Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
Coming soon

You can block from the profile page of the user I think. Click the three dots in the top right.

You can filter subreddits out by clicking the three dots on the post's card, then scrolling down to filter and picking subreddit. That's how I do it from all

I get the captain's privilege, but I still rate George as no 1 hooker for the team.

14 points · 5 months ago

So EJ's been even more conservative than I was expecting. That's disappointing. What do we learn from starting the likes of Brown and Cole yet again. Care has been in really good form recently and Youngs has been poor, so Youngs starts. Even wUnderhill has been demoted from the Autumn

see more

I rate Care, but I think he's best as an impact player later in the match. Coming on with his bursts of speed and quick play is a killer against tired legs. He loses a bit of that edge imo when he plays all 80.

Original Poster15 points · 5 months ago

OP here - I am not sure when these are dated. He played in the year below me and I played with a few of his team-mates at colt level (U17/18). Since he left the club at U16s level I believe he must have been around 14-16. Certainly with him being lifted in a few photos, he must have been at least in U16s (you can't lift in club rugby till this age I think...) when these were taken.

Even at this age he is still huge and still a beast...

see more

Could people tell he was a talent at that age? Did the other kids and parents clock he had that kind of potential?

For posterity and to improve readability.

Can I sue for the transmission of an STD?

Heres the backstory: Let us just say that: My name is Matt. My friend's name is Tyler. Tyler's friend's name is Ashley. Ashley's friend's name is Sarah.

Me and Tyler go to the bar on a Friday night just as something to do. Tyler runs into his old friend Ashley and they begin talking. Ashley introduces me to Sarah who I grew up with in the same town, and had heard of, but never really met. We enjoy our night at the bar. I enjoyed some small talk with Sarah but nothing serious. All I know is things between Tyler and Ashley are really starting to heat up.

Tyler asks me if I want to go back to Ashley's apartment with them for a while. I said not really I want to go home. Tyler was my ride and tries pressuring me into going. Saying it'll only be for a little. He'll owe me one. Blah blah blah whatever. I really wasn't interested in Sarah like that and was trying to avoid going. Although my dumb/drunk ass finally agrees to go "for a little", mainly because Sarah begins talking about how awesome her bong is at her house and how much I really need to go, to at least try it.

We get to Sarah's apartment and we're all sitting on the living room couch just smoking and watching TV. Tyler and Ashley disappear into the other room leaving just me and Sarah on the couch together. Sarah starts talking about she has some pizza in kitchen and asks me if I want some. I say sure. Five minutes later Sarah comes back without any pizza but wearing some serious lingerie, the type that would make a dead man perk up in his grave. I'm just sitting there looking in disbelief as she takes the top half off and begins walking towards me. I don't really need to go into too much detail. But basically, some things that shouldn't have happened happened.

I eventually went to go get Tyler to leave. Tyler was sound asleep and wouldn't wake up. I realize that Sarah and Ashley are also both asleep now. I decide I didn't want to wait until morning for a ride and called an Uber home. I wake up in the morning with loads of regret, but it's already a done deal at this point so whatever. Two weeks go by and like clockwork I begin noticing symptoms. I go to a doctor and get tested. They originally thought it was herpes, but once that test came back negative they basically determined that it was HPV (not HIV but still an incurable, lifelong disease with the potential to cause cancer among other problems). I know she gave it to me. I never previously had any of those symptoms and hadn't engaged with anyone else for quite some time prior.

Anyways, I begin researching topics online such as "suing someone for giving you and STD". A lot of what I read states that someone does NOT need to be aware of their STD positive status to receive punishment for transmitting it to another person. You can sue even if they didn't know they had it. You can sue someone just for exposing it to you, even if you don't contract it.

Anyways, today I finally found time to contact a lawyer and ask what my options are. The phone call lasted only a few minutes, with the lawyer telling me "You can't sue her if she didn't know she had it, and how are you going to prove she knew she had it?" He basically told me he personally didnt want the case and got off the phone with me. What he told me goes against most of what I have read. I specifically read the law doesn't require intent, and that you can sue someone for contracting it even if they didn't know they had it.

