Politics in General

Discuss anything interesting but not remotely Countdown-related here.

Moderator: Jon O'Neill

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Fanatic
Posts: 2186
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Fri Jun 12, 2020 1:06 pm

Callum Todd wrote:
Fri Jun 12, 2020 11:35 am
C4c > twitter.

Change my mind.
Well given C4C doesn't have Owen Jones, Antifa, or Squawkbox trolls that flood your notifications whenever you say something, I'm inclined to agree.
Last edited by Rhys Benjamin on Fri Jun 12, 2020 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

User avatar
Ben Wilson
Legend
Posts: 4178
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:05 pm
Location: North Hykeham

Re: Politics in General

Post by Ben Wilson » Fri Jun 12, 2020 2:51 pm

Callum Todd wrote:
Fri Jun 12, 2020 11:35 am
C4c > twitter.

Change my mind.
To the best of my knowledge, Donald Trump, Nigel Farage and Katie Hopkins don't have accounts on here, and neither do any of their toxic followers, so I'm inclined to agree with you there.

User avatar
Jennifer Steadman
Kiloposter
Posts: 1220
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:34 pm
Location: Kent
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jennifer Steadman » Sat Jun 13, 2020 3:50 pm

"can't" have conversations, "language police", etc - nuanced conversations depend on people as well as platforms!

Trans people's risk of suicide doesn't stop conversations, it just encourages a sensitive and indeed nuanced approach to the topic, as with any other subject linked to MH struggles and the like. That means familiarising oneself with the basics of the subject, the basic questions and answers, and reading both personal accounts and experts in the field, before you have something to say about it (and think about how you express it). This doesn't shut down a conversation: if anything, it elevates it, because it pushes it beyond Page 1 basics and laziness into more thoughtful questions, answers and research.

JKR's post was widely criticised for some of the reasons I outlined in my previous post (and more) and these criticisms were freely available - I am surprised that you hadn't seen or looked into these.

Cis (cisgender) is an adjective that just means 'identifying with the sex assigned at birth'. The public learns and adapts to new language all the time, so three letters should be easy enough to absorb. No-one can stop you using 'biological man/woman' if really you want to ('cis' is kinder to those of us with RSI of course), and in a medical capacity it is of course useful to be able to identify a natal man/woman to ensure nuanced but accurate healthcare assessments and research from professionals.

However, 'biological man/woman' is an uncomfortable term for the trans community because reductive biology is often used to dismiss diversity of sex/gender identity through the binaries we are taught at school: male/female, man/woman, XY/XX. Good medical professionals should be aware that while a chromosomal binary is the norm, it is by no means universal. There are XXY/XYY/XXX chromosomes as well (and more), there are natal males with XX chromosomes (de la Chapelle syndrome), and suchlike. Diversity of sex is an immutable biological fact, and it's less rare than you might expect (0.1-0.2% of natal male population has XXY chromosomes, 0.1% has XYY, etc - which still comes out as quite a few people in the UK and worldwide).

I think we would refer to a person with Klinefelter syndrome (XXY chromosomes) as a 'biological man' despite exhibiting some characteristics of 'biological woman', but would we consider an intersex person to be a 'biological man' or a 'biological woman'? Are they both, or neither? Cis/trans works here: intersex people are typically assigned one or another gender at birth, so 'cis' is an appropriate term for those that identify with that gender, and 'trans' for those that don't. (Non-binary people would define themselves separately to both cis and trans people, although it's an area I'm less familiar with.)

The most important thing is this. Overnight, the Trump administration has removed trans people's protections within healthcare, allowing them to be discriminated against (note the usage of 'biological sex' by the Trump administration). Hungary's government ended legal recognition for trans and intersex people last month. While there are new ideas to grapple with in regard to language - France sees your 'cis' question and raises you this, a language entirely dependent on the masculine/feminine binary - and possibly sense of self, it's worth keeping things in perspective. These are small fry compared to the trans community's concerns about their fundamental rights and safety, especially when hard-fought rights are being reversed.

I’m no expert, but this is a horribly oppressed and endangered group of people worldwide, to whom we should be sympathetic rather than defensive. The UK has better rights for the trans community than most, but there are those that seek to overturn them, and other countries set a worrying precedent for that right now. If we can make trans people a little more comfortable in a world that largely denies, dismisses and even despises them, it's worth doing imo, especially if it minimally inconveniences us to do so.
"There's leaders, and there's followers, but I'd rather be a dick than a swallower" - Aristotle

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4020
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:27 pm

I don't use cis in the same way I don't have to announce myself as heterosexual.
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Mark James
Kiloposter
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Politics in General

Post by Mark James » Sat Jun 13, 2020 7:49 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:27 pm
I don't use cis in the same way I don't have to announce myself as heterosexual.
Tell me again how c4c > Twitter.

