Also in the news

[leicsmac]

41 minutes ago, ROB-THE-BLUE said:

Just saw that Rachel Riley's fella had his phone nicked and there are personal photos of her that could be shared... 

 

Not entirely sure that non-consensual viewing of skin pics does it for me, but whatever floats your boat.

[ROB-THE-BLUE]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Not entirely sure that non-consensual viewing of skin pics does it for me, but whatever floats your boat.

Each to their own, I've got the Savlon ready for the inevitable chaffing. 

[Grebfromgrebland]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

There's something in the idea that extremis envelope is being pushed in all directions, and there's a lot more polarisation now than there once was.

 

Though that might be simply because access to information and viewpoints is easier now and so people get to know that polarisation exists more often in short, easy 240-character bursts.

Divide and conquer is what it's all about and we're playing right into their hands.

 

Divide Europe and weaken it, divide the UK and weaken it.

 

The media (and social media) is systematically and methodically screwing society.

[Alf Bentley]

4 hours ago, Facecloth said:

What's annoyed me personally is people trying to excuse it as instinctive reaction to protect himself. Its not, he's angry, and that's his answer to being angry. You can see it in his face, the anger has been building up and as she walks past he snaps. He apologised for his actions, but trying to excuse it as instinctively protecting himself is bullshit. Just admit it was an over reaction and I think it'd be taken better.

 

This.

 

Anyone arguing that it was an instinctive reaction needs to ask themselves why nobody else in a packed room instinctively felt the need to protect themselves. That includes a number of other people whose chairs she walked past. Nobody else grabbed her or even leaped from their seats shouting for help or looking alarmed. Was he the only person at the event with an instinct for self-protection? That argument is either deliberate bullshit to support "your side" or self-deceit.

 

Here's an account given by the woman: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/21/greenpeace-activist-mark-field-needs-anger-management

I'm sure that some will question her credibility, but she hasn't sought to make a big deal of this, isn't seeking to press charges, has made no formal complaint & isn't pretending to be injured, so I'd say she does have credibility.

 

"“I remember a chair being pushed out. Then being shoved. I was saying, over and over: ‘This is a peaceful protest, a peaceful protest.’ I was saying it quite audibly, certainly loud enough.” She could not see the man’s face, and had no idea who he was: “I just knew it was a guy. And that he was very, very angry. You could hear that in the tone of his voice. “I knew he wanted me out,” said Barker, 40, who was carrying a phone and a small handbag. “ I thought if I just keep saying ‘peaceful protest, peaceful protest’ you hope to defuse the situation. But there was no diffusion in his anger. “He continued to grip me by the neck and the arm all the way to the door of the building. Then, when we got to the door, he shoved me outside on to the street, and said: ‘This is what happens when people like you disturb our dinner.’”

[Grebfromgrebland]

He was clearly hungry

[Alf Bentley]

Well, sounds like we're in for fun times with Boris as PM.....

 

- Police called to 10 Downing Street to deal with late-night "domestics"

- His jailbait girlfriend suddenly flinging his laptop through the window of No. 10

- Larry the cat emerging shocked, his coat stained with claret

- Mark Field on the door removing visiting EU officials by the scruff of the neck due to his unique instinct for self-protection

 

There should be enough material to justify a one-off Celebrity Jeremy Kyle Show.

 

And that's before we even get onto No Deal or a General Election.... 

[UpTheLeagueFox]

4 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

I see what you're saying, but that doesnt annoy me a tiny fraction as much as Owen Jones' take on it in the guardian

Owen Jones doing what Owen Jones always does

 

3 hours ago, Facecloth said:

I'd have thought you'd be used to the likes of Jones spouting bollocks by now. He's just thr other end of the spectrum to Katie Hopkins.

I've said for a while he's just a left wing version of Katie Hopkins. Both abhorrent people.

[davieG]

6 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Well, sounds like we're in for fun times with Boris as PM.....

 

- Police called to 10 Downing Street to deal with late-night "domestics"

- His jailbait girlfriend suddenly flinging his laptop through the window of No. 10

- Larry the cat emerging shocked, his coat stained with claret

- Mark Field on the door removing visiting EU officials by the scruff of the neck due to his unique instinct for self-protection

 

There should be enough material to justify a one-off Celebrity Jeremy Kyle Show.

 

And that's before we even get onto No Deal or a General Election.... 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/writersroom/send-a-script

[David Guiza]

Thoughts are with Harry Cole this morning. The guy who had to write an article defending Boris after his ex wife left him for the volatile love machine

[Wymsey]

The whole Brexit fiasco and the current next prime minister situation just shows how incompetent the government is overall, and justifies a need to 'start from scratch' and lay new foundations from the bottom up tbh to get the right people in of all aspects.

