bond villain genius, that nobody else on the world stage comes near.
Boris promised a big northern transport announcement this conference.
There wasn’t one.
Well. He did release a publicity shot of him getting on an LNER train to Manchester. So maybe they thought better of it.
As did, presumably, the three defectors.
Still, it kept the PB Tories in full froth for an entire evening.
love to see a PBTories are always wrong meme, as we file out into the courtyard for the afternoon recital of the Red Flag and prostrate ourselves at the base of a huge marble edifice with Ed Balls' face on it.
Just watched Boris' speech. Genuinely laugh out loud funny. Some references in there for the geeks (noticed Nadine Dorries looked genuinely confused at the Hereward the "Woke"). The ending was genuinely uplifting and positive. Keir's speech last week was more about slaying the demons in his own party. Quite a difference.
The odd thing with Boris is that his schtick seems to work very well with a large portion of the population (including a lot of people who dislike him politically - they can't help finding him funny) but falls completely flat with a sizeable minority, as well as - it seems - with most people watching from foreign countries.
My wife is an example. Whereas I can laugh at some of his clowning and grudgingly respect his natural charisma, she can't even face seeing or hearing him. It's a visceral reaction that even the likes of Gove or Cummings don't elicit. Look at the UN general assembly too: the style just doesn't travel abroad.
Good point. I've noticed that it works on *some* Americans, and also some Europeans. But definitely a minority. They tend to be people not too upset by Brexit
A lot of the Boris-haters in Europe are blinded by loathing of Brexit, a lot of the haters in America presume he is "Britain Trump", and are deeply surprised when they discover he is not
I suspect a lot of charisma is culturally and nationally-specific. Trump's charisma definitely didn't travel. Nor does, say Xi Jinping's or Modi's. Berlusconi may have been seen as quite amusing but nobody outside Italy bought his persona. Nor the homespun charm of George W (except for Blair). The exceptions are rare but I think Putin, Thatcher, early Blair, Bill Clinton, Obama and a couple of others have managed to transcend borders.
I once overheard someone in a pub proclaim how much he liked Putin (this was during the Salisbury nerve-agent episode). I found it rather odd.
He projects a mystique, and a quiet bond villain genius, that nobody else on the world stage comes near.
When the UK-US-AU pact got announced, a poster of this parish tried on being a Putin fan for a bit, on the basis that at least he was opposed to Boris, or something.
Just watched Boris' speech. Genuinely laugh out loud funny. Some references in there for the geeks (noticed Nadine Dorries looked genuinely confused at the Hereward the "Woke"). The ending was genuinely uplifting and positive. Keir's speech last week was more about slaying the demons in his own party. Quite a difference.
The odd thing with Boris is that his schtick seems to work very well with a large portion of the population (including a lot of people who dislike him politically - they can't help finding him funny) but falls completely flat with a sizeable minority, as well as - it seems - with most people watching from foreign countries.
My wife is an example. Whereas I can laugh at some of his clowning and grudgingly respect his natural charisma, she can't even face seeing or hearing him. It's a visceral reaction that even the likes of Gove or Cummings don't elicit. Look at the UN general assembly too: the style just doesn't travel abroad.
Good point. I've noticed that it works on *some* Americans, and also some Europeans. But definitely a minority. They tend to be people not too upset by Brexit
A lot of the Boris-haters in Europe are blinded by loathing of Brexit, a lot of the haters in America presume he is "Britain Trump", and are deeply surprised when they discover he is not
I suspect a lot of charisma is culturally and nationally-specific. Trump's charisma definitely didn't travel. Nor does, say Xi Jinping's or Modi's. Berlusconi may have been seen as quite amusing but nobody outside Italy bought his persona. Nor the homespun charm of George W (except for Blair). The exceptions are rare but I think Putin, Thatcher, early Blair, Bill Clinton, Obama and a couple of others have managed to transcend borders.
Yes, probably true
Thatcher is the only UK leader who has appealed widely abroad, in my lifetime. The only one who - when you said you were British in furrin parts - you would get spontaneous positive remarks from foreigners, about your PM
Blair was well-liked in Kosovo, certainly
Parts of Sierra Leone, maybe.....
Still quite liked there. Yes. Kosovo's the big one though,
We have to accept that charisma wins elections and helps to keep leaders in power. The evidence is there for all to see. It's bloody frustrating when it's Boris doing it, but the answer must be to meet fire with fire. Jess Philips is the only prominent Labour politician with enough of the stuff to match Johnson. Not Burnham, not Rayner, definitely not Corbyn (I always found his delivery flat and uninspiring, he was simply a cypher for ideologies).
The Lib Dems need it even more otherwise nobody notices. Who were the two most well thought of leaders of the party in my lifetime? Ashdown and Kennedy. Both had charisma and positivity. Before them, Ian Thorpe.
Couldn't agree more
36/1 Best Price on Phillips, I think it is a great bet
We have to accept that charisma wins elections and helps to keep leaders in power. The evidence is there for all to see. It's bloody frustrating when it's Boris doing it, but the answer must be to meet fire with fire. Jess Philips is the only prominent Labour politician with enough of the stuff to match Johnson. Not Burnham, not Rayner, definitely not Corbyn (I always found his delivery flat and uninspiring, he was simply a cypher for ideologies).
The Lib Dems need it even more otherwise nobody notices. Who were the two most well thought of leaders of the party in my lifetime? Ashdown and Kennedy. Both had charisma and positivity. Before them, Ian Thorpe.
Jess Philips really doesn't have it
Ed Balls maybe, a smidgen, but he's gone
Besides I reckon you are asking the wrong question. You could just accept that the Government has a charismatic leader, and you don't. For a long while Labour had Blair, and the Tories had Major, Howard, Hague, IDS....
But Blair was flawed as is Boris.
Attack the flaw. I reckon Burnham has the right amount of anti-Boris gravitas while remaining personable, with a bit of charm. Starmer, no
Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.
And you know what? He'll be right.....
Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?
Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
Because "horrors" aren't happening.
You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could. You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.
There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.
All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.
And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
I'm a freethinker, if I say something its because its what I think.
I say that full employment, growing wages, improving productivity, a growing economy and opportunities for people is a good thing not because its a 'line to take' but because I think that full employment, growing wages, improving productivity, a growing economy and opportunities for people is a good thing.
Of course. But now we have a "teething issues" thing going.
Not heard about teething issues previously. So now there are teething issues from the government who you are also praising for this action.
We have been on a journey from everything is wonderful in the best possible world to teething issues.
Let us hope they don't develop further.
Anything worth doing always has teething issues.
Also, anything not worth doing.
I was taught
(a) that anythjing worth doing is worth doing well
We have to accept that charisma wins elections and helps to keep leaders in power. The evidence is there for all to see. It's bloody frustrating when it's Boris doing it, but the answer must be to meet fire with fire. Jess Philips is the only prominent Labour politician with enough of the stuff to match Johnson. Not Burnham, not Rayner, definitely not Corbyn (I always found his delivery flat and uninspiring, he was simply a cypher for ideologies).
The Lib Dems need it even more otherwise nobody notices. Who were the two most well thought of leaders of the party in my lifetime? Ashdown and Kennedy. Both had charisma and positivity. Before them, Ian Thorpe.
Jess Philips really doesn't have it
Ed Balls maybe, a smidgen, but he's gone
Besides I reckon you are asking the wrong question. You could just accept that the Government has a charismatic leader, and you don't. For a long while Labour had Blair, and the Tories had Major, Howard, Hague, IDS....
But Blair was flawed as is Boris.
Attack the flaw. I reckon Burnham has the right amount of anti-Boris gravitas while remaining personable, with a bit of charm. Starmer, no
Blair was brought down via internal coup though. I suspect he might have won a 2010 election.
Just watched Boris' speech. Genuinely laugh out loud funny. Some references in there for the geeks (noticed Nadine Dorries looked genuinely confused at the Hereward the "Woke"). The ending was genuinely uplifting and positive. Keir's speech last week was more about slaying the demons in his own party. Quite a difference.
The odd thing with Boris is that his schtick seems to work very well with a large portion of the population (including a lot of people who dislike him politically - they can't help finding him funny) but falls completely flat with a sizeable minority, as well as - it seems - with most people watching from foreign countries.
My wife is an example. Whereas I can laugh at some of his clowning and grudgingly respect his natural charisma, she can't even face seeing or hearing him. It's a visceral reaction that even the likes of Gove or Cummings don't elicit. Look at the UN general assembly too: the style just doesn't travel abroad.
Good point. I've noticed that it works on *some* Americans, and also some Europeans. But definitely a minority. They tend to be people not too upset by Brexit
A lot of the Boris-haters in Europe are blinded by loathing of Brexit, a lot of the haters in America presume he is "Britain Trump", and are deeply surprised when they discover he is not
It's also possible to have a clear eyed dislike of him, I suppose ?
