Toby Young..

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 MonkeyPuzzle 08 Apr 2020
In reply to MG:

Nauseatingly sycophantic as well as total fantasy. At least he's taking a break from eugenics.

14
 krikoman 08 Apr 2020
In reply to MG:

> This is bat-shit crazy. 


The title of the thread was enough to get me gagging.

Toby Young.......What a cnut!

Post edited at 20:02
11
 mondite 08 Apr 2020
In reply to MG:

Clearly he is trying to help the NHS out. Now instead of having to buy a emetics they can just get that printed out and laminated to hand to anyone in need.

4
 Yanis Nayu 08 Apr 2020
In reply to MG:

He’s a tw*t. I’ve been surprised to see/hear so many people coming out the woodwork to say how fit Johnson is. Really!?

10
 pec 08 Apr 2020
In reply to MG:

> This is bat-shit crazy. 

Is it really and how do you know? Most people who've ever worked with Boris, including quite a few on the left have a similar tale to tell.

You don't have to agree with his politics to accept he's an extraordinary man.

34
 MonkeyPuzzle 08 Apr 2020
In reply to pec:

Oh, no one's arguing that he's ordinary.

1
 HansStuttgart 08 Apr 2020
In reply to MG:

This is amazing, thanks for sharing. I love a good parody.

Post edited at 20:43
6
OP MG 08 Apr 2020
In reply to pec:

> Is it really and how do you know? 

Yes it is. I know the depictions of Boris is bullshit because of the the myriad examples of Boris lying, being sacked for lying and arranging for journalists to be beaten up. Not the actions of someone motivated by public service.

More batshit than ridiculous claims about Johnson’s character though  is Young’s sycophantic hagiography.  Who is he trying to fool?

7
 krikoman 08 Apr 2020
In reply to pec:

> ... It he's an extraordinary man.

It's extraordinary he's got to be PM, and that anyone has any faith in the shite that comes out of his gob.

The British working-class are "useless.. drunk, criminal, aimless, feckless and hopeless"...with their "Ill-raised, ignorant, aggressive and illegitimate children."  Boris Johnson in The Spectator 1995.

11
 pec 08 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

> It's extraordinary he's got to be PM,

You know what's really extraordinary is the hysteria Boris generates in lefties and that the more hysterical they become the more popular he becomes.

The only reason he became PM in the first place was the hysteria over Brexit, if Labour had actually honoured their 2017 election manifesto pledge and voted for May's deal instead of voting against it, which in law was a vote for no deal but which they intended to be some 'cunning plan' to stop Brexit altogether, they'd have ended up with a much softer Brexit than we've got and Theresa May would still be PM with no majority and a Tory party tearing itself apart over Europe.

Instead they created the perfect storm in which the inevitable result was Boris becoming PM. And instead of realising what they were doing they continued the hysteria through the autumn and every time they tied his hands behind his back with some parliamentary chicanery and crowed about their 'victories' over him they just drove more and more voters into his arms with the inevitable result they were slaughtered in the December election which need never have happened in the first place!

It was like one giant slow motion car crash unfolding and they just couldn't see it coming. That they still can't see any of this is f*cking hilarious!

38
 wbo2 08 Apr 2020
In reply to pec: how we all laugh at his plucky spirit and sense of timing

Bulldog spirit chaps!  Don't forget Dunkirk !

1
Removed User 08 Apr 2020
In reply to MG:

What a prick.

5
 Jon Stewart 08 Apr 2020
In reply to pec:

More exists in the world than the things you want to see.

4
Pan Ron 09 Apr 2020
In reply to pec:

> You know what's really extraordinary is the hysteria Boris generates in lefties and that the more hysterical they become the more popular he becomes.

Agreed.  Not just that, but the hysteria that Toby Young elicits as well.

Their collective opponents have become unhinged and, judging by the language that gets hurled at them, you'd presume Toby/Boris were murderers or similar.  Frothing at the mouth stuff.

31
 Timmd 09 Apr 2020
In reply to MG:

 'People who don’t know him, and even some who do, talk disapprovingly of his arrogance and vaulting ambition...  '

I can't help thinking this is why he kept shaking hands and similar after everybody was told not to, in thinking that he'd be alright because he's Boris Johnson. While wanting him to bounce back for his family and for the country, I hope he has some more humility following.

Post edited at 00:44
2
 Jon Stewart 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Pan Ron:

Just wondering if you recall any of the language that was used about Jeremy corbyn? Stuff like "hates Britain", "danger to national security" etc.

Was that calm and reasonable? 

Or is your belief, that you cling to like a religious dogma, that the left are hysterical and unreasonable while the right are calm and rational, complete and utter bullshit? 

3
 Timmd 09 Apr 2020
In reply to pec:

> It was like one giant slow motion car crash unfolding and they just couldn't see it coming. That they still can't see any of this is f*cking hilarious!

https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-record-sexist-homophobic-and-...

[ In his 2001 book "Friends, Voters, Countrymen," Johnson compared gay marriage to bestiality, writing that "If gay marriage was OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men, or indeed three men and a dog." ]

Boris Johnson's rise is hilarious, that such a person could be our PM, ha, what an occasion of mirth. :-|

To paraphrase, do you know what he wrote about 'black men greeting the great white man with watermelon smiles as he comes down in the big bird (aeroplane) from the sky'? 

This the quality of human being we currently have as our PM. 

Post edited at 01:06
3
 Wiley Coyote2 09 Apr 2020
In reply to MG:

Johnson is an extraordinarily good cheer leader, the perfect warm-up man  to whip up the faithful for the main attraction at a party conference.

He is, however, a dangerously incompetent PM,  temperamentally and morally unsuited to a time of crisis despite his bizarre, deluded belief he is a second Churchill.

I'd not go so far as to wish him ill but frankly the longer he stays out of action the safer I'll feel, despite the terrifying lack of talent in his cabinet. But if ministers keep falling like dominoes, how chilling are the words 'Acting Prime Minister, Priti Patel....'?

