Printable View
Maybe you should both just extend the benefit of the doubt to each other and reflect upon the years of conversation that have happened on this one topic.
I mean, I don't care. You do you.
Seems like you like to bicker about not listening to each other as much as you like not listening to each other sometimes.
Most of the time, actually.
I'm gonna be honest here mojo, I continue this back and forth because I'd rather argue about this topic with one guy who I kinda like than with a bunch of mouthbreathing gobshites on Twitter. I avoid Brexit on there for the most part because it's not particularly fun engaging with that mob. It's fun to troll them now and then but even that can get tiresome. Here, it's just poop, and he can take the odd sarcastic comment on the chin, so can I, we can both vent off about Brexit without anyone getting butthurt and blocked or muted or cancelled.
Presumably he gets something out of it too.
I don't know Ong, I think he may be right. Could be time for us to seek internet couples' conselling.
No we don't need counselling, you just need to embrace democracy. It's like giving your dog a hug when he's just come out of a muddy puddle. He might be covered in shit but it's still your dog under there.
Or I could wash my dog first to clean the muck off him.
Yeah but a clean dog in this analogy is nothing more than the time between elections. When it's election or referendum time, it's dirty whoever wins.
Meanwhile in the real world, Brexit's still going great!
https://twitter.com/securetrans/stat...85307438821388
Remainer - look at all those lorries
Brexiteer - look at all that trade
Are they trading? Looks like they're stuck in a giant queue to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Also, no-one ever said trade with the EU would stop entirely after Brexit - that's ridiculous. They said there'd be a lot more red tape that would hinder trade. Looks like they were right. Ironically, another one of the Brexit promises was less red tape something something Brussels unelected bureaucrats something something sovereignty something something foreigners.
Local sports team rebrands themselves
https://content.sportslogos.net/news...sidebyside.png
Thoughts? As someone with just enough NA blood to get me an even tan in the summer, I really don't have strong feelings about this one way or the other. OTOH it seems a bit too woke to me, like it isn't insulting anyone really.
OTOH I think if it offends a significant number of people, like it's being insensitive to past misdeeds, then yeah replace it. It's not like in Germany you could call your rugby team the Hamburg Rabbis.
I guess what I'm wondering is, how many people really give a shit? How many native americans were lying awake at night over the original logo, and how many English people are freaking out that they changed it? Meh.
This is the kind of thing that people with absolutely no cultural interest get angry about. I don't think there were actually American Natives offended. It's pure wokeism.
Fairly recently, I remember something about Japanese "cultural appropriation", I think it was a white celebrity wearing a traditional Japanese dress. There was a lot said about it, but the Japanese themselves were happy that their culture was being celebrated. It's very rarely the people who are being "appropriated" that get upset about it. It's white middle class tossers.
Also, the new logo looks like Atilla the Hun. That's gotta offend somebody. I might decide to get offended by it to be an arsehole.
@Ong: various groups (tribes?) of Native Americans (NA) have been protesting this for decades.
There are a lot of reasons, of varying levels of compelling (to me) that NA are upset about the use of cartoon images of their ancestors as mascots.
It is often the case that a sporting team's mascot is a dangerous beast, e.g. Lions, Bears, Rams, Tigers, etc. and putting a group of humans in that list is problematic.
The appropriation of the imagery of NA people without permission or contract for something that makes as much money as major league sports is problematic. Especially given how legally protective those major leagues are of *their* imagery.
A team's mascot is effectively that sport's version of a rodeo clown, and the depiction of of a homogenized NA clown in a public space is problematic.
The sporting teams that use these mascots are not sports traditionally played by those people.
Again, I'm not saying all those reasons are equally compelling, but it's just a quick overview of some of the reasons NA people have been protesting this. It's not new. It's been a big deal for NA leaders for decades, and they've been lobbying the sporting leagues, and politicians for, again, decades.
If non-NA people are finally listening to them, then that's probably a good thing, even if the woke-ism is not that good.
Actually, given your views on sovereignty, I'm a little surprised your knee-jerk reaction isn't to side with the Native Americans.
Well you have to bear in mind that this isn't a cultural problem in the UK. The term "Red Indian" is far more common in the UK than "Native American" since there's not really anyone here to get offended by archaic terms. Exeter Rugby Club is not a sports club that many NAs will be familiar with at all, I doubt there are many Americans who even know where Exeter is.