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1725
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Graeme Cole » Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:51 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:27 pm
I don't use cis in the same way I don't have to announce myself as heterosexual.
I'm not sure I even understand this. If you were gay you'd have no obligation to "announce" yourself as gay either.

Nobody's suggesting anyone should start introducing themselves to people as "hi, I'm Marc, I'm cis", any more than they introduce themselves as "I'm Marc, I'm straight".

When the word "straight" came along in its sense meaning "not gay", was there any great objection to it? Did some heterosexual people "reject that label"? "cis" meaning "not trans" is just the same thing.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9937
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sun Jun 14, 2020 3:35 pm

Jennifer Steadman wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 3:50 pm
"can't" have conversations, "language police", etc - nuanced conversations depend on people as well as platforms!
Definitely.
Trans people's risk of suicide doesn't stop conversations, it just encourages a sensitive and indeed nuanced approach to the topic, as with any other subject linked to MH struggles and the like. That means familiarising oneself with the basics of the subject, the basic questions and answers, and reading both personal accounts and experts in the field, before you have something to say about it (and think about how you express it). This doesn't shut down a conversation: if anything, it elevates it, because it pushes it beyond Page 1 basics and laziness into more thoughtful questions, answers and research.
I think this comes from all sides though. While some people are quick to just consider these people a load of freaks, others are too quick to yell "Bigot!"
JKR's post was widely criticised for some of the reasons I outlined in my previous post (and more) and these criticisms were freely available - I am surprised that you hadn't seen or looked into these.
Well yes, but I think the wider question is not just about whether Rowling has been accurate on every single point, but about whether what she's done makes her a nasty person or a bigot worthy of vilification. What's your opinion on that? And I don't mean to just give her a free pass - I'm not trying to imply that that's what should happen.

But just to go back to her Tweet that I think started the recent news:
'People who menstruate'. I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?
I think this comes back to the point about language. Maybe she phrased this in a way that she knew was going to antagonise a lot of people but, JK Rowling aside, I think it's reasonable to discuss philosophically/linguistically/scientifically what we mean by the words "man" and "woman" and who gets to decide. Now I would never condone anyone going up to a trans-woman/man and saying "You are not a woman/man" but that doesn't mean they have to agree internally what the "best" definitions of these words are or that they have adhere to the "prescribed" definitions at all times in order to not be a bigot. We also have male/female - do we apply them in the same way?
Cis (cisgender) is an adjective that just means 'identifying with the sex assigned at birth'. The public learns and adapts to new language all the time, so three letters should be easy enough to absorb. No-one can stop you using 'biological man/woman' if really you want to ('cis' is kinder to those of us with RSI of course), and in a medical capacity it is of course useful to be able to identify a natal man/woman to ensure nuanced but accurate healthcare assessments and research from professionals.
Graeme Cole wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:51 pm
When the word "straight" came along in its sense meaning "not gay", was there any great objection to it? Did some heterosexual people "reject that label"? "cis" meaning "not trans" is just the same thing.
I'll include Graeme in here too. I think it's slightly different with "cis" because it's not a word that's "naturally" come into the language. It's a word that people are actively trying to get other people to use. Not that that is necessarily such a bad thing, but I think it can explain some of the resistance. Plus I think it's a horrible sounding word. Maybe because it's a bit like "cyst" - I don't know, but it does have an unpleasant feel to it, for me anyway. I think they could have put more thought into it. It's probably not too late to change it anyway, as it's unlikely to have caught on in the majority of households in the English speaking world.

"Straight" actually sounds a anti-gay anyway, implying that if you're not straight you're warped in some way - well there is the word "bent".

Without quoting all the stuff about chromosomes (because the post is getting longer), yes there are complications anyway in some cases with the terms "biological man/woman", but I also think the meaning is slightly different from "cis" anyway. The way someone might use the term "biological woman" in the way Rowling would would probably also apply to a trans-man, even if that might come across as offensive.
The most important thing is this. Overnight, the Trump administration has removed trans people's protections within healthcare, allowing them to be discriminated against (note the usage of 'biological sex' by the Trump administration). Hungary's government ended legal recognition for trans and intersex people last month.
Well yes, this is bad. Obviously I don't agree with discrimination against trans/intersex people.
While there are new ideas to grapple with in regard to language - France sees your 'cis' question and raises you this, a language entirely dependent on the masculine/feminine binary - and possibly sense of self, it's worth keeping things in perspective. These are small fry compared to the trans community's concerns about their fundamental rights and safety, especially when hard-fought rights are being reversed.
Languages all come with their own weird nuances and quirks and downright insanity, so yes you can make an argument for willed change rather than natural evolution. But there's always going to be obstacles to that as I touched on above.
I’m no expert, but this is a horribly oppressed and endangered group of people worldwide, to whom we should be sympathetic rather than defensive. The UK has better rights for the trans community than most, but there are those that seek to overturn them, and other countries set a worrying precedent for that right now. If we can make trans people a little more comfortable in a world that largely denies, dismisses and even despises them, it's worth doing imo, especially if it minimally inconveniences us to do so.
Sure, I mean, you probably think I'm terrible for saying what I have done about this, but I'm certainly not anti-trans people or opposed to them having a full set of rights.