2
 Greenbanks 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

The same Priti Patel who has repeatedly refused to attend Select Committee hearings on the Coronavirus? 
Clearly been put in a box by Cummings

 summo 09 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

> The British working-class are "useless.. drunk, criminal, aimless, feckless and hopeless"...with their "Ill-raised, ignorant, aggressive and illegitimate children."  Boris Johnson in The Spectator 1995.

There was me thinking he was a hard core southerner, turns out he has visited many of the towns in the area I grew up! 

Post edited at 06:24
3
 summo 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

Everyone knows Boris is long way from the best pm, but because he was the only sane option at the last GE he won. As of last week that changed and correspondingly the Tories will need to up their game by the next GE to stay in office. 

1
 steve taylor 09 Apr 2020
In reply to summo:

> Everyone knows Boris is long way from the best pm, but because he was the only sane option at the last GE he won. As of last week that changed and correspondingly the Tories will need to up their game by the next GE to stay in office. 

I have to pull you up on this comment!

There were no sane options, only the least worst (which Johnson wasn't).

2
 summo 09 Apr 2020
In reply to steve taylor:

Ok fair point. 

Pan Ron 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Just wondering if you recall any of the language that was used about Jeremy corbyn? Stuff like "hates Britain", "danger to national security" etc.

I recall it well.  Aimed at him based on similar kinds of quotes (eg. the death of Bin Laden being a "tragedy" and an apparent hated of imperialism so profound that the old masters getting a kicking was difficult to criticise).

Well done.  The people who despise Boris appear no different from those who went bonkers over Corbyn.  You're no better than the Daily Mail gammons and seemingly just as prone to hatred.

The difference is, the Left's USP is that it doesn't spew the hatred the Right is prone to.  It is the wing that cares.  Unfortunately it has gone off the deep end and if anything smacks of religious dogma this is it; your God is better than their God, their God is uniquely bad, and anything is justified in damning it.

11
 Rob Exile Ward 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Pan Ron:

Bit early to be drinking, isn't it?

5
 Lemony 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Pan Ron:

>  the Left's USP is that it doesn't spew the hatred the Right is prone to

Here's me thinking it was about a redistributive approach to tackling inequality.

5
 wintertree 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Pan Ron:

> The people who despise Boris appear no different from those who went bonkers over Corbyn. 

I would say those who despise were prescient.  Both B & C show how totally bonkers our system of government has become.  I’m starting to have dreams of John Major coming back and being sensible about things.

2
OP MG 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Pan Ron:

The OP and article are nothing about politics, The Left or hatred. They are about the bizarre hero worship and comedy blindness towards the personality and motivations of Johnson. 

1
 Jon Stewart 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Pan Ron:

OK so we've established that left and right are equally rude, that's progress. 

Your point is merely that the left say they're not rude and so are hypocritical, whereas the right admit to being rude, and so their rudeness is permissible. 

I don't think you understand what left and right mean. The left don't claim not to be rude, the left claim that that they want a fairer distribution of resources so that the poor and vulnerable are better off, at the expense of the rich and powerful. That's perfectly compatible with being rude, although I quite agree it's nicer not to be rude. 

The rudeness isn't really a key issue, especially since it's present on all sides, in my opinion. 

Post edited at 09:23
1
 mondite 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

 

> The rudeness isn't really a key issue, especially since it's present on all sides, in my opinion. 

Its one of those common strawmen thrown around. Announce that the "left" (always a sign in itself that its a monolithic left) believes x but doesnt do it therefore the "left" are hypocrites etc etc.

Getting back to Toby Young possibly the best thing about him was his dad coining the term meritocracy as part of a satirical book and then going on to prove it by phoning up a mate when Toby was rejected from Oxford to get him in.

 Coel Hellier 09 Apr 2020
In reply to krikoman:

> The British working-class are "useless.. drunk, criminal, aimless, feckless and hopeless"...with their "Ill-raised, ignorant, aggressive and illegitimate children."  Boris Johnson in The Spectator 1995.

I'm always suspicious when people give quotes that are not full sentences, so I looked it up.  

First, it wasn't "working-class" it was "blue collar", but more importantly he is deploring "the modern British male" in general (which would include himself), saying that they are "useless".  And after the remarks about the "blue collar" workers he says: "If he is white collar, he is likely to be little better".    You also missed out a "likely to be", which is different from "... are ...". 

Given that the attack is on "the modern British male" in general, this is typical Boris hyperbole and colourful writing.

Fuller quote:

"And that brings me to the last and greatest group of male culprits. Most of these single mothers have had the common sense to detect that the modern British male is useless. If he is blue collar, he is likely to be drunk, criminal, aimless, feckless and hopeless, and perhaps claiming to suffer from low self-esteem brought on by unemployment. If he is white collar, he is likely to be little better.”

https://fullfact.org/online/Boris-Johnson-working-men/

2
 dread-i 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

It's nice to see he speaks so highly of 40 odd percent of his constituents. And he knows a thing or two about single mothers.

I think he's a very British version of Trump. And like that great man, has a number of fawning sycophants, as well as detractors. It's clear, so far, he's not a reincarnation of Churchill. It will be interesting to measure his actions in support of the NHS after his stay. 

2
In reply to dread-i:

> It will be interesting to measure his actions in support of the NHS after his stay. 

I'm going for: he'll survive, claim the NHS is fine and take credit for it being in safe hands for the last 10 years. 

1
In reply to MG:

Toby Young's article about none of his mates turning up to his stag do is worth a read - https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/call-yourself-a-friend-

Pan Ron 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> I don't think you understand what left and right mean. The left don't claim not to be rude, the left claim that that they want a fairer distribution of resources so that the poor and vulnerable are better off, at the expense of the rich and powerful.

Your "fairer distribution of resources" has unfortunately come to include the idea that corrective over-reach is morally virtuous, and that "resources" includes "language"; who can say what to whom. 

Its the Left who police speech these days, who seem to connect words with "violence", who champion concepts such as hate speech and see toxicity in the use of language.

So its ironic when that all goes out the window when its one's political opponents who are being discussed.

