*** OFFICIAL BREXIT SUNLIT UPLANDS and #MEGA THREAD ***

[OngBonga]

Why do you insist on continuing to argue irrelevant points?

Can the EU government be held to account? yes/no

[Poopadoop]

Why does a democracy have to involve parties among their members of parliament? I don't see why that's such a critical thing. Or if it is, why not just accept that each country itself forms a party - there is the GER party, the FRA party, the ITA party, and so on. Fine, now everyone's in a party.

Economically, the EU is a trade bloc. Politically, they reflect the politics of their member states, which are all liberal democracies. That's why they don't let places like Russia and Turkey join up.

So, you can be in a liberal democracy that is part of a larger liberal democracy and benefits from cooperating with the rest of the team while still retaining a lot of automony in terms of running your own affairs, or you can be in a liberal democracy that stands separate from the larger group and suffers from not cooperating with them.

[OngBonga]

Anything else we discuss on this matter is nothing more than correcting my obviously not perfect understanding of the nuances of the EU. I don't care if I'm wrong on certain points. What matters is accountability. Convince me that the EU (not an MEP) can be held to democratic account, in ways other than a once-in-a-generation in/out referendums, and I'll concede the EU is more democratic than I'm giving credit for.

If we had an in/out referendum every five years, that would be a method of holding them to account. Of course, such a regular vote on this issue is highly impractical, impossible in practice, and only serves to highlight how it doesn't work as a democracy in the same way national governments do.

[Poopadoop]

Can the EU government be held to account? yes/no

Yes, if you don't like how the person you elected as an MEP votes you can vote for a different person next time. How's that any different from what we do here?

If your MP is in a party or not is irrelevant. You don't get a separate vote for or against his/her party. All the party system does is tell you which way he/she is likely to vote on particular issues. You can get the same idea from the campaign ads your MEP runs. Do you think anyone ever voted for Nigel Farage because they thought he was a liberal?

[Poopadoop]

If we had an in/out referendum every five years, that would be a method of holding them to account. Of course, such a regular vote on this issue is highly impractical, impossible in practice, and only serves to highlight how it doesn't work as a democracy in the same way national governments do.

Should all member countries of the UK hold in/out referendums every five years too then? How else can they hold the UK to account? Doesn't this highlight that the UK doesn't work as a democracy?

Also, I live in Surrey. I want an in/out referendum every five years so I can hold England to account. Otherwise this isn't a proper democracy.

[CoccoBill]

Can the EU government be held to account? yes/no

To the same degree as any government, yes.

[OngBonga]

Why does a democracy have to involve parties among their members of parliament?

I'm not even sure what you're trying to ask here.

Democracy is putting power in the hands of the people. If the people are unhappy with the government, they can be removed from office. Accountability. As such, policy tends to reflect the will of the people. At least it should. That isn't flawless in the UK, but the UK voter can influence UK government policy a great deal more than EU citizens can influence EU policy.

Parties are important because that's how majorities are formed. Majorities are important because that's how governments work in democracies. MPs vote on issues, and laws can be passed by parties with a majority. We entrust the majority party with this responsibility. and if they fail to live up to that responsibility, they get removed from office at the next opportunity. Or sooner if there's enough noise, forcing a government to resign, triggering an election.

No such process is possible in the EU. Thus, it is not, in my eyes, a true democracy. There is no accountability.

[OngBonga]

Yes, if you don't like how the person you elected as an MEP votes you can vote for a different person next time. How's that any different from what we do here?

It's like you're willfully ignoring the comments I've repeated explaining this.

See above posts for your answer to this question.

[Poopadoop]

Wait, didn't we actually hold a referendum where we decided to hold the EU to account by leaving? And they let us?

Apparently it's more of a democracy than I thought!

[Poopadoop]

I'm not even sure what you're trying to ask here.

Democracy is putting power in the hands of the people. If the people are unhappy with the government, they can be removed from office. Accountability. As such, policy tends to reflect the will of the people. At least it should. That isn't flawless in the UK, but the UK voter can influence UK government policy a great deal more than EU citizens can influence EU policy.

Parties are important because that's how majorities are formed. Majorities are important because that's how governments work in democracies. MPs vote on issues, and laws can be passed by parties with a majority. We entrust the majority party with this responsibility. and if they fail to live up to that responsibility, they get removed from office at the next opportunity. Or sooner if there's enough noise, forcing a government to resign, triggering an election.

No such process is possible in the EU. Thus, it is not, in my eyes, a true democracy. There is no accountability.

In the end, you're doing exactly the same thing whether or not there are parties. You're voting for someone who you expect to represent your interests. The parties aren't a critical component of that, except that they help people identify how the people they're voting for are likely to behave.

[OngBonga]

Should all member countries of the UK hold in/out referendums every five years too then? How else can they hold the UK to account? Doesn't this highlight that the UK doesn't work as a democracy?

Also, I live in Surrey. I want an in/out referendum every five years so I can hold England to account. Otherwise this isn't a proper democracy.

The UK population still holds the UK government to account. The EU population cannot hold the EU to account. So this analogy isn't working.

The UK union has its problems, and it does seem like Scotland needs another referendum to settle this for another generation. I'm not disputing that.

Surrey isn't a nation. Surrey doesn't have a right to self determination.

[OngBonga]

Wait, didn't we actually hold a referendum where we decided to hold the EU to account by leaving? And they let us?

Apparently it's more of a democracy than I thought!

More bad faith.

I've said many times this is the only way to hold them to account. Not good enough for me.

[OngBonga]

The parties aren't a critical component of that,

They are in the UK.

[OngBonga]

To the same degree as any government, yes.

I disagree strongly. We cannot remove the EU from power in regular elections.

[Poopadoop]

I mean it's like your saying because there's no Tory or Labour parties in the EU parliament that it makes the EU fatally flawed somehow.

The MEPs are elected by their constituents. That's a democracy.

The UK has two major parties and a couple of middling ones and a bunch of minor ones. The EU has a few major parties (FRA GER ITA) and some middling ones (SP SW) and some minor ones (NO FI).

[Poopadoop]

The UK population still holds the UK government to account. The EU population cannot hold the EU to account. So this analogy isn't working.

They both vote for members of parliament. So yes it does work.

Surrey isn't a nation. Surrey doesn't have a right to self determination.

Why do you get to decide what a nation is?

[OngBonga]

I mean it's like your saying because there's no Tory or Labour parties in the EU parliament that it makes the EU fatally flawed somehow.

Finally you're getting it. It is fatally flawed. We can't have regular elections to hold them to account. No party can ever gain a majority. So it is always a coalition formed without negotiation. Coalitions are iffy at the best of times, the Lib Dems got into a share of power despite being only the third largest party, but that was the best solution we had at the time. I was an acceptable compromise to avoid another election or hung parliament. The EU "coalition" isn't formed by two parties attempting to form a majority, it's god knows how many parties forced into a coalition, with no party having any control over policy. Thus, policy is dictated behind closed doors by heads of state, with some heads of state having more influence than others, based on economic strength.