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1725
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Graeme Cole » Sun Jun 14, 2020 3:52 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 3:35 pm
Graeme Cole wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:51 pm
When the word "straight" came along in its sense meaning "not gay", was there any great objection to it? Did some heterosexual people "reject that label"? "cis" meaning "not trans" is just the same thing.
I'll include Graeme in here too. I think it's slightly different with "cis" because it's not a word that's "naturally" come into the language. It's a word that people are actively trying to get other people to use. Not that that is necessarily such a bad thing, but I think it can explain some of the resistance. Plus I think it's a horrible sounding word. Maybe because it's a bit like "cyst" - I don't know, but it does have an unpleasant feel to it, for me anyway. I think they could have put more thought into it. It's probably not too late to change it anyway, as it's unlikely to have caught on in the majority of households in the English speaking world.
Cis- as a general prefix has meant the opposite of trans- for centuries, even if its popular use in the gender context is more recent. It seems like a perfectly appropriate term to me - it's got some prior etymology behind it, it has now caught on, and it's used in a non-pejorative way.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9937
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:33 pm

Well that's quite interesting - I didn't know that so thanks. I suppose I should have looked it up!

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9937
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:08 pm

The US Supreme Court has ruled that employers who fire workers for being gay or transgender are breaking the country's civil rights laws.

By the way, two weeks in prison for having a piss near (not on) a memorial? I think it's a bit ridiculous personally. Even he had pissed on it just by chance (because it doesn't seem there was any intent) would this random chance deserve a prison sentence? I don't think so. And is culpability based on how far away you are from something (perhaps the inverse square law like with gravity)? Or is everyone who pisses in public now at risk of a two-week prison sentence?

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3563
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Ian Volante » Tue Jun 16, 2020 12:11 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:08 pm
Even he had pissed on it just by chance (because it doesn't seem there was any intent) would this random chance deserve a prison sentence? I don't think so. And is culpability based on how far away you are from something (perhaps the inverse square law like with gravity)? Or is everyone who pisses in public now at risk of a two-week prison sentence?
It felt ridiculous to me, normally such an act would attract a fine or similar. However, I've no idea of the previous criminal history of the individual, and this often has a strong relevance to any sentence. Furthermore, the law doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is highly contextual, and I suspect this sentence reflects that.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9937
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue Jun 16, 2020 3:06 pm

Ian Volante wrote:
Tue Jun 16, 2020 12:11 pm
Furthermore, the law doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is highly contextual, and I suspect this sentence reflects that.
Are you saying that it is there to appease the baying mob? Because that's exactly what an independent and impartial judiciary should not be doing.

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3563
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Ian Volante » Tue Jun 16, 2020 4:10 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Tue Jun 16, 2020 3:06 pm
Ian Volante wrote:
Tue Jun 16, 2020 12:11 pm
Furthermore, the law doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is highly contextual, and I suspect this sentence reflects that.
Are you saying that it is there to appease the baying mob? Because that's exactly what an independent and impartial judiciary should not be doing.
I wouldn't go that far, but I've little doubt that sentencing is more extreme in unusual/highly public circumstances. I'm not sure impartiality is so relevant in sentencing as it is in finding guilt or otherwise. When it comes down to it, judges are representing the will of the people (albeit in a very abstracted manner), so I think it's fair that sentencing takes public outrage into account.

However, balance is needed too, and that's why there's the ability for apparently harsh sentences to be appealed. This gets us into the messy area of legal aid and the apparent gutting of the court system in England, but they're beyond my remit here.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Politics in General

Post by Callum Todd » Tue Jun 16, 2020 5:33 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Tue Jun 16, 2020 3:06 pm
Ian Volante wrote:
Tue Jun 16, 2020 12:11 pm
Furthermore, the law doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is highly contextual, and I suspect this sentence reflects that.
Are you saying that it is there to appease the baying mob? Because that's exactly what an independent and impartial judiciary should not be doing.
I'm in way over my head here in terms of how the law works, but I believe the charge he was sentenced on was 'outraging public decency'. That charge seem to have some consideration of public outrage inherent within it. I have no idea how much, if any, sway this has on sentencing and haven't managed to wrap my head around this particular offense enough to form an opinion. Just pointing this out in case it is relevant (I suspect it might be but lack the legal nouse to confirm).
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9937
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue Jun 16, 2020 9:08 pm

Ian Volante wrote:
Tue Jun 16, 2020 4:10 pm
I wouldn't go that far, but I've little doubt that sentencing is more extreme in unusual/highly public circumstances. I'm not sure impartiality is so relevant in sentencing as it is in finding guilt or otherwise. When it comes down to it, judges are representing the will of the people (albeit in a very abstracted manner), so I think it's fair that sentencing takes public outrage into account.

