Mainly Elite or Witcher on PC, but will probably get lost in Cyberpunk when it comes out.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
HappyHerts69
1 week ago
Bi-curious Male, 54
Bi-curious Female, 50
0 miles · England
Forum
Sexpert
Like a lot of things, it depends on what you are after really. If you are after someone to just record you whilst you have sex, that is fairly easy to sort, just post a request and set aside a few weeks to wade through the billions of offers of men with smart phones and cameras LOL; however, if you are after making a sexy film, with different angles, decent lighting and good sound, then that is something altogether different. Then you need someone who understands focal lengths, lighting ratios and how to frame a scene; also the sex is a bit disjointed, as you end up having to shoot scenes again and again from various angles, so it is very stop start...
Sexpert
Quote by piercedJon
Mind you a 24-70 2.8 lens is blody heavy.
True, but is a bloody good lens :thrilled:
Sexpert
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
1:£50 tripod light /heavy breeze ....don't extend to full height (unless absolutely necessary)hang bag from hook underneath.....solid as a benbo (and if you're going to spend a fortune I'd get a benbo....you wont want to carry it far but you'll never have a problem with camera shake)if you're using a manfrotto giotto or any other otto you'll have to do exactly the same...cos it's the weight that keeps it steady
2:Wildlife...if you're really going to take wildlife pics you'll be in a hide with a fixed focal length waiting for the animals to come to you
3:lenses...the cheaper end of a good quality range is more than adequate if you really can't get that background blurred enough at 5.6 and spot focus use gimp or photoshop to fake it.
4:If you're crafting a shot in manual you have plenty of time to work round the limitations of your kit or even turn those limitations to your advantage
5:there is no more reason for reasonably priced kit to let you down than expensive kit....you will miss shots with both
6:I have always had to pursue photography on a tight budget my kit (often very cheap third hand 'crap') has never let me down....bad shots (and I've taken many) have always been the fault of the operator and not the machine
I don't know what budget you have Nola I'm just saying you don't need to spend a fortune to practice and succeed in your photography.
Sorry Suffolk-cpl I'm not trying to turn this into an argument....but I do think you're wrong
No probs, and I'm not trying to be antagonistic :-)
And it would be a boring world if we all agreed. However, I have pursued photography for many years, and learnt the hard way the folly of cheap kit. If all you want to do is take snaps, then yes, it's great. If you want to take good photos, I still believe you need to understand what the limitations are of the kit are, and make a decision based on that. To counter your points:
1. A cheap tripod is cheap. Yes is covers the basic holding a camera hands free, but the joints are either plastic or have large tolerances. They move. That's why they are cheap. A good tripod can also get very very low to the ground, unlike the cheaper versions.
But they may be suitable for the type of photography the OP wants.
2. If your a serious wildlife tog, then yes you will have prime lenes, probably very fast, and over 400mm. Price cira £5k - £10k. If your walking about and looking for things like birds, squirrels etc.. then a good zoom is ideal. If it's too slow, you will soon realise there isn't enough light to get a shutter speed over the focal length, then your shots become soft or blurred.
3. Sorry, but that is totally wrong. A fast lens gives real soft bokeh. At 5.6 you cant get that, at the same focal length. PS and Gimp is difficult to learn to get the same effect, and looks poor compared to getting it right in camera.
4. Very true.
5. I'm not on about the kit breaking, but not giving you what you want. Both tripods could work, but if the cheaper one can't get as low, or moves slightly, then you will be unhappy with the results, compared to the results if you had used a better tripod. (or lens, or flash etc..)
6. I agree. And i'm not saying buy the most expensive kit. There are too many people spending a fortune on kit they don't know how to use, and never move beyond the auto setting. I'm saying work out what you need and why, then buy the best in that range, that you can afford.
Your last comment to Nola I agree with. You don't need to spend a fortune to succeed, but it is wiser to think ahead, and spend a little more on some things, than make a compulsive buy early on and buy the wrong thing.
Happy snapping
Sexpert
Quote by Staggerlee_BB
When I first started taking pictures (35mm ) I bought the best of everything that I could afford I had flashes, slave flashes, reflectors,stands for things,filters....all manner of things that now sit unused in my back room....non of them will ever replace developing your eye and your imagination...if you have a camera all the other kit you need is in your head.
