|
On "I'm a Celebrity" there was a question about if Class affects your opportunities and everyone there thought it didn't. Because they didn't understand what that really meant. I'm talking celebrities like Kezia Dugdale, Stanley Johnson. Actual politicians. It felt like they were interpreting the question as "If you're working class you're allowed to do anything you like" instead of "Because you are rich you can do more stuff". It's pretty worrying that even politicians interpret it that way.
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 13:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:04 |
|
|
Tigey posted:Anime is bringing down a cabinet minister? Prevent arguments in Games.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
Barry Foster posted:sUKricide Hey, sent you a PM about something. No need to respond, but just letting you know in case you haven’t seen it. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
Ah, the goatse humblebrag
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Ah, the goatse humblebrag What on Earth is that? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 14:00
|
|
|
Junior G-man posted:Is there a specific thing you're talking about here? I'm trying to come up with one? The Committee of the Regions is in fact so little respected that people don't even get its name right  .
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 14:02
|
|
|
Nice. Fail and die, fascist scum.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 14:06
|
|
|
Pesmerga posted:What on Earth is that? Letting us know you've primed the trap.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
Pluskut Tukker posted:The Committee of the Regions is in fact so little respected that people don't even get its name right There's a long-standing joke about Brussels' EU bubble dating that roughly goes: Girl: Well I work at the Happy Animal Foundation, we're against animal cruelty bla bla bla Guy: Well, I'm working for the Committee of the Regions and we ... wait! Don't run away!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
Sadly the Mail's share price tanking is down to the parent company making some bad investments rather than because the actual site itself is doing badly: http://fortune.com/2017/11/30/daily-mail-general-trust-share-price-xceligent/quote:MailOnline is doing just fine. The flagship website brought in £119 million in revenues for the year, up from £93 million the year before, and is profitable. The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday print newspapers, however, saw revenues fall 6% from £484 million to £455 million.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
So is Trump actually not coming after May and Rudd both said he is yesterday? Between this and the announcement about Ireland, is the foreign office taking matters into its own hands? Because that would be hilarious
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
Damian Green's wikipedia page contains an odd factoid...quote:His favourite actor is Evan Stone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Stone 
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 14:14
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Damian Green's wikipedia page contains an odd factoid... To be fair to Green, that guy does seem to have won a lot of awards. e: what's the oscar for porn stars?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
Taear posted:On "I'm a Celebrity" there was a question about if Class affects your opportunities and everyone there thought it didn't. Because they didn't understand what that really meant.  and say that the class that you're born into has no effect on your access to opportunities and likely outcomes. Would they say the same about race or gender?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
Rupert of Hentzau posted:Sadly the Mail's share price tanking is down to the parent company making some bad investments rather than because the actual site itself is doing badly: http://fortune.com/2017/11/30/daily-mail-general-trust-share-price-xceligent/ The paper is the part I want to die. Their website is boosted by dumbshit americans so I don't care about that so much as having our coffin dodgers reading less fashy rags.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
Not Operator posted:To be fair to Green, that guy does seem to have won a lot of awards. given it's the only one I've heard of, the AVN, which he appears to have won many times
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
Taear posted:On "I'm a Celebrity" there was a question about if Class affects your opportunities and everyone there thought it didn't. Because they didn't understand what that really meant. Well yeah, that would require a modicum of self awareness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 14:19
|
|
only
|
Tesseraction posted:given it's the only one I've heard of, the AVN, which he appears to have won many times there's a goon thread in a/t by a guy who claims to have been an inventor/very early adopter of PoV porn that talks about him going to the AVNs and I think even winning one it's an interesting thread, unless you are damian green, because it is not about cartoon children
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I don't see how they can look at something like I'd imagine they just don't look at things like that. They don't think about it. It's a non-issue to them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 14:26
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I don't see how they can look at something like I think so. The question was "What proportion of the British public think that your class has a bearing on your opportunities in life". Every one of them seemed to interpret in the way that "if you're lower class, you would be restricted from doing stuff". Like it was a culture thing. So I assume that if they asked the question with gender instead they'd say "No, being a [wo/man] doesn't affect your choices in life". It bothered me that Kezia Dugdale also thinks that, I guess. Or at least doesn't understand what the question really means. You know, in theory a woman CAN be a builder. They "just don't apply for it". Meaning they have the same opportunities! Taear fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Dec 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:there's a goon thread in a/t by a guy who claims to have been an inventor/very early adopter of PoV porn that talks about him going to the AVNs and I think even winning one If you mean darkpriest, he's been nominated a couple of times but never won.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 14:29
|
|
|
ookiimarukochan posted:The extreme porn stuff kicked in before Green was caught with his "at the time legal" porn - the change that has kicked in between then and now was the criminalisation of drawn child pornography (i.e. all the anime/manga stuff) and I'd bet good money that's what he was looking at. It would also explain them saying he looked at thousands of "images" if he's reading childporn comics. Nobody looks at porn "images" that's stupid. It would also explain why he's bricking it, dudes a Lolita or whatever E: "if I may have a chance to explain to the viewers at home... She was actually a 5000 year old dragon in a child's body"
