A comment I heard on the radio this morning

[Peter]

"We shouldn't be thinking in terms of a hierarchy of offences where the touching of a knee is less serious than rape. They are all part of the same culture".

I have known three women in my life who have been raped and I am confident that all three of them would punch you in the face for saying something as ****ing stupid as that.

[Monty92]

if by 'culture' they meant 'masculinity'.

Men touch women's knees, in part, because they are men with uniquely masculine biological traits, often combined with their position in the male-dominated power structure of society. And men also rape women for the same reasons.

The only discussion to be had is what we should do about it.

Once again, much like the Wenger debate, there's not as big a divergence of opinion as people might like to think.








"We shouldn't be thinking in terms of a hierarchy of offences where the touching of a knee is less serious than rape. They are all part of the same culture".

I have known three women in my life who have been raped and I am confident that all three of them would punch you in the face for saying something as ****ing stupid as that.

[Burney]

if by 'culture' they meant 'masculinity'.

Men touch women's knees, in part, because they are men with uniquely masculine biological traits, often combined with their position in the male-dominated power structure of society. And men also rape women for the same reasons.

The only discussion to be had is what we should do about it.

Once again, much like the Wenger debate, there's not as big a divergence of opinion as people might like to think.

People steal because they want things they don't have. Thus, all theft is part of the same 'culture'.

It doesn't therefore follow, however, that we should treat a child stealing penny chews from Woolworths in the same way we treat someone who mugs grannies for their pension books. That logic serves simply to criminalise the trivial and trivialise the criminal.

[Sir C]

"We shouldn't be thinking in terms of a hierarchy of offences where the touching of a knee is less serious than rape. They are all part of the same culture".

I have known three women in my life who have been raped and I am confident that all three of them would punch you in the face for saying something as ****ing stupid as that.

Surely the problem is that we're completely missing the point, which is that all PIV is rape, and all men are rapists.

[Peter]

if by 'culture' they meant 'masculinity'.

Men touch women's knees, in part, because they are men with uniquely masculine biological traits, often combined with their position in the male-dominated power structure of society. And men also rape women for the same reasons.

The only discussion to be had is what we should do about it.

Once again, much like the Wenger debate, there's not as big a divergence of opinion as people might like to think.

Funny that. A man is programmed to rape by his biological traits. He isn't, however, programmed to be a man and as soon as he announces that he wishes to be a woman that biology becomes irrelevant.

It may be possible to link the two offences to the same motivation, or the same root cause. It is tenuous, and I cant tell you it is ****ing *******s, but one may at least try.

THat isn't what is being suggested. Rejecting the notion of a hierarchy is not linking the two motives, it is suggesting that the two offences are not inherently more or less serious than one another. In other words, touching a knee is as damaging, as terrifying, as horrific, as raping someone.

Linked by the same motive or cause is a hierarchy. A flat line approach that shoves every perceived offence into the 'rape culture' file is nothing more than the work of a complete and utter ****. It MASSIVELY trivialises rape.

[Burney]

Surely the problem is that we're completely missing the point, which is that all PIV is rape, and all men are rapists.

I take it your glw has made this clear to you? :-(

[Ash]

if by 'culture' they meant 'masculinity'.

Men touch women's knees, in part, because they are men with uniquely masculine biological traits, often combined with their position in the male-dominated power structure of society. And men also rape women for the same reasons.

The only discussion to be had is what we should do about it.

Once again, much like the Wenger debate, there's not as big a divergence of opinion as people might like to think.

And presumably we shouldn't be thinking in terms of a hierarchy of hate crime offences where giving someone a funny look is less serious than the Holocaust.

[Peter]

Surely the problem is that we're completely missing the point, which is that all PIV is rape, and all men are rapists.

Apart from bum bandits and those men who wish to become women.

In other words, all straight mean are rapists.

[Monty92]

People steal because they want things they don't have. Thus, all theft is part of the same 'culture'.

It doesn't therefore follow, however, that we should treat a child stealing penny chews from Woolworths in the same way we treat someone who mugs grannies for their pension books. That logic serves simply to criminalise the trivial and trivialise the criminal.

Firstly, I obviously agree. Secondly, I don't actually think anyone is suggesting they should be treated the same in any meaningful way. That's a bit of a straw man. No-one thinks a man who touches a woman's knee should be jailed.

