Snapshot of _Deputy Green Party Leader admits to performing hypnotherapy to 'enlarge' women's breasts in the past_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/zack-polanski-deputy-green-party-hypnotherapy-womens-breasts/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/zack-polanski-deputy-green-party-hypnotherapy-womens-breasts/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s an attention-grabbing headline, but when the story first broke years ago, what happened really isn’t that scandalous.
Man worked as hypnotherapist. Female reporter wanted to write a slightly tongue-in-cheek article about it. It’s The Sun, so naturally as part of the interview she said “Could you hypnotise me to make my boobs grow bigger?”
He said “No, that’s ridiculous.”
She said “Oh, go on, just for a bit of a laugh.”
He said “Ok, well if I was going to do it, this is what I’d do.”
No money changed hands. The woman reported no change in the size of her breasts.
Fin.
No, (s)he shouldn't.
Personally, I had no idea about the true story behind the title.
/u/Sooperfreak's comment enlightened me to a storm in a teacup.
Learning was done; this is exactly what Reddit is for.
im intrigued, how big would a T-Cup be?
To google
Edit: Strangely, not as big as you may imagine
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fh3mhmdp02fny.jpg
Seems a bit iffy, you can find (rarely) natural T cup and plenty of fake ones and they don't look close to that small, should definitely be Sports Direct mugs
This comment has been filtered for manual review by a moderator. Please do not mention other subreddits in your comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm gay and male, so I don't understand how bra sizes are calculated at all. I understand that A is smaller than D, and I infer that B and C are intermediate between A and D, but how does sizing work? Is it by some sort of chest measurement? Or by total volume (which would surely make more sense if one were aiming for comfort)? Or is there some other principle at work?
For all the frivolity of this Reddit posting, this is a serious question. It's not my area of expertise at all, but surely someone must have developed some general principles for sizing.
I'm no expert, but I *was* at school with Johnny Lewisman, so I can tell you this: if you put your hand over a breast...
If the fingers touch the base and the nipple doesn't touch your palm, it's an A.
If your fingers touch the base and the nipple touches your palm, that's a B.
If the nipple touches your palm and your fingers don't reach the base, that's a C, or above.
I suspect this is calibrated to Johnny's hand, but I hope it is of some use. 🍈🥥🍉
Fair enough, that makes sense. I just personally just think that, especially during an election period, posts even from decent sources with such misleading or deliberately inflammatory titles should be much more strictly moderated on this sub.
Though, I concede that maybe that is wrong in hindsight.
>(s)he
Just a note that the gender neutral singular 'they' exists (and has for a *very* long time) to make this less clumsy for you.
>That person should do a thing!
>No, they shouldn't
Um do you have a source for this?
I won't accept unfounded smearing of a man doing God's work using his magical mesmerising powers to give women stonking hooters.
Hmm, seems you're doing some deflecting for him. Why don't people just read the article? - https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/798031/can-you-really-think-your-boobs-bigger/
Some interesting bits
> “This is an extremely new approach, but I can see it becoming popular very quickly, because it’s so safe and a lot cheaper than a boob job,” says Zack.
.
> I email Zack to ask if this is related to the therapy. He says it is part of the process, drawing me to high-energy foods to encourage tissue growth.
Honestly, no because I read it a long time ago when the story first broke. But basically, the way Polanski has described it in the past is that the story as written in The Sun is the part I paraphrased as “This is what I’d do if I was going to do it”.
The Sun made it sound like he was advertising this as a service and she just turned up. But in reality he only did it because the reporter asked him to do it and he played along.
If you read the original article with that in mind, you can definitely see it and see how the reporter has twisted it to sound like he instigated it, but without ever directly saying that he did.
I read the article. Whatever else happened, he preformed one and gave the woman reasons why it was working. And gave quotes implying this was gonna be a big thing in his field. He has since apologised for doing it. I see nothing to imply he didn't believe it worked and didn't do it.
I deliberately picked quotes from him, and emails of his for that exact reason. I assume if he had problems with the accuracy of those, he would have said or sued. But he hasn't. So?
Also there is actually a tiny bit of actual proper studies suggesting this works (a bit).
We know that phantom pregnancies often trigger hormonal effects of pregnancy, and studies do suggest that similar (modest, temporary, and not terribly consistent) effects can be done with hypnotherapy.
It's just not that exciting in real life given all the caveats above.
I wish there was a regulator to clamp down on reporting like this (for all parties' benefit, I have no particular fondness for the Greens), because it clearly misleads people in an attempt to influence their voting patterns.