This isn't a matter of sovereignty. We're not talking about their right to land and their right to political self rule. We're talking about imagery. I just don't understand the argument. Why would anyone be offended by an image of a Native American in a traditional headdress? Why is it a problem? Seems more like a copyright issue than a cultural one.
I personally think cultural appropriation is, on balance, a good thing. It increases awareness of and respect for other cultures.
I tend to side with Ong on this one. That particular image looks pretty cool if you ask me. It's a bit funny that they chose that nickname since they're in Europe, kind of like calling themselves the Aztecs, but w/e. My sense is the kind of person that gets offended by this image is the kind who goes around looking for things to get upset about. It doesn't upset me.
But, there are certain NAI logos that are very 1930s cartoony. I don't know if this one is still in use, it is/was the Cleveland Indians logo, but it was/is pretty bad.
https://imageio.forbes.com/i-forbesi...jpg&fit=bounds
Yeah this is something I really struggle to understand people getting worked up about. If imitation is the highest form of flattery, then how can cultural appropriation be bad? It's a fucking compliment, someone thinks your culture is cool enough to want to borrow a bit of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If it's done in a mocking way, then yeah it's obnoxious, but it seems like that's not the point for some people - they'll get their beans baked even if it's done tastefully.
In b4 Vanilla Ice goes before the Hague tribunal for crimes against humanity.
Fun fact: Rock and roll was cultural appropriation of blues music. Tear down Graceland!
Well this is the main problem I have with it all. Where does it end? If copying certain aspects of a culture is cultural appropriation and this is a bad thing, then that means we should cancel 95% of music. The English should be legally bound to only make Tudor-style folk music and psychedelic boy band pop rock, and Daft Punk should change all the name of their songs, such as "Around the World" into "Dans le Monde Entier".
That big teeth logo is pretty cheesy, but I fail to see how it's offensive. You can just as easily find such ridiculous cartoonish images of white people.
I'm not sure why Exeter call themselves the "Chiefs". We don't get silly names like this in football, not sure why rugby feels the need to do this. Just looking at the list of Premier League rugby clubs in England, we have the Chiefs, Bears, Tigers, Falcons, Sharks, Warriors and Saints. I don't mind Warriors and Saints, but none of the others make any sense for an English club.
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
As a sports logo? Not sure offensive is the right word for it, but it's unflattering at the very least. If you lived in Africa and a sports team there had a caricature of a white person as their logo...?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
There's no good reason to have a logo that takes the piss out of a minority.
Animal references are fine if they evoke strength or ferocity or w/e. Cultural references should at least have some relation to the place the team resides in, or they just seem dumb.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Some of them make sense, like Minnesota Vikings in US football. The state is frozen six months of the year and has a lot of scandinavians living there. And the logo looks cool, not goofy.
@ the bolded: do soccer teams even have nicknames. I can't remember ever hearing one.
Yeah football teams have nicknames but not all are well known. Commonly used ones are the Gunners for Arsenal, Spurs for Tottenham Hotspur, Wolves for Wolverhampton Wanderers... all clubs have nicknames but most of them are fairly obscure, like the Irons for West Ham Utd, the Toffeemen for Everton, and the Red Devils for Man Utd. I'm a Birmingham City fan, we're the Blues, we play in blue, it's a boring nickname but at least it's not cheesy. We also commonly get called Brum, the nickname of the city.
In terms of their official name, most English teams are either United, City or Town. Then there's Albion, Rovers and Wanderers, all used by multiple clubs in each case. I think those six cover the most commonly used names.
Like a bad boy finally getting a spanking. Starts at 5:10.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnDqyyGcjuk
When is this fucking incompetent, corrupt, dim-witted cunt going to give it up?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bean Counter
Hopefully not before he drags the rest of the incompetent, corrupt, dim-witted cunts in his party down with him.
Take that, China!
https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1490432163623456771
We've got Starmer now boys.
Oh, damn!
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...er-office-beer
Well, there's still that Jimmy Savile thing, that oughtta stick
https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/stat...68757247758340
Oh, snap!
Britain Trump trending on twitter.