A lot of people are pushing back against the idea that hands on knees are trivial because that doesn't tackle the 'culture' of masculinity that we both acknowledge exists. But anyone sane and worth listening to KNOWS it's trivial. The divergence comes when people claim that we need to have a zero tolerance approach to ANY expression of masculine sexuality in ORDER to tackle the more serious stuff.

We both think this is ****ing stupid.

[Peter]

And presumably we shouldn't be thinking in terms of a hierarchy of hate crime offences where giving someone a funny look is less serious than the Holocaust.

You have to nip these things in the bud.

[Monty92]

Funny that. A man is programmed to rape by his biological traits. He isn't, however, programmed to be a man and as soon as he announces that he wishes to be a woman that biology becomes irrelevant.

It may be possible to link the two offences to the same motivation, or the same root cause. It is tenuous, and I cant tell you it is ****ing *******s, but one may at least try.

THat isn't what is being suggested. Rejecting the notion of a hierarchy is not linking the two motives, it is suggesting that the two offences are not inherently more or less serious than one another. In other words, touching a knee is as damaging, as terrifying, as horrific, as raping someone.

Linked by the same motive or cause is a hierarchy. A flat line approach that shoves every perceived offence into the 'rape culture' file is nothing more than the work of a complete and utter ****. It MASSIVELY trivialises rape.

I think you present a bit of a straw man. Not entirely, but a little bit.

[Burney]

Funny that. A man is programmed to rape by his biological traits. He isn't, however, programmed to be a man and as soon as he announces that he wishes to be a woman that biology becomes irrelevant.

It may be possible to link the two offences to the same motivation, or the same root cause. It is tenuous, and I cant tell you it is ****ing *******s, but one may at least try.

THat isn't what is being suggested. Rejecting the notion of a hierarchy is not linking the two motives, it is suggesting that the two offences are not inherently more or less serious than one another. In other words, touching a knee is as damaging, as terrifying, as horrific, as raping someone.

Linked by the same motive or cause is a hierarchy. A flat line approach that shoves every perceived offence into the 'rape culture' file is nothing more than the work of a complete and utter ****. It MASSIVELY trivialises rape.

What I find interesting is that this strand of feminism seems happy to accept the trivialisation of actual rape as a reasonable price to pay for putting a societal leash on non-rapey men and the demonisation of a range of relatively normal male behaviours.

[Sir C]

Apart from bum bandits and those men who wish to become women.

In other words, all straight mean are rapists.

I was drinking until late in Soho last night. There were many men dressed as Freddie Mercury. I don't really know why.

Some of them may, i suspect, be gay.

[Monty92]

And presumably we shouldn't be thinking in terms of a hierarchy of hate crime offences where giving someone a funny look is less serious than the Holocaust.

Well, again, being mean, whether it's a funny look or brazen bigotry, is part of the same culture, yes.

It's a bigger jump than when we're talking about expressions of masculine sexuality, but the parallel still exists.

[Peter]

I think you present a bit of a straw man. Not entirely, but a little bit.

You do use that word an awful lot.

[Peter]

Well, again, being mean, whether it's a funny look or brazen bigotry, is part of the same culture, yes.

It's a bigger jump than when we're talking about expressions of masculine sexuality, but the parallel still exists.

Holocaust culture.

[Monty92]

Holocaust culture.

No, being mean culture

[Peter]

What I find interesting is that this strand of feminism seems happy to accept the trivialisation of actual rape as a reasonable price to pay for putting a societal leash on non-rapey men and the demonisation of a range of relatively normal male behaviours.

It doesnt just trivialise rape. It obstructs any reasonable dialogue.

You can talk a bloke through why he shouldn't be grabbing a girl's tits in a nightclub and he might, just possibly, listen to you. If you effectively call him a rapist he is going to dismiss you as a nutter.

Do we really want to deal with the behaviours or do we just want to demonise people?

[Ash]

Well, again, being mean, whether it's a funny look or brazen bigotry, is part of the same culture, yes.

It's a bigger jump than when we're talking about expressions of masculine sexuality, but the parallel still exists.

You are mental. No offence, like.

[Peter]

No, being mean culture

That would make 'rape culture' the 'touching knee culture'. The whole point is that you name it after the biggest crime.

Unless you are happy with referring to the holocaust as just another part of the 'being mean culture'....

