miga

Which one did you get malumbu - the RP1?

Not the glove.....not the glooooove!!!

Which may or may not stop this thread's descent down the rapids of shouty class-oriented reproach.

I think in the context of the article it's a humorous sidenote, the figure and the location could be easily replaced by some other personal idea of an unusually high, but not entirely impossible number and any place the author thinks is a bit posh.

I thought that's what you meant, FWIW.

Now there's a band whose logo's graced more jackets, t shirts and backpacks than record players.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To me punk was very much in the moment so I'm not > sure about seeing them all 40 years on doing stuff > from then. I have seen the Rejects relatively > recently but that was West Ham thing :). Whatever > happened to Johnny moped? He's been doing some shows and there was a decent docco recently. There's a guy I wouldn't go to see now, though. On the other hand "Incendiary Device" is such a corker song....

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I shagged lots to GoF and the Mekons, and the > Specals and The Stranglers Shagging to GoF....sounds challenging, what with the lyrics revolving around alienation, consumerism and emptiness of romance, the sudden tempo changes and bursts of white noise. Still, at least a lot f the numbers have brevity on their side. Whatever floats your boat :-)

Good thread. I loved Magazine when I saw them at their first reunion show in London - but I'm too young to have seen them in their prime. I had been listening to those songs since I was a teenager. You're right, they were perfect. I used to see Childish on the reg at the Boston Arms, Dirty Water Club (we lived up that way). His outfit at the time, the Buff Medways, really cooked. Radio Birdman were great all the many times I saw them past their peak. The Saints (Chris Bailey and whoever) a bit sad. Ed Kuepper carries himself very well, I think it helps he's a musician. The Business were... well, plodding but fun. Cockney Rejects were exactly as you'd expect. Wire were still fantastic a decade ago, though I've seen them blow a couple of times since. Gang of Four were great, but I'm not sure what the point is any more. The Fall are hilarious and great. But what an age we live in. Bands I'd listen to as a teenager on some CDR or tape because the record had never been repressed or whatever, have all reformed. This goes especially for American punk/hardcore bands. This is both terrible (endless regurgitation, retromania etc.) and great (getting to see bands I'd never have seen otherwise)

The second scenario you describe wonderfully illustrates our cosmic insignificance, if that's your bag. On my road, I watch daily as people go for the land speed record in 50m spurts, only to break furiously for avoidance of damage to their car at the next speed hump. Repeat. Sisyphean dragsters. But yes, the technique you describe is what an instructor on a safe/advanced driving course told me to do some years ago; lightly accelerating over the hump keeps things smooth.

Yeah, I'm ready to give up. We disagree - I think the "double standard" isn't so clear cut, and even if it were, there are other extraneous factors around gender relations that further complicate the picture. I'm happy to hold the minority viewpoint, if that is the case. I won't start on his apology. In the grand scheme of injustices, this was a blip - I'm starting to bore myself, so I'll bow out! ETA: $10k - I think leagues have often predetermined fines for breach of conduct (players rubbishing refs, exposing themselves etc.), in this case I think it was a set fine.

Apologies for the broken up reply - I was unable to post the whole thing in one hit. I also lost the response to your "disproving" thing about the link: the gist was that he's their boss, I don't expect him to sell his commentators up the river, but I expect he told them to stop being idiots and say it wasn't on. Their attitude changed in any case. That's just a guess, obviously.

> You are going a bit SSW on the evidence here, > miga. SSW? Sorry, don't know this abbreviation. > Anyway, to the important point - I'll repeat > again... > > "As rahrahrah correctly pointed out above, when it > becomes clear that one party isn't receptive, > obviously feels uncomfortable and yet it > continues, that's when there is an issue. Gayle > tried to flirt, got (very) short shrift and > stopped. Made himself look very silly, certainly, > but not worth a $10000 fine. And certainly note > worth the threats to his career." > > Are you saying it was worth that punishment? And > can you - hand on heart - say that if the male > reporter had not played along that you would > consider both case as equals? I would consider it just as bad, yes. I also think the punishment was about right. It's not up to me to determine the scale of the punishment - but I assume he signed some kind of contract including definitions of reasonable behaviour re: harassment, sexism, racism etc. as we all do when we're employed. I'd say this was inappropriate workplace behaviour. The kicker is that his misstep was very public, and that a sports league would probably want to appeal to a broad range of people, and having someone turn in a bit of prime time TV sleaze in this way is not the image they'd want. If I was running the league I'd want to send out a clear signal about appropriate behaviour, and I think they struck the right balance. Ian Chappell and others called for him to be banned (partly because, as it turned out, he had a bit of a history of hitting on female journalists publically etc.), which I think is overkill.