Thanks, but I'm not much the wiser. A bit like giving someone from the 1500s a guide to the differences between economy, business and first class when they have no idea what an aeroplane is.
I think I'll assume that it is possible some Met Police officers behaved like shits and await further developments. Seems a good starting point.
Tinder/Grindr you really can't understand/explain until you've used it for a bit.
We have to accept that charisma wins elections and helps to keep leaders in power. The evidence is there for all to see. It's bloody frustrating when it's Boris doing it, but the answer must be to meet fire with fire. Jess Philips is the only prominent Labour politician with enough of the stuff to match Johnson. Not Burnham, not Rayner, definitely not Corbyn (I always found his delivery flat and uninspiring, he was simply a cypher for ideologies).
The Lib Dems need it even more otherwise nobody notices. Who were the two most well thought of leaders of the party in my lifetime? Ashdown and Kennedy. Both had charisma and positivity. Before them, Ian Thorpe.
Jess Philips really doesn't have it
Ed Balls maybe, a smidgen, but he's gone
Besides I reckon you are asking the wrong question. You could just accept that the Government has a charismatic leader, and you don't. For a long while Labour had Blair, and the Tories had Major, Howard, Hague, IDS....
But Blair was flawed as is Boris.
Attack the flaw. I reckon Burnham has the right amount of anti-Boris gravitas while remaining personable, with a bit of charm. Starmer, no
Blair was brought down via internal coup though. I suspect he might have won a 2010 election.
If Blair hadn't done Iraq he could have won the 2015 election, as well
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.
The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.
Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:
If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.
There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.
It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.
They need sacking
*If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.
Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
Hang on a minute. Doesn't Tinder require you to actively 'swipe' on someone before they can contact you? Her story doesn't make sense.
She's a Gold Tinder member, there's certain privileges there which allow you to see who likes you.
Ok, I know little about this, but that gets me wondering - William's comment suggests she wouldn't normally know people were picking on her profile unless she also expressed an interest, yours suggests she could know, due to membership level. But would the people allegedly picking on her know her membership level and that she would therefore know their actions (if they did not, then the idea of doing it deliberately to intimidate etc seems to fall apart).
I thought Tinder gave you profiles that you swipe left or right (profiles coming up at random? within some geographical area? on some kind of matching of age/interests?). So how do you go about finding and harassing a particular person? Or can you in fact search (by name? surely no? but by other descriptives that would let you find someone if you knew enough about them?) What happens if you swipe [whichever way indicates interest]? Does that person get notified? Or do you get prioritised to be presented to them for swiping? If the latter then she could have suddenly found her choices full of police officers, assuming tey were somehow able to get her profile up first?
Thanks, but I'm not much the wiser. A bit like giving someone from the 1500s a guide to the differences between economy, business and first class when they have no idea what an aeroplane is.
I think I'll assume that it is possible some Met Police officers behaved like shits and await further developments. Seems a good starting point.
Basic Tinder, you see pics and a bio of people within a certain distance, and if you like them you swipe right
Next step up you pay to be able to send "Super Likes", which I think notifies the person, eliminating the random aspect of "Will they see my profile" - a bit like going up to someone in a bar and asking them if they'd like a drink rather than just bumping into them at the bar.
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.
The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.
Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:
If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.
There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.
It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.
They need sacking
*If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.
Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
Hang on a minute. Doesn't Tinder require you to actively 'swipe' on someone before they can contact you? Her story doesn't make sense.
She's a Gold Tinder member, there's certain privileges there which allow you to see who likes you.
Ok, I know little about this, but that gets me wondering - William's comment suggests she wouldn't normally know people were picking on her profile unless she also expressed an interest, yours suggests she could know, due to membership level. But would the people allegedly picking on her know her membership level and that she would therefore know their actions (if they did not, then the idea of doing it deliberately to intimidate etc seems to fall apart).
I thought Tinder gave you profiles that you swipe left or right (profiles coming up at random? within some geographical area? on some kind of matching of age/interests?). So how do you go about finding and harassing a particular person? Or can you in fact search (by name? surely no? but by other descriptives that would let you find someone if you knew enough about them?) What happens if you swipe [whichever way indicates interest]? Does that person get notified? Or do you get prioritised to be presented to them for swiping? If the latter then she could have suddenly found her choices full of police officers, assuming tey were somehow able to get her profile up first?
If you’ve paid for Tinder Gold then you can see who’s swiped on you before you swipe on them.
Gold people can also pretend that they’re in a different location, so someone who paid for gold could (in principle) set their location to her part of London, swipe through until they find her & then match with her.
If you swipe on someone, then Tinder usually puts you higher in their stack of potential matches, but that’s weighted by how attractive they think you are relative to the other person, plus a bunch of other internal metrics that we don’t know much about. (Online dating is /brutal/.)
We know she paid for Gold, which is how whe could see who was matching on her - she’s said so on Twitter.
We have to accept that charisma wins elections and helps to keep leaders in power. The evidence is there for all to see. It's bloody frustrating when it's Boris doing it, but the answer must be to meet fire with fire. Jess Philips is the only prominent Labour politician with enough of the stuff to match Johnson. Not Burnham, not Rayner, definitely not Corbyn (I always found his delivery flat and uninspiring, he was simply a cypher for ideologies).
The Lib Dems need it even more otherwise nobody notices. Who were the two most well thought of leaders of the party in my lifetime? Ashdown and Kennedy. Both had charisma and positivity. Before them, Ian Thorpe.
Wasn't he the Australian swimmer with unusually large feet ?
Off topic, and not sure if it was covered yesterday but what are the procedural thoughts on the Welsh Assembly's vote yesterday where the outcome was changed because one member could not log on to Zoom?
Feels unsatisfactory to me, and open to someone targeting their broadband in important votes.
Having a vote changed due to IT issues is not democracy. Utterly unacceptable.
How is it different to a Member of Parliament tripping over their own feet and missing a physical vote in the Commons?
Thanks, but I'm not much the wiser. A bit like giving someone from the 1500s a guide to the differences between economy, business and first class when they have no idea what an aeroplane is.
I think I'll assume that it is possible some Met Police officers behaved like shits and await further developments. Seems a good starting point.
Tinder/Grindr you really can't understand/explain until you've used it for a bit.
It really is an eye opener.
Hmmm, maybe I should sign up and explain to my other half that it's purely for research purposes so I can better understand the latest allegations against the Met?
Edit: And thanks to all who have tried to explain - I get it well enough now, I think, including how you could effectively target someone with enough information.
Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.
And you know what? He'll be right.....
Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?
Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
Because "horrors" aren't happening.
You can get fuel and were it not for a media-induced panic you always could. You can get bacon and if a few pigs bred to be killed get killed it isn't the end of the world.
There's a big difference between going through teething issues in a transition to a better place, and going through abject horrors and misery.
The problem for Boris - for any politician, but especially for the PM - is that he can't even say "it's just teething issues" because that shows a crack in the defences.
All he can do is say it's all marvelous and exactly what we planned and isn't everything great. And hope his supporters don't notice.
And it has worked because of supporters like you in fact, Philip, who parrot the it's all marvelous line.
I'm a freethinker, if I say something its because its what I think.
I say that full employment, growing wages, improving productivity, a growing economy and opportunities for people is a good thing not because its a 'line to take' but because I think that full employment, growing wages, improving productivity, a growing economy and opportunities for people is a good thing.
Of course. But now we have a "teething issues" thing going.
Not heard about teething issues previously. So now there are teething issues from the government who you are also praising for this action.
We have been on a journey from everything is wonderful in the best possible world to teething issues.
Let us hope they don't develop further.
Anything worth doing always has teething issues.
Also, anything not worth doing.
I was taught
(a) that anythjing worth doing is worth doing well
Just watched Boris' speech. Genuinely laugh out loud funny. Some references in there for the geeks (noticed Nadine Dorries looked genuinely confused at the Hereward the "Woke"). The ending was genuinely uplifting and positive. Keir's speech last week was more about slaying the demons in his own party. Quite a difference.
The odd thing with Boris is that his schtick seems to work very well with a large portion of the population (including a lot of people who dislike him politically - they can't help finding him funny) but falls completely flat with a sizeable minority, as well as - it seems - with most people watching from foreign countries.
My wife is an example. Whereas I can laugh at some of his clowning and grudgingly respect his natural charisma, she can't even face seeing or hearing him. It's a visceral reaction that even the likes of Gove or Cummings don't elicit. Look at the UN general assembly too: the style just doesn't travel abroad.
Good point. I've noticed that it works on *some* Americans, and also some Europeans. But definitely a minority. They tend to be people not too upset by Brexit
A lot of the Boris-haters in Europe are blinded by loathing of Brexit, a lot of the haters in America presume he is "Britain Trump", and are deeply surprised when they discover he is not
It's also possible to have a clear eyed dislike of him, I suppose ?
