Anyone with a crush on Theresa May too?

[Charlie Black]

I've just got to tell someone. I've an enormous crush on the Prime Minister, Theresa May! It's not recent either. It started when she was Home Secretary. I would have put this in the 'Am I the only one...?' thread, but the former editor of Loaded admitted he's fallen too, a few months ago.

I admit I've looked with pity in the past at those admitting similar feelings for Maggie Thatcher and, God forbid, Edwina Currie and Hilary Clinton. Now I'm stricken too.

She's the most popular P. M. in living memory. Is this entirely due to her - rather vague - policies though I admire her main one of holding the UK together, something that's going to come under a lot of strain in the coming years. I'm sceptical about Brexit and she doesn't seem to give a monkey's about freedom of speech and animal welfare, two subjects I really care about. Yet I always find myself defending her. Could there be thousands out there who feel the same way?

I suspect there are some on this forum. Will they admit it? Or do I 'need help' as they say. Not that it will make any difference; I'm hooked. Any way I've got to go as something's just come through the door featuring my heroine.

[Old Jud]

Originally Posted by Charlie Black

I've just got to tell someone. I've an enormous crush on the Prime Minister, Theresa May! It's not recent either. It started when she was Home Secretary. I would have put this in the 'Am I the only one...?' thread, but the former editor of Loaded admitted he's fallen too, a few months ago.

I admit I've looked with pity in the past at those admitting similar feelings for Maggie Thatcher and, God forbid, Edwina Currie and Hilary Clinton. Now I'm stricken too.

She's the most popular P. M. in living memory. Is this entirely due to her - rather vague - policies though I admire her main one of holding the UK together, something that's going to come under a lot of strain in the coming years. I'm sceptical about Brexit and she doesn't seem to give a monkey's about freedom of speech and animal welfare, two subjects I really care about. Yet I always find myself defending her. Could there be thousands out there who feel the same way?

I suspect there are some on this forum. Will they admit it? Or do I 'need help' as they say. Not that it will make any difference; I'm hooked. Any way I've got to go as something's just come through the door featuring my heroine.

Every time I look at her I get the uncomfortable feeling she was male at birth.......

[73north]

no , she's a witch - and she was well known in the Cabinet to be awkward and also
despite the Daily Mail propaganda , pretty useless as Home Secretary
She has a nasty , right-wing agenda that has still to be properly revealed
and the fact she wants Fox-Hunting back , shows a really dark side

[Charlie Black]

Well, I was being slightly tongue-in-cheek in posting this and to Old Jud- she's all woman! But the point about fox-hunting is interesting. In my experience many people who love to get worked up about this on Twitter then think nothing about guzzling down poultry and meat reared and slaughtered in the most barbaric of conditions. In other words they are either hypocrites or seriously lacking in perspective. Some people who oppose hunting are genuine adversaries of all forms of animal cruelty and I've no argument at all with them.

I'd have nothing to do with hunting in the unlikely event I was invited to join one. But in calling for something to be banned just because you disapprove of it, remember there's plenty of people who take a similar attitude towards porn for instance. Because you may hate the people you perceive to be involved, or the clothes they wear isn't a valid reason. (Using the word 'you' generally rather than the poster personally).

[73north]

Fox-Hunting - simple -
let a man that will always be far , far greater than I could ever be in my wildest dreams speak , please

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible.
Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism., question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification.
Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them.
George Orwell: Politics and the English Language

"Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them." They know that their "sport" is indefensible (at least in terms of what decent people everywhere consider defensible) they know that what they are doing is wrong, they don't want you to know it's wrong, and most importantly, they don't want to admit to themselves that it's wrong! There is just one problem here: you can lie to others, but you can not lie to yourself. Every action carries its inexorable consequences, much as one would rather avoid said consequences.
What is so wrong about it is this: unlike the deer hunter who actually hunts for meat, in fox hunting, the killing is the whole point. They don't do it for the meat (wouldn't something that eats mainly small rodents and road-kill taste just great?) or even for the fur (not much a furrier could do with what's left after a huntsman's pack gets done with a fox). It's solely about the killing. And not just any killing, but cruel, brutal, sadistic killing at that. It isn't what's portrayed in the movies: elegant gentlemen in their "pinks", riding beautiful horses to perky hounds across a pristine country-side. It's a damn dirty business of some truly ugly people, despite how "elegant" and "dignified" they may look on the outside. The propaganda that the fox is killed quickly and humanely (or incredibly enough, that foxes are seldom actually killed) is pure BULLSHIT.

