What is it about Johnson’s Tory party at the moment? – politicalbetting.com

JosiasJessop said:

"only the most extreme types were selected."

Aaron Bell was hardly 'the most extreme type'

rcs1000 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

JosiasJessop said:

"Another odd feature is that so far at least it is mostly confined to Tory MPs."

Is this actually backed up by the evidence on a longer timescale?

The by-election in Hartlepool was precipitated by allegations (later confirmed in an Employment Tribunal) against the Labour MP.

I doubt there is a particular link between political affiliation and being a wrong'un. However, I do suspect that the more recent history is related to the Conservatives having been in office a long time and having a leader who is uniquely poorly placed to insist on high standards of personal behaviour.

Poor Mr Johnson - it's just blow after blow for him lately.

Indeed. Plus the SNP have their own issues with Patrick Grady too.

All parties have issues, but its quite standard for the Party of Government to have many more visible problems than the Opposition.

Patrick Grady was far more senior for his party than Pincher, but Pincher is the one that gets the headlines because he's a Tory and the Tories have Downing Street.

Also the Government obviously have many more MPs, so will have more opportunities for 'bad eggs' as a result.

That we have MPs crossing the line is not party-political or something new. Not that long ago that "I drank too much" was a Labour MP or two in the headlines. Before that a string of Tories. Or Jeremy Thorpe. Etc etc.

The issue here is that (a) the Tory Party invariably knows that MP x is a deviant and (b) refuses to do anything abut it. Or in the case of Pincher - who reportedly needed a party handler to ensure he didn't get smashed and start ball fondling - they actually promoted him to the whips office - twice.

This is the partisan bit. There are bad MPs in all parties But the Tories seem happy to both ignore and even promote such behaviour. That the PM liked to get sucked off in his office by his mistress probably explains the air of "so what" in the party.

The SNP didn't just promote Grady to the Whips office, they made him Chief Whip.

As you say, it happens in all parties. That the Lib Dems can squeeze into a taxi probably makes it less likely for them.

I don't know, in the 1970s the old liberal party's mps were pretty much all either crooks or perverts. Or both.

MISTY said:

rottenborough said:

Javier Blas
@JavierBlas
·
4h
In the middle of the summer, when we should be saving as much natural gas as possible for winter, European nations are burning lots of gas for electricity generation.

The UK is now generating >60% of its electricity output burning gas. We will come to regret it this winter.

https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1542759108914323456

The prospect of Energy rationing is being mentioned more and more in the papers. Proper tory Frosty thinks its inevitable.

Whichever government presides over energy rationing.....boy, will they regret that.

kjh said:

MattW said:

bondegezou said:

Suspensions/resignations from party this Parliament due to scandal:

SNP (out of 48): Hanvey, Ferrier, Grady
Plaid (out of 4): Edwards
Labour (out of 202): Webbe, Coyle
Tory (out of 365): Roberts, Khan, Warburton, Parish… and we wait to see on Pincher

Proportionately speaking, Plaid are the worst, followed by SNP, then Conservative, then Labour, with LibDem, Green, DUP, Sinn Fein, SDLP and Alliance all clean. Small sample size effects clearly an issue.

TBH that last para is meaningless, since you have nothing like consistent data,

Bit disappointed with the LDs there. They should be doing better.

MISTY said:

rottenborough said:

Javier Blas
@JavierBlas
·
4h
In the middle of the summer, when we should be saving as much natural gas as possible for winter, European nations are burning lots of gas for electricity generation.

The UK is now generating >60% of its electricity output burning gas. We will come to regret it this winter.

https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1542759108914323456

The prospect of Energy rationing is being mentioned more and more in the papers. Proper tory Frosty thinks its inevitable.

Whichever government presides over energy rationing.....boy, will they regret that.

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Leon said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

Conservative problem here is NOT that they are randier, hornier or pervertier than Labour, Lib Dems, SNP, PC, etc.

Instead, it's that
a) there are more of them (that pesky 80-seat majority); and
b) they are "lead" by pack of incompetents who not only share & are quite unable to curb these vices, but are compelled to publicize them as some freakish form of performance art.

The Left is also much more prudish and Puritan than it used to be. They are the anti sex league

So I imagine Labour MPs are self censoring their behaviour, hence getting into less trouble

Being a bunch of useless boring joyless drones has its advantages

If only there was a happy medium between being a boring, joylous drone on the one hand, and grabbing at penises in gentlemen's clubs, taking coke in an effort to impress women young enough to be your daughter, or watching pornography in the House of Commons on the other.

It's such a fine line, isn't it?

You'll be surprised to hear I'm with the penis-grabbing, coke-snorting, porn-watchers. Well, not the oenis grabbing, but you know what I mean

I'd rather have my politicians made out of the normal crooked timber of humanity than be Woke Robots, cancelling everyone for having a libido

From Churchill to Cromwell, JFK to FDR, Lloyd George to d'Annunzio, Martin Luther King to Paddy Ashdown, Alexander the Great to Jo Swinson, great leaders have had terrible human flaws. It's the price we pay

I know you're being tongue in cheek about it (and we all get a tremendous kick out of you playing the part you do of the devil-may-care lothario who nevertheless has time to spend 23 hours a day posting below the line on a politics forum on t'internet).

But which of Chris Pincher, David Warburton, and Neil Parish would you classify as "great leaders"? They are all rather inadequate (indeed extremely boring) politicians who are either unable or unwilling to exercise sensible levels of self-control around young men, young women, and tractors respectively.

Scott_xP said:

JosiasJessop said:

"only the most extreme types were selected."

Aaron Bell was hardly 'the most extreme type'

He enthusiastically supported BoZo's shitty Brexit deal, which makes him more extreme than the people BoZo Expelled.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Cyclefree said:

kinabalu said:

Cyclefree said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cyclefree said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

IanB2 said:

FPT and on topic:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cyclefree said:

nico679 said:

There’s something of a double standard here. Would Pincher have kept the whip if he tried to grope two women ?

That is a very good point. A gay sexual assault is quite as bad as one by a man on a woman.

Frankly, appointing someone with his record was stupid. And keeping him as a Tory MP despite what he has admitted is even more stupid.

But this is a government run by a man who had blow jobs in his office from his mistress.

So the standard of probity expected of Tory MPs seems to be no more than that they should be alive.

Do you actually care about blow jobs in the office from his mistress?

The boss by his behaviour sends out the message to everyone below that it's OK to behave just how you like; that's the way that it matters.

So what?

I couldn't care less about blow jobs in the office, if the door and window is closed, what consenting adults do between them is none of anybody else's business.

In the past three decades the best President of the United States of America is infamous for getting a blowjob in the Oval Office. I'd still rather have him at his prime as POTUS now than Biden or even Obama, let alone Dubya or worse.

Who would you rather have as POTUS - Bill Clinton who had blowjobs from his mistress in the Oval Office, or Dubya Bush whom that has never been alleged against?

