Steven P

That kind of emphasises a point I made earlier, those who are rich and famous are protected because of this attitude "they are only reporting this to go after their cash". The victims are often put off reporting what happened because of that attitude. Mentioned earlier that the courts should decide guilt but the victims should be able to report any crimes without fear or prejudice. Any guilty verdicts and then the victims should be able to chase for a payout. To me making a payout is almost an admission of guilt - why make a payment if there is nothing to defend yourself from? Noting that there was a report to the police about Brand (not from someone in the documentary) - shows that the program has shown other victims that they weren't the only ones. Of course, writing here as if he is guilty, he could be found to be innocent of specific charges in a court of law if it gets that far

Wow, what a lot of words from a simple question for a clarification about what you were referring to. Taking a lot of interest in my comments....

D'Oh, you posted a comment on an open forum, which I think needed clarification to aid the discussion. No clarification was coming, so I answered the question as asked. If you don't want a discussion following your comments on the open threads, wanting only the opinions of specified individuals then perhaps a private message is more appropriate. Noting that your preference to insult those that have opposing opinions on anything I'd perhaps give a warning that private messages to insult people shouldn't be looked on favourably so keep them nice eh? My question answered by your silence, so back to the discussion.

So that is a no then, you aren't going to answer what I asked. You are asking what we think to the timing of all of this and yet there is nothing going on in the background to suggest this documentary was released to coincide with anything. So I'll give my answer. the timing of this documentary is irrelevant to the discussion apart from TV schedules and advertising revenue..

So are you going to answer what I asked or just throw out insults? You were insinuating that the timing of this documentary and newspaper reports were convenient, so a nice and civil question to ask for clarification throws up an insult. Just to remind you, why is the timing of this significant? I have missed something along the way, so do enlighten us. For a mock outrage of a Downing street comment, I think the journalists contacted and asked Downing street for a comment, who cannot win either way perhaps, if the press officer answer "horrified" and so on some will say get on with the day job, if they answer "none of our business" then others will be saying they don't care about the people. I very much doubt that Sunak stuck out his podium on the front steps and said "I am horrified by this"... t was a journalist phoning and askign that provided that response

Might be as simple that the world of work has changed, flexible office working is normal now, a few days in the office, a few days at home. Before it was all in the office. Perhaps the assholes were always in the streets where you worked... but you never met them because your worlds never met? My road is quiet, not enough people to be arsy with, but when I am out and about the proportions of the good, the bad and the ugly are about the same as always.

Obviously you have read something going on in the background to suggest that the timing of this documentary is related to something else - I haven't read that yet... so what did we miss in the background they 'they' are trying to hide? ('they' generally refers to a government, the New World Order, Tibetan monks, Lizards or alien overlords of course, and not a TV station and news paper with a story to tell and advertising to sell in time for a nice Christmas bonus)

however in many cases of the past the victims always assumed that they were the only ones, something along the line of why would they believe me against this big famous personality. So they don't come forward - don't want to be singled out, don't want to be the trouble maker. The famous are often very charasmatic, it is what gets them there in the first place, sow the seeds of doubt in the victims mind and often they don't come forward. Of 'regular' victims of sexual assaults and rapes - only about 1/3 of rapes are reported and of them only about 1 or 2 percent result in a prosecution, something like that. With that statistic, and facing 'the establishmet' and a charasmatic abuser I am pretty sure many wouldn't realise that they re not the only victim, don't want to come forward and only when contacted by a journalist they realse that they are not the ony one and their story can make a difference. (based on what I have read in the past) just watching the show, clever editing perhaps and clips - 2 sides to every story - but.. it doesn't paint a good picture of him

I'd tend to agree with that too. Your dog, your responsibility. We take dogs and want them to live in a human world so we need to teach them how to do that - train them how to, which I think is the responsibility of the owners. Any problems then their owners should be accountable. A dogs natural instinct isn't to be a 4 legged human and if they revert to how they were bred, and attack then there is a good chance that the dog will also be killed - all because their human didn't take the care to teach them how to behave. When I am out and about I see many dogs on and off leads and at the moment would say it is 50-50 whether an off lead dog comes over to me to interfere with my day. A dog jumping on me for attention is playful to some, it is an attack to others. I'd also say that unless the dog has immediate voice recall then they should also be on a lead, particularly in city parks and other areas where children are likely to be playing. But back to the story, we are seeing a lot of young dogs (about 3 years old) that are not trained appropriately or socialised - the lock down dogs, I expect to see a few more reports of dog attacks in the next 3 or 4 years from these dogs.

I thought we'd left immigration behind for a bit, told you earlier still out for my bingo call - ticked off immigration ages ago. However you might be mistaken about more immigration, my focus has always been on a bit of humanity for the most desperate - those willing to risk their lives in a blow up boat crossing the busiest shipping lane in the world.. .because that option is safer than staying at home. These are the people demonised by good old Nigel Farage, man of the people multi-millionaire (with a pension larger than the average salary) and the Daily Mail simply because they make better photos than immigrants coming through Heathrow airport looking the same as you would coming back of a holiday. Perhaps you forget that what pushes asylum seekers (and eventually given refugee status) isn't the bright lights of London, it is often the muzzle flash from a police state. I feel I'd be repeating the same comments to the same deaf eyes, so leaving it there. Back to my first sentence, looking to move the conversation onwards from listening to another rant about asylum seekers - unless you have any constructive thoughts other than rants? I do live in hope. I might have missed the part where you offered a solution to small boats.

