To think this what the Russel Brand story is meant to bury?

[madamreign]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66839314

It's not half as salacious, possibly a bit dry and dull to most people.

But it's fucking constitutional dynamite

And yet the email came to light, didn't it? and Edward's conduct IS being investigated. So where's the cover up?

I'm baffled by this assumption that only one Big News Thing can happen at a time, and if there are two it must be a cover-up going on.

That’s a good point. That issue needs to be fixed immediately (unfortunately not in my powers to do so)

@OhComeOnFFS I didn't know about this. I don't even know who HE is. Only vaguely curious about RB as I remember first BB and seen him pop up on TV occasionally. I suppose the HE thing must have been a big story, though. Are you saying the guests were aware that HE was having sex in the toilets?

Anyone who comes into a serious debate about the media and reporting in the UK and doesn't know who HE is can go THAT WAY>>>>>>

Christ almighty. No wonder we have issues with conspiracy theorists. No one is remotely paying any attention to anything.

@RedToothBrush Don't be silly. I'm allowed to ask questions. You want a serious debate forum for experts go and use one. What an obnoxious response to a woman.

The email came to light and then the next day the story of a mysterious sex pest presenter came out and all attention went from the email so that everyone was guessing who the presenter was. Then it was found it was consensual anyway so nothing to comment on and within a couple more days neither the email nor the presenter were mentioned again.

They might say they are presenting facts from The Lancet, the BMJ and official govt websites but the research is generally massively and very deliberately misinterpreted and/or data cherry picked to show what the promoter of conspiracy theories wants all the suckers watching their presentations to believe. They can rely on the fact that their supporters don't read the original research and evaluate the evidence for themselves and see that they are being conned.

No, it was Osborne who was having sex in the toilets.

The Huw Edwards wasn't really a story as although it seems he had things going on with other people, he didn't do anything illegal.

By why would anyone want to cover up the George Osborne story? He hasn’t been in government for years. Who would it benefit?

I did enjoy my 20s very much and had a good deal of freedom, and enjoy my 40s having a lot more freedom and power still in spite of sexism and misogyny- and in most quarters of the UK, misogyny not being acceptable or normal and being constantly called out when it happens.

I'd have had a lot more freedom and fun in my 20s without hairy arsed men perving at me every day and that just being accepted as a normal thing for them to do.

It's not one way or the other - we can have freedom and sexual autonomy for all and not allow misogyny to pervade as a society.

@OhComeOnFFS Thank you so much for explaining, and not laughing at me for not knowing! But it sounds very concerning, I'll have a read about it all at some point this week.

Were you asleep during it? Andrew's (alleged, I think one is required to add) sex crimes got weeks and weeks of coverage.
I remember this going around on a loop -

The Grand Old Duke Of York
He had 12 million quid
He gave it to someone he never met
For something he never did

If you don't know who HE is, start paying more attention!!!

Seriously.

Watch the news more often. Read a news paper. Be aware!

Its not obnoxious to say that its staggering level of ignorance. Its a statement of just sheer utter disbelief and frustration at why we are getting so many nut job conspiracy theorists.

We really should be encouraging better media education.

It wasn't covered up.

The story had run as far as it could, before it got lawyered. The story ran for three days if I recall correctly.

The one thing we learn from RB is that lawyering up requires a lot of work to counter if there is a story to be exposed.

Even the most attractive of women don't/didn't have men 'perving' on them on a daily basis! You're either exaggerating, or our definition of 'perving' is very different.

My experience was that other women/girls were worse for labelling and judging; if a woman was called a derogatory sexual term, it was habitually another girl doing the calling.

Look @RedToothBrush We know that inappropriate sexual behaviour is rife in media, politics and public life. Like many other people, I don't follow every story, because frankly it's more surprising that it gets exposed than that it happens. I know it to be common place and depressing, as I suspect most women know. I have a limited tolerance to reading about the truly shitty state of society, and for knowing that for one exposed many others walk amongst us. I will read a bit about it, but you are taking a really arrogant approach to someone asking questions. I don't think that's helpful.

@LaffTaff how do you define perving in this context?

To me it’s leering/checking me out intensely, and it certainly was a daily thing for me back in the day.

Fortunately I've rarely experienced letching. And I stand by the assertion that the overwhelming majority of guys don't letch in their random (daily) interactions! They'll generally either smile or do the bashful 'caught' look (and neither eye contact, nor a double take, does a perv make!).

Have you worked in an all male environment?

My experience was they weren't letching at me, but the conversations I've been exposed to - from even 'nice guys', definitely involved pretty much universal letching if they thought I wouldn't say anything / complain.

I think people here are getting confused by the idea of two news items appearing at the same time.

Not everything is connected. Not everything is a giant conspiracy.

I imagine if the alleged 16yr old GO was accused of came forward the the report would gain legs. Much like with the RB affair, very little can be reported without an accuser prepared to share their story.

I've experienced bravado - the only time I've ever experienced cat calling for example has been young guys in a group (teenagers though, not grown men).

I don't dispute that men are near the knuckle in their humour when in a group, however that doesn't equate perverse intent.

And yes I've had men in the workplace behave in a sleazy way, but these men are in the overwhelming minority.

Not 'hilarious' at all. Just my polite way of saying 'Do your own research!' Like the rest of us have done.

This might surprise you but I'm not obliged to DO anything some random on the internet asks me to.

Anyone with a brain knows exactly what I mean by 'the establishment'. Stop being obtuse.

"Do your own research" The rallying cry of the uneducated brainwashed youtube following who are literally the people least able to do any kind of actual research.

your research is the nonsensical ramblings of idiots.

I can highly recommend this episode of The Infinite Monkey Cage on conspiracy theories.
The Infinite Monkey Cage - Series 21 - Conspiracy Theories - BBC Sounds

Brian Cox and Robin Ince are joined on stage by comedian Shazia Mirza, science writer and cancer researcher Dr David Robert Grimes and psychologist Prof Karen Douglas to look at the weird world of conspiracy theories. From Flat Earth believers to people who refuse to accept that humans have ever been to the moon, why is fiction often so much easier to believe than fact - and does it matter? They discuss the psychology and profile of people who are more likely to believe in conspiracies and the devastating effect some, like the anti-vaccine movement, have had on public health. They ask whether being irrational is our default setting and how to convince the most hard-core believers with the power of evidence and critical thinking. Although they would say that wouldn't they?