If you despise or disapprove of Brexit, then Yes, for sure
It is noticeable that the foreign praise for Boris (rarer than the disapproval) generally comes from eurosceptics in the EU. Frexiteers love Boris (in a begrudging Gallic way)
We have to accept that charisma wins elections and helps to keep leaders in power. The evidence is there for all to see. It's bloody frustrating when it's Boris doing it, but the answer must be to meet fire with fire. Jess Philips is the only prominent Labour politician with enough of the stuff to match Johnson. Not Burnham, not Rayner, definitely not Corbyn (I always found his delivery flat and uninspiring, he was simply a cypher for ideologies).
The Lib Dems need it even more otherwise nobody notices. Who were the two most well thought of leaders of the party in my lifetime? Ashdown and Kennedy. Both had charisma and positivity. Before them, Ian Thorpe.
Jess Philips really doesn't have it
Ed Balls maybe, a smidgen, but he's gone
Besides I reckon you are asking the wrong question. You could just accept that the Government has a charismatic leader, and you don't. For a long while Labour had Blair, and the Tories had Major, Howard, Hague, IDS....
But Blair was flawed as is Boris.
Attack the flaw. I reckon Burnham has the right amount of anti-Boris gravitas while remaining personable, with a bit of charm. Starmer, no
Jess Phillips has something in common with a lot of Labour, Centrists & Leftists alike - they are middle class, university graduates from selective/ private schooling who are convinced they are still down with the working class
Boris is showbiz. Absolutely no doubt about that. Cracking jokes, magnetic stage presence.
Totally unfit to be PM but who TF cares.
I care. Ok, so he has charisma and can be genuinely funny. Not quite a 'fill the Albert Hall' type performer but, yep, a funny bloke. For a politician VERY funny. But I don't give two figs about that and neither imo should anyone else. Why are we looking for laughs in our politicians? Why is this remotely important? Are we little kids at the panto or something? The upshot of being in thrall to the Johnson persona, this "Boris" thing he has off to a fine art, is wholly negative in that it allows him (but not us) to escape the consequences of his shameless mendacity and lazy incompetence. And what depresses me is how many seem to think this is fine, it's just fantastic (!) how he floats free of the normal rules, or maybe they're so busy chuckling at his shtick they don't even notice what's going on. All I can suggest is these people go on YouTube, or whatever, and catch some great comedy there, there's so much of it available these days, what with the internet and all, or read a comic novel, or go see a real rib-tickler of a movie, slapstick, satire, romcom, whatever floats the boat, get their fill of shits and giggles like that, instead of seeking it in the upper echelons of Westminster politics. Otherwise, I fear the worst. Boris Johnson is no monster but his effect on the environment is toxic. He's kind of infantilizing public life and doing same to a sizable chunk of the population. He's turning lots of brains, some of them in otherwise good working order, to mush.
I also don't get where all that "good old Boris" idea comes from. But then perhaps I am in that 40% or so who just sees through his act and can see him for what he is. Personally I just see him as being another one of those arrogant entitled lazy public school types that I saw quite enough of at Uni - the ones who always want to borrow your lecture notes because they and their friends couldn't be bothered to get out of bed in time to go, or borrow your library book because they were too disorganised to request a copy a week before they needed it.
Not the sort to trust with running anything, however witty they might be. Let alone a country. Yet the other 40% or so don't see that at all, and I'm genuinely mystified why not.
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.
The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.
Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:
If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.
There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.
It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.
They need sacking
*If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.
Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
Hang on a minute. Doesn't Tinder require you to actively 'swipe' on someone before they can contact you? Her story doesn't make sense.
She's a Gold Tinder member, there's certain privileges there which allow you to see who likes you.
Ok, I know little about this, but that gets me wondering - William's comment suggests she wouldn't normally know people were picking on her profile unless she also expressed an interest, yours suggests she could know, due to membership level. But would the people allegedly picking on her know her membership level and that she would therefore know their actions (if they did not, then the idea of doing it deliberately to intimidate etc seems to fall apart).
I thought Tinder gave you profiles that you swipe left or right (profiles coming up at random? within some geographical area? on some kind of matching of age/interests?). So how do you go about finding and harassing a particular person? Or can you in fact search (by name? surely no? but by other descriptives that would let you find someone if you knew enough about them?) What happens if you swipe [whichever way indicates interest]? Does that person get notified? Or do you get prioritised to be presented to them for swiping? If the latter then she could have suddenly found her choices full of police officers, assuming tey were somehow able to get her profile up first?
Thanks, but I'm not much the wiser. A bit like giving someone from the 1500s a guide to the differences between economy, business and first class when they have no idea what an aeroplane is.
I think I'll assume that it is possible some Met Police officers behaved like shits and await further developments. Seems a good starting point.
Basic Tinder, you see pics and a bio of people within a certain distance, and if you like them you swipe right
Next step up you pay to be able to send "Super Likes", which I think notifies the person, eliminating the random aspect of "Will they see my profile" - a bit like going up to someone in a bar and asking them if they'd like a drink rather than just bumping into them at the bar.
or "How I met Your Mother" as I will tell it!
You also get a few super likes with a free account (maybe one per day?). It would be quite an operation for that many police officers to use that feature to target her in particular, even with a paid account. There must be thousands of accounts to plough through in London.
On the other hand, I'm not surprised that they would have photos in uniform. My girlfriend's photo in scrubs was rather effective.
Impressive work, but I can't help feeling it ought to have gone to the mRNA lady.
Katalin Kariko? Maybe next year and perhaps for medicine. Jennifer Doudner got Chemistry last year for Crispr (ie gene editing) and it can't be molecular biology every year.
I’m trying to think of postwar, non-UK European leaders with charisma. It’s quite hard
De Gaulle, obviously
Gorbachev
Lech Walesa
Then I start to run out. Germany has had a run of solid leaders who don’t quite cut it. Schroeder, Kohl, Merkel
I guess Berlusconi maybe - which is a warning for Boris-lovers
If we widen the definition of Europe a bit (Eurovision Europe) then Netanyahu definitely meets the definition, as of course did Milosevic. Arguably Ceausescu too.
Ian Paisley?
He might bridle at the suggestion he is "non-UK". No, no, no.
Sorry for the anachronism. Quite right to correct me.
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.
The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.
Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:
If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.
There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.
It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.
They need sacking
*If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.
Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
Hang on a minute. Doesn't Tinder require you to actively 'swipe' on someone before they can contact you? Her story doesn't make sense.
She's a Gold Tinder member, there's certain privileges there which allow you to see who likes you.
You sound like an expert...
A few of my female friends are on Tinder (Platinum level) and they share their screenshots/accounts and ask me for my thoughts.
Sadly I'm fully aware of the horrors on Tinder.
My LGBTQI friends overshare with their Grindr accounts as well.
My son is now happily married, but during his single days he said he was taller online. .
Boris is showbiz. Absolutely no doubt about that. Cracking jokes, magnetic stage presence.
Totally unfit to be PM but who TF cares.
I care. Ok, so he has charisma and can be genuinely funny. Not quite a 'fill the Albert Hall' type performer but, yep, a funny bloke. For a politician VERY funny. But I don't give two figs about that and neither imo should anyone else. Why are we looking for laughs in our politicians? Why is this remotely important? Are we little kids at the panto or something? The upshot of being in thrall to the Johnson persona, this "Boris" thing he has off to a fine art, is wholly negative in that it allows him (but not us) to escape the consequences of his shameless mendacity and lazy incompetence. And what depresses me is how many seem to think this is fine, it's just fantastic (!) how he floats free of the normal rules, or maybe they're so busy chuckling at his shtick they don't even notice what's going on. All I can suggest is these people go on YouTube, or whatever, and catch some great comedy there, there's so much of it available these days, what with the internet and all, or read a comic novel, or go see a real rib-tickler of a movie, slapstick, satire, romcom, whatever floats the boat, get their fill of shits and giggles like that, instead of seeking it in the upper echelons of Westminster politics. Otherwise, I fear the worst. Boris Johnson is no monster but his effect on the environment is toxic. He's kind of infantilizing public life and doing same to a sizable chunk of the population. He's turning lots of brains, some of them in otherwise good working order, to mush.
I also don't get where all that "good old Boris" idea comes from. But then perhaps I am in that 40% or so who just sees through his act and can see him for what he is. Personally I just see him as being another one of those arrogant entitled lazy public school types that I saw quite enough of at Uni - the ones who always want to borrow your lecture notes because they and their friends couldn't be bothered to get out of bed in time to go, or borrow your library book because they were too disorganised to request a copy a week before they needed it.
Not the sort to trust with running anything, however witty they might be. Let alone a country. Yet the other 40% or so don't see that at all, and I'm genuinely mystified why not.
A lot of Boris-hatred, like yours and kinabalu's, is driven by chippy class-hatred. YOU see a posho who looks down on you, and that makes YOU seethe
Plenty of people don't give much of a fuck about class any more
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.
