1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

This sounds reasonable on the surface when considering it in the context of a 16/17/18 year old, but at some point veers into "nanny state" territory. I don't think it's the government's place to tell 26 year olds that they can't sleep with a 40 year old.

We do already have this kind of grey area of a sliding age of consent when it comes to, I think, statutory rape not usually being considered an offence between two people below the age of consent, so an aoc of 18, that essentially means people over 18 can't be shagging 16 year olds, doesn't seem so bad, as long as we're not criminalising a pair of 17 year olds going at it, because criminalising that is helping nobody.

Generally, I think a hard cut off at some point, be that 16/18 is ok with adequate enforcement of things like grooming laws, and an average 18 year old with capacity should be free to make an informed but unwise decision.

Remembering back to when I was at school in that final year (20 years ago - I feel old!) there was a running thing when people were turning 16 at the various times in that year of "oh you're legal now" "you're not legal" "if person x **** person y they were going to jail" - even though you know no one in the country would think it was appropriate to prosecute a 16 year old for having sex with a 15 year old in the same year at school.

Could you not just go "if you're at school, you're off limits to people older than school age"

I do get the motivation to "protect" younger people - mainly girls - from creepy older blokes but at what point does it become "you can't be trusted to not get coerced into something you'll look back on and regret so we need to make this law to protect you from yourself".

9 hours ago, villan-scott said:

Piers Morgan would love it to be Dan Walker. He’s got some weird vendetta against him. 

Didn’t he leave the bbc some time ago?

Started watching Yellowstone. Few episodes in and it’s decent so far. I’ve heard season 2 is brilliant so going to stick with it. Looking forward to some of the spin off prequels.

6 hours ago, Xela said:

Not defending The Sun, but the legal age of topless modelling was 16 up until 2003, when it was increased to 18. At that point, it meant the older issues of The Sun and porn magazines, become potentially illegal material if it featured 16 or 17 year olds. 

I remember a countdown for one girl until her 16th birthday, so the paper could show her norks on page 3. I thought at the time, that in order to publish them on her 16th birthday, they must have been taken weeks before therefore illegal. 5 internet points if you can name the female in question (she became semi famous and a porn star)

Didn’t they do the same thing with Emma Watson? Counting down until she was 16. Not in preparation for any kind of modelling just in a “look she’s legal now” way. Just super creepy.

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/evil-home-office-paints-over-mickey-mouse-mural-at-child-asylum-seeker-centre-12916543
 

Quote

Backlash as 'evil' Home Office paints over Mickey Mouse mural at child asylum seeker centre

Robert Jenrick reportedly ordered the removal of the murals at the centre in Kent, which depicted characters such as Baloo from The Jungle Book and Mickey Mouse, because they were thought to be too welcoming.

How much of a word removed do you have to be to think this is ok?

8 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

So the economic situation due to Tory mismanagement is so bad that an incoming Labour government won’t be able to change anything.  So if they leave everything as it is then how is anything going to get better? 

If you believe what the Tories are saying and the finances are as tight as they say....and I surely don't.

If there's limited money due to their completely botched handling of the economy going back years now, where it gets spent is a political choice. I doubt any incoming Labour government would continue trafficking people to Rwanda at a cost of 175k pp. 

7 minutes ago, bickster said:

Shit I must have been 19 the last time I did that because pretty much after that age I either paid at the door, worked the gig or was on the guest list

I think I'd deem it too much hassle these days, hell it was a lot of hassle back then too

I think at the time it was less hassle but I don't remember ever not getting a ticket for a gig I really wanted to go to. Now it happens really regularly because the sites are all just grinding to a halt under the weight of the traffic, a lot of it caused by the scalpers rigs and bots flooding the servers with requests. Sat in virtual queues only to get to the front to find all the tickets have gone and then see them listed on touting websites within minutes.

It might be convenient to get tickets while sat behind your desk at work now but I'd argue that it's just as much hassle as it used to be but in a different way.

1 hour ago, Seat68 said:

Taylor Swift UK tour tickets go on sale this month. I am not sure if Ticketmaster, or her, could have made it more complex. 

When her last album was released, if you bought it from her website then you would be supplied with a presale link if a tour happened in your territory in the future. 

That aside, tour was announced and you had three days to register with Ticketmaster for your chosen venue, London, Cardiff, Liverpool, Edinburgh. 3 day slot to register.

That preregistering would enter you into a lottery of sorts to buy tickets, that pre registering did not guarantee you tickets, it only allowed you to potentially be in the queue to buy tickets. So even if you pre registered, you may not be afforded the opportunity to buy.