Disturbing & Graphic Description Ahead

If the fox goes to ground and they decide to dig him out, the terrier men are called in and the following methods are used. Making sure that all escape routes from the earth except one, are blocked, a terrier will be encouraged into the earth to locate the fox and keep him holed up. The terrier man listens for the confrontation. When the position of the two animals has been ascertained, the earth will be dug out and the terrier removed, they will then carry on digging until the fox is reached and its head and shoulders exposed. It will then be killed with either a blow to the head with a spade or crop, or more commonly, a humane killer is fired at point-blank range at the head. After removing trophies, i.e. mask (head), brush (tail), pads (feet), the remains will be thrown to the hounds.
Note: More euphemisms: "trophies", "mask", "brush", "pads" -- every single one of them name inanimate objects in every day useage.

End Disturbing & Graphic Description

If you needed no other proof that this is a bullshit "sport", then here it is. The chase could be considered "sporting" if the fox was considered to have "won" if he makes it safely to an underground refuge. Were that the case, even I might be able to have a modicum of respect for it (Just kidding: there is nothing "respectable" about this). However, there is not thing one that is "sporting" about digging out. This is a sadistic, pathological murder. It is beneath contempt, and should be an affront to every decent person. Period. End of story.
It would be one thing for the Terrier Man to press a button from 200 miles away and fire off a cruise missile, or drop a laser guided "smart bomb" from 20,000 feet at an earth with a fox trapped in it and turn it into a smoking crater. This killing is up close and personal. No idea exists in a vacuum, as every idea is the product of every other idea. Now, do you suppose that anyone could look into those intelligent, aware eyes, and take the life of a defenseless little animal who's done him no harm, and not expect a corrosive effect on the psyche? Indeed, even within the hunt fraternity itself, Terrier Men are considered the scum of the earth. Suspect self-justification here. Most fox hunters seldom stick around for the actual kill. Suspect the same phenomonon of hardened criminals in a maximum security penitentary feeling self-righteous over the fact that they aren't "short-eyes" (i.e. child molesters). Terrier men are decidedly creepy.

and finally
An Open Letter to the Hunting World
"The unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable"

-- Oscar Wilde

[BCFC_1982]

No.

[bowlinggreen]

I think Theresa May looks like Helen Mirren's nutter sister would look, if she had one. Not what I'd want to roll in the sheets with.

Helen herself is a hotty, even at her advanced age.

Helen for PM!

[Charlie Black]

Helen Mirren's sister. Now there's a thought!

I started this thread as a bit of fun, but now we've got some heavy stuff including Orwell. I'd condemn all forms of animal cruelty, but just feel that involved in Fox Hunting is infinitesimal compared to the transport of live animals for thousands of miles in appalling conditions only to be slaughtered at the end of their journey in the most barbaric fashion imaginable. Something that is happening on a regular basis. Or the everyday barbarity and cruelty of the slaughterhouses, not forgetting the Halal trade, now big business too. Not to mention all the horrors of factory farming. You can't compare any of that to someone shooting a deer for food. I just think the attention given to Hunting is disproportionate. That's all I'm going to say.

Anyhow Theresa May only said she was in favour of another vote in the next parliament. With the government up to their necks in the colossal Brexit negotiations, I can't see it happening.

[Old Jud]

Originally Posted by Charlie Black

........ to Old Jud- she's all woman!

Sorry Charlie, i'm still not 100% convinced. There could well be a 'nut sack' or the remnants of one in her knickers!

I'm too polite to ask how you have determined she is 'all woman'!

[bloke57]

Originally Posted by Charlie Black

Helen Mirren's sister. Now there's a thought!

I started this thread as a bit of fun, but now we've got some heavy stuff including Orwell. I'd condemn all forms of animal cruelty, but just feel that involved in Fox Hunting is infinitesimal compared to the transport of live animals for thousands of miles in appalling conditions only to be slaughtered at the end of their journey in the most barbaric fashion imaginable. Something that is happening on a regular basis. Or the everyday barbarity and cruelty of the slaughterhouses, not forgetting the Halal trade, now big business too. Not to mention all the horrors of factory farming.

Can you not be opposed to both? I'm not keen on the "it could be far worse" excuse on any topic (oft used in politics!)

Anyway, as you rightly say, not really the gist of this light-hearted topic. So I'll just say that, no, I don't find Theresa May at all attractive. You may remember that in the past some people had a similar reaction to Mrs Thatcher and I didn't get that one either.

Do you think some chaps are attracted to powerful women?