• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread pt. 2

One of the most interesting Brexit issues, the NI Protocol and Windsor Framework.

The people who championed themselves as 'Brexit Spartans' who claimed the Irish Sea border must be removed (even though they voted for it), are now realising the debate is over.



I just hope that the hard-line Loyalists/Unionists in NI will wake up and smell the coffee.

What's more unfortunate is the Labour have said they won't go back into the Customs Union or Single Market (of course to ensure Red Wall votes) but it's really necessary for the prosperity of the UK
 
One of the most interesting Brexit issues, the NI Protocol and Windsor Framework.

The people who championed themselves as 'Brexit Spartans' who claimed the Irish Sea border must be removed (even though they voted for it), are now realising the debate is over.



I just hope that the hard-line Loyalists/Unionists in NI will wake up and smell the coffee.

What's more unfortunate is the Labour have said they won't go back into the Customs Union or Single Market (of course to ensure Red Wall votes) but it's really necessary for the prosperity of the UK

"You would have had to have been living under a political rock not by now to know the Protocol broke the Acts of Union; partitioned the UK; subjugated Northern Ireland to foreign laws; and trampled the principle of cross community consent. In revealing all this our campaign was successful."

The nerve of the guy to act like "revealing" the problems with northern Ireland as a result of Brexit was some successful campaign. This **** was all pointed out by remainers before the referendum even happened and was dismissed as "project fear", now they want a pat on the back for being able to point at their fuckup and go "that's a fuckup, aren't we clever for spotting this after we did it and not before?" Either the integrity of the UK was going to be put at risk or the GFA was going to be put at risk (and with it our relations with the USA). There never was a no-problem solution. But as usual these warnings fell on ******* deaf ears.
 
Not sure if anyone has been paying attention to silly stunts the Republicans have been pulling recently but one of them was under the whole "protect the children" guise, banning a variety of books from schools and libraries. Generally this was around content deemed violent or, more often, anything that could be deemed "sexual" by a pearl clutching parent worried about their children catching the gay from a book or similar. Suffice to say, like most of these knee-jerk reactions, the inevitable bit where it comes back around to bite them in the arse has happened, as some fed up parents have now managed to successfully argue that the Bible must be banned due to frequent and graphic violent and sexual content.

Gotta love a bit of karma.
Someone on here keeps telling me America is a great example of freedom of speech yet they are banning books in classrooms. Not getting it
 
I'm still undecided where I sit on this. I think the idea of UBI is useful but it shouldn't be so high that it pays better than entry level work. £1600 pm is more than I earned in my first grad engineering role after 4 years of uni. I still would have done it as I would progress onto something better but with more mundane jobs that don't really have any progression prospects? I can see it causing problems. The salaries for those would need to rise above UBI by enough to make it worthwhile, which would then mean all other job roles would also need to then pay more as you wouldn't want to go to Uni, get a professional job only to be paid less than someone on the tills at McDonalds. This could lead to inflation that then wipes out what is gained through UBI.

Personally, I think UBI should be much lower and should be more akin to job seekers allowance, it should keep you going through rough patches and give you more peace of mind to do what you need to to find work again but I don't think it should even come close to competing with the earnings from actual work.
 
Not really policial, but does anyone else think the outroar and media barrage of the Philip Scofield affair is a bit much?
 
Not really policial, but does anyone else think the outroar and media barrage of the Philip Scofield affair is a bit much?
I saw someone else pointing out that it's a very convenient outrage story at the same time as a rather inconvenient load of info surrounding the government is coming to light. TBH I'd be more inclined to believe that if every week there wasn't inconvenient facts being made public about the government. Usual gutter press sensationalism.
 
Not really policial, but does anyone else think the outroar and media barrage of the Philip Scofield affair is a bit much?
It's been what three four weeks now for someone who had an affair on a daytime TV program...

I can't help but think this coupled with other outrages since he came out (the funeral) that there is an air of homophobia to it, I thought this before he said it.

It's ******* nuts....I do think some papers are using it as a smokescreen for scandals they'd rather not talk about. But I don't think it's to cover this particular one.
 
Not really policial, but does anyone else think the outroar and media barrage of the Philip Scofield affair is a bit much?
Over 200 dead and more injured in India due to a rail derailment and The Schofield story is 2nd top story. Go figure.
 
It's been what three four weeks now for someone who had an affair on a daytime TV program...

I can't help but think this coupled with other outrages since he came out (the funeral) that there is an air of homophobia to it, I thought this before he said it.

It's ******* nuts....I do think some papers are using it as a smokescreen for scandals they'd rather not talk about. But I don't think it's to cover this particular one.
Al Pacino and Robert DeNero are having kids with much much younger woman and everyone thinks that's a good thing. Tom Jones took advantage of a young Cassandra Peterson apparently being very brutal and rough to the then 16 year old and no one bats an eyelid and how old was Mandy Smith when Bill Whyman first started sleeping with her? Yet he's a rock and roll hero.