[OngBonga]

Why do you get to decide what a nation is?

I don't.

[OngBonga]

I didn't decide Surrey isn't a nation. I know it isn't a nation.

[CoccoBill]

Finally you're getting it. It is fatally flawed. We can't have regular elections to hold them to account. No party can ever gain a majority. So it is always a coalition formed without negotiation. Coalitions are iffy at the best of times, the Lib Dems got into a share of power despite being only the third largest party, but that was the best solution we had at the time. I was an acceptable compromise to avoid another election or hung parliament. The EU "coalition" isn't formed by two parties attempting to form a majority, it's god knows how many parties forced into a coalition, with no party having any control over policy. Thus, policy is dictated behind closed doors by heads of state, with some heads of state having more influence than others, based on economic strength.

So your argument essentially is that because there are more than 2 differing opinions represented, it isn't a true democracy. Bro, your country is in need of new major parties just as badly as the US.

[OngBonga]

Bro, your country is in need of new major parties just as badly as the US.

Finally we agree on something.

So your argument essentially is that because there are more than 2 differing opinions represented, it isn't a true democracy.

I don't consider the EU to be a true democracy because the EU government cannot be removed from office in regular elections, the only way it can happen is by once-in-a-generation referendums. That is all. I'm sorry I can't articulate my argument to your satisfaction.

[CoccoBill]

because the EU government cannot be removed from office in regular elections

What is this EU government that you keep referring to? As said many times already, the EU parliament (=MEPs) can absolutely be voted out. If you mean the EC, which obviously cant be directly voted out since it consists of heads of state, how were you planning to vote out your Lords? How is it different exactly? Could we just skip to the point where you say you're just talking out of your ass and don't really care about any of this.

[OngBonga]

What is this EU government that you keep referring to?

Exactly.

It's not a government in the same sense as the UK government. I feel like we're finally making some progress here.

[OngBonga]

The UK govt is the Conservative party, who hold a parliamentary majority. We decide every five years if the current government should remain in office, or be removed.

The EU government isn't that.

[OngBonga]

Did the clocks just go forward? There's over an hour between my posts lol

[OngBonga]

Nope, 28th March here. I guess they changed in USA though.

[OngBonga]

btw I would definitely support abolishing the House of Lords. Sorry I glossed over that, this is actually a fair criticism of UK democracy. But it changes nothing with regards to the majority parliamentary party. We still have the problem that no party in the EU has a majority, nor can they. And nor should they. That wouldn't be fair on all the nations that party does not represent. There is no solution.

[CoccoBill]

Bro, your country is in need of new major parties just as badly as the US.

Finally we agree on something.

Why on earth would you want that? What if after that none of the parties could alone hold a majority and your democracy would break down?

[OngBonga]

Why on earth would you want that? What if after that none of the parties could alone hold a majority and your democracy would break down?

Because our two leading parties are, for me, unelectable. I can't vote for either. Our politics is a fucking mess. That is not the same as saying our democracy is a mess.

Two party politics is still superior to a perpetual coalition, unless the coalition is formed of parties that occupy the same political ground. In the case of the Tories and the Lib Dems, that wasn't the case. But at least the coalition held, and only lasted for one term.

If no party holds a majority, and the coalition is unworkable, then the entire term is spent with nothing getting done, with the smaller party blocking the larger party. That's no better than a hung parliament, which means the largest party is unable to govern.

[OngBonga]

The problem with British politics is not the system of democracy, it's partly that the British people will not hold corrupt governments to account, and partly due to the alternatives being awful. The Tories are crooked, and Labour are either too socialist for them to have a realistic chance of getting into power (Corbyn), equally as corrupt as the Tories (Blair and Brown), or Tories wearing red ribbons (Starmer).

We definitely need reform. We need new politics. Our democracy can definitely be improved, I'm not daft enough to think our system is the best in the world. All I've said in this thread is it's superior to the EU. We can do much better than we're doing, leaving the EU for me is a good first step. I don't care if you disagree, if poop disagrees, you're entitled to your opinion just as much as I am.

[Poopadoop]

tl;dr

1. A London woman was kidnapped and murdered.
2. The alleged perpertrator is a policeman.
3. Women decided to hold an outdoor vigil in London, wearing masks.
4. The cops beat them up.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56396960

In a surprise twist, the head of police who ordered them to disperse the crowd is a woman, as is the head of policing for the entire country.



In other news, the gov't is preparing anti-protest legislation because of how much they love democracy.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...hts-groups-say

[OngBonga]

It's not really an attack on democracy, it's an attack on freedom. If they take a vote on this in secret, yes that's a democratic crisis because then we can't hold the MPs to account come the next election. Which, incidentally, is precisely what the EU did regarding Catalonia.

Patel needs to go after what happened at that vigil. So does Sadiq Kahn, the Met Police is his responsibility. Heads must roll, and it's not just a Tory problem. #DickOut was trending too, that made me howl with laughter before I realised why it was trending. Yes Cressida Dick needs to go too.

That we are allowed to protest the death of an American criminal at the hands of American police, but not the death of an innocent British woman at the hands of British police, is truly shocking.

So long as these MPs are not voting in secret,. then I can't see it happening, because they will be held to account.

Meanwhile, in Scotland, the SNP have passed a Hate Crime Bill that criminalises dinner table talk. That has really hurt their independence cause, because lots of people, on all sides of the political spectrum, are outraged. The SNP will lose votes. Whether it's enough to remove them from power is another matter.

If this protest bill passes, that puts Labour in a much stronger position come next election. They could get into power on the promise of ripping up the bill. So it's not a direct attack on democracy.

Not sure if you're aware, but in Myanmar, there has been a military coup and people are dying on the streets to protest. Anti-protest legislation doesn't work. If the people of an oppressive military regime ignore such laws, we're not going to see obedience in a nation controlled by politicians. People will simply protest the bill. It will gets messy. Not nearly as messy as Myanmar, but it won't happen quietly.

[Poopadoop]

It's not really an attack on democracy, it's an attack on freedom.

The two do tend to go together though...

If they take a vote on this in secret, yes that's a democratic crisis because then we can't hold the MPs to account come the next election.

You mention this, but how different is a secret vote to a vote where the MPs don't have time to read the bill? Say, like, when they signed the trade "deal" with EU one day and had a vote on it the next. How can we hold MPs to account if they don't even have time to read what they're voting on? And if you can't honestly do that, then isn't that a problem for a democracy too?

Patel needs to go after what happened at that vigil. So does Sadiq Kahn, the Met Police is his responsibility. Heads must roll, and it's not just a Tory problem. #DickOut was trending too, that made me howl with laughter before I realised why it was trending. Yes Cressida Dick needs to go too.

I mean you might as well throw in Boris Johnson then if you're going to sack everyone up the chain. I think Dick needs to get out for sure. Patel should've never been hired back after her last fiasco in the middle east. Or, after the bullying thing she should have been sacked again. I don't think you can hold a Mayor to account because the person he hired to run the cops turned out to be an idiot.

