That's like saying that because child abuse has been widespread for decades, any adults who are accused of child abuse have lost the right to the presumption of innocence. So, then charlatans like "Nick" get taken seriously.
Some men behave badly towards women and children Some women behave badly towards men and children. Judge people as individuals, rather than deeming them collectively to be oppressors or victims.
No it isn't, because thankfully child abuse isn't as widespread.
I talk to a lot of women: friends and mothers of other kids. If you carefully broach the topic, it's amazing how many have suffered minor abuse of various sorts, in the workplace and in public. Most of it is minor, but it all adds up if it happens frequently.
One lady, intelligent and highly-educated, in a good job, said she has to actively avoid being alone with a certain manager, who is known to be a bit dodgy. The management do nothing about it. Since the company is fairly well known in the industry, they're playing with fire.
I doubt if I have ever met a woman who has not at some point, encountered a flasher, or a groper. But, I don't think that says very much about us as a society. There will always be people whose behaviour is transgressive. We've been punishing crimes for centuries, but we still haven't eradicated crime.
It's more than that.
If you were told that someone you knew but not well - a nodding acquaintance - was a child abuser, you'd be shocked and doubtful, partly because it is so rare (or at least hidden). If you were told he was a wolf-whistler, or a groper, or a 'bit of a perv', you'd probably be less shocked.
Your last line is complacent. The best way of eradicating crime is to make that crime socially unacceptable. If it is socially acceptable - or ignored - then it'll continue. This is what has happened with drink driving - there is now a great social pressure not to do it. There is still a background level of it going on, and it will never be fully eradicated, but amongst many people it's socially unacceptable. See also my link about wolf-whistling on building sites.
That's like saying that because child abuse has been widespread for decades, any adults who are accused of child abuse have lost the right to the presumption of innocence. So, then charlatans like "Nick" get taken seriously.
Some men behave badly towards women and children Some women behave badly towards men and children. Judge people as individuals, rather than deeming them collectively to be oppressors or victims.
No it isn't, because thankfully child abuse isn't as widespread.
I talk to a lot of women: friends and mothers of other kids. If you carefully broach the topic, it's amazing how many have suffered minor abuse of various sorts, in the workplace and in public. Most of it is minor, but it all adds up if it happens frequently.
One lady, intelligent and highly-educated, in a good job, said she has to actively avoid being alone with a certain manager, who is known to be a bit dodgy. The management do nothing about it. Since the company is fairly well known in the industry, they're playing with fire.
I doubt if I have ever met a woman who has not at some point, encountered a flasher, or a groper. But, I don't think that says very much about us as a society. There will always be people whose behaviour is transgressive. We've been punishing crimes for centuries, but we still haven't eradicated crime.
It's more than that.
If you were told that someone you knew but not well - a nodding acquaintance - was a child abuser, you'd be shocked and doubtful, partly because it is so rare (or at least hidden). If you were told he was a wolf-whistler, or a groper, or a 'bit of a perv', you'd probably be less shocked.
Your last line is complacent. The best way of eradicating crime is to make that crime socially unacceptable. If it is socially acceptable - or ignored - then it'll continue. This is what has happened with drink driving - there is now a great social pressure not to do it. There is still a background level of it going on, and it will never be fully eradicated, but amongst many people it's socially unacceptable. See also my link about wolf-whistling on building sites.
In Telford there were plenty of white men who not the perpetrators turned a blind eye to it, if you believe the accounts. Police officers who thought twelve year olds to be "fully consenting", etc. etc. They were able to take that position because the 'lesser' situation they believed to have happened was somehow acceptable.
Pretty much turned his reply into an attack on the government. Put it this way, I'm sure Putin would have been very happy with it.
I notice that Filthy Muckguire was doing the same last night on R5.
The PM has made about as serious a charge against Russia as you could make, without saying it was an act of war. In response Jezza starts going on about political donations, and NHS funding. It's almost as though he doesn't grasp how serious this is.
Pretty much turned his reply into an attack on the government. Put it this way, I'm sure Putin would have been very happy with it.
I notice that Filthy Muckguire was doing the same last night on R5.
The PM has made about as serious a charge against Russia as you could make, without saying it was an act of war. In response Jezza starts going on about political donations, and NHS funding. It's almost as though he doesn't grasp how serious this is.
Well in his world view everything is the Tories fault and never ever the fault of brutal dictators or terrorist organizations. It is truly scary this man is in with a chance of being PM.
Tom Tugendhat has more gravitas than I first thought. Future Tory leader material.
He was good on the radio this morning. I was quite impressed and their expert, a retired member of the National Security Council, agreed with all he had said.
In Telford there were plenty of white men who not the perpetrators turned a blind eye to it, if you believe the accounts. Police officers who thought twelve year olds to be "fully consenting", etc. etc. They were able to take that position because the 'lesser' situation they believed to have happened was somehow acceptable.
Indeed. As I've been saying, it's a view that's common throughout society. 'They deserve it', 'they're prostitutes', 'it's doing no harm', etc, etc. Mix that in with not wanting to harm 'community relations' and you have a hideous mix.