None of it is a surprise.  The Left has a long history of "do as I say, not as I do".  What gets me is that people on the Left appear so oblivious when they do so, appearing to claim a moral high ground while breaking it.  Of course its justified, because Boris, or Toby, are bad people who say bad things.

12
Pan Ron 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Indeed.  The irony is that this kind of criticism, with few alterations, of the modern British male would be celebrated if coming from Laurie Penny and appearing in the Guardian's Comment Is Free.

8
Pan Ron 09 Apr 2020
In reply to dread-i:

Ok, so far in this relatively short thread, we've established that between Boris and Toby, they are/embody:

"bat-shit crazy", "Nauseatingly sycophantic", "total fantasy", "eugenicists", "bullshit", "twats", "a prick", "incompetent, "temperamentally and morally unsuited to a time of crisis", "deluded", "dangerous", and Boris arranges the beatings of journalists.

Yet, those of us saying "steady-on" appear to be the ones with the problem?

9
 Ridge 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

So Boris “f*ck business” Johnson despises the plebs who work for a living, be they blue collar or white collar, so that's all right then?

1
 Jon Stewart 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Your "fairer distribution of resources" has unfortunately come to include the idea that corrective over-reach is morally virtuous, and that "resources" includes "language"; who can say what to whom. 

So you say. I say you're talking complete bollocks.

3
 summo 09 Apr 2020
In reply to MG:

I don't think it matters, there are governments with leaders around the world ranging from borderline Nazis to far left socialists, no approach has shown to solve the problems that covid19 is presenting  better than others and no doubt in the next few decades no one solution will solve the economic fall out. 

The only failing, which has impacted nearly every country to some level is a lack of action and slow decision making. The virus doesn't respect denial mode, even if you want your churches open for Easter. 

1
 Jon Stewart 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> Fuller quote:

> "And that brings me to...

Still absolute bollocks though, isn't it?

4
 Timmd 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Ok, so far in this relatively short thread, we've established that between Boris and Toby, they are/embody:

> "bat-shit crazy", "Nauseatingly sycophantic", "total fantasy", "eugenicists", "bullshit", "twats", "a prick", "incompetent, "temperamentally and morally unsuited to a time of crisis", "deluded", "dangerous", and Boris arranges the beatings of journalists.

> Yet, those of us saying "steady-on" appear to be the ones with the problem?

Just out of interest, I'm interested in your thoughts on what Boris wrote and published, would 'steady-on' also apply?  [ In his 2001 book "Friends, Voters, Countrymen," Johnson compared gay marriage to bestiality, writing that "If gay marriage was OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men, or indeed three men and a dog." ]

1
 mondite 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Pan Ron:

> "bat-shit crazy", "Nauseatingly sycophantic", "total fantasy", "eugenicists", "bullshit", "twats", "a prick", "incompetent, "temperamentally and morally unsuited to a time of crisis", "deluded", "dangerous", and Boris arranges the beatings of journalists.

Admittedly the arranging of beating of journalists is incorrect. Johnson was willing to provide address details but wasnt directly arranging them. As for the rest.

There are then statements of fact (Young has repeatedly made pro eugenics comments).

Others are opinion and I wasnt aware that was banned?

The reference to bullshit is a misattribution by you.

> Yet, those of us saying "steady-on" appear to be the ones with the problem?

I guess if we were you we would be announcing the Right as opposed to individuals. So yeah I would say you do have a distinct problem.

I do like the claim to moral superiority there. It is you after all who have the moral rectitude to think things through and say steady on to try and project a calming influence.

2
 wintertree 09 Apr 2020
In reply to wintertree:

> I would say those who despise were prescient

Missed out a key word there 

I would say those who despise both were prescient

 Coel Hellier 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Ridge:

> So Boris “f*ck business” Johnson despises the plebs who work for a living, be they blue collar or white collar, so that's all right then?

You are presuming that he excludes himself from the "modern British male" category.   The hyperbolic, jokey style that he uses as a journalist (along with others, such as Giles Coren) can be self-deprecating as much as anything.  

3
OP MG 09 Apr 2020
In reply to summo:

Eh!? This isn’t really  to do with approaches Covid, or even Boris Johnson. It’s Young’s creepily bizarre article.

 Rob Exile Ward 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

And your point is?

1
Pan Ron 09 Apr 2020
In reply to mondite:

> There are then statements of fact (Young has repeatedly made pro eugenics comments).

You need to put some meat on the bones of that statement.  I've followed Toby Young for a while, interested because I blindly swallowed the hatred that was thrown at him at my previous institution and assumed where there was smoke there was fire.  It has turned out he is quite different from the way he has been presented.

6
 dread-i 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Pan Ron:

>Yet, those of us saying "steady-on" appear to be the ones with the problem?

I hope you're not accusing me of saying 'steady on'!

I could add to the list you mention, but I haven't. I think we need to judge him by his actions. If the negatives outweigh the positives, not just during his stint as PM, then that's all we have to work with.

If he wants to be a latter day Churchill, this is his moment.

I would say that its nice that many of the tory faithful have embraced the somewhat left leaning redistribution of wealth that has taken place. No mention of the austerity measures and giving 80% of wages to those in furlough must have taken some shift in mindset.

 Coel Hellier 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Pan Ron:

> You need to put some meat on the bones of that statement. 

You have to realise that "eugenics" is another of those words, along with "harm", "violence", "racist", "misogyny", etc, that have undergone rapid "concept creep" in the mouths of the activists.   

These days, any denial of the blank-slate utopian ideology that all babies are born with identical aptitudes and potential can be described as "eugenics".

6
Pan Ron 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Timmd:

> Just out of interest, I'm interested in your thoughts on what Boris wrote and published, would 'steady-on' also apply?  [ In his 2001 book "Friends, Voters, Countrymen," Johnson compared gay marriage to bestiality, writing that "If gay marriage was OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men, or indeed three men and a dog." ]

I don't see much to be gained from trawling through what people said almost 20 years ago.  And I'm hardly aghast by his point.  We seem to forget (possibly because the Left likes to tell us we live in uniquely awful times) just how much most people have moved on in the last few decades, where even Obama was opposed to gay marriage in the 90s.