The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.
Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:
If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.
There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.
It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.
They need sacking
*If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.
Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
Hang on a minute. Doesn't Tinder require you to actively 'swipe' on someone before they can contact you? Her story doesn't make sense.
She's a Gold Tinder member, there's certain privileges there which allow you to see who likes you.
Ok, I know little about this, but that gets me wondering - William's comment suggests she wouldn't normally know people were picking on her profile unless she also expressed an interest, yours suggests she could know, due to membership level. But would the people allegedly picking on her know her membership level and that she would therefore know their actions (if they did not, then the idea of doing it deliberately to intimidate etc seems to fall apart).
I thought Tinder gave you profiles that you swipe left or right (profiles coming up at random? within some geographical area? on some kind of matching of age/interests?). So how do you go about finding and harassing a particular person? Or can you in fact search (by name? surely no? but by other descriptives that would let you find someone if you knew enough about them?) What happens if you swipe [whichever way indicates interest]? Does that person get notified? Or do you get prioritised to be presented to them for swiping? If the latter then she could have suddenly found her choices full of police officers, assuming tey were somehow able to get her profile up first?
Thanks, but I'm not much the wiser. A bit like giving someone from the 1500s a guide to the differences between economy, business and first class when they have no idea what an aeroplane is.
I think I'll assume that it is possible some Met Police officers behaved like shits and await further developments. Seems a good starting point.
Basic Tinder, you see pics and a bio of people within a certain distance, and if you like them you swipe right
Next step up you pay to be able to send "Super Likes", which I think notifies the person, eliminating the random aspect of "Will they see my profile" - a bit like going up to someone in a bar and asking them if they'd like a drink rather than just bumping into them at the bar.
or "How I met Your Mother" as I will tell it!
You also get a few super likes with a free account (maybe one per day?). It would be quite an operation for that many police officers to use that feature to target her in particular, even with a paid account. There must be thousands of accounts to plough through in London.
On the other hand, I'm not surprised that they would have photos in uniform. My girlfriend's photo in scrubs was rather effective.
Welcome Are you named for the peak on N Uist? Or the band? Or some other reference that escapes me?
(The N Uist Eabhal is where I proposed to my wife - special place for her for many years before that, too)
Boris is showbiz. Absolutely no doubt about that. Cracking jokes, magnetic stage presence.
Totally unfit to be PM but who TF cares.
I care. Ok, so he has charisma and can be genuinely funny. Not quite a 'fill the Albert Hall' type performer but, yep, a funny bloke. For a politician VERY funny. But I don't give two figs about that and neither imo should anyone else. Why are we looking for laughs in our politicians? Why is this remotely important? Are we little kids at the panto or something? The upshot of being in thrall to the Johnson persona, this "Boris" thing he has off to a fine art, is wholly negative in that it allows him (but not us) to escape the consequences of his shameless mendacity and lazy incompetence. And what depresses me is how many seem to think this is fine, it's just fantastic (!) how he floats free of the normal rules, or maybe they're so busy chuckling at his shtick they don't even notice what's going on. All I can suggest is these people go on YouTube, or whatever, and catch some great comedy there, there's so much of it available these days, what with the internet and all, or read a comic novel, or go see a real rib-tickler of a movie, slapstick, satire, romcom, whatever floats the boat, get their fill of shits and giggles like that, instead of seeking it in the upper echelons of Westminster politics. Otherwise, I fear the worst. Boris Johnson is no monster but his effect on the environment is toxic. He's kind of infantilizing public life and doing same to a sizable chunk of the population. He's turning lots of brains, some of them in otherwise good working order, to mush.
I also don't get where all that "good old Boris" idea comes from. But then perhaps I am in that 40% or so who just sees through his act and can see him for what he is. Personally I just see him as being another one of those arrogant entitled lazy public school types that I saw quite enough of at Uni - the ones who always want to borrow your lecture notes because they and their friends couldn't be bothered to get out of bed in time to go, or borrow your library book because they were too disorganised to request a copy a week before they needed it.
Not the sort to trust with running anything, however witty they might be. Let alone a country. Yet the other 40% or so don't see that at all, and I'm genuinely mystified why not.
What I find surprising is why the elderly find him attractive..
The harrumphing sort, who rightly considered Corbyn a scruff, seem to think it HILARIOUS when Boris turns up looking like a drunken tramp to the laying of the wreath at the cenotaph.
I get that apolitical types think Boris is a laff. I don’t get why elderly people fawn on him.
Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.
And you know what? He'll be right.....
Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?
Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
My point this morning:
Boris: Brexit is not responsible for shortages, supply issues, mass pigocide, etc Also Boris: The economy is experiencing stresses and strains which you'd expect from Brexit and is part of our Grand Plan.
This is the week Brexit finally jumped the shark. But as we know soap operas can stagger on for several seasons long past the point where they make any sense at all.
Expect plenty more of this stuff from Johnson. It's all he's got but he's safe. It will be enough to keep the 40% happy and no-one else can out-bluster him.
I thought we had already had at least 27 individual weeks when Brexit jumped the shark.
Boris is showbiz. Absolutely no doubt about that. Cracking jokes, magnetic stage presence.
Totally unfit to be PM but who TF cares.
I care. Ok, so he has charisma and can be genuinely funny. Not quite a 'fill the Albert Hall' type performer but, yep, a funny bloke. For a politician VERY funny. But I don't give two figs about that and neither imo should anyone else. Why are we looking for laughs in our politicians? Why is this remotely important? Are we little kids at the panto or something? The upshot of being in thrall to the Johnson persona, this "Boris" thing he has off to a fine art, is wholly negative in that it allows him (but not us) to escape the consequences of his shameless mendacity and lazy incompetence. And what depresses me is how many seem to think this is fine, it's just fantastic (!) how he floats free of the normal rules, or maybe they're so busy chuckling at his shtick they don't even notice what's going on. All I can suggest is these people go on YouTube, or whatever, and catch some great comedy there, there's so much of it available these days, what with the internet and all, or read a comic novel, or go see a real rib-tickler of a movie, slapstick, satire, romcom, whatever floats the boat, get their fill of shits and giggles like that, instead of seeking it in the upper echelons of Westminster politics. Otherwise, I fear the worst. Boris Johnson is no monster but his effect on the environment is toxic. He's kind of infantilizing public life and doing same to a sizable chunk of the population. He's turning lots of brains, some of them in otherwise good working order, to mush.
I also don't get where all that "good old Boris" idea comes from. But then perhaps I am in that 40% or so who just sees through his act and can see him for what he is. Personally I just see him as being another one of those arrogant entitled lazy public school types that I saw quite enough of at Uni - the ones who always want to borrow your lecture notes because they and their friends couldn't be bothered to get out of bed in time to go, or borrow your library book because they were too disorganised to request a copy a week before they needed it.
Not the sort to trust with running anything, however witty they might be. Let alone a country. Yet the other 40% or so don't see that at all, and I'm genuinely mystified why not.
Part of it is simply most people aren't that interested in politics and especially the detail of it. If someone comes along and says "I've got this, things will be great with me" they can switch off and enjoy music, food, football, holidays etc instead. "Boris" is the easy option.
Boris has a vision to sell. He will get on and sell it. Despite "teething troubles", he will say this is what we should have been doing these past 40 years.
And you know what? He'll be right.....
Some consistency would be helpful. If the massive upheavals to the economy and the shortages and the nuking of energy prices is all part of the glorious Brexit masterplan then why spend the previous weeks denying such horrors are happening?
Even in his speech today there was no reference to it - surely it should be "you can't get fuel and thats a Good Thing because we are building back better pay and conditions for British truckers!
My point this morning:
Boris: Brexit is not responsible for shortages, supply issues, mass pigocide, etc Also Boris: The economy is experiencing stresses and strains which you'd expect from Brexit and is part of our Grand Plan.
This is the week Brexit finally jumped the shark. But as we know soap operas can stagger on for several seasons long past the point where they make any sense at all.
Expect plenty more of this stuff from Johnson. It's all he's got but he's safe. It will be enough to keep the 40% happy and no-one else can out-bluster him.
I thought we had already had at least 27 individual weeks when Brexit jumped the shark.
Thanks, but I'm not much the wiser. A bit like giving someone from the 1500s a guide to the differences between economy, business and first class when they have no idea what an aeroplane is.
I think I'll assume that it is possible some Met Police officers behaved like shits and await further developments. Seems a good starting point.
Tinder/Grindr you really can't understand/explain until you've used it for a bit.
It really is an eye opener.
Hmmm, maybe I should sign up and explain to my other half that it's purely for research purposes so I can better understand the latest allegations against the Met?
Edit: And thanks to all who have tried to explain - I get it well enough now, I think, including how you could effectively target someone with enough information.
Do it, also sell it as educating yourselves about catfishing.