Caveat...my pictures are adequate I am no great photographer and no amount of expensive kit will ever make me one...it took me a very very long time to find this out and more than a few overpriced gadgets...the few pictures that I am pleased with have been the result of seeing and catching the right moment were taken with the camera on 'auto' and required no darkroom or photomanipulation trickery....it is your eye and the moment that count not your kit
Fair comment, but again, having kit you never use is not the same as buying the best you can afford, that was buying stuff you didn't need.
The trouble is you spend £50 on a cheap Jessops tripod, and think great, nice and cheap, nice and light. But as soon as you take a landscape in a slight breeze, you realise your shots are soft. That's when you see the limitations of cheep kit. So you realise you need a tripod, and that the Jessops one is not good enough, so another £150 later you have a tripod that can do the job.
I think the advice is, if you really do need it, buy the best you can afford, which is suitable for what you need it for. Buy cheep, buy twice.
As for zoom lenes, yes, walk forward, its cheap. But if your doing wildlife shots that's not an option, or you want to throw the subject back ground out of focus, you need a fast zoom (say 2.8). And that is NOT cheap (~£900). You can NOT get the same soft bokeh with a cheap zoom (say 5.6).
As for you last para, yes, there is no substitute for a good eye, but if you have the best eye in the world and rubbish glass, and camera, then the shots will suffer. Sorry, but that is the truth. There is nothing wrong with auto, but there is nothing better than crafting a good shot on manual. I think if the right moment presents itself, and you have the right eye to spot it and compose a winning shot, but your kit lets you down, you may think twice about taking the bargin bin route. :-)
Happy snapping
Sexpert
With photography you do get what you pay for. As you get better you soon find the limitations of cheaper kit, so always buy the best you can afford.
I recommend the Manfrotto 190 tripod:
and the Manfrotto 804RC2 head:
These will serve you well for a long long time.
Rgds
I recommend the Manfrotto 190 tripod:
and the Manfrotto 804RC2 head:
These will serve you well for a long long time.
Rgds
Sexpert
Just remember if you use the BBM Groups feature it BUGGER$ UP your calendars and creates a group calendar that then defaults within your calendar options. Even if you leave the BBM group the group calendar remains, and CAN NOT be deleted. If you use MS Outlook and sync and use that calendar feature then DO NOT join a BBM group!!!
A full device wipe and re-install was the only way to remove the pesky BBM Group calendar.
Just a friendly warning
A full device wipe and re-install was the only way to remove the pesky BBM Group calendar.
Just a friendly warning
Sexpert
Quote by mr_mrs_smith26
the only time we've done any photoshop jiggery-pokery with our pics was to blur out the background because the bedroom was a mess
And we bet it probably took longer in photoshop to "tidy" up the background than it would have done to actually "tidy" up the background LOL
I feel a guide to good profile photos coming on.... :jagsatwork: LOL
Joking aside, badly photoshoped photos are just as off-putting to us, as bad photos (the types previously mentioned in the other posts... pants around ankles, etc.)
We fully understand the need for couples and individuals to maintain anonymity, but with just a little planning this can be achieved in-camera, and makes for a much better photo. And you don't need loads of expensive equipment. With just a compact camera, a window, a basic understanding of light and shadows, and a few props, people can get a really decent photos. Mind you, if everyone did that, how would Mrs Suffolk and I enjoy examining all the background clutter! :twisted:
Sexpert
Always reminds me of the happy days when porn mags were the only way to access DIY photos other than your own. We would often spend ages pouring over "Reader's Wives" more often than not, looking for army furniture or pictures in the background!
The glory days of poloroids and the happy snapper paying NO attention to the background, just his naked wife/girlfriend! Many many tell tale give aways :twisted:
We still do it now, but we like to look at what's on peoples book shelves or DVD collections, the usual stuff in the background the shooter/poster never notices :lol:
:thumbup::thumbup:
The glory days of poloroids and the happy snapper paying NO attention to the background, just his naked wife/girlfriend! Many many tell tale give aways :twisted:
We still do it now, but we like to look at what's on peoples book shelves or DVD collections, the usual stuff in the background the shooter/poster never notices :lol:
:thumbup::thumbup:
Sexpert
Quote by Kaznkev
The firemen went on strike because the government cut staffing levels to such an extent that peoples lives are now in are judged acceptable in living 20 minutes away from a staffed military in their green goddeses were untrained and in the opinion of firemen a danger to themselves and the people they were trying to they had been concerned about lives they would heve made this clear to the politicians ordering thenm to do a job they were not trained for.