So my question is, is he right or is he wrong? What are my options? This girl basically seduced me and her actions have and will affect me for the rest of my life in ways that are too long to list here. She had an obligation to tell me and she didn't. She deserves to be punished for what she did. He did say something about maybe having a case if I could prove she knew she had it and was negligent by not telling me.

Among many other reasons, I believe she must have known she had it, as I was told by mutual friends that it turns out Sarah is actually a stripper and has "been around". That being said, she must have been aware of her condition, and had she disclosed such to me as required by law (which she didn't), such an interaction never would have occured. What are my options? Thank you.

Update: When you know for a fact a girl infected you with an incurable STD and you ask Reddit for advice, but everyone treats her as the victim and you as the bad guy. Even though she's the one that screwed you. All based off of "probablies". Talking about 85% percent this 90% percent that. Not realizing that I was in the 10-15% that apparently everyone forgot exists.

Apparently it is now socially acceptable in the United States to knowingly infect someone with an STD. Shit, California just made removed the law barring one from knowingly transmitting HIV. Apparently because everyone does it that makes it okay. You guys are the same people that think OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony are innocent. Wanting to believe someone is innocent, therefore they must be, rather than believe the reality of the situation. Apparently you a think I have nothing better to do than sit here and lie to you for no reason. Fact of the matter is I'm here telling you the truth. No one wants to believe me so whatever. Thanks for letting me down Reddit.

You guys are the same people that think OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony are innocent.

HPV= getting murdered.

see more

My favourite escalation by far

Load more comments

They totally have the power to pass the legislation to do it right? You actually believe that? Utter nonsense.

see more
Original Poster1 point · 5 months ago

'Barely any people in government'

Five cabinet secretaries and two future cabinet secretaries.

If five/seven cabinet secretaries are driven by something collectively, I'd hope they'd have the ability to pass it. Or maybe it was never possible. Or was flagrantly dishonest.

If five/seven cabinet secretaries are driven by something collectively, I'd hope they'd have the ability to pass it. Or maybe it was never possible. Or was flagrantly dishonest.

Do you know what "lets" means? Does "lets" mean 100% guaranteed in your mind?

Let's is a suggestive word, not an absolute.

not prevent or forbid; allow. .

see more
Original Poster2 points · 5 months ago

So they just threw it out as an idea, won the referendum and then it went by the by? Because it was just a nice idea someone had on the way to the bus printing shop?

Load more comments

0 points · 5 months ago

She also said that she wouldn't have a snap election. Look how that turned out.

This is BlueKIP on steroids, we need to stop it now.

see more

TM and the EU agreed a position pre-Chtistmas. The EU, as the article notes, is now contradicting that position.

It was agreed people in before we leave the UK should quite rightly have their position here respected, but when we aren't potentially part of any freedom of movement agreement, it wouldn't make sense that people arriving from the EU would be given unconditional access that people from the rest of the world don't get.

The UK wouldn't be part of a movement agreement, so it seems counterintuitive that EU citizens would have more rights from people in the rest of the world.

Not quite. During the transition, FoM will continue. People from the EU will be able to come and work here under pretty much the current rules. The disagreement is about whether the special rights agreed as part of Phase 1 of the withdrawal talks (indefinite leave to remain, a set of legal rights guaranteed by international law, X years of ECJ oversight etc) will apply to this group after the transition ends or just those who arrived before the transition began.

see more

Apologies - that's clearer. People will still move about, but their right to remain is what's being disputed in the new argument.

Load more comments

Oh god, I look forward to this causing nonsense chat about the DEEP STATE

This is rampant bollocks.

You can't accuse the protestors of historical ignorance and then be so blinkered. Churchill was an inspirational leader for the British populace during the war effort, but no one should pretend for a moment he was perfect or above criticism.

This brief piece shows some of the controversy of Churchill, and there's some food for thought there, whether you'd argue he was a product of his time or not.

I don't agree with the protestors (particularly the point about gentrification being thrown in) but this article is absolute rubbish.

For how long have we been hearing that May is just about to be toppled like a statue of Saddam?

Starting to wonder if there's a sweepstake going amongst the journos and they're trying to rig it for themselves.