Starmer being chased into a police car after BloJo falsely accused him in Parliament of protecting a pedo while he was Director of Prosecutions.
https://twitter.com/OliDugmore/statu...57027110526977
I dunno about "falsely". I'm not saying Starmer is personally responsible for protecting Jimmy Savile, but it's very clear that Savile was being protected, and Starmer must have known about this in his role as DoP. We can speculate all day about who should be held accountable for the Savile scandal, but anyone who knew something was happening and did nothing are at least somewhat complicit. If I were one of those people, it would weigh very heavy on my heart. I would feel like I helped protect a paedo. I might not have been a choice, it might have been a direct order. Who knows?
Starmer was part of the system that protected Savile, that's a reasonable thing to say.
It's been proven that he had no part in the decision to not prosecute.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Serious question: what do you think the DoP does? Do you think he decides in every case whether to go ahead and prosecute or not? Like, a junior prosecutor sends a report to the DoP, makes a recommendation, and the DoP then stays up all night reading reports and having the final say in what happens in each and every case? Do you realise how absurd that would be?
Starmer had nothing to do with it. He's no more responsible for that than Priti Patel is when a couple of Met cops go around posting instagram photos of dead bodies. People below him fucked up, that's all. He ordered an investigation into it, and it found people below him fucked up. That's what he apologised for.
Of course, in hindsight, you can say it should have been obvious Savile was a scumbag, and the complaints should have been taken seriously, and they weren't. But that was nothing to do with Starmer. Not his job to make decisions in individual cases, never was.
I mean if this story had any credibility at all, I very much doubt a bunch of Tory MPs would be going out in public and calling it out as a backhanded slur, the PMs chief advisor wouldn't resign because he refused to retract it, and say that's precisely why she's resigning, and have the only people supporting the story be the kind who turn up at parliament to shout at Starmer about that and other tinfoil hat shit about freemasons and the New World Order.
I never suggested he was part of the decision. But he might have been aware of the decision. There's a difference.Quote:
It's been proven that he had no part in the decision to not prosecute.
We're not talking here about a nobody. People knew Savile was up to something terrible. It was showbiz gossip, do you think the DoP isn't going to hear about such a rumour? He might not ever have seen any evidence, but he must have been aware of a lack of investigation. It would be the highest profile investigation in the entire department, how could he not know about it? So he knows nothing was happening from a police pov. Was he aware of the rumours? Only he can know that, that isn't something that gets proven unless he admits it himself. But I'd be very surprised if he didn't.Quote:
Serious question: what do you think the DoP does?
No, people above him were protecting Savile.Quote:
People below him fucked up
The problem with Boris' comments is it's very clearly an attempt to politicise such a dark event for no reason other than to insult Starmer. It's dirty politics. It isn't fair to blame Starmer any more than the countless other civil servants who could have intervened, not without evidence that he was involved in the decision making. Boris is completely in the wrong here. But that doesn't mean Starmer conscie3nce is completely clear.
The CPP do 800,000 prosecutions a year, you can't assume the DPP knows about all those, never mind those plus all the investigations that don't lead to a prosecution, and never mind all the complaints that get made and aren't seriously investigated. You make it sound like maybe Starmer had a direct line to the police station and they were calling him hourly to keep him up to date on Savile. It wasn't like that. He was a busy guy, he couldn't be expected to take a personal interest in every possible crime in the country, even if it involved a celebrity.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Savile started abusing people in the 1960s. He was first interviewed by Surrey police in 2008 and 2009. The prosecutor in charge didn't try to build a case for whatever reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If Starmer was ever briefed about it officially, there'd be a record of it. There isn't. In any case, he wasn't in a position where he could go around telling people who to prosecute and who to leave alone on his own initiative. That's not how the DPP job works.
That's one interpretation. Hard to know what the prosecutor in question was thinking, and he certainly got blasted for it in the report.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
You're assuming they all knew Savile was guilty, when he hadn't even been properly investigated until he was already dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The fault with Savile is the police didn't follow up on him, and the prosecutor didn't try to build a case. It never got to Starmer.
Well I don't know what did or didn't get to Starmer, and quite frankly I find it absurd to believe anything the state has to say about the matter, since the state is implicated in this whole affair. Savile was friends with the Royal Family and former Prime Ministers, some of whom have also been accused of horrific crimes. Ted Heath, Prince Andrew, these are hugely powerful and unpleasant people. Who knows how deep this all goes?