Edited 23 June 2019 by Wymeswold fox

[Guest MattP]

23 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Not entirely sure that non-consensual viewing of skin pics does it for me, but whatever floats your boat.

Be honest though, you'll have a gander won't you?

[Guest MattP]

4 hours ago, David Guiza said:

Thoughts are with Harry Cole this morning. The guy who had to write an article defending Boris after his ex wife left him for the volatile love machine

Where on earth did this rumour start that Carrie Symonds was married to Harry Cole?

 

They went on two dates and didn't take it further.

[David Guiza]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

Where on earth did this rumour start that Carrie Symonds was married to Harry Cole?

 

They went on two dates and didn't take it further.

Long term partner is suggested by a few sources, no idea where I got married from! Either way she definitely has a type based on those two . 

 

As for the article itself, I'm not comfortable with both the MoS and Telegraph's spreads on the neighbours. Particularly given the current climate; there are more than a fair share of lunatics around to take matters into their own hands, i'm sure. 

[Guest MattP]

5 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

Long term partner is suggested by a few sources, no idea where I got married from! Either way she definitely has a type based on those two . 

 

As for the article itself, I'm not comfortable with both the MoS and Telegraph's spreads on the neighbours. Particularly given the current climate; there are more than a fair share of lunatics around to take matters into their own hands, i'm sure. 

Do you not think they have brought this on themselves? They call the police, police say it's fine so then they decide to sell it to the Guardian to make a few quid.

 

You can't flog stuff to the press for self gain then complain when the press come for you. Actions have consequences. 

[Guest MattP]

You work in law don't you @David Guiza

 

It is actually legal to record a private conversation/argument with the intent of profiting or damaging someone's reputation with it?

[leicsmac]

30 minutes ago, MattP said:

Be honest though, you'll have a gander won't you?

Hell no, man.

 

A good imagination is more than good enough for me - and if folks don't have a good imagination, there's oodles of opportunities out there where consent is obtained and guaranteed.

[SouthStandUpperTier]

Private conversation 

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

Private conversation 

 

through a wall or two.

[Guest MattP]

20 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Hell no, man.

 

A good imagination is more than good enough for me - and if folks don't have a good imagination, there's oodles of opportunities out there where consent is obtained and guaranteed.

Fair enough.

 

If I can grab a look at her tits I'm going to do so. I would ask if I could but it'd probably not plausible. 

[Grebfromgrebland]

 

 

[David Guiza]

38 minutes ago, MattP said:

Do you not think they have brought this on themselves? They call the police, police say it's fine so then they decide to sell it to the Guardian to make a few quid.

 

You can't flog stuff to the press for self gain then complain when the press come for you. Actions have consequences. 

 

32 minutes ago, MattP said:

You work in law don't you @David Guiza

 

It is actually legal to record a private conversation/argument with the intent of profiting or damaging someone's reputation with it?

Not from a one off event, particularly if they were to justify it by way of protecting a vulnerable person. If it were repeated then there would be a case to answer.

 

There's surely a difference in public interest between the potential PM and some random members of the public. There are countless leaks every day to the press whereby the person who spread the information isn't outed by major newspapers. I sincerely hope nothing comes of it, but really wouldn't be surprised if the couple faced some sort of attack by a 'nutter'. 

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

Not from a one off event, particularly if they were to justify it by way of protecting a vulnerable person. If it were repeated then there would be a case to answer.

 

There's surely a difference in public interest between the potential PM and some random members of the public. There are countless leaks every day to the press whereby the person who spread the information isn't outed by major newspapers. I sincerely hope nothing comes of it, but really wouldn't be surprised if the couple faced some sort of attack by a 'nutter'. 

Fair enough. 

 

I still think if you are prepared to profit from selling stuff to the press you take the consequences of that - even more so when it's pretty obvious you are doing it for political motivations.

 

It will be interesting to see if these two have expressed an interest in public survelience given they are happy to put a recorder to someone's wall for a few quid.

Edited 23 June 2019 by MattP

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

51 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Hell no, man.

 

A good imagination is more than good enough for me - and if folks don't have a good imagination, there's oodles of opportunities out there where consent is obtained and guaranteed.

I actually think imagining her tits is just as bad. You have no right to do that

 

Its rape. Mind rape.

[bovril]

We jest about the Riley photos but it's not like her husband left his phone lying around on a train, it was violently taken from him in a planned attack. So I'm not sure it's something to celebrate just because we get to see a pixelated photo of her naked. I'm with Mac on this one, it's not something I really find that exciting. 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

I actually think imagining her tits is just as bad. You have no right to do that

 

Its rape. Mind rape.

Who said anything about her being the subject of imagination?

 

But in any case, let's be thankful we live in a society that isn't quite 1984 yet, are able to spot obvious false equivalences and thus still place a distinction between thoughts and fantasies about such things and thoughts and fantasies accompanied by tangible images obtained without the owners consent.