In the news

danger to society? yeah I'm that big I guess

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

I said: usually the angle is hypocrisy/dishonesty. This doesn't feature in this case.

Titillation is a much harder angle to get away with in the current climate.

"Juicy" is a very subjective measure that any tabloid editor has to measure up against the risk of opprobrium or stricter regulation.

I think this story, without the hypocrisy/dishonesty angle, is quite hard to justify.

(I think most stories about public figures' sex lives are largely unjustifiable titillation IMHO)

So - I understood what you wrote perfectly well, thanks. I just disagree with you on whether this is a story a tabloid editor would find worth publishing.

Have a nice evening.

Its not in the public's interest to expose anyones private sex lives unless they are danger to society/life or demonstrate blatant hypocrisy .

I agree. Personally I think personal love life peccadilloes aren't that germane to whether someone is good at their job unless there's clearly the risk that they will lead them into malfeasance in public office. You can be a weird shit in your personal life - just don't let it interfere with the day job. IMHO. (I'm not a tabloid hack, obviously).

The rest is titilation which is the tabloid shop window.

"Is", I don't know. "Was", certainly. I think the change in attitudes toward tabloid journalism has given editors pause. To some degree. They're a bit keener to have a clear hypocrisy angle on titillating stories these days, IMHO.

So why wasn't this story exposed for a titilation feast ?

See above.

Asserting that all faith schools, and all religions, enforce or cause indoctrination, brainwashing and segregation, will only alienate those religious communities and make them more likely to withdraw from secular society. I'm aware of the view that religion, in particular Islam, has at it's root a closed and bigoted view of the world prone to radicalisation. Rod Liddle writes regularly on the subject. I think he's wrong.

I agree with you, I was more saying that religion is indoctrinated when most people are children, so isn't a logical or informed choice.

You could say that about anything destructive a child is taught at a young age. Racism, homophobia and other forms of ignorance can all exist independent of religion.

Once again I agree, but we don't teach these things in school, where as religion is taught as a fact ( or lots of facts depending on which faith school) in faith schools.

I think the facts we teach our children should be the kind based on evidence and solid science, not dogma.

While taking my A levels, I had two philosophy teachers, one who was a practising Christian, and one who scoffed at religion and was an avowed Nieszchian. Both taught us texts from a biased viewpoint. The two opposing views existed perfectly happily in the same institution and made the subject much more interesting. Perhaps I'd qualify my earlier statement about funding faith schools, and say that within faith schools there must be a requirement to represent all sides of a scientific / theological argument.

Sounds like you have had quite a rounded exposure to religious teaching and are able to look at it dispassionately , I fear many other cannot.

Stop agreeing with me that's not how this thread's supposed to work

I've got no love for the Russian military. But isn't the pot calling the kettle whack here?
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36039703

The Black Sea and the Baltic Sea is nowhere near the US, but fairly close to Russia. Not sure who is provoking whom.

International waters, though.

Oh sorry about that old chap ;)

Titillation is a much harder angle to get away with in the current climate.

Tell that to Elton John and David Furnish PJS and YMA...

They've been watching Top Gun and thought it was US Navy convention obvs.

Now for the homoerotic beach volleyball...

I don't think their love lives are anyone's business, but isn't there a cheating angle in that story?

In other news, fundraising isn't easy.

https://www.justgiving.com/swindonberlin

Please help me shamelessly plug this everywhere. Maybe you have some colleagues at work with deep pockets?

It's not necessary to draw any equivalence with the Tory minister, other than it being still prurient titillation. This is still tabloid bread and butter, and in this current climate.

I'm not saying it isn't of concern, I'm saying that I can see why it wasn't run.

My understanding is that these flights have been going on for years, throughout the entire cold war. And not all of them ended well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3bijF2--os

And to add fuel to the recent faith schools debate in here.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2016/04/muslim-support-for-theocracy-not-terrorism-is-the-real-threat-to-confront

"If there is to be an 'us' versus 'them', it must not be between Muslims and non-Muslims, but the secularists of all religions and none against those who would impose Islam* by violence or political means on others."

*and of course Christianity in NI and some USA states.

We've had all this with Christianity 400 years ago, so it's too easy to say "but Islam is 100000% more BAD" but it's not fun news. Can't we all get along, no it seems not :/

Ah! So we're in agreement?

Apologies, I misconstrued what you wrote as suggesting BBC bias.

"If there is to be an 'us' versus 'them', it must not be between Muslims and non-Muslims, but the secularists of all religions and none against those who would impose Islam* by violence or political means on others.">

A strong point. It needs emphasising that religion is a force for good in communities for vast numbers of moderate people.

I'm sorry, but I can't let this one pass.

The Rotarians are a force for good in communities for vast numbers of moderate people. Cycling clubs are a force for good in communities for vast numbers of moderate people. Public houses are a force for good in....

You need to supply some sort of evidence before you make such sweeping statements. Otherwise I will counter with
"Religion has fucked up vast numbers of moderate people in countless small ways."