You are rather missing the point.

I am pointing out that if that is how the PM behaves he is hardly in a good position to demand or expect higher standards for his subordinates.

Do I care personally? No - in the sense that the PM is a complete stranger so his personal sexual morals do not affect me.

Do I care that the Foreign Secretary thought it appropriate to have sex in his office with his mistress during work hours? Yes - it is completely unprofessional. Were there any evidence of him being good at his job there would be something weighty to put in the balance. But there wasn't, was there?

And that complete disregard for rules, standards, for a sense of professionalism, of decorum or dignity was not a one off: it has shown itself time and time again, of which Partygate is the latest example.

People having affairs happens. Marriages fail. But it is possible to be discreet - and have some respect for the dignity of the office you hold. It is not necessary for Tory party MPs to behave as if they were in a competition to see who most resembles a rutting chimp.

Leadership is, in part, about setting a good example. That is why Partygate has been so damaging. There is a problem with sexual misconduct among MPs. If this is to be dealt with then we need leaders who do not turn a blind eye to it by appointing to senior positions MPs with a history of such bad behaviour and despite warning about their conduct. Trying to enforce such standards is going to be a good deal more difficult if you yourself behave in an undignified way. The issue is not the PM's unfaithfulness but the fact that he could not see the utter wrongness of having sex with his mistress in the office rather than waiting until they were at home or in a hotel.

I'm sorry but I totally and utterly disagree. Having consensual sexual relations with another adult is not "sexual misconduct" no matter how "deviant" other people consider that consensual behaviour to be.

What Pincher, Grady, Hill etc have been alleged to be involved in is non-consensual sexual behaviour.

The line between consensual and non-consensual behaviour should never be blurred.

Its sexual misconduct *in public office*. The affair is not the issue - had Johnson been receiving a blowjob from his wife in his FCO office that would also have been sexual misconduct.

Why?

If its behind closed doors, then I don't think it is. What consenting adults do behind closed doors is up to them.

They weren't behind closed doors. That's why we know about it. They could perfectly well have gone to a Travelodge in their lunch hour if they really couldn't wait. I'd say the same if it was his wife.

It was yet another sign of his "don't care, I'm special, always have been" mentality.

Yes, I'm a bit disappointed he didn't go into the City. I'd have enjoyed interviewing him, reading his emails and reviewing his hard drive (yes, yes, I know). The investigation report would have been fun to write.

Johnson wouldn't have lasted two minutes in finance. The days of the posh boy bluffer are long behind us.

BartholomewRoberts said:

IanB2 said:

FPT and on topic:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cyclefree said:

nico679 said:

There’s something of a double standard here. Would Pincher have kept the whip if he tried to grope two women ?

That is a very good point. A gay sexual assault is quite as bad as one by a man on a woman.

Frankly, appointing someone with his record was stupid. And keeping him as a Tory MP despite what he has admitted is even more stupid.

But this is a government run by a man who had blow jobs in his office from his mistress.

So the standard of probity expected of Tory MPs seems to be no more than that they should be alive.

Do you actually care about blow jobs in the office from his mistress?

The boss by his behaviour sends out the message to everyone below that it's OK to behave just how you like; that's the way that it matters.

So what?

I couldn't care less about blow jobs in the office, if the door and window is closed, what consenting adults do between them is none of anybody else's business.

In the past three decades the best President of the United States of America is infamous for getting a blowjob in the Oval Office. I'd still rather have him at his prime as POTUS now than Biden or even Obama, let alone Dubya or worse.

Who would you rather have as POTUS - Bill Clinton who had blowjobs from his mistress in the Oval Office, or Dubya Bush whom that has never been alleged against?

rcs1000 said:

I am pleased to announce that Brits can use the same e-passport gates at Rome airport as the locals.

There are, therefore, exactly no queues.

BlancheLivermore said:

rcs1000 said:

I am pleased to announce that Brits can use the same e-passport gates at Rome airport as the locals.

There are, therefore, exactly no queues.

Doesn't that prove that Brexit isn't causing airport/travel queues?

Any country could be doing this; if they're not, how is it Brexit's fault?

Sean_F said:

Andy_JS said:

Biden approval:

Approve 40.1%
Disapprove 55.6%

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/voters/

When considering how people will vote in the next mid-terms, that is the key number.

JosiasJessop said:

Slackbladder said:

Sex at work has always seemed to me, like most fantasies, something better kept as a fantasy.

Well, I ended up marrying someone who worked for me on a couple of projects. I'd like to think we handled the start of our relationship maturely; although we dd not want it to be common knowledge, we both told our immediate superiors. They put in place some non-onerous restrictions.

You have to allow relationships to form at work, especially if the people involved are single. It is a company's duty to try to ensure that the relationships formed at work don't become abusive or exploitative - even if it involves shuffling people about between departments.

What's worse IMO is when someone has an affair with a colleague's spouse. I've seen the fallout from that, and it isn't pretty.

Luckyguy1983 said:

MISTY said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MISTY said:

rottenborough said:

Javier Blas
@JavierBlas
·
4h
In the middle of the summer, when we should be saving as much natural gas as possible for winter, European nations are burning lots of gas for electricity generation.

The UK is now generating >60% of its electricity output burning gas. We will come to regret it this winter.

https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1542759108914323456

The prospect of Energy rationing is being mentioned more and more in the papers. Proper tory Frosty thinks its inevitable.

Whichever government presides over energy rationing.....boy, will they regret that.

Not as much as they'll regret it if they don't do it and rolling blackouts happen instead.

We had energy rationing when I lived overseas and there was a major gas explosion at the local facility. For a couple of weeks all homes in the area were ordered to turn their gas supply off completely so that it'd be rationed for just the vulnerable and essential services to use. Thankfully it was not winter, so it was mainly cold showers and microwave food that became the solution.

The conservatives could not survive energy rationing electorally. No way.

There's no way they should survive it either! Government is there to secure its own population, that includes keeping them warm and giving them light - how on EARTH we've got to the stage where prancing around the world stage being 'tough on Putin' is considered more important for the Government of the UK than ensuring we have power, is beyond me.

Casino_Royale said:

JosiasJessop said:

Slackbladder said:

Sex at work has always seemed to me, like most fantasies, something better kept as a fantasy.

Well, I ended up marrying someone who worked for me on a couple of projects. I'd like to think we handled the start of our relationship maturely; although we dd not want it to be common knowledge, we both told our immediate superiors. They put in place some non-onerous restrictions.

You have to allow relationships to form at work, especially if the people involved are single. It is a company's duty to try to ensure that the relationships formed at work don't become abusive or exploitative - even if it involves shuffling people about between departments.

What's worse IMO is when someone has an affair with a colleague's spouse. I've seen the fallout from that, and it isn't pretty.

I met my wife at work.