[Burney]

I was drinking until late in Soho last night. There were many men dressed as Freddie Mercury. I don't really know why.

Some of them may, i suspect, be gay.

Drinking, eh? On a Tuesday? :shakehead:

[Peter]

You are mental. No offence, like.

You are embracing the 'being mean culture' here.

Next stop Dachau....

[Burney]

It doesnt just trivialise rape. It obstructs any reasonable dialogue.

You can talk a bloke through why he shouldn't be grabbing a girl's tits in a nightclub and he might, just possibly, listen to you. If you effectively call him a rapist he is going to dismiss you as a nutter.

Do we really want to deal with the behaviours or do we just want to demonise people?

That's my point. They want to demonise men as a sex first and foremost and will accept trivialising rape and obstructing dialogue as collateral damage in that effort.

[Monty92]

That would make 'rape culture' the 'touching knee culture'. The whole point is that you name it after the biggest crime.

Unless you are happy with referring to the holocaust as just another part of the 'being mean culture'....

Fine, hate culture. Holocausts are fuelled by hate, so hate is the broader 'umbrella' crime.

[Sir C]

Drinking, eh? On a Tuesday? :shakehead:

No drinking on Monday to make up for it. This week the dry days shall be Monday, Wednesday and Thursday.

[Burney]

Firstly, I obviously agree. Secondly, I don't actually think anyone is suggesting they should be treated the same in any meaningful way. That's a bit of a straw man. No-one thinks a man who touches a woman's knee should be jailed.

A lot of people are pushing back against the idea that hands on knees are trivial because that doesn't tackle the 'culture' of masculinity that we both acknowledge exists. But anyone sane and worth listening to KNOWS it's trivial. The divergence comes when people claim that we need to have a zero tolerance approach to ANY expression of masculine sexuality in ORDER to tackle the more serious stuff.

We both think this is ****ing stupid.

Men put their hands on women's knees because they fancy them and wish to express the fact - however clumsily. It is not an assault and neither is it particularly traumatic. I'm not saying it's ideal, but it is ultimately pretty trivial. The point is that there has to be a hierarchy of behaviours that acknowledges the triviality of one behaviour in order that we can acknowledge the seriousness of another. To lump all transgressive acts in as suggested does serve to lessen the impact of the more serious ones while blowing the smaller ones out of all proportion.

[Monty92]

Men put their hands on women's knees because they fancy them and wish to express the fact - however clumsily. It is not an assault and neither is it particularly traumatic. I'm not saying it's ideal, but it is ultimately pretty trivial. The point is that there has to be a hierarchy of behaviours that acknowledges the triviality of one behaviour in order that we can acknowledge the seriousness of another. To lump all transgressive acts in as suggested does serve to lessen the impact of the more serious ones while blowing the smaller ones out of all proportion.

I agree entirely :shrug:

[Burney]

I agree entirely :shrug:

And that, of course, is why bandying catch-all terms such as 'rape culture' or 'toxic masculinity' around is profoundly unhelpful. As p says, a man who you wish to convince to stop knee-touching is instantly going to cease listening to you when you start lumping him in with rapists or demeaning his entire sex. He will simply - rightly - dismiss you as talking hysterical nonsense.

[Peter]

I agree entirely :shrug:

Which would suggest that you believe that rape is fuelled by a man's desire to have sex with a particular woman- that they in some way fancy them.

Rape is not about sex, its about control. It is a man asserting his control over a woman, making her subordinate to him. This is the culture; this is the whole crux of the argument; this is why they argue that touching a knee, particularly in a power-imbalance environment, is effectively rape.

[Peter]

Fine, hate culture. Holocausts are fuelled by hate, so hate is the broader 'umbrella' crime.

I can live with that. As below, this makes rape part of 'control culture'. Say that and you will be accused of trivialising rape, as though comparing it to touching a knee hasn't already done that.

Sorry, it has to be holocaust culture or nothing. I dont make the rules....

[Burney]

Rape is not about sex, its about control.

Hmmm. I think it is a bit about sex.

[Peter]

Hmmm. I think it is a bit about sex.

Its in there somewhere...

[Burney]

Its in there somewhere...

I think the whole 'rape isn't about sex' thing is a comforting lie we all tell ourselves so that we can distance the thing that we do with our wives and girlfriends (may they never meet) from what the rapist does. However, that ignores the fact that the rapist is just as motivated by lust and desire for sexual gratification (however that may be engendered) as we are when we 'make love'.

