Discussion of article from the Mail's columnists and RightMinds contributors
:sunglasses: 44.4 % :grinning: 44.4 % 😟 11.1 %
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 
By Big Arnold
Membership Days Posts
#557250
I certainly don't approve of people watching porn on public transport, just doubtful that it's a widespread problem. Phone screens are small and there are such things as earphones.

TRANSPORT chiefs have confirmed that watching pornography on the bus is unacceptable unless it is a rail replacement bus
 
By Safe_Timber_Man
Membership Days Posts
#557685
They aren't out and out defending him and are being careful about it, but Street-Porter attempted to play down Philip Green's behaviour and now Vine is as well.

The Mail went after him something chronic over the pensions scandal but it seems sneering at and belittling sexual and verbal abuse of women is more important to the Daily Mail.

Vine references Weinstein as the 'real bad guy', yet she was involved in the the attack on the #MeToo movement which stemmed from the Weinstein scandal.

Basically, whenever there is a chance to take a bizarre stance AGAINST women who have been sexually abused the Mail will always jump at it.



Yet, unless or until he is exposed as something more villainous, I am tempted to conclude that Green's chief error was in employing one too many snowflakes.





SARAH VINE: Banter of any kind might now be seen as 'abuse' but going after ogres like Sir Philip Green misses the real villains like Harvey Weinstein
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... lains.html

About 700 years ago, when I was an eager young newbie working on a tabloid newspaper, I occasionally had to visit the compositors' floor in the basement of our Fleet Street building.

This was a wild and smoke-filled place, dominated by bearded blokes whose skills with 'hot metal' are long since forgotten.

They were known as the 'beer monsters' — both on account of their thirst and their terrifying reputation for 'monstering' hapless emissaries from upper floors.

It was something of a rite of passage to be sent down there, into the inky bowels of the building. The language was blue and crude and no one was spared.

But, nerve-racking as that was, I can honestly say I never felt threatened by those men.

Yes, they were rough and rude and smelled like badgers — but sexually intimidating? Not a chance. They would have been utterly bemused by the notion.

I was reminded of those days when Philip Green — who is accused of committing various acts of brutish behaviour by anonymous former employees — attempted to disentangle himself from the web of public outrage by claiming that many of the things he'd said were only 'banter'.

'I've been in business for more than 40 years,' he told the Mail on Sunday.

'There has obviously from time to time been some banter, but as far as I'm concerned that's never been offensive.'

Naturally, his protests fell on deaf ears. If anything, he provoked further outrage from feminists who claimed he was belittling the experiences of his 'victims': a crime known as 'second abuse' (even before the first has been proven).

But, whatever the precise details behind those non-disclosure agreements, I do feel some small shred of sympathy, even for an ogre like Green.

Banter of any kind is now seen as 'abuse'. Banter of the kind I learnt to deal with in my 20s; banter of the kind that so many women of my generation grew up with. A bit risque, a bit naughty, a little daring or close to the bone.

Funny, even, provided you have the same sense of humour. The problem here is that, clearly, some of Sir Philip's employees did not. Hence the complaints.

Yet, unless or until he is exposed as something more villainous, I am tempted to conclude that Green's chief error was in employing one too many snowflakes.

I should say, at this point, that I am by no means an admirer. I thought the way he behaved over the closure of BHS was utterly vile and rapacious.

The fact that he shamelessly flaunts his wealth in the most crass and ostentatious of ways does not help, either. He is vulgar, brash, rude and intensely obnoxious. But is he a career sex pest?

I'd wager he's more likely just a socially awkward man of a certain age and a certain generation who struggles to communicate with women, especially young ones.

He's also clearly a bully with an abrasive style of doing business and is as petulant as he's childish. All very unpleasant traits. But not the same as being a new Weinstein.

He is, like those 'beer monsters' of my youth, a relic of a bygone age. Someone whose past behaviour now leaves him exposed in a fast-evolving post #MeToo climate.

A piece of rotting, low-hanging fruit ripe for revenge-seeking feminists too wrapped up in their own mission to tackle the real villains. Of which, as we saw again this week with the revelation of yet more grooming gangs targeting underage girls, there are plenty.

When we're living in our sanitised utopia — mentally cleansed of all impure thoughts, sipping our vegan chai lattes and looking forward to another thrilling weekend of meditation — we may even find ourselves missing the days when we could have a bit of banter.

Or, at least, I will.
By Andy McDandy
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#557687
Standard response. Lap it up, I had to, I was tough enough, kids these days, why don't you go after the REAL whatevers.