I'm strongly in favour of drug decriminalization and view the prohibition of drugs as as much a crime against humanity as slavery and bans on homosexuality.  I am horrified by the wars that prohibition has caused, the millions who have been imprisoned, executed or had their lives destroyed by its ridiculousness. 

But if someone says "If you legalise drugs you might as well legalise everything" they actually have a fair point, one that needs to be debated.  They aren't scum.  Plenty of politicians and plenty of ordinary people have held very similar opinions, some as recent as 2001 or later, and who now are 100% in support of decriminalisation.

The point is, I'm interested in what Boris (or Corbyn) would do now, and not in the muck-raking and selective quoting that the media, and social media, worlds seem to love.  

4
 Timmd 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Pan Ron:

> I don't see much to be gained from trawling through what people said almost 20 years ago.  And I'm hardly aghast by his point.  We seem to forget (possibly because the Left likes to tell us we live in uniquely awful times) just how much most people have moved on in the last few decades, where even Obama was opposed to gay marriage in the 90s.

> I'm strongly in favour of drug decriminalization and view the prohibition of drugs as as much a crime against humanity as slavery and bans on homosexuality.  I am horrified by the wars that prohibition has caused, the millions who have been imprisoned, executed or had their lives destroyed by its ridiculousness. 

> But if someone says "If you legalise drugs you might as well legalise everything" they actually have a fair point, one that needs to be debated.  They aren't scum.  Plenty of politicians and plenty of ordinary people have held very similar opinions, some as recent as 2001 or later, and who now are 100% in support of decriminalisation.

Likening gay marriage to marrying animals (and by implication gay relations to bestiality), isn't even nearly quite the same as asking for analysis of what drugs should be legalised, or how, to be honest. Oh well. 

Post edited at 12:59
1
Pan Ron 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Timmd:

I think his point is clear.  Marriage has historically been between a man and a woman.  If someone wants to make the claim that opening up that definition means it is no longer marriage, at least in their understanding of what it was, and therefore why not allow you to marry your dog, then so be it. 

I don't agree, and don't think I ever agreed, but so what?  That's my point about drug decriminalization - people have differing viewpoints, that's not the end of the world, and they have to be allowed to evolve over time.  I really struggle to judge people today, whoever they might be, on pretty innocuous acts from decades back. 

It is the left after all who pride themselves on policies such as prisoner reform.  So it would be odd that while a convicted murderer can be reintegrated and granted forgiveness, someone who said the wrong thing in an editorial 20 years ago, who was at Gay Pride in 2008, and now presides over the "gayest parliament in history" must be judged on their words from two decades ago rather than today. 

Isn't a more important question, what does Boris think about gay marriage now?  We know what he thought in 2001.   Why not judge him (and therefore others) on what he thought in 1990? 1980? 

7
 Offwidth 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Pan Ron:

Are you seriously conflating what Boris says with what he thinks and believes?

For the second time in a day we need the Max Hastings thread, with his opinion on the man from being his boss at the Telegraph.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/24/boris-johnson-prime-m...

 Andy Hardy 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Pan Ron:

One of the problems with Johnson is that it appears he says (or writes) that which will get him the most approval at the time. We have literally no idea if he thought gay marriage was bad then, but no doubt he judged that his target audience felt it was. 

edit:spelling

Post edited at 13:31
 Jon Stewart 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> These days, any denial of the blank-slate utopian ideology that all babies are born with identical aptitudes and potential can be described as "eugenics".

Bollocks alert!

3
 TobyA 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Pan Ron:

You agree with him then?

 TobyA 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Do you really think he was including himself in that description? That's a very charitable interpretation. The way he has treated women through his life seems to suggest he doesn't feel he needs to follow any norms he is suggesting other are failing to follow, so perhaps, but there is of course another very obvious interpretation for why he has chosen to live as he has.

 Coel Hellier 09 Apr 2020
In reply to the thread:

Just out of interest, has anyone got a link to the surrounding paragraphs of the "three men and a dog" quote?    Surrounding context usually matters.   (It certainly does, for example, in the "letterbox" article.)

 Coel Hellier 09 Apr 2020
In reply to TobyA:

> The way he has treated women through his life seems to suggest he doesn't feel he needs to follow any norms he is suggesting other are failing to follow, ...

And perhaps he recognises his own faults, and is indeed criticising men in general, including himself, in that article?  There's a strong streak of that in his writing over the years.   This is partly why wider context matters in such quotes.

2
 Timmd 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Pan Ron: He's likening it to bestiality, that you don't acknowledge that as beyond the pale, suggests to me that you'll gloss over such things if somebody shares your politics. Unless you recognise that as unacceptable, there's nothing else to conclude. I'm done.

Post edited at 13:51
1
 Pete Pozman 09 Apr 2020
In reply to pec:

> You know what's really extraordinary is the hysteria Boris generates in lefties and that the more hysterical they become the more popular he becomes.

> The only reason he became PM in the first place was the hysteria over Brexit, if Labour had actually honoured their 2017 election manifesto pledge and voted for May's deal instead of voting against it, which in law was a vote for no deal but which they intended to be some 'cunning plan' to stop Brexit altogether, they'd have ended up with a much softer Brexit than we've got and Theresa May would still be PM with no majority and a Tory party tearing itself apart over Europe.

> Instead they created the perfect storm in which the inevitable result was Boris becoming PM. And instead of realising what they were doing they continued the hysteria through the autumn and every time they tied his hands behind his back with some parliamentary chicanery and crowed about their 'victories' over him they just drove more and more voters into his arms with the inevitable result they were slaughtered in the December election which need never have happened in the first place!

> It was like one giant slow motion car crash unfolding and they just couldn't see it coming. That they still can't see any of this is f*cking hilarious!

You know what, there may be some truth in all that. Apart from it being hilarious of course. The laughter stopped on 23rd June 2016. It's felt pretty bleak ever since and it's getting worse. 

1
 mondite 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> These days, any denial of the blank-slate utopian ideology that all babies are born with identical aptitudes and potential can be described as "eugenics".

