Also in the news

[Wymsey]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

I suppose the Royalist forelock-tuggers will have no problem with this but, personally, I think it's a fvcking disgrace that we pay for these parasites:

 

Harry and Meghan's home renovations cost £2.4 million in taxpayer funds

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48746609

 

 

Would be interested to know how much the Royal Family pay in term of tax, or is the much-assumed claim true in that they aren't entitled to pay any?..

Edited 25 June 2019 by Wymeswold fox

[Guest MattP]

36 minutes ago, Buce said:

I suppose the Royalist forelock-tuggers will have no problem with this but, personally, I think it's a fvcking disgrace that we pay for these parasites:

 

Harry and Meghan's home renovations cost £2.4 million in taxpayer funds

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48746609

On the case of this I don't agree.

 

If those two don't want to undertake the public roles they are asked to ie dinner with Trump they skived off from then they shouldn't also have their life funded by the taxpayer.

 

6 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

No way should religion be a special case, either. All religious beliefs should be open to criticism, parody, even insult on the same basis as political beliefs, personal beliefs or whatever.

Here here.

 

Unfortunately though zero chance of this happening, we'll have blasphemy laws back within a decade as the right not to be offended continues to gain traction over the right to offend.

 

It's been made very clear to me in my new job (public sector) that Facebook posts etc won't be tolerated taking the piss or even joking about religious subjects etc

[yorkie1999]

10 minutes ago, Wymeswold fox said:

Would be interested to know how much the Royale Family pay in term of tax, or is the much-assumed claim true in that they aren't entitled to pay any?..

I think they were the reason why we paid it in the first place and it just escalated into a free loader system. 

[Rain King]

18 minutes ago, Wymeswold fox said:

Would be interested to know how much the Royale Family pay in term of tax, or is the much-assumed claim true in that they aren't entitled to pay any?..

Don't think Jim worked a day in his life.

[Alf Bentley]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

Here here.

 

Unfortunately though zero chance of this happening, we'll have blasphemy laws back within a decade as the right not to be offended continues to gain traction over the right to offend.

 

It's been made very clear to me in my new job (public sector) that Facebook posts etc won't be tolerated taking the piss or even joking about religious subjects etc

 

It winds me up that beliefs based on "faith" are automatically deemed worthy of respect. Give me beliefs based on reason, any time.

I'd have much more respect for the beliefs of someone who had a rational explanation of why Brendan will or won't be a good LCFC manager than for someone saying "I have faith in Brendan" or "faith in the owners to find someone better".

 

.....and that's from an atheist who thinks we ought to give more credit for the better things that come from religious faith (misguided as I think that faith is)....but criticism of the bad stuff is fair and shouldn't be blocked.

 

You've got me curious about your new job, now. Please tell me you're a civil servant.....or employed by the Labour-run City Council....or a special adviser to Keith Vaz MP.... 

[Alf Bentley]

6 minutes ago, pds said:

Don't think Jim worked a day in his life.

 

Spent his early years working in McDonalds & as a chauffeur, I heard...

 

 

[Guest MattP]

10 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

It winds me up that beliefs based on "faith" are automatically deemed worthy of respect. Give me beliefs based on reason, any time.

I'd have much more respect for the beliefs of someone who had a rational explanation of why Brendan will or won't be a good LCFC manager than for someone saying "I have faith in Brendan" or "faith in the owners to find someone better".

 

.....and that's from an atheist who thinks we ought to give more credit for the better things that come from religious faith (misguided as I think that faith is)....but criticism of the bad stuff is fair and shouldn't be blocked.

 

You've got me curious about your new job, now. Please tell me you're a civil servant.....or employed by the Labour-run City Council....or a special adviser to Keith Vaz MP.... 

Haha I'm certainly not mentioning it on here that's for sure

 

I'm starting to find it all a bit strange, I did mention in the meeting that it was surely OK to joke about an idea which religion is.

 

Not a single person in there spoke up or agreed with me, not a single one - all were behind the idea that you shouldn't be able to joke about religion. 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

13 minutes ago, MattP said:

Haha I'm certainly not mentioning it on here that's for sure

 

I'm starting to find it all a bit strange, I did mention in the meeting that it was surely OK to joke about an idea which religion is.

 

Not a single person in there spoke up or agreed with me, not a single one - all were behind the idea that you shouldn't be able to joke about religion. 

That is ****ing abysmal

 

And I'm no atheist

[Alf Bentley]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

Haha I'm certainly not mentioning it on here that's for sure

 

I'm starting to find it all a bit strange, I did mention in the meeting that it was surely OK to joke about an idea which religion is.

 

Not a single person in there spoke up or agreed with me, not a single one - all were behind the idea that you shouldn't be able to joke about religion. 