5 points · 5 months ago

Well, it is scary.

Myself, I have a knife by my laptop when I post on /r/ukpolitics.

see more

I type with the knife, just to be sure. he so famously did during his time in office.

That northern powerhouse thing really took off.

Original Poster1 point · 5 months ago

Written for an international audience, hence slightly non standard terminology

I'm guessing a shed load of the Lords woke up with a start when this happened

I really wouldn't yet - it dropped that far just in the morning. The afternoon and more press coverage are yet to come!

Too late. Only put 8k down though so im alright of it goes tits up.

see more

Best of luck! Here's hoping the afternoon is kind in coverage.

Load more comments

All of our cards are hidden i promise we have them

see more

Look into my eyes, not around the eyes, nothing up the sleeve....

Even if the EU has conducted their own research, there isn't a guarantee that the full level of information is the same in both studies.

Apologies, but that is complete and utter nonsense. Meet the EuroStat - they don't need to do their "research", we send them all the data on the economy they could ever want or need.

If scenario based testing has been considered, it could show areas of leverage in discussion.

I'm sure it was and did - but there's nothing the UK can do to "hide" anything on this front, as they have all the raw economic data. The reverse is also true, btw.

then you wouldn't want a published document that draws attention to potential red lines.

The only red lines in this matter that are "unknown" are political red lines. Nothing of substance in terms of real economy is "unknown".

see more

I think we probably agree there - much of it will be perceived or even political impact, rather than relating to raw financial data or economic impact. Much of this is how people will feel about the impact, or it's impact on specific people.

Load more comments

LGB and T

And if you can get them to work together.

The LG and T often call the B of being fake.

see more

Yeah - I'm not LGB or T, so don't have the lived experiences, but you often see people disagreeing. That's the downside of treating any one group as homogenous: not everyone agrees and not everyone is the same.

It's a good lesson in not treating groups, particularly marginalised ones, as a monolith.

Comment deleted5 months ago

I suppose my view is why would they necessarily exclusively support it when it doesn't apply to them? They can be supporters and allies, but it's not a cause that specifically applies, I guess.

Load more comments

Original Poster15 points · 5 months ago

He said attacking the Labour leader would mean "one less terrorist off our streets" and he said it “would have been even better” if they had had the opportunity to kill Mr Khan

He sounds pretty disturbed

see more

Awful grammar too.

One less terrorist off our streets? Isn't that keeping a terrorist on the street?


I'm watching the BBC News piece on gender pay in the BBC - do they often report on themselves? They feel to be being challenging of their own people.

Do other news organisations self-report? And can an organisation (quasi state media) be trusted to self report?

3 points · 5 months ago

They constantly report on themselves. Earlier they had a bit about a Strictly dancer not having their contract renewed. Also watching Charlie Stayt and Naga Munchetty try and get through the bit about the woman who quit over pay was excruciating.

see more
Original Poster2 points · 5 months ago

Thanks - that's interesting. I've never seen a headline news article that is about the BBC by the BBC, and it's got such an odd tone to it.

Trying to do the 'eating spaghetti' trick with my yoyo. Busted lip and cracked tooth.

Women should have boycotted the awards, not drone on and on with speeches that fell on deaf ears.

see more

The irony of you posting this twice....

The EHRC told the Mercury: “Charging people different rates because of their race is unlawful discrimination unless it can be shown that this is a proportionate way of addressing low levels of participation.

Er... what about that bit?

see more

My understanding is that positive action/discrimination is acceptable where data shows significant barriers.

E.g. a different or amended recruitment process for people with disabilities. However, it can't ever be a 'gimme' and must be proportionate to any imbalance.

Original Poster0 points · 5 months ago

"Of course, under my suggestion, the Town Council must withdraw the Kaffirs from the Location. About this mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians, I must confess I feel most strongly. I think it is very unfair to the Indian population and it is an undue tax on even the proverbial patience of my countrymen." - Gandhi

Note - Kaffir is a racial slur for blacks.

Nobody is protesting his legacy though.

see more

Who's talking about Gandhi?

Cake day
July 22, 2017
Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.