Not saying Schofield is innocent here but there seems to certainly be a element of sticking the knife into him and ITV by media rivals but then they were all happy to do it to the BBC over Saville
 
I'm still undecided where I sit on this. I think the idea of UBI is useful but it shouldn't be so high that it pays better than entry level work. £1600 pm is more than I earned in my first grad engineering role after 4 years of uni. I still would have done it as I would progress onto something better but with more mundane jobs that don't really have any progression prospects? I can see it causing problems. The salaries for those would need to rise above UBI by enough to make it worthwhile, which would then mean all other job roles would also need to then pay more as you wouldn't want to go to Uni, get a professional job only to be paid less than someone on the tills at McDonalds. This could lead to inflation that then wipes out what is gained through UBI.

Personally, I think UBI should be much lower and should be more akin to job seekers allowance, it should keep you going through rough patches and give you more peace of mind to do what you need to to find work again but I don't think it should even come close to competing with the earnings from actual work.
I had thought we used to have a thread dedicated to the UBI discussion; but I couldn't find it yesterday.

Personally, I think it should be set at the rate of paying for essentials, but nothing else.
Roof, electricity, food, phone & broadband. At a basic level, and nothing more.
If you want a car, or a TV, or a smartphone - then you'd need to work to earn more.

This would need to be worked out every year (or more likely, every quarter) and be guaranteed to rise accordingly, rather than being at the whim of whichever political party wants to buy your votes.

Al Pacino and Robert DeNero are having kids with much much younger woman and everyone thinks that's a good thing. Tom Jones took advantage of a young Cassandra Peterson apparently being very brutal and rough to the then 16 year old and no one bats an eyelid and how old was Mandy Smith when Bill Whyman first started sleeping with her? Yet he's a rock and roll hero.
Pretty sure it's not the 70s any more.

Not saying Schofield is innocent here but there seems to certainly be a element of sticking the knife into him and ITV by media rivals but then they were all happy to do it to the BBC over Saville
I know nothing about what's been going on with Schofield, except that I see his name and picture a lot, and it's something to do with a sex scandal.
If it's illegal, then it should be a matter for the courts, with no specifics until it's been there. If it's legal then a few days should be all it needs as a news story. If it's sparking a national debate about... something (age differences, apparently) then the debate should be about that, not the individuals.
 
I don't see the age difference thing having much legs, especially as we now have influential sports figures wear rainbow armbands promoting love, respect and LGBT+ rights. As long as it's legal I doubt this will go anywhere. I suspect this is just a media catfight and/or an attempt to distract from other stories. There's a cougar revolution in Australia apparently and so it's not like it's just men who are finding much younger partners.

 
The Schofield nonsense is ridiculous. More attention is being paid to a TV host having a consensual affair with another man than was ever given to Matt Hancock getting his dick wet during covid lockdowns.
 
Schofield thing is dodgy AF tbh, it feels very much like something that would come under the #MeToo movement a few years ago
Met the kid at 11, started following him on social media at 15, got him a job working under him at 18 and started an affair not long after, when the affair ended he got him demoted/transferred to a different show

It's a position of power/grooming thing rather than specifically an age-gap thing

The number of news stories and TV specials (the BBC one knocking one up like the Prince Andrew is nuts - I thought the advert was a photoshop at first) is mad, but it's still a big deal, especially as he is/was THE daytime TV guy
 
Schofield thing is dodgy AF tbh, it feels very much like something that would come under the #MeToo movement a few years ago
Met the kid at 11, started following him on social media at 15, got him a job working under him at 18 and started an affair not long after, when the affair ended he got him demoted/transferred to a different show
A few things wrong there according to wikipedia. We have to go by Schofield's account as its the only one made public but age matters a lot on this one and timeline of events.

"Schofield met the man when he was 15, while giving a talk at a drama school.[39] He later arranged an interview for him at This Morning, where he was hired as a production assistant.[40][41] Schofield said that the affair began when the employee was 20 years old, at which point he was in his mid-50s, "
"He denied grooming the man, and claimed that he had lied not to preserve his own career, but to protect the employee's privacy.[52] Schofield said that the two had never been in a "love affair", and were still friends."
 
Fair enough, I've not followed the story all that much beyond what social media rams down your throat, but I was under the impression the school visit was when he was 11, but if not then still meeting him at 15/following him on social media, and then dating him at 20 is still dodgy as hell considering the power imbalance

Feels like some want to make it the scandal of the century and some want to brush it all away with any criticism being labeled as homophobic - truth probably lays somewhere in the middle, though these days I'm not sure a 61yr old presenter dating a young girl he'd met at 15 and gotten a job would be viewed favourably, especially if the presenter was married
 

Latest posts

Top