Missing the point that back in the day even, not everyone was tough enough. Or had the confidence to speak out. Or even realised that what was happening was inappropriate, because it was that ingrained.

Travel a little further down this road and you get to "It's not rape unless it's the local weirdo with his dick in one hand and a knife in the other".

And socially awkward? More like he seems to have trouble empathising with anyone he sees as a social inferior. Think Sarah might know a few people like that.
 
By youngian
Membership Days Posts
#557693
I'd wager he's more likely just a socially awkward man of a certain age and a certain generation who struggles to communicate with women, especially young ones.

He's the CEO of a public company not Sid James and Bernard Bresslaw on a camping holiday.
lambswool, Samanfur liked this
 
By MisterMuncher
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#557713
Phillip Green doesn't believe it was "banter" or "a relic of a bygone age" any more than I do, or the tight-fisted thieving cunt wouldn't have felt the need to bung someone a million plus to keep something quiet.

Guilty and ugly as sin. Fuck 'im.
youngian liked this
 
By Safe_Timber_Man
Membership Days Posts
#558226
SARAH VINE: I fear for my boy on our streets stained with blood and want more stop and search checks
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... hecks.html

More alt-right language:

The scale and the urgency of the crisis appear to have eluded a mayor more at home posing for virtue-signalling selfies than attending to the wounds that are staining his city’s streets with the blood of its young.

And lets be honest, her boy is never going to be anywhere near the 'streets stained with blood'.

I may also be crossing the line here but I suspect she doesn't really give a shit about the lives of young black victims of knife crime and simply see's them as useful pawns in political attacks on Sadiq Khan. I don't say that lightly. I don't apply that to her simply because she's a Right wing columnist for the Mail. I think Vine is genuinely a deeply unpleasant and unfeeling person.



When confronted about the rising tide of knife crime in the capital —and what he was planning to do about it — the best the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, could come up with was that it could take ‘a generation’ to solve the problem.

It was a characteristically weak and defeatist response from a man who seems to be doing everything to exonerate himself from responsibility in this matter.

The scale and the urgency of the crisis appear to have eluded a mayor more at home posing for virtue-signalling selfies than attending to the wounds that are staining his city’s streets with the blood of its young.

Yes, this is a problem deeply rooted in inner-city crime culture — itself a legacy of decades of social and moral breakdown where the warped values of the gang have replaced those of family and community.

But that is no excuse to pass the buck. And it’s no help, either, to the grieving mother of Jay Hughes, 15, stabbed to death outside a chicken shop in Lewisham last Thursday, or to Malcolm Mide-Madariola, 17, killed in Clapham last Friday, or the 16-year-old, identified as a rapper known as JaySav, who died in Tulse Hill on Monday night.

It’s already too late for them. And it will be too late for those who, inevitably, and depressingly, will join the rising death toll across Britain before the year is out. These children and their parents don’t have a generation to spare, Mr Khan. They need action now. We all do.

My own son is about to turn 14. Like many his age, he walks to and from school (when children are most likely to be attacked).

I’m lucky that he’s a sensible lad and so are his friends. But I’m not deluded: I know there are gangs operating in our area. I see them all the time, openly dealing drugs in the local playground where I walk the dogs at night, zooming around on their scooters.

I know he’ll try to avoid them, but what if they don’t leave him alone?

It only takes one idiot on a dare from his mates, one fool trying to prove how much of a man he is, and my child — my precious, only boy — could become a statistic.

It’s a worry that unites us all as mothers, regardless of colour, class or creed. Long-term, many things can be done to change the toxic culture behind these deaths. Schools, communities, parents — all can play their part. But short-term, there is only one answer: more police on our streets.

Everyone understands the need to make economies in public services. But not at the expense of children’s lives. The only thing that will make parents sleep more soundly at night is the knowledge that there are men and women out there whose job it is to protect the safety of our streets — and that they have the resources and the mandate to do so.

That means not just more money for policing in inner-city areas, but more powers for the police. Specifically, a return to stop and search.

The arguments against stop and search are well-rehearsed. They centre mainly around the notion it disproportionately discriminates against certain ethnic groups, in particular young black men.

This is, of course, wholly unacceptable — and is part of the reason the Government rowed back against it during Theresa May’s time at the Home Office.

But it is also the case that the victims of knife crime are overwhelmingly young black men. So you have to balance the concerns of liberals with that reality.

Young people are carrying knives with impunity, safe in the knowledge that there is little the diminished numbers of bobbies on the beat can do.