> And have you decided that no one actually said, > "hur hur, he's a cheeky chap"? You seem to be > avoiding that question. FFS Loz - don't be so literal - I never said anyone said that - I said their reaction was "something along the lines of", and given the laughter and the immediate "taking shots" comment, yeah, I think it's a valid interpretation. I'm usually careful not to misquote. And BTW - I'm under no obligation to address each of your straw men, this was a courtesy.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > OK so there was a jump - but what happened in > that time - are you claiming more happened? Or > did they just jump the cricket? And if indeed the > panel did laugh, were they laughing at the > interviewer, or were they laughing a Gayle making > a prize chump of himself? Right - so the critique wasn't immediate. Can you not hear the laughter? Yes - of course more happened, their boss called them. (BTW Gayle didn't stop once rebuffed as you claim - the last thing he said was again about the eyes). We can't know what the panel were laughing at, you're right. Maybe another interview? Maybe someone did a quiet fart? Maybe the cricketer being sleazy to the lady journalist? Maybe with irony? My take on it is they were laughing at him being a cheeky chappy, but your take that they were laughing at him as a critique of his sleaze could be just as valid. The channel boss (unsurprisingly) claims there were a lot of things going on in these guys' earphones and the laughter was unrelated. It didn't play that way to me because of how it was timed - but I could be wrong.

Between the chuckling during and immediately post-interview, and the "on reflection" sullenness BTW - even on that YouTube footage you can see it goes from 1/86 and 2/107, and nearly two overs by the looks of things.

Sorry - I thought the discontinuity was obvious and you knew more of the "case". Additional information is that the YouTube link is live up until the "taking shots" thing, the "on reflection" bit happened several minutes later. Live, they played another over, during which the boss called the studio, read them the riot act, and then once the footage cut back to the studio the faces were more sullen, and Mark "Howie" Howard stood up for Mel McLaughlin. During the broadcast the panel were laughing, which you can clearly hear in the background. I have no idea whether the panel set her up - that's an idea you introduced - it was clear (at least some of them) thought it was pretty funny (you can hear them laughing, right?), Chris Gayle had a chuckle, but the journalist didn't enjoy it - hence my "joke she wasn't in on" comment. As for Gayle backing off - he didn't - at the end of the interview he goes back to the eyes thing. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/cricket/chris-gayle-faces-cricket-australia-sanctions-over-controversial-interview-with-channel-10s-mel-mclaughlin/news-story/112048d7837a8e1483b0440587b8fec0 Whatever, I still don't see how the reaction to either video is indicative of "double standards" or the idea that "everyday sexism" (or whatever you want to call it) is somehow invalidated by presenting the two cases side by side.

Look at it on YouTube buddy - you can hear them roaring with laughter in the studio as the interview progresses. "Don't blush, baby". OK - one of the other guys talks about him going a bit too far, and defends her as a professional. Good, well done. One of the others comments "playing shots on and off the field". So - NOT almost diametrically the opposite. The following morning she was reported as "angry and upset" by her channel's boss (the channel retweeted the "don't blush baby" comment to fuel the twitter storm with hashtag smooth earlier, though). Of course there was a twitter storm. There's a twitter storm when someone flytips a mattress these days. Isn't it clear that this is a joke being played on her, that she's not enjoying in that video? Isn't it clear that in the other (stupid, asinine) video the interviewer is playing along?

Loz - I think part of the reason the Gayle story made headlines around the world is that it proved popular with the people who are ready and loaded to shout "PC gone mad!", "Feminism gone awry!", "SJWs ruining free speech" etc. If the female journalist in question is to be believed he had a history of making passes/unwelcome remarks at her/other women/journalists who were in his surrounding. That and the reaction from the "panel" back in the studio which was along the lines of "hur hur, he's a cheeky chap" would have probably made her feel a bit shit - she wanted to talk to him about the game, as part of her job, on live telly, and he wanted a date, which her male colleagues thought hilarious. She clearly didn't, and made a fuss. I think she had every right to. TBH - I didn't know what to make of the "everyday sexism" thing to begin with - but it made me talk to a number of women about the subject (none of whom are CiF commentators, Student Union leaders, career SJWs AFAIK), so I think it's been a worthwhile exercise. As a bloke in his 30s, I'd previously conceived of sexism and gender equality in abstract terms of equality of opportunity, cultural norms around professional choices etc. However, from talking to a few women about the "everyday sexism" thing - I've realised that there is a constant low level hassle that comes with being a woman, especially a young one. It's not something that I experience, and I doubt many blokes do.

One difference having now watched this piece of "reverse sexism" was that the interviewer here was clearly playing along. What's it meant to prove?

Lowlander Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pyramid schemes have always been illegal! But not multi-level marketing. Also:

MrsE Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've heard of pyramid schemes Yes - pyramid - that's the three-dimensional shape I couldn't remember. Pyramid.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just an honest question OP but do you get a > 'share' of any new sign ups and then a 'share' of > any new sign ups that they get to these not free > courses? I am a bit cynical about your 100% > altruistic claims but I am a bit of a cynic Hang on ????. Do you mean a sort of structure, where there are many people at the base, passing on some money to the slightly fewer people at the next layer, who in turn pass on some of their own money and that of the people at the base minus a cut, and so on till there is just one solitary person at the top? Thus creating a sort of three dimensional shape, the name of which escapes me right now, but I'm pretty sure has something to do with Egypt?

edcam - that definitely is simpler, yes. They're "sending me footage" and have put the ticket "on hold". I'll see what that turns up.

Timeline (heavily redacted for avoidance of boredom induced thunks of head on keyboard) is something like: Move house end of 2014 -> notify DVLA of address move -> PCN incident occurs Jan 2015 -> PCN sent to old house (+ escalations) -> get bailiff letter at new house Sep 2015-> freak out, send Statutory declaration Sep 2015 -> finally get re-issued PCN 2 days ago. Appeal to whom - do you mean to "make a representation" as per the TfL parlance?