That we are allowed to protest the death of an American criminal at the hands of American police, but not the death of an innocent British woman at the hands of British police, is truly shocking.

"Alleged" hands. But, I don't think they were protesting that the killer was a policeman so much as coming together to highlight the general lack of protection for women. OTOH, I can see their point. OTOH, we can't afford a police escort for every woman who wants to go out at night. We can have more cops on the streets but that's not really going to fix the problem that some men are psycho pervs.

Meanwhile, in Scotland, the SNP have passed a Hate Crime Bill that criminalises dinner table talk. That has really hurt their independence cause, because lots of people, on all sides of the political spectrum, are outraged. The SNP will lose votes. Whether it's enough to remove them from power is another matter.

Yeah that's a fucking dumb bill; not sure what they're thinking there.

If this protest bill passes, that puts Labour in a much stronger position come next election. They could get into power on the promise of ripping up the bill. So it's not a direct attack on democracy.

Not sure if you're aware, but in Myanmar, there has been a military coup and people are dying on the streets to protest. Anti-protest legislation doesn't work. If the people of an oppressive military regime ignore such laws, we're not going to see obedience in a nation controlled by politicians. People will simply protest the bill. It will gets messy. Not nearly as messy as Myanmar, but it won't happen quietly.

The fact that they're even talking about a protest bill is a problem. If it passes it will be in force for four years before the next election. Who knows what other crap they will try to push through in the meantime. They've already done virtually everything wrong they could to mismanage the pandemic as well as implementing Brexit, and they're just as popular as when they won the election. There has to be some seriously brainwashed people in this country to think this gang of crooks is doing an ok job.

[OngBonga]

The two do tend to go together though...

Yes they do. The right to peaceful protest is certainly an important thing in a democracy. But it's not the system itself under attack. Any system of democracy is equally as vulnerable to an attack on basic freedoms.

Say, like, when they signed the trade "deal" with EU one day and had a vote on it the next. How can we hold MPs to account if they don't even have time to read what they're voting on? And if you can't honestly do that, then isn't that a problem for a democracy too?

Yes this is a problem too. But again, this is a problem that any democracy is subject to. It's not the system here that's the problem, it's the governing party. The government can still be hold to account, even if it's difficult to blame individual MPs.

I mean you might as well throw in Boris Johnson then if you're going to sack everyone up the chain.

It's not quite that serious. Had someone died, I'd probably be saying Boris has to go too.

I don't think you can hold a Mayor to account because the person he hired to run the cops turned out to be an idiot.

This demonstrates a lack of judgement. Khan is in charge on the Met Police. He can't be saying one day "the streets of London aren't safe for women" (which is his responsibility) and then overseeing the cops clashing with women at a vigil. I mean frankly, I don't think it should be the MoL's job to oversee the Met Police, that should be Dick's job, or Patel's. Khan is not a member of the elected government. Ok he is elected into his position, so it's not a critical problem, but it's a huge responsibility for a Mayor.

"Alleged" hands. But, I don't think they were protesting that the killer was a policeman so much as coming together to highlight the general lack of protection for women.

Fair enough. This minor correction doesn't make it any less shocking though.

OTOH, we can't afford a police escort for every woman who wants to go out at night.

Of course. This isn't a solution anyone with a brain is suggesting.

We can have more cops on the streets but that's not really going to fix the problem that some men are psycho pervs.

I don't think there is any fixing this problem. Most men are pervs to a degree. I certainly am. Of course, most men also respect women. I certainly do. But when it comes to psychos, what solution is there? You don't know someone is a psycho until they do something dreadful. All you can do is punish them to the full extent of the law. Women have been plucked off the street and murdered for centuries. This is not a new problem. In fact it's probably less of a problem now than it was in the past, due to higher populations (harder to get away with it without being seen), CCTV, better investigation tools... long gone are the days where a Yorkshire Ripper can stalk the streets for years before getting caught.

We're also making assumptions this was a sexual assault along those lines. That is a reasonable thing to assume, but I don't think that has been confirmed. We don't know if this lady was known to the alleged killer. We don't know the full story.Of course this wouldn't make it any better, but people are, understandably, jumping to conclusions.

Yeah that's a fucking dumb bill; not sure what they're thinking there.

It's so stupid that there are independence supporters seriously considering holding their noses and voting for the Tories next chance they get, which seems nuts but there you go. Scotland is becoming fascist even faster than the rest of the UK.

There has to be some seriously brainwashed people in this country to think this gang of crooks is doing an ok job.

I think with regards the pandemic, it's hard to argue than anyone else could have done a batter job. The UK is a densely populated island. It's easy to blame those in charge for the high death toll, but you can't know what the true factors are.

Brexit is something most of the Tory voters wanted to happen, so most of their voter base isn't going to hold them to account for pressing ahead, even if it's something of a mess. It's still preferable to remaining.

But yes, people are brainwashed. That's not the fault of individuals. I've been banging on about this for years, but the media is corrupt as fuck, not to be trusted, they play a critical role in brainwashing the general public. And it's not a case of pro-Tory and anti-Tory media, they're all in it together to divide the population and distract them from the important issue of corruption. We're too busy arguing about Brexit (still) to give a fuck about money disappearing.

But when peoples' freedoms are taken away, then they take notice. That's why in Scotland the Hate Bill issue is not dividing the country, and I don't think this protest thing will divide the country either. Everyone wants freedom.

[Poopadoop]

This isn't a solution anyone with a brain is suggesting.

Obviously. But it speaks to the - I hesitate to use the word - futility? - of the protests. This is not like it's the first time something like this has happened. It's not right of course, but women who go out alone at night all know they are taking a chance of running into a male creep of some kind. If you talk to them, the vast majority of women will say they've been harrassed/stalked/followed at some point or other, often multiple times by different men, in their lives. So it's not just the occassional murder; it's a serious ongoing problem for women.

I don't know what the solution is. One idea would be longer sentences for sex offenders before they escalate to worse crimes, as many of them do. Another would be psychological intervention.

Having more police on the beat would help women feel safe, but it's not going to stop a determined psychopath.

We're also making assumptions this was a sexual assault along those lines. That is a reasonable thing to assume, but I don't think that has been confirmed. We don't know if this lady was known to the alleged killer. We don't know the full story.Of course this wouldn't make it any better, but people are, understandably, jumping to conclusions.

It doesn't really matter if it's sexual or not. But it's a fair assumption given history. Men who grab women off the street to kill and dump in the woods are almost always getting their sexual jollies out of it. If it was a police officer it's probably less likely to have been sexual, since it'd be hard for a sex offender to get a job on the force. But I wouldn't rule it out either.

I think with regards the pandemic, it's hard to argue than anyone else could have done a batter job.

It's always hard to argue about things that we'll never know. That's part of the problem here.

The UK is a densely populated island.

Population density makes a difference, but it's only one of many things that do. Thailand is also densely populated, as are several other countries that have done much much MUCH better than us.