So lets say you are successful and they say, yes, you can have a stab at buying tickets, again, no guarantee of tickets, just that you can try. Oh and also the on sale dates are staggered, because Ticketmaster can't run a piss up in a brewery, each date has a different on sale date, and each date has a different pre sale date for those that bought midnights.

So you pre register, you may or may not be chosen to get into the queue, you may or may not be successful for the date that you chose, and you may or may not be able to afford to buy it as without question, the base price for the ticket will be eye wateringly high, and the TM fees on top will take it probably to the highest price I have ever paid for a live event.

Bring back physical queueing at the box office for a ticket.

32 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

The intelligence is going to need to be rock solid. 

The obvious retort already coming from the Russian supporters is that Ukraine would be willing to damage the plant if it meant NATO would finally get involved for real and end this war. 

Making your own country uninhabitable for 10,000 years in exchange for NATO intervention...seems likely 

2 minutes ago, sidcow said:

The jets point was suggesting what would happen subsequent to Russia blowing it up. 

If Russia blows it up it should and probably would result in much more than just a few extra jets to Ukraine.

Just now, bickster said:

That has already been stated quite a few times

It has but it should be said again and again in the strongest possible terms.

The Russians control the plant and any attempts to take it back by force are incredibly risky. The only solution is for the Russians to leave voluntarily or agree to some kind of DMZ around it which isn't going to happen in the short term as they know Ukraine and pretty much everyone else in Europe is crapping themselves at the thought of what might happen there.

10 hours ago, Genie said:

Can the West/Nato use this risk (if credible) get some jets in there? 

Basically protecting Nato members from a potential Nuclear disaster.

Russia will say “look we told you Nato were going to attack us” but who cares. Tell them they have x hours to leave before air support is deployed. 

I'm not sure adding more jets at the minute solves the issue.

I think the only thing that will prevent this is if NATO makes it very clear that it will hold the Russians responsible for any incident at the plant and that we'd consider it an act of war for them to deliberately leak radiation in Europe.

19 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

Totally agree, Thames Water 2 billion to share holders, now they are skint and we are expected to pay dor it!

The situation with them makes me so **** angry. They're basically owned by other states sovereign wealth funds who have syphoned the money out, invested pretty much nothing, and now we're expected to pay.

Any reasonable government would be calling in the ambassadors to these countries and telling them that unless they stop taking the piss we're going to start enacting some very harsh laws to restrict investment that British companies can make in their countries.

7 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Nationalise a supermarket id happily pay abit more in tax if it meant foid was at a reasonable price then the rest of the greedy **** would start dropping their prices. One thing that pisses me off with tesco is they have a "price match" with aldi. Why match the price and not better it you rocket polishers

I know your comment is in jest but I don't think the answer is nationalisation alone (although in case of vital national infrastructure that we paid to build like water, power and rail it clearly is!). When it comes to banking and supermarkets effectively price gouging it's proper laws to prevent it and a regulator with the teeth and balls to enforce it.

9 hours ago, sharkyvilla said:

I just watched that again for the first time in about 5 years, what a film, there can't be many better out of the UK.  Every scene is either hilarious or packs a punch and some fantastic performances.

Riz Ahmed is a fantastic actor. Really enjoyed his performances in The Night Of and the one about the metal drummer going deaf, name escapes me.

4 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

Sihock horror. All the truths coming out now. Energy companies profiteering, supermarkets profiteering, now the banks profiteering.

We bailed the banks out in 2017, an this is how they repay us, by ripping us as much as they can in times of need. Countries f*****ed, nothing to see here!!

It's deregulation and runaway capitalism that's the problem. Businesses have no moral or legal obligation to anyone but shareholders and until that changes their behaviour won't change.

14 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

There is also a strong subculture in the US of no longer wanting to be the ‘world’s police’ and have their military fund ‘forever wars’ in foreign lands all over the globe. 

After Afghanistan, Iraq etc there is a big group of people in the US who would like Europe to be sorted out by Europeans and not have to see the US get involved every time. 

I do have some sympathy with that, although it is unfortunate that they have now fallen under Trumps umbrella. 

There’s always that kind of element when you have world powers. They go through periods of activity and isolationism. We did the same thing when we were the dominant power.

