Re: Saturday 3rd & Sunday 4th February 2018
Posted: Sun 04 Feb, 2018 1:17 pm
Fucking 'ell training in anti-semitism?
You know what I meanHindleA wrote:Fucking 'ell training in anti-semitism?
Yep, you've explained it wellrefitman wrote:This may be read completely wrong, so I apologise in advance for putting over the wrong impression.tinyclanger2 wrote:I am genuinely puzzled by the gender equality movement. If I understand correctly, only certain types of women are allowed now? Not those who want to be, say, cheerleaders? And where are Madonna and Miley Cyrus on this spectrum. Aren't they objectifying women?http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/for ... 90686.html
Goodbye grid girls – there is no place in sport for sexual objectification anymore
I do recall the discussion around the first female Dr Who about how she wasn't going to be tramping around a field wearing stilletoes and getting someone to help her with her sonic screwdriver - but why not? Some women do wear stilletoes and some aren't into DIY. Is that not allowed now?
My view is that grid-girls and darts valets and the like are just there to provide something to look at. They could be replaced by a sign on a pole and all you would lose is the T&A.
Cheerleaders/Madonna/Miley are actually doing something that requires skill (is that the right word) and they do something that can be separated from how they look.
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:According to the article I read at the Express (yeuch), Mike Sivier has NOT been readmitted to Labour because he declined to accept the requirement that he would undertake training on anti-semitism.
He agrees that de facto it is the case, because he will not attend the "training" so will be re-expelled.SpinningHugo wrote:PaulfromYorkshire wrote:According to the article I read at the Express (yeuch), Mike Sivier has NOT been readmitted to Labour because he declined to accept the requirement that he would undertake training on anti-semitism.
Not according to sivier himself who says he has been restored to full membership (you'll have to read through lots of his drivel to get to that)
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2018/02/ ... -so-i-did/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:He agrees that de facto it is the case, because he will not attend the "training" so will be re-expelled.SpinningHugo wrote:PaulfromYorkshire wrote:According to the article I read at the Express (yeuch), Mike Sivier has NOT been readmitted to Labour because he declined to accept the requirement that he would undertake training on anti-semitism.
Not according to sivier himself who says he has been restored to full membership (you'll have to read through lots of his drivel to get to that)
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2018/02/ ... -so-i-did/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
(cJA bold)tinyclanger2 wrote:I am genuinely puzzled by the gender equality movement. If I understand correctly, only certain types of women are allowed now? Not those who want to be, say, cheerleaders? And where are Madonna and Miley Cyrus on this spectrum. Aren't they objectifying women?http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/for ... 90686.html
Goodbye grid girls – there is no place in sport for sexual objectification anymore
I do recall the discussion around the first female Dr Who about how she wasn't going to be tramping around a field wearing stilletoes and getting someone to help her with her sonic screwdriver - but why not? Some women do wear stilletoes and some aren't into DIY. Is that not allowed now?
I like the Parliamentary website and the different research reports published. It's a good resource.House of Lords Library
Fake News
Fake news is not a new term. In the 20th Century, its popularity in the printed media rose from the end of the First World War to a peak in 1940—coinciding with the onset of the Second World War. Academic Kalev Leetaru, writing in Forbes magazine, suggested that this reflected “the rise of propaganda research and the impact that false information could have on societies” at that time.
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk ... -2017-0040
How is choice being limited? Anyone can show up in high heels and a bikini at those events. Have at it.HindleA wrote:Are some representations being proscribed,"choice" removed in effect,I would imagine.
I hope so.HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... utsourcing
After Carillion and Capita, is PFI itself on the critical list?
With or without dressing gown?citizenJA wrote:How is choice being limited? Anyone can show up in high heels and a bikini at those events. Have at it.HindleA wrote:Are some representations being proscribed,"choice" removed in effect,I would imagine.
I know and love you. It's likely you didn't dominate the conversation or slouch petulantly, sighing loudly when you didn't speak. Was there a proctor, an instructor guiding the course? Specific people questioning your attendance and participation in the class needed enlightening. The course was better with you there. I'm sorry I missed it.HindleA wrote:I never said it was.It was a suggested question.Are some women intimidated/wary/feel restricted by the attitude of others.I attended a womens course summer school with the OU,if I spoke I was dominating,if I didn't I wasn't contributing and might as well not be there.The keeping a door open,as I would do regardless of sex was "sexist" to some.
tinyclanger2 is brilliantHindleA wrote:I blame tc2 for changing the subject.