That prenatal selection is a form of eugenics isnt exactly controversial. You can argue that it is a form which is more acceptable than other forms but it certainly ticks the definition as provided by Galton.

 Pete Pozman 09 Apr 2020
In reply to MG:

> This is bat-shit crazy. 

I'd suggest that it's his big fat head that landed him in THE ICU. Toby Young is clearly preparing the ground for his return to public life when all this is over. 

 Robert Durran 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Timmd:

> He's likening it to bestiality, that you don't acknowledge that as beyond the pale.

I'm really just thinking aloud and fully expect to get about a million dislikes, but what is actually so awful about bestiality? It certainly doesn't seem nearly as bad as loads of other things that are done to animals. Need it necessarily do any harm? Rational rather than knee jerk reactions preferred.

 Jon Stewart 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I'm really just thinking aloud and fully expect to get about a million dislikes, but what is actually so awful about bestiality? It certainly doesn't seem nearly as bad as loads of other things that are done to animals. Need it necessarily do any harm? Rational rather than knee jerk reactions preferred.

Brilliant!

The reason bestiality "is" or at least seems awful is that it triggers our disgust response pretty reliably. Jonathan Haidt did some great work on "moral dumbfounding" where he came up with circumstances which seemed wrong to those who considered them, but they couldn't actually come up with rational arguments to justify their feelings. One such example was secret, consensual incest using protection...

If you ask me, we have evolved moral instincts, and we have the ability to reason. The two don't necessarily always coincide.

 Coel Hellier 09 Apr 2020
In reply to mondite:

> That prenatal selection is a form of eugenics isnt exactly controversial. You can argue that it is a form which is more acceptable than other forms but it certainly ticks the definition as provided by Galton.

The thing is, Toby Young is not even advocating pre-natal selection or any form of eugenics in that article.  He is, instead, worrying about the consequences of it. 

The whole article that causes the uproar is actually sensible and reasoned.  If you simply read it with an open mind, without fainting in horror that it mentions IQ, and that it states the -- entirely correct -- point that IQ is strongly heritable, then there is nothing objectionable about it.  It's the sort of thing that society needs to discuss.

Above all, the main thrust of the article is worrying about the effect on less-advantaged people and wanting to ensure that policies do not disadvantage them further.  

E.g.: "I want the clever, hard-working children of those in the bottom half of income distribution to move up, and the less able children of those in the top half to move down."

And:

"If anything, the claim that there’s now a strong link between IQ and status in the advanced societies of the West, seen against the background of behavioural genetics, is an argument for more redistributive taxation, not less."

And, on the issue of technology being developed to allow people to screen embryos for desired traits, he worries that -- since the technology would be most readily accessed by the rich -- that the less-advantaged could end up further dis-advantaged. That's why he proposes that, if society does develop and allow such technology, then it should be made available free of charge to the less-advantaged.

The reason people freak out about such an article is not that there's any attitudes in it that are actually objectionable, but because it rejects one of the central ideologies of the "social justice left", that people are blank slates.

Here it is: https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2015/09/fall-meritocracy/

2
 Robert Durran 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> Brilliant!

> The reason bestiality "is" or at least seems awful is that it triggers our disgust response pretty reliably. 

Ok, but the thought of gay sex triggers a disgust response in me, yet I'm quite happy to rationalise that it is absolutely fine if others want to indulge in it.

Pan Ron 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Timmd:

I didn't vote for him so I'm not sure I share his politics.  But, as always, if not agreeing with the Left means one is on the Right, so be it.  Given how much distance I feel between myself and the permanently outraged and hysterical the Left, perhaps voting Tory is a worthwhile option.  

But to the quote...  

"If gay marriage was OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men, or indeed three men and a dog. "

You can read from that Boris saying "gays are animal-fvckers" if you really want.

But surely you can see you are being far from charitable, and assuming the very worst, in doing so?

Wouldn't it be more logical to take the statement on its merits?  Someone saying they aren't directly opposed to gay marriage, but that opening up marriage beyond just a man and a woman also opens up the question of whether marriage should even be between two people, or even between various living creatures?  It's an intriguing question isn't it?  If you are going to question the paradigm, why stop at just the sex of the people engaging in it?  Much of conservative opposition to gay marriage, despite the Left's proclamations to the contrary, was simply that they don't want change rather than a hatred of gay people.  You can have your gay marriage but you can't call it "marriage" (just like gay sex can't be called procreation...though I suspect that is in doubt these days) because that specifically means a thing as they and the church had defined it.  And they had, at least by the 1990s, little opposition to civil partnerships and generally equal rights.

I think the Left would be doing their own mental health a benefit if they took anything said by someone like Boris on its individual merits, rather than coming from a starting point that he is the Devil and that any comment he makes must be contextualised with him having some dastardly plot.  

4
Pan Ron 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Proof!  Proof that Toby Young is a monster!

 john arran 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

> Ok, but the thought of gay sex triggers a disgust response in me, yet I'm quite happy to rationalise that it is absolutely fine if others want to indulge in it.

Nail on head. How can we determine whether animals want to indulge in bestiality? We can't, therefore we shouldn't impose it on them.

 mondite 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> The whole article that causes the uproar is actually sensible and reasoned.  If you simply read it with an open mind, without fainting in horror that it mentions IQ

A nice display of the moral superiority complex than some on the right show here (note Pan Ron the use of some rather than just declaring the Right (make sure to capitalise it)).

Contrary to your tedious projections and declaration of victory (incidently pretty rich since you are busy declaring we must take the most liberal view of Johnsons words and here you are busily deciding what I am thinking) I have read it and the thrust of his arguments (leaving aside the validity of his positions since you can just read my mind for them) ends up that he wants to use prenatal eugenics as a form of selection

 

> The reason people freak out about such an article is not that there's any attitudes in it that are actually objectionable, but because it rejects one of the central ideologies of the "social justice left", that people are blank slates.

sigh. Stop thinking you are morally superior and actually bother understanding peoples objections rather than projecting your simplistic worldview onto others. It would be far more productive.