But, we had the common decency to go to a hotel on D-Day - we didn't shag on the bosses desk.

rcs1000 said:

I am pleased to announce that Brits can use the same e-passport gates at Rome airport as the locals.

There are, therefore, exactly no queues.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Demis Hassabis long form interview with Lex Fridman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gfr50f6ZBvo

I don't think I have ever seen him give a long form interview. He doesn't think the Turing test is really relevant or a real test of intelligence.

noneoftheabove said:

kinabalu said:

noneoftheabove said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cyclefree said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

IanB2 said:

FPT and on topic:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cyclefree said:

nico679 said:

There’s something of a double standard here. Would Pincher have kept the whip if he tried to grope two women ?

That is a very good point. A gay sexual assault is quite as bad as one by a man on a woman.

Frankly, appointing someone with his record was stupid. And keeping him as a Tory MP despite what he has admitted is even more stupid.

But this is a government run by a man who had blow jobs in his office from his mistress.

So the standard of probity expected of Tory MPs seems to be no more than that they should be alive.

Do you actually care about blow jobs in the office from his mistress?

The boss by his behaviour sends out the message to everyone below that it's OK to behave just how you like; that's the way that it matters.

So what?

I couldn't care less about blow jobs in the office, if the door and window is closed, what consenting adults do between them is none of anybody else's business.

In the past three decades the best President of the United States of America is infamous for getting a blowjob in the Oval Office. I'd still rather have him at his prime as POTUS now than Biden or even Obama, let alone Dubya or worse.

Who would you rather have as POTUS - Bill Clinton who had blowjobs from his mistress in the Oval Office, or Dubya Bush whom that has never been alleged against?

You are rather missing the point.

I am pointing out that if that is how the PM behaves he is hardly in a good position to demand or expect higher standards for his subordinates.

Do I care personally? No - in the sense that the PM is a complete stranger so his personal sexual morals do not affect me.

Do I care that the Foreign Secretary thought it appropriate to have sex in his office with his mistress during work hours? Yes - it is completely unprofessional. Were there any evidence of him being good at his job there would be something weighty to put in the balance. But there wasn't, was there?

And that complete disregard for rules, standards, for a sense of professionalism, of decorum or dignity was not a one off: it has shown itself time and time again, of which Partygate is the latest example.

People having affairs happens. Marriages fail. But it is possible to be discreet - and have some respect for the dignity of the office you hold. It is not necessary for Tory party MPs to behave as if they were in a competition to see who most resembles a rutting chimp.

Leadership is, in part, about setting a good example. That is why Partygate has been so damaging. There is a problem with sexual misconduct among MPs. If this is to be dealt with then we need leaders who do not turn a blind eye to it by appointing to senior positions MPs with a history of such bad behaviour and despite warning about their conduct. Trying to enforce such standards is going to be a good deal more difficult if you yourself behave in an undignified way. The issue is not the PM's unfaithfulness but the fact that he could not see the utter wrongness of having sex with his mistress in the office rather than waiting until they were at home or in a hotel.

I'm sorry but I totally and utterly disagree. Having consensual sexual relations with another adult is not "sexual misconduct" no matter how "deviant" other people consider that consensual behaviour to be.

What Pincher, Grady, Hill etc have been alleged to be involved in is non-consensual sexual behaviour.

The line between consensual and non-consensual behaviour should never be blurred.

Its sexual misconduct *in public office*. The affair is not the issue - had Johnson been receiving a blowjob from his wife in his FCO office that would also have been sexual misconduct.

Why?

If its behind closed doors, then I don't think it is. What consenting adults do behind closed doors is up to them.

At work? Give over.

Yes, people have sex at work sometimes. If shows like Grey's Anatomy are to be believed, that's half of what people do.

If you're doing it in the open, then that would be misconduct. If you're doing it behind closed doors then I don't see any difference between that and playing Candy Crush at work, or writing on obscure political blogs while at work.

Eugh, the only people who should be having sex at work are sex workers.

I've never had a proper job, but from what I understand sex at work is quite a thrill. There's certainly lots of porn devoted to it, presumably because it takes a boring place where sex is not meant to happen - an office - and makes it happen. It breaks a taboo, excitingly

I have had sex with girls at their place of work, quite a few times. A doctor in a hospital, a nurse at St Barts, a student actress backstage, a TV presenter in the dressing room, I once got my girlfriend to do her A Level revision topless (true story). Does that count?


OK, OK, I'll go to the dry cleaners, pfff

You're really not getting very much at the moment, are you?

Starvation rations, mate, starvation rations

But not actually STARVING

Doesn't Tinder (or equivalent) work for meeting women in Montenegro as well?

I'm assuming you're single again..so why not try meeting someone?

Thanks (sincerely) for your concern, but I am fine!

I'm rather enjoying being single and moderately but not entirely celibate. It's a calm moment in my life after several years of extreme turbulence. I have the odd liaison, which keeps me going, otherwise I am floating around the world, eating seabass and observing, and it is indeed pleasant. I chat with my kids, I tipple wine at sundown, I read about Balkan bandits

I'm honestly not sure I want another full on marriage-type relationship - ever. They can be fun but they are also stressful. And bloody expensive

Sounds like you are in a happy calm place. But surely marriage kind of relationships are anything but expensive? You get to share the accommodation costs two ways, it's cheaper to cook for two, you will stay in more of an evening... The whole thing basically pays for itself.

It is of course the early exit fee that is expensive. If someone's temperament is not suited to spending a lifetime or at least 20+ years together then it is indeed more expensive than being single. For those with a lifetime match it is cheaper. You are both correct.

Not necessarily. My first wife could have taken me to the cleaners but didn't.

That is a funny old saying. Did dry cleaners really used to be so expensive?

BartholomewRoberts said:

IanB2 said:

FPT and on topic:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cyclefree said:

nico679 said:

There’s something of a double standard here. Would Pincher have kept the whip if he tried to grope two women ?

That is a very good point. A gay sexual assault is quite as bad as one by a man on a woman.

Frankly, appointing someone with his record was stupid. And keeping him as a Tory MP despite what he has admitted is even more stupid.

But this is a government run by a man who had blow jobs in his office from his mistress.

So the standard of probity expected of Tory MPs seems to be no more than that they should be alive.

Do you actually care about blow jobs in the office from his mistress?

The boss by his behaviour sends out the message to everyone below that it's OK to behave just how you like; that's the way that it matters.

So what?

I couldn't care less about blow jobs in the office, if the door and window is closed, what consenting adults do between them is none of anybody else's business.

In the past three decades the best President of the United States of America is infamous for getting a blowjob in the Oval Office. I'd still rather have him at his prime as POTUS now than Biden or even Obama, let alone Dubya or worse.

Who would you rather have as POTUS - Bill Clinton who had blowjobs from his mistress in the Oval Office, or Dubya Bush whom that has never been alleged against?