Already, the Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, has signalled a change of direction. ‘I want officers to feel confident, trusted and supported in using stop and search, and I will be looking at ways to reduce bureaucracy and increase efficiency in the use of this power,’ he said in a speech to police chiefs in London last week. Good. Now, get on with it.

Because, however unpleasant, inconvenient or humiliating it may be to be wrongly searched by the police, if it were a choice between that and losing yet another child to the knife, what sane person could possibly object?




Time's up, Doctor

When the current series of Doctor Who, featuring the first female Time Lord, began, I was immediately struck by how excruciatingly PC it was.

I gave up after episode three (a prolonged U.S. civil rights lecture), assuming that I was just too much of an old cynic to appreciate the message.

But it seems I’m not alone. After last weekend’s outing, which featured a man giving birth, it’s lost more than two million viewers . . . and counting. And I don’t imagine this weekend’s storyline — about India under the British — will help.

Maybe it’s time those Daleks got their way after all — ‘E-x-t-e-r-m-i-n-a-t-e!’ —before we learn that they’re only so beastly because of intergalactic benefits cuts.

Reminder: Viewing figures are up on last season.
 
By youngian
Membership Days Posts
#558244
I gave up after episode three (a prolonged U.S. civil rights lecture), assuming that I was just too much of an old cynic to appreciate the message.

I wouldn’t call you an old cynic as your gut racism and anti-civil rights bile sounds genuinely felt to me.
Last edited by youngian on Wed Nov 07, 2018 5:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
By KevS
Membership Days Posts
#558274
Whereas I thought it was a splendid romp, albeit the weakest episode so far this series.

The Gammon are not going to enjoy the next one in the Punjab, are they?

Fuck 'em.
 
By cycloon
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#558778
I get it if you think such a thing mucks around with Tokien too much (it's myth for northern Europeans, totes no darkies! etc), and I get why you'd also want to argue it doesn't (did Tolkien ever state such things were explicitly impossible, or unlikely?). Go ahead, argue. That's par for the course with Tolkien anyway. I mean, Faramir was a tool (for a bit) in the films when in the books he was all 'yo no ta' to the ring, which was the point of him. I know they changed it for dramatic effect, etc etc, and I'm sure many a good-spirited* debate happened because of it (and moral character is of FAR more narrative significance than skin colour, even in whiter-than-white Middle-Earth...).

I'll be over here still enjoying Tolkien and wondering why the fuck people say things like 'my childhood is ruined' because of this. I genuinely do not see how my enjoyment of Tolkien could be affected by such a thing in any way. The books are the books. They are there, for you to take what you like from them, and that act is contingent on your self and your cultural context as much as anything. Again the problem strikes me as not being a matter of 'pandering', but of people clinging to a fixed, apolitical idea of the world and then being shocked when someone else disagrees with it being the only way to describe human experience, including articulating meanings and ideas in products of culture.

*pedantic, petty, pathetic.
 
By Daley Mayle
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#558785
I had a quick scroll through the Wrath Of Moe twitter feed and couldn't immediately decide whether WoM is either a straight forward racist, a trolling spoof account or an advocate of Poe's Law. After some reflection, about 30 seconds, I reckon he's taking the piss.

Re. Dr Who. I'm no great fan but it's something I watch to keep Mrs Mayle happy. In past series there would be a couple of stand-out episodes, a few meh and a couple of clangers. I found the Rosa Parks episode uncomfortable to watch and I'm not sure why. It could be because Dr Who is a light entertainment fantasy programme and using such pivotal events in our history as plotlines seems almost bad taste, not quite besmirching something sacrosanct but getting close*.

As for the last episode that's based around the Partitioning of India I thought it was clunky, confusing and a totally inappropriate for a light entertainment fantasy programme. If the purpose of this episode was to inform children about the Partitioning and its fallout you would need a few hours of documentaries, most of which would be unsuitable for children to watch.

I won't lose any sleep over it because, as I said, I'm not that bothered about the programme either way. Just a thought though, I think I actually fell asleep at some point because I didn't understand the bit at the end about the watch. I asked Mrs M and she gave me her usual Hard Stare and said that's because I was snoring and dribbling my way through that bit. I do not snore.


* I actually typed 'getting off that bus a couple of stops before' and thought it was really clever analogy but then remembered Rosa Parks was involved in a bus-based incident and didn't want to confuse my dear reader.
  • 1
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
Boris Johnson

No. I woke up this morning and in that semi-somno[…]

Michael Gove

You'd have to ask David Davis.

My own opinion at present with this predictable me[…]

Ed Miliband

https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/10634022350[…]