TThe union begged the government not to put troops lives in danger,you are forgeting or ignoring the fact that many firemen are ex military,the major reason that the troops were not allowed to use fire engines is the fact they were totally untrained .The FBU simply wanted to keep best practice,the government decided how the strike was dealt with
Sorry, as I said, my limited opinions were formed by the effect strikers had on me and people I care about.
The military get on with what ever job they are tasked with, it is something we pride ourselves on, so making it clear that we are untrained (or poorly equipped and limited training) to put out fires is a bit redundant. our political masters KNOW we are untrained, but it was either that, or NO cover.
As for begging the government not to put lives in danger? I would think of course they didn't want the Army doing the job, it undermines the strike as life goes as normal for most people, as there is fire cover........
If the unions REALLY gave a damn about the troops, they would have picked days that DIDN'T forces troops to cover during an OP Tour changeover, meaning blokes missed leave before and straight after a tour.
Rightly or wrongly, it's the opinion of many squaddies and their families that it was about the Firemen wanting to keep their cushy shifts so they could keep their second job. Normally I wouldn't care one way or another, in fact, as firemen were then held in high esteem I would probably have sympathy with their plight, but not now. Don't even give to them when they rattle their bucket at Christmas.
Hence why I wondered if strikes were the best mechanism for sorting out issues.
Sexpert
Quote by Dave__Notts
I have always thought that a strike that doesn't inconvenience the general public a bit of a non-starter IMO. If it didn't inconvenience them then they wouldn't care.
Dave_Notts
And when it does inconvenience us, some of us care even less, or worse sympathise with the bosses and think the strikers are just being selfish. Doesn't seem a clever way of doing things if after the action is over, they need public support to pay their newly negotiated wages.
Sexpert
Having read the last five pages I'm not sure I'm any the wiser.
Working for organisation that is not allowed to strike or have a union, and not having a problem with this arrangement, I suppose I can't see the argument to justify strike action.
I suppose being brought up to believe the world doesn't owe me a living means that if I want to work for money from my employer, I do what my employer wants me to do. I can negotiate, even complain, but ultimately if I'm not prepared to do the work, or collect the offered wage, then I should fuck off and find some other work.
Now that's very simplistic I know, but as I said, I've no experience being in a union, or being in an organisation that has them, so I can only draw from your remarks and links, and the effect that strike action has on me personally.
You comments are enlightening, the links are interesting, and some time the effects of strike action are bloody annoying and even nasty.
The last fireman's strike that was called, the effect of which was to risk lives, and fuck around the military who were at the time, deploying to a war. Clever by the union, thinking that the military wouldn't be used to cover the strike as the war would take priority, but as usual, the military just get on with it.
Hence, here now sits a man who should have no preconceived ideas about what's right and wrong with unions, who should be able to listen to both sides,the differing points of views, and form opinions based on this; who instead has only ever been inconvenienced by strike action, and now as a default setting takes the sides of the bosses without even knowing all the facts.
Now I'm not a simpleton, and the fact I can spot my own bigoted views of unions based on limited information, makes me think how many other people out there are influenced the same way?
Strikes that fuck around other "workers" probably don't do the union members much good in the long term, and just turn us off to actually listening to the real grievance...
Sorry, rambling now.. I'll get my coat.................
Working for organisation that is not allowed to strike or have a union, and not having a problem with this arrangement, I suppose I can't see the argument to justify strike action.
I suppose being brought up to believe the world doesn't owe me a living means that if I want to work for money from my employer, I do what my employer wants me to do. I can negotiate, even complain, but ultimately if I'm not prepared to do the work, or collect the offered wage, then I should fuck off and find some other work.
Now that's very simplistic I know, but as I said, I've no experience being in a union, or being in an organisation that has them, so I can only draw from your remarks and links, and the effect that strike action has on me personally.
You comments are enlightening, the links are interesting, and some time the effects of strike action are bloody annoying and even nasty.
The last fireman's strike that was called, the effect of which was to risk lives, and fuck around the military who were at the time, deploying to a war. Clever by the union, thinking that the military wouldn't be used to cover the strike as the war would take priority, but as usual, the military just get on with it.