It's been a while since I've read the Rotherham report, but it was clear that it was a very complex situation. for instance, some of the abused girls felt like their abusers were their 'boyfriends'. That beggars belief. But too many girls were seen as not being worth helping, even when they asked for help.
Having said that, ISTR there were a few girls from good middle-class backgrounds who got dragged into it, along with the sadly usual kids in care. They too were treated just the same ...
It's a good job the leader of the opposition has always ensured never to associate with the mouth piece of the Russian state...one that is in his opinion is more objective than the most parts of the MSM.
Good measured response from Cable with practical suggestions on how to proceed. Seems the other opposition parties get this and know what level of debate and questioning is needed.
Good measured response from Cable with practical suggestions on how to proceed. Seems the other opposition parties get this and know what level of debate and questioning is needed.
Apart from Corbyn everyone else seems very responsible.
Time for moderate labour MP's to do something about him
Pretty much turned his reply into an attack on the government. Put it this way, I'm sure Putin would have been very happy with it.
I notice that Filthy Muckguire was doing the same last night on R5.
The PM has made about as serious a charge against Russia as you could make, without saying it was an act of war. In response Jezza starts going on about political donations, and NHS funding. It's almost as though he doesn't grasp how serious this is.
Well in his world view everything is the Tories fault and never ever the fault of brutal dictators or terrorist organizations. It is truly scary this man is in with a chance of being PM.
If he becomes PM he *will* be tested by international events, yet alone domestic ones. Does anyone believe he'll react well to such tests?
Why is anyone surprised by this? Corbyn has long been aligned with anyone hostile to the West, and gladly peddles anti-Western narratives on the Kremlin's TV channel. He will only condemn Russian in the mildest terms if it threatens his chance of becoming PM after much public pressure.
Labour MPs backing Corbyn have sold out their principles as much as Republicans that backed Trump. Putin, the worst right winger with major power, is the one laughing.
Tom Tugendhat has more gravitas than I first thought. Future Tory leader material.
Very impressive
Yes. The next leadership election will see an initial parade of the predictable retreads. Then Tugendhat and / or Mercer will throw their hats into the ring and the party will conclude "sod it - they have what it takes - away with the rest."
The important question is whether May has roped the US and the EU into her response to Russia. No way the UK alone could impose any meaningful punishment on Russia without going severe damage to itself. Does Nato mutual self defence apply on this case?
Amazing support for TM across the House including the labour benches - is this the day Corbyn began to lose his party
Don't be silly. They are all too spineless and besides no challenger would win.
The only people who can defeat him are the British public and the Tories get their act together and exposing him for what he really is.
Calling me silly is a bit silly - this is the biggest crisis facing the Country in years and labour mp after labour mp backing TM and Chris Bryant even asked for Russia Today to be banned from this Country
Amazing support for TM across the House including the labour benches - is this the day Corbyn began to lose his party
Don't be silly. They are all too spineless and besides no challenger would win.
The only people who can defeat him are the British public and the Tories get their act together and exposing him for what he really is.
Calling me silly is a bit silly - this is the biggest crisis facing the Country in years and labour mp after labour mp backing TM and Chris Bryant even asked for Russia Today to be banned from this Country
They honestly aren't going to do anything. We are stuck with him. All the sensible Labour MPs know all about Jezza's world view, it isn't a surprise or news to them.
Not watching the coverage but suspect Mr. Urquhart is right. Labour MPs have been largely (though not entirely) obedient or at least quiet about Corbyn's unacceptable nature since the election.
The important question is whether May has roped the US and the EU into her response to Russia. No way the UK alone could impose any meaningful punishment on Russia without going severe damage to itself. Does Nato mutual self defence apply on this case?
We can seize Russian assets going through the City and British territories all on our own.
Not watching the coverage but suspect Mr. Urquhart is right. Labour MPs have been largely (though not entirely) obedient or at least quiet about Corbyn's unacceptable nature since the election.
The debate is very good and Corbyn's attitude completely compromised. Even the Lib Dems are attacking the Russian state.
I cannot see England going to the World Cup following this debate
The important question is whether May has roped the US and the EU into her response to Russia. No way the UK alone could impose any meaningful punishment on Russia without going severe damage to itself. Does Nato mutual self defence apply on this case?
An important question is *why* Putin has done this, and what he wants to achieve by doing it. Like the Litvinenko (sp?) case, it's an absolutely blatant and obvious attack. At the very least he's sending messages.
Once we know what he wants to achieve, our reaction has to factor in preventing him from achieving it, or minimising any advantage he gets from it.
As ever, there's probably not one motivating factor, but several.
The important question is whether May has roped the US and the EU into her response to Russia. No way the UK alone could impose any meaningful punishment on Russia without going severe damage to itself. Does Nato mutual self defence apply on this case?
We can seize Russian assets going through the City and British territories all on our own.
Of course but the problem will be the damage done to us when Russia retaliates. A broad front is needed given the UKs currently weakened position.
