Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » After Toby Young the focus moves to some of BoJo’s writing abo

2»

Comments

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,976
    dixiedean said:

    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    TM sacks bloke for lying about Porn on his computer


    This week agrees to self confessed Porn Addicts appointment.

    Indeed.

    One lied. The other didn’t.
    So being a brazen W***er is better than an embarrased one?
    Surely admitting an addiction of any
    Only problem is alcoholism is an
    I would disagree. Physical withdrawal is not a requirement. Addiction includes compulsive behaviour that damages either an individual or the people around them.
    OK. If that is your medical e.
    It is generally recognised that while physical addiction and psychological addiction are different, they do share features, for example in this US definition:

    https://www.asam.org/resources/definition-of-addiction

    I would regard harm as a core feature, so for example compulsive gambling resulting in conflict with family.

    Weinstein and sex addiction is an interesting case. Whether his behaviour meets the criteria fpr addiction is not something that I am privy to, but whether he is a sex addict or merely evil does not mitigate his behaviour, any more than a gambling addict embezzling from his workplace, or a heroin addict stealing family heirlooms. None of these would meet the criminal defence of insanity, as the individual would be aware that the act is a crime. Or in other words: Treatment of the addiction may reduce the risk of relapse, but doesn't reduce the crime.

    We are in danger of falling into semantics here. I will make my point whilst respecting your superior medical knowledge. Toby Young liking watching porn does not make him a porn addict. Just someone who watches porn. I, too, occasionally watch porn. That does not permit me to pass comment on a public forum about various women's breasts. If I do, and am found out, I will not claim to be an addict, just an inappropriate prat.
    I think we can agree on this.
    Sure, technical jargon is often used innapropriately in colloquial speech.

    Toby's porn watching would only be classed as addiction if it was compulsive, and adversely impacted on him or those close to him. I do not have the information to judge. I certainly agree that he is an inappropriate prat.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,432
    Latest from Sydney: Aus 221/2. Not much chance of an England lead now.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 10,003
    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    TM sacks bloke for lying about Porn on his computer


    This week agrees to self confessed Porn Addicts appointment.

    Indeed.

    One lied. The other didn’t.
    So being a brazen W***er is better than an embarrased one?
    Surely admitting an addiction of any kind is admitting one has a problem, and thus, if sincere (sincerity being key here), they deserve help and/or pity? And of course not lying about something is better than lying, why would anyone think otherwise? The Green probelm wasn't that wanking was something he should be embarrassed about, it was that he was allegedly seeking out masturbatory material at a time and place it wasn't appropriate, ie while on the job, in the literal sense.
    Arguably, not as bad as MPs getting pissed in the Palace of Westminster. At least a w***er's judgment on legislation isn't impaired when they vote.

    How many of those utterly outraged by Green were still prepared to think nothing bad of Charles Kennedy "because he clearly had a problem"?
    I am not sure if that was meant as a dig at me, but I never called for Green's resignation, or for that of Toby or Boris for that matter.

    I would be very happy if all the Parliamentary bars closed.
    Indeed. All this fuss about former members of the Lords still having access to the parliamentary subsidised bars and restaurants, and none of them seem to ask the obvious question why they have subsidised bars in the first place? If it were local government, or any other part of the public sector, treating its officials to cheap food and drink, we can be sure that government would have closed them down long ago.
  • kle4 said:

    I wouldn't say people's past words and opinions are irrelevant, but even if the summary is right of the contents I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised enough to get truly outraged. And when we say 'the focus moves to' who decides that? This is the first I've heard of it, has it started, how do they say, trending yet?

    This is the focus in parts of the media.
    Alas PB is missing an opportunity to distinguish itself from such tiresome po-faced parts of the media this evening.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,736
    Everybody knows what Boris is like and anyone who might be disapproving of his comments is unlikely to vote for him anyway. Boris is the British Trump or Berlusconi, his colourful private life comes with the territory
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,736

    Sandpit said:

    Has there ever been a market where the top five contenders are all obvious lays rather than backs?

    Presidential candidate markets, early on, frequently.

    e.g. Dem, 2020:

    Kamela Harris 6/1 (she's possible but she's not *that* likely)
    Elizabeth Warren 7/1 (again, possible, but overrated)
    Bernie Sanders 10/1 (may not even run, socialist, very old and looks it)
    Kirsten Gillibrand 10/1 (another plausible shot but not a front-runner)
    Michelle Obama 18/1 (FFS).
    Actually the challenger to an incumbent President is normally one of the early favourites eg Romney, Dole, Mondale, Reagan etc. Kerry in 2004 was also an established and experienced Senator and one of the early favourites with Lieberman until Dean surged. Even Clinton in 1992 having not stood in 1988 was considered a strong challenger in 1992.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 10,003
    HYUFD said:

    Everybody knows what Boris is like and anyone who might be disapproving of his comments is unlikely to vote for him anyway. Boris is the British Trump or Berlusconi, his colourful private life comes with the territory

    Because a Trump or Berlusconi is so what we need right now.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,736
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Everybody knows what Boris is like and anyone who might be disapproving of his comments is unlikely to vote for him anyway. Boris is the British Trump or Berlusconi, his colourful private life comes with the territory

    Because a Trump or Berlusconi is so what we need right now.
    In your view, does not mean he could not win though. He remains the most charismatic and electable Tory
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 10,600
    TGOHF said:
    She's correct, and the absence of comment from most European countries reflects the same thinking. The protests seem to have been initiated by hardline critics of the moderates, and then embraced by a much wider range of protesters, including some who are against the regime altogether, while others simply object to inflation and falling living standards. Apart from urging restraint and tolerance, it's not clear what we can usefully do, or whether anyone whom we decide we like would actually welcome our saying so.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,578

    Sandpit said:

    Has there ever been a market where the top five contenders are all obvious lays rather than backs?