Catfishing is one of the biggest ways fraudsters operate.
I think most of you know which industry I work in and catfishing is something that occupies more and more of our teams.
Boris is showbiz. Absolutely no doubt about that. Cracking jokes, magnetic stage presence.
Totally unfit to be PM but who TF cares.
I care. Ok, so he has charisma and can be genuinely funny. Not quite a 'fill the Albert Hall' type performer but, yep, a funny bloke. For a politician VERY funny. But I don't give two figs about that and neither imo should anyone else. Why are we looking for laughs in our politicians? Why is this remotely important? Are we little kids at the panto or something? The upshot of being in thrall to the Johnson persona, this "Boris" thing he has off to a fine art, is wholly negative in that it allows him (but not us) to escape the consequences of his shameless mendacity and lazy incompetence. And what depresses me is how many seem to think this is fine, it's just fantastic (!) how he floats free of the normal rules, or maybe they're so busy chuckling at his shtick they don't even notice what's going on. All I can suggest is these people go on YouTube, or whatever, and catch some great comedy there, there's so much of it available these days, what with the internet and all, or read a comic novel, or go see a real rib-tickler of a movie, slapstick, satire, romcom, whatever floats the boat, get their fill of shits and giggles like that, instead of seeking it in the upper echelons of Westminster politics. Otherwise, I fear the worst. Boris Johnson is no monster but his effect on the environment is toxic. He's kind of infantilizing public life and doing same to a sizable chunk of the population. He's turning lots of brains, some of them in otherwise good working order, to mush.
I gave that a like, even though it comes from a perspective unduly generous towards the judgement of the pubic before they are 'infantilised'.
In particular, WRT the appeal of Boris, this bit: ...Political junkies tend to assume that undecided voters are undecided because they don't care enough to make up their minds. But while I found that most undecided voters are, as one Kerry aide put it to The New York Times, "relatively low-information, relatively disengaged," the lack of engagement wasn't a sign that they didn't care. After all, if they truly didn't care, they wouldn't have been planning to vote. The undecided voters I talked to did care about politics, or at least judged it to be important; they just didn't enjoy politics...
Sexism was rife within a Police Scotland armed response unit which was little more than a “horrific” boys’ club, an employment tribunal has found.
Rhona Malone, a former firearms officer, raised the tribunal against the force alleging sex discrimination and victimisation.
That tribunal found evidence of “sexist culture” within the armed response vehicles unit based in Fettes, Edinburgh. It also ruled that Malone was an “entirely credible and reliable witness” but found that evidence given by Inspector Keith Warhurst was “contradictory, confusing and ultimately incredible”....
...The panel, chaired by employment judge Jane Porter, found the email was one of many misogynistic incidents in the firearms division of Police Scotland.
Warhurst posted topless images of women on the work WhatsApp group, called a colleague’s pregnant partner a “f*cking fat bitch”, and made a crude sexual comment about a female colleague.
Sergeant Rachel Coates was told by a chief firearms instructor that women should not be armed because they get periods and “this would affect their temperament”.
Boris is showbiz. Absolutely no doubt about that. Cracking jokes, magnetic stage presence.
Totally unfit to be PM but who TF cares.
I care. Ok, so he has charisma and can be genuinely funny. Not quite a 'fill the Albert Hall' type performer but, yep, a funny bloke. For a politician VERY funny. But I don't give two figs about that and neither imo should anyone else. Why are we looking for laughs in our politicians? Why is this remotely important? Are we little kids at the panto or something? The upshot of being in thrall to the Johnson persona, this "Boris" thing he has off to a fine art, is wholly negative in that it allows him (but not us) to escape the consequences of his shameless mendacity and lazy incompetence. And what depresses me is how many seem to think this is fine, it's just fantastic (!) how he floats free of the normal rules, or maybe they're so busy chuckling at his shtick they don't even notice what's going on. All I can suggest is these people go on YouTube, or whatever, and catch some great comedy there, there's so much of it available these days, what with the internet and all, or read a comic novel, or go see a real rib-tickler of a movie, slapstick, satire, romcom, whatever floats the boat, get their fill of shits and giggles like that, instead of seeking it in the upper echelons of Westminster politics. Otherwise, I fear the worst. Boris Johnson is no monster but his effect on the environment is toxic. He's kind of infantilizing public life and doing same to a sizable chunk of the population. He's turning lots of brains, some of them in otherwise good working order, to mush.
I also don't get where all that "good old Boris" idea comes from. But then perhaps I am in that 40% or so who just sees through his act and can see him for what he is. Personally I just see him as being another one of those arrogant entitled lazy public school types that I saw quite enough of at Uni - the ones who always want to borrow your lecture notes because they and their friends couldn't be bothered to get out of bed in time to go, or borrow your library book because they were too disorganised to request a copy a week before they needed it.
Not the sort to trust with running anything, however witty they might be. Let alone a country. Yet the other 40% or so don't see that at all, and I'm genuinely mystified why not.
What I find surprising is why the elderly find him attractive..
The harrumphing sort, who rightly considered Corbyn a scruff, seem to think it HILARIOUS when Boris turns up looking like a drunken tramp to the laying of the wreath at the cenotaph.
I get that apolitical types think Boris is a laff. I don’t get why elderly people fawn on him.
Or maybe they don’t - see ConHome ratings.
Posh bloke drives a 15 year old VW Golf, classy Working class bloke can only afford a 15 year old VW Golf, wanky
I remember a friend of mine at the LIFFE market getting a cheese grater to scuff his new shirts so they'd look like those the old spoons wore
Sexism was rife within a Police Scotland armed response unit which was little more than a “horrific” boys’ club, an employment tribunal has found.
Rhona Malone, a former firearms officer, raised the tribunal against the force alleging sex discrimination and victimisation.
That tribunal found evidence of “sexist culture” within the armed response vehicles unit based in Fettes, Edinburgh. It also ruled that Malone was an “entirely credible and reliable witness” but found that evidence given by Inspector Keith Warhurst was “contradictory, confusing and ultimately incredible”....
...The panel, chaired by employment judge Jane Porter, found the email was one of many misogynistic incidents in the firearms division of Police Scotland.
Warhurst posted topless images of women on the work WhatsApp group, called a colleague’s pregnant partner a “f*cking fat bitch”, and made a crude sexual comment about a female colleague.
Sergeant Rachel Coates was told by a chief firearms instructor that women should not be armed because they get periods and “this would affect their temperament”.
How could that happen? @StuartDickson claimed that merging all Policing into a single national force was the magic wand needed to fix the culture, so how could that happen within Police Scotland?
Thanks, but I'm not much the wiser. A bit like giving someone from the 1500s a guide to the differences between economy, business and first class when they have no idea what an aeroplane is.
I think I'll assume that it is possible some Met Police officers behaved like shits and await further developments. Seems a good starting point.
Tinder/Grindr you really can't understand/explain until you've used it for a bit.
It really is an eye opener.
Hmmm, maybe I should sign up and explain to my other half that it's purely for research purposes so I can better understand the latest allegations against the Met?
Edit: And thanks to all who have tried to explain - I get it well enough now, I think, including how you could effectively target someone with enough information.
Do it, also sell it as educating yourselves about catfishing.
Catfishing is one of the biggest ways fraudsters operate.
I think most of you know which industry I work in and catfishing is something that occupies more and more of our teams.
Brexit is a giant cat-fishing operation when you think about it.
But the Brexit voter, having boasted to all his mates that he’s pulled a busty blonde model, is now so fully invested he’s got not choice but to lie back and think of Britain while he’s pegged by a leprous, one-armed joiner called Gary.
Boris is showbiz. Absolutely no doubt about that. Cracking jokes, magnetic stage presence.
Totally unfit to be PM but who TF cares.
I care. Ok, so he has charisma and can be genuinely funny. Not quite a 'fill the Albert Hall' type performer but, yep, a funny bloke. For a politician VERY funny. But I don't give two figs about that and neither imo should anyone else. Why are we looking for laughs in our politicians? Why is this remotely important? Are we little kids at the panto or something? The upshot of being in thrall to the Johnson persona, this "Boris" thing he has off to a fine art, is wholly negative in that it allows him (but not us) to escape the consequences of his shameless mendacity and lazy incompetence. And what depresses me is how many seem to think this is fine, it's just fantastic (!) how he floats free of the normal rules, or maybe they're so busy chuckling at his shtick they don't even notice what's going on. All I can suggest is these people go on YouTube, or whatever, and catch some great comedy there, there's so much of it available these days, what with the internet and all, or read a comic novel, or go see a real rib-tickler of a movie, slapstick, satire, romcom, whatever floats the boat, get their fill of shits and giggles like that, instead of seeking it in the upper echelons of Westminster politics. Otherwise, I fear the worst. Boris Johnson is no monster but his effect on the environment is toxic. He's kind of infantilizing public life and doing same to a sizable chunk of the population. He's turning lots of brains, some of them in otherwise good working order, to mush.