[7sisters]

Firstly, I obviously agree. Secondly, I don't actually think anyone is suggesting they should be treated the same in any meaningful way. That's a bit of a straw man. No-one thinks a man who touches a woman's knee should be jailed.

A lot of people are pushing back against the idea that hands on knees are trivial because that doesn't tackle the 'culture' of masculinity that we both acknowledge exists. But anyone sane and worth listening to KNOWS it's trivial. The divergence comes when people claim that we need to have a zero tolerance approach to ANY expression of masculine sexuality in ORDER to tackle the more serious stuff.

We both think this is ****ing stupid.

I attended a function and sat at a large round table with two women either side of me. They both began stroking my thigh beneath the table cloth, completely without provocation and independent of each other.
I recall being slightly drunk at the time but amidst the fog, my biggest problem was how to extricate myself from this little menage a trois and leave each of them feeling they could leave with both of their dignities intact.
:-/

[Burney]

I attended a function and sat at a large round table with two women either side of me. They both began stroking my thigh beneath the table cloth, completely without provocation and independent of each other.
I recall being slightly drunk at the time but amidst the fog, my biggest problem was how to extricate myself from this little menage a trois and leave each of them feeling they could leave with both of their dignities intact.
:-/

The way you've written that suggests that they were stroking the same thigh.

[Peter]

I think the whole 'rape isn't about sex' thing is a comforting lie we all tell ourselves so that we can distance the thing that we do with our wives and girlfriends (may they never meet) from what the rapist does. However, that ignores the fact that the rapist is just as motivated by lust and desire for sexual gratification (however that may be engendered) as we are when we 'make love'.

Well it becomes hugely confused when the rape in question is part of a what the chap may believe, rightly or wrongly, is consensual sex. I think it relates more closely to your old school rapist, the predator who actually attacks a woman.

[Peter]

The way you've written that suggests that they were stroking the same thigh.

THere are also two women either side of him. He was on for a five-way and turned it down?!

[Burney]

Well it becomes hugely confused when the rape in question is part of a what the chap may believe, rightly or wrongly, is consensual sex. I think it relates more closely to your old school rapist, the predator who actually attacks a woman.

Sure, but there's still lust and desire for sexual gratification there as well. It may come from a very wrong place, but it's the same set of chemicals.

[Burney]

THere are also two women either side of him. He was on for a five-way and turned it down?!


Christ, I think I'd turn down a five-way. A two-way is struggle enough these days.

[Pokster]

The way you've written that suggests that they were stroking the same thigh.

They were his mum and his gran..... both like the right leg more i believe

[Peter]

Christ, I think I'd turn down a five-way. A two-way is struggle enough these days.

Technically five separate rape charges as well. Sod that!

[Peter]

Sure, but there's still lust and desire for sexual gratification there as well. It may come from a very wrong place, but it's the same set of chemicals.

Experts (and I assume this refers to criminologists and therapists) view it as a means for establishing control. THat in the mind of the rapist sex is inherently about the desire to dominate women, even punish them.

May explain why someone like Weinstein chooses to do all this stuff to women instead of paying for it, which he could easily do. Paying for it is a form of control but one where the woman is willing to accept it. Paying for it also implies that one has to and therefore creates a limit to one's power over women. Coercion reflects his position of power and his ability to control women.

Pure speculation of course. Maybe he is just a sick ******* who enjoys making women do things they dont want to.

[Burney]

Experts (and I assume this refers to criminologists and therapists) view it as a means for establishing control. THat in the mind of the rapist sex is inherently about the desire to dominate women, even punish them.

May explain why someone like Weinstein chooses to do all this stuff to women instead of paying for it, which he could easily do. Paying for it is a form of control but one where the woman is willing to accept it. Paying for it also implies that one has to and therefore creates a limit to one's power over women. Coercion reflects his position of power and his ability to control women.

Pure speculation of course. Maybe he is just a sick ******* who enjoys making women do things they dont want to.

I'm not denying that the exertion of power and control may be the turn on for someone like Weinstein, but there's a reason he wasn't trying it on with ugly birds and that's because his sexual impulses in terms of attraction and desire were just the same as ours.

[Monty92]

Thanks for that bit of mansplaining, Peter. I am aware that rape is often about control more than anything else.

