Normanton Lad

We haven't had a TV licence for over 2 years now... And get a bloody letter from them most months, threatening us with a maximum £1000 fine if we don't buy one, telling us they have opened investigations against us and asking whether we'll be in on [insert date].  As we've taken early retirement and are in most days, we know for a fact the buggers never come around!
A while back we filled in a form saying we don't require a licence, which stopped the letters for approx 6 months before they started arriving again.  Any other walk of life and it would be harassment.
We know the rules and genuinely don't watch the BBC or live TV.  If they did ever come around, I'm under no legal obligation to let them and and after hearing horror stories from people that have let them in probably won't despite the fact we have nothing to hide.  If we were 30yrs older or more vulnerable we'd feel under real pressure to pay for something we don't use or want.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/feb/29/tv-licence-fee-scandal-1000-people-week-casually-criminalised
 

I used to think that the TV Licence vans really had "tv detectors". It seems that was another BBC lie. They just bully vulnerable people into confessing they watch TV. They have never used "tv detector" evidence in court because it doesn't exist.

There are always exceptions to everything, but Clough's methods would not work on men as old as him. Just as a thought experiment imagine that Jack Charlton had still been at Leeds when Clough took over - he left a year earlier. What do you think he would have done when Clough told the Leeds players they can chuck their medals in the bin? Big Jack would probably have punched Clough. Jack was not much older than players like Giles, Bremner and Cooper. They had seen it all and they would not put up with Clough's abrasive managerial style. Dave Mackay was older than Clough and Clough knew he couldn't talk to Mackay in the same way he talked to the other players.
 

Public Eye
Callan
The Persuaders
Harry's Game
Edgar Wallace Mysteries

I have that same memory. For me, that's reassuring because I think many of our memories are made up. In my mind I can see him walking down the side of the pitch towards the Normanton End. At that game or perhaps a game against Charlton I have a memory of the ball going in and out of the net without a goal being given against us. That seems unlikely so maybe that's one of my false memories.

The Fugitive
24
Heimat
The Roads to Freedom
Public Eye
The Singing Detective
I Claudius
Marcus Welby MD
The view from Daniel Pike
The Virginian

In the early and mid 1970s I used to work with Jack H, a very annoying old person. Although I was paid until 6 pm I could go home almost an hour early if my work was finished and as long as Jack finished his work. But Jack didn’t want to go home early and he dragged his work out until 6. We worked in a place where there was little natural light and after an hour’s walk home there was little sunshine left to enjoy and I blamed missing an hour’s sunlight on Jack.
I looked him up on the net the other day expecting to see an obituary from the 1980s but he was still alive according to the local paper in the mid 1990s. What surprised me is that I no longer felt any animosity at all to Jack. Part of this can be put down to “Time heals all wounds”. But I think there is another factor involved.
When you are old you don’t care so much about what other people do and say even if it involves you. For example, if someone on the street insulted me I would just walk on, but as I young man I would have challenged them. It’s not because I’m scared of getting hurt. It’s just that I don’t really care what they say about me..
It’s a bit like that on messageboards. There are always those who tell you that you are wrong and stupid even though I think I am probably right, but I no longer feel the need to challenge them. It’s a bit like the first verse of that great poem The Last Word by Matthew Arnold :

Let the long contention cease!
Geese are swans, and swans are geese.
Let them have it how they will!
Thou art tired: best be still.
 

Yes I watched every minute. If you have a weak attention span and little interest in the subject then it might seem boring, but it could never be as boring or pointless as an article in the Guardian. The first half hour or so is almost a monologue on the history of Russia and why that history is relevant now. Some would find that tedious especially if they have never had experience of listening to talks or lectures.

I find the opposite. Before Musk bought Twitter it just seemed full of lightweight nonsense, but X is stimulating reading. I follow about 30 posters and I get far more from their contributions than I ever got from a newspaper. 

I'm not sure if it's the cold climate or the enormous amount of food you seem to eat, but people from your part of Scotland seem to be very robust. Just reading about your travels makes me feel tired and cold. I've been watching some videos by one of your compatriots from Montrose and he is another trencherman who likes to spend a lot of time on buses and trains. 
UK's longest train journey
 

I'm not sure if it's the cold climate or the enormous amount of food you seem to eat, but people from your part of Scotland seem to be very robust. Just reading about your travels makes me feel tired and cold. I've been watching some videos by one of your compatriots from Montrose and he is another trencherman who likes to spend a lot of time on buses and trains. 
UK's longest train journey
 

I find the opposite. Before Musk bought Twitter it just seemed full of lightweight nonsense, but X is stimulating reading. I follow about 30 posters and I get far more from their contributions than I ever got from a newspaper. 

That model is only suitable for constant incremental growth like a child putting a pound in his piggy bank each week. With a 5% interest rate, a £10000 initial deposit and a £500 deposit every week you would become a millionaire in about 23 years according to the compound interest site I’ve just used. It would take much longer to become a billionaire, but they don’t get rich like that. The likes of Soros and Joe Lewis become billionaires through insider trading and other tricks. Only a few become billionaires by playing by the rules the rest of us follow and they are very clever and lucky people like Gates and Musk.
 

I find the opposite. Before Musk bought Twitter it just seemed full of lightweight nonsense, but X is stimulating reading. I follow about 30 posters and I get far more from their contributions than I ever got from a newspaper. 

