Quote by pebble
...There is no hard measures here,....
On the contrary, I would suggest measuring when hard. :-)
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
UrbanSin
Over 90 days ago
Straight Male, 61
0 miles · London
Forum
Dean,
He's actually saying that he "will thwart attempts by wage setters to keep up with price rises."
Which means that he will stop employers giving above inflation or even inflation equalling pay rises. Given that most employers are currently cautious and would be resistant to large pay rises then this won't be too difficult to achieve across the economy as a whole.
He's actually saying that he "will thwart attempts by wage setters to keep up with price rises."
Which means that he will stop employers giving above inflation or even inflation equalling pay rises. Given that most employers are currently cautious and would be resistant to large pay rises then this won't be too difficult to achieve across the economy as a whole.
Quote by deancannock
[
exactly GV...but if you read the link provided by Blue.....you see he says he will stop companies from putting prices up to much !! As we both are saying....and how does he intend to do that ????
Apologies if I am being stupid but I've read that link a couple of times and can't find anywhere where the Governor says "he will stop companies from putting prices up too much".
Where in the article is this said? I can see the stuff about limiting pay rises (in itself a difficult thing to achieve given the blunt weapon of interest rates) but nothing on limiting price rises.
The "bareback totally unprotected sex room" thread began to explore some ideas around fantasy vs illegality that I felt deserved a dedicated airing.
From that thread I picked out two view points (and this thread is meant to explore all the others):
1. It is fantasy.... anything goes in fantasy and freedom of speech should allow the most outrageous of fantasies.
2. It is fantasy but acceptable fantasies should be regulated by the legal norms. So it is OK to fantasise about getting another man's wife pregnant since that is legal but it is not ok to fantasise about child since that is illegal. So child rooms should be banned (hoorah) but "getting a strangers wife pregnant" rooms are OK.
I disagree with the black and white of fantasy about a legal act is OK whilst fantasy about an illegal act is wrong. Firstly, and for the avoidance of any doubt at all I think that fantasising about any act involving children is horrid and is sufficient grounds for the involvement of the police
Let me share my own personal history....
A long long time ago... I can still remember... I answered an ad on loot (pre-internet days) . I was about 23 she was about 30. The ad was in the "naughty" section but just expressed a desire for "no strings fun" and we exchanged letters (yes - really was pre-internet) which resulted in phone calls and phone sex. During which we explored the fact that we were "sexually charged" strangers. This exploration culminated in a fantasy play. We'd never met... in fact she never knew my name but she asked that I pretend to break into her apartment and her. I was very circumspect and went to the extent of recording an entire conversation from the receptionist at her work answering the phone all the way through to her "agreeing to be " - this resulted in me knowing her name but to repeat at no point has she ever known my name. On the allotted night, I phoned her as agree from just outside her apartment, this was her cue to leave the door ajar and I entered in torch light and proceeded to play out a whole scene. We had agreed safe words and I would've stopped at the merest hint of an issue but that was not required. We both really enjoyed the experience. It was never repeated and we never met but we did talk on the phone for many months and years afterwards. She has since become a well known journalist but to this day she has very little idea of who I am.
So to get to my point. I felt that in the other thread the simplistic "legal fantasies are good.... illegal fantasies are wrong" was too simplistic. is rightly illegal but I played out a fantasy that was very enjoyable for both parties. So I reject the black and white argument that it is wrong to fantasise about illegal acts (although to make the point one last time I do feel it is abhorrent to have any sexually motivated discussion on children).
Thoughts please -which illegal acts is it ok to fantasise about and why?
From that thread I picked out two view points (and this thread is meant to explore all the others):
1. It is fantasy.... anything goes in fantasy and freedom of speech should allow the most outrageous of fantasies.
2. It is fantasy but acceptable fantasies should be regulated by the legal norms. So it is OK to fantasise about getting another man's wife pregnant since that is legal but it is not ok to fantasise about child since that is illegal. So child rooms should be banned (hoorah) but "getting a strangers wife pregnant" rooms are OK.