Hence, here now sits a man who should have no preconceived ideas about what's right and wrong with unions, who should be able to listen to both sides,the differing points of views, and form opinions based on this; who instead has only ever been inconvenienced by strike action, and now as a default setting takes the sides of the bosses without even knowing all the facts.
Now I'm not a simpleton, and the fact I can spot my own bigoted views of unions based on limited information, makes me think how many other people out there are influenced the same way?
Strikes that fuck around other "workers" probably don't do the union members much good in the long term, and just turn us off to actually listening to the real grievance...
Sorry, rambling now.. I'll get my coat.................
Sexpert
Yep, that is exactly what I meant
I only mentioned it because I've met someone who got on their high horse about circumcision and how barbaric it was, and that there was no reason in today's society for it to be done etc...., and when I bought up medical issues about tight foreskins you would of thought I had pissed on their picaso!
I only mentioned it because I've met someone who got on their high horse about circumcision and how barbaric it was, and that there was no reason in today's society for it to be done etc...., and when I bought up medical issues about tight foreskins you would of thought I had pissed on their picaso!
Sexpert
Quote by Kaznkev
oh and i am also oppssed to MGM or circumsion.
Even on medical grounds?
Sexpert
Quote by Lizaleanrob
but also spending a lot of time here but cant decide which one
Been spending a lot of time here, and think I have found the one
Also spend ages on here.....
And this is a really friendly site for togs!
And this goes without saying, time to save money...
:lol:
Sexpert
Quote by BIoke
Thanks everyone for your help and advice hereSuffolk-cpl - very cool/arty profile pics :thumbup:
Your welcome, and thanks.......:thrilled:
Sexpert
I must admit, having been on numerous tours, NOTHING, bar NOTHING perks you up and makes your day, than receiving mail. Even if it's just a bluey full of what's happening back home, and what the weather is like is better than getting nothing. Obviously, if its from a nice girl who can keep not just his morale up, then that's even better!!!!
Sexpert
Quote by GnV
That was not necessarily the case when first we set foot in Afghanistan as an invasion force.
True, we kind of did invade back in 1838, and again in 1878!
Sexpert
Quote by gulsonroad30664
it has nothing to do with the mythical al qaeder, the un-aging osama bin liner or his mythical, international, fantastically advanced, all seeing, cloaked, stealthy, wealthy, suicide training group holed up in a cave in tora bora and everything to do with profit and we and our sons and daughters are just pawns in "THE GRAND CHESSBOARD"!
If I was you I would move sharpish... they can trace you, you do know that? They may have bugged your phone. You alone could unravel governments with you evidence and inside knowledge. Your tinfoil hat will not save you from the men in black.....
Buddy, when you have done tour then your views may well be take more seriously...
Nothing mythical about Al Qaeder. There are enough dead and captured members to establish they exist.
Osama does get older, maybe he uses "products" in his hair that 8 out of 10 terrorists say makes them look better on video.
Mythical international fantastically advanced all seeing cloaked stealthy wealthy suicide training group.... FFS, of course suicide bombers are trained. Without proper training they may cockup on their first time out. They might bomb without killing themselves! How rubbish would that be?
Pakistan and Afghanistan make it international, they can DF (direction find) mobile phone signals (fairly advanced). They have int from villagers, so that makes them all seeing on the ground. They dress like locals, stopping us just dropping them on sight, which makes em bloody stealthy, and they can afford to maintain this campaign for years, so I would say there is some wealth there!
You may be right, the grand plan is more than likely oil, or drugs or what ever, but the reality day to day is not the plot of some conspiracy movie. It's bad guys on the ground, doing bad things. And to stop them, there are the good guys. And while that goes on, good guys, bad guys, and those caught in between will die, and be "grand chessboard" is a book published in 1997 written by zbignew brzinzski that outlines all the events from 2001 in chronological order up to the present day. who are the good guy's in afghanistan ? the afghans or the foreign invaders ?
So what? Its still a book, and if your quoting it, its clearly full of rubbish like a lot of books that are trying to sell to make the author rich!
Who are the good guys? Easy, look down at your uniform.. If its a dishdash then the good guys are the Taliban, if its dessy combats, then it is the Allied forces. :wink:
Sexpert
Quote by flower411
It does appear that many people are missing the point that it is "our" democratically deployed troups who invaded somebody elses country and are killing the population and other freedom fighters who have come to their aid.