    Presidential candidate markets, early on, frequently.

    e.g. Dem, 2020:

    Kamela Harris 6/1 (she's possible but she's not *that* likely)
    Elizabeth Warren 7/1 (again, possible, but overrated)
    Bernie Sanders 10/1 (may not even run, socialist, very old and looks it)
    Kirsten Gillibrand 10/1 (another plausible shot but not a front-runner)
    Michelle Obama 18/1 (FFS).
    Yes, that’s a good example too. Reflective of a lack of strength in depth in the respective parties possibly? Will be interesting to look back at these markets in a couple of years’ time.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,578
    AndyJS said:

    Latest from Sydney: Aus 221/2. Not much chance of an England lead now.

    And they pass our score only 3 down. This could be another embarrassing innings defeat if we don’t get some wickets soon.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,578
    Finally we get Usman Khawaja for 171, maiden test wicket for Crane. 375/4, we need a few more wickets tonight.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,976
    edited January 6

    TGOHF said:
    She's correct, and the absence of comment from most European countries reflects the same thinking. The protests seem to have been initiated by hardline critics of the moderates, and then embraced by a much wider range of protesters, including some who are against the regime altogether, while others simply object to inflation and falling living standards. Apart from urging restraint and tolerance, it's not clear what we can usefully do, or whether anyone whom we decide we like would actually welcome our saying so.
    I agree, while there are very likely some people in the crowds that we would prefer to the regime, would intervening aid those forces? or just create a nationalist backlash that destroys them? Our interference in Mid East politivcs has not often helped over recent years.Generic calls for peaceful resolution is as far as we should go.

    The TUC piece on Iran is one of the more intelligent that I have seen:

    https://www.tuc.org.uk/blogs/whats-behind-protests-iran-and-what-can-you-do



  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 22,432
    edited January 6
    Sandpit said:

    AndyJS said:

    Latest from Sydney: Aus 221/2. Not much chance of an England lead now.

    And they pass our score only 3 down. This could be another embarrassing innings defeat if we don’t get some wickets soon.
    As I said earlier, I don't think England will be able to easily cope with 41 degrees celsius tomorrow in Sydney and could collapse to an innings defeat as you say. Granted it's easier to bat than field in that sort of weather but it'll still be an ordeal for them.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,578
    edited January 6
    AndyJS said:

    Sandpit said:

    AndyJS said:

    Latest from Sydney: Aus 221/2. Not much chance of an England lead now.

    And they pass our score only 3 down. This could be another embarrassing innings defeat if we don’t get some wickets soon.
    As I said earlier, I don't think England will be able to easily cope with 41 degrees celsius tomorrow in Sydney and could collapse to an innings defeat as you say. Granted it's easier to bat than field in that sort of weather but it'll still be an ordeal for them.
    So 133 the lead, six wickets in hand at the close. Do they declare overnight, or do they let our bowlers sweat for a couple of hours before lunch before putting our openers in as it gets really hot?
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364
    Not good news to wake up to, 133 behind. I think Mr Sandpits plan B is what Root and his men can expect.

    this tour didn’t get off to the best of starts, withn the problems over Stokes.... when are the CPS or whoever going to make a decision?
    Got the feeling that mental attitudes were wrong across the board, though.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,820
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    TM sacks bloke for lying about Porn on his computer


    This week agrees to self confessed Porn Addicts appointment.

    Indeed.

    One lied. The other didn’t.
    So being a brazen W***er is better than an embarrased one?
    Surely admitting an addiction of any kind is admitting one has a problem, and thus, if sincere (sincerity being key here), they deserve help and/or pity? And of course not lying about something is better than lying, why would anyone think otherwise? The Green probelm wasn't that wanking was something he should be embarrassed about, it was that he was allegedly seeking out masturbatory material at a time and place it wasn't appropriate, ie while on the job, in the literal sense.
    Arguably, not as bad as MPs getting pissed in the Palace of Westminster. At least a w***er's judgment on legislation isn't impaired when they vote.

    How many of those utterly outraged by Green were still prepared to think nothing bad of Charles Kennedy "because he clearly had a problem"?
    I am not sure if that was meant as a dig at me, but I never called for Green's resignation, or for that of Toby or Boris for that matter.

    I would be very happy if all the Parliamentary bars closed.
    Indeed. All this fuss about former members of the Lords still having access to the parliamentary subsidised bars and restaurants, and none of them seem to ask the obvious question why they have subsidised bars in the first place? If it were local government, or any other part of the public sector, treating its officials to cheap food and drink, we can be sure that government would have closed them down long ago.
    Because the people who set the rules benefit directly. It's borderline unethical but in practice there's not much you can do.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,411

    Not good news to wake up to, 133 behind. I think Mr Sandpits plan B is what Root and his men can expect.

    this tour didn’t get off to the best of starts, withn the problems over Stokes.... when are the CPS or whoever going to make a decision?
    Got the feeling that mental attitudes were wrong across the board, though.

    The Ashes were placed on the table for the Aussies to devour from the moment that the ECB and Strauss caved on the Stokes story. He was deemed guilty until proved innocent by sections of the press and social media and the cricketing authorities lacked the strength to ride out the storm.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,713
    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. W, a similar thing happened to the actor, forget his name, who had a leading role in a big BBC drama set for Christmas. The programme was never aired and apparently his role is being recast.

    He's been accused of some sort of misdemeanour, forget what [it's early and I haven't had any coffee yet], but nothing's been proven.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,411

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. W, a similar thing happened to the actor, forget his name, who had a leading role in a big BBC drama set for Christmas. The programme was never aired and apparently his role is being recast.

    He's been accused of some sort of misdemeanour, forget what [it's early and I haven't had any coffee yet], but nothing's been proven.

    Good morning Mr MD.

    This story I believe. Ed Westwick in "Ordeal By Innocence" from the BBC .... Might seem apposite in time :

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42577505
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 2,976
    JackW said:

    Good morning, everyone.