I don't think Starmer is to blame. This is way higher than him. Did Starmer keep his mouth shut for the good of his career and health? Maybe, but if that's true then so did a lot of other people, and I mean a lot.
This isn't the fault of regular investigating cops. The fault lies with this who make decisions. Your guess is as good as mine when it comes to identifying who made the decisions. Someone, somewhere made the decision to not investigate Savile. That wasn't incompetence, it was to protect him. He was untouchable. This is what Starmer must have known.Quote:
The fault with Savile is the police didn't follow up on him
^^ There's a lot of speculation here and not a lot of facts. All we know is a famous guy got accused of perving on kids and the investigation never got off the ground until he died. There's a lot of people at the bottom of the chain that didn't seem to be doing their job, but for some reason you assume it's because someone way up said to let him go.
Maybe the cop and prosecutors at the front end of this thing had a soft spot for the guy. Maybe they grew up watching him on TV, and thought he was a great guy who couldn't possibly hurt anyone. Maybe they had some unhealthy deference for his celebrity status. Maybe he was good at lying. Maybe they didn't think they had enough evidence. Maybe it was some combination of those things. Who knows? But, these seem like more parsimonious explanations for why he wasn't pursued than the whole conspiracy theory thing you seem to be running with.
There's no evidence he knew anything. You're basically doing a Boris here, assuming guilt by association.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
At least you seem to understand it wasn't his decision not to prosecute.
LOL at this guy's acting.
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status...89024024350721
We may need a MCGA thread soon.
Prime ministers and princes. It's easier to believe that the protection is coming from the top when this is the company you keep.Quote:
but for some reason you assume it's because someone way up said to let him go.
No evidence, but I'm suggesting he should have known, and probably did know, that there were well founded rumours, and that no investigation was taking place. Johnny Rotten from the Sex Pistols knew, you think the chief of police didn't know?Quote:
There's no evidence he knew anything. You're basically doing a Boris here, assuming guilt by association.
The standard of proof needs to be much higher in this regard. It's easy to sit here and say he should have know this and that, but to accuse him of being part of the decision making process, that's a particularly serious accusation. I really do believe it goes to the very top, well above Starmer's head.Quote:
At least you seem to understand it wasn't his decision not to prosecute.
btw, there must be a ton of sitting MPs who also must have known something. Starmer isn't alone here, he just happens to have held a senior position that attracts more accountability.
Did Johnny Rotten go to the police and swear an affidavit? 'Cause just saying "I knew it all along" after the fact isn't going to hold up in court.
I mean I'm sympathetic to the idea there was some cover up, but I don't choose it as my default explanation. It's very hard to prosecute rape cases to begin with, and given Savile's image with the public and the esteem people held him in, it seems simpler to just assume the cops/prosecutor were just giving him too much benefit of the doubt.
Here's Johnny Rotten in a 1978 radio interview...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rjy8oLVOvi4
The BBC edited out these comments when broadcasting this interview.
This isn't a "benefit of the doubt" situation. This is an example of a highly influential person who is close friends with powerful people being allowed to continue his horrific crimes for decades. This isn't even a controversial opinion, it's widely accepted that Savile was protected. His 1974 autobiography contained admissions, there were plenty of accusations, when you have people making accusations and self-written evidence to support those accusations, you've at the very least got an investigation. That didn't happen, and it's not because someone was on a cigarette break or was too busy chasing robbers.
What you've shown isn't evidence for what you're claiming it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Broadcasters have to follow libel laws. You can't allow your guests to say libellous things, because you (the broadcaster) will get in trouble for it. Listen to any radio programme with live callers - the presenter will always shit their pants anytime a caller gets even close to saying something libelous. That's one of the main reasons why they have live callers on a 7 second delay (the other is swearing).
So this interview doesn't prove anything even close to a cover up. It proves the BBC were following libel laws, which any broadcaster is supposed to do.
You may be right about his auto-biography, (I'm not about to read it). But does he actually say in it "I raped kids"? Or is it more subtle than that? I think you may be confusing hints with confessions here.
As for there being plenty of accusations, I only heard of the three that were investigated by Surrey police in 2009. Are these other ones documented, or just a bunch that came out later? It's important to keep the timeline of these things straight, because you can't investigate accusations that haven't been made yet. If someone came out after he died and said "yeah, he diddled me too," that's not evidence of a cover up. It's evidence of an accusation being made well after the event took place.