However, it is also always fuelled by a man's desire to have sex with a woman. Otherwise, if it's not about sex, why don't heterosexual men ever rape other men?



Which would suggest that you believe that rape is fuelled by a man's desire to have sex with a particular woman- that they in some way fancy them.

Rape is not about sex, its about control. It is a man asserting his control over a woman, making her subordinate to him. This is the culture; this is the whole crux of the argument; this is why they argue that touching a knee, particularly in a power-imbalance environment, is effectively rape.

[Ash]

However, it is also always fuelled by a man's desire to have sex with a woman. Otherwise, if it's not about sex, why don't heterosexual men ever rape other men?

I think they do in some places. As an assertion of dominance and power.

[Burney]

I think they do in some places. As an assertion of dominance and power.

Life sounds tough in the IT industry, a. :-(

[Peter]

Thanks for that bit of mansplaining, Peter. I am aware that rape is often about control more than anything else.

However, it is also always fuelled by a man's desire to have sex with a woman. Otherwise, if it's not about sex, why don't heterosexual men ever rape other men?

You honestly think that doesnt happen? Have you never seen a prison film?

The point is that the aspect of control is the link between rape and knee touching. If you were to believe that the knee touching is actually just a clumsy move on a woman you fancy then there is no link.

Dont accuse me of mainsplaining again. You are not even a woman

[Peter]

I'm not denying that the exertion of power and control may be the turn on for someone like Weinstein, but there's a reason he wasn't trying it on with ugly birds and that's because his sexual impulses in terms of attraction and desire were just the same as ours.

Errr..... have you seen some of the victims? They are not all budding models and are nothing compared to what he could have paid for.

I tend to think of it in the same way that blokes, particularly when young, will always look for some pathetic excuse for starting a fight by accusing the target of having spilt their pint/looked at their woman etc......the idea being to make the victim complicit and superficially absolve the aggressor by giving them some form of justification.

I think in Weinstein's mind if the woman submits to coercion then she must effectively 'want it'. THerefore he has pulled rather than paid and his pride is restored.

[Burney]

Have you never seen a prison film?

Careful, p. You've gone a bit

779

[Peter]

I think they do in some places. As an assertion of dominance and power.

That is completely different. It in no way relates to the gender imbalance in society and therefore doesnt count as being part of 'rape culture'.

[Peter]

Careful, p. You've gone a bit

779

I wasnt being entirely serious.

How does Sir C feel about the term Airplane?

[Ash]

You honestly think that doesnt happen? Have you never seen a prison film?

The point is that the aspect of control is the link between rape and knee touching. If you were to believe that the knee touching is actually just a clumsy move on a woman you fancy then there is no link.

Dont accuse me of mainsplaining again. You are not even a woman

I thought that was quite funny actually, when he thanked you for mansplaining. And stop oppressing Monty by saying she can't be a woman.

Perhaps there's another reason for knees getting touched beyond power and the 'clumsy move' - it might be sensually pleasurable in itself, enhanced by the forbidden nature of the act.

[Peter]

I thought that was quite funny actually, when he thanked you for mansplaining. And stop oppressing Monty by saying she can't be a woman.

Perhaps there's another reason for knees getting touched beyond power and the 'clumsy move' - it might be sensually pleasurable in itself, enhanced by the forbidden nature of the act.

I did once hold a woman's hand because she was trembling and in fear for her life- to be fair, someone had just tried to kill her with a hammer.

I received a verbal, fairly friendly warning to 'watch myself' in future. She wrote me a thank you letter for a)saving her life and b) comforting her in a moment of outright terror.

I got off lightly there.

[Ash]

I did once hold a woman's hand because she was trembling and in fear for her life- to be fair, someone had just tried to kill her with a hammer.

I received a verbal, fairly friendly warning to 'watch myself' in future. She wrote me a thank you letter for a)saving her life and b) comforting her in a moment of outright terror.

I got off lightly there.

So she first told you off and later thanked you? Or was the warning from someone else?

[Peter]

So she first told you off and later thanked you? Or was the warning from someone else?

The warning was from a colleague who thought my actions were 'risky'. THe woman squeezed hold of my hand like she was giving birth. I thought it was a justified and appropriate offer of comfort. In my defence, I hadn't been trained in 'rape culture' in those days.

Also worth pointing out that I did NOT save her life. Two large chaps on their way back from the gym saved her by dragging the hammer-wielding lunatic off her.