It's easy to blame those in charge for the high death toll, but you can't know what the true factors are.

There are plenty of factors the experts know impact the death rates, and of those that the gov't can control, they've fucked up every one.

1. Lockdowns. Ignored the scientific advice, so these have been too little and too late, three times in a row now.
2. Travel restrictions. A YEAR too late. Ignored scientific advice again.
3. Test, trace, and isolate. Spent a fortune on a system they put their mates in charge of that didn't work. Did not provide enough economic support for people who needed to isolate.
4. Messaging. It should be clear and consistent. Quite the opposite has happened here, the rules change so often no-one knows what they are anymore, and the guidance was not even followed by members of the gov't itself.

The only thing they have done well with is the vax program, and that only because they gave it to the professionals to do. Makes one wonder what would have happened had they let the health experts run the pandemic response rather than listening to the anti-lockdown loonies.

[Poopadoop]

Population density makes a difference,

I stand corrected. There's virtually no relationship between population density and covid death rate.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/c...lation-density

Edit: Change the y-axis from log to linear for a better representation of the death rates/million.

[OngBonga]

Obviously. But it speaks to the - I hesitate to use the word - futility? - of the protests.

Well it was supposed to be a vigil, not a protest. I guess it turned into a protest when the police tried to break it up.

It's not right of course, but women who go out alone at night all know they are taking a chance of running into a male creep of some kind.

I used to work at a pub in a shitty town, and one girl I worked with was, frankly, fucking beautiful. She often walked home alone. Not when I worked with her though, I would go out of my way to walk her home. To be clear, I had zero chance of fucking her, I was friends with her boyfriend (who really should have been coming to meet her from work), so it's not like I was hoping for a ride. I just understood that the town I lived in was populated by plenty of weirdos, and a woman of her beauty was a prime target. For me, this was the solution. Male friends walk women back home. Of course women should be safe walking around alone, but they're not. I did my bit, even though I would be as useful fending off an attacker as a sheet of paper is protecting from rain. But most of these men are cowards, they target lone women.

Women and men have to understand that it's not a nice world out there. I know it's outrageous to suggest women shouldn't make themselves vulnerable, but having a trusted male friend walk you home is wise.

Prison sentences are already stiff for these kind of offences. If that isn't already a deterrent, longer sentences won't act as a deterrent for some men either. The only benefit longer sentences has is keeping these fuckheads off the streets for longer, which is good. But it doesn't solve the problem.

Population density makes a difference, but it's only one of many things that do. Thailand is also densely populated, as are several other countries that have done much much MUCH better than us.

You could surely have done better than Thailand. I wouldn't trust their figures, their government is worse than ours. But perhaps they are accurate and they took other measures which stopped it from taking hold. I've no idea what they did. I think if we're going to try to compare with a nation, Germany is the one to look at. We should trust their figures, and while it's a bigger country than the UK, their cities are still densely populated. They got it right, at least early on. Maybe that was test and trace, maybe it was a population more willing to take it seriously, idk.

I note your next post argues population density isn't a factor. I find that really hard to believe. Does that not strike you as odd? We're talking about a highly contagious virus. The closer you are on average to other people, the more chance you have of catching it. Densely populated areas must be at greater risk, it makes no sense to say otherwise.

Obviously there are many more factors though, such as the health system, PPE, lockdowns, and the attitude of the population, to name a few.

1. Lockdowns. Ignored the scientific advice, so these have been too little and too late, three times in a row now.

We were stricter than Sweden, with a worse per capita death rate. I put that down to density.

2. Travel restrictions. A YEAR too late. Ignored scientific advice again.

I'd like to think this is the prime lesson to be learned. Next time there's a dodgy virus on the other side of the world, we immediately restrict travel from infected areas, and if it seems a pandemic is happening, we just shut the borders completely. As an island, this would be a powerful weapon against a virus. Chances are it will already be in the country by the time we realise how dangerous it is, but maybe we can get on top of it before it spreads.

Once it's rampant amongst the population, travel restrictions won't do much.

3. Test, trace, and isolate. Spent a fortune on a system they put their mates in charge of that didn't work. Did not provide enough economic support for people who needed to isolate.

Corruption. It was never intended to work, and probably wouldn't have worked even if it was perfect. £37b spent on it apparently. That's not incompetence, that's a blatant fraud.

4. Messaging. It should be clear and consistent. Quite the opposite has happened here, the rules change so often no-one knows what they are anymore, and the guidance was not even followed by members of the gov't itself.

In the early days, this is understandable. Nobody really knew what was going to happen. Information is dynamic. Ministers can get conflicting scientific advice. Scientists might change their opinions on how best to deal with it. It should be clear and consistent, but I'm unconvinced anyone else could have done better in this regard.

The only thing they have done well with is the vax program

This is because we've taken risks others were not willing to take. We also look good here because the EU have made such a mess of this, and naturally people are comparing the UK to the EU.

I obviously do not think the UK's response has been effective. Clearly it hasn't. But who is to blame for that is not a simple question to answer, and assuming another party would have done better is just wishful thinking. I definitely do not think Corbyn would have done better, not least because his own party hated him, which would have made governing the country very difficult indeed. And Starmer seems like just another Blair.

[OngBonga]

The economic support has been medium. We've been keeping people afloat. Ok jobs have been lost by the bucketload, many companies have gone under, but first and foremost people need to eat and pay their bills. The furlough scheme definitely helped people, even if it meant people had less money than they were used to. Sacrifices needed to be made.

[Poopadoop]

Women:

Prison sentences are already stiff for these kind of offences. If that isn't already a deterrent, longer sentences won't act as a deterrent for some men either. The only benefit longer sentences has is keeping these fuckheads off the streets for longer, which is good. But it doesn't solve the problem.

Heres' the thing - these guys tend to follow very similar patterns of escalation. It starts out as voyeurism, looking through windows, then they move on to stealing underwear, then it's stalking then rape then murder. Obviously it doesn't always end in tears and not every teenager who peeps thru a window is a future murder/rapist. But some do. There's often other signs as well, like cruely to animals or arson.

So when they get caught at a young age doing something that signals a potential future of serious crimes against women, someone has to be keeping an eye on them. You can't just go 'oh well you naughty boy, you shouldn't be looking thru windows, have a £20 fine or whatever.' You've gotta intervene early and often.

[Poopadoop]

COVID response:

I note your next post argues population density isn't a factor. I find that really hard to believe. Does that not strike you as odd? We're talking about a highly contagious virus. The closer you are on average to other people, the more chance you have of catching it. Densely populated areas must be at greater risk, it makes no sense to say otherwise.

Yes, it surprised me. But to me it suggests that pop density is dwarfed by other factors. Take S. Korea, which is a model for pandemic response. They are more densely populated than the UK, but they went in hard and fast from the beginning - no fucking around. And when you nip it in the bud this way, it doesn't get the chance to spread.

It doesn't matter how crowded your country is, if only 1/million has the virus to begin with and you find all their contacts and make sure they isolate, the virus isn't going to spread. OTOH, if 1/100 people have it, it's impossible to effectively contain it.