No matter how much respect anybody has for the individual members of the armed forces of this country the fact remains that they have been mistakenly deployed against an enemy that will fight them until they go away ....
And they will go away and it will be a great victory ....just not for the invaders.
Sorry, but we are not missing that point because, well frankly, it is wrong..
We are not INVADING someone elses country....We are there at the behest of the government of that country.
And in any war, soldiers are always deployed against an enemy that will fight them until they go away... if the enemy will not do that it is pointless sending soldiers, you may as well send a shop steward or the girl guides!!!!
Sexpert
Quote by gulsonroad30664
it has nothing to do with the mythical al qaeder, the un-aging osama bin liner or his mythical, international, fantastically advanced, all seeing, cloaked, stealthy, wealthy, suicide training group holed up in a cave in tora bora and everything to do with profit and we and our sons and daughters are just pawns in "THE GRAND CHESSBOARD"!
If I was you I would move sharpish... they can trace you, you do know that? They may have bugged your phone. You alone could unravel governments with you evidence and inside knowledge. Your tinfoil hat will not save you from the men in black.....
Buddy, when you have done tour then your views may well be take more seriously...
Nothing mythical about Al Qaeder. There are enough dead and captured members to establish they exist.
Osama does get older, maybe he uses "products" in his hair that 8 out of 10 terrorists say makes them look better on video.
Mythical international fantastically advanced all seeing cloaked stealthy wealthy suicide training group.... FFS, of course suicide bombers are trained. Without proper training they may cockup on their first time out. They might bomb without killing themselves! How rubbish would that be?
Pakistan and Afghanistan make it international, they can DF (direction find) mobile phone signals (fairly advanced). They have int from villagers, so that makes them all seeing on the ground. They dress like locals, stopping us just dropping them on sight, which makes em bloody stealthy, and they can afford to maintain this campaign for years, so I would say there is some wealth there!
You may be right, the grand plan is more than likely oil, or drugs or what ever, but the reality day to day is not the plot of some conspiracy movie. It's bad guys on the ground, doing bad things. And to stop them, there are the good guys. And while that goes on, good guys, bad guys, and those caught in between will die, and be maimed.
Sexpert
Quote by kentswingers777
But Mrs777's son has even had to take out his own private insurance, well they all have. I do not know if that is compulsory but they were all advised too when they were at the Army Foundation place.
I was rather angry about that as I would have thought they would have been well looked after IF they were injured, but obviously not well enough if even the army are advising them to take out their own insurance. Also it is rather high which is understandable from the insurance companies point of view, but an expense that I did not think a soldier fighting for their country would have had to do.
Sorry to hear that you are upset that your lad took out extra insurance. I believe you are on about PAX which indeed most squaddies do take out. It is not compulsory, and most of think, is a good idea.
Medical care and rehabilitation is second to none in the army, and what with free and good dental care, I would say we do get looked after if we pick up an injury. However, the ability to also get a bit of cash from PAX helps cover some of the non work related costs too.
Sexpert
Quote by GnV
The figure that is not clear, is the tragedy to human life measured in terms of those horribly injured who are returned to their loved ones in all but a flag draped box...
Agreed. And it will most likely be much higher than those KIA. The question is how much will society help those VSI, and those PTSD casualties re-adjust and integrate back into society?
And not just those who are injured... There will be a cost in lives when it comes to veterans leaving all that behind.
A long term campaign such as Herrick is a time bomb waiting to go off when it comes to soldiers leaving the army to go back into "normal" society. They will have seen so much, and done so much that the "normal" life becomes so difficult to adjust to.
Just look at the amount of ex soldiers who are homeless, or have criminal records for violence. It's depressingly high.
And that is the problem. War is tragic.
IMHO the mark of what is acceptable is not where or why we send our soldiers to fight, but how we deal with them after the fighting.
Sexpert
Quote by Phuckers
....,we seem to loose an average of a soldier a day and thats not acceptable.
Not a dig at Phuckers, just using the quote to highlight a point
Falklands war lasted 74 days and we lost 255 soldiers/sailors/airmen. That's an average of 3.5 men a day.
World War 2 lasted 6 years roughly, and was about 2137 days long. We lost about 300000 British military (under-estimate), meaning we lost on average 140.3 men a day.