Libel is making untrue allegations, Johnny was not saying libelous things. And no it doesn't prove a cover up, but it demonstrates that in 1978 it was showbiz gossip. People knew what he was up to, but very few spoke about it. Johnny is one of the few who did speak out, but they didn't broadcast the comments. The BBC have been heavily implicated in this murky affair, systematic failures time and again which allowed him to continue abusing. You don't keep making the same mistakes for decades. For him to be so high profile, with people knowing, and to get away with it for so long, there were people pulling strings for him. He was untouchable.
Nor am I, I'll go as far as reading his Wikipedia page and leave it at that. So I don't know the specific comments. I don't think we're talking about outright confessions though, but from what I can tell from a quick google search, he often talks about angry parents. Point is, there's stuff that an investigating officer can work with.Quote:
You may be right about his auto-biography, (I'm not about to read it)
That John Lydon interview is from 1978. There was resistance to him getting a knighthood in Thatcher's time due to concerns about his private life. He still ended up with a knighthood, which still hasn't been revoked.Quote:
As for there being plenty of accusations, I only heard of the three that were investigated by Surrey police in 2009. Are these other ones documented, or just a bunch that came out later? It's important to keep the timeline of these things straight, because you can't investigate accusations that haven't been made yet. If someone came out after he died and said "yeah, he diddled me too," that's not evidence of a cover up. It's evidence of an accusation being made well after the event took place.
This was consistently brushed under the carpet. The police get the odd bit of evidence, they send it up the chain of command, the Crown Prosecution Service decides there's not enough evidence to prosecute. The CPS are the decision makers. Who's pulling their strings?
There are lots of girls and boys who could have been interviewed. Lots of victims, parents, colleagues, friends, acquaintances, lots of people. The evidence existed, but there was never any serious attempt to find it.
They waited for him to die before allowing him to be exposed. He was protected, it's painfully obvious.
fypQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
case in point: The only thing saving Boris from a libel suit where Starmer slaps him silly all over court is parliamentary privelege.
As for the rest, yeah maybe he was protected but it's still got nothing to do with Starmer.
That's not quite accurate. If you successfully sue for libel, and then the claims are proven to be true, you committed perjury. Ask Jeffery Archer.
Libel is making untrue allegations. If you make true but unproven allegations, it kinda puts the accused in zugzwang... sue for libel and risk going to jail for perjury, or do nothing and give the allegations credit.
So if one weirdo celebrity who claims to want to kill nearly everyone in the business calls another weirdo celebrity a sleazeball and makes a vague reference to "rumours," the police should investigate them for pedophilia? Jesus Christ, get Columbo on the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
How many actual people came forward and accused him is the question. There has to be a record of it somewhere.
The point is the onus is on the accuser to prove the allegations true. That's a high standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
And if you're a broadcaster there's no reason to risk a libel suit. Granted, I think what Mr. Rotten said was sufficiently vague not to be considered libelous, but the BBC probably asked their lawyer and he told them not to risk it.
I'm sure there is a record of it somewhere. I very much doubt Johnny is the only one who spoke out, but we're talking here about a time where it was very easy to make evidence disappear, so who knows?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Victims came forward, and the CPS didn't bring charges. This isn't about Johnny at all, I only showed you that to demonstrate that as far back as 1978 people were talking about it, and that's the evidence that has survived and is publicly available.
The BBC were Savile's employer. They have a conflict of interest. As a responsible employer, Johnny's comments should at least cause the BBC to informally look into these allegations by speaking to those who work close to Savile. But they didn't, they instead sought to censor the allegations. Is that to protect their reputation, or to protect him? This went on for two decades, and he was getting the "benefit of the doubt" from the CPS, too. I think he was being protected.Quote:
And if you're a broadcaster there's no reason to risk a libel suit. Granted, I think what Mr. Rotten said was sufficiently vague not to be considered libelous, but the BBC probably asked their lawyer and he told them not to risk it.
You're sure there's evidence based on there being no evidence you can point to. Think about that for a minute.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
There COULD have been evidence that was buried, indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Now who's Captain Hindsight?Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
How were the police at the time to know the allegations were true? If someone is famous, there's a lot of whackos out there who want a piece of them.