However, balance is needed too, and that's why there's the ability for apparently harsh sentences to be appealed. This gets us into the messy area of legal aid and the apparent gutting of the court system in England, but they're beyond my remit here.
Callum Todd wrote:
Tue Jun 16, 2020 5:33 pm
I'm in way over my head here in terms of how the law works, but I believe the charge he was sentenced on was 'outraging public decency'. That charge seem to have some consideration of public outrage inherent within it. I have no idea how much, if any, sway this has on sentencing and haven't managed to wrap my head around this particular offense enough to form an opinion. Just pointing this out in case it is relevant (I suspect it might be but lack the legal nouse to confirm).
Yes, it was outraging public decency so I suppose you could say that public outrage might have something to do with it. But actually it's public decency that's being outraged. And the more I think about it the more "outraging public decency" seems like three words just stuck together that doesn't actually mean anything as a phrase.

But Google is our friend and looking here, we have:
Public decency is a level of behaviour which is generally acceptable to the public and is not obscene, disgusting or shocking for the observers.

Outraging public decency is an indictable common law offence which is punishable by unlimited imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. To be guilty of this offence:

you must carry out an act which is lewd, obscene or of disgusting character, which outrages minimum standards of public decency as assessed by the jury;
the act must take place in a public place, or a place which is accessible to, or within view of, the public;
the act must take place in the actual presence of two or more persons who are capable of seeing it – it is irrelevant whether these people actually saw the act or were outraged by it.
Obviously these laws are always slightly circular. What is outraging public decency? Well it's:
you must carry out an act which is lewd, obscene or of disgusting character, which outrages minimum standards of public decency
Just the same thing with more words then.

In any case, as I mentioned above he pissed to the side of the memorial, not on it, and I wonder if anyone ever has been charged with outraging public decency for just generally pissing against a wall in public, rather then something presumably lesser like a public order offence.

I think his big mistake was pleading guilty. I think it would have been chucked right out if he'd made that case. But there you go - the law isn't the same for everyone. It helps a lot if you know what's going on or you know people who do or can afford a lawyer.

Plus anyway, regardless of the law, this whole thing was a joke. Intent is very important here for one thing, and the bad luck of pissing on a memorial should be irrelevant. And even if there was intent, no way should this involve prison.

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3563
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Ian Volante » Wed Jun 17, 2020 7:50 am

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Tue Jun 16, 2020 9:08 pm
Plus anyway, regardless of the law, this whole thing was a joke. Intent is very important here for one thing, and the bad luck of pissing on a memorial should be irrelevant. And even if there was intent, no way should this involve prison.
Never forget to discount the previous history of the person - I've no idea if this has been made public. If he'd been convicted previously, then he's bound to fall foul of the general philosophy that if you didn't learn from last time, you'll get a more obvious punishment this time to see if you get the message. Whether that's a good way to do things is another question again.

Regarding whether it was a memorial, or a nondescript corner, to my mind it does make a big difference. His lack of consideration of such things may have been completely inadvertent, but he maybe needs to learn to consider what society thinks of things he might have effectively no awareness of - wider opinion affects how we're all expected to behave.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

Fiona T
Enthusiast
Posts: 411
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Fiona T » Wed Jun 17, 2020 8:26 am

I hadn't followed this story, but according to this report, he had no previous convictions, needed a pee, did not know the monument was there, so basically behaved in the same way as many lads on a night out.

Most examples of outraging public decency involve masturbating on the tube or similar, so on the face of it a jail sentence does seem disproportionate.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/c ... 66301.html
8-) <-2m-> 8-)

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4020
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Wed Jun 17, 2020 9:32 am

I had a neighbour who got put on the sex offenders register because he took a pee up against a tree near a primary school even though it was mid afternoon when the children were at lessons
A passer by reported him.

At least that's what he told me.
He looked more like an alky than a paedo
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Fiona T
Enthusiast
Posts: 411
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Fiona T » Wed Jun 17, 2020 10:28 am

Marc Meakin wrote:
Wed Jun 17, 2020 9:32 am
At least that's what he told me.
He looked more like an alky than a paedo
I didn't know you could identify paedophiles by looks - that's handy.
8-) <-2m-> 8-)

User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Politics in General

Post by Callum Todd » Wed Jun 17, 2020 11:54 am

Trial by appearance. The old classic.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3563
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Ian Volante » Wed Jun 17, 2020 12:10 pm

Fiona T wrote:
Wed Jun 17, 2020 8:26 am
I hadn't followed this story, but according to this report, he had no previous convictions, needed a pee, did not know the monument was there, so basically behaved in the same way as many lads on a night out.