[Sir C]

The warning was from a colleague who thought my actions were 'risky'. THe woman squeezed hold of my hand like she was giving birth. I thought it was a justified and appropriate offer of comfort. In my defence, I hadn't been trained in 'rape culture' in those days.

Also worth pointing out that I did NOT save her life. Two large chaps on their way back from the gym saved her by dragging the hammer-wielding lunatic off her.

You showed her your winkie, didn't you? :rolleyes:

[Burney]

The warning was from a colleague who thought my actions were 'risky'. THe woman squeezed hold of my hand like she was giving birth. I thought it was a justified and appropriate offer of comfort. In my defence, I hadn't been trained in 'rape culture' in those days.

Also worth pointing out that I did NOT save her life. Two large chaps on their way back from the gym saved her by dragging the hammer-wielding lunatic off her.

Out of interest, p, have you ever held anyone’s hand when they were giving birth?

[Rich]

The warning was from a colleague who thought my actions were 'risky'. THe woman squeezed hold of my hand like she was giving birth. I thought it was a justified and appropriate offer of comfort. In my defence, I hadn't been trained in 'rape culture' in those days.

Also worth pointing out that I did NOT save her life. Two large chaps on their way back from the gym saved her by dragging the hammer-wielding lunatic off her.

And then you sought to take advantage. This is absolutely sickening. Consider me appalled.

[Peter]

Out of interest, p, have you ever held anyone’s hand when they were giving birth?

No, but I have seen it in films and the like. Looks pretty straightforward.

[Peter]

You showed her your winkie, didn't you? :rolleyes:

No. My thoughts turned quite quickly to the whereabouts of the gentleman with the hammer.

[Pokster]

Out of interest, p, have you ever held anyone’s hand when they were giving birth?

Most painful experience a man can have... the advice i always offer is to make sure you have taken any wedding ring/ other ring off before she squeezes the living daylights out of you

[Pokster]

No. My thoughts turned quite quickly to the whereabouts of the gentleman with the hammer.

It's a shame she didn't say "you can't touch this"


I'll get my coat

[Rich]

Most painful experience a man can have... the advice i always offer is to make sure you have taken any wedding ring/ other ring off before she squeezes the living daylights out of you

A good friend of mine was 3 hours in when the midwife said he should nip home to get some things for the night as she wasn't going to squeeze it out any time soon. We thought it best that we head to the pub for a couple to relax a little. I'm at the bar ordering the second round and he gets a phone call saying baby has arrived :-\

[Burney]

No, but I have seen it in films and the like. Looks pretty straightforward.

It’s usually much longer and far less fun than on telly. At points it’s really quite dull. Mind you, it’s preferable to being anywhere near the business end, I’ll say that.

[Peter]

It’s usually much longer and far less fun than on telly. At points it’s really quite dull. Mind you, it’s preferable to being anywhere near the business end, I’ll say that.

I think is one of those things people make a bit of a fuss about. I mean the entire process of labour usually takes no longer than about 12-14 hours, max.

I cant see it being any worse than a flight with BA and I have done plenty of them.

[redgunamo]

Experts (and I assume this refers to criminologists and therapists) view it as a means for establishing control. THat in the mind of the rapist sex is inherently about the desire to dominate women, even punish them.

May explain why someone like Weinstein chooses to do all this stuff to women instead of paying for it, which he could easily do. Paying for it is a form of control but one where the woman is willing to accept it. Paying for it also implies that one has to and therefore creates a limit to one's power over women. Coercion reflects his position of power and his ability to control women.

Pure speculation of course. Maybe he is just a sick ******* who enjoys making women do things they dont want to.

I presume these criminologists and therapists of yours are currently looking for work?

[redgunamo]

Life sounds tough in the IT industry, a. :-(

:clap: Oh, I say!

[redgunamo]

No, but I have seen it in films and the like. Looks pretty straightforward.

Very straightforward indeed, if one observes the proceedings from a safe distance (in the pub, for example) as I was always advised to do.

[Peter]

I presume these criminologists and therapists of yours are currently looking for work?

I dont know them. I am just saying, you seem them on the telly and stuff, always going on about it.

Experts etc....

[redgunamo]

I dont know them. I am just saying, you seem them on the telly and stuff, always going on about it.

Experts etc....

Yes, full of shìt mostly.