Sean_F said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Cyclefree said:

kinabalu said:

Cyclefree said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cyclefree said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

IanB2 said:

FPT and on topic:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cyclefree said:

nico679 said:

There’s something of a double standard here. Would Pincher have kept the whip if he tried to grope two women ?

That is a very good point. A gay sexual assault is quite as bad as one by a man on a woman.

Frankly, appointing someone with his record was stupid. And keeping him as a Tory MP despite what he has admitted is even more stupid.

But this is a government run by a man who had blow jobs in his office from his mistress.

So the standard of probity expected of Tory MPs seems to be no more than that they should be alive.

Do you actually care about blow jobs in the office from his mistress?

The boss by his behaviour sends out the message to everyone below that it's OK to behave just how you like; that's the way that it matters.

So what?

I couldn't care less about blow jobs in the office, if the door and window is closed, what consenting adults do between them is none of anybody else's business.

In the past three decades the best President of the United States of America is infamous for getting a blowjob in the Oval Office. I'd still rather have him at his prime as POTUS now than Biden or even Obama, let alone Dubya or worse.

Who would you rather have as POTUS - Bill Clinton who had blowjobs from his mistress in the Oval Office, or Dubya Bush whom that has never been alleged against?

You are rather missing the point.

I am pointing out that if that is how the PM behaves he is hardly in a good position to demand or expect higher standards for his subordinates.

Do I care personally? No - in the sense that the PM is a complete stranger so his personal sexual morals do not affect me.

Do I care that the Foreign Secretary thought it appropriate to have sex in his office with his mistress during work hours? Yes - it is completely unprofessional. Were there any evidence of him being good at his job there would be something weighty to put in the balance. But there wasn't, was there?

And that complete disregard for rules, standards, for a sense of professionalism, of decorum or dignity was not a one off: it has shown itself time and time again, of which Partygate is the latest example.

People having affairs happens. Marriages fail. But it is possible to be discreet - and have some respect for the dignity of the office you hold. It is not necessary for Tory party MPs to behave as if they were in a competition to see who most resembles a rutting chimp.

Leadership is, in part, about setting a good example. That is why Partygate has been so damaging. There is a problem with sexual misconduct among MPs. If this is to be dealt with then we need leaders who do not turn a blind eye to it by appointing to senior positions MPs with a history of such bad behaviour and despite warning about their conduct. Trying to enforce such standards is going to be a good deal more difficult if you yourself behave in an undignified way. The issue is not the PM's unfaithfulness but the fact that he could not see the utter wrongness of having sex with his mistress in the office rather than waiting until they were at home or in a hotel.

I'm sorry but I totally and utterly disagree. Having consensual sexual relations with another adult is not "sexual misconduct" no matter how "deviant" other people consider that consensual behaviour to be.

What Pincher, Grady, Hill etc have been alleged to be involved in is non-consensual sexual behaviour.

The line between consensual and non-consensual behaviour should never be blurred.

Its sexual misconduct *in public office*. The affair is not the issue - had Johnson been receiving a blowjob from his wife in his FCO office that would also have been sexual misconduct.

Why?

If its behind closed doors, then I don't think it is. What consenting adults do behind closed doors is up to them.

They weren't behind closed doors. That's why we know about it. They could perfectly well have gone to a Travelodge in their lunch hour if they really couldn't wait. I'd say the same if it was his wife.

It was yet another sign of his "don't care, I'm special, always have been" mentality.

Yes, I'm a bit disappointed he didn't go into the City. I'd have enjoyed interviewing him, reading his emails and reviewing his hard drive (yes, yes, I know). The investigation report would have been fun to write.

Johnson wouldn't have lasted two minutes in finance. The days of the posh boy bluffer are long behind us.

Oh, I think there are still quite a few of them around.

Theuniondivvie said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

ICYMI last night Channel 4 started a new drama series, The Undeclared War, about GCHQ and cyber-attacks. Set in 2024, the Conservative Prime Minister was said to have ousted Boris Johnson in a bloody coup. The whole series is available for downstreaming from https://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-undeclared-war

Watched the first epsode last night, okayish.

Couldn't work out how metaphorical the bloody coup was, really hoping for literal gore on the expensively crappy wallpaper, with flashbacks.

Sean_F said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Cyclefree said:

kinabalu said:

Cyclefree said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cyclefree said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

IanB2 said:

FPT and on topic:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cyclefree said:

nico679 said:

There’s something of a double standard here. Would Pincher have kept the whip if he tried to grope two women ?

That is a very good point. A gay sexual assault is quite as bad as one by a man on a woman.

Frankly, appointing someone with his record was stupid. And keeping him as a Tory MP despite what he has admitted is even more stupid.

But this is a government run by a man who had blow jobs in his office from his mistress.

So the standard of probity expected of Tory MPs seems to be no more than that they should be alive.

Do you actually care about blow jobs in the office from his mistress?

The boss by his behaviour sends out the message to everyone below that it's OK to behave just how you like; that's the way that it matters.

So what?

I couldn't care less about blow jobs in the office, if the door and window is closed, what consenting adults do between them is none of anybody else's business.

In the past three decades the best President of the United States of America is infamous for getting a blowjob in the Oval Office. I'd still rather have him at his prime as POTUS now than Biden or even Obama, let alone Dubya or worse.

Who would you rather have as POTUS - Bill Clinton who had blowjobs from his mistress in the Oval Office, or Dubya Bush whom that has never been alleged against?

You are rather missing the point.

I am pointing out that if that is how the PM behaves he is hardly in a good position to demand or expect higher standards for his subordinates.

Do I care personally? No - in the sense that the PM is a complete stranger so his personal sexual morals do not affect me.

Do I care that the Foreign Secretary thought it appropriate to have sex in his office with his mistress during work hours? Yes - it is completely unprofessional. Were there any evidence of him being good at his job there would be something weighty to put in the balance. But there wasn't, was there?

And that complete disregard for rules, standards, for a sense of professionalism, of decorum or dignity was not a one off: it has shown itself time and time again, of which Partygate is the latest example.

People having affairs happens. Marriages fail. But it is possible to be discreet - and have some respect for the dignity of the office you hold. It is not necessary for Tory party MPs to behave as if they were in a competition to see who most resembles a rutting chimp.

Leadership is, in part, about setting a good example. That is why Partygate has been so damaging. There is a problem with sexual misconduct among MPs. If this is to be dealt with then we need leaders who do not turn a blind eye to it by appointing to senior positions MPs with a history of such bad behaviour and despite warning about their conduct. Trying to enforce such standards is going to be a good deal more difficult if you yourself behave in an undignified way. The issue is not the PM's unfaithfulness but the fact that he could not see the utter wrongness of having sex with his mistress in the office rather than waiting until they were at home or in a hotel.

I'm sorry but I totally and utterly disagree. Having consensual sexual relations with another adult is not "sexual misconduct" no matter how "deviant" other people consider that consensual behaviour to be.