I disagree with the black and white of fantasy about a legal act is OK whilst fantasy about an illegal act is wrong. Firstly, and for the avoidance of any doubt at all I think that fantasising about any act involving children is horrid and is sufficient grounds for the involvement of the police
Let me share my own personal history....
A long long time ago... I can still remember... I answered an ad on loot (pre-internet days) . I was about 23 she was about 30. The ad was in the "naughty" section but just expressed a desire for "no strings fun" and we exchanged letters (yes - really was pre-internet) which resulted in phone calls and phone sex. During which we explored the fact that we were "sexually charged" strangers. This exploration culminated in a fantasy play. We'd never met... in fact she never knew my name but she asked that I pretend to break into her apartment and her. I was very circumspect and went to the extent of recording an entire conversation from the receptionist at her work answering the phone all the way through to her "agreeing to be " - this resulted in me knowing her name but to repeat at no point has she ever known my name. On the allotted night, I phoned her as agree from just outside her apartment, this was her cue to leave the door ajar and I entered in torch light and proceeded to play out a whole scene. We had agreed safe words and I would've stopped at the merest hint of an issue but that was not required. We both really enjoyed the experience. It was never repeated and we never met but we did talk on the phone for many months and years afterwards. She has since become a well known journalist but to this day she has very little idea of who I am.
So to get to my point. I felt that in the other thread the simplistic "legal fantasies are good.... illegal fantasies are wrong" was too simplistic. is rightly illegal but I played out a fantasy that was very enjoyable for both parties. So I reject the black and white argument that it is wrong to fantasise about illegal acts (although to make the point one last time I do feel it is abhorrent to have any sexually motivated discussion on children).
Thoughts please -which illegal acts is it ok to fantasise about and why?
I want to explore this rule a little bit.
Suppose:
1) A chat room is pretty busy.... over 50 people in the room.
2) Someone enters who is extremely attractive and captures the attention of the room
3) A significant part of the room start to direct said attractive person
4) A well meaning member tells the room to stop directing
5) Said attractive person says "But I love this banter"... "just wish the directing was more imaginative"
6) Almost the entirety become imaginative and start to direct in more and more imaginative ways
7) Said well-meaning member becomes very annoyed.... threatening mods and bans etc
8) A straw-poll is taken and the entirety of the room except well-meaning member vote for directing of said attractive person
I think we all understand the intent behind the no-directing rule and it is an important part of the chat room etiquette. However, when a member actively wants to be directed do they have to re-trench to one of the new "direct me" rooms?
Who exactly is being protected when the person being directed is encouraging/demanding of direction?
Yes, I know it might not be clear to a newbie when it is acceptable to direct and when it is unacceptable but in the scenario outlined there can be no doubt that the person wanted to be directed.
Your thoughts please
Suppose:
1) A chat room is pretty busy.... over 50 people in the room.
2) Someone enters who is extremely attractive and captures the attention of the room
3) A significant part of the room start to direct said attractive person
4) A well meaning member tells the room to stop directing
5) Said attractive person says "But I love this banter"... "just wish the directing was more imaginative"
6) Almost the entirety become imaginative and start to direct in more and more imaginative ways
7) Said well-meaning member becomes very annoyed.... threatening mods and bans etc
8) A straw-poll is taken and the entirety of the room except well-meaning member vote for directing of said attractive person
I think we all understand the intent behind the no-directing rule and it is an important part of the chat room etiquette. However, when a member actively wants to be directed do they have to re-trench to one of the new "direct me" rooms?
Who exactly is being protected when the person being directed is encouraging/demanding of direction?
Yes, I know it might not be clear to a newbie when it is acceptable to direct and when it is unacceptable but in the scenario outlined there can be no doubt that the person wanted to be directed.
Your thoughts please