Most examples of outraging public decency involve masturbating on the tube or similar, so on the face of it a jail sentence does seem disproportionate.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/c ... 66301.html
So bad luck to compound stupidity and ignorance.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4020
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Wed Jun 17, 2020 2:37 pm

Goodness me , we are a touchy lot today.
I wanted to illustrate that my neighbour was pissed ( as he frequently is ) and urinated in the street rather than it was a lame excuse for being on the sex offenders register for the more usual reason
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9937
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:46 pm

The witch-hunt continues. Rebecca Long-Bailey has been sacked by Keir Starmer from her shadow cabinet position for sharing an article containing "anti-Semitic conspiracy theory".
In the article, Ms Peake discussed the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

She said: "The tactics used by the police in America, kneeling on George Floyd's neck, that was learnt from seminars with Israeli secret services."
Regardless of the truth of the article's claim, anti Israeli state actions =/= anti-Semitism. Sure, you can argue that an anti-Semitic person might take indirect jabs like this to go under the radar, but bear in mind that this is doubly indirect since Long-Bailey only shared the article.

And yet in the Robert Jenrick case, Starmer is trying to come across as the balanced guy, wanting to see all the evidence before calling for any resignation.

It's all pretty mental really.

User avatar
Mark James
Kiloposter
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Politics in General

Post by Mark James » Sat Jun 27, 2020 2:01 pm

The Independent now has an editorial praising the decision to sack her. It was an article from their fecking newspaper she shared that led to it. Nonsense.

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Fanatic
Posts: 2186
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:55 am

And Black Lives Matter's UK branch have just ruined everything they've done for the last three weeks by posting the notion Jews don't have a right to self-determination on their Twitter feed, including the rather stupid assertion that British politics is "gagged" when disputing it.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4020
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:45 am

Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:55 am
And Black Lives Matter's UK branch have just ruined everything they've done for the last three weeks by posting the notion Jews don't have a right to self-determination on their Twitter feed, including the rather stupid assertion that British politics is "gagged" when disputing it.
Racism is not about colour.
Jews have always been persecuted and derided and vilified.
The caste system in India is deplorable.
Black lives do indeed matter and the USA needs to wake up.
There is a lot of issues in the UK with regards the treatment of black people , but I don't think that the BLM movement needs to be a worldwide organisation
In the 1970s there were a lot of movements like the anti nazi league that were instrumental in making changes in the UK
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9937
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:53 am

Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:55 am
And Black Lives Matter's UK branch have just ruined everything they've done for the last three weeks by posting the notion Jews don't have a right to self-determination on their Twitter feed, including the rather stupid assertion that British politics is "gagged" when disputing it.
Can you link/quote the specific tweet?

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Fanatic
Posts: 2186
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:50 pm

I refuse to share that. You have Google, don't you?
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Politics in General

Post by Callum Todd » Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:53 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:50 pm
I refuse to share that. You have Google, don't you?
You must have breezed through university. Referencing is for chumps.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Fanatic
Posts: 2186
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:55 pm

Callum Todd wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:53 pm
Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:50 pm
I refuse to share that. You have Google, don't you?
You must have breezed through university. Referencing is for chumps.
It's not exactly the same thing as distributing racist material to a Countdown forum, Callum.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

User avatar
Mark James
Kiloposter
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Politics in General

Post by Mark James » Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:58 pm

This was the tweet apparently.

"As Israel moves forward with the annexation of the West Bank, and mainstream British politics is gagged of the right to critique Zionism, and Israel’s settler colonial pursuits, we loudly and clearly stand beside our Palestinian comrades. FREE PALESTINE.”

(Sarcasm font) Shocking stuff. (End sarcasm font)

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Fanatic
Posts: 2186
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Mon Jun 29, 2020 3:23 pm

British politics is not gagged of the right to criticise Zionism (Corbyn et al), but it ought to be. "Zionism" is the right of Jewish people of self-determination. Therefore, to deny the existence of Israel on the grounds of it being Zionist is antisemitic unless you're also denying the existence of Pakistan, established for exactly the same reasons merely with "Jewish" replaced for "Muslim".
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9937
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:23 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:50 pm
I refuse to share that. You have Google, don't you?
I went to their Twitter page and found a few things about Israel/Palestine, and it was obvious to me that none of the tweets were going to explicitly say what you say they are saying - it would be down to interpretation. So I thought it might just be easier for you to link or quite.
Mark James wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:58 pm
This was the tweet apparently.