    Mr. W, a similar thing happened to the actor, forget his name, who had a leading role in a big BBC drama set for Christmas. The programme was never aired and apparently his role is being recast.

    He's been accused of some sort of misdemeanour, forget what [it's early and I haven't had any coffee yet], but nothing's been proven.

    Good morning Mr MD.

    This story I believe. Ed Westwick in "Ordeal By Innocence" from the BBC .... Might seem apposite in time :

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42577505
    Westwick was very good in his role as the amoral lead in White Gold, which was one of the more interesting new TV series of the year. Very Eighties.

    I have no idea whether the allegations against him were true or not.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,781
    edited January 6
    All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.

    FPT and inaccurate.

    There are no Galileo receivers in widespread military use yet. There might be a few snake eaters using them but there are none in British military a/c for example. The Galileo system will not be operational until 2019.

    Since Selective Availability was turned off by Clinton in 2000 there is no intrinsic difference between the GPS service accuracy of the US military and anyone else. Mil Spec receivers do have the potential greater accuracy by using dual frequencies. There is nothing to stop foreign powers or civilian receivers doing this if they can afford the cost.

    GPS does have selective deniability but it's geographic and of partial efficacy. eg GPS in a rough footprint over Afghanistan and some of Pakistan is significantly dithered. It's (almost, you never know with Trump) inconceivable that the GPS ranging signals over the UK or Europe would ever be degraded.

    Obviously I'm still a Remainer and Leavers are still hostis humani generis but Galileo, while an excellent program, was never a compelling reason to remain,
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,959

    TGOHF said:
    She's correct, and the absence of comment from most European countries reflects the same thinking. The protests seem to have been initiated by hardline critics of the moderates, and then embraced by a much wider range of protesters, including some who are against the regime altogether, while others simply object to inflation and falling living standards. Apart from urging restraint and tolerance, it's not clear what we can usefully do, or whether anyone whom we decide we like would actually welcome our saying so.
    Wring wring wring.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,614
    edited January 6
    Sandpit said:

    Finally we get Usman Khawaja for 171, maiden test wicket for Crane. 375/4, we need a few more wickets tonight.

    A boy was brought up before the family courts in Scotland after his parents were charged with beating him violently. The judge asked if there was any family member he could go to. The boy demurred, answering that his other relatives were even worse. The judge, baffled, asked if there was anyone else.

    'Can ye no put me with the England cricket team?' asked the boy. 'It's well known that outside England they cannae beat anyone.'

    (This is not intended to make light of violence towards children!)
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,713
    Mr. W, that's the fellow. He protests his innocence and no guilt has been proven. I can see the case for delaying the airing, but replacing him seems to imply guilt (ie an accusation is considered, if not outright proof, strong evidence).

    Mr. Doethur, that's rather good.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,614
    JackW said:

    The Ashes were placed on the table for the Aussies to devour from the moment that the ECB and Strauss caved on the Stokes story. He was deemed guilty until proved innocent by sections of the press and social media and the cricketing authorities lacked the strength to ride out the storm.

    There I disagree, for four reasons:

    1) It was also an internal disciplinary matter given he was travelling under ECB auspices and was breaking several of their rules;

    2) The police might have been rather reluctant to let him go to a foreign country during an investigation - I'm surprised they let him go to New Zealand although that is of course technically his home country;

    3) If he had had to fly back midway through to be charged that would have been a public relations disaster;

    4) Stokes is quite good but despite the hype not *that* good because he is very inconsistent. He might have produced a couple of dazzling moments but he would hardly have compensated for the fragility of our batting or the lack of bite in our bowling. Moeen might have done but his loss of form partly due to injury came at a rather unfortunate moment. But the key thing is to get a decent batsman at 3 (Hameed) and some teeth in the bowling (God knows who that will be).
  • MattWMattW Posts: 1,853
    edited January 6
    (Sorry - reckon blockquotes are confused)

    Foxy said:

    Essexit said:

    Foxy said:

    Scott_P said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    I am not a Brexiteer.

    It's like Pavlov...
    Sure, but many of the quotes that enter political life are not accurately cited, whether Maggie on "no such thing as society" or Jim Callaghan "Crisis, What Crisis?"
    Callaghan did not say Crisis What Crisis? but Mrs Thatcher really did say there is no such thing as society, in an interview with Woman's Own.
    https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689

    We should not forget Mrs Thatcher's Methodist background. It has been said that Mrs Thatcher was later disappointed that the people who'd become wealthy under her premiership were not philanthropic like the good Samaritan.
    Except that her words are yanked out of context and (to be blunt) used dishonestly as a self-justification or a smear. Thatcher was attacking the idea that there exists some abstract "society" floating in mid-air that has responsibilities, and arguing that society is about real people and relationships. Here is what she actually said, and she was right:

    "I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and [end p29] there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation"

    On a lot of the claims, that is exactly what is happening to Toby Young, as it has happened to Boris over "watermelon eyes". Some of it has some basis, some of it is out of context, some of it is just made up or may be deliberate lies.

    I suspect that the real problem may turn out to be Theresa May's Glass Jaw in the face of the outrage bus.
  • VinnyVinny Posts: 33
    It comes to something when this website starts to spread dirt about people..
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,411
    edited January 6
    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    The Ashes were placed on the table for the Aussies to devour from the moment that the ECB and Strauss caved on the Stokes story. He was deemed guilty until proved innocent by sections of the press and social media and the cricketing authorities lacked the strength to ride out the storm.