 

You can PM me about your job if you find it too public here. I won't tell (wouldn't either). 

 

The word "troublemaker" will already feature on your HR file.... 

 

Sounds a bit depressing that. Hopefully just people keeping their noses clean and saying "the right thing" on starting a new job. I hope they loosen up, for your sake.

I mean, there's common sense to be exercised - getting to know people a bit before taking the piss and not overdoing it - but depressing if people blindly accept self-censorship.

 

Good luck, anyway. I had 2 public sector (civil service) jobs years ago. Very little work and great social life in one, high stress and hard work in the other. Friends who've stayed on say it's harder work now due to cuts etc.

You get some really good & intelligent people and good company in the public sector, and some constipated, bureaucratic stuck-in-the-mud thinking, too.

[Jon the Hat]

2 hours ago, Wymeswold fox said:

Would be interested to know how much the Royal Family pay in term of tax, or is the much-assumed claim true in that they aren't entitled to pay any?..

It depends how you look at it.  One view is that as the Crown Estate, which the Royal Family own (or does the state?) earns something like £350M a year for the Treasury, and the Royal family recieve about £75M back at present, that they are paying 75% tax.  Others consider that the Queen owns none of it, and the state owns it, but in the case the state should pay for th upkeep of it's building, and pay the royals for their state duties, which is where the huge majority of the money goes.

Personally I don't think they are bad value whichever way you do the sums.

[urban.spaceman]

2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

Disgraceful, assuming the report is accurate.

 

Nobody has the right not to be offended. If someone says something deemed offensive, there are many ways to object. If the "offender" accepts the objection, they can apologise and change their ways. If they don't accept it, they should be able to carry on - and the "victim" can deem them a tosser if they feel like it.

 

Of course, a controversial opinion can be used unacceptably: e.g. encouraging hated rather than just expressing blunt criticism or repeatedly targeting an individual or group, so as to bully, incite bigotry or whatever.

But a one-off sharing of a controversial comment in the context of a comedy performance doesn't qualify, if that's all that happened.

 

Connolly's words don't sound like the height of wit, but I don't know the full context of that section of his act - and he's a thinking man, generally. Even if it was low-grade humour, that's subjective and permissible.

 

I don't see much merit in gratuitous, unexplained insults against any belief system, but they shouldn't be banned - unless used abusively to bully or spread hatred.

No way should religion be a special case, either. All religious beliefs should be open to criticism, parody, even insult on the same basis as political beliefs, personal beliefs or whatever.

 

 

This is the short video he shared:

 

Which leads into this bit too, for wider context:

A lot of people will probably find that offensive. Personally I just fell off my chair laughing because a) that guy has a direct line to my funny bone and b) I am an anti-theist atheist. The jokes work because he’s absolutely ****ing right. Which ironically is the exact same reason people are offended. 

 

Completely agree with “Nobody has the right not to be offended”. What concerns me is that private companies (and police) are now siding with the easily offended and prosecuting people for free expression. 

 

Humour and offence are both subjective; I’ve always found it extremely sinister that people can use their religious belief to make their offence more important than my right to my humour. 

 

It genuinely concerns me that we seem to be going backwards to the Mary Whitehouse times. Things like Life of Brian have never been more important. 

Edited 25 June 2019 by urban.spaceman

[urban.spaceman]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

 

Here here.

 

Unfortunately though zero chance of this happening, we'll have blasphemy laws back within a decade as the right not to be offended continues to gain traction over the right to offend.

 

It's been made very clear to me in my new job (public sector) that Facebook posts etc won't be tolerated taking the piss or even joking about religious subjects etc

The current hate speech laws are turning into secular blasphemy laws anyway. 

[Countryfox]

They say that the British are world leaders for invention ...   and here's the proof !!     What a clever chap !! ...   not only has he got a fantastic sex toy for the princely sum of £21.46 ...   but it also doubles as a hoover !! ...   fantastic !     Personally I'd have paid the extra and upgraded to Amanda Holden.   

 

 

 

 

[Buce]

16 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

They say that the British are world leaders for invention ...   and here's the proof !!     What a clever chap !! ...   not only has he got a fantastic sex toy for the princely sum of £21.46 ...   but it also doubles as a hoover !! ...   fantastic !     Personally I'd have paid the extra and upgraded to Amanda Holden.   

 

 

 

 

 

If someone told you to draw a paedo, that's pretty much what it would look like...

[Countryfox]

20 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

If someone told you to draw a paedo, that's pretty much what it would look like...

 

Bit harsh on poor Holly ...

[String fellow]

The guy would struggle to get it patented. The basic concept has been around for years, I'm reliably informed.

[Legend_in_blue]

The symmetry is all off for me.