"As Israel moves forward with the annexation of the West Bank, and mainstream British politics is gagged of the right to critique Zionism, and Israel’s settler colonial pursuits, we loudly and clearly stand beside our Palestinian comrades. FREE PALESTINE.”

(Sarcasm font) Shocking stuff. (End sarcasm font)
So specifically what is bad about this tweet?
Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 3:23 pm
British politics is not gagged of the right to criticise Zionism (Corbyn et al), but it ought to be. "Zionism" is the right of Jewish people of self-determination. Therefore, to deny the existence of Israel on the grounds of it being Zionist is antisemitic unless you're also denying the existence of Pakistan, established for exactly the same reasons merely with "Jewish" replaced for "Muslim".
What is meant here exactly by self-determination?

Well, [urlhttps://www.lexico.com/definition/self-determination]Lexico[/url] defines as:
The process by which a country determines its own statehood and forms its own government.
So I'm guessing from all this that it's not most of the Tweet that you're objecting to, but just the bit about Zionism, which you equate with the Jewish people's right for self-determination, although the dictionary definition defines self-determination in terms of a country rather than a specific group of people within a country. On Zionism:
A movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.
This definition is more complex than what you have suggested, although obviously dictionary definitions aren't the beginning and end of it. In any case, it's over to you now Rhys to expand on your position. We've done most of your homework for you up to this point.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4020
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Tue Jun 30, 2020 1:15 pm

Worth a look.
How current times compare with medieval times.
A lot of baloney , but worth a watch
https://youtu.be/z2RujJ04vxY
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Mark James
Kiloposter
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Politics in General

Post by Mark James » Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:06 pm

Marc Meakin wrote:
Tue Jun 30, 2020 1:15 pm
Worth a look.
How current times compare with medieval times.
A lot of baloney , but worth a watch
https://youtu.be/z2RujJ04vxY
Feck. Wish I hadn't clicked on that. The dude is a "taxation is theft" libertarian. My YouTube recommendations are gonna be screwed.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9937
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:59 pm

Mark James wrote:
Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:06 pm
Marc Meakin wrote:
Tue Jun 30, 2020 1:15 pm
Worth a look.
How current times compare with medieval times.
A lot of baloney , but worth a watch
https://youtu.be/z2RujJ04vxY
Feck. Wish I hadn't clicked on that. The dude is a "taxation is theft" libertarian. My YouTube recommendations are gonna be screwed.
I always browse the internet in incognito mode, apart from a few sites where I want to stay signed in. It helps with things like this.

User avatar
Callum Todd
Series 69 Champion
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 3:38 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Politics in General

Post by Callum Todd » Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:19 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 5:23 pm
Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 1:50 pm
I refuse to share that. You have Google, don't you?
I went to their Twitter page and found a few things about Israel/Palestine, and it was obvious to me that none of the tweets were going to explicitly say what you say they are saying - it would be down to interpretation. So I thought it might just be easier for you to link or quite.
Mark James wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 2:58 pm
This was the tweet apparently.

"As Israel moves forward with the annexation of the West Bank, and mainstream British politics is gagged of the right to critique Zionism, and Israel’s settler colonial pursuits, we loudly and clearly stand beside our Palestinian comrades. FREE PALESTINE.”

(Sarcasm font) Shocking stuff. (End sarcasm font)
So specifically what is bad about this tweet?
Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 3:23 pm
British politics is not gagged of the right to criticise Zionism (Corbyn et al), but it ought to be. "Zionism" is the right of Jewish people of self-determination. Therefore, to deny the existence of Israel on the grounds of it being Zionist is antisemitic unless you're also denying the existence of Pakistan, established for exactly the same reasons merely with "Jewish" replaced for "Muslim".
What is meant here exactly by self-determination?

Well, [urlhttps://www.lexico.com/definition/self-determination]Lexico[/url] defines as:
The process by which a country determines its own statehood and forms its own government.
So I'm guessing from all this that it's not most of the Tweet that you're objecting to, but just the bit about Zionism, which you equate with the Jewish people's right for self-determination, although the dictionary definition defines self-determination in terms of a country rather than a specific group of people within a country. On Zionism:
A movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel. It was established as a political organization in 1897 under Theodor Herzl, and was later led by Chaim Weizmann.
This definition is more complex than what you have suggested, although obviously dictionary definitions aren't the beginning and end of it. In any case, it's over to you now Rhys to expand on your position. We've done most of your homework for you up to this point.
Just seen this. It seems Rhys isn't the only one who feels BLM UK's tweets re: Israel/Palestine could be harmful to their reputation and, by association, the cause they are primarily promoting.