2
 Robert Durran 09 Apr 2020
In reply to john arran:

> Nail on head. How can we determine whether animals want to indulge in bestiality? We can't, therefore we shouldn't impose it on them.

Fair enough, but I was really just making the point that just because we have a disgust response to something, it might not mean we should outlaw it. Anyway, how can we determine whether animals want to contribute to the human diet? All I'm saying is that bestiality seems no worse to me than other stuff we do with animals. It would certainly seem hypocritical to condemn  bestiality outright unless you are a vegan.

 Dr.S at work 09 Apr 2020
In reply to john arran:

John, when the Bull mounts you - then you know.

 Rob Exile Ward 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

'it rejects one of the central ideologies of the "social justice left", that people are blank slates.'

I'm not sure how many people believe that. I think it's more likely that it seems fairer to assume they are, with pretty much the same potential.

I can see his idea of selecting embryos on the basis of intelligence will really work well, just a case of sorting out the detail and technology with a bit of testing then whoopee! After all, children with the highest IQ are always the happiest, most well balanced aren't they, and what else would we want for our children?

Post edited at 15:08
 Robert Durran 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> John, when the Bull mounts you - then you know.

What about the dog sniffing your bollocks. Does that mean it's up for it?

 jkarran 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Its the Left who police speech these days, who seem to connect words with "violence", who champion concepts such as hate speech and see toxicity in the use of language. So its ironic when that all goes out the window when its one's political opponents who are being discussed.

Would you care list and credit some examples of 'hate speech' or incitement from this thread?

jk

1
 TobyA 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

> And perhaps he recognises his own faults, and is indeed criticising men in general, including himself, in that article? 

Oh yes, huge amounts of evidence of that.

Look, if you're a fan of his writing nothing wrong with that although with your normal claim to everything you believe being based on your Vulcan-like empirical accuracy and logical consistency, I'm surprised you're impressed by someone who has been shown time and time again to just make shit up. 

1
 jkarran 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Pan Ron:

> It is the left after all who pride themselves on policies such as prisoner reform.  So it would be odd that while a convicted murderer can be reintegrated and granted forgiveness, someone who said the wrong thing in an editorial 20 years ago, who was at Gay Pride in 2008, and now presides over the "gayest parliament in history" must be judged on their words from two decades ago rather than today.  Isn't a more important question, what does Boris think about gay marriage now?  We know what he thought in 2001.   Why not judge him (and therefore others) on what he thought in 1990? 1980? 

Johnson's words from 20 years ago speak to his character, not as a leader inspired to tackle the burning injustices in this world but as an opportunist rabble rouser perfectly willing to stoke prejudice and inflame tension to raise his profile. What he does and says now is the much the same as it ever was, inflammatory, self interested, often dangerous. Take for example his two articles on brexit, chosen not in the national interest or on ideological grounds but once the direction the wind was blowing had been seen (and as it transpires, misjudged!) choosing the one he thought would best serve his ambition, the rest of us be damned.

Personally I don't much care what Johnson thinks about gay marriage now, I'd rather credit those who stirred the winds than those who bend to them when they have few options left.

jk

1
 climbercool 09 Apr 2020
In reply to john arran:

Ive met dogs that definitely wanted to fu?k my leg!

 climbercool 09 Apr 2020
In reply to MG:

If you dislike Toby Young this won't be good enough to change your mind, but not a bad effort at stand up in my opinion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioUAJUbhd4c&t=304s

Toby young defo not the best, but Comedy Uncensored does have some right of center comics who are well worth watching.

OP MG 09 Apr 2020
In reply to climbercool:

Indeed not a bad effort for a non professional comedian 

Post edited at 16:36
 Coel Hellier 09 Apr 2020
In reply to mondite:

> Contrary to your tedious projections and declaration of victory (incidently pretty rich since you are busy declaring we must take the most liberal view of Johnsons words and here you are busily deciding what I am thinking) ...

I was more commenting on the reactions of "people in general" to that article, than of you or anyone in particular.

 Coel Hellier 09 Apr 2020
In reply to john arran:

> Nail on head. How can we determine whether animals want to indulge in bestiality? We can't, therefore we shouldn't impose it on them.

A good argument ... though it would also seem to apply to keeping animals as pets, or farming them, or riding them, or milking them, or lots of other things currently considered acceptable.

 Coel Hellier 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> I'm not sure how many people believe that. I think it's more likely that it seems fairer to assume they are, with pretty much the same potential.

Assuming things that are contrary to the facts is usually not a good idea.

 Coel Hellier 09 Apr 2020
In reply to TobyA:

> Look, if you're a fan of his writing nothing wrong with that although with your normal claim to everything you believe being based on your Vulcan-like empirical accuracy and logical consistency, I'm surprised you're impressed by someone who has been shown time and time again to just make shit up. 

I just dislike the practice prevalent today of quote mining writings, snipping quotes out of context, and then freaking out about them. 

I'm fine with criticising other people's writings, but I think one should always be fair to someone, and that means not trying to distort what they've said to make it worse than it was. 

This is especially true if the intention is to get someone sacked or banned from social media or ostracised or whatever. (Obviously this comment doesn't apply to Boris.)

OP MG 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Coel Hellier:

Fine. But its hardly needed with Johnson. Being sacked for lying and facilitating doing someone over are matters of record, among many other instances. Arguing he has any interest in public service, beyond his own benefit, is laughable. 

Post edited at 18:04
4
 pec 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> You know what, there may be some truth in all that. Apart from it being hilarious of course.

I assure you it's both true and hilarious

> The laughter stopped on 23rd June 2016.

It did for those who'd spent the last few months crowing over their parliamentary 'victories' apparently oblivious to the inevitable retribution that would be wrought upon them by the electorate when they got their chance, which if they'd thought about a bit harder was clearly what Johnson was preparing for from before he even became PM.

> It's felt pretty bleak ever since and it's getting worse. 

It's felt like a breath of fresh air, a parliament that actually functions and the threat of Corbyn and the incalculable damage his insane agenda would have caused now fading into history.