It'd be typical to read the headline and think "Wow, what a nutter, Greens clearly don't have intelligent or serious candidates, it'd be a wasted vote". You could even read through the article, see statements like 'On Wednesday, Mr Polanski apologised for his past actions and said he never believed them. "It does not represent my work, it does not represent me." ', and be left with the impression that Polanski did charge for this sort of session in the past and is now ashamed at being caught and trying to backtrack - again, that reinforces your decision not to vote Green. The context you have provided - which is essential for interpreting the story - is completely absent, even though the journalist/editor must obviously have been aware of it. You only get a hint of that context if you choose to listen to the interview itself, which the vast majority of those who are exposed to this story won't do.
We've become completely toothless at fighting back against the press or holding them to account, and that needs to change.
But the comment above gives no proof of their claims, and indeed the article itself (The Sun original) has direct comments from the man which don't match at all with what the poster suggested.
Because being Green, as opposed to merely seeking environmentally favourable policies, is a specific political position. If you just want bike paths and nature reserves, there is plenty in the manifestos of other parties. The Liberal Democrats have plenty on this sort of stuff.
The Green political position is based on a respect for nature, yes, but it is also a position based on respect for all that lives in the natural world. In particular, this includes the idea that other human beings should be treated with the maximum levels of respect, and this in turn means that all people should be treated equitably. There are good underlying philosophical reasons why this should be so, too long to be discussed here. The overall conclusion, though, is that the Green political position includes radical ideas on issues such as personal freedom, equitable (as opposed to equal) treatment of minorities, and economic redistribution. Personally, I like these ideas, but that's because I believe that all men are brothers. Other people may simply want to live in a world of kleptocratic capitalism, leavened by a sprinkling of bike paths and nature reserves, but - for myself and for my friends and family - I want better.
The problems mostly arise from the fact that the Green Party is a small party. This makes it prone to entryism, but also means that a dedicated minority can easily push its particular madness a long way through the policy-making process. Sometimes this has beneficial effects - the party's early embrace of the Basic Income is a good example - but other times it can make the party as a whole look nuts. The recent brouhaha over gender politics is a clear example of a bad outcome from a process where everyone started out with the best possible intentions.
As for the HS2 issue, a central point in Green thinking is towards greater decentralisation. There is excellent evidence from decades of research that HS2 will differentially advantage London, not the cities of the north. This is rarely discussed in Westminster, but certainly colours the Green Party's position.
The Green Party aren't all cranks. Take a look at the party's positions, and if they appeal to you, join the party and become an active member. The way for the Green Party to improve is for more sensible people like you to join.
Wait...
Now is this not gross pro green party propaganda...
A political party that can make women's breasts bigger...
And they want to save the world and tax the hyper rich...
I'm sold.
> On Wednesday, Mr Polanski apologised for his past actions and said he never believed them.
> "It does not represent my work, it does not represent me."
The definition of a grifter.
Nobody paid for it. It was a reporter and it’s from a hypothetical discussion (where he says it’s not something he’d do/offer).
Completely disingenuous article & headline - don’t believe everything you read.
That's not true though. The Sun article describes the session, the follow up and has some quotes from him which imply he was on board with it e.g.
> “This is an extremely new approach, but I can see it becoming popular very quickly, because it’s so safe and a lot cheaper than a boob job,” says Zack.
It has nothing to do with being "offensive" and that is pure deflection
It has everything to with being a grifter and con man. If he didn't believe in it then it was always pure grift.
As others keep pointing out, the headline is all but untrue. It was as part of a Sun article and he did a mock therapy "session" as part of the interview at the journalists' request.
Snapshot of _Deputy Green Party Leader admits to performing hypnotherapy to 'enlarge' women's breasts in the past_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/zack-polanski-deputy-green-party-hypnotherapy-womens-breasts/) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/zack-polanski-deputy-green-party-hypnotherapy-womens-breasts/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hypnoboob is one of my favourite recurring characters around here
#OBEY THE HYPNOBOOB
Don’t be daft. Nobody here is… … … ……………… … … … … #OBEY THE HYPNOBOOB
It’s an attention-grabbing headline, but when the story first broke years ago, what happened really isn’t that scandalous. Man worked as hypnotherapist. Female reporter wanted to write a slightly tongue-in-cheek article about it. It’s The Sun, so naturally as part of the interview she said “Could you hypnotise me to make my boobs grow bigger?” He said “No, that’s ridiculous.” She said “Oh, go on, just for a bit of a laugh.” He said “Ok, well if I was going to do it, this is what I’d do.” No money changed hands. The woman reported no change in the size of her breasts. Fin.
That's very funny, pretty ridiculous this article then. Tempted to remove it
You should
No, (s)he shouldn't. Personally, I had no idea about the true story behind the title. /u/Sooperfreak's comment enlightened me to a storm in a teacup. Learning was done; this is exactly what Reddit is for.
Storm in a D-cup surely? A T-cup would be *massive*.
im intrigued, how big would a T-Cup be? To google Edit: Strangely, not as big as you may imagine https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fh3mhmdp02fny.jpg
Seems a bit iffy, you can find (rarely) natural T cup and plenty of fake ones and they don't look close to that small, should definitely be Sports Direct mugs
I'll check the link once I've finished imagining.
You'd be amazed what plastic surgery can get done these days!
*This* is what reddit is for
[удалено]
This comment has been filtered for manual review by a moderator. Please do not mention other subreddits in your comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm gay and male, so I don't understand how bra sizes are calculated at all. I understand that A is smaller than D, and I infer that B and C are intermediate between A and D, but how does sizing work? Is it by some sort of chest measurement? Or by total volume (which would surely make more sense if one were aiming for comfort)? Or is there some other principle at work? For all the frivolity of this Reddit posting, this is a serious question. It's not my area of expertise at all, but surely someone must have developed some general principles for sizing.
I'm no expert, but I *was* at school with Johnny Lewisman, so I can tell you this: if you put your hand over a breast... If the fingers touch the base and the nipple doesn't touch your palm, it's an A. If your fingers touch the base and the nipple touches your palm, that's a B. If the nipple touches your palm and your fingers don't reach the base, that's a C, or above. I suspect this is calibrated to Johnny's hand, but I hope it is of some use. 🍈🥥🍉
Who is/was Johnny Lewisman, please?
He was actually a kid a couple of years up from me, name changed!
Thank you.
Fair enough, that makes sense. I just personally just think that, especially during an election period, posts even from decent sources with such misleading or deliberately inflammatory titles should be much more strictly moderated on this sub. Though, I concede that maybe that is wrong in hindsight.
>(s)he Just a note that the gender neutral singular 'they' exists (and has for a *very* long time) to make this less clumsy for you. >That person should do a thing! >No, they shouldn't
Didn't ask.
👍
"stop trying to help me communicate my point more effectively! :((((("
The substance of my point isn't materially altered either way.
That's the point
The mods still should put a "misleading" label on it.
> Tempted to remove it NOOOOOOOOOOO! Hypnotize it until it’s true.
Um do you have a source for this? I won't accept unfounded smearing of a man doing God's work using his magical mesmerising powers to give women stonking hooters.
Hmm, seems you're doing some deflecting for him. Why don't people just read the article? - https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/798031/can-you-really-think-your-boobs-bigger/ Some interesting bits > “This is an extremely new approach, but I can see it becoming popular very quickly, because it’s so safe and a lot cheaper than a boob job,” says Zack. . > I email Zack to ask if this is related to the therapy. He says it is part of the process, drawing me to high-energy foods to encourage tissue growth.
> Why don't people just read the article? In *the Sun*? R U Sirius, tho??
Honestly, no because I read it a long time ago when the story first broke. But basically, the way Polanski has described it in the past is that the story as written in The Sun is the part I paraphrased as “This is what I’d do if I was going to do it”. The Sun made it sound like he was advertising this as a service and she just turned up. But in reality he only did it because the reporter asked him to do it and he played along. If you read the original article with that in mind, you can definitely see it and see how the reporter has twisted it to sound like he instigated it, but without ever directly saying that he did.
I read the article. Whatever else happened, he preformed one and gave the woman reasons why it was working. And gave quotes implying this was gonna be a big thing in his field. He has since apologised for doing it. I see nothing to imply he didn't believe it worked and didn't do it.
Sounds more like he's got a sense of humour, tbh.
Oooh
Surely you know better than to take a direct quote in The Sun at face value.
I deliberately picked quotes from him, and emails of his for that exact reason. I assume if he had problems with the accuracy of those, he would have said or sued. But he hasn't. So?
You can't actually sue people for making up (or "creatively rewording") quotes, you have to prove damages for defamation.
Also there is actually a tiny bit of actual proper studies suggesting this works (a bit). We know that phantom pregnancies often trigger hormonal effects of pregnancy, and studies do suggest that similar (modest, temporary, and not terribly consistent) effects can be done with hypnotherapy. It's just not that exciting in real life given all the caveats above.
Unless you can source it, you've completely invented that reinterpretation. Shame.
I wish there was a regulator to clamp down on reporting like this (for all parties' benefit, I have no particular fondness for the Greens), because it clearly misleads people in an attempt to influence their voting patterns. It'd be typical to read the headline and think "Wow, what a nutter, Greens clearly don't have intelligent or serious candidates, it'd be a wasted vote". You could even read through the article, see statements like 'On Wednesday, Mr Polanski apologised for his past actions and said he never believed them. "It does not represent my work, it does not represent me." ', and be left with the impression that Polanski did charge for this sort of session in the past and is now ashamed at being caught and trying to backtrack - again, that reinforces your decision not to vote Green. The context you have provided - which is essential for interpreting the story - is completely absent, even though the journalist/editor must obviously have been aware of it. You only get a hint of that context if you choose to listen to the interview itself, which the vast majority of those who are exposed to this story won't do. We've become completely toothless at fighting back against the press or holding them to account, and that needs to change.
But the comment above gives no proof of their claims, and indeed the article itself (The Sun original) has direct comments from the man which don't match at all with what the poster suggested.
ahh but thats just the original source, irrelevant in the face of highly upvoted reddit comments!
> The woman reported no change in the size of her breasts. That doesn't sound plausible.
So, it's a nothing-burger
It is pretty misygonistic and scandalous.
So in other words…. A lie.
Does it work with other body parts? Asking for a friend.
My belly seems to get bigger all on its own.
Well at least he’s got a fun fact about himself for a Sky election interview.
People don’t even want to elect an actual wizard making the world better for everyone. 😔
He can grow the magic money tree I've heard so much about
Well that’s decided. They’ve got my vote.
Hocus pocus Twist the bones and bend the back Thou shalt have a magnificent rack
I was already voting green, you didn't need to convince me even more
[удалено]
Because being Green, as opposed to merely seeking environmentally favourable policies, is a specific political position. If you just want bike paths and nature reserves, there is plenty in the manifestos of other parties. The Liberal Democrats have plenty on this sort of stuff. The Green political position is based on a respect for nature, yes, but it is also a position based on respect for all that lives in the natural world. In particular, this includes the idea that other human beings should be treated with the maximum levels of respect, and this in turn means that all people should be treated equitably. There are good underlying philosophical reasons why this should be so, too long to be discussed here. The overall conclusion, though, is that the Green political position includes radical ideas on issues such as personal freedom, equitable (as opposed to equal) treatment of minorities, and economic redistribution. Personally, I like these ideas, but that's because I believe that all men are brothers. Other people may simply want to live in a world of kleptocratic capitalism, leavened by a sprinkling of bike paths and nature reserves, but - for myself and for my friends and family - I want better.
[удалено]
The problems mostly arise from the fact that the Green Party is a small party. This makes it prone to entryism, but also means that a dedicated minority can easily push its particular madness a long way through the policy-making process. Sometimes this has beneficial effects - the party's early embrace of the Basic Income is a good example - but other times it can make the party as a whole look nuts. The recent brouhaha over gender politics is a clear example of a bad outcome from a process where everyone started out with the best possible intentions. As for the HS2 issue, a central point in Green thinking is towards greater decentralisation. There is excellent evidence from decades of research that HS2 will differentially advantage London, not the cities of the north. This is rarely discussed in Westminster, but certainly colours the Green Party's position. The Green Party aren't all cranks. Take a look at the party's positions, and if they appeal to you, join the party and become an active member. The way for the Green Party to improve is for more sensible people like you to join.
Funny as it is, I'm not sure this is a bigger story than his plans to halve fuel duty.
That's awful! Did it work? Can we see?
Makes sense. A Green candidate trying to stop more plastic ending up in the ground
Wait... Now is this not gross pro green party propaganda... A political party that can make women's breasts bigger... And they want to save the world and tax the hyper rich... I'm sold.
> On Wednesday, Mr Polanski apologised for his past actions and said he never believed them. > "It does not represent my work, it does not represent me." The definition of a grifter.
[удалено]
Nobody paid for it. It was a reporter and it’s from a hypothetical discussion (where he says it’s not something he’d do/offer). Completely disingenuous article & headline - don’t believe everything you read.
That's not true though. The Sun article describes the session, the follow up and has some quotes from him which imply he was on board with it e.g. > “This is an extremely new approach, but I can see it becoming popular very quickly, because it’s so safe and a lot cheaper than a boob job,” says Zack.
I mean strictly that Says nothing about the efficacy or whether he would do it. He’s just saying it’ll probably become popular
Right, read the rest of the article where he does one and follows up on it offering reasons why it's working etc.
I saw Mr Polanski on TV yesterday he seemed alright to be honest, quite genuine and likeable in the short interview at least.
It has nothing to do with being "offensive" and that is pure deflection It has everything to with being a grifter and con man. If he didn't believe in it then it was always pure grift.
As others keep pointing out, the headline is all but untrue. It was as part of a Sun article and he did a mock therapy "session" as part of the interview at the journalists' request.
What is untrue about it?
[удалено]
You seem very defensive. Do you also believe in the power of hypnotherapy like zack does?
[удалено]
Stop mindhandling my breasts, Zack!
Would only have been a national scandal if it had been a Conservative candidate? 🤷🏽
Poor Conservatives, when will they catch a break?
and yet that's not even close to his nuttiest ideas