Rhys's personal stand on the issue of 'what is (anti-)Zionism?' aside, this does raise an interesting question around the problem with (almost) universally agreeable movements becoming organised into a political entity. Especially when that political organisation names itself after the movement with the universally agreeable name then goes on to make political statements about issues unrelated, or at least not directly related, to the core issue of the movement it was set up to promote.
Mark Deeks wrote:Callum Todd looks like a young Ted Bundy.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9937
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:08 pm

Anyway, I'm going to add a bit more to my thoughts on the Zionism thing.

It seems that Rhys thinks that Jewish people have a right to self determination.
The process by which a country determines its own statehood and forms its own government.
OK, forget the country thing in this particular definition. He thinks that Jewish people have a right to determine their own statehood and form their own government, and that it's anti-Semitic to not think that. Really? Why Jewish people in particular? What about any group of people that get together?

Well Rhys did add the caveat that it's anti-Semitic:
unless you're also denying the existence of Pakistan, established for exactly the same reasons merely with "Jewish" replaced for "Muslim".
Well, I'm not actually denying the existence of Israel (it exists, right?), but sure, there's no reason why Muslims have a particular right to form their own country either.

I don't think that countries should be made on religious grounds. How is is supposed to work in an ideal world? People who aren't of that religion shouldn't live there? What if you're born there, but reject the religion of the state? Should you move out? That's ridiculous. So of course I reject the idea of a Jewish state.

All countries should really be moving towards secularism:
The principle of separation of the state from religious institutions.
(Some people think it's atheism. It isn't.)

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Fanatic
Posts: 2186
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:31 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:08 pm
unless you're also denying the existence of Pakistan, established for exactly the same reasons merely with "Jewish" replaced for "Muslim".
Well, I'm not actually denying the existence of Israel (it exists, right?), but sure, there's no reason why Muslims have a particular right to form their own country either.
Best save since Gordon Banks. Well done.

The problem is no one who goes "mUh FrEe PaLeStiNe" believes this.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

User avatar
Mark James
Kiloposter
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Politics in General

Post by Mark James » Sat Jul 04, 2020 7:13 am

Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:31 pm
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:08 pm
unless you're also denying the existence of Pakistan, established for exactly the same reasons merely with "Jewish" replaced for "Muslim".
Well, I'm not actually denying the existence of Israel (it exists, right?), but sure, there's no reason why Muslims have a particular right to form their own country either.
Best save since Gordon Banks. Well done.

The problem is no one who goes "mUh FrEe PaLeStiNe" believes this.
What does it mean to say no one? What if I say Free Palestine while also believing Muslims shouldn't have a particular right to form their own country. Am I misunderstanding what it means to say Free Palestine?

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Fanatic
Posts: 2186
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Sat Jul 04, 2020 2:58 pm

I mean, every argument on Israel could equally apply to Pakistan, but it doesn't.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

User avatar
Mark James
Kiloposter
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Politics in General

Post by Mark James » Sat Jul 04, 2020 6:51 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Sat Jul 04, 2020 2:58 pm
I mean, every argument on Israel could equally apply to Pakistan, but it doesn't.
In what way does it not?

User avatar
Mark James
Kiloposter
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Politics in General

Post by Mark James » Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:58 pm

https://youtu.be/KAFbpWVO-ow

This is a pretty good video on antisemitism. In fact most of their videos are excellent.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9937
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Wed Jul 15, 2020 10:22 pm

The Tories have kicked someone out for beating their preferred candidate in an election. This is hilarious. What a joke of a party.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9937
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sun Aug 02, 2020 5:57 pm

A Tory MP has been arrested for rape, and not been suspended from the party. Apparently he's a former minister and in his 50s - can we narrow it down?

I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of how this is being handled, but people don't normally get anonymity and would normally be suspended, so I'm just wondering what makes this case different.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4020
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:20 pm

The Tory MP from Dover who was suspended after sexual misconduct charges were brought against him was reinstated in order that he could vote during the Brexit votes.
So I'm not surprised that the Tories have done this
Innocent until proven Tory
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9937
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sun Aug 02, 2020 6:50 pm

Apparently there are 17 suspects.
if Wikipedia is accurate there are 17 current Tory mps who are male, in their 50s, and have been but are not currently a minister

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9937
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sun Aug 02, 2020 8:22 pm

Edit - the name is all over the internet anyway.
Last edited by Gavin Chipper on Tue Aug 04, 2020 7:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4020
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Mon Aug 03, 2020 4:16 am

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Sun Aug 02, 2020 8:22 pm
In other news, Mark Francois was very pro-Brexit wasn't he? Mark Francois indeed. Just felt like bringing him up for some reason.
Is he an influencer on social media 😀 ?
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Jennifer Steadman
Kiloposter
Posts: 1220
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:34 pm
Location: Kent
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Jennifer Steadman » Mon Aug 03, 2020 11:36 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Sun Aug 02, 2020 5:57 pm
A Tory MP has been arrested for rape, and not been suspended from the party. Apparently he's a former minister and in his 50s - can we narrow it down?

