Mailwatch(ed) Forum

Incredible shit here, The Times arguing for the opposite of safeguarding.

Perhaps there's a misunderstanding with the question, but it's quite bad that 3 out of 10 don't know what the guidance is.

Alas, the least surprising angle imaginable for the Times to take.

It's also delightful to note Rosie Duffield's involvement with the Policy Exchange report which kicked all this off. Not quite as bad as popping up on Graham Linehan's YouTube channel for a friendly chat, but still...

Yeah, the Times is awful on all this stuff, but you'd expect it to know about Gillick competence.

I'm sure they do know. Whether they care is, I would argue, more of an open question.

I'll take a wild guess that Robert Crampton didn't pay anybody £350 (that's the amount in his article) for not attending Glastonbury, any more than I didn't pay £2,80 not to read The Times.

What is it with these people? There are lots of occasions that other people enjoy and I probably wouldn't. I'm not a columnist so I manage to let it slide most of the time. And if I were, I'd come up with something more original than Glastonbury to moan about. And I'd punch whoever stuck that laughable not on the front page.

There seems to have been a lot more Glastonbury-bashing this year. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.

Mr Crampton failed to lig a press ticket then.

Youngian wrote: ↑Thu Jun 29, 2023 9:30 pm Mr Crampton failed to lig a press ticket then.

By the look of him, he'd be lucky to get a ticket to his own kid's graduation.

Not a serious newspaper. Bloke churning out editorial page tripe says that civil servants don't do any real work.

Paper of record. Who could have guessed that commissioning an article from a clown like Carswell would go like this?

The Times here, printing this drivel lettter.

Perhaps the work would be less stressful if there was less of this behaviour? I was going to compare this to On The Buses, but Stan and Bob probably respected women with good A levels more than this guy.

Surely that's not a real person, is it?

To be fair they printed several responses today.

If it had been anon then I’d agreed not to publish.

This is absolutely mad.

Not just the absurd principle that inheritance tax breaches property rights, but the bit about Sir Keir before there are even any concrete proposals to respond to. Then again, if this is a sign of thinking on the Right that Sir Keir is Jez, I'll take that as a win.

Self-appointed egghead, Matthew Syed, taken to task here.

Distant past?

1939, Matthew. 1939.

Cunt.

Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 20, 2023 2:42 pm Distant past?

1939, Matthew. 1939.

Cunt.

The table tennis player?

Goodness, what has happened to Matthew Syed? I used think of him as relatively progressive and intelligent.

Now he’s making common cause with 30p Lee ?

I was thinking the same.