Jump to content

Recommended Posts

it was nothing to do with the debate, just an aside regards first mates pondering that if westminster was found to be a hotbed of sexual abuse in the past, might that have some connection to the fact that almost all of them came through the public school system.


It didn't seem an entirely unreasonable hypothesis.


You then had a go at him for homophobia and equating homosexuality with paedohpilia, neither of which did he do, you just misunderstood the word fag.


At no time did you say 'oh yeah whoops my bad'.


I just thought you'd given the chap an unwarranted bashing.

This takes the biscuit: I've just read that the Lord Chancellor Sir Michael Havers persuaded Geoffrey Dickens not to name the MPs in the house.


Baroness Butler-Sloss has just been appointed to lead the sex abuse inquiry. Who was her brother? The late Sir Michael Havers.


Excuse me for being a bit slow to take the idea of a vast cover up seriously

DaveR not sure if describe the wearing of a baseball cap in the British sense as unique to any class demographic, it's more complex than that, it has affiliations with all sorts of groups as a form of head ware. However, I take your point. I'd probably go for some sort of arty cloth cap with working class origins but now associated with a more affluent group.


Louisa.

Fair enough Jeremy and El Pibe. I will conceed that. I was thrown by the use of homoerotic, which still in my opinion has nothing to do with school bullying, and nothing to do with peadophilia. And in the past, peadophilia has been used to suggest homosexuality is akin to sexual criminality/ deviency (a ploy of homophobic lobbyists) - so that's where my accusation of homophobia stemmed from. A misjudged reaction I will though admit.

Daver, indeed as far as anyone knows it's just Cyril but there have been hints recently that it goes a bit deeper and there were others who either knew or helped facilitate.

But rumours are often baseless so we'll just have to wait for any more detail.


For the record I doubt public school would have any greater correlation to sexual abuse except insofar as grooming people for positions of power means you'll end up with more people in positions of power, with concomitant opportunities for its abuse in one form or another.


We might as well say that public school causes expense fiddling :-)

Fair Do's to you PT.


PokerTime Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Fair enough Jeremy and El Pibe. I will conceed

> that. I was thrown by the use of homoerotic, which

> still in my opinion has nothing to do with school

> bullying, and nothing to do with peadophilia. And

> in the past, peadophilia has been used to suggest

> homosexuality is akin to sexual criminality/

> deviency (a ploy of homophobic lobbyists) - so

> that's where my accusation of homophobia stemmed

> from. A misjudged reaction I will though admit.

steveo Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This takes the biscuit: I've just read that the

> Lord Chancellor Sir Michael Havers persuaded

> Geoffrey Dickens not to name the MPs in the

> house.

>

> Baroness Butler-Sloss has just been appointed to

> lead the sex abuse inquiry. Who was her brother?

> The late Sir Michael Havers.

>

> Excuse me for being a bit slow to take the idea of

> a vast cover up seriously.


Hmm... Yes it's reassuring to know that in response of the government's paedophile cover-up stories the government has decided to order a new and comprehensive cover up.

Connections connections, there's always close intertwined connections at "the top".


The barristers' chambers headed by Michael Havers back in the late 70's/early 80's also had as a member the shadow attorney general at the time, John Morris Q.C. (Labour). So all political legal advice was pretty well "sewn up" back then.


It was also the chambers where Margaret Thatcher gained her grounding in the law, along with Angus Maude ( the then Paymaster General) one of her closest confidante, and where his son Francis Maude, now a (semi) prominent politician, also practised from.

Louisa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In a thread of such sensitivity, it seems a shame

> that once again the EDF swings wildly off-topic,

> with yet another self-indulgent game of cat and

> mouse tactics regarding misunderstanding of use of

> words. Just an observation.

>

> Louisa.


Well said!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The country is headed straight for a financial iceberg on 26th November. Starmer can rearrange the chairs on the deck of the Titanic, but we all know what happened. We are already ina depression which will only get deeper until one Party can turn things around, but on the current performance there is no saving us. Doom and gloom yes, but also reality kicking in.  The new Greens leader is another nut job who should be in an asylum for his own good. Starmers swift reshuffle was surprising, so lets see how things stand in 6 months to see if it made any difference. Question to ask, why did he get rid of the Leader of the House and the Scottish Secretary? What did they do wrong to be sacked? The rest of his appointments are moving people around who are already in Cabinet. Does he have no faith in what they did or didn't do?  
    • I do worry English people are focusing on “the flag” and their own wistful nostalgia (how very English) rather than what’s happening with the flag in 2025 stop analysing it as the mere national flag and have a look at it for what it is - the useful tool of intimidation by some extremely dodgy people (see also the Irish tricolour when the IRA were active) defeat the problem, then you can reclaim the flag  pretending there is no problem whilst saying “it’s just a flag” is just…. Sigh 
    • I remember when "fly the flag" was the proud slogan of British Airways  it all went pete tong when Concord was retired 😅
    • If the product states that it's not suitable for anyone under the age of 18 on the package, were you not given a warning by the brand itself? Why would any advice provided by H&B assistants override that?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...