What Pincher, Grady, Hill etc have been alleged to be involved in is non-consensual sexual behaviour.

The line between consensual and non-consensual behaviour should never be blurred.

Its sexual misconduct *in public office*. The affair is not the issue - had Johnson been receiving a blowjob from his wife in his FCO office that would also have been sexual misconduct.

Why?

If its behind closed doors, then I don't think it is. What consenting adults do behind closed doors is up to them.

They weren't behind closed doors. That's why we know about it. They could perfectly well have gone to a Travelodge in their lunch hour if they really couldn't wait. I'd say the same if it was his wife.

It was yet another sign of his "don't care, I'm special, always have been" mentality.

Yes, I'm a bit disappointed he didn't go into the City. I'd have enjoyed interviewing him, reading his emails and reviewing his hard drive (yes, yes, I know). The investigation report would have been fun to write.

Johnson wouldn't have lasted two minutes in finance. The days of the posh boy bluffer are long behind us.

Oh, I think there are still quite a few of them around.

rottenborough said:

Javier Blas
@JavierBlas
·
4h
In the middle of the summer, when we should be saving as much natural gas as possible for winter, European nations are burning lots of gas for electricity generation.

The UK is now generating >60% of its electricity output burning gas. We will come to regret it this winter.

https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1542759108914323456

Leon said:

Porto Montenegro. My god. An entire Mediterranean town built from scratch for the mega rich.






This is where the Russian oligarchs are. Just outside the EU, yet surrounded by European luxury outlets

The population consists mainly of notably beautiful women aged 22-25 and obviously rich men aged 45-70

Utterly sterile. The food is probably quite good


https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimdobson/2018/07/22/porto-montenegro-is-becoming-the-ultimate-superyacht-sanctuary-along-the-adriatic-coast/

kinabalu said:

Sean_F said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Cyclefree said:

kinabalu said:

Cyclefree said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cyclefree said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

IanB2 said:

FPT and on topic:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cyclefree said:

nico679 said:

There’s something of a double standard here. Would Pincher have kept the whip if he tried to grope two women ?

That is a very good point. A gay sexual assault is quite as bad as one by a man on a woman.

Frankly, appointing someone with his record was stupid. And keeping him as a Tory MP despite what he has admitted is even more stupid.

But this is a government run by a man who had blow jobs in his office from his mistress.

So the standard of probity expected of Tory MPs seems to be no more than that they should be alive.

Do you actually care about blow jobs in the office from his mistress?

The boss by his behaviour sends out the message to everyone below that it's OK to behave just how you like; that's the way that it matters.

So what?

I couldn't care less about blow jobs in the office, if the door and window is closed, what consenting adults do between them is none of anybody else's business.

In the past three decades the best President of the United States of America is infamous for getting a blowjob in the Oval Office. I'd still rather have him at his prime as POTUS now than Biden or even Obama, let alone Dubya or worse.

Who would you rather have as POTUS - Bill Clinton who had blowjobs from his mistress in the Oval Office, or Dubya Bush whom that has never been alleged against?

You are rather missing the point.

I am pointing out that if that is how the PM behaves he is hardly in a good position to demand or expect higher standards for his subordinates.

Do I care personally? No - in the sense that the PM is a complete stranger so his personal sexual morals do not affect me.

Do I care that the Foreign Secretary thought it appropriate to have sex in his office with his mistress during work hours? Yes - it is completely unprofessional. Were there any evidence of him being good at his job there would be something weighty to put in the balance. But there wasn't, was there?

And that complete disregard for rules, standards, for a sense of professionalism, of decorum or dignity was not a one off: it has shown itself time and time again, of which Partygate is the latest example.

People having affairs happens. Marriages fail. But it is possible to be discreet - and have some respect for the dignity of the office you hold. It is not necessary for Tory party MPs to behave as if they were in a competition to see who most resembles a rutting chimp.

Leadership is, in part, about setting a good example. That is why Partygate has been so damaging. There is a problem with sexual misconduct among MPs. If this is to be dealt with then we need leaders who do not turn a blind eye to it by appointing to senior positions MPs with a history of such bad behaviour and despite warning about their conduct. Trying to enforce such standards is going to be a good deal more difficult if you yourself behave in an undignified way. The issue is not the PM's unfaithfulness but the fact that he could not see the utter wrongness of having sex with his mistress in the office rather than waiting until they were at home or in a hotel.

I'm sorry but I totally and utterly disagree. Having consensual sexual relations with another adult is not "sexual misconduct" no matter how "deviant" other people consider that consensual behaviour to be.

What Pincher, Grady, Hill etc have been alleged to be involved in is non-consensual sexual behaviour.

The line between consensual and non-consensual behaviour should never be blurred.

Its sexual misconduct *in public office*. The affair is not the issue - had Johnson been receiving a blowjob from his wife in his FCO office that would also have been sexual misconduct.

Why?

If its behind closed doors, then I don't think it is. What consenting adults do behind closed doors is up to them.

They weren't behind closed doors. That's why we know about it. They could perfectly well have gone to a Travelodge in their lunch hour if they really couldn't wait. I'd say the same if it was his wife.

It was yet another sign of his "don't care, I'm special, always have been" mentality.

Yes, I'm a bit disappointed he didn't go into the City. I'd have enjoyed interviewing him, reading his emails and reviewing his hard drive (yes, yes, I know). The investigation report would have been fun to write.

Johnson wouldn't have lasted two minutes in finance. The days of the posh boy bluffer are long behind us.

Oh, I think there are still quite a few of them around.

In the "sales" and "wealth management" space.

Sean_F said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Sean_F said:

Andy_JS said:

Biden approval:

Approve 40.1%
Disapprove 55.6%

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/voters/

When considering how people will vote in the next mid-terms, that is the key number.

Are you sure of that? Is it not the case that the electorate might be more sophisticated than that and vote in the mid terms based on issues other than the popularity of a President who they are not actually voting for?

I still hold that the recent SCOTUS rulings will have just as much, if not more, impact on the midterms than Biden's popularity.

Certainly, all the precedents point to Presidential approval ratings as being the key determinant of mid-terms results.

For reasons that aren't clear to me, Democratic voters don't draw much of a connection between election results, and appointments to the Supreme Court, whereas Republican voters do.

And, we've had two post abortion ruling Generic polls putting the Republicans 3% and 5% ahead.

kinabalu said:

noneoftheabove said:

kinabalu said:

noneoftheabove said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Leon said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cyclefree said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

IanB2 said:

FPT and on topic:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cyclefree said:

nico679 said:

There’s something of a double standard here. Would Pincher have kept the whip if he tried to grope two women ?

That is a very good point. A gay sexual assault is quite as bad as one by a man on a woman.

Frankly, appointing someone with his record was stupid. And keeping him as a Tory MP despite what he has admitted is even more stupid.