"Sleazeball" and "rumours" are pretty chickenshit ways of making a rape allegation. Even Mr. Rotten knew they were just rumours, and he could have been sued for it if they turned out to be untrue. So obviously he wasn't as sure then as you are now that its' all come out.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
They weren't actually allegations, they were very vague hints of allegations. You can't expect people to hear the words "sleazeball" and "rumours" and jump to "pedo." Unless they already knew something, in which case yeah they were at fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Already gave you a perfectly valid legal explanation for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
But if you don't buy the legal explanation (and I'm not entirely convinced myself, but it's an angle), then consider the fact that all interviews get edited. That's not necessarily censorship in the sense of covering up evidence. For all you know the person in charge just though "that seems kinda fucked he wants to kill nearly everyone starting with Jim will fix it, let's leave that bit out."
The first recorded allegations came just before he died afaik. So "two decades" seems speculative.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Meanwhile, on the world stage...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FLAIAN7X...g&name=900x900
By investigating. The evidence clearly existed because it has been used to condemn him after his death.Quote:
How were the police at the time to know the allegations were true? If someone is famous, there's a lot of whackos out there who want a piece of them.
He was sure enough to risk being sued for libel. idk if he ever made a formal allegation to the cops, or tried to tip off journalists, or anything else other than ramble on a radio interview. It's not the point. The point was, it was known about in 1978.Quote:
"Sleazeball" and "rumours" are pretty chickenshit ways of making a rape allegation. Even Mr. Rotten knew they were just rumours, and he could have been sued for it if they turned out to be untrue. So obviously he wasn't as sure then as you are now that its' all come out.
Well this is my point. I'm making the assumption that if Johnny Rotten knew, then so did a lot of other people in showbiz and music. And by the end of the 80s, when Thatcher knew, the BBC were still not taking these rumours seriously. Everyone's talking about it but nobody is investigating it. Not the police, not his employers, nobody.Quote:
Unless they already knew something, in which case yeah they were at fault.
Robert Armstrong, the head of the Honours Committee, resisted his knighthood during Thatcher's time. An anonymous letter received by the committee in 1998 said that "reports of a paedophilia nature" could emerge about Savile. I'm really not sure what it takes for you to think there was a cover up. They knew.Quote:
The first recorded allegations came just before he died afaik. So "two decades" seems speculative.
Goddamn Eurolibtards and their red tape! Good thing we left so we don't have to deal with it anymore. #MEGA
https://twitter.com/NatalieElphicke/...52420508971008
The evidence has to both exist and be presented to someone who can do something with it. It's easy to say the evidence was there but it's not as easy to say it had been brought to the attention of the relevant authorities.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
He didn't call him a pedo in 1978. That's the point. He made some vague insinuations. For all anyone could have known from what he said on that interview, he might have meant Savile was dealing drugs out of his basement, or cheating at poker.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
The only evidence you have that JR knew is that he said so twenty years after making some vague insinuations. Pretty weak.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'll grant you that there were suspicions, and I'll grant you that a better police force and prosecutor would have delved deeper than they did. But you can't conclude from rumours that "everybody knew." It's hindsight bias in the first degree.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
On another note, apparently there was a workplace accident nearby a couple of days ago. You'd think this goes without saying, but if you ever find yourself using a wood chipper, and something is jammed in there, don't stamp on the obstacle in an attempt to free it. You might find your foot distributed around the nearby vicinity.
No doubt somebody else will get the blame for it. Obviously he wasn't told in training how insane it would be. Someone's getting fired and sued for that monumental act of individual stupidity.
Even this guy knew that.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/45/0b...62b8236ebe.gif
It's funny really because when something gruesome like that happens, not many people know about it at first. Everyone knows something has happened, because there's a line of cop cars, a couple of ambulances, and an air ambulance at the scene, and they're calling it a "serious incident". But they don't want to tell you what happened because it's not very nice to think about. So instead people think about what else could have happened, and when the words "wood chipper" get around, people think of much more gruesome things than losing a foot, you think instead of someone losing both legs and flailing their arms around before getting completely shitmixed. You'd think they're better off just saying what really happened.
Liz Truss, UK foreign secretary and frontrunner to replace the Unkempt One as PM:
"The UK will never recognise Russian sovereignty over Rostov and Voronezh."
Both cities have been Russian for hundreds of years.
No wonder Blojo is still in his job when this is the competition.