 

 

[Grebfromgrebland]

7 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

Jaysus ****ing Christ our culture has gone mental. 

This makes me quite sad and fearful for the future. It was a Billy Connolly sketch FFS.

[Wymsey]

Michael Jackson died 10 years ago already.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48744293

Time has gone quite fast..

 

[ajthefox]

3 hours ago, Countryfox said:

They say that the British are world leaders for invention ...   and here's the proof !!     What a clever chap !! ...   not only has he got a fantastic sex toy for the princely sum of £21.46 ...   but it also doubles as a hoover !! ...   fantastic !     Personally I'd have paid the extra and upgraded to Amanda Holden.   

 

 

 

 

Outrageous. No chance Amanda Holden is an upgrade on HW.

[WigstonWanderer]

9 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

This is the short video he shared:

 

Which leads into this bit too, for wider context:

A lot of people will probably find that offensive. Personally I just fell off my chair laughing because a) that guy has a direct line to my funny bone and b) I am an anti-theist atheist. The jokes work because he’s absolutely ****ing right. Which ironically is the exact same reason people are offended. 

 

Completely agree with “Nobody has the right not to be offended”. What concerns me is that private companies (and police) are now siding with the easily offended and prosecuting people for free expression. 

 

Humour and offence are both subjective; I’ve always found it extremely sinister that people can use their religious belief to make their offence more important than my right to my humour. 

 

It genuinely concerns me that we seem to be going backwards to the Mary Whitehouse times. Things like Life of Brian have never been more important. 

It appears that it is becoming illegal to point out that the emperor has no clothes. We are really losing something with this trend, and it makes me fearful for the future of free speech and the dystopian consequences.

[MC Prussian]

On 05/06/2019 at 15:18, MC Prussian said:

A CDU politician shot in Germany this past weekend.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/03/german-local-politician-from-angela-merkel-party-found-dead

 

Really curious to find out what the motive was, and that it won't reek of the 1920ies in Germany.

 

On 05/06/2019 at 16:29, Alf Bentley said:

 

A bit concerning, though I know such one-off killings can happen to all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons (domestic, personal feuds, criminality etc.).

Clearly sounds like murder, not suicide, though, and we don't often see politicians murdered in the West.

 

Let us know if further news emerges.

Culprit's been arrested - a neo-Nazi has confessed to the murder, claiming he acted alone and on his own behalf. Investigation still ongoing:

https://www.dw.com/en/suspect-in-german-politicians-murder-confesses/a-49357904

[urban.spaceman]

 

[Alf Bentley]

15 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

 

 

Some of the stuff emerging from Boris and his team is downright bizarre, now.

 

From completely incredible Brexit & tax policies through becoming a hermit, then the media placement of outdated photos with his girlfriend......to a hobby of painting wine crates to make model buses, of all things?! 

The interviewer missed a trick by not asking him if there was any message emblazoned on the side of his model buses....

 

Makes me wonder if he's having some sort of breakdown. Any chance that would cause party members not to elect him PM at the most critical moment in British political history for 70+ years? 

 

The row-with-girlfriend scenario could've been quickly dealt with: "we had a row, as most couples do, but nothing serious; sorry if we disturbed anyone"....

If there's no current photo of them playing "happy families", pointless to circulate a pre-row photo that just increases speculation. Just say: "we're both leading busy lives" or "our private lives are private".

 

By tonight, I expect to see footage of Boris running through a field of wheat - probably naked and in Theresa May's constituency. 

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Some of the stuff emerging from Boris and his team is downright bizarre, now.

 

From completely incredible Brexit & tax policies through becoming a hermit, then the media placement of outdated photos with his girlfriend......to a hobby of painting wine crates to make model buses, of all things?! 

The interviewer missed a trick by not asking him if there was any message emblazoned on the side of his model buses....

 

Makes me wonder if he's having some sort of breakdown. Any chance that would cause party members not to elect him PM at the most critical moment in British political history for 70+ years?

Given Jeremy Hunt is the other option which also means Jeremy Corbyn becomes almost certain to be PM I'd say no.

 

It is completely bizarre though - I just wish he would stop bullshitting, we all know he's a bullshitter so he doesn't need to keep doing it to make sure, his refusal to answer the question from Ferrari yesterday was just plain weird.

 

Just be Boris - I'd be happy for him to just say I'm going to play the fool, take the piss and win elections whilst others do the work as I'm not competent enough. Then when asked if he's being serious just follow it up by saying at least I'm brighter and more qualified  than the alternative leading the Labour party.

 

He still has to win for the sake of Brexit and the Tory party but he's making me hold my head in my times watching him.

 

He's like a horse in the Gold Cup on the bridle still managing to clatter through every fence on his way to victory.