My point really is this, the hysteria which Boris induces in a particular type of leftist serves only to make them look ridiculous to the electorate and drive voters away and into the arms of Boris.

Yes, he's been careless with his language at times and he made a pretty poor foreign secretary (what on earth was Theresa May thinking of, a more unsuitable role for Boris it's hard to imagine) but it's not like he invited convicted terrorists to parliament 2 weeks after they'd just tried to assassinate the government. Apparently in the eyes of the Boris haters that can be forgiven, but not joking about the burka looking like a letter box whilst arguing for the right of people to wear it.

And then you wonder why people think the left are hypocrites.

Post edited at 18:50
3
OP MG 09 Apr 2020
In reply to pec:

Has it ever occurred to you there are people who regard both Johnson and Corbyn as dangerous incompetents?

Post edited at 19:17
2
 mondite 09 Apr 2020
In reply to pec:

> I assure you it's both true and hilarious

> It did for those who'd spent the last few months crowing over their parliamentary 'victories' apparently oblivious to the inevitable retribution that would be wrought upon them by the electorate when they got their chance

Eh the ERG and Johnson who crowed about their victories got rewarded. Or are you one of those people who prefer to skip over the fact the brexiteer elite deliberately blocked May?

 

> Yes, he's been careless with his language at times and he made a pretty poor foreign secretary (what on earth was Theresa May thinking of, a more unsuitable role for Boris it's hard to imagine)

So Foreign Secretary bad but PM good? I am sure there is some logic in there somewhere but god knows where.

> Apparently in the eyes of the Boris haters that can be forgiven

I wasnt aware that a prerequisite for disagreeing with that action was to have to support Johnsons bigotry? I was under the impression I could disapprove of both although I would have to say, unsurprisingly, you have extremely oversimplified things.

> And then you wonder why people think the left are hypocrites.

Just to check though. Kissing the Saudis regimes arse whilst they support the spread of an extremist ideology which has resulted in widespread terrorism is still good right? I dont want to get confused about what is hypocritical and what isnt.

1
 Coel Hellier 09 Apr 2020
In reply to mondite:

> So Foreign Secretary bad but PM good? I am sure there is some logic in there somewhere but god knows where.

Being Foreign Secretary requires more tact than being PM

 TobyA 09 Apr 2020
In reply to pec:

> It's felt like a breath of fresh air, a parliament that actually functions and the threat of Corbyn and the incalculable damage his insane agenda would have caused now fading into history.

Yes - all those ideas about the government taking a much bigger role in the economy, Keynesian economics: nationalising industries by taking controlling interests in them, guaranteeing incomes for the poorer people, strong support to public services and so on. Completely faded into history. Lolz.

4
 pec 09 Apr 2020
In reply to MG:

> Has it ever occurred to you there are people who regard both Johnson and Corbyn as dangerous incompetents?


Of course, just as I regarded Corbyn there will be others who felt the same as about Johnson.

In the run up to the election I drew a 'charge sheet' of reasons why I felt Corbyn was unfit for office. It was a list of the things he's said and done which I believe supported my case but there were no personalised insults and abuse. Whenever Corbyn came up in these forums I never leapt in with the sort abuse that routinely crops up whenever a Tory is being discussed like "bat-shit crazy", "twats", "a prick", which have all appeared on this thread for example.

If people simply said they disagreed with them and argued reasonably as to why even in strong, unequivical terms, then that's fine. It's the hysterical levels of bile and vitriol thrown at them that is the problem. The great irony of course is it that it is precisely those kind of attacks which turn people away from the left and make them vote Tory!

3
 pec 09 Apr 2020
In reply to mondite:

> Eh the ERG and Johnson who crowed about their victories got rewarded. Or are you one of those people who prefer to skip over the fact the brexiteer elite deliberately blocked May?

What victories did the ERG have to crow about? They naturally feel vindicated by the election result but I didn't see them crowing after it and certainly not before.

> So Foreign Secretary bad but PM good? I am sure there is some logic in there somewhere but god knows where.

It's really not hard, just as some great footballers have been pretty poor managers and vice versa. Foreign Secretary and PM require different skill sets, one of which Boris has and the other he doesn't.

> I wasnt aware that a prerequisite for disagreeing with that action was to have to support Johnsons bigotry? I was under the impression I could disapprove of both although I would have to say, unsurprisingly, you have extremely oversimplified things.

You can of course disagree with Corbyn's behaviour and not support Johnson's. My point was that Corbyn's invitation of convicted terrorists to parliament only two weeks after their organisation had tried to assassinate the government was so far off the scale of acceptability that it's scarcely credible that anyone would ever vote for him again and yet many on here were willing to see him in charge of the country. Nothing Johnson has ever said or done can even remotely compare with that.

> Just to check though. Kissing the Saudis regimes arse whilst they support the spread of an extremist ideology which has resulted in widespread terrorism is still good right? I dont want to get confused about what is hypocritical and what isnt.

WTF?

OP MG 09 Apr 2020
In reply to pec:

> Of course, just as I regarded Corbyn there will be others who felt the same as about Johnson.

You still seem to be viewing it as either or. It’s possible to regard both as incompetent and also not to see it not about politics but about their personalities. Objecting to personalised attacks is just a form of trying to silence criticism when it is the personality that is the problem.

> Whenever Corbyn came up in these forums I never leapt in with the sort abuse that routinely crops up whenever a Tory is being discussed like "bat-shit crazy", "twats", "a prick", which have all appeared on this thread for example.

You are simply wrong there. There are plenty of Tories who don’t generally get referred to in such terms (and there are plenty of politicians from other parties who do). If someone is a liar, for example, it is right to say so and not abuse when it is done.

You might also note that I used the term bat shit crazy about an article, not a person, for reasons that I think are obvious and in any case explained above. It was also nothing to do with Young’s politics. I’d guess he votes Tory but  I don’t know that. So, overall, I’d suggest you stop assuming everyone is either left or right, and that personalities are above comment.

1
 Robert Durran 09 Apr 2020
In reply to pec:

> Of course, just as I regarded Corbyn there will be others who felt the same as about Johnson.