I use ChatGPT instead of reading non-fiction books. ChatGPT allows you to cut through the waffle. Yesterday I asked ChatGPT to summarize a book about False Memory. I then asked various questions about the author's conclusions, e.g. "What examples does Dr Julia Shaw give in her book The Memory Illusion to suggest that memory is fallible." In 10 minutes I had the answers I needed. ChatGPT is a tremendous time saver.

That is the most important comment on this thread. 
Everyone should question their beliefs. A good way of doing this is to estimate how probable you think something is true. Then when you find new evidence ask yourself how this has affected your initial probability estimate. If your estimate has gone down then examine the reasons why your belief has changed. If your belief in a claim never varies from 100% then you are probably not thinking hard enough.
Further, to my comments about the Government's intervention in the Brand story via Caroline Dinenage MP I should add that she is married to Major General Mark Lancaster, who is involved with 77th Brigade, the propaganda unit of the British Army. Their job is to support the Government via social media and the legacy media. They were very active in supporting the Covid lockdown.
77 Brigade is countering Covid misinformation
What is the significance of this? It means that the Government has a motive for attacking Brand. He is a Covid sceptic. Does that mean he is not a rapist? No, but the probability that he could be the victim of a conspiracy should increase a few percent.

That is the most important comment on this thread. 
Everyone should question their beliefs. A good way of doing this is to estimate how probable you think something is true. Then when you find new evidence ask yourself how this has affected your initial probability estimate. If your estimate has gone down then examine the reasons why your belief has changed. If your belief in a claim never varies from 100% then you are probably not thinking hard enough.
Further, to my comments about the Government's intervention in the Brand story via Caroline Dinenage MP I should add that she is married to Major General Mark Lancaster, who is involved with 77th Brigade, the propaganda unit of the British Army. Their job is to support the Government via social media and the legacy media. They were very active in supporting the Covid lockdown.
77 Brigade is countering Covid misinformation
What is the significance of this? It means that the Government has a motive for attacking Brand. He is a Covid sceptic. Does that mean he is not a rapist? No, but the probability that he could be the victim of a conspiracy should increase a few percent.

No coordinated attack? Then why did Caroline Dinenage MP, the chair of the Culture, Media and Sport, try to tell Rumble to stop showing Brand videos? Why would the government get involved in this when Brand is at the moment legally guilty of nothing?
Dinenage said Brand was promoting "inappropriate behaviour". That's rich coming from the daughter of a friend of and ghost writer for the Kray brothers. I don't remember anyone complaining about Fred helping the Krays make even more money from a life of crime and murder.

The objective intelligent thing to do is to examine issues from all sides, to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.  A truth does not mind who speaks it, it remains true, no matter who utters it, a nut, or you.

From the same article :
"In January 2019, a judge threw out the inquiry report after it emerged the official investigating the complaints had had prior contact with the complainants."
"Salmond was later awarded £512,250 in legal costs after winning his judicial review against the Scottish government. Evans and senior officials were accused of failing to disclose to the court significant information about the internal inquiry, including the actions of the official conducting the investigation. The court ruled those procedural irregularities mean the inquiry was unlawful and 'tainted by apparent bias'. "
Former ambassador jailed for Alex Salmond case blogposts
"Murray claims he is fulfilling the same role in his blogging about the Salmond case, alleging the former Scottish National party leader and first minister was the victim of a conspiracy involving the Scottish government, the SNP and the lord advocate, James Wolffe QC."
 

I'm too old to waste 90 minutes on "a documentary" which will only show evidence from one side.  It would be like a court case where you only get to hear what the prosecution lawyer has to say.

"Believing victims" is assuming the facts are already decided. It is only after all the facts have been decided that you can call someone a victim. You are putting the cart before the horse.
To find whether someone's claims are true you don't try and "prove them right". You try and prove them wrong. It is only by looking for contradictions in the evidence or alternative explanations for the evidence that you approach the truth.
If there are no contradictions or the alternative evidence is weaker then the claim is probably true. It is the same with science. You don't prove a hypothesis by just collecting evidence that supports the hypothesis. You try find evidence that disproves the hypothesis.
You must look at the alternative explanations for these woman coming forward before you can take their claims as facts. There have been many people put in jail by false claims.

You don't seem to understand that C4 and The Times are just propaganda outlets. They have no more credibility than the bloke next door. 
What are the facts we know for certain?
We know that Brand has had sex with hundreds of women. He's admitted that. He's also had sex unprotected with prostitutes. He's admitted that.
What can we infer from that? Well I would say that there is a very high chance that he has herpes and he has passed this on to many women. 
If you someone has given you herpes you are not going to publicly accuse someone. No woman wants the world to know she has herpes. How else could you get back at someone who has given you this disease? I'm not saying he hasn't raped all these women but you have to look at all possible explanations. You can't take things on blind trust.
 

Not a "weak strawman argument" at all. Denying justice to the many so that the few are not convicted wrongly is part of our legal system. Read about Blackstone's ratio. 
Blackstone's ratio
 
 

"Believing victims" is assuming the facts are already decided. It is only after all the facts have been decided that you can call someone a victim. You are putting the cart before the horse.
To find whether someone's claims are true you don't try and "prove them right". You try and prove them wrong. It is only by looking for contradictions in the evidence or alternative explanations for the evidence that you approach the truth.
If there are no contradictions or the alternative evidence is weaker then the claim is probably true. It is the same with science. You don't prove a hypothesis by just collecting evidence that supports the hypothesis. You try find evidence that disproves the hypothesis.
You must look at the alternative explanations for these woman coming forward before you can take their claims as facts. There have been many people put in jail by false claims.