That's the one, so the article said that the Labour peers blocked a bill by 206 votes (I think that was the number I read) with 174 members, not all of them turned up to vote, how is that possible ?

Ahh, FFS I've done it again haven't I? Sorry.

Go back a week or so and your sudden change of tune when I pointed out that 'legal' or economic migration to the UK far outweighed the 'illegal' asylum seeker migration to the UK by a factor of about 8..... I suspect that we did immigration to death then, am looking for the next mark on my 'Daily Mail Rage Bingo' - can't you bang on about the Nanny state? Always fact check the internet, some sites are worth fact checking more than others.

D'oh, all that effort to try to get you to read the numbers. There are more Conservative members of the House of Lords than Labour (261 to 174), this bill wasn't blocked by 'Labour in the House of Lords" - I'd have to read the voting figures but suspect that all sides of the House of Lords voted against this.....or the Labour Lords have worked out a way to clone themselves.

I might paraphrase this "Labour has worked out that it isn't those pesky Belgians that we don't like, citizens of the EU are actually OK"

Thought we were cutting red tape since Brexit? I'll do the sums again sometime but I think over the last 20 years the average interest was about 3 1/2% (and about 6% over the last 40 years if you want to go right back), perhaps we have just got complacent in the last 10? I reckon many people will be worried now because they forgot that interest rates can (and will) go up - business and mortgages alike.

Fair comments I guess!

Can you post the link to the original article rather than a screenshot from someone. It just lets us read the original and get the context of why we are all morons. Without that it just looks like the comment is taking about 30 words out of an article (maybe 2000 words?) to push a view point that is not necessarily the conclusion of the original article. For example does it specify what 'lower cognitive abilities' actually means. I'd maybe suggest that most of us can understand the complexities of any vaccination decision if we are given, or can access, or take the time to read suitable information to make a decision.

For tree maintenance, one truck every 5 years and a couple of hours of chainsaw use is small stuff considering the traffic that will pass a tree in that time, insignificant really, Road sides are a massive land area in the UK and it makes sense to use it if you can - so long as it is safe. There are many old trees along road sides that would have been removed if else where to make room for housing or larger fields, but you have a point, too close to the road is no good. Personally local to me, I prefer my walk, cycles or runs to be along roads with trees and hedges as opposed to those lined with fences and wall, definitely better than ones lined with houses too.

Not a troll by the way, just an opposing opinion. Oh, and google to back that up.

From previous post a good tip is to make any mods reversible so that if you ever sell it you can do so with it at it's default 'safe' arrangement

I missed this post in July - but been fancying one of those little crawler tractors for a while now. Couple more years and I can empty The Boys climbing wall out the garage and have space for a new toy.

awww, you moved on too quick from renewable energy and now on to nanny states. Just when I had been reading that China despite building coal power stations also.... - Produces 30% of its electricity from renewable resources (the UK is about 40%, more than the US, but not as much as Germanys 50%... nordstream anyone?) - Uses less electricity per head of population than the UK so has a massive demand for electricity generation (and far less than the US, or Canada - I use the US as a beacon to the world with their Holywood influence) - Also has a massive population, in 60 years has required 6 times more electricity per person as the country industrialises and modernises. This is a lot of electricity generation needed. Nuclear won't cut it with the lead times on a new power station, they want power now, not 20 years time. As a nation we cannot say "Don't" because then a billion migrants will be coming to the bright electrical lights of the west. What we can do is use our (post brexit dwindling) influence on the world to lead by example. Africa is even further behind their electrification and will no doubt go down the fossil fuels route before switching to renewable energies. Got to look at the world, do the reading, look at the facts, the numbers, what will happen if we say 'do this' or 'don't do this'. It all works together as a glorious whole thing, rather than getting angry about 1 headline that pushes a political narrative. Noting that the UK government is relaxing the 'de-facto' ban on onshore wind turbines (todays press word of the day). This is a good thing. Right, Nanny state.... I'll tick renewable energy off my list.

I might contest this. Most European governments are at most centre left, not far left (communist totalitarian states). The US is centre of centre with a chance of going right, China going more capitalist. Old school far left? Totalitarian communist states? Not may at all. Same with far right totalitarian fascist states, not many at all. We bumble along slight shift wither way of the centre for the majority of the world with free elections

electric chain saw, £100, goggle, helmet, boots, gloves, saw proof trousers - any more minimum kit required? + £100, see the saw after, maybe the safety kit -£70, total cost £130. Might almost be viable for a few ££ more to pay someone, end of the day job if you are not demanding which day they do it. However, looks like something you could do yourself