I also don't get where all that "good old Boris" idea comes from. But then perhaps I am in that 40% or so who just sees through his act and can see him for what he is. Personally I just see him as being another one of those arrogant entitled lazy public school types that I saw quite enough of at Uni - the ones who always want to borrow your lecture notes because they and their friends couldn't be bothered to get out of bed in time to go, or borrow your library book because they were too disorganised to request a copy a week before they needed it.
Not the sort to trust with running anything, however witty they might be. Let alone a country. Yet the other 40% or so don't see that at all, and I'm genuinely mystified why not.
A lot of Boris-hatred, like yours and kinabalu's, is driven by chippy class-hatred. YOU see a posho who looks down on you, and that makes YOU seethe
Plenty of people don't give much of a fuck about class any more
Not at all. Don't give a shit about that. If that looks like anti-public school prejudice then that's because there was a type of person that seemed to come from that background, but nowhere else. (E.g. Cameron, same background, I don't feel the same about him at all). It's his evident laziness and dishonesty I object to. But genuinely puzzled why others don't see it through the showmanship.
We might have to nuke The Met and start all over again.
A woman who was arrested at the Sarah Everard vigil says that about 50 police officers contacted her via a dating app, leaving her “terrified”.
The image of Patsy Stevenson, 28, being pinned to the floor by two male police officers on March 13, her hands held behind her back, was one of the defining images in criticism of how the vigil in Clapham Common was policed.
Stevenson said that officers approached her on Tinder after she was handcuffed at the vigil.
“They were all in uniform on their profiles or it said ‘I’m a police officer’,” she told the BBC.
“I do not understand why someone would do that. It is almost like an intimidation thing, saying ‘look we can see you’, and that, to me, is terrifying.
“They know what I went through and they know that I’m fearful of police and they’ve done that for a reason.”
I appreciate that this may sound like "women shouldn't go out dressed like that", but if you want to avoid weirdos and perverts, then I'd suggest avoiding Tinder.
Tinder may or may not be a cesspool. Never even seen it.
The policemen in question need slapping. With house bricks. Because they acted like stupid arseholes.
Just because a place is full of stupid arseholes being arseholes is no excuse for being an arsehole.
This is an accusation by an interested party. It needs investigating, but at the moment is just that: an accusation:
If it is a group of policemen, then they do indeed need some metaphorical facial treatment with housebricks. And then probably sacking.
There is another option: on the Internet, no-one knows you are a dog. She might have advertised her role, and people created profiles to troll her.
It'll be interesting to see what evidence she, or Tinder, can come up with to back this up.
Sadly, I think it very probable that it was actual policemen.
They need sacking
*If* it is police, then it's the absolute, cynical and unnecessary unprofessionalism of it that gets me. Even if they say "it was a joke", it's the sort of 'joke' that would make me never trust that officer again.
Heck, at any 'normal' company contacting a customer/client in that manner might well be a disciplinary matter.
Hang on a minute. Doesn't Tinder require you to actively 'swipe' on someone before they can contact you? Her story doesn't make sense.
She's a Gold Tinder member, there's certain privileges there which allow you to see who likes you.
Ok, I know little about this, but that gets me wondering - William's comment suggests she wouldn't normally know people were picking on her profile unless she also expressed an interest, yours suggests she could know, due to membership level. But would the people allegedly picking on her know her membership level and that she would therefore know their actions (if they did not, then the idea of doing it deliberately to intimidate etc seems to fall apart).
I thought Tinder gave you profiles that you swipe left or right (profiles coming up at random? within some geographical area? on some kind of matching of age/interests?). So how do you go about finding and harassing a particular person? Or can you in fact search (by name? surely no? but by other descriptives that would let you find someone if you knew enough about them?) What happens if you swipe [whichever way indicates interest]? Does that person get notified? Or do you get prioritised to be presented to them for swiping? If the latter then she could have suddenly found her choices full of police officers, assuming tey were somehow able to get her profile up first?
Thanks, but I'm not much the wiser. A bit like giving someone from the 1500s a guide to the differences between economy, business and first class when they have no idea what an aeroplane is.
I think I'll assume that it is possible some Met Police officers behaved like shits and await further developments. Seems a good starting point.
Basic Tinder, you see pics and a bio of people within a certain distance, and if you like them you swipe right
Next step up you pay to be able to send "Super Likes", which I think notifies the person, eliminating the random aspect of "Will they see my profile" - a bit like going up to someone in a bar and asking them if they'd like a drink rather than just bumping into them at the bar.
or "How I met Your Mother" as I will tell it!
You also get a few super likes with a free account (maybe one per day?). It would be quite an operation for that many police officers to use that feature to target her in particular, even with a paid account. There must be thousands of accounts to plough through in London.
On the other hand, I'm not surprised that they would have photos in uniform. My girlfriend's photo in scrubs was rather effective.
Welcome Are you named for the peak on N Uist? Or the band? Or some other reference that escapes me?
(The N Uist Eabhal is where I proposed to my wife - special place for her for many years before that, too)
Cheers! The hill - it's a special place for me, too.
Thanks, but I'm not much the wiser. A bit like giving someone from the 1500s a guide to the differences between economy, business and first class when they have no idea what an aeroplane is.
I think I'll assume that it is possible some Met Police officers behaved like shits and await further developments. Seems a good starting point.
Tinder/Grindr you really can't understand/explain until you've used it for a bit.
It really is an eye opener.
Hmmm, maybe I should sign up and explain to my other half that it's purely for research purposes so I can better understand the latest allegations against the Met?
Edit: And thanks to all who have tried to explain - I get it well enough now, I think, including how you could effectively target someone with enough information.
Do it, also sell it as educating yourselves about catfishing.
Catfishing is one of the biggest ways fraudsters operate.
I think most of you know which industry I work in and catfishing is something that occupies more and more of our teams.
Brexit is a giant cat-fishing operation when you think about it.
But the Brexit voter, having boasted to all his mates that he’s pulled a busty blonde model, is now so fully invested he’s got not choice but to lie back and think of Britain while he’s pegged by a leprous, one-armed joiner called Gary.
I'm sure all those voters who are now getting real terms pay rises for the first time in a quarter of a century and have full employment are the ones lying to themselves, yes.
Your delusions are getting more and more divorced from reality.
The fellow who did some work round my house on Monday has now tested positive for Covid via PCR - I drove to have one myself this morning, so what's the coup? I have to stay in and not see anyone for a day or so? Or is it ok to still go out now so many people have been jabbed?
Sexism was rife within a Police Scotland armed response unit which was little more than a “horrific” boys’ club, an employment tribunal has found.
Rhona Malone, a former firearms officer, raised the tribunal against the force alleging sex discrimination and victimisation.
That tribunal found evidence of “sexist culture” within the armed response vehicles unit based in Fettes, Edinburgh. It also ruled that Malone was an “entirely credible and reliable witness” but found that evidence given by Inspector Keith Warhurst was “contradictory, confusing and ultimately incredible”....
...The panel, chaired by employment judge Jane Porter, found the email was one of many misogynistic incidents in the firearms division of Police Scotland.
Warhurst posted topless images of women on the work WhatsApp group, called a colleague’s pregnant partner a “f*cking fat bitch”, and made a crude sexual comment about a female colleague.
Sergeant Rachel Coates was told by a chief firearms instructor that women should not be armed because they get periods and “this would affect their temperament”.
How could that happen? @StuartDickson claimed that merging all Policing into a single national force was the magic wand needed to fix the culture, so how could that happen within Police Scotland?
It fixed the culture in the individual forces - they no longer exist. So no sexist culture there.
Boris is showbiz. Absolutely no doubt about that. Cracking jokes, magnetic stage presence.
Totally unfit to be PM but who TF cares.
I care. Ok, so he has charisma and can be genuinely funny. Not quite a 'fill the Albert Hall' type performer but, yep, a funny bloke. For a politician VERY funny. But I don't give two figs about that and neither imo should anyone else. Why are we looking for laughs in our politicians? Why is this remotely important? Are we little kids at the panto or something? The upshot of being in thrall to the Johnson persona, this "Boris" thing he has off to a fine art, is wholly negative in that it allows him (but not us) to escape the consequences of his shameless mendacity and lazy incompetence. And what depresses me is how many seem to think this is fine, it's just fantastic (!) how he floats free of the normal rules, or maybe they're so busy chuckling at his shtick they don't even notice what's going on. All I can suggest is these people go on YouTube, or whatever, and catch some great comedy there, there's so much of it available these days, what with the internet and all, or read a comic novel, or go see a real rib-tickler of a movie, slapstick, satire, romcom, whatever floats the boat, get their fill of shits and giggles like that, instead of seeking it in the upper echelons of Westminster politics. Otherwise, I fear the worst. Boris Johnson is no monster but his effect on the environment is toxic. He's kind of infantilizing public life and doing same to a sizable chunk of the population. He's turning lots of brains, some of them in otherwise good working order, to mush.
I also don't get where all that "good old Boris" idea comes from. But then perhaps I am in that 40% or so who just sees through his act and can see him for what he is. Personally I just see him as being another one of those arrogant entitled lazy public school types that I saw quite enough of at Uni - the ones who always want to borrow your lecture notes because they and their friends couldn't be bothered to get out of bed in time to go, or borrow your library book because they were too disorganised to request a copy a week before they needed it.
Not the sort to trust with running anything, however witty they might be. Let alone a country. Yet the other 40% or so don't see that at all, and I'm genuinely mystified why not.
What I find surprising is why the elderly find him attractive..
The harrumphing sort, who rightly considered Corbyn a scruff, seem to think it HILARIOUS when Boris turns up looking like a drunken tramp to the laying of the wreath at the cenotaph.
I get that apolitical types think Boris is a laff. I don’t get why elderly people fawn on him.
Or maybe they don’t - see ConHome ratings.
Posh bloke drives a 15 year old VW Golf, classy Working class bloke can only afford a 15 year old VW Golf, wanky
I remember a friend of mine at the LIFFE market getting a cheese grater to scuff his new shirts so they'd look like those the old spoons wore
Though Corbyn is hardly working class. No one would describe him as a bit of a card, though.
Sexism was rife within a Police Scotland armed response unit which was little more than a “horrific” boys’ club, an employment tribunal has found.
Rhona Malone, a former firearms officer, raised the tribunal against the force alleging sex discrimination and victimisation.
That tribunal found evidence of “sexist culture” within the armed response vehicles unit based in Fettes, Edinburgh. It also ruled that Malone was an “entirely credible and reliable witness” but found that evidence given by Inspector Keith Warhurst was “contradictory, confusing and ultimately incredible”....
...The panel, chaired by employment judge Jane Porter, found the email was one of many misogynistic incidents in the firearms division of Police Scotland.
Warhurst posted topless images of women on the work WhatsApp group, called a colleague’s pregnant partner a “f*cking fat bitch”, and made a crude sexual comment about a female colleague.
Sergeant Rachel Coates was told by a chief firearms instructor that women should not be armed because they get periods and “this would affect their temperament”.
How could that happen? @StuartDickson claimed that merging all Policing into a single national force was the magic wand needed to fix the culture, so how could that happen within Police Scotland?
The Sunday Times had some horrific examples from Scotland.
One such miscreant was Inspector Adam Carruthers who used the status of uniform to commit sex attacks, even raping a crime victim in her own home. An investigation by Dumfries and Galloway Police colleagues somehow came to nothing and he was brought to justice in 2001 only thanks to an outside force investigating.
It later emerged that he targeted up to 38 women during his 20-year career.
Then there is Sergeant Kevin Storey, who was jailed in 2014 for rapes and sexual assaults in the Borders. His reign of terror also spanned two decades. The Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (Pirc) later recommended that charges should be brought against some of Storey’s colleagues.....
....Two years ago I reported on the so-called “Boys’ Club”, a group of male officers in Moray. A female constable made numerous allegations against her police officer partner and other male colleagues but later discovered they had not been acted upon. This prompted a large-scale Pirc investigation, resulting in at least one officer facing criminal charges.
Last year Dame Elish Angiolini laid bare Police Scotland’s handling of complaints and misconduct allegations. The former lord advocate identified a “canteen culture”, which contributed to a “racist, misogynistic or emotionally damaging environment”.
I saw evidence of this in 2018 after reporting the imminent appointment of Iain Livingstone as chief constable of Police Scotland.
Livingstone had been accused in 2003 of sexually assaulting a junior female officer at a police college. He admitted acting inappropriately by falling asleep in her room but was cleared of sexual misconduct.
When former Tayside deputy chief constable Angela Wilson raised concerns, she was subjected to online abuse and smears. These came not from anonymous trolls but the general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation.
Thanks, but I'm not much the wiser. A bit like giving someone from the 1500s a guide to the differences between economy, business and first class when they have no idea what an aeroplane is.
I think I'll assume that it is possible some Met Police officers behaved like shits and await further developments. Seems a good starting point.
Tinder/Grindr you really can't understand/explain until you've used it for a bit.
It really is an eye opener.
Hmmm, maybe I should sign up and explain to my other half that it's purely for research purposes so I can better understand the latest allegations against the Met?
Edit: And thanks to all who have tried to explain - I get it well enough now, I think, including how you could effectively target someone with enough information.
Do it, also sell it as educating yourselves about catfishing.
Catfishing is one of the biggest ways fraudsters operate.
I think most of you know which industry I work in and catfishing is something that occupies more and more of our teams.
I can't see the connection with your paper round! I say this of course as a sweeper-upper, 2nd class.
The fellow who did some work round my house on Monday has now tested positive for Covid via PCR - I drove to have one myself this morning, so what's the coup? I have to stay in and not see anyone for a day or so? Or is it ok to still go out now so many people have been jabbed?
If you're double-jabbed you only need to isolate if you've tested positive personally - and there's no need to get tested.
If you're not double-jabbed you should still isolate if 'pinged'.
We have to accept that charisma wins elections and helps to keep leaders in power. The evidence is there for all to see. It's bloody frustrating when it's Boris doing it, but the answer must be to meet fire with fire. Jess Philips is the only prominent Labour politician with enough of the stuff to match Johnson. Not Burnham, not Rayner, definitely not Corbyn (I always found his delivery flat and uninspiring, he was simply a cypher for ideologies).
The Lib Dems need it even more otherwise nobody notices. Who were the two most well thought of leaders of the party in my lifetime? Ashdown and Kennedy. Both had charisma and positivity. Before them, Ian Thorpe.
Jess Philips really doesn't have it
Ed Balls maybe, a smidgen, but he's gone
Besides I reckon you are asking the wrong question. You could just accept that the Government has a charismatic leader, and you don't. For a long while Labour had Blair, and the Tories had Major, Howard, Hague, IDS....
But Blair was flawed as is Boris.
Attack the flaw. I reckon Burnham has the right amount of anti-Boris gravitas while remaining personable, with a bit of charm. Starmer, no
Jess Phillips has something in common with a lot of Labour, Centrists & Leftists alike - they are middle class, university graduates from selective/ private schooling who are convinced they are still down with the working class
We have to accept that charisma wins elections and helps to keep leaders in power. The evidence is there for all to see. It's bloody frustrating when it's Boris doing it, but the answer must be to meet fire with fire. Jess Philips is the only prominent Labour politician with enough of the stuff to match Johnson. Not Burnham, not Rayner, definitely not Corbyn (I always found his delivery flat and uninspiring, he was simply a cypher for ideologies).
The Lib Dems need it even more otherwise nobody notices. Who were the two most well thought of leaders of the party in my lifetime? Ashdown and Kennedy. Both had charisma and positivity. Before them, Ian Thorpe.
Jess Philips really doesn't have it
Ed Balls maybe, a smidgen, but he's gone
Besides I reckon you are asking the wrong question. You could just accept that the Government has a charismatic leader, and you don't. For a long while Labour had Blair, and the Tories had Major, Howard, Hague, IDS....
But Blair was flawed as is Boris.
Attack the flaw. I reckon Burnham has the right amount of anti-Boris gravitas while remaining personable, with a bit of charm. Starmer, no
Jess Phillips has something in common with a lot of Labour, Centrists & Leftists alike - they are middle class, university graduates from selective/ private schooling who are convinced they are still down with the working class
Make your mind up!
She has a sense of humour. The only well known Labour politician I can think of who has anything approaching one. I would love her to lead the party but then I'm not a Labour member or voter. The next party leadership contest I'll get to vote on will be Daisy Cooper vs Layla Moran.
Comments
(Actually, we'd probably get sacked for getting within 2m of a student; our uni is still being strict on Covid social distancing)
https://twitter.com/timesradio/status/1445739875156697112?s=21
A lot of the Boris-haters in Europe are blinded by loathing of Brexit, a lot of the haters in America presume he is "Britain Trump", and are deeply surprised when they discover he is not
There wasn’t one.
The laissez-faire principle I've backed all my life is to let the market sort it out.
If the market sorting it out means wage fall when we have three million unemployment then that's supply and demand. If it means wages rise when we have full employment and a million vacancies then that is also supply and demand.
"You can't buck the market" works for both.
So maybe they thought better of it.
Remind me never to exercise with you. Or go out with you on Halloween. Because I'm assuming one of those will be very disappointing.
Still, it kept the PB Tories in full froth for an entire evening.
1) COVID in schools
2) harassment of teachers by students
3) harassment of students by teachers
4) harassment of students by students
5) Violence for 2-4 above
6) Truancy from schools
Who said
'People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices'?