But this is a government run by a man who had blow jobs in his office from his mistress.

So the standard of probity expected of Tory MPs seems to be no more than that they should be alive.

Do you actually care about blow jobs in the office from his mistress?

The boss by his behaviour sends out the message to everyone below that it's OK to behave just how you like; that's the way that it matters.

So what?

I couldn't care less about blow jobs in the office, if the door and window is closed, what consenting adults do between them is none of anybody else's business.

In the past three decades the best President of the United States of America is infamous for getting a blowjob in the Oval Office. I'd still rather have him at his prime as POTUS now than Biden or even Obama, let alone Dubya or worse.

Who would you rather have as POTUS - Bill Clinton who had blowjobs from his mistress in the Oval Office, or Dubya Bush whom that has never been alleged against?

You are rather missing the point.

I am pointing out that if that is how the PM behaves he is hardly in a good position to demand or expect higher standards for his subordinates.

Do I care personally? No - in the sense that the PM is a complete stranger so his personal sexual morals do not affect me.

Do I care that the Foreign Secretary thought it appropriate to have sex in his office with his mistress during work hours? Yes - it is completely unprofessional. Were there any evidence of him being good at his job there would be something weighty to put in the balance. But there wasn't, was there?

And that complete disregard for rules, standards, for a sense of professionalism, of decorum or dignity was not a one off: it has shown itself time and time again, of which Partygate is the latest example.

People having affairs happens. Marriages fail. But it is possible to be discreet - and have some respect for the dignity of the office you hold. It is not necessary for Tory party MPs to behave as if they were in a competition to see who most resembles a rutting chimp.

Leadership is, in part, about setting a good example. That is why Partygate has been so damaging. There is a problem with sexual misconduct among MPs. If this is to be dealt with then we need leaders who do not turn a blind eye to it by appointing to senior positions MPs with a history of such bad behaviour and despite warning about their conduct. Trying to enforce such standards is going to be a good deal more difficult if you yourself behave in an undignified way. The issue is not the PM's unfaithfulness but the fact that he could not see the utter wrongness of having sex with his mistress in the office rather than waiting until they were at home or in a hotel.

I'm sorry but I totally and utterly disagree. Having consensual sexual relations with another adult is not "sexual misconduct" no matter how "deviant" other people consider that consensual behaviour to be.

What Pincher, Grady, Hill etc have been alleged to be involved in is non-consensual sexual behaviour.

The line between consensual and non-consensual behaviour should never be blurred.

Its sexual misconduct *in public office*. The affair is not the issue - had Johnson been receiving a blowjob from his wife in his FCO office that would also have been sexual misconduct.

Why?

If its behind closed doors, then I don't think it is. What consenting adults do behind closed doors is up to them.

At work? Give over.

Yes, people have sex at work sometimes. If shows like Grey's Anatomy are to be believed, that's half of what people do.

If you're doing it in the open, then that would be misconduct. If you're doing it behind closed doors then I don't see any difference between that and playing Candy Crush at work, or writing on obscure political blogs while at work.

Eugh, the only people who should be having sex at work are sex workers.

I've never had a proper job, but from what I understand sex at work is quite a thrill. There's certainly lots of porn devoted to it, presumably because it takes a boring place where sex is not meant to happen - an office - and makes it happen. It breaks a taboo, excitingly

I have had sex with girls at their place of work, quite a few times. A doctor in a hospital, a nurse at St Barts, a student actress backstage, a TV presenter in the dressing room, I once got my girlfriend to do her A Level revision topless (true story). Does that count?


OK, OK, I'll go to the dry cleaners, pfff

You're really not getting very much at the moment, are you?

Starvation rations, mate, starvation rations

But not actually STARVING

Doesn't Tinder (or equivalent) work for meeting women in Montenegro as well?

I'm assuming you're single again..so why not try meeting someone?

Thanks (sincerely) for your concern, but I am fine!

I'm rather enjoying being single and moderately but not entirely celibate. It's a calm moment in my life after several years of extreme turbulence. I have the odd liaison, which keeps me going, otherwise I am floating around the world, eating seabass and observing, and it is indeed pleasant. I chat with my kids, I tipple wine at sundown, I read about Balkan bandits

I'm honestly not sure I want another full on marriage-type relationship - ever. They can be fun but they are also stressful. And bloody expensive

Sounds like you are in a happy calm place. But surely marriage kind of relationships are anything but expensive? You get to share the accommodation costs two ways, it's cheaper to cook for two, you will stay in more of an evening... The whole thing basically pays for itself.

It is of course the early exit fee that is expensive. If someone's temperament is not suited to spending a lifetime or at least 20+ years together then it is indeed more expensive than being single. For those with a lifetime match it is cheaper. You are both correct.

Not necessarily. My first wife could have taken me to the cleaners but didn't.

That is a funny old saying. Did dry cleaners really used to be so expensive?

- means "rinsed" I guess.

But only now I think about it, which I never had before. So thanks for that.

Sean_F said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Sean_F said:

Andy_JS said:

Biden approval:

Approve 40.1%
Disapprove 55.6%

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-approval-rating/voters/

When considering how people will vote in the next mid-terms, that is the key number.

Are you sure of that? Is it not the case that the electorate might be more sophisticated than that and vote in the mid terms based on issues other than the popularity of a President who they are not actually voting for?

I still hold that the recent SCOTUS rulings will have just as much, if not more, impact on the midterms than Biden's popularity.

Certainly, all the precedents point to Presidential approval ratings as being the key determinant of mid-terms results.

For reasons that aren't clear to me, Democratic voters don't draw much of a connection between election results, and appointments to the Supreme Court, whereas Republican voters do.

And, we've had two post abortion ruling Generic polls putting the Republicans 3% and 5% ahead.

williamglenn said:

@NorthantsPolice
We have received credible intelligence that a group of protestors are planning to disrupt the 2022 Formula 1 British Grand Prix and possibly invade the track on race day.

We want to appeal directly to this group of people.

We strongly urge you to not put yourselves, the drivers, as well as the many marshals, volunteers & members of the public, at risk.

Going onto a live racetrack is extremely dangerous – if you go ahead with this reckless plan you're jeopardising lives.

Protesting is of course everyone’s human right in this country & we are more than happy to speak with you to help you facilitate a peaceful protest at the circuit, we just please ask that you do not create a situation that puts lives in danger.

https://twitter.com/northantspolice/status/1542795067441745921

kinabalu said:

Anyway this - "deny older voices a platform" - from Lewis Hamilton (re the rancid "Bernie") got me thinking:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/61999788

If the tv companies won’t play ball would it be possible to frame a legal ban on giving airtime to silly old farts?

One objection – esp for liberals like me - is it’d be a violation of free speech. But when you think about it properly it wouldn’t. The people impacted could still go around saying what they want. They just wouldn’t be on Good Morning Britain or Loose Women or whatever whilst they’re saying it. Friends and family would still have the pleasure. So, no problem there.

Next objection – this one particularly important for progressives (again like me) - is it would be ageist. However it wouldn’t, not if it’s framed right. We’re not talking about all people over 80 or anything like that. The likes of Attenborough and Judi Dench and OKC can have as much airtime as they like. The more the better in fact. Wisdom is needed more than ever these days. No, who we’re talking about are the Bernie Ecclestones, the Ken Livingstones, the David Starkeys, those possessing that distinct specific quality of sillyoldfartness.

Final potential objection. Can the attribute of sillyoldfartness be defined tightly enough to be included in a bill and sustain the scrutiny required for it to become law? I think it can. We all know what it is, we know it when we see it, so all you need is a parliamentary draughtsman to listen to us and turn it into the required text – a bit like the police do when sketching a photofit from an eye witness.

SOF Restrictions Act - bring it on.

Leon said:

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

Porto Montenegro. My god. An entire Mediterranean town built from scratch for the mega rich.






This is where the Russian oligarchs are. Just outside the EU, yet surrounded by European luxury outlets

The population consists mainly of notably beautiful women aged 22-25 and obviously rich men aged 45-70

Utterly sterile. The food is probably quite good


https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimdobson/2018/07/22/porto-montenegro-is-becoming-the-ultimate-superyacht-sanctuary-along-the-adriatic-coast/

Is that quay surfaced with concrete or limestone?

Oh, limestone of course

It’s all marble or stone or crystal. They haven’t skimped

Who enjoys coming to a place like this? Who really wants to go shopping for couture in Alexander McQueen when they’re on holiday?

I’ve noticed a third type of inhabitant. Women in their early 30s with tiny dogs (ie refusing to have kids) who were obviously stunning when they were 21 but now they flash evil jealous nervous glances at the 22 year old women in tiny hot pants

J G Ballard would love this place

FrancisUrquhart said:

kinabalu said:

Anyway this - "deny older voices a platform" - from Lewis Hamilton (re the rancid "Bernie") got me thinking:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/61999788

If the tv companies won’t play ball would it be possible to frame a legal ban on giving airtime to silly old farts?

One objection – esp for liberals like me - is it’d be a violation of free speech. But when you think about it properly it wouldn’t. The people impacted could still go around saying what they want. They just wouldn’t be on Good Morning Britain or Loose Women or whatever whilst they’re saying it. Friends and family would still have the pleasure. So, no problem there.

Next objection – this one particularly important for progressives (again like me) - is it would be ageist. However it wouldn’t, not if it’s framed right. We’re not talking about all people over 80 or anything like that. The likes of Attenborough and Judi Dench and OKC can have as much airtime as they like. The more the better in fact. Wisdom is needed more than ever these days. No, who we’re talking about are the Bernie Ecclestones, the Ken Livingstones, the David Starkeys, those possessing that distinct specific quality of sillyoldfartness.

Final potential objection. Can the attribute of sillyoldfartness be defined tightly enough to be included in a bill and sustain the scrutiny required for it to become law? I think it can. We all know what it is, we know it when we see it, so all you need is a parliamentary draughtsman to listen to us and turn it into the required text – a bit like the police do when sketching a photofit from an eye witness.

SOF Restrictions Act - bring it on.

Problem with Hamilton is he didn't confine his objection to Bernie or Piquet, he also claimed people like Jackie Stewart deploys micro-aggressions and unconscious bias towards him because Stewart has said he thinks Hamilton should retire because he is past his best and not in a competitive car.

Lumping the former in with the latter is
nonsense.

Leon said:

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

Porto Montenegro. My god. An entire Mediterranean town built from scratch for the mega rich.






This is where the Russian oligarchs are. Just outside the EU, yet surrounded by European luxury outlets

The population consists mainly of notably beautiful women aged 22-25 and obviously rich men aged 45-70

Utterly sterile. The food is probably quite good


https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimdobson/2018/07/22/porto-montenegro-is-becoming-the-ultimate-superyacht-sanctuary-along-the-adriatic-coast/

Is that quay surfaced with concrete or limestone?

Oh, limestone of course

It’s all marble or stone or crystal. They haven’t skimped

Who enjoys coming to a place like this? Who really wants to go shopping for couture in Alexander McQueen when they’re on holiday?

I’ve noticed a third type of inhabitant. Women in their early 30s with tiny dogs (ie refusing to have kids) who were obviously stunning when they were 21 but now they flash evil jealous nervous glances at the 22 year old women in tiny hot pants

J G Ballard would love this place

Sandpit said:

Leon said:

Carnyx said:

Leon said:

Porto Montenegro. My god. An entire Mediterranean town built from scratch for the mega rich.






This is where the Russian oligarchs are. Just outside the EU, yet surrounded by European luxury outlets

The population consists mainly of notably beautiful women aged 22-25 and obviously rich men aged 45-70

Utterly sterile. The food is probably quite good


https://www.forbes.com/sites/jimdobson/2018/07/22/porto-montenegro-is-becoming-the-ultimate-superyacht-sanctuary-along-the-adriatic-coast/

Is that quay surfaced with concrete or limestone?

Oh, limestone of course

It’s all marble or stone or crystal. They haven’t skimped

Who enjoys coming to a place like this? Who really wants to go shopping for couture in Alexander McQueen when they’re on holiday?

I’ve noticed a third type of inhabitant. Women in their early 30s with tiny dogs (ie refusing to have kids) who were obviously stunning when they were 21 but now they flash evil jealous nervous glances at the 22 year old women in tiny hot pants

J G Ballard would love this place

The slightly older lady will be in the Ghislaine Maxwell role, there to ‘look after’ the younger ladies.

JosiasJessop said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

kinabalu said:

Anyway this - "deny older voices a platform" - from Lewis Hamilton (re the rancid "Bernie") got me thinking:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/61999788

If the tv companies won’t play ball would it be possible to frame a legal ban on giving airtime to silly old farts?

One objection – esp for liberals like me - is it’d be a violation of free speech. But when you think about it properly it wouldn’t. The people impacted could still go around saying what they want. They just wouldn’t be on Good Morning Britain or Loose Women or whatever whilst they’re saying it. Friends and family would still have the pleasure. So, no problem there.

Next objection – this one particularly important for progressives (again like me) - is it would be ageist. However it wouldn’t, not if it’s framed right. We’re not talking about all people over 80 or anything like that. The likes of Attenborough and Judi Dench and OKC can have as much airtime as they like. The more the better in fact. Wisdom is needed more than ever these days. No, who we’re talking about are the Bernie Ecclestones, the Ken Livingstones, the David Starkeys, those possessing that distinct specific quality of sillyoldfartness.

Final potential objection. Can the attribute of sillyoldfartness be defined tightly enough to be included in a bill and sustain the scrutiny required for it to become law? I think it can. We all know what it is, we know it when we see it, so all you need is a parliamentary draughtsman to listen to us and turn it into the required text – a bit like the police do when sketching a photofit from an eye witness.

SOF Restrictions Act - bring it on.

Problem with Hamilton is he didn't confine his objection to Bernie or Piquet, he also claimed people like Jackie Stewart deploys micro-aggressions and unconscious bias towards him (because Stewart has said he thinks Hamilton should retire because he is past his best and not in a competitive car).

Stewart exemplifies the problem in a way. He's been a hero for F1, but even if you count the time he ran a team, he has been out of the centre of the sport for decades. Many years ago he said that no driver that had driven over 100 races without a win would ever become champion. He was referring to Jenson Button, who won his first race after 113 attempts.

And three years later won the championship.

ISTR he's said similar stuff in the past, as if he still thinks there are only ten races in a season. The skills required by a driver are also very different nowadays, if only from the PR standpoint.

But I don't agree with Hamilton that they should be banned. Just that journalists and TV companies should understand that, whilst they were heroes in their day, the sport is very different nowadays, and ask whether their views hold much relevance.

Luckyguy1983 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

MISTY said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

MISTY said:

rottenborough said:

Javier Blas
@JavierBlas
·
4h
In the middle of the summer, when we should be saving as much natural gas as possible for winter, European nations are burning lots of gas for electricity generation.

The UK is now generating >60% of its electricity output burning gas. We will come to regret it this winter.

https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1542759108914323456

The prospect of Energy rationing is being mentioned more and more in the papers. Proper tory Frosty thinks its inevitable.

Whichever government presides over energy rationing.....boy, will they regret that.

Not as much as they'll regret it if they don't do it and rolling blackouts happen instead.

We had energy rationing when I lived overseas and there was a major gas explosion at the local facility. For a couple of weeks all homes in the area were ordered to turn their gas supply off completely so that it'd be rationed for just the vulnerable and essential services to use. Thankfully it was not winter, so it was mainly cold showers and microwave food that became the solution.

The conservatives could not survive energy rationing electorally. No way.

There's no way they should survive it either! Government is there to secure its own population, that includes keeping them warm and giving them light - how on EARTH we've got to the stage where prancing around the world stage being 'tough on Putin' is considered more important for the Government of the UK than ensuring we have power, is beyond me.

Because it is.

Security is the first responsibility of the state, not light and warmth. You would have been prancing around objecting to rationing saying why we are being "tough on Hitler" eighty years ago.

Which part of degrading our own combat readiness to back one country against another (nuclear armed, commodities superpower) comes under the 'security' for which we should be expected to sacrifice light and heat? Unmitigated garbage from a Government that has ceased to function meaningfully as such.

JosiasJessop said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

kinabalu said:

Anyway this - "deny older voices a platform" - from Lewis Hamilton (re the rancid "Bernie") got me thinking:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/61999788

If the tv companies won’t play ball would it be possible to frame a legal ban on giving airtime to silly old farts?

One objection – esp for liberals like me - is it’d be a violation of free speech. But when you think about it properly it wouldn’t. The people impacted could still go around saying what they want. They just wouldn’t be on Good Morning Britain or Loose Women or whatever whilst they’re saying it. Friends and family would still have the pleasure. So, no problem there.

Next objection – this one particularly important for progressives (again like me) - is it would be ageist. However it wouldn’t, not if it’s framed right. We’re not talking about all people over 80 or anything like that. The likes of Attenborough and Judi Dench and OKC can have as much airtime as they like. The more the better in fact. Wisdom is needed more than ever these days. No, who we’re talking about are the Bernie Ecclestones, the Ken Livingstones, the David Starkeys, those possessing that distinct specific quality of sillyoldfartness.

Final potential objection. Can the attribute of sillyoldfartness be defined tightly enough to be included in a bill and sustain the scrutiny required for it to become law? I think it can. We all know what it is, we know it when we see it, so all you need is a parliamentary draughtsman to listen to us and turn it into the required text – a bit like the police do when sketching a photofit from an eye witness.

SOF Restrictions Act - bring it on.

Problem with Hamilton is he didn't confine his objection to Bernie or Piquet, he also claimed people like Jackie Stewart deploys micro-aggressions and unconscious bias towards him (because Stewart has said he thinks Hamilton should retire because he is past his best and not in a competitive car).

Stewart exemplifies the problem in a way. He's been a hero for F1, but even if you count the time he ran a team, he has been out of the centre of the sport for decades. Many years ago he said that no driver that had driven over 100 races without a win would ever become champion. He was referring to Jenson Button, who won his first race after 113 attempts.

And three years later won the championship.

ISTR he's said similar stuff in the past, as if he still thinks there are only ten races in a season. The skills required by a driver are also very different nowadays, if only from the PR standpoint.

But I don't agree with Hamilton that they should be banned. Just that journalists and TV companies should understand that, whilst they were heroes in their day, the sport is very different nowadays, and ask whether their views hold much relevance.

BartholomewRoberts said:

kinabalu said:

Anyway this - "deny older voices a platform" - from Lewis Hamilton (re the rancid "Bernie") got me thinking:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/61999788

If the tv companies won’t play ball would it be possible to frame a legal ban on giving airtime to silly old farts?

One objection – esp for liberals like me - is it’d be a violation of free speech. But when you think about it properly it wouldn’t. The people impacted could still go around saying what they want. They just wouldn’t be on Good Morning Britain or Loose Women or whatever whilst they’re saying it. Friends and family would still have the pleasure. So, no problem there.

Next objection – this one particularly important for progressives (again like me) - is it would be ageist. However it wouldn’t, not if it’s framed right. We’re not talking about all people over 80 or anything like that. The likes of Attenborough and Judi Dench and OKC can have as much airtime as they like. The more the better in fact. Wisdom is needed more than ever these days. No, who we’re talking about are the Bernie Ecclestones, the Ken Livingstones, the David Starkeys, those possessing that distinct specific quality of sillyoldfartness.

Final potential objection. Can the attribute of sillyoldfartness be defined tightly enough to be included in a bill and sustain the scrutiny required for it to become law? I think it can. We all know what it is, we know it when we see it, so all you need is a parliamentary draughtsman to listen to us and turn it into the required text – a bit like the police do when sketching a photofit from an eye witness.

SOF Restrictions Act - bring it on.

I get you're (probably) joking, but what a completely stupid idea from Hamilton. Liberty means nothing if you don't have liberty for people you dislike.

Do I like nasty, old, gammony racists with ossified views they formed in the 1970s or earlier, like Jeremy Corbyn? Of course not. But the people I despise have the right to free speech, because if they don't, then I don't either.

If there were free speech restrictions then at one time or other the Lewis Hamilton's of this world would have been subject to them. If you take away Ecclestone's right to speak, then Ecclestone can try to turn around and take away Hamilton's rights away from him.