Jump to content

UK Politics: Striking at the heart of the nation


polishgenius
 Share

Recommended Posts

Can anyone explain the furore over someone wasting 35 grand on photos of someone over the age of consent in their pants? Are there grooming allegations or where they in a posisition of power? Or is it just an attack on the bbc? 

Imagine having 35 grand spare for that though? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

Can anyone explain the furore over someone wasting 35 grand on photos of someone over the age of consent in their pants? Are there grooming allegations or where they in a posisition of power? Or is it just an attack on the bbc? 

Imagine having 35 grand spare for that though? 

Is 17 considered age of consent in the UK? That's the age at which (allegedly) the person was when it started.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66147003

"The BBC first became aware of a complaint in May," it said. "New allegations were put to us on Thursday of a different nature and in addition to our own enquiries we have also been in touch with external authorities, in line with our protocols."

(I do see the uh irony? of posting a BBC article about the BBC.)

Edited by kairparavel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, kairparavel said:

(I do see the uh irony? of posting a BBC article about the BBC.)

It does publish bad stuff about itself. Which the tabloids then endlessly talk up as part of their long running campaign to get it closed down.

While scandals involving the tabloids (phone hacking, abusive behaviour, parties during Covid lockdown, etc, etc) are generally swept under the carpet as far as possible, other than getting some coverage on the BBC and a few independent outlets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

Can anyone explain the furore over someone wasting 35 grand on photos of someone over the age of consent in their pants? Are there grooming allegations or where they in a posisition of power? Or is it just an attack on the bbc? 

Imagine having 35 grand spare for that though? 

Age of consent for indecent images is 18 I believe. And the payments started at 17, not sure if the pictures did. 
Regardless, it’s career ending at the least. 
 

The Sun are hypocrites in going on about it as they printed topless photos of 16 year okd girls, until the law changed. I believe they printed photos of them aged 15, doing a countdown until they hit 16. And got into trouble for pronting a pixture of a topless girl on her 16th birthday, meaning the pic had been taken while she was still 15?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I missread the nature of the images. Tbf it sounds like the subject was at least partially clothed.

It's a stupid law. You can eat someone's asshole at 16 but not possess an image of them in their pants at 17. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BigFatCoward said:

I missread the nature of the images. Tbf it sounds like the subject was at least partially clothed.

It's a stupid law. You can eat someone's asshole at 16 but not possess an image of them in their pants at 17. 

I think it’s to stop people circulating nude pictures of their classmates around school, ie bitter exes etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

What changes would you make then to be more effective at preventing it?

Anyone found misusing their phones has to spend weeks reading historic messages between you and DMC bickering like a pair of old women. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BigFatCoward said:

Anyone found misusing their phones has to spend weeks reading historic messages between you and DMC bickering like a pair of old women. 

That's cruel and unusual punishment, that is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Some would say draconian. 

We could make it worse and say they have to watch all Everton games in there entirety next season.

Now, now. You don't want to kill them either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well fuck.

Rumours of a stabbing* at my local (semi-rural) school. School on lockdown, armed cops seen going in.

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/gloucester-news/live-tewkesbury-school-police-lockdown-8587599#source=breaking-news

 

 

* As per what kids are texting to their parents, and may or may not be true.

Edited by Which Tyler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Can anyone explain the furore over someone wasting 35 grand on photos of someone over the age of consent in their pants? Are there grooming allegations or where they in a posisition of power? Or is it just an attack on the bbc? 

Imagine having 35 grand spare for that though? 

I’d be more concerned about how this guy managed to get in contact with a 17 year old and what was the context. If it’s some OnlyFans kinda site then really they should be in a lot of trouble as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Can anyone explain the furore over someone wasting 35 grand on photos of someone over the age of consent in their pants? Are there grooming allegations or where they in a posisition of power? Or is it just an attack on the bbc? 

Imagine having 35 grand spare for that though? 

Regardless of the relevant laws, an older, publicly known person with the sort of income where you have 35 grand spare for anything soliciting images of this type from a teenager is exploitative and gross. There's an element of the scale of the furore that's political: the Tories love this stuff because it distracts from the sleaze in their own party. But it's right that this should be condemned and the BBC should consider the issue seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mormont said:

Regardless of the relevant laws, an older, publicly known person with the sort of income where you have 35 grand spare for anything soliciting images of this type from a teenager is exploitative and gross. There's an element of the scale of the furore that's political: the Tories love this stuff because it distracts from the sleaze in their own party. But it's right that this should be condemned and the BBC should consider the issue seriously.

