Rayvin

What about a lass that doesn't work for you, and who works for you in a 'non-job' after you've set out that those are your terms of employment? I'd agree if she already worked there. But she didn't - she was essentially employed to do exactly what she's now complaining about. Unless I've misread something critical somewhere.

You have to wonder how 'decided' any of these people are when they drop off that fast though...

Dunno, can see the bit about suggesting it being highly questionable (intimated as much in my last post) but her consent to it effectively condones it. She isn't/wasn't weak, she's a grown adult. She had both agency and responsibility IMO. Either way though, the guy clearly preyed on many other women and sounds like a nasty piece of work. His victims do have my sympathy.

Did we get a left back yet?

Did he ever start a game?

Also a 50:50 chance of a 2008 style recession in the next 18 months The times we live in...

It's really hard to imagine Trump winning this, like. He's surely too toxic even for the Americans. Establishment Hillary all the way, it seems.

I think the thing I'm struggling with in her case - and its different for the other women, I fully accept that - is that he isn't really a perpetrator in that scenario. They're both willing participants. It's not sexual harassment if you're agreeing to it for money, surely? The alternative, I guess, was that she walked away and lived a lower standard of life. She decided she didn't want to do that. She wanted the money. The other women, presumably, were doing their jobs and were actually victims, fearful of being let go if they spoke out. She was told in fairly clear terms that she would have a well paid position if she went along with all of this. I mean, that doesn't sound like harassment. It sounds like two people who made an arrangement, one of whom felt it demeaned her, granted, but who walked into it with her eyes open and got out of it what she expected. This is not to say that the guy isn't an awful scumbag, even in this case. I just don't think he wronged her. I'm not sure anyone wronged her, except possibly herself. That said - have I missed something? My reading of this scenario is that she asked him for a job, he said they didn't have anything but intimated that he could sort something out if she performed sexual favours and acted as his 'spy' or 'lackey', and she agreed to this. With the exception of that first moment when he kissed her in the car and gave her money, effectively setting out the terms of the relationship - that would be harassment, since she presumably didn't know it was coming and hadn't agreed to it. From there on though, she knew what she was doing - as far as I can tell at least.

In fairness to the mackems, they do seem to get stuck with a lot of immovable deadwood.

Well yeah, but we were the ones giving him contracts. I'm mostly just happy he's gone, maybe the elation from that coloured my comment too rosily.

I do see your point HF, certainly with respect of the 'fair and balanced' bit, but I'm not going to feel hugely sympathetic for someone who earned so much money out of this relationship. It looks as though she knew what she was doing. To say otherwise robs her of any agency for her own decision making. I would imagine stage 2 of this reveal is to sue him. Which will only reinforce my sentiments from stage 1, sadly.

So he paid her $250,000 a year to have sex with him..? Did I miss something? Why couldn't she just walk away at any time she wasn't happy with that arrangement? I mean, it's not great but I think the shit that seemed to go down at the BBC far outstrips it tbh...

Ah heck, fair play to the great knacker if he's happy with it. Good luck to him.

Tbh I was thinking the dog would distract her from any incoming baby desire...

Not a bad shout - although honestly, at this point, I'm starting to just hope that she doesn't bring it up again

I've heard huskies are really challenging dogs, aye.

... I'll try telling her this when it next comes up. I don't much fancy the idea of something that barks incessantly.

Is there any way to freeze the polls at a certain point? If you could stop people adding to it, you wouldn't necessarily need to go through and re-count at any point. You freeze it at 15 mins before kick off, and then tally everything up whenever is convenient - even after the match if need be.

I guess I can relate to that. I studied Chinese, lived in Beijing for a year, with the expectation that wherever I ended up, it wouldn't be Newcastle. Not that I don't like Newcastle tbf, it's a lovely city compared to some of the others I've lived in (Beijing being foremost among them) but even so. I keep telling myself that I'm going to leave soon, but I'm still here and am about to buy a house. I'm fucked

Thanks mate. She's after a Samoyed. Which look like a ball of fluff with eyes. Big enough dogs though.

Would you not have wanted to stay in San Francisco? Like to settle? It's meant to be a great city.

Seriously?

Are you philosophically opposed to the private sector? I'd argue just go for it and make things easy on yourself.