If no country had taken any measures, then pop. density would probably be a very strong predictor. But some took much more effective measures as others. Like I said, if it doesn't get a hold in your country to begin with, it's not going to spread no matter how dense the population is.

Obviously there are many more factors though, such as the health system, PPE, lockdowns, and the attitude of the population, to name a few.

The health system is for keeping people alive once they get it, not so much for containing the spread.

PPE: You could also argue our gov't failed on that. Even now I don't think students are made to wear masks in school. Wtf, seriously. It's a year on...

Lockdowns already talked about. If you wait till the disease is rampant it shouldn't surprise you it takes a while to start to contain it with lockdowns. That's why the experts kept telling them early, sharp lockdowns are better than late, long ones. cf, NZ and AUS for examples of countries that go into lockdown the moment someone sneezes - pretty good at keeping death rates down and having a relatively normal life.

Attitude of pop: This has to start from the top. In the first lockdown last spring, if you went out the streets were virtually deserted. In the last two, there's suddenly a lot more people out and about. Wtf are they all doing? There's nowhere they can legally go besides the supermarket ffs. Maybe a few are going to the dentist, but half the population? Fuck off.

I put this down to a combination of two things: 1) lockdown fatigue - which is the gov'ts fault because they keep delaying lockdowns till it's too late, resulting in longer lockdowns; and 2) gov't setting a bad example - if Cummings can drive to visit his relatives in lockdown with a wife who has covid and not get sacked for it, wtf should I sit in my house all day? Both of those things are problems created by the gov't.

We were stricter than Sweden, with a worse per capita death rate. I put that down to density.

Maybe. Or maybe SWE doesn't have as many visitors tramping through it's airports as we do. That might be a reason too.

I'd like to think this is the prime lesson to be learned. Next time there's a dodgy virus on the other side of the world, we immediately restrict travel from infected areas, and if it seems a pandemic is happening, we just shut the borders completely. As an island, this would be a powerful weapon against a virus. Chances are it will already be in the country by the time we realise how dangerous it is, but maybe we can get on top of it before it spreads.

Once it's rampant amongst the population, travel restrictions won't do much.

Agree. And it's not like we were the only country who did poorly in that respect. Still, just because other countries are also being dumb doesn't make it excusable.

Corruption. It was never intended to work, and probably wouldn't have worked even if it was perfect. £37b spent on it apparently. That's not incompetence, that's a blatant fraud.

Sure, but apparently they can get away with it because they're just as popular as in 2019.

In the early days, this is understandable. Nobody really knew what was going to happen. Information is dynamic. Ministers can get conflicting scientific advice. Scientists might change their opinions on how best to deal with it. It should be clear and consistent, but I'm unconvinced anyone else could have done better in this regard.

I think you mean "would have done better." And it's irrelevant 'cause we'll never know. And it's a poor argument because there were experts saying exactly what you need to do, there were countries in Asia doing it, and we ignored that advice. Tbf, most of the West ignored it too, but we ignored it more and for longer.

This is because we've taken risks others were not willing to take. We also look good here because the EU have made such a mess of this, and naturally people are comparing the UK to the EU.

The EU was slow and careful, we were fast and risky. The fact we rolled the dice and won could be counted as a victory I guess, but it could also have gone badly tits up.

The EU also had a factory that had to be shut down. Don't think that's their fault that happened.

I obviously do not think the UK's response has been effective. Clearly it hasn't. But who is to blame for that is not a simple question to answer, and assuming another party would have done better is just wishful thinking. I definitely do not think Corbyn would have done better, not least because his own party hated him, which would have made governing the country very difficult indeed. And Starmer seems like just another Blair.

Again, it's irrelevant if someone else would have done better, because someone else was not in charge. So we'll never know.

You can only judge the people who were in charge and compare to them to people who were in charge elsewhere. And in that respect, our gov't has done pretty poorly, even compared to other places in the West.

[Poopadoop]

The police are now guarding statues. Meanwhile somewhere a woman is getting raped...

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/sta...34119184793600

[OngBonga]

Women:

Heres' the thing - these guys tend to follow very similar patterns of escalation. It starts out as voyeurism, looking through windows, then they move on to stealing underwear, then it's stalking then rape then murder. Obviously it doesn't always end in tears and not every teenager who peeps thru a window is a future murder/rapist. But some do. There's often other signs as well, like cruely to animals or arson.

So when they get caught at a young age doing something that signals a potential future of serious crimes against women, someone has to be keeping an eye on them. You can't just go 'oh well you naughty boy, you shouldn't be looking thru windows, have a £20 fine or whatever.' You've gotta intervene early and often.

Intervene how? Sex offenders register? That can ruins someone's life and should not be done lightly. Peeping and stealing knickers isn't serious sexual crime and shouldn't be treated as such. I mean, it does kind of depend, largely on whether it's opportunistic voyeurism or planned. I've looked at a female friend in the bath when she's left the door open. I should have turned around as soon as I saw her, but I looked for longer than I should have. I'm not even ashamed. Should I be signing the sex offenders register? That would seem a bit harsh. Maybe if I set up cameras so I could film her taking a bath, then perhaps that wouldn't seem extreme punishment. The context here matters. Is it premeditated? Does it indicate a sexual deviancy that shows complete disregard for moral standards? All I did was go for a piss and instead I got an eyeful. But technically I'm a voyeur.

If there's evidence of repeated minor sexual offences, especially if there's a clear intent, then perhaps intervention can happen in the form of signing the sex offenders register, which comes with loss of freedoms such as monitored internet, restricted travel, having the police know where you live, these kind of things. But even this won't stop the most determined. Some people aren't afraid of jail.

We have to be careful we don't kneejerk into turning naughty boys into serious sexual criminals. I think you'd be surprised just how many men have at least one skeleton in their closet, at least if you count what I did as a skeleton.

This alleged killer apparently was being investigated for indecent exposure. Obviously that's another one where context is hugely important. A drunk guy having a piss is not on the same level as the flasher hiding behind a bush. It'll be interesting to see what that incident entailed, because the police might be in for a lot of criticism if it's clear they should have been concerned about his behaviour.

[Poopadoop]

Surely you can see there's a huge difference between getting a serendipitous leer at a woman in your own house (which is disrespectful but not a crime), or looking down the blouse of a woman who bends over in front of you at the supermarket (also disrespectful but not a crime, and something most of us would be strongly tempted to do), and lurking outside a bedroom window at night trying to get a peak (which is an actual crime and a sign that someone has a problem).

I'm not just making this up about behaviour escalating. It's a common pattern among sex offenders that they are deliberately testing the boundaries. So no, you don't have to put someone in jail or on the sex offenders' registry the first time you catch them being a peeping tom, but you should punish them with more than a slap on the wrist and make them take some kind of class or something. Something to give them the idea this kind of thing is not going to be tolerated. And if they then move on to breaking into womens' houses and stealing underwear you should put them in some kind of program. A fine or w/e happens to these guys now is not going to discourage them.