I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of how this is being handled, but people don't normally get anonymity and would normally be suspended, so I'm just wondering what makes this case different.
I would assume the reason for the media giving the alleged rapist anonymity is to avoid jigsaw identification? Victims of rape and sexual offences get lifetime anonymity (unless they choose to waive it), and the press isn't allowed to do anything that can jeopardise that. That includes 'jigsaw identification' - i.e. providing scraps of information that can be pieced together to identify the person. So for example, if someone was convicted of molesting a child in their family, the newspaper reports would be able to say the name of the person and that they molested a child, but not say that they were a relation/what type of relation they were. Or you could say the family relation, but you then wouldn't be allowed to name the offender. You'd usually go for the former route though.

So if perhaps the victim here worked directly for the MP in question [I know it says 'parliamentary staffer' and doesn't specify this, but that might be a carefully considered phrasing...], then similarly to the latter example: once you identify the MP involved, and know that this person was one of their staffers, it narrows down the victim's identity pretty significantly and - even if you or I couldn't personally name their staffers (or even the MP in a lot of cases) - it would be easy enough to do this online, which is enough for it to be steered clear of. No reason that you would have known this, but for future reference, best not to do it, even if you personally aren't going to try and 'work out' the victim's identity. (I would consider getting the mods to remove the allusions to the MP in question from the thread tbh. I know the name is all over social media, but that doesn't make it a good idea to repeat it.)

That said, I'm not sure how they avoid naming the MP if they are jailed as there would have to be a by-election and everything, and I think you would kind of have to identify them at that point? Our textbook and ethics guidelines didn't really cover this exact scenario. I've seen at least one senior journalist alluding to the identity on Twitter which is pretty irresponsible, so maybe it's not jigsaw identification, but I think it is totally plausible that this is the case.
"There's leaders, and there's followers, but I'd rather be a dick than a swallower" - Aristotle

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 9937
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue Aug 04, 2020 7:33 am

OK cool. It would take Marc to change the quote as well now.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4020
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Tue Aug 04, 2020 9:24 am

Re above I have reported my quote to the admin for removal in case of libel.
I remember the honest face tweet saga of a few years ago
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Lord of the Post
Posts: 4020
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Marc Meakin » Tue Aug 04, 2020 9:25 am

Marc Meakin wrote:
Mon Aug 03, 2020 4:16 am
Gavin Chipper wrote:
Sun Aug 02, 2020 8:22 pm


Is he an influencer on social media 😀 ?
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Fanatic
Posts: 2186
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:31 pm

This is hilariously terrible. Apparently I should be a head chef, a chef, or a cake decorator. Yeah... no. https://beta.nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

Sam Cappleman-Lynes
Acolyte
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 11:30 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Sam Cappleman-Lynes » Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:00 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:31 pm
This is hilariously terrible. Apparently I should be a head chef, a chef, or a cake decorator. Yeah... no. https://beta.nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/
Well, it worked out my actual job, so...

User avatar
Mark James
Kiloposter
Posts: 1321
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 3:21 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: Politics in General

Post by Mark James » Fri Oct 09, 2020 12:22 am

Pretty accurate for me too. I don't work in the field but the top suggestion was creative media which is what I got my degree in. It also suggested social work which is kind of what I do. Better get making those cakes Rhys. (What were you hoping it said?)

Thomas Cappleman
Series 72 Champion
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 9:42 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Thomas Cappleman » Fri Oct 09, 2020 7:39 am

Sam Cappleman-Lynes wrote:
Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:00 pm
Rhys Benjamin wrote:
Thu Oct 08, 2020 9:31 pm
This is hilariously terrible. Apparently I should be a head chef, a chef, or a cake decorator. Yeah... no. https://beta.nationalcareers.service.gov.uk/
Well, it worked out my actual job, so...
Whereas I (in the same general area) got recommended social care, and then nothing at all when I tried again.

Fiona T
Enthusiast
Posts: 411
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:54 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Fiona T » Fri Oct 09, 2020 9:59 am

I'm off to stunt double school
8-) <-2m-> 8-)

Sam Cappleman-Lynes
Acolyte
Posts: 108
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 11:30 pm

Re: Politics in General

Post by Sam Cappleman-Lynes » Fri Oct 09, 2020 12:55 pm

Sam Cappleman-Lynes wrote:
Thu Oct 08, 2020 10:00 pm
Well, it worked out my actual job, so...
Update - about half of my company (who do roughly the same job as me) are getting told they are suited to professional sports, and, in particular, boxing.

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Fanatic
Posts: 2186
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: Politics in General

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Fri Oct 09, 2020 1:12 pm

It told my mother she should retrain as a vet, and she doesn't even like animals.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests