|
And Woody Allen, it turns out. If someone does some good art they're excused a lot.
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 08:31 |
|
|
HortonNash posted:Saw "Kings of Rock and Roll - '50s last night on BBC Four, and was struck with the paedosplaining that was done when it came to Jerry Lee Lewis. Fucker marries his 13 year old cousin and there's Tom Jones and Cliff Richards, amongst others, making out that it was no big deal. Tom Jones even made a point of saying "he married her before he had sex with her, that was his Christian beliefs" (or something very close to it). Pretty amazing if they were trying to make out it was no big deal - at the time the controversy ended his '58 British tour and saw him blacklisted from US radio. His career virtually ended until the mid-to-late-60s. Makes you wonder if their faulty memories are trying to make stuff we don't know about seem more acceptable doesn't it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
EmptyVessel posted:Pretty amazing if they were trying to make out it was no big deal - at the time the controversy ended his '58 British tour and saw him blacklisted from US radio. His career virtually ended until the mid-to-late-60s. Makes you wonder if their faulty memories are trying to make stuff we don't know about seem more acceptable doesn't it? The programme mentioned his blacklisting and the reaction of British audiences (heckling and booing), TV and radio interview /performance cancellations and the condemnation in the British Press (bit weird that it didn't happen in the US until after the reaction from the British Media). Tom Jones and Cliff Richards (who are the two that I recall, but there were other "celebs", as the programme was in the talking heads/love 1983 format) were downplaying the actual kidfucking, Cliff said something like "I don't care what someone gets up to in the bedroom". It was remarkable, and more remarkable that the BBC broadcast it again now, with what we know about sexual abuse in the entertainment business. Lewis' widow (the then 13 yo cousin) was also joining in with the 'splaining, but the way she described the relationship, it sounded like classic grooming.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:Cliff said something like "I don't care what someone gets up to in the bedroom". There's probably a very good (and entirely non-suspicious) reason why Cliff might have that opinion. (and given his age and beliefs it might even explain why he might believe his situation and Jerry Lee's are analogous). HortonNash posted:Lewis' widow (the then 13 yo cousin) was also joining in with the 'splaining, but the way she described the relationship, it sounded like classic grooming. The Killer's not dead. Satan doesn't want the competition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:
Holy poo poo, the way they were talking about him I thought he was dead. D'oh!
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 21:41
|
|
|
Pork Pie Hat posted:A: Short answer, no. Not unless it mutates into an airborne virus. Q: Is that sort of thing at all likely to happen?
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Renaissance Robot posted:Q: Is that sort of thing at all likely to happen? Ebola virus is already suspected to be airborne. It doesn't really change anything though, as clinicians already take precautions around it as though it were definitely airborne.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
Exactly. Whether Ebola becomes airborne or not isn't really the issue - the virus doesn't have the potential to become a pandemic since it can be controlled using basic medical protocol if the infrastructure is in place. The reason this outbreak is so widespread is because it's occurring in regions in West Africa where it typically doesn't, so knowledge of these measures isn't well known by officials there since they don't have previous experience dealing with it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Fluo thank you for the neat space post it was cool 
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
Mister Adequate posted:Fluo thank you for the neat space post it was cool No Problem!
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
baronvonsabre posted:Exactly. Whether Ebola becomes airborne or not isn't really the issue - the virus doesn't have the potential to become a pandemic since it can be controlled using basic medical protocol if the infrastructure is in place. The reason this outbreak is so widespread is because it's occurring in regions in West Africa where it typically doesn't, so knowledge of these measures isn't well known by officials there since they don't have previous experience dealing with it. If this strain did go airborne it would become a pandemic despite that, due to the slightly absurd incubation period for this strain of 3 weeks. Also combine that with that this strain usually doesn't kill for many days, even weeks and all the time the patient is infectious, with the first few days of symptoms being similar to a cold it really would be almost unstoppable if it did go airborne. The majority of the developed world would have infected patients before we would even have proof it had gone airborne. There are a lot of people on the conspiracy sites saying this Ebola strain has to have been man made due to the long incubation period and length of time it keeps the host alive, as it really is a perfect storm; but its just the way Ebola seems to operate, every outbreak is different as its a highly mutating virus. Other big thing in regards to Ebola is that in all its other forms it is an airborne virus, yet the human form isn't centered around the lungs, its why its long been suspected its only a mater of time for the human form to also switch. This would normally not be a massive issue as Ebola in the past usually killed within a day or 2 and most often had a small incubation period.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 08:31
|
|
|
Fluo posted:No Problem! Tax quids for Brits not Martians!
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 09:12
|
|
|
Ladies and gentlemen, the Daily Mail: It's open for anyone to use...but, you know,  LESBIANS AND UNMARRIED WOMEN
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 09:34
|
|
|
You can't post that and not post the comments from the online articlequote:So, if I understand this correctly - these children won't need Fathers because society is going to tax men into poverty to fund these so-called "families"? One very sick society we are creating. quote:Oh great.. Feckless women will be going there to get a top up in child benefit. Also what if one doner is used a lot because of his high iq/looks etc and these kids meet fall in love but they are siblings?? This is dangerous and tbh absolutely Sickening quote:It's all about treating children as possessions. These people don't care about the happiness of the children, only that they experience having another type of possession. Government is supposed to protect children from such people ... not help them! All highly upvoted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 09:40
|
|
|
KKKlean Energy posted:You can't post that and not post the comments from the online article The idea of a 'doner' with a high IQ is truly terrifying; nobody wants sentient kebabs roaming the streets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 09:47
|
|
|
Do people have no idea how much child benefit payments are?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 10:12
|
|
|
KKKlean Energy posted:Also what if one doner is used a lot because of his high iq/looks etc and these kids meet fall in love but they are siblings?? This is dangerous and tbh absolutely Sickening God forbid sexually incompatible couples adopt, or  use a sperm bank
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 10:14
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:Tax quids for Brits not Martians! Life might have started on earth from space rocks billions of years ago! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 10:17
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:There's an interesting counterpart to that line of thinking though - if there is an actual normal policy of vetting ministerial appointments it gives those services an effective veto on them, which is problematic at least on a philosophical level. Well I'm sure the security services have a pretty strong capability to veto anyway (leaks to the press or rivals, covert sabotage and infiltration of unacceptable groups etc) but it is a question of balance. While no one wants MI5 getting to pick and choose the cabinet no one wants pedos, Libor fixing bankers or drug lords in the cabinet either. If the PM is willing to have such people in cabinet then the security services should have an obligation to prevent their appointment by reporting their crimes to the police. The reason I ask is that while the NHS and BBC have been criticised, for obvious reasons, if it does turn out senior politicians were paedophiles MI5 should (but probably won't) have major questions to answer. Either they were so incompetent that they didn't know it was happening or allowed major security and blackmail risks to stay in place quite aside from the moral dimension of leaving paedophiles in positions of power.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 10:18
|
|
|
police done good for oncequote:http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/02/millionaire-city-executive-dodged-43000-rail-fares-unmasked
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 10:39
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:Well I'm sure the security services have a pretty strong capability to veto anyway (leaks to the press or rivals, covert sabotage and infiltration of unacceptable groups etc) but it is a question of balance. While no one wants MI5 getting to pick and choose the cabinet no one wants pedos, Libor fixing bankers or drug lords in the cabinet either. If the PM is willing to have such people in cabinet then the security services should have an obligation to prevent their appointment by reporting their crimes to the police. Should they have known though? There's already enough controversy about them watching leftist students in the 60s and 70s who then went on to become cabinet ministers, imagine the shitstorm if it were discovered (or hinted) that they were doing the kind of intense investigation that you'd need to discover this against elected representatives. It's not like they have a magic paedo-detector, the way they'd find out is by literally following them for months, tapping their phones, breaking into premises. I'd be intensely uncomfortable with a world where this was considered okay behaviour for them (and as everyone knows I'm probably easily the most pro-espionage poster itt).
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 10:41
|
|
|
Hey you know how the government is planning to build some new towns to bring house prices down a bit? Well, it turns out some people actually own houses and might not appreciate their assets' prices returning to a normal, sane level. Luckily the government might step in to compensate them! (read: give them free money for doing nothing) quote:Homes could get payouts for garden city builds - Clegg
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 10:57
|
|
|
This is one situation where I'm more than happy to gripe about MAH TAX DOLLERS  The Coalition: supporting bad financial decisions, unless you're poor e/ vv Fair enough, though I'm not about to apologise for reflexive cynicism towards anything Gideon thinks is a good idea. Renaissance Robot fucked around with this message at 13:07 on Aug 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 11:17
|
|
|
To be fair it sounds like a compulsory purchase order which means you'd actually need to sell the property, and the government could then presumably sell it on? So it's not a super easy decision for most people to make (yeah let's just move) and the money doesn't exactly vanish
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 11:53
|
|
|
The market shall be regulated by supply and demand, unless the rich are inconvenienced.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 13:08
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Pork Pie Hat posted:A: Short answer, no. Not unless it mutates into an airborne virus. Or if the Tories really step up their destruction of the NHS.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:The reason I ask is that while the NHS and BBC have been criticised, for obvious reasons, if it does turn out senior politicians were paedophiles MI5 should (but probably won't) have major questions to answer. Either they were so incompetent that they didn't know it was happening or allowed major security and blackmail risks to stay in place quite aside from the moral dimension of leaving paedophiles in positions of power. You missed the possibility that MI5 is full of paedophiles who were just protecting their own 
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 16:23
