news & politics:discussion

[Neil]

10 hours ago, mattiloy said:

I think we have enough information to divine the Labour party selection process by now.

Its yes to racists, tories and sex pests. And its no to popular existing elected Labour politicians who happen to think poverty is bad.

Something along those lines.

its yes to mohitos on trains 😛

and yes to sex pests from you (jezza has his own dark past).

[steviewevie]

54 minutes ago, Neil said:

 

jezza has his own dark past

🤔

[pink_triangle]

3 hours ago, steviewevie said:

I mean...there may be something in that.....but the fact that with Schofield it is between two men, and the age difference is quite something, and as Neil says his brother was found guilty of child molesting, and Schofield is a powerful person on this tv show and the other guy a new young starter who apparently Schofield knew when he was under 16...then as you say the media and a lot of people have decided he is guilty. But that power dynamic things is pretty creepy and wrong and maybe should have been called out earlier by someone...but it is hardly new.

I have no doubt that many (mainly but not exclusive) young girls are attracted to rich older men because of their money, power, celebrity. How do we distinguish between those and grooming?

[Ryan1984]

15 hours ago, pink_triangle said:

I think there is an element of homophobia here. I honestly believe if it had been a girl people would be far less interested. I think there is still a bit of a culture where a man sleeping with a young (but legal) girl is considered something to admire, but a man sleeping with a young (but legal) boy is considered a bit sordid.

I also think there is an element of people liking to knock down someone with a “wholesome image “. While at the same time there is some weird political divide where left wing people seem (in general) more sympathetic to PS and right wing more on the attack.

To me it seems a bit of a pile on, but there may be evidence released in future which proves it’s justified. I don’t watch this morning or anything with him in, so makes little difference to my life.

Interestingly when I was a teenager in the 90s it seemed kind of accepted that many blokes in bands slept with girls under 16, fans seemed to just accept (and often joke about) it. I have no knowledge/understanding of modern music, does this culture of acceptance no longer exist, or do we have different expectations of our rock stars than daytime tv presenters?

Do you remember when Travis - of all bands - had a song called U16 Girls?

[clarkete]

9 hours ago, lost said:

As far as I remember everything changed around the time of me too. I think you would be playing with fire doing it nowadays.

The twitterati are obsessed with power dynamics regarding this sort of stuff as I mentioned look what happened to Louis C.K, because he was viewed as a senior figure in the comedy world even though the women gave consent it was viewed they were unable to consent due to the power dynamic. He could potentially affect their careers if they said no even thought there was no evidence of him suggesting that.

You're misrepresting what happened. They were junior to him - that was not consent. 

https://www.vulture.com/2019/11/louis-c-k-accuser-speaks-out-on-consent.html

His career has recovered just fine though 

https://www.bigissue.com/culture/louis-cks-sold-out-show-at-madison-square-garden-proves-theres-no-such-thing-as-cancel-culture/

[pink_triangle]

53 minutes ago, Ryan1984 said:

Do you remember when Travis - of all bands - had a song called U16 Girls?

In fairness didn’t the lyrics talk about make sure that she’s old enough!

[Ryan1984]

1 minute ago, pink_triangle said:

In fairness didn’t the lyrics talk about make sure that she’s old enough!

Ah yes, before she blows your mind, wasn’t it?

[lost]

1 hour ago, clarkete said:

You're misrepresting what happened. They were junior to him - that was not consent. 

Isnt this the point though of trial by twitter? First they say there's consent then a couple of years later not. Indecent exposure is an offence where a complaint can be made to the police and a prosecution brought. We are at the point where livelihoods are lost based on a few people on twitter.

I'm sure the newspapers are queuing to offer the Schofield kid money to say he couldn't consent in the position he was in.

Edited June 3, 2023 by lost

[clarkete]

28 minutes ago, lost said:

Isnt this the point though of trial by twitter? First they say there's consent then a couple of years later not. Indecent exposure is an offence where a complaint can be made to the police and a prosecution brought. We are at the point where livelihoods are lost based on a few people on twitter.

I'm sure the newspapers are queuing to offer the Schofield kid money to say he couldn't consent in the position he was in.

Neither of those are true in his case though. 

As per my first link... 

“Can we stop cancelling guys who are such brilliant artists over, like, hearsay?” deadpans TikToker Talia Lichtstein filming herself outside New York’s legendary Madison Square Garden. “Like, women have stories of them being creepy but, like, nobody knows the real story. And yeah, sure, a couple of people have the same story. But, like, just so we can tell that story, that guy never gets to work again?… Their career is f**ked forever?” Behind her, with impeccable timing, a digital billboard changes to read ‘Tonight: Louis CK. SOLD OUT’.

[lost]

16 minutes ago, clarkete said:

Neither of those are true in his case though. 

Thats the point I haven't got a clue what is true. That's exactly why i'm arguing for due process and the rule of law over mob justice. Saying one guy managed to get his career back (though at what appears to be a much lower level of success) doesn't invalidate the point.

Edited June 3, 2023 by lost

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Due to vulgarity and violence a school district in Utah has banned a book from primary schools. The book you ask. The King James Bible ;-(

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65794363

Edited June 3, 2023 by Rufus Gwertigan

[steviewevie]

19 minutes ago, Rufus Gwertigan said:

Due to vulgarity and violence a school district in Utah has banned a book from primary schools. The book you ask. The King James Bible ;-(

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65794363

absolute filth. Wouldn't want my kid reading it.

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

 

[lost]

Seems a strange article to claim they are being greedier this year and then in the same article admit profits have fallen.

[steviewevie]

this is getting bit weird...just makes it look like they really have something to hide...and in the end increases chances of it getting out and media focusing on it. Is this down to that Spectator Forsyth bloke advising poor little rishi?

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, lost said:

Seems a strange article to claim they are being greedier this year and then in the same article admit profits have fallen.

greedier last few years, profits down marginally this year but not by much.

[steviewevie]

blue wall says f**k off to tory scum.

 

[Rufus Gwertigan]

22 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

Class one loon. He is an antivaxxer as well. Claims covid was a hoax.

It's sad that I know all this conspiracy sh*t 😉

[steviewevie]

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

this is getting bit weird...just makes it look like they really have something to hide...and in the end increases chances of it getting out and media focusing on it. Is this down to that Spectator Forsyth bloke advising poor little rishi?

They have got lots to hide, for a start Eat Out to Help Out will be looked into which won’t be good for Sunak. 

[steviewevie]

1 hour ago, Ozanne said:

They have got lots to hide, for a start Eat Out to Help Out will be looked into which won’t be good for Sunak. 

Yes, possibly, but not sure how keeping Johnson's WhatsApp messages redacted will help much with that. Anyway, will all come out in the end but Sunak could be well gone by then.

[Guest]

 

[pink_triangle]

The guardian may think eat out to help out will cause Sunak problems, I’m not convinced. I don’t think the public will really care if they didn’t seek scientific advice, or if covid cases rose. They have risen and fallen so many times since, I don’t think people will see this a big issue.

The question is will the public be bothered about the waste of tax payers money. I suspect it won’t change many minds. Any thought that we should have been more restrictive won’t resonate with the public who already have covid fatigue. The only thing that will resonate is if evidence suggests we should have been less restrictive wasn’t followed.

[Neil]

48 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

The guardian may think eat out to help out will cause Sunak problems, I’m not convinced. I don’t think the public will really care if they didn’t seek scientific advice, or if covid cases rose. They have risen and fallen so many times since, I don’t think people will see this a big issue.

The question is will the public be bothered about the waste of tax payers money. I suspect it won’t change many minds. Any thought that we should have been more restrictive won’t resonate with the public who already have covid fatigue. The only thing that will resonate is if evidence suggests we should have been less restrictive wasn’t followed.

i don't think theres enough in eat out to help out to damage sunak. it was quite a logical policy, which many people used and any covid spreading was too minor to see in the graphs of the time.