6 hours ago, Marka Ragnos said:

Could be. Definitely the least surprising ruling of the year, you have to admit. Everyone knew it was coming, and colleges have been working on changing policies since last year to prepare. It will be interesting to see if there's actually a sustained reaction now. My sense is that a large majority of the public aren't bothered by the ruling. Very liberal California never did find a way to rid themselves of Prop 209 despite the huge effects at UC. It's a very tough one because Harvard so clearly discriminated against Asian Americans in a completely **** up way. That was wrong and never going to go unchallenged. My own belief is that the US needs to focus its attention on educational racial and economic disparities at the K-12 levels, and less on ultra-elite private college admissions. Just my 2 cents.

In other SCOTUS news, I have some friends pretty upset about the anti-LGBTQ ruling on the "web designer" -- not sure if she's for real tbh. And the student loan thing has already taken front and center, too. You might as well add that to Pandora's box, too, because hell is breaking loose. Could have effect on fall elections. 

I’m certainly no conservative or fan of the Republican Party but I don’t necessarily agree with the principle of affirmative action (or as we call it, positive discrimination). We’ve just had a ruling that the RAF broke the law by assigning quotas to their admissions, essentially turning away perfectly qualified white men from being admitted purely because they wanted to have a more racially diverse workforce.

Ive always been of the mind that you get the most suitable candidate and race or sex doesn’t come into it. Idealistic, sure, I get there are people who are racist and those people are themselves breaking the law and need to be punished.

Basically the crux of my point is that I don’t think you can fight discrimination with more discrimination. I think to do so would be massively divisive.

1 hour ago, bickster said:

This is Lord Zac Goldsmith, Johnson ally, friend of Johnson's wife, recently enobled in Johnson's honours list and yesterday named in the Privileges Committee report as trying to interfere in the Johnson partygate probe in a co-ordinated attempt with other former ministers (Patel, JRM et al)

As much as what he says is true, this government (as pointed out by an audience member on QT) is uninterested in doing anything about absolutely most things, apart from small boats unless they really have to

He was absolutely fine with it two days ago but the day after he was named by the PC he's resigning.... hmmmm

But yes, carry on fighting you bunch of arseholes, keep digging a bigger hole

Ordinarily I'd be really happy to have massive Tory in fighting but we've got massive structural problems in the country that as you point out rhe government isn't interested in fixing. I'm really not sure the country can wait 12 months for a change of government.

8 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

What is it that turned Braverman in to such a bitter nasty little person? Was it the immigrant parents? Was it the free university education? Or was it the 2 years she spent in France as part of the EU Erasmus scheme?

Somebody that said their ‘dream’ was to deport people. 

 

 

My opinion is that if you’re a person of colour in a Tory party with a large number of people who you could kindly describe as a bit prejudice and if you were being unkind are outright racists there’s a temptation if you’re looking for approval that you have to prove your credentials.

I think that’s what’s going on with people like braverman and Patel. They’ve got to work a little bit harder and be that much more extreme to be accepted into the club.

Just now, Villatillidie95 said:

The private sector won’t provide options around villa park because there is no stable revenue outside of match day at the current time.

however if villa build a decent entertainment style zone, even if they need to subsidise villa live, then others will come if they see it being a success. You will get independent street food vendors wanting a piece of the action, pop up bars etc. basically villa need to stimulate the area, it won’t happen if we don’t do anything. Spurs did the same around their local area

"decent entertainment style zone" - Tony Xia? Is that you?

39 minutes ago, sidcow said:

Suspected human remains found in the wreckage. Not very many I would guess.

A bit morbid but my reaction when they announced this last night was "how badly must the remains be **** up for them to say suspected"

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

What's the average income in the UK atm? and average household income?

I can google it but I don't get the feeling it's accurate (the Polish one seems insanely high based on what I know certain jobs make)

Last I heard it was somewhere around 28k

Edit: That's average persons salary...no idea about household

35 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

70m for Kane from Bayern, not just rejected but laughed off

70m for a player with a year left. You're snapping hands off surely.

It's all bravado with Levy. He's getting it from all angles from fans right now and he can't be seen to let Kane go for less than we got for Grealish or what West Ham are getting for Rice or questions get asked. You're right that all those things should matter and they probably will later in the window.

1 minute ago, magnkarl said:

Prighozhin will be in some African nation by the end of the week. His family is already gone from Russia according to sources around the family. 

He's essentially got a bigger army in Africa, and could hole up somewhere in the jungle with his goons.

He's made a massive mistake backing away. Once he'd decided to go after the regime he needed to see it through because he's a dead man now either way. He'll need to watch everything he eats, drinks and touches until the end of his days and there's no where in the world he can go that the FSB won't find him. His only hope to live was if Wagner desposed Putin and that's gone now.