World War 1 lasted for 4 years and 14 days, or 1438 days. We lost over 750000 (not including Empire soldiers). Giving an average of 521 men a day.
Korea lasted 3 years or 1068 days (For accuracy it never really ended, just the fighting lasted 3 years). We lost 1109 men KIA and over 1000 MIA or POW. Just using the certified dead alone it is an average of men a day.
Operation Herrick started in Oct 2001, so is now at 8 years 5 months (about 3000 days) , and we have lost 275 personnel (only 242 of which we due to hostile action). This is an average of men per day!
I would say, when we look at the numbers this War is going very well in terms of casualties. (Clearly it would be better if we lost no one!)
Now I am not belittling the sacrifices being made, just trying to address the balance from all the negative spin being put on by the armchair Generals who think we are losing, and it is all hopeless.
Getting killed in war is a risk we all take when we sign on. And this is a war, people seem to forget that, and in war soldiers die. Sorry to be blunt about that, but that's the way it is.
When History judges our actions only then will we truly know if the price we are paying is truly worth it. Until then, we can only do our duty, and crack on with the job in hand.
Sexpert
I think you will also find that a task was almost blown when a paper printed the details of what was going to happen before the guys on the ground could put it into effect (gonna look up the task and the paper, but I'm pretty sure i'm right on this one).
Not a fan of the press in wars, and never will be.
If you want to get a feel of what is going on to keep spirits up, log onto ARRSE or read Soldier
Not a fan of the press in wars, and never will be.
If you want to get a feel of what is going on to keep spirits up, log onto ARRSE or read Soldier
Sexpert
I didn't say there were no idiots in charge
I just believe that we should let the army/military get on with the job in hand, and not hamper that already difficult task by pandering to the armchair generals who need a day by day drip feed of what the plans are!
I'm sure with your time in green you can appreciate how much work went on in various ops that jo public knew nothing about, and that made doing that job easier.
I just believe that we should let the army/military get on with the job in hand, and not hamper that already difficult task by pandering to the armchair generals who need a day by day drip feed of what the plans are!
I'm sure with your time in green you can appreciate how much work went on in various ops that jo public knew nothing about, and that made doing that job easier.
Sexpert
The press are not interested in publishing good news stories from Stanners, and to be honest, I rather they didn't publish anything...
The truth is we are doing things, and things that make a huge difference. However, if it was broadcast all over the press, it would render those tasks useless. The point is this is a military campaign, not a soap opera. The fact that those back home can watch what is going on is a privilege, not a right.
We are at WAR, and as such, military tasks, missions, aims etc.. should not be compromised for the need to keep the spectators up to speed.
The truth is we are doing things, and things that make a huge difference. However, if it was broadcast all over the press, it would render those tasks useless. The point is this is a military campaign, not a soap opera. The fact that those back home can watch what is going on is a privilege, not a right.
We are at WAR, and as such, military tasks, missions, aims etc.. should not be compromised for the need to keep the spectators up to speed.
Sexpert
Now, if I thought for a moment that the government were a bunch of crooks I would guess it was nearly 31st March, when all the departments in the civil service have to spend all of last years budget! I would also guess they have targets to meet, say on how much public information needs to be delivered..........
And in order to keep us from forgetting the big bad world wants us all dead, and our only saviour is to willingly surrender, day after day, another of our hard won freedoms to a Government getting fat on our taxes; they need to put out this rubbish!!
:twisted:
Baaaaaa baaaaaaa I'm a sheep....
And in order to keep us from forgetting the big bad world wants us all dead, and our only saviour is to willingly surrender, day after day, another of our hard won freedoms to a Government getting fat on our taxes; they need to put out this rubbish!!
:twisted:
Baaaaaa baaaaaaa I'm a sheep....
Sexpert
Quote by Steve
Should they now fight for the right to be members if they so desire
If they believe they are being short changed by the Police Federation, and believe strongly enough that they should have the right to openly support a legal political party, then yes, they should challenge it. I'm sure some human rights expert will find something to make a case on.
If on the other hand, they are content to support behind closed doors, or as is more likely the case, dont give a toss about politics anyway (
)guessing that they are ALL crooks regardless which party they are in (and spending all day chasing crooks, who would want to spend their own time supporting them), then no, they shouldn't challenge it. 