Those eyebrows doe...
Those eyebrows doe...
Her Twitter has been deleted.
Of course it's a real thing. Why would you think otherwise?Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
I can confirm, I am an excellent sexter.
Also, what is wrong with sexting with a 17yr old girl? Obviously, it's creepy, but there is nothing wrong with it, really (unless he's married, I guess).
Or was the young lady not asking for the sexting?
I expect it's one of those things where yes, the activity takes place, but nobody who does it calls it that at the time. I've certainly never seen the word "sexting" used outside of tabloid journalism.
She'd applied for a job at his constituency office, I read. I think she did carry it on with him though. But still, it's fucking creepy and not the sort of thing elected representatives should be doing.
I meant 'Is it an actual term that people use?', not 'Do people ever send text messages containing sexual content'. You morons.
Don't throw anybody else in just because John Arne struggles with context.
I'd put it in the bag of words that only papers use like 'Romp'. Who has ever had something they'd refer to as a romp?
Ah ok, yeah, if she applied for a position then he really shouldn't be taking it towards that. At the same time though, I don't see why an elected official can't be sexting a 17yr old, as long as they are both consenting - yeah it's creepy, but being an elected official shouldn't exclude you from being a creep.
Yes, people use it.
Do bore off.
I'll have to assume you're precious about it because you're now worried you might have embarrassed yourself in using it.
Simon Danczuk is a cretin, so lol at this even if he probably hasn't done anything wrong.
The Tories have played an absolute blinder - on NYE they drop the FCA's investigation into banking culture, then throw this grenade into Labour's midst so they've got to fight on multiple fronts.
They've started this fire in Dubai as well to keep the news busy.
Apparently it started when Oliver Letwin tried to burn some secret papers.
Plenty of dead politicians were probably saved by the fact that the Internet didn't exist when they were around.
Pierre Elliot "the State has no business in the bedrooms of the nation" Trudeau would have been balls-deep in all kinds of sexting. Lyndon Johnson, too.
Toggle Spoiler
"But they have widescreen TVs."
Are those percentages?
If so, simply not having that more than a quarter of kids in this country live in anything that could reasonably be described as poverty.
I've gone and looked at the bloody 52 page report and those figures are the best performing 14 countries in the world, plus the arbitrary addition of UK and USA, and the number is the percentage of children who were below 60% of the median income in 2012. So it's basically a particular measure of inequality, rather than poverty.
Spain scores a healthy 36.3, and Greece 40.5, not forgetting our pals from Iceland on 31.6.
A triumph for all involved then.
Who's funding this fucking wank?
Well that's incredibly silly then. It was from Bernie's Facebook.
25% did seem rather shocking.
How do you define poverty then?
Unicef. http://www.unicef-irc.org/publicatio...12-eng-web.pdfA triumph for all involved then.
Who's funding this fucking wank?
I'm sure they have a point but the tone of the entire report is 'everything is absolutely terrible, even when it isn't'.
Median income in the UK in 2012, according to Wikipedia was £21,000. 60% of that would be £12,600. Good luck running a household with kids on that.
Yet millions do.
What's wrong with it? I've not read it but presumably it's a measure of poverty applied equally across all countries included in the report.
Or is nothing wrong with it and we're just dealing with the "NOBODY IN THE UK KNOWS WHAT REAL POVERTY IS TRY LIVING IN ETHIOPIA!!!!" brigade?
.
Yes but at huge disadvantage (cultural as well as material) compared to most. It's relative poverty. I wouldn't fancy it.
It's exactly that.
Personally I object to a report that claims over a quarter of kids in England live in poverty, when it's manifestly not the case. There's no doubt a serious issue to be raised here, but I don't think reports like that do any favours in doing so.
Answer that then.
Poverty has to be measured relatively since the rest of society's earnings and wealth dictate what everything costs.
CHILD POVERTY (as measured by these idiots) went down during the recession because 'real' wages depreciated faster than benefits.
It needs to be measured relative to the actual cost and you can't just do it on a blanket basis like Unicef have done - there are massive disparities across the UK, for example. I appreciate it's easier for them to produce terrifying bar charts without leaving their stats bunker by using that method, but they've basically produced a report where most, if not all, of the "top 10" countries (let alone the rest) look shit. Great.
I prefer my poor people to live in cardboard boxes under bridges. Some of this lot have cars!
Feel the Bern you cunts.
Corbyn is donning everyone with this reshuffle. It'll ultimately be another step along the road to the end of the Labour party, but he's lolling his internal critics off a cliff, Stalin style.
And everyone seemingly cares more about a shadow cabinet reshuffle than what the actual government are doing.
Rob the poor and give to the rich – housing policy for 2016
http://gu.com/p/4fgba?CMP=Share_Andr...y_to_clipboard
Corbyn appears to have backed down on getting rid of Hilary Benn, which is disappointing, whatever the reasons.
Now becoming clear that this is less a reshuffle than a purge. Corbz people are actually briefing that various ministers have been fired for 'disloyalty'. This is brilliant. It's how 1930s Moscow must have felt, but without the millions strong body count and mass starvation.
Who decided that anybody should care about Jess Phillips? She's just a thick loudmouth.
Apparently this was the 'disloyalty' wot did for Pat McFadden:
Seumas Milne's utterly bizarre fingerprints all over it.
Not sure it warrants a thread just yet and not sure where else to post it:
They've successful tested a hydrogen bomb. China won't be happy.
I'm skeptical that they've managed a H-bomb, given that their previous devices were supposedly a bit crude.
On the reshuffle, I imagine Dave would also sack people who forcibly disagreed with him in public.
Seoul seems to think they only tested an atomic bomb (Phew!).
Also I've always wanted to refer to a nation by it's capital city like they do in the Bond films
It's pretty lol that North Korea has worse nuclear capabilities than the United States in 1945. What is even the point?
I did think it was a bit much to call developing 60 year old technology 'intimidation'.
Lest we forget how potent that technology might be if aimed at Seoul.
The fact it's so cack-handed is arguably scarier. Someone will forget to replace a battery on a UPS and the whole place will go up.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