She also said the UK is "offering extra support into our Baltic allies across the Black Sea". Clearly having a GCSE grade C or above in geography is not necessary to be Foreign Secretary.
She also talked over the translator at her meeting with the Russian emissary, and had to be told to wait her turn. Totally qualified.
Apparently one of the opportunities Brexit has given us is the freedom to make it impossible for our manufacturers to compete with imports.
https://www.export.org.uk/news/59552...t-red-tape.htm
Can't wait to see what he comes up with next. But really, I'm surprised we need a Minister for Brexit Opportunities. Weren't all the opportunities explored and understood before we had the referendum?
Captain Cosplay at it again. Look out Putin!
https://twitter.com/RobBfromDerby/st...16749734862857
Times like these make me glad I live in the SE. Only 40 mph winds expected by the time the storm gets here.
https://twitter.com/putasinghonit/st...49347470954503
^ that clip is from last year in London (Barking tornado), which, as I'm sure you're aware, is in the SE.
But yeah, you wouldn't want to be on the Bristol Channel this evening.
I'm in Shropshire by the Welsh border, the forecast here is severe gales, but you wouldn't believe it right now. It's very calm outside. That's gonna change in the next hour or two.
W and NW tend to get the worst of the shit weather. 40 mph winds is shit enough thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Where I grew up, we had a weather phenomenon where the wind would whip down over the mountains and with no trees on the prairies to speak of, it got pretty windy. 100km+ was pretty common, like 2 or 3 times a year. Fuck me I don't miss that.
I'm sure if there's any damage, Boris will be right there to help out by staging a photo op of himself in a rescue vehicle. Unless he's on holidays of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Holy shit that's no joke. That's well within the small tornado range of wind speeds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It's so windy you can't even hear what the guy in the video is saying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaZr0BoPLIk
Fun fact: That bridge in the background was built in 1909, and is the highest and longest trestle bridge in the world. #MBGA
172km/h measured on Isle of Wight.
Oh and the SE is now included in the "red zone", so poop's might want to batten down the hatches.
This is definitely true, these systems tend to come in along the jet stream off the Atlantic, but they can very easily move along the English Channel so the SE does get a battering regularly enough.Quote:
W and NW tend to get the worst of the shit weather. 40 mph winds is shit enough thanks.
Did you get the Pineapple Express too? That shit looks brutal.Quote:
Where I grew up, we had a weather phenomenon where the wind would whip down over the mountains and with no trees on the prairies to speak of, it got pretty windy. 100km+ was pretty common, like 2 or 3 times a year. Fuck me I don't miss that.
You know every PM does this, right? I can remember Tony Blair standing on the bridge in Bewdley during flooding, he got heckled by the locals.Quote:
I'm sure if there's any damage, Boris will be right there to help out by staging a photo op of himself in a rescue vehicle.
Nah I'm good. I live in the hills with lots of forest around. Max wind predicted to be 45 mph. My bin is on its side, but hasn't got airborne.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
I'm just north of the westernmost tip of red warning 1, it's not that windy outside but it's raining. The storm is currently centred over South Wales, so it's heading my way. I expect the wind to pick up in an hour or so.
*edit - easternmost tip. Oops.
Forest is good when storms hit in late winter or spring, bad when they hit in late autumn and the trees are still in full leaf.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Sounds like you live in a nice place. The SE is heavily populated so you're doing well to be surrounded by forest.
Nope, that's on the coast. We were about 1000 mi inland, on the other side of the Rockies.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
So Edmonton area? You seem to be in the same area as someone I follow on YouTube, dude called Steve who likes stealth camping. He's awesome.
On that map, I'm about halfway down the slope to the left of the number 2. Just on the border of the red area, SW of Guildford.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
40 mph right now, I suppose we could get some gusts, so maybe shouldn't be counting my chickens just yet.
Closer to Calgary, about 250 mi. S of Edmonton. I did my PhD in Edmonton, great place for six months of the year, but basically frozen solid the other six. My first year there it got down to -20C in October.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
This is nerve wracking. Imagine being on one of those planes. I'd be shitting myself lol.
https://twitter.com/caitlinmoran/sta...29621425442827
Not actually been to this region of the country, but it looks nice. Closest I've been to this area is Winchester or Portsmouth. On the rare occasion I go to London, I approach through Milton Keynes, so miss your area by quite a distance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop