ECCOnoob

I partly agree but I do find tagging them all as some differing level of "influencers" to be quite insulting to the ones who actually do it as a real job and put the effort in. Personally, I would equate successful YouTubers who are doing genuinely entertaining, comedic, educational, nostalgic or even longform documentaries with genuine facts, interviews and statistics to be equated not as "influencers" but calling them presenters, comedians, performers or documentary makers. After all, for many in the current generation, YouTube etc is their television equivalent. The ones who are doing travel videos, factual product reviews, technical breakdowns or accommodation reviews to simply be called critics or consumer journalists because that's what they are doing just on the internet rather than on some TV program or newspaper column. As you say, the ones who are doing podcasts, interviews vlogs are equated to basically same as any radio host. Then we have two very distinct tiers of 'models'. The one's pouting away on Instagram, taking pictures of their dinners, showing off their hands and eyes covered the latest makeup trend or wearing X brand's gear might as well just be called fashion models or advertorials because as you say, they're equivalent to the sorts of tabloid newspaper and magazine posers of yesterday. The ones who are wiggling their bums for clicks on certain types of or website getting piecemeal donations from their 'fans' are influencing sod all (except a certain part of the body), so might as well categorise them exactly the same as the models doing it on late night television. They're simply pornography actors. As for everyone else with a YouTube/insta page/tiktok channel with less viewers than the test card, well let's just call them what they are. Hobbyists. They're nothing more than people back in the day going round with a camcorder filming their home movies to share and giggle at with their friends, nothing more than the amateur photographers who might every now and then throw some of their work onto a market stall to make a few quid just that's it. They are nothing more than people sat in their bedrooms recording their own voices, singing away, making their mixtapes or recording copyrighted works off the radio to replay it out with their commentary on. For that lot, the modern buzzword of influencer is far too grand. It's just people having a hobby and the reality is, that's what 99% of the so called "influencers" really are. Just the same as yesterday there was the millions of wannabe pop stars.... the millions of desperate hopefuls who think they are so beautiful ready to be the next Kate Moss.... the millions of people in their kitchens who think they are only a step away from being the next Gorgon Ramsay..... and barely anyone actually makes it to the top. So, back to the original post. The fact is if that's what she wants to do, she will need to treat it as the same mindset as those desperate wannabes described above from back in the day. It may well be doable IF (and it's a huge if) they having enough talent, draw, personality and skill to stand out from the crowd, get a following and get noticed. But like many of their predecessors who have done it off the internet world, it can take years. It will take knock back after knock back. All the while they will need to make damn ensure that they have a real world job to fill in the gaps. Just like all of those things I mentioned, there are thousands of wannabes just waiting to be the next big "thing" and only a handful of them ever make it.

Plenty of parents have always worked despite having kids. In fact, most of them still do. Like I said, these are decisions responsible parents think about before they make the commitment to having children. Given the changing times, there's never been more agile and flexible working available. Certainly more than my parents had but they have both coped and continued to work. They just made damn sure to juggle their hours around the kids and the moment the oldest sibling could be, she was in charge looking after the rest of us when there was overlap. As the next oldest grew responsible enough it passed down the line and so on. That was how it was. Oldest sibling did the after school hours, as one parent came home from work. The other parent went off to their work in the evening. Come the morning the roles reversed. One parent came home after dropping kids off at school while other all went out to work round and round it went. It was a tough life but that's how it was for many families. Like I said, understanding the commitment and taking the responsibility. I'll work with people right now who are both full-time parents and full-time employees. One comes in early, the other late after dropping kids to their various schools/services. Then of course one finishes earlier to be ready to do the after school pick up whilst the other finishes later... Why should it be free after school this... after school that.... When do schools become some unofficial child minding service for convenience of parents. Why should it be the school responsibility to teach basic life skills on everything? Why should it be the school responsibility for nutrition? There's really does seem a line increasingly blurred between education and offloading parental responsibility onto teachers.

Really. Well that's your opinion. Either way it doesn't detract from the point. Becoming a parent is a serious responsibility. Something that needs to be considered very carefully before such 18, 20, 30 year life commitment is made. It shouldn't be for the state continually be propping people up for their irresponsible behaviour and apathy, nor should it be for the state to be some point of instant blame when people's own failures happen. Yes, there has been cuts and shrinking of SureStart but it's pretty obvious there's been a dramatic change in the world since Gordon Brown introduced such a scheme including a major financial crash whilst on his watch . Just like every other aspect of governance, budgets and priorities have to move and change in the 25 plus years since the scheme was launched. It doesn't mean there aren't still provisions and services available. As I've pointed out, things still exist and there are seven different centres in Sheffield alone. Local authorities have an entire budget towards provision for children's services. It's part of government policy right now. There were plenty of dual working parents long before SureStart was even a draft policy on paper. Not every one of those parents had an easy life. Some of them faced plenty of tough times but they managed, they got through, they scrimped and saved ,they brought up their children the best way they could. They weren't sitting there waiting for the state to sort it all out for them. They weren't expecting school teachers to raise their kids for them or to feed them three times a day on taxpayer money or or now seemingly being toilet training them... Something has clearly changed in society's attitude to parenting and it's certainly not just as simplistic as blaming the Tories and budget cuts. That's a complete cop out.

I used the term "knickers" colloquially. I didn't specific one particular gender of parent, I used the word if THEY i.e. both.

Yep. 1998 Gordon Brown policy according to Wikipedia

No. The name might no longer be around but the basic principle is. The government still funds a load of family hubs across the country and has a local authority program called start for life which costs around £301m out of the DFE budget. According to the council website there are seven family hubs in Sheffield. If people are seriously trying to blame the government for their lack of basic parenting skills, they need to take a long hard look at themselves. Maybe if they don't know how to parent they should do a bit of learning before they drop their knickers.

Only linkage if you are suggesting similarly that every child who played with cap guns, is a great risk of committing a firearms offences or anyone that regularly enjoys a ride on the dodgems at the fun fair should be carefully monitored ready to have their licence revoked because they have a high probability of mirroring it when they go around driving on the streets. Anyone who has the mindset and disturbed mental condition to conduct a homicide offence. Is just as probable to be 'triggered' into their behaviour by any means of media. They could be as simply triggered by reading words on page, seeing a photographing in a book or even hearing a certain piece of music. All I'm suggesting is that whenever a tragic incident happens, there seems to be some automatic lurch towards finger pointing gaming and internet and youth culture, despite the fact that violence, aggression, graphic images, sexual exploitation and the macabre is spread all around our media all the time and has been for decades.

So is lots of content on TV dramas or in movies or even books. It still all gets approved and broadcast and published and is consumed by millions of adult viewers. Thankfully, 99.9% of those viewers are able to detach between fantasy and reality. However, for those rare few disturbed individuals, yes it is possible they may get influenced by some imagery and act upon them. But we don't wipe out an entire genre of media just because of a tiny tiny amount of clearly disturbed people who may get affected by it. Gaming always seems to be one of those things that has some default stereotype of being "just for the kids". It clearly isn't and never was. Loads of games, just like loads of other media has an 18 plus certificate and designed from the ground up to be an adult game with adult themes for an adult audience. Even way way back in its early days in the '80s there was sexploitation games, games filled with lewd images and very adult humour on mostly pirated 'back of the magazine' disks... In the '90s that evolved into the first generation of digital disc games with an infamous horror one involving a whole plot regarding kidnap and rape. Later on millions of horny men were getting aroused by the imagery of Lara Crodt in Tomb Raider and that has now developed into full-on virtual reality pornography. The point is, that adult material is not a new concept and neither is adult themes across a range of media. Not so long ago we had millions of women wetting their knickers over the racy contents of fifty shades of grey all sat there quite openly in public places and on public transport reading the filthy book. However I don't remember lots of sensationalised headlines about the sadistic nature of the content or warnings on how every man was instantly turning to sadistic acts to feed the demands of their partners. It was just a book. Just entertainment and it went down so well that they turned into a film. Back to the article, I will admit it is pretty arguable the voice actors who are going to be required to undertake such topics or performances should be fully aware in advance and given opportunity to decline such role. But I do question whether there would be so much fuss kicked up if this was vocal acting required for a gritty TV drama or some near the knuckle real life play on Radio 4 or some docudrama for Netflix. It really just seems sometimes that gaming is often the go-to place for finger pointing.

What do you mean? Based on what criteria? What performance indicator? whose judgement? Once again your opinion is full of oversimplification and assumption. Maybe take a look behind the clickbait headlines about their "happiness" and "wellbeing" and have a look into some of the misconceptions. Maybe take a look at the other aspects beyond that such as economic power, global position, impact, growth projections, GDP... For all the positive things supposedly about the Scandinavian way of doing things, what are the negatives, where is their position compared to us? For the record, it is not just Britain that follows the United States. The majority of the planet does. That is why they are number one on the league of global superpowers. We are currently fifth. Oh and out of interest the Scandinavian countries you mentioned aren't even in the top 20, lagging behind places like Spain, Italy, Ukraine, Israel..... The happiness of citizens based on surveys and statistics, is only one element of society. All well and good bring classified as happy but no so content when you have no place on the global stage, decreasing economic impact and limited powers. So perhaps it's not so simple as boldly declaring how things "should be done" is it. It's not one-dimensional.

Don't think you are in quite the position to be criticising how other people drive when you said this earlier. People in glass houses and all that...

A few more years they will be earning as much as train drivers. From what I read a lot of them are spending plenty of time sitting around at home too.

No, I don't live in a very different world to you. I just see things differently to you. Your story is not an original one. I might not be as old as you but even in these more modern times the circumstances exist. In fact, I know people just like you. People who used to playfully mock me when I was a lot younger. They were off doing their well-paid skilled trades. Lots of ready cash in their back pocket, lots of overtime hours, lots of good old site banter.... whilst I was sat in a dusty office block in a crappy admin job on fixed salary. They used to come home from their shifts and be in the pub multiple times a week enjoying their lives while I was spending after hours studying for some degree costing me tens of thousands of pounds.... Then as my friend's heavy industries declined and those trade jobs were drying with gaps in employment I was reaching my 20th continuous year career still sat behind a desk, steadily working my way up in what you'd dismiss as that good wage job running about in that firms car.... The only difference is my friends aren't jealous of that. My friends understand that I worked for that. Took the risks and investment to do it. My friends understand that hard work comes in different forms, my hard work sat my behind desk staring at computers and reading/drafting reams of pages of documents each day is just as taxing as the manual hard work that they do every day.

I am not saying that employees don't deserve to be rewarded and incentivised and given praise for the work they do. However, if it wasn't for you breaking off taking the risk, putting up the money, setting up that business of yours and building it into one with X number of customers you wouldn't have jobs to give to those 36 employees who I presume are more than happy to accept their pay packets every month. Plus, of course you taking the responsibilities to manage that business is also keeping the cash flow to be paying the rent, paying the equipment, paying for materials for your employees to do their work.... No matter how valuable the contribution from employees is, it doesn't detract from the basic fact that business owners, shareholders and corporations are always going to be the ones with dominant power and always going to be the ones who have the right to take 'the cream from the top' because it's their money. How can it be any other way. Employees of course have a right to be valued but their 'power' comes in the saleability of their skills, their rarity, their worth to the business, their ease of replaceability, global labour demand and commercial pressures..... this is not exactly a new story. Ultimately is a contractual arrangement which is signed up for. They are paid for their services to the business for the job that business orders them to fulfil. Whichever way people try and spin it is far majority of circumstances that employees need their employers more than the other way around. Last time I checked, the vast majority of the public sector doesn't make money. It's just very good at spending *cough* wasting other peoples hard earned. Just how exactly is the economy supposed to be without that private sector investment, enterprise and profit making that the earlier poster seems to be rilling about.

Ah diddums. Why didn't you choose to elevate yourself, retrain, reskill, seek further qualifications and advance to get yourself into that position you seemingly are so jealous of. You know "do something about it" as you so eloquently say yourself. Yes yes businesses need the hard graft of the workers but that's the job they are paid to do and the job they sign up for. Dont like it, change. Look for something else. Prove your worth... Just dont forget its those bosses and leaders who keep the company running, the operations, the strategy, the finances, the payroll flowing. Its those "rich" owners and directors and shareholders who put their necks on the line, take their risks and put their own money into a forming, developing or investing into a business to bankroll its workers to be paid, keep the lights on, purchase supplies, purchase equipment, buy/rent the premises..... Damn right they are going to keep "skimming off the top" its their money. Its their profit. Its those private businesses shareholdings who contribute to our economy, contribute to the public purse, contribute to many of our major infrastructure, contribute to many of our pension schemes.... Its those private businesses and enterprises that keeps this tiny island on the global stage in the ever competitive global markets. All a damn sight more than a large majority of our our overprotected, wasteful, incompetent and inefficient public sector.

Honestly, why does every single news article that even hints at some changing language have to be accompanied by the lazy default of "woke millennials". For one thing, plenty of those millennials are now in there forties so hardly cutting edge youth. Also, this survey was commissioned on an online bingo site which is hardly going to be frequented by Brenda and Doris clutching their dobbers who pop down to Mecca once a week. After all, plenty of people on this forum claim that anyone over 60 somehow is a complete technophobe continually prejudiced by the ever advancements of modern Life. The fact is that if bingo wants to keep any sort of popularity, it has to evolve. Many of the 'traditional' terms will be deemed completely outdated, meaningless and even totally necessary to its modern-day clientele. There has been a whole new wave of pop culture, references, gimmicks and jokes and it's only right that things change to keep the interest up. Seems to me like nothing but some glorified advertorial peace with the usual clickbaited headline.

That's not remotely the point I was making. I'm commenting about why someone was specifically criticising the BBC for producing a cover poster of soap stars dressed in school uniforms and thus outrageously sexualizing the image of school kids ...... when lots of other media, publications, magazines, films, music videos, newspapers quite happily engage in the same sort of conduct and it's somehow accepted. Like I keep saying, if people want to be outraged, fine. But be outraged about the whole thing not just selected parts dependent on what suits their agenda and narrative.

I am not having "a go" i'm engaging in debate. I mean that's the only purpose of this thread right? Get people commenting? Since there's scant facts or substance to the actual incident to talk about might as well get on with wading through the tangents, speculation about yoofs with with smart phones, video games and moral upbringings, arguments over facebook posts, Palestine, hate speech punishments being too harsh..... and all before the Police have barely started their their investigations 🙄

Yes, some do but millions of others don't so what's so scary? Is there really a massive proven probability of a causal link between violent video games and violent acts in the street or is it just hyped up over exaggerated speculation fuelled by media looking to boost ratings. This is the danger. Some people are chronic alcoholics but it doesn't mean that everyone who enjoys the odd tipple once or twice a week becomes chronically dependant. Some people are morbidly obese and literally eating themselves to death, but that doesn't mean that every single person who enjoys the odd treat or fast food burger is automatically of medical concern.

Thoughts like what? Just what exactly are you expecting people to say other than how sad, hope the victims recover soon, well done the police for seemingly catching the alleged suspect quickly.. That's it. That's all anyone else can say because they don't know anything. Everything else is speculation and rumour and ill-informed opinions and stereotyping which will inevitably sway in one direction regardless of any facts.

Why the whole women and children thing? I fully understand children just like I wouldn't expect lots of types of adult conversations to be happening in front of kids. However, as for in front of women. Why not? We are long away from the ye olde days when women are supposedly treated as some weaker sex, some delicate flowers kept indoors except in the odd special occasion when they come out to show off their pretty little dress and be shielded away in separate lounge rooms from those dirty gruff manly blokes. Most women I know give as good as they get when it comes to language - if not worse when they all get together.

The fact is, what people classify as "obscene language" is constantly evolving. So called swearing becoming more acceptable in adult conversations has been in progress for many years now. At one point, even the mildest swear words like 'bloody' and 'crap' would have get a reaction but now they are not even post watershed. Equally, lots of words, phrases and slang freely used in the 1960s and '70s will be considered highly offensive today and will certainly get a ban, removal or shock reaction. It's how it's always been.

The post I was specifically responding to was someone complaining adult soap stars being dressed up in school uniform. The point I was making is that there was lots of other circumstances where grown adults are portraying school kids. Lots of other circumstances where fresh young girls are happily paraded around, photographed, sung about, letched over and chased around for titillation, comedic effect and marketing purposes which seems perfectly accepted by society. Hence why I brought up the subject of selective outrage.

Maybe people should think carefully about that before voting for them then. Can we just not forget what the purpose of an MP supposed to be. Our voice in parliament. The people we go to to raise our concerns and seek resolution to our grievances. The people we choose to represent us and vote on our behalf. The people we believed are best to serve us and our constituency. If people don't think good old, tells it like it is Nige has sufficient drive and assertiveness to put their point of view forward or doesn't have the will to fight for their slots on ballots and debates and bills or can't be bothered to put the effort in to do the job he's supposed to serve (instead seemingly spending time massaging his own ego and boosting the PR of the right wing nuts across the pond)... well tough. They should have voted for somebody else.

How about a more recent and prime example of selective outrage that our fickle society does. Right now there's been the massive controversy over the Paris Olympics opening ceremony. Lots of wails and crying about some painted model jigging about in their underpants and "oh won't someone think of the children" being screamed. And yet, those very same publications, merely a few days later were posting whole articles simply highlighting the well endowed package of a young French diver. Thousands of articles and posts. Photographs, slowed down videos, zoomed in shots, attention grabbing titles, all there for everyone to see. All reposted, clickbaited and repeatedly highlighted to make sure everyone gets a good look. Didn't hear many people screaming "oh, won't somebody think of the children" about that. So. Two blokes in their pants and media focus solely on their tackle. Yet one seemingly interesting legitimate news the other one arrgh! outrage!

1. So were lots of other institutions with a culture of similar behaviour. 2. There are things worse than just cover-ups. There is exactly the same behaviour blatantly happening right in view but seemingly, if it involves some lewd but popular comedian or some god like pop star or some 'character' down the local pub its just played down. 3. No, they weren't supposed to to be documentaries but they were a very clear reflection of exactly what was happening in in the real world across a wide section of society. So I ask again, why just criticism at the BBC. Why not all the other aspects where the exact same sort of behaviour was blatantly happening right in the view of everyone but people in those circumstances seem to make excuses, accept and play down. Why the selective outrage.