What was he on about?
Who asked 'Who Governs Britain?'
What was he on about?
Thatcher is the only UK leader who has appealed widely abroad, in my lifetime. The only one who - when you said you were British in furrin parts - you would get spontaneous positive remarks from foreigners, about your PM
Blair was well-liked in Kosovo, certainly
It’s how I met my missus!
Politically it would exile them. It wouldn't harm Starmer as much as people quoting the party to be Independent - the defectors would be seen as Tory Traitors.
Financially it would kick them out of politics, unless they got a peerage from the Tories. And their contacts in politics would be gone - making them valueless in the commercial sector.
No nuclear plant on the planet has ever been built without massive Government subsidies. It was completely at odds with everything else in his speech.
Sadly I'm fully aware of the horrors on Tinder.
My LGBTQI friends overshare with their Grindr accounts as well.
I thought Tinder gave you profiles that you swipe left or right (profiles coming up at random? within some geographical area? on some kind of matching of age/interests?). So how do you go about finding and harassing a particular person? Or can you in fact search (by name? surely no? but by other descriptives that would let you find someone if you knew enough about them?) What happens if you swipe [whichever way indicates interest]? Does that person get notified? Or do you get prioritised to be presented to them for swiping? If the latter then she could have suddenly found her choices full of police officers, assuming tey were somehow able to get her profile up first?
https://www.help.tinder.com/hc/en-us/articles/115004487406-Tinder-Subscriptions
The Lib Dems need it even more otherwise nobody notices. Who were the two most well thought of leaders of the party in my lifetime? Ashdown and Kennedy. Both had charisma and positivity. Before them, Ian Thorpe.
As for Who Governs Britain, wasn't the answer rather famously "not you"?
Again though that was about unions seeking to buck the market. I don't want the market being bucked, whether it by unions striking or by employers seeking to undercut their employees by importing people as if they are a commodity to be traded.
I think I'll assume that it is possible some Met Police officers behaved like shits and await further developments. Seems a good starting point.
love it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonibler
36/1 Best Price on Phillips, I think it is a great bet
Ed Balls maybe, a smidgen, but he's gone
Besides I reckon you are asking the wrong question. You could just accept that the Government has a charismatic leader, and you don't. For a long while Labour had Blair, and the Tories had Major, Howard, Hague, IDS....
But Blair was flawed as is Boris.
Attack the flaw. I reckon Burnham has the right amount of anti-Boris gravitas while remaining personable, with a bit of charm. Starmer, no
I suspect he might have won a 2010 election.
It really is an eye opener.
If someone abuses a stranger who is a 'person with a vagina' whom they didn't know actually identifies as a man then is that misogyny? 🤔
Next step up you pay to be able to send "Super Likes", which I think notifies the person, eliminating the random aspect of "Will they see my profile" - a bit like going up to someone in a bar and asking them if they'd like a drink rather than just bumping into them at the bar.
or "How I met Your Mother" as I will tell it!
Gold people can also pretend that they’re in a different location, so someone who paid for gold could (in principle) set their location to her part of London, swipe through until they find her & then match with her.
If you swipe on someone, then Tinder usually puts you higher in their stack of potential matches, but that’s weighted by how attractive they think you are relative to the other person, plus a bunch of other internal metrics that we don’t know much about. (Online dating is /brutal/.)
We know she paid for Gold, which is how whe could see who was matching on her - she’s said so on Twitter.
State brands take decades, sometimes centuries, to build, but can be swiftly destroyed. Modern societies are fickle.
Edit: And thanks to all who have tried to explain - I get it well enough now, I think, including how you could effectively target someone with enough information.
It is noticeable that the foreign praise for Boris (rarer than the disapproval) generally comes from eurosceptics in the EU. Frexiteers love Boris (in a begrudging Gallic way)
https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/mali-summons-french-ambassador-over-macron-comments-2021-10-05/
Meanwhile, at the local sailing club on the Thames, another wedding between members who met there.....
Not the sort to trust with running anything, however witty they might be. Let alone a country. Yet the other 40% or so don't see that at all, and I'm genuinely mystified why not.
On the other hand, I'm not surprised that they would have photos in uniform. My girlfriend's photo in scrubs was rather effective.
1st round:
Macron 24% (+1)
Zemmour 17% (+4)
Le Pen 15% (-1)
Bertrand 13% (-1)
2nd round:
Macron: 55%
Zemmour: 45%
Harris October 1-4
.
Plenty of people don't give much of a fuck about class any more
(The N Uist Eabhal is where I proposed to my wife - special place for her for many years before that, too)
The harrumphing sort, who rightly considered Corbyn a scruff, seem to think it HILARIOUS when Boris turns up looking like a drunken tramp to the laying of the wreath at the cenotaph.
I get that apolitical types think Boris is a laff.
I don’t get why elderly people fawn on him.
Or maybe they don’t - see ConHome ratings.
Catfishing is one of the biggest ways fraudsters operate.
I think most of you know which industry I work in and catfishing is something that occupies more and more of our teams.
This is a bit closer to the reality:
https://chrishayes.org/articles/decision-makers/
In particular, WRT the appeal of Boris, this bit:
...Political junkies tend to assume that undecided voters are undecided because they don't care enough to make up their minds. But while I found that most undecided voters are, as one Kerry aide put it to The New York Times, "relatively low-information, relatively disengaged," the lack of engagement wasn't a sign that they didn't care. After all, if they truly didn't care, they wouldn't have been planning to vote. The undecided voters I talked to did care about politics, or at least judged it to be important; they just didn't enjoy politics...
Add it to the growing list of grievances that us 20-somethings have accrued during Covid.
Rhona Malone, a former firearms officer, raised the tribunal against the force alleging sex discrimination and victimisation.
That tribunal found evidence of “sexist culture” within the armed response vehicles unit based in Fettes, Edinburgh. It also ruled that Malone was an “entirely credible and reliable witness” but found that evidence given by Inspector Keith Warhurst was “contradictory, confusing and ultimately incredible”....
...The panel, chaired by employment judge Jane Porter, found the email was one of many misogynistic incidents in the firearms division of Police Scotland.
Warhurst posted topless images of women on the work WhatsApp group, called a colleague’s pregnant partner a “f*cking fat bitch”, and made a crude sexual comment about a female colleague.
Sergeant Rachel Coates was told by a chief firearms instructor that women should not be armed because they get periods and “this would affect their temperament”.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-scotland-slammed-as-tribunal-rules-against-horrific-boys-club-jcjqdpx0p
Working class bloke can only afford a 15 year old VW Golf, wanky
I remember a friend of mine at the LIFFE market getting a cheese grater to scuff his new shirts so they'd look like those the old spoons wore
But the Brexit voter, having boasted to all his mates that he’s pulled a busty blonde model, is now so fully invested he’s got not choice but to lie back and think of Britain while he’s pegged by a leprous, one-armed joiner called Gary.
Your delusions are getting more and more divorced from reality.
Problem solved. Can I have my bonus now, please?
No one would describe him as a bit of a card, though.
One such miscreant was Inspector Adam Carruthers who used the status of uniform to commit sex attacks, even raping a crime victim in her own home. An investigation by Dumfries and Galloway Police colleagues somehow came to nothing and he was brought to justice in 2001 only thanks to an outside force investigating.
It later emerged that he targeted up to 38 women during his 20-year career.
Then there is Sergeant Kevin Storey, who was jailed in 2014 for rapes and sexual assaults in the Borders. His reign of terror also spanned two decades. The Police Investigations and Review Commissioner (Pirc) later recommended that charges should be brought against some of Storey’s colleagues.....
....Two years ago I reported on the so-called “Boys’ Club”, a group of male officers in Moray. A female constable made numerous allegations against her police officer partner and other male colleagues but later discovered they had not been acted upon. This prompted a large-scale Pirc investigation, resulting in at least one officer facing criminal charges.
Last year Dame Elish Angiolini laid bare Police Scotland’s handling of complaints and misconduct allegations. The former lord advocate identified a “canteen culture”, which contributed to a “racist, misogynistic or emotionally damaging environment”.
I saw evidence of this in 2018 after reporting the imminent appointment of Iain Livingstone as chief constable of Police Scotland.
Livingstone had been accused in 2003 of sexually assaulting a junior female officer at a police college. He admitted acting inappropriately by falling asleep in her room but was cleared of sexual misconduct.
When former Tayside deputy chief constable Angela Wilson raised concerns, she was subjected to online abuse and smears. These came not from anonymous trolls but the general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/misogyny-and-abuse-also-lurk-in-police-scotland-vdbhm2gqv
If you're not double-jabbed you should still isolate if 'pinged'.
She has a sense of humour. The only well known Labour politician I can think of who has anything approaching one. I would love her to lead the party but then I'm not a Labour member or voter. The next party leadership contest I'll get to vote on will be Daisy Cooper vs Layla Moran.