    There I disagree, for four reasons:

    1) It was also an internal disciplinary matter given he was travelling under ECB auspices and was breaking several of their rules;

    2) The police might have been rather reluctant to let him go to a foreign country during an investigation - I'm surprised they let him go to New Zealand although that is of course technically his home country;

    3) If he had had to fly back midway through to be charged that would have been a public relations disaster;

    4) Stokes is quite good but despite the hype not *that* good because he is very inconsistent. He might have produced a couple of dazzling moments but he would hardly have compensated for the fragility of our batting or the lack of bite in our bowling. Moeen might have done but his loss of form partly due to injury came at a rather unfortunate moment. But the key thing is to get a decent batsman at 3 (Hameed) and some teeth in the bowling (God knows who that will be).
    I venture to suggest you are in error. To each point :

    1) An internal disciplinary matter doesn't presuppose guilt either and should also have the capability and speed to adjudicate on the minor infractions outwith of any police investigation.

    2. No charges have been laid and accordingly Stokes is free to travel without hindrance.

    3. If abroad when charged there is no obligation for Stokes to return immediately unless in breach of the law of that country. I doubt the CPS would wish to go down the route of extradition if Stokes agreed to return in reasonable time.

    4. We shall never know but I would suggest the informed and generally agreed consensus is that England are a far more formidable side with Stokes than without him.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,578
    JackW said:

    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    The Ashes were placed on the table for the Aussies to devour from the moment that the ECB and Strauss caved on the Stokes story. He was deemed guilty until proved innocent by sections of the press and social media and the cricketing authorities lacked the strength to ride out the storm.

    There I disagree, for four reasons:

    1) It was also an internal disciplinary matter given he was travelling under ECB auspices and was breaking several of their rules;

    2) The police might have been rather reluctant to let him go to a foreign country during an investigation - I'm surprised they let him go to New Zealand although that is of course technically his home country;

    3) If he had had to fly back midway through to be charged that would have been a public relations disaster;

    4) Stokes is quite good but despite the hype not *that* good because he is very inconsistent. He might have produced a couple of dazzling moments but he would hardly have compensated for the fragility of our batting or the lack of bite in our bowling. Moeen might have done but his loss of form partly due to injury came at a rather unfortunate moment. But the key thing is to get a decent batsman at 3 (Hameed) and some teeth in the bowling (God knows who that will be).
    I venture to suggest you are in error. To each point :

    1) An internal disciplinary matter doesn't presuppose guilt either and should also have the capability and speed to adjudicate on the minor infractions outwith of any police investigation.

    2. No charges have been laid and accordingly Stokes is free to travel without hindrance.

    3. If abroad when charged there is no obligation for Stokes to return immediately unless in breach of the law of that country. I doubt the CPS would wish to go down the route of extradition if Stokes agreed to return in reasonable time.

    4. We shall never know but I would suggest the informed and generally agreed consensus is that England are a far more formidable side with Stokes than without him.
    Hard to disagree with that. There’s no point weakening the team over a non-sporting incident still under investigation by the relevant authorities.

    I’m sure the ECB could have posted a large bail bond if requested, to ensure his return on what looks more like a minor affray rather than attempted murder.

    We’ll be lucky to have finished 4-0 rather than 5-0 in the series, thanks to a completely flat pitch last time out in Melbourne.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,614
    edited January 6
    JackW said:

    ydoethur said:

    There I disagree, for four reasons:

    1) It was also an internal disciplinary matter given he was travelling under ECB auspices and was breaking several of their rules;

    2) The police might have been rather reluctant to let him go to a foreign country during an investigation - I'm surprised they let him go to New Zealand although that is of course technically his home country;

    3) If he had had to fly back midway through to be charged that would have been a public relations disaster;

    4) Stokes is quite good but despite the hype not *that* good because he is very inconsistent. He might have produced a couple of dazzling moments but he would hardly have compensated for the fragility of our batting or the lack of bite in our bowling. Moeen might have done but his loss of form partly due to injury came at a rather unfortunate moment. But the key thing is to get a decent batsman at 3 (Hameed) and some teeth in the bowling (God knows who that will be).

    I venture to suggest you are in error. To each point :

    1) An internal disciplinary matter doesn't presuppose guilt either and should also have the capability and speed to adjudicate on the minor infractions outwith of any police investigation.

    2. No charges have been laid and accordingly Stokes is free to travel without hindrance.

    3. If abroad when charged there is no obligation for Stokes to return immediately unless in breach of the law of that country. I doubt the CPS would wish to go down the route of extradition if Stokes agreed to return in reasonable time.

    4. We shall never know but I would suggest the informed and generally agreed consensus is that England are a far more formidable side with Stokes than without him.
    We can agree to disagree by all means. But can I please point out that whether he assaulted somebody or not, he was in breach of the ECB's code of conduct by being out late drinking, which is in itself a reason not to take him on tour until he's learned his lesson?

    As for point 4 I think the lift he gives is more apparent than real - a bit like Andrew Flintoff who was much loved by the press but was not actually especially good. The truth is everyone always looks for the next Botham - but he was a genuine one-off and this obsession with him is quite damaging in other ways.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,544
    Dura_Ace said:

    All of British defence equipment runs off two different global positioning systems, the US GPS and the EU's Gallileo. (Both work in essentially the same way.) We pay for membership of Gallileo as part of the EU. In theory, if we were to leave the EU and were to fall out with the US, we would find our equipment without 1m resolution positioning accuracy.

    FPT and inaccurate.

    There are no Galileo receivers in widespread military use yet. There might be a few snake eaters using them but there are none in British military a/c for example. The Galileo system will not be operational until 2019.

    Since Selective Availability was turned off by Clinton in 2000 there is no intrinsic difference between the GPS service accuracy of the US military and anyone else. Mil Spec receivers do have the potential greater accuracy by using dual frequencies. There is nothing to stop foreign powers or civilian receivers doing this if they can afford the cost.

    GPS does have selective deniability but it's geographic and of partial efficacy. eg GPS in a rough footprint over Afghanistan and some of Pakistan is significantly dithered. It's (almost, you never know with Trump) inconceivable that the GPS ranging signals over the UK or Europe would ever be degraded.