If it was someone who was living on minimum wage, spending all their money on an Onlyfans site.. who would be exploiting who? 

That’s why I think it’s relevant how he came into contact with this girl, was she selling these photos and he just kept buying or was something else going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Labour’s Self-Imposed Straitjacket

Labour may win the next election by convincing the establishment that the economy is safe in their hands. But they won't solve any of the crises the country is facing by imitating Tory spending plans – they might even make things worse.

 

Quote

 

Arguably one of the single greatest factors explaining Jeremy Corbyn’s rise to power was public antipathy towards spending cuts. Boris Johnson’s and Dominic Cumming’s populist economic rhetoric sought to rid the party of the baggage associated with Cameron and Osborne’s austerity programme and instead promise funding for ‘levelling up’ to reduce regional inequality. 

But Rishi Sunak, Jeremy Hunt, Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves all seemed to have missed the memo. Over the last year, the political common sense has shifted in favour of austerity once again—even as public attitudes remain firmly in favour of greater public spending.

Austerity was never an intuitively popular policy. Politicians, policymakers and private interests spent a huge amount of time and energy after the financial crisis of 2008 manufacturing consent for spending cuts with emotive arguments and dodgy economic modelling.

Why was it necessary to build public support for spending cuts in this way? Because the financial crisis had damaged the legitimacy of our political economic system so profoundly that demands for radical economic reform were everywhere.

With governments having spent unimaginable amounts of money bailing out the banks, what was to stop ordinary people demanding increases in health and education spending? What was to stop them from demanding that the bankers be made to pay for the clean-up after the crisis they caused?

The idea that the nation had somehow maxed out its credit card—not on bank bailouts, but on overgenerous welfare payments—provided a convenient response to those who argued that the scale of the financial crisis demonstrated the necessity of a fundamental shift in how the economy works. Everyone wants to increase spending on the NHS, so the argument goes, but there simply isn’t any money left.

Meanwhile, the economic stagnation that resulted from the introduction of austerity also provided a convenient way to discipline workers who might have benefitted from ongoing stimulus spending.

After the 2008 crisis, UK workers experienced the longest stagnation in wages since the Napoleonic wars. With the social safety net being deconstructed around them, most workers were simply too scared to fight back. The austerity agenda had successfully terrified them into submission. 

This logic has not shifted much in the years since. When the pandemic hit, the country was once again faced with a deep economic crisis, to which the government responded by distributing billions of pounds to private corporations. Once again, this created a legitimacy crisis, which was, once again, countered by the refrain ‘there is no money left’.

But, watching the Conservative Party implode in the summer of 2022, Reeves and Starmer believed that, this time, they could beat the Tories to the punch. Even if austerity wasn’t particularly popular, the pair thought that they could win over powerful interests in business, finance and the media by promising to cut spending and reduce the deficit.

They may well be right. The Conservative Party is a shell of its former self, beset by infighting and bereft of new ideas. The British ruling class undoubtedly realise that change is needed for everything to stay the same. And the Labour right stands ready to play its historic role as ‘capital’s B team’.

The only issue is that, at the current conjuncture, ‘more of the same’ is a recipe for disaster. Without significant increases in day-to-day spending—not just investment—the NHS crisis will not be resolved. Taxes on the rich do need to be raised given current levels of inequality, but over the short-term, Reeves and Starmer won’t be able to raise enough money from taxation to fix our public services while abiding by their fiscal rules.

Support is also urgently needed to support those on the sharp end of the cost of living crisis, not to mention those already pushed into poverty by more than a decade of austerity. As the Bank of England continues to push up interest rates, the pain on the average household is only going to increase.

Some have argued that the fiscal rules give the Party plenty of room to invest in the kind of Green New Deal that would boost wages, increase productivity and combat climate breakdown. But Reeves recently backtracked when questioned about the cost of Labour’s proposed Green Prosperity Plan, arguing with a straight face that ‘fiscal credibility’ was more important than the future of humanity.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

Well fuck.

Rumours of a stabbing* at my local (semi-rural) school. School on lockdown, armed cops seen going in.

https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/gloucester-news/live-tewkesbury-school-police-lockdown-8587599#source=breaking-news

 

 

* As per what kids are texting to their parents, and may or may not be true.

That's the second headline-making story from your neck of the woods. Is there something in the water?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...