I think people are making a distinction between being honest but incompetent and being dishonest, incompetent and self-serving.

1
 pec 09 Apr 2020
In reply to TobyA:

> Yes - all those ideas about the government taking a much bigger role in the economy, Keynesian economics: nationalising industries by taking controlling interests in them, guaranteeing incomes for the poorer people, strong support to public services and so on. Completely faded into history. Lolz.


I think we all can see the difference between temporarily doing these things in response to an event without parallel in a human lifetime and deliberately setting out to do them out of choice.

When faced with a choice between two evils one tends to choose the lesser of them. Only a fool would choose that evil when you didn't have to.

Post edited at 21:08
4
Moley 09 Apr 2020
In reply to pec:

Our local lady Corbinista leftie  FB post yesterday said that deaths from the virus are"nothing more than state sponsored mass murder" - and a full on rant about how the Tories had caused it etc. etc. As they are the local Labour campaigners doing all the door to door and leaflets for the election it is hardly surprising that many of us shy away from putting an X in the box for Labour.

But they don't get it and never will, them and many others even had the gall to call the Tories "The nasty party".

2
 pec 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I think people are making a distinction between being honest but incompetent and being dishonest, incompetent and self-serving.


I think describing Corbyn as incompetent displays a level of generosity which is beyond naive. Given that Johnson has achieved everything he has thus far set out to do in the face of the most vociferous oppostion I think it's a little too early to question his competence.

Of course people are free to disapprove of all the things he's achieved but if they did so in a calm and measured manner instead of just hurling abuse they'd probably find a it more profitable exercise.

1
OP MG 09 Apr 2020
In reply to pec:

What has Johnson achieved in his career beyond his self advancement? (An, election win against Corbyn isn’t an achievement). Whatever it is needs to be weighed against being sacked for lying twice, being recorded helping arrange for someone to be beaten up, spending 10s of millions on a failed bridge project, exacerbating a British women’s position in jail in Iran while foreign secretary, referring to blacks a picaninnies and many other slurs, buying illegal waster canons etc.

Post edited at 21:23
4
 pec 09 Apr 2020
In reply to Moley:

> Our local lady Corbinista leftie  FB post yesterday said that deaths from the virus are"nothing more than state sponsored mass murder" - and a full on rant about how the Tories had caused it etc. etc. As they are the local Labour campaigners doing all the door to door and leaflets for the election it is hardly surprising that many of us shy away from putting an X in the box for Labour.

> But they don't get it and never will, them and many others even had the gall to call the Tories "The nasty party".


Yes. My local Labour party put up a post at the start of this outbreak with the advice "wash your hands like you just shook hands with a Tory".

Doubtless in Labour HQ they thought that was highly amusing but I'd be surprised if it won them any voters but will have repulsed quite a few.

The funny thing is, even if people tell them why that sort of thing puts them off voting Labour they don't seem to be able to help themselves. The decent folk on the left must be utterly exasperated.

1
 BnB 09 Apr 2020
In reply to MG:

> What has Johnson achieved in his career beyond his self advancement? 

 

Brexit (sorry - you did ask)

 Mr Lopez 09 Apr 2020
In reply to pec:

> Yes. My local Labour party put up a post at the start of this outbreak with the advice "wash your hands like you just shook hands with a Tory".

That's funny. You got a link to it?

 TobyA 10 Apr 2020
In reply to pec:

But kind of funny that it turns out there aren't any neoliberals in foxholes, isn't it? Although I guess we all knew that, post 2008, anyway. I'm wondering if McDonnell has secretly been giving Sunak some tips, or whether he's sitting at home fuming that Rishi nicked all his best ideas.

But I'm glad you now accept your original statement was quite spectacularly wrong.

1
 pec 10 Apr 2020
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> That's funny. You got a link to it?


I believe they took it down pretty sharp, presumably somebody pointed out the idiocy of posting something like that in the current circumstances.

Somebody managed to screenshot it first though and as it got circulated in the way these things do it appeared on my wife's social media (I don't do social media).

OP MG 10 Apr 2020
In reply to pec:

> I  (I don't do social media).

Err, you do... 

Also, not everything on social media is true. 

​​

1
 Mr Lopez 10 Apr 2020
In reply to pec:

> I believe they took it down pretty sharp, presumably somebody pointed out the idiocy of posting something like that in the current circumstances.

> Somebody managed to screenshot it first though and as it got circulated in the way these things do it appeared on my wife's social media (I don't do social media).


So what you saw is a doctored meme claiming to be a screenshot from the labour party which was being circulated withitn right wing circles then. Dissapointing, but not surprising

1
 pec 10 Apr 2020
In reply to Mr Lopez:

> So what you saw is a doctored meme claiming to be a screenshot from the labour party which was being circulated withitn right wing circles then. Dissapointing, but not surprising


No.

Actually, I just did some googling and found it:

https://twitter.com/rockapepolitics/status/1239682359689166849/photo/1

Post edited at 20:41
OP MG 10 Apr 2020
In reply to pec:

And why do you think that is real. It might be but most likely is fake. As above, being on Twitter doesn’t make something true.

Having now gone to that account, I get a warning about suspicious activity. I’d suggest you have been taken in.

Post edited at 20:47
 pec 10 Apr 2020
In reply to MG:

> And why do you think that is real. It might be but most likely is fake. As above, being on Twitter doesn’t make something true.

> Having now gone to that account, I get a warning about suspicious activity. I’d suggest you have been taken in.


Done a bit more googling for you, I like to go the extra mile to help

This is from Adam Wordsworth's Twitter on March 17th

He was the Conservative candidate in the last general election. And no, I don't 'follow' him, I don't use twitter.

https://twitter.com/stephane_ulrich/status/1239992239650230272

This is his feed, scroll down to find it.

https://twitter.com/AdamDWordsworth?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%...

 Mr Lopez 10 Apr 2020
In reply to pec:

Looks legit that. Definitely from a trustable source with no political bias.

Out of interest, what search terms did you use in google to find that?


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...