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
ookiimarukochan posted:The extreme porn stuff kicked in before Green was caught with his "at the time legal" porn - the change that has kicked in between then and now was the criminalisation of drawn child pornography (i.e. all the anime/manga stuff) and I'd bet good money that's what he was looking at. His porn was discovered in 2008, and the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 didn't come into force until January 2009.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:it's an interesting thread, unless you are damian green, because it is not about cartoon children nopantsjack posted:Nobody looks at porn "images" that's stupid.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
The BBCs report of the latest on Damian Green was fantastically lazy journalism that reduced (correct me if I'm wrong) the allegation that the images were downloaded while he personally sent emails on his computer, traced to the office, on his personal login to an absurd he-said she-said, probity, who knows who to believe? nonsense statement. Without mentioning the timestamps, or the personal login, both of which would make it rather hard to believe his story that IP addresses arent accurate and there are lots of computers in westminster. Guavanaut posted:If it was 'drawn indecency which would be currently illegal' then that's far less amusing than if it were 'extreme porn', because the definition of the former are so broad as to include anything from near-photorealistic (but not pseudophotographic) depictions of serious child abuse all the way down to stupid joke images of Bart Simpson's balls provided that a prosecutor thinks it's not funny, whereas the latter almost certainly means he was looking at people loving dogs. dogs or corpses, lets not forget Yewtree
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
Pesmerga posted:Hey, sent you a PM about something. No need to respond, but just letting you know in case you haven’t seen it. Oh hey, yeah! I wish SA made it more obvious when you have a message. Will have a look in a bit
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 15:01
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:Could anyone with working experience of the boundary review please explain to me what sort of inbred looked at our current population size and decided it'd be a good idea to have less MPs than we did in 1800, population approx 1/7th of current We had 558 in 1800. You're thinking of 1801, when we added 100 from what used to be the Irish Parliament. Most of those constituencies don't belong to us any more (hence the current exciting shenanigans over there).
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
Clearly he wrote some emails, left his computer unsecured and went out of the room and a naughty dog came in and viewed the pornography
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 15:09
|
|
|
Junior G-man posted:There's a long-standing joke about Brussels' EU bubble dating that roughly goes: I stand corrected, I had other notions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:If it was 'drawn indecency which would be currently illegal' then that's far less amusing than if it were 'extreme porn', because the definition of the former are so broad as to include anything from near-photorealistic (but not pseudophotographic) depictions of serious child abuse all the way down to stupid joke images of Bart Simpson's balls provided that a prosecutor thinks it's not funny, whereas the latter almost certainly means he was looking at people loving dogs. Actually I think you'll find Damian Green getting done for downloading "thousands of images" of Bart Simpson's balls is really rather amusing
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:It would also explain them saying he looked at thousands of "images" if he's reading childporn comics. Didn't it say "thousands of thumbnails"? Sounded to me like he'd been browsing video search results. Tsaedje posted:Clearly he wrote some emails, left his computer unsecured and went out of the room and a naughty dog came in and viewed the pornography They're good dogs, Tsaedje.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
He’s a Tory MP. It’s all going to be middle aged men wearing suspenders being dominated by Mistress Pain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:We had 558 in 1800. You're thinking of 1801, when we added 100 from what used to be the Irish Parliament. Most of those constituencies don't belong to us any more (hence the current exciting shenanigans over there). my bad, and probably then a bit dodgy to go with the 10m number as well. So a more accurate estimate would be roughly 15.5m people for 658 constituencies, an MP per 23,000 people. Now we have an MP per 100,000 people, and want to make that an MP per 108,000 people, and doing so would coincidentally give the tories a majority and wipe out all the fun Labour gains. Rosie Duffield loses her seat to Julian Brazier a year after beating him an election. Representation proportionate to 1801 would give us 2823 MPs in the commons, which would present problems. This still feels like the wrong direction to go, in terms of democratic accountability (and, naturally, the representation of every minority can only be harmed in a FPTP system by reducing their relevance to a plurality). Why not just make it 700 and work from there as we figure out how to create a slightly less poo poo version of democracy?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
I prefer the anime porn story though, so like the pigs head, its the truth and it happened.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:Representation proportionate to 1801 would give us 2823 MPs in the commons I don't know why you think having ten thousand MPs to account for this would make it less poo poo though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:Why not just make it 700 and work from there as we figure out how to create a slightly less poo poo version of democracy? Why is 700 a better number?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:He’s a Tory MP.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:Not relative to the franchise it wouldn't. It wasn't until later in the 19th century that many men got the vote, let alone women. fair points but changing the number is something the government do appear to want to do, although doesn't appear certain. a form of PR and a better electoral system with recall clauses would be much better than ten thousand MPs I'm just not really seeing why the government want less MPs without going straight to "it helps the tories right now"
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
Everyone is an MP, direct democracy!
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:04 |
|
|
sebzilla posted:Everyone is an MP, direct democracy! Guavanaut posted:I hope Harry books it for May 28th to spite them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2017 15:42
|
|