In the news

I feel a bit bad for calling him a prize twat now he's replied and agreed with me

This should diminish if schools are banned from joining in this indoctrination.
As Richard Dawkins says there is no such thing as a 'muslim child' or a 'christian child'. Just children with minds full of questions, and they don't believe in gods (or santa, or fairies at the bottom of the garden) until someone else puts those ideas into their heads.

If converting people to atheism is almost impossible, then preventing them from becoming believers in the first place is easier. Teaching that mere faith is insufficient might be a start.

Richard Dawkins. what a fucking melt tho.

Like Chuck Yeager, shame he's such a knob.

Totally, no one believes this shit until they are indoctrinated.

The issue is that 'converting' people to anything basically results in lots of shouting and no listening. We need a more gentle method, education is the key.

lots of shouting and no listening.

sounds like this place

Richard came to Belfast, and gave a very reasonable impression. I've read the god delusion, seem some of his documentaries and he's not a melt in them.

His twitter account on the other hand ... if praying helped to close it down I would O_o

BONG! Public servant earns wage!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/12/jeremy-corbyns-3million-state-funded-salary-and-pension-revealed/

Probably the stupidest piece I've ever read. I don't really get what angle they are trying to pedal. Corbyn sponges of tax payers? Well yes, he's a public servant paid for by the public, it's good that we pay him and give him a pension. Is the pension too generous? Probably but that's not a comrade Corbyn issue but a bloated parliament one. His house in London has gone up in value? Shock horror, what a capitalist shit bag he is.

So the pro-press, anti-BBC Tory MP and Culture Secretary (whose remit includes, ahem, press regulation), John Whittingdale was involved with a sex worker.

Four, count them, four newspapers decide not to publish the story, as it "isn't in the public interest".

Is it in the public interest? He's not married, it seems like he didn't do anything illegal, just seems like mud-slinging

(I'm shocked to find myself saying) I agree with

Downing Street said Mr Whittingdale was "a single man entitled to a private life" and had the full confidence of the prime minister.

It's not that though, it's that those papers suddenly discovered a conscience when it came to a politician who has the power to regulate them. Unlike, say, a pop star.

The point at issue is not (yet another) "the Tory MP and the sex worker" story, it's why the newspapers sat on it.

"The Tory MP and the sex worker" is bread & butter for Fleet St.

And yet when said MP happens to be in a position of influence over press regulation and happens to be pro-press (and anti-BBC to boot), they play the "public interest" card.

Hostage to fortune, Sword of Damocles, conflict of interest and blackmail are all phrases which spring to mind.

I think generally the argument for caring about public figures' sex lives is that if they're cheating on their spouse, they're dishonest.

If they're single, what's the angle?

(awaits accusations of being a crypto-Tory)

i couldn't give a rats cock who the man sleeps with and nor should anyone. i feel bad for the sex worker.

What part of what I wrote don't you understand?

The "angle" is that the newspapers had a juicy story, but didn't publish it in order to exert influence over someone who could exert influence over them.

So the story should be that there isn't a story anywhere but in the BBC?

http://newsthump.com/2016/04/13/sex-worker-shamed-by-relationship-with-politician/ ;)

How do you work that out?

The press exert influence over the press regulator and that isn't of concern?

The "angle" is that the newspapers had a juicy story

But why was it "juicy"? Doesn't sound like it in this case.

If the story was specifically spiked by the government, then that'd be interesting. Is that the case?

But why was it "juicy"?

"Randy MPs sex romps with dominatrix!!!"

That's not tabloid fodder?

No. It wasn't spiked by the government.

It was spiked by the newspapers who had the story, to exert influence over the Culture Secretary and maintain him in his position (as he is known to be pro-press).

I'm with you on this one.

It's a total non-story in my view but something stinks when the Daily Mail et al won't touch it.

TFFT.

I was beginning to think teh forum was playing a joke on me.

Its not in the public's interest to expose anyones private sex lives unless they are danger to society/life or demonstrate blatant hypocrisy .
The rest is titilation which is the tabloid shop window.
So why wasn't this story exposed for a titilation feast ?