As for the alleged killer, it doesn't surprise me he was being investigated for indecent exposure. Fits the pattern. And I seriously doubt anyone taking a drunken piss in a bush gets in trouble for "indecent exposure." There's some other law that covers that I'm sure. This guy more likely took it out and showed it to a woman on purpose.

[OngBonga]

Take S. Korea,

South Korea and Japan are probably the two greatest countries in the world when it comes to the structure of their society. They already wore face masks in public, they have a greater sense of responsibility, they are far superior to us when it comes to society. It doesn't surprise me they fared well.

This is why I don't think it's so simple as you think. The British people are fucking morons. There really is no other way of saying it. We did this to ourselves. Blame the idiots who need spoon feeding because they lack any common sense.

I don't think I once watched any government broadcasts or followed any guidelines. I just used my common sense. There's a fucking virus. Cover your face and keep your distance. Don't go to parties. Don't sneeze on the bread in Tesco. Don't fuck pangolins. The problem is the there are so many idiots in this country that it doesn't matter if we have Albert Einstein for PM and Florence Nightingale for Health Secretary, we're still a nation of idiots. People will still go to parties. People still think they can for a drive to the seaside. We're not the same people that got us through wartime. We're far too self entitled now. South Korea doesn't have that problem.

This probably outweighs density. The social behaviour of the population. If all was equal, density would be the dominant factor.

Attitude of pop: This has to start from the top. In the first lockdown last spring, if you went out the streets were virtually deserted. In the last two, there's suddenly a lot more people out and about. Wtf are they all doing? There's nowhere they can legally go besides the supermarket ffs. Maybe a few are going to the dentist, but half the population? Fuck off.

This comes back to my point above. If you have a population of morons, then morons will get into positions of power. Thatcher was probably the last PM we had that wasn't a moron, and she still managed to piss a lot of people off. Hoping for better quality leaders is futile.

The health system is for keeping people alive once they get it, not so much for containing the spread.

It's an important factor in per capita death rates, which is the ultimate measure of a country's success. Once ICU capacity is at 100%, it gets much worse very quickly.

Sure, but apparently they can get away with it because they're just as popular as in 2019.

Population of morons.

I think you mean "would have done better."

Good correction.

The EU also had a factory that had to be shut down. Don't think that's their fault that happened.

Best I could tell they had two factories. We have four.

And in that respect, our gov't has done pretty poorly, even compared to other places in the West.

I blame the population for that as a collective society. We put these people into power, and behave like idiots. We get what we deserve.

Anyway, #MEGA and #sovereignty.

[OngBonga]

Surely you can see there's a huge difference between getting a serendipitous leer at a woman in your own house (which is disrespectful but not a crime), or looking down the blouse of a woman who bends over in front of you at the supermarket (also disrespectful but not a crime, and something most of us would be strongly tempted to do), and lurking outside a bedroom window at night trying to get a peak (which is an actual crime and a sign that someone has a problem).

Of course there's a huge difference. But if we're talking of "intervention", then we're talking legal lines. Where are these legal lines? I'm ok because it was my own house? What if I know she's having a bath with the door open and sneak upstairs? How do you legally distinguish?

I'm not just making this up about behaviour escalating. It's a common pattern among sex offenders that they are deliberately testing the boundaries.

I don't doubt it but voyeurism in particular is something most men are either guilty of at least once, or capable of doing.

And if they then move on to breaking into womens' houses and stealing underwear you should put them in some kind of program.

You break into someone's house, with a sexual motive, this is prison, no problem. Not "program". Prison.

But stealing maybe your housemate's knickers (no I haven't), that's not serious. It's very much inappropriate and disrespectful, but not serious.

And I seriously doubt anyone taking a drunken piss in a bush gets in trouble for "indecent exposure.

Depends how much of a twat you are to the cop. If you happen to be close to a school, even at midnight, and you tell the officer to fuck off, they might try.

[Poopadoop]

What if I know she's having a bath with the door open and sneak upstairs? How do you legally distinguish?

Who takes a bath with the door open?

Anyways, you're making this more complicated than it really is. The danger isn't when some guy happens across a woman with her tits out and takes a look. The danger is when the guy goes looking for a situation where the woman clearly doesn't want to be looked at, and is looking anyways. That's the difference between you and I and a peeping tom.

And yes, you can be a peeping tom who never does anything worse than that. Or you can be a weirdo who steals panties off of the clothesline but never progresses to rape. All I'm saying is that in nearly every case where someone goes on to do sexual assaults, there are warning signs in their previous behaviour. So treating the peeping tom and the panty stealer lightly doesn't address the problem.

I don't doubt it but voyeurism in particular is something most men are either guilty of at least once, or capable of doing.

Sure, we've all done it when the opportunity smacked us in the face. But very few of us go out of our way to do it. That's the difference between most guys and weirdos.

But stealing maybe your housemate's knickers (no I haven't), that's not serious. It's very much inappropriate and disrespectful, but not serious.

It's serious enough that that person should be getting some counselling. Wtf are they doing stealing someone's underwear?

Depends how much of a twat you are to the cop. If you happen to be close to a school, even at midnight, and you tell the officer to fuck off, they might try.

So in your world maybe this cop is out on a bender, takes a piss in a bush and gets caught, then mouths off at the other cops and so they decide to stitch him up. Right, that sounds like the police - they love trumping up charges against one of their own.

[CoccoBill]

Agree with everything Poop said, except this.

It's serious enough that that person should be getting some counselling. Wtf are they doing stealing someone's underwear?

I don't think stealing underwear is any worse than stealing something else.
I don't think someone liking underwear should be anyone else's business.
No I don't personally covet my neighbor's underwear, thanks for asking.

So yeah counseling maybe, if it's deemed helpful for everyone who steals something, but I don't see stealing knickers being a special case.

[Poopadoop]

The British people are fucking morons.

This is pretty much the gist of this post, and I think it is this attitude that lets the gov't get away with being so incompetent and corrupt.

The truth is, the % of people in the UK who are morons is no different than in any other part of the world. There is no case to be made for British exceptionalism here.

Further, you're right that many Asian countries have a more collective culture compared to the West where the culture is more individualistic. However, both AUS and NZ have western cultures and they managed to contain the virus very well, for reasons I explained in a previous post.

Finally, the vast majority of people here as elsewhere are not morons who just do what they want and don't give a shit about the rest of society, but they ARE sheep. Most of those sheeple follow the example and guidelines set by their leaders. That's where it makes a big difference whether the gov't is giving clear advice and behaving consistently with it themselves, or whether they're taking the piss.

When the rules are clear and the gov't itself consistent, the people are willing to play along. Hence the response during the first lockdown where hardly anyone left their house. But when the gov't is taking the piss, even the sheeple stop respecting their rules.

The real genius of the gov't here is in convincing a large number of people that it's the public's fault because the public are a bunch of morons and douchebags. The fact is, those people were only following the gov'ts lead insofar as they could figure out what it was, and only stopped following it when it became remarkably inconsistent and hypocritical.

[Poopadoop]

I don't see stealing knickers being a special case.

You have to ask what the motivation is. Certainly there is a dark element in stealing a woman's underwear. The guy is almost certainly going to use them to fuel his sexual fantasies. Those fantasies might be innocent or they might not be. But regardless, it seems clear to me there's something more out of order about stealing a £1 pair of underwear than about stealing a £1 candy bar. I think it's the fact that it's an item of intimate clothing.

[CoccoBill]

You have to ask what the motivation is. Certainly there is a dark element in stealing a woman's underwear. The guy is almost certainly going to use them to fuel his sexual fantasies. Those fantasies might be innocent or they might not be. But regardless, it seems clear to me there's something more out of order about stealing a £1 pair of underwear than about stealing a £1 candy bar. I think it's the fact that it's an item of intimate clothing.

I'm not a fan of thought crimes, and I don't think it should be anyone's business how people get off, as long as they're not hurting anyone. I'd need to see a pretty strong causal link between knicker stealing and harassment/rape/violence before doing any preventative measures.

[CoccoBill]

Just to reiterate, not too long ago masturbation (especially female) would have been on that same list of suspicious/dangerous/ungodly behaviors that need to be beaten out. The only reason I'm against kiddie porn is that someone needs to shoot that shit, if it were say animation, knock yourselves out.

[Poopadoop]

I'd need to see a pretty strong causal link between knicker stealing and harassment/rape/violence before doing any preventative measures.

https://archive.seattletimes.com/arc...5&slug=2119295

"Some professionals have considered exhibitionists, voyeurs and fetishists as being rather benign, nuisance paraphiliacs. These results, however, suggest that some (but not all) of the benign paraphilias may actually lead to very aggressive behaviors and should not be viewed as reliably benign."

I'm not saying you lock up someone for stealing one pair of panties, or if they get caught peeping. But it should be looked at as a significant warning sign, and not treated the same as stealing a candy bar.

[OngBonga]

Who takes a bath with the door open?

Not me, and not anyone else I'e ever shared a house with. But she had a dog, so maybe when I'm out she leaves the door open so the dog can come and go. idk. i lived with her for years and this was literally the only occasion, at least that I'm aware of.

The danger is when the guy goes looking for a situation where the woman clearly doesn't want to be looked at, and is looking anyways.

I certainly agree this is step up, and probably the first sign of concern.

All I'm saying is that in nearly every case where someone goes on to do sexual assaults, there are warning signs in their previous behaviour.

I don't dispute this at all, my concern is that people who get caught having a cheeky peep get tarred with the same brush as people who have a concerning lack or respect for women. I'd like to think most people know the difference between my example and something more sinister, but in this day and age, where people are woke to the point of hypocrisy, I'd be worried that kneejerk reactions mean people treat minor sexual offences as serious crime.

Sure, we've all done it when the opportunity smacked us in the face. But very few of us go out of our way to do it. That's the difference between most guys and weirdos.

It's easy for us to make this distinction in casual conversation. Law isn't so simple. What if my friend caught me and freaked out? She wouldn't have, she'd have had a moan at me, with the word "disappointing", and then acknowledged she shouldn't leave the door open. I'd be mortified, apologise, and we'd carry on being friends. But some women will absolutely freak out, maybe call the cops, and we have a problem. Will a court distinguish between normal male behaviour and weirdo behaviour? That's the concern I have.

It's serious enough that that person should be getting some counselling. Wtf are they doing stealing someone's underwear?

Like cocco says, I don't really think it's any worse than stealing anything else of no value. It's a bit weird, but not aggressively weird. Again we can make this distinction in casual conversation, but where law is concerned, it's not so simple. I just think it's going a bit far to force knicker stealers into counselling.

So in your world...

I wasn't being serious there. But if you're drunk and waving your cock around in plain sight of passers by, that can be indecent exposure. Probably being drunk and having a piss would mean it's instead a lesser charge of outraging public decency, not a sexual crime. idk.

[Poopadoop]

Just to reiterate, not too long ago masturbation (especially female) would have been on that same list of suspicious/dangerous/ungodly behaviors that need to be beaten out.

There's nothing wrong with wanking obv. But if someone tells a psychiatrist they wank while imagining themselves stabbing a woman that's a warning.

The only reason I'm against kiddie porn is that someone needs to shoot that shit, if it were say animation, knock yourselves out.

There are people who, for whatever reason, only get aroused by certain things that are out of bounds for the rest of us. It's not like they choose to be perverts; their only choice is between having a rich fantasy life and being a sex offender. Can't be a very good way to live. Still, if they commit crimes with victims somethign has to be done obv.

[OngBonga]

The guy is almost certainly going to use them to fuel his sexual fantasies.

Either that or exploring with cross dressing. But every man has sexual fantasies, some border on inappropriate. This is low level inappropriate behaviour. I'd say it's a lot less inappropriate than asking your mate's gf if she wants to fuck.

[Poopadoop]

acknowledged she shouldn't leave the door open. I'd be mortified, apologise, and we'd carry on being friends. But some women will absolutely freak out, maybe call the cops, and we have a problem. Will a court distinguish between normal male behaviour and weirdo behaviour? That's the concern I have.

This would never get past the front desk at the cop station. I mean the bolded is the critical part of the story right here. At worst you having a look is ungentlemanly. You didn't go out of your way to sneak a look, you weren't peeping thru the keyhole, and if she wanted to ensure her privacy then she should have closed the fucking door.

I was at a drinking party when I was young with a bunch of friends. I walked into the bathroom to take a piss and a girl I knew was just getting up from the can and pulling her pants up. No undies so a perfect view of her bush from three feet away. I didn't say anything, just turned around and closed the door behind me. What am I going to do, put myself on the register? Lock the fucking door, it's a party, people are going to need to use the can lol.

Edit: That image of her with her bush out and the look on her face is still burned into my brain 30 years later lol.

[Poopadoop]

Either that or exploring with cross dressing.

My intuition is cross-dressers don't normally see a nice pair of panties on a neighbor's clothesline and think "I wonder how I'd look in those? Maybe I'll nick them." They just buy their own.

But every man has sexual fantasies, some border on inappropriate. This is low level inappropriate behaviour. I'd say it's a lot less inappropriate than asking your mate's gf if she wants to fuck.

Like I said, you can't control what turns you on. But as long as it's just wanking there's no victim. When one starts to trespass on other's rights for their jollies, though, they're already crossing the line.

[OngBonga]

The truth is, the % of people in the UK who are morons is no different than in any other part of the world.

I wish I believed this. I think when we compare to USA, then sure. But not South Korea and Japan, and perhaps even Germany. I can reel off tons of countries who I think are socially superior to the British... Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, New Zealand, Canada, Switzerland, tons of tiny countries like the Pacific islands, we're well down the list. I think 100 years ago, we wouldn't have been.

However, both AUS and NZ have western cultures

Australia is a poor example, due to seriously low density. Neighbouring cities are hundreds of miles apart, everyone already lives by the coast so people don't travel where they shouldn't, it's a very poor comparison. NZ is low density too, but my friend is there and the people there are more responsible than we are, it's largely why he chose NZ.

Finally, the vast majority of people here as elsewhere are not morons who just do what they want and don't give a shit about the rest of society, but they ARE sheep.

I think "sheep" and "morons" are analogous. I don't mean "moron" as in low IQ. I mean "moron" in lacking any common sense. If you're an adult and need others to set examples for you, you're a moron.

The real genius of the gov't here is in convincing a large number of people that it's the public's fault because the public are a bunch of morons and douchebags.

I don't think this opinion I hold is widely shared. Most people here think we're socially superior to most of the world, and equal to the rest. Most people in the UK think this is as good as it gets in the world. Nobody wants to have to ask themselves if perhaps they too are a moron. If you identify as the average person, then you very probably view the nation's social status through rose tinted glasses.

and only stopped following it when it became remarkably inconsistent and hypocritical.

Then they are a moron.

[Poopadoop]

Then they are a moron.

I guess we're using different definitions of moron, but at least we agree most people are sheep.

What I believe is a lot of people see the gov't as being like a parent figure. If someone from the gov't tells you not to smoke while they're chainsmoking Marlboroughs then I think most people interpret that as a more general "don't listen to our advice," even if a part of them knows it's good advice. If that makes sense.

[Poopadoop]

I also think it's a bit much to ask Joe Citizen to do a lot of independent research on coronavirus or pandemics in general and decide to stay locked down and keep their kids at home, while the gov't is telling them to go to restaurants and send their kids back to school.

There's also a special class of people who don't trust the gov't at all (for good or bad reasons) and get their pandemic advice (good or more often bad) from their Aunty Doris' facebook page. There is certainly a lot of misinformation out there. Maybe more of such people exist here than in other places, dunno.

[OngBonga]

I didn't say anything, just turned around and closed the door behind me.

This is different for the simple reason I stood there for longer than is acceptable. You did it exactly right, you turned around and walked off. I mean, who the fuck even gets sexual gratification from a woman having a piss? That's not something I want to see, bush or no bush. But bathtime is very much different.

You're right though, in my case she left the door open, it was my own house, the only reason I'm a naughty boy is because I didn't immediately turn around. I'm doubt it legally counts as voyeurism. But it definitely morally felt like voyeurism, because I liked what I saw and didn't immediately fuck off.

Edit: That image of her with her bush out and the look on her face is still burned into my brain 30 years later lol.

I had a friend who I quite fancied who left for Australia. The last time I ever saw her was on her goodbye party, after the pub, and she was squatting in the doorway of a bank, having a piss. That image still burned in my retinas.

[OngBonga]

Here's an example of how moronic the British general public are.

We have the world's most refined state propaganda machine, and the people voluntarily pay for it while believing it to be independent and trustworthy. Find me another nation on the planet where the government pull this off. All the others are state-owned tax funded. The people know it's propaganda and have no choice.

[OngBonga]

To be fair, lots of people around the world think the BBC is a trusted source, but the rest of the world doesn't get the most blatant propaganda. They get World Service and all the quality Attenborough documentaries.

[Poopadoop]

The BBC is considered fairly neutral by most independent bodies. Certainly they tend to be pro-gov't, regardless of which party is in charge, but they're not fanatical or anything about it.

The real problem with the UK press is that the right-wing newspapers outnumber the left by about 3 to 1.

[OngBonga]

The BBC is considered fairly neutral by most independent bodies. Certainly they tend to be pro-gov't, regardless of which party is in charge, but they're not fanatical or anything about it.

They are not neutral. They are pro-UK. And as you point out, not pro-Tory or pro-Labour, it's pro-state. No they're not fanatical, they're subtle, but it's still obvious.

The real problem with the UK press is that the right-wing newspapers outnumber the left by about 3 to 1.

No, it's that the press is either left wing or right wing in the first place. It should be neither.

[Poopadoop]

No, it's that the press is either left wing or right wing in the first place. It should be neither.

Good luck with that.

[OngBonga]

And good luck with having a non-moron as our PM and role models for MPs.

The problem isn't just that the media is politically biased, it's also that people lap it up. But nobody really knows where to find politically unbiased news. Even Reuters isn't immune. It's a skill to be able to write an article free of bias, a skill the vast majority of journalists lack. Those that do possess such skill do not get jobs at leading agencies.

[Poopadoop]

Arrrggghh!! Goddamn Eurolibtards and their immigration "rules!!"

https://www.express.co.uk/news/polit...itish-migrants

[OngBonga]

The Spanish aren't "libtards". Try "fascisttards".

[OngBonga]

So having read that article, this is only a problem for those who failed to register as residents, have lived in Spain under the radar for years, and now are suddenly expected to prove they have lived in Spain since before Brexit.

A non-story. If you can't prove you've lived in Spain for a period of time, that's not a political problem between the UK and Spain. That's a you problem. The reason people don't want to register is so they can continue to claim residency in Spain while not giving up their right to residency in the UK. They want their cake and to be able to eat it. Why do you give a fuck about these people? I don't.

[Poopadoop]

Because it highlights how the media wants to paint a picture of the EU as "unreasonable" because they won't let our special people have special rules. That seems to be the main reason the Daily Express exists. It's this kind of #MEGA reporting that makes people think the EU is some horrible entity we should avoid at all costs. It's a problem for everyone when the press is this hopelessly biased.

[OngBonga]

There is press that is hopelessly pro-EU biased too. People gravitate towards papers that share their bias. Do you think any pro-EU folk read the Daily Express with the potential to be swayed by their reports? No more than there are anti-EU folk who might get swayed by a Guardian article.

The media deliberately stoke up political tensions in society. That's their role. They're not all conspiring to make the EU look bad, because some of them clearly didn't get the memo. They're conspiring to ensure that the gulf between the two groups is as wide as possible.

It has to be said though, I don't read that article and think "wow the EU are being dicks here". British people losing the right to travel freely between EU countries was always at very serious risk when voting to leave. Of course they're going to enforce their immigration laws on UK citizens. This only really affects people who want the benefit of residency in Spain, and the social benefits of being a UK citizen, such as access to the NHS. My Dad is in Thailand, he can't fly to the UK for a life-saving operation on the NHS, he gave up that right when he decided to claim residency in Thailand. My NZ friends can't come to the UK for NHS funded treatment. Why should British folk living in Spain be any different? These people have a choice... are you British or Spanish? You can hold passports for both, but you can't enjoy residency in both, not any more. So idgaf about these people having such problems, regardless of if and how they even voted.

I would have preferred to maintain freedom of movement, but it didn't happen and probably wasn't workable anyway.

[Poopadoop]

Again, can't see past your own nose. It's like you live in a little bubble.

[OngBonga]

You say that whenever I basically say anything along the lines of "I can't speak for others but for me..."

[spoonitnow]

The EU is dumb as fuck.