Depends on the weather.PorFavor wrote:With or without dressing gown?citizenJA wrote:How is choice being limited? Anyone can show up in high heels and a bikini at those events. Have at it.HindleA wrote:Are some representations being proscribed,"choice" removed in effect,I would imagine.
(cJA edit)HindleA wrote:---
The keeping a door open,as I would do regardless of sex was "sexist" to some.
It wasn't your fault, regardless. People get hurt and in turn hurt others. It's wrong, hurting others is wrong. We must keep watch over each other, stop pain from starting, help others heal and call for back up when tinyclanger2 shows up in the Oscar de la Renta disco suit with matching platforms.HindleA wrote:To be fair,only the more strident guilty by being maleists-not judging, may well be reasons as regards their obvious disdain.Certainly didn't dominate by any objective measure,my mere prescence was "enough" to so proclaim.
HindleA wrote:The show us yer tits tee-shirt might not have helped.
Remember to laugh.
Yes - I was reading about that the other day. I set up a fund-raiser for them, but I haven't managed to attract any support. I thought that you, at least, would have chipped in . . .frog222 wrote:PF link above
So much for the cast-iron promises of developers, lauded by Ms Kober !
And the absolute scale of the luxury building really did amaze me too —
“”The council has allowed the developer of the Battersea power station site to build just 386 affordable homes in the 4,239-home redevelopment. Only 9% of the homes will be affordable, far below London mayor Sadiq Khan’s 35% affordability target for all new large developments.
Khan said he was “furious” that Wandsworth council had allowed the Malaysian-backed Battersea Power Station Development Company to cut down its original promise of 636 affordable homes in the £9bn transformation of the London landmark. The developer had complained that falling sales of luxury homes would knock its profit margin on the redevelopment, which will also include a new UK headquarters for Apple.“”
https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ers-london" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
After the recent decline in Sterling many of the richer speculators took losses of several £100,000’s !
citizenJA wrote:HindleA wrote:The show us yer tits tee-shirt might not have helped.
Remember to laugh.
You're one of my best friends in the world!
She is the stuffed remnant of a once-optimistic prime minister, helpless in the midst of anarchic cacophony. This is government by taxidermy.
I am scarcely Jeremy Corbyn’s greatest fan, but the notion that the status quo must be preserved simply to thwart his chances of becoming prime minister is not only democratically contemptible but morally outrageous.
I was thinking, this morning, that the only violence was instigated by the Jacob Rees Mogg supporter. At least Sarah Smith (BBC Sunday Politics) went some way to point out that there was no evidence to connect Labour with the scuffle (or are we now meant to say "altercation"?).PaulfromYorkshire wrote:skwalkbox on "white shirt"
https://skwawkbox.org/2018/02/04/white- ... al-artist/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
white-shirt-identified-rees-mogg-supporting-martial-artist
They're not fucking Labour for a start. Condemn them all you want, but don't cast aspersions.SpinningHugo wrote:And we think this excuses the protesters in face masks and sunglasses shouting down Rees-Mogg because?
Also, there's a big difference between shouting and punching people in the face.refitman wrote:They're not fucking Labour for a start. Condemn them all you want, but don't cast aspersions.SpinningHugo wrote:And we think this excuses the protesters in face masks and sunglasses shouting down Rees-Mogg because?
refitman wrote:They're not fucking Labour for a start. Condemn them all you want, but don't cast aspersions.SpinningHugo wrote:And we think this excuses the protesters in face masks and sunglasses shouting down Rees-Mogg because?
refitman wrote:Also, there's a big difference between shouting and punching people in the face.refitman wrote:They're not fucking Labour for a start. Condemn them all you want, but don't cast aspersions.SpinningHugo wrote:And we think this excuses the protesters in face masks and sunglasses shouting down Rees-Mogg because?
refitman wrote:Also, there's a big difference between shouting and punching people in the face.refitman wrote:They're not fucking Labour for a start. Condemn them all you want, but don't cast aspersions.SpinningHugo wrote:And we think this excuses the protesters in face masks and sunglasses shouting down Rees-Mogg because?
There is indeed.
How do you think the punching excuses the shouting down?
Brandon Lewis (who admittedly is only a member of the "right wing nutjob" government - and not the "right wing nutjob" press).SpinningHugo wrote:refitman wrote:They're not fucking Labour for a start. Condemn them all you want, but don't cast aspersions.SpinningHugo wrote:And we think this excuses the protesters in face masks and sunglasses shouting down Rees-Mogg because?
I'm not at all sure what you mean? Who, even among the right wing nutjob press, has said they're representatives of the Labour party? I certainly haven't. A bizarre claim.