Here we go again, previously Home Secretary, widely regarded as incompetent, now a Prime Minister, trying desperately not to wet herself as she tries to avoid taking the blame for neutering our security and military forces, facing a belligerent and bellicose House of Commons, and knowing that she has nothing to threaten Putin with. Once it begins to dawn on MP's the reality of 8 years of Tory Government fixated on Brexit to the exclusion of anything else..... .
Mr. Jessop, it's about the Greatness of Russia. In conflicts against weaker forces he uses military intervention. Against stronger forces he uses cyberwarfare to extremely good effect, and his critics both in his own country and overseas have an inexplicably short life expectancy.
He knows we both can't and won't retaliate in kind. It's also why we need to ensure our military doesn't became emaciated.
Mr. Jessop, it's about the Greatness of Russia. In conflicts against weaker forces he uses military intervention. Against stronger forces he uses cyberwarfare to extremely good effect, and his critics both in his own country and overseas have an inexplicably short life expectancy.
He knows we both can't and won't retaliate in kind. It's also why we need to ensure our military doesn't became emaciated.
That may be the strategy. The question is what he hopes to achieve from this tactic, which is rather extreme. It could be tied in to the election, sanctions, preventing spying, or something that we plebs outside the security forces are unaware of. Or all of the above.
Mr. Jessop, it's about the Greatness of Russia. In conflicts against weaker forces he uses military intervention. Against stronger forces he uses cyberwarfare to extremely good effect, and his critics both in his own country and overseas have an inexplicably short life expectancy.
He knows we both can't and won't retaliate in kind. It's also why we need to ensure our military doesn't became emaciated.
That may be the strategy. The question is what he hopes to achieve from this tactic, which is rather extreme. It could be tied in to the election, sanctions, preventing spying, or something that we plebs outside the security forces are unaware of. Or all of the above.
The UK response can possibly be summed up as
'Too much, too late'.
The police called allegedly 'suspicious' deaths 'suicides'. Why ... lack of funding or instructions from on high? If any of these ten or so had been followed up, would he have got as far as collateral damage (innocent bystanders contaminated by chemical weapons, businesses badly damaged financially, two more people struggling for their lives.)
As a regular reader of Private Eye, the standard with financial regulation is almost for the US authorities to start court proceedings before the UK begins its investigation, i.e. the UK likes 'light touch' regulation and the US takes it a bit more seriously.
Comments
If you were told that someone you knew but not well - a nodding acquaintance - was a child abuser, you'd be shocked and doubtful, partly because it is so rare (or at least hidden). If you were told he was a wolf-whistler, or a groper, or a 'bit of a perv', you'd probably be less shocked.
Your last line is complacent. The best way of eradicating crime is to make that crime socially unacceptable. If it is socially acceptable - or ignored - then it'll continue. This is what has happened with drink driving - there is now a great social pressure not to do it. There is still a background level of it going on, and it will never be fully eradicated, but amongst many people it's socially unacceptable. See also my link about wolf-whistling on building sites.
https://twitter.com/IsabelHardman/status/973248662687174657
It's been a while since I've read the Rotherham report, but it was clear that it was a very complex situation. for instance, some of the abused girls felt like their abusers were their 'boyfriends'. That beggars belief. But too many girls were seen as not being worth helping, even when they asked for help.
Having said that, ISTR there were a few girls from good middle-class backgrounds who got dragged into it, along with the sadly usual kids in care. They too were treated just the same ...
https://order-order.com/2018/03/12/russia-todays-corbyn-accuses-tories-close-kremlin/
Useful idiot....
Time for moderate labour MP's to do something about him
Labour MPs backing Corbyn have sold out their principles as much as Republicans that backed Trump. Putin, the worst right winger with major power, is the one laughing.
The only people who can defeat him are the British public and the Tories get their act together and exposing him for what he really is.
I cannot see England going to the World Cup following this debate
Diving is cheating.
Spitting is showing the world you’re a bad girlfriend lacking any class as a footballer.
Corbyn is in trouble with his MP's over his nonsense response
Once we know what he wants to achieve, our reaction has to factor in preventing him from achieving it, or minimising any advantage he gets from it.
As ever, there's probably not one motivating factor, but several.
For all her faults she is on top of this
Another labour MP condemning Russia Today and members in the house appearing on it
NEW THREAD
He knows we both can't and won't retaliate in kind. It's also why we need to ensure our military doesn't became emaciated.
'Too much, too late'.
The police called allegedly 'suspicious' deaths 'suicides'. Why ... lack of funding or instructions from on high? If any of these ten or so had been followed up, would he have got as far as collateral damage (innocent bystanders contaminated by chemical weapons, businesses badly damaged financially, two more people struggling for their lives.)
This makes me wonder if action by the US authorities caused the UK authorities to start asking people where they got their unexplained wealth: https://www.vaticannews.va/en/world/news/2018-02/russia-oligarchs-united-kingdom-corruption-accountability.html
As a regular reader of Private Eye, the standard with financial regulation is almost for the US authorities to start court proceedings before the UK begins its investigation, i.e. the UK likes 'light touch' regulation and the US takes it a bit more seriously.