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:There's no actual law, no. As i said before, the rumour has always been that the security services make their files available at least to the Cabinet Office when it comes to sensitive appointments (indeed the plot of the last episode of Yes Minister, where Hacker uses info supplied to him by Sir Humphrey, by then Cabinet Secretary, to finagle his way to Number 10, is based on this) but no, there's no legal obligation for them to do so. As I mentioned in the previous topic, if the security services had the power of veto over ministers, Norman Baker would've never got within fifty yards of the Home Office. Anyway, history's greatest monster does monstrous things: Jemima Khan and Russell Brand trigger police investigation after masseuse claims 'assault' posted:Jemima Khan and her boyfriend Russell Brand prompted a complaint to police after a masseuse claimed she was assaulted during a visit to the heiress’s £15 million Oxfordshire home.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Zombywuf posted:You missed the possibility that MI5 is full of paedophiles who were just protecting their own Or full of Russian infiltrators who saw it in their long term interests to allow Western institutions to be full of paedos, all the better to discredit and undermine the bourgeois capitalist swine at a late date. Say, sort of now-ish.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Zombywuf posted:You missed the possibility that MI5 is full of paedophiles who were just protecting their own I finally got around to reading this old article by Adam Curtis http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/BUGGER and this would certainly fit into his overall thesis. (Anyone who hasn't read it should, it's fun and sad and interesting)
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Should they have known though? There's already enough controversy about them watching leftist students in the 60s and 70s who then went on to become cabinet ministers, imagine the shitstorm if it were discovered (or hinted) that they were doing the kind of intense investigation that you'd need to discover this against elected representatives. It's not like they have a magic paedo-detector, the way they'd find out is by literally following them for months, tapping their phones, breaking into premises. I'd be intensely uncomfortable with a world where this was considered okay behaviour for them (and as everyone knows I'm probably easily the most pro-espionage poster itt). It scares me that you handwave away any fears people have about the monitoring of ordinary people on the internet and then express strong opposition for the security services monitoring for paedophiles among the most powerful people in the country. To equate it with the monitoring of protest groups is perverse, making sure child abusers or other kinds of serious criminals do not control the heights of power in Britain is not the same as using the secret police to undermine popular movements. They definitely should have known because paedophilia, to an even greater degree than homosexuality, was ripe material for blackmail and asset recruitment for the KGB during the cold war. I would argue MI5 also have an obligation to make sure serious and organised criminals do not gain control of the machinery of state but I would imagine that would not have been as strong a concern as stopping the soviets during the cold war.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
DashingGentleman posted:I finally got around to reading this old article by Adam Curtis http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/BUGGER and this would certainly fit into his overall thesis. (Anyone who hasn't read it should, it's fun and sad and interesting) And there's this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-28597343 quote:A former army intelligence officer has said he was ordered to stop investigating allegations of child sexual abuse at a boys' home in the 1970s.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Answers Me posted:The idea of a 'doner' with a high IQ is truly terrifying; nobody wants sentient kebabs roaming the streets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
A depressing article on welfare sanctions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
It's going to be so funny when Scotland votes No and the Tories win with a majority next election. Gonna laugh my rear end off. In Hell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 22:18
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:It scares me that you handwave away any fears people have about the monitoring of ordinary people on the internet and then express strong opposition for the security services monitoring for paedophiles among the most powerful people in the country. To equate it with the monitoring of protest groups is perverse, making sure child abusers or other kinds of serious criminals do not control the heights of power in Britain is not the same as using the secret police to undermine popular movements. You're saying having the ability to do one thing is exactly morally equivalent to actually doing another, completely different thing? Without starting the whole mass surveillance thing again, you can surely see that the level of intrusion needed to discover someone is a paedophile is massively more than that involved in even the most fevered imaginings of what the Snowden leaks say? MI5 kept an eye out for possible turning of elected representatives by watching the groups doing the turning (or, admittedly in Wilson's case, by just making poo poo up). You're suggesting that they treat MPs (and other senior political figures) to the same level of scrutiny that they gave to the KGB in the Cold War and terrorist cells today, because that's the level of scrutiny they would need to discover whether or not they were paedophiles. If you can't see the problems with that I don't really know what to say. Now there's an argument to be made to use that sort of intrusion against paedophile networks but that has problems that make infiltration of organised crime and terrorist networks (and completely innocent environmentalist groups of course) look like a walk in the park.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:It's going to be so funny when Scotland votes No and the Tories win with a majority next election. I had that exact argument with a independence voter when I visited Edinburgh. He had a big sign telling everyone to vote to get away from the Tories and I thought 'If only we could all be so lucky.'
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Praseodymi posted:I had that exact argument with a independence voter when I visited Edinburgh. He had a big sign telling everyone to vote to get away from the Tories and I thought 'If only we could all be so lucky.' Nah mate. Too poor. Too wee. Too stupid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Sorry if this is meant to be in the Scottish Independence thread but what are the likely political repercussions if the referendum fails? I understand the issue of independence will be slain or at best, kicked upstairs for a while, but will it have any after effect on devolution and Scotland's role in the UK, in general?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 08:31 |
|
|
SkySteak posted:Sorry if this is meant to be in the Scottish Independence thread but what are the likely political repercussions if the referendum fails? I understand the issue of independence will be slain or at best, kicked upstairs for a while, but will it have any after effect on devolution and Scotland's role in the UK, in general? Westminster will switch focus 100% on the general election and any Scottish issues raised before the referendum will be entirely ignored because Scotland doesn't matter to the GE electoral maths. We've just given a commitment to the UK as-is after all. Up here it might be more interesting; Labour are sure to try and make political points out of the SNP but they are so inept that I'm thinking it'll backfire. twoot fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2014 23:26
|
|