    Obviously I'm still a Remainer and Leavers are still hostis humani generis but Galileo, while an excellent program, was never a compelling reason to remain,

    Seemingly Glonass (Russian) is up and running and Beidou (Chinese) goes live in 2020, and Huawei reckons its phones already support all 4 systems.
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 1,043
    In happier cricket news, the Indian frauds seem to be getting found out by South Africa (and not a great RSA side by any means).

    The only true test of a cricket team now is the ability to win away series against Australia, England, India or South Africa - England are the most recent away winners in all 3 match-ups, and I won't be giving much credit to any of them until they can beat us in England like we beat them in their conditions.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 1,853
    ydoethur said:


    We can agree to disagree by all means. But can I please point out that whether he assaulted somebody or not, he was in breach of the ECB's code of conduct by being out late drinking, which is in itself a reason not to take him on tour until he's learned his lesson?

    Perhaps the ECB needs to begin behaving a little bit less like Mary Poppins.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 19,031
    RobD said:

    AndyJS said:
    Is he really fighting, or are people just agitating for his removal?
    Smug git should be booted out.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,411
    edited January 6
    ydoethur said:

    As for point 4 I think the lift he gives is more apparent than real - a bit like Andrew Flintoff who was much loved by the press but was not actually especially good. The truth is everyone always looks for the next Botham - but he was a genuine one-off and this obsession with him is quite damaging in other ways.

    I am more than willing to "agree to disagree" on the certain basis that Jacobite nobles posting on PB have the certainty of right on their side on sporting matters .. :smile:

    It seems to me that some at the ECB and elsewhere want saints as players. So be it. The selectors must therefore draw the team from monastic institutions, English Nobel prize winners, selected members of the peerage south of the border and distinguished political bloggers from Bedford of a limited follicular disposition.

    On the other hand they might have fined Stokes for being a pillock, put two fingers up at the puritans and packed Stokes off to Oz to have a crack at Steve Smith and co.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 11,792
    MattW said:

    (Sorry - reckon blockquotes are confused)

    Foxy said:

    Essexit said:

    Foxy said:

    Scott_P said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    I am not a Brexiteer.

    It's like Pavlov...
    Sure, but many of the quotes that enter political life are not accurately cited, whether Maggie on "no such thing as society" or Jim Callaghan "Crisis, What Crisis?"
    Callaghan did not say Crisis What Crisis? but Mrs Thatcher really did say there is no such thing as society, in an interview with Woman's Own.
    https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689

    We should not forget Mrs Thatcher's Methodist background. It has been said that Mrs Thatcher was later disappointed that the people who'd become wealthy under her premiership were not philanthropic like the good Samaritan.
    Except that her words are yanked out of context and (to be blunt) used dishonestly as a self-justification or a smear. Thatcher was attacking the idea that there exists some abstract "society" floating in mid-air that has responsibilities, and arguing that society is about real people and relationships. Here is what she actually said, and she was right:

    "I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and [end p29] there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation"

    On a lot of the claims, that is exactly what is happening to Toby Young, as it has happened to Boris over "watermelon eyes". Some of it has some basis, some of it is out of context, some of it is just made up or may be deliberate lies.

    I suspect that the real problem may turn out to be Theresa May's Glass Jaw in the face of the outrage bus.
    Since you're keen to put Thacher's words into a proper context, can you explain what she meant by 'children' having unrealistic expectations of what Government or soclety should do for them?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,614
    maaarsh said:

    In happier cricket news, the Indian frauds seem to be getting found out by South Africa (and not a great RSA side by any means).

    The only true test of a cricket team now is the ability to win away series against Australia, England, India or South Africa - England are the most recent away winners in all 3 match-ups, and I won't be giving much credit to any of them until they can beat us in England like we beat them in their conditions.

    I feel straws are being clutched here...
    MattW said:


    Perhaps the ECB needs to begin behaving a little bit less like Mary Poppins.

    Or perhaps our cricketers need to grow up a bit.

    It's surreal to find myself defending an organisation that has done more wilful damage to cricket in this country through their stupidity, greed and incompetence than anyone since a certain Austrian shortarse with a stupid tache, but nevertheless I'm going to because on this occasion I think they're in the right.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 19,031

    kle4 said:

    dixiedean said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    TM sacks bloke for lying about Porn on his computer


    This week agrees to self confessed Porn Addicts appointment.

    Indeed.

    One lied. The other didn’t.
    So being a brazen W***er is better than an embarrased one?
    Surely admitting an addiction of any kind is admitting one has a problem, and thus, if sincere (sincerity being key here), they deserve help and/or pity? And of course not lying about something is better than lying, why would anyone think otherwise? The Green probelm wasn't that wanking was something he should be embarrassed about, it was that he was allegedly seeking out masturbatory material at a time and place it wasn't appropriate, ie while on the job, in the literal sense.
    Only problem is alcoholism is an addiction. A recognised medical condition. Nobody other than charlatans and those caught out define porn as an addiction. Neither is sex an addiction.
    There is nowt wrong with porn or sex imho....but one can't be addicted to either.
    One would need to show the withdrawal symptoms. Other than being horny, there aren't any.
    I've heard JFK would claim to get headaches without regular release, but in all honesty I have no idea whether medically it is accepted as an real addiction or not, so I'd certainly take your word for it. The real point was that even if it was a problem, being honest rather than lying would naturally be better.
    Sex can undoubtedly be an addiction, just as much as gambling or other activities that generate temporary highs followed by withdrawal (go on - smirk). It's a different sort of addiction to cigarettes or alcohol, where there is an external chemical component, but anything is an addiction if the addict follows the classic behavioural pattern.
    More like self indulgence, just an excuse for these manky gits when they get caught out. Amazing how sex addiction only seems to affect movie stars, politicians and smug rich right wing plonkers
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 43,713
    Mr. G, not a new thing.

    In the first Parisian department stores it was discovered many middle class women stole stuff. This confused people because they could afford what they were stealing. And thus was kleptomania invented.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 19,031
    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Everybody knows what Boris is like and anyone who might be disapproving of his comments is unlikely to vote for him anyway. Boris is the British Trump or Berlusconi, his colourful private life comes with the territory

    Because a Trump or Berlusconi is so what we need right now.
    In your view, does not mean he could not win though. He remains the most charismatic and electable Tory
    LOL, scraping the barrel comes to mind, what talent the Tories have waiting to replace the Hapless Theresa
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 1,043
    ydoethur said:

    maaarsh said:

    In happier cricket news, the Indian frauds seem to be getting found out by South Africa (and not a great RSA side by any means).

    The only true test of a cricket team now is the ability to win away series against Australia, England, India or South Africa - England are the most recent away winners in all 3 match-ups, and I won't be giving much credit to any of them until they can beat us in England like we beat them in their conditions.

    I feel straws are being clutched here....
    They were clutched well before this series in that case. Home conditions in cricket are now a stronger advantage than serving in Tennis, so the only real cause for celebration is a break of 'serve'.

    As an aside, England have selected a squad and starting XI which is clearly not their best - sadly Malan being in the form of his life mean we'll be subjected to him for at least another year before the selectors realise he barely gets in Middlesex's team for a reason.

    Khawaja is a rank ordinary player who struggles to get it off the square or defend his wicket in English conditions; his triumph this winter just demonstrates it's a borderline different game once you use a ball with no seam on flat tracks. Our best team will still comfortably beat Australia in 18 months unless they show significant development from here.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 19,031
    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    TM sacks bloke for lying about Porn on his computer


    This week agrees to self confessed Porn Addicts appointment.

    Indeed.

    One lied. The other didn’t.
    So being a brazen W***er is better than an embarrased one?
    Surely admitting an addiction of any kind is admitting one has a problem, and thus, if sincere (sincerity being key here), they deserve help and/or pity? And of course not lying about something is better than lying, why would anyone think otherwise? The Green probelm wasn't that wanking was something he should be embarrassed about, it was that he was allegedly seeking out masturbatory material at a time and place it wasn't appropriate, ie while on the job, in the literal sense.
    Arguably, not as bad as MPs getting pissed in the Palace of Westminster. At least a w***er's judgment on legislation isn't impaired when they vote.

    How many of those utterly outraged by Green were still prepared to think nothing bad of Charles Kennedy "because he clearly had a problem"?
    I am not sure if that was meant as a dig at me, but I never called for Green's resignation, or for that of Toby or Boris for that matter.

    I would be very happy if all the Parliamentary bars closed.
    Indeed. All this fuss about former members of the Lords still having access to the parliamentary subsidised bars and restaurants, and none of them seem to ask the obvious question why they have subsidised bars in the first place? If it were local government, or any other part of the public sector, treating its officials to cheap food and drink, we can be sure that government would have closed them down long ago.
    Because the people who set the rules benefit directly. It's borderline unethical but in practice there's not much you can do.
    Just keep quaffing the subsidised booze.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,210
    ydoethur said:

    JackW said:

    ydoethur said:

    There I disagree, for four reasons:

    1) It was also an internal disciplinary matter given he was travelling under ECB auspices and was breaking several of their rules;

    2) The police might have been rather reluctant to let him go to a foreign country during an investigation - I'm surprised they let him go to New Zealand although that is of course technically his home country;

    3) If he had had to fly back midway through to be charged that would have been a public relations disaster;

    4) Stokes is quite good but despite the hype not *that* good because he is very inconsistent. He might have produced a couple of dazzling moments but he would hardly have compensated for the fragility of our batting or the lack of bite in our bowling. Moeen might have done but his loss of form partly due to injury came at a rather unfortunate moment. But the key thing is to get a decent batsman at 3 (Hameed) and some teeth in the bowling (God knows who that will be).

    I venture to suggest you are in error. To each point :

    1) An internal disciplinary matter doesn't presuppose guilt either and should also have the capability and speed to adjudicate on the minor infractions outwith of any police investigation.

    2. No charges have been laid and accordingly Stokes is free to travel without hindrance.

    3. If abroad when charged there is no obligation for Stokes to return immediately unless in breach of the law of that country. I doubt the CPS would wish to go down the route of extradition if Stokes agreed to return in reasonable time.

    4. We shall never know but I would suggest the informed and generally agreed consensus is that England are a far more formidable side with Stokes than without him.
    We can agree to disagree by all means. But can I please point out that whether he assaulted somebody or not, he was in breach of the ECB's code of conduct by being out late drinking, which is in itself a reason not to take him on tour until he's learned his lesson?

    As for point 4 I think the lift he gives is more apparent than real - a bit like Andrew Flintoff who was much loved by the press but was not actually especially good. The truth is everyone always looks for the next Botham - but he was a genuine one-off and this obsession with him is quite damaging in other ways.
    He makes a significant difference. Granted he's not an exceptional bowler, but he's as good as any of the other third seamers floating in and out of the team at the moment, and a far better batsman than any of them - and a better fielder than anyone in the team with the possible exception of Bairstow.

    But otherwise I agree with you that the ECB are (for once in a long time) correct. What's dismaying is the length of time the police/CPS are taking over what ought to be a straightforward case.

  • MattWMattW Posts: 1,853
    edited January 6
    ydoethur said:

    maaarsh said:

    In happier cricket news, the Indian frauds seem to be getting found out by South Africa (and not a great RSA side by any means).

    The only true test of a cricket team now is the ability to win away series against Australia, England, India or South Africa - England are the most recent away winners in all 3 match-ups, and I won't be giving much credit to any of them until they can beat us in England like we beat them in their conditions.

    I feel straws are being clutched here...
    MattW said:


    Perhaps the ECB needs to begin behaving a little bit less like Mary Poppins.

    Or perhaps our cricketers need to grow up a bit.

    It's surreal to find myself defending an organisation that has done more wilful damage to cricket in this country through their stupidity, greed and incompetence than anyone since a certain Austrian shortarse with a stupid tache, but nevertheless I'm going to because on this occasion I think they're in the right.
    I am not convinced that going to the help of someone being beaten up, as was Stokes claim, should be characterised as infantile. If that claim is a lie, then punishment will be appropriate - but we believe in innocent until proven guilty etc. Don't we?

    I am also not convinced that conduct rules can reasonably be applied outside say the actual dates of matches and the immediate run-up.

    A the very least the ECB should have completed their investigation PDQ, but I am not happy with them second-guessing a verdict before they have done even that.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,210
    maaarsh said:

    ydoethur said:

    maaarsh said:

    In happier cricket news, the Indian frauds seem to be getting found out by South Africa (and not a great RSA side by any means).

    The only true test of a cricket team now is the ability to win away series against Australia, England, India or South Africa - England are the most recent away winners in all 3 match-ups, and I won't be giving much credit to any of them until they can beat us in England like we beat them in their conditions.

    I feel straws are being clutched here....
    They were clutched well before this series in that case. Home conditions in cricket are now a stronger advantage than serving in Tennis, so the only real cause for celebration is a break of 'serve'.

    As an aside, England have selected a squad and starting XI which is clearly not their best - sadly Malan being in the form of his life mean we'll be subjected to him for at least another year before the selectors realise he barely gets in Middlesex's team for a reason.

    Khawaja is a rank ordinary player who struggles to get it off the square or defend his wicket in English conditions; his triumph this winter just demonstrates it's a borderline different game once you use a ball with no seam on flat tracks. Our best team will still comfortably beat Australia in 18 months unless they show significant development from here.
    If their quicks stay fit, I'm not entirely sure about that.
    Neither team is outstanding, but Australia seem to be improving as we stand still. England have considerably more resources, and a far larger pool of potential test players to , draw from, but it's entirely possible that incoherent selection will leave is with a less than optimal team again.
    Pretty sure it won't be 4 or 5/0...
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,680

    MattW said:

    (Sorry - reckon blockquotes are confused)

    Foxy said:



    Sure, but many of the quotes that enter political life are not accurately cited, whether Maggie on "no such thing as society" or Jim Callaghan "Crisis, What Crisis?"

    Callaghan did not say Crisis What Crisis? but Mrs Thatcher really did say there is no such thing as society, in an interview with Woman's Own.
    https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689

    We should not forget Mrs Thatcher's Methodist background. It has been said that Mrs Thatcher was later disappointed that the people who'd become wealthy under her premiership were not philanthropic like the good Samaritan.
    Except that her words are yanked out of context and (to be blunt) used dishonestly as a self-justification or a smear. Thatcher was attacking the idea that there exists some abstract "society" floating in mid-air that has responsibilities, and arguing that society is about real people and relationships. Here is what she actually said, and she was right:

    "I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and [end p29] there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation"

    On a lot of the claims, that is exactly what is happening to Toby Young, as it has happened to Boris over "watermelon eyes". Some of it has some basis, some of it is out of context, some of it is just made up or may be deliberate lies.

    I suspect that the real problem may turn out to be Theresa May's Glass Jaw in the face of the outrage bus.
    Since you're keen to put Thacher's words into a proper context, can you explain what she meant by 'children' having unrealistic expectations of what Government or soclety should do for them?
    Presumably that having grown up in workless households, they have little to no concept of the idea that stuff has to be worked for, and the roof over their head is paid for by the fruits of others' labour.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 1,853
    edited January 6
    Essexit said:

    MattW said:

    (Sorry - reckon blockquotes are confused)

    Foxy said:



    Sure, but many of the quotes that enter political life are not accurately cited, whether Maggie on "no such thing as society" or Jim Callaghan "Crisis, What Crisis?"

    Callaghan did not say Crisis What Crisis? but Mrs Thatcher really did say there is no such thing as society, in an interview with Woman's Own.
    https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689

    We should not forget Mrs Thatcher's Methodist background. It has been said that Mrs Thatcher was later disappointed that the people who'd become wealthy under her premiership were not philanthropic like the good Samaritan.
    Except that her words are yanked out of context and (to be blunt) used dishonestly as a self-justification or a smear. Thatcher was attacking the idea that there exists some abstract "society" floating in mid-air that has responsibilities, and arguing that society is about real people and relationships. Here is what she actually said, and she was right:

    "I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and [end p29] there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation"

    On a lot of the claims, that is exactly what is happening to Toby Young, as it has happened to Boris over "watermelon eyes". Some of it has some basis, some of it is out of context, some of it is just made up or may be deliberate lies.

    I suspect that the real problem may turn out to be Theresa May's Glass Jaw in the face of the outrage bus.
    Since you're keen to put Thacher's words into a proper context, can you explain what she meant by 'children' having unrealistic expectations of what Government or soclety should do for them?
    Presumably that having grown up in workless households, they have little to no concept of the idea that stuff has to be worked for, and the roof over their head is paid for by the fruits of others' labour.
    I would interpret more that Govt cannot ever replace a family + community environment.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,820

    MattW said:

    (Sorry - reckon blockquotes are confused)

    Foxy said:

    Essexit said:

    Foxy said:

    Scott_P said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    I am not a Brexiteer.

    It's like Pavlov...
    Sure, but many of the quotes that enter political life are not accurately cited, whether Maggie on "no such thing as society" or Jim Callaghan "Crisis, What Crisis?"
    Callaghan did not say Crisis What Crisis? but Mrs Thatcher really did say there is no such thing as society, in an interview with Woman's Own.
    Except that her words are yanked out of context and (to be blunt) used dishonestly as a self-justification or a smear. Thatcher was attacking the idea that there exists some abstract "society" floating in mid-air that has responsibilities, and arguing that society is about real people and relationships. Here is what she actually said, and she was right:

    "I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and [end p29] there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then also to help look after our neighbour and life is a reciprocal business and people have got the entitlements too much in mind without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation"

    On a lot of the claims, that is exactly what is happening to Toby Young, as it has happened to Boris over "watermelon eyes". Some of it has some basis, some of it is out of context, some of it is just made up or may be deliberate lies.

    I suspect that the real problem may turn out to be Theresa May's Glass Jaw in the face of the outrage bus.
    Since you're keen to put Thacher's words into a proper context, can you explain what she meant by 'children' having unrealistic expectations of what Government or soclety should do for them?
    That’s not what she said. She said too many children have been given to understand “I have a problem it’s the Govetnnents job to cope with it” or rather than self help. But it’s really a criticism of culture than anything else
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,820
    malcolmg said:

    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    TM sacks bloke for lying about Porn on his computer


    This week agrees to self confessed Porn Addicts appointment.

    Indeed.

    One lied. The other didn’t.
    So being a brazen W***er is better than an embarrased one?
    Surely admitting an addiction of any kind is admitting one has a problem, and thus, if sincere (sincerity being key here), they deserve help and/or pity? And of course not lying about something is better than lying, why would anyone think otherwise? The Green probelm wasn't that wanking was something he should be embarrassed about, it was that he was allegedly seeking out masturbatory material at a time and place it wasn't appropriate, ie while on the job, in the literal sense.
    Arguably, not as bad as MPs getting pissed in the Palace of Westminster. At least a w***er's judgment on legislation isn't impaired when they vote.

    How many of those utterly outraged by Green were still prepared to think nothing bad of Charles Kennedy "because he clearly had a problem"?
    I am not sure if that was meant as a dig at me, but I never called for Green's resignation, or for that of Toby or Boris for that matter.

    I would be very happy if all the Parliamentary bars closed.
    Indeed. All this fuss about former members of the Lords still having access to the parliamentary subsidised bars and restaurants, and none of them seem to ask the obvious question why they have subsidised bars in the first place? If it were local government, or any other part of the public sector, treating its officials to cheap food and drink, we can be sure that government would have closed them down long ago.
    Because the people who set the rules benefit directly. It's borderline unethical but in practice there's not much you can do.
    Just keep quaffing the subsidised booze.
    If I was in charge I’d charge market prices and allow them to expense a reasonable amount (say £20) if they are required to work past, say, 8pm
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,959
    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    dixiedean said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    TM sacks bloke for lying about Porn on his computer


    This week agrees to self confessed Porn Addicts appointment.

    Indeed.

    One lied. The other didn’t.
    So being a brazen W***er is better than an embarrased one?
    Surely admitting an addiction of any kind is admitting one has a problem, and thus, if sincere (sincerity being key here), they deserve help and/or pity? And of course not lying about something is better than lying, why would anyone think otherwise? The Green probelm wasn't that wanking was something he should be embarrassed about, it was that he was allegedly seeking out masturbatory material at a time and place it wasn't appropriate, ie while on the job, in the literal sense.
    Only problem is alcoholism is an addiction. A recognised medical condition. Nobody other than charlatans and those caught out define porn as an addiction. Neither is sex an addiction.
    There is nowt wrong with porn or sex imho....but one can't be addicted to either.
    One would need to show the withdrawal symptoms. Other than being horny, there aren't any.
    I've heard JFK would claim to get headaches without regular release, but in all honesty I have no idea whether medically it is accepted as an real addiction or not, so I'd certainly take your word for it. The real point was that even if it was a problem, being honest rather than lying would naturally be better.
    Sex can undoubtedly be an addiction, just as much as gambling or other activities that generate temporary highs followed by withdrawal (go on - smirk). It's a different sort of addiction to cigarettes or alcohol, where there is an external chemical component, but anything is an addiction if the addict follows the classic behavioural pattern.
    More like self indulgence, just an excuse for these manky gits when they get caught out. Amazing how sex addiction only seems to affect movie stars, politicians and smug rich right wing plonkers
    Is Angus McNeil smug and right wing ?
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,589
    TGOHF said:

    malcolmg said:

    kle4 said:

    dixiedean said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Charles said:

    TM sacks bloke for lying about Porn on his computer


    This week agrees to self confessed Porn Addicts appointment.

    Indeed.

    One lied. The other didn’t.
    So being a brazen W***er is better than an embarrased one?
    Surely admitting an addiction of any kind is admitting one has a problem, and thus, if sincere (sincerity being key here), they deserve help and/or pity? And of course not lying about something is better than lying, why would anyone think otherwise? The Green probelm wasn't that wanking was something he should be embarrassed about, it was that he was allegedly seeking out masturbatory material at a time and place it wasn't appropriate, ie while on the job, in the literal sense.
    Only problem is alcoholism is an addiction. A recognised medical condition. Nobody other than charlatans and those caught out define porn as an addiction. Neither is sex an addiction.
    There is nowt wrong with porn or sex imho....but one can't be addicted to either.
    One would need to show the withdrawal symptoms. Other than being horny, there aren't any.
    I've heard JFK would claim to get headaches without regular release, but in all honesty I have no idea whether medically it is accepted as an real addiction or not, so I'd certainly take your word for it. The real point was that even if it was a problem, being honest rather than lying would naturally be better.
    Sex can undoubtedly be an addiction, just as much as gambling or other activities that generate temporary highs followed by withdrawal (go on - smirk). It's a different sort of addiction to cigarettes or alcohol, where there is an external chemical component, but anything is an addiction if the addict follows the classic behavioural pattern.
    More like self indulgence, just an excuse for these manky gits when they get caught out. Amazing how sex addiction only seems to affect movie stars, politicians and smug rich right wing plonkers
    Is Angus McNeil smug and right wing ?
    Errr, I think he is covered under politician.
This discussion has been closed.