The thing is, though, that those people are the same people who said Boris would never resign and would only be forced out by a VONC.
He didn't resign, and he hasn't gone.
Which is why Labour are talking about tabling a VONC
If he hasn't resigned as party leader, why is a leadership election starting?
Given that the said leadership election will inevitablty being replaced as PM, what's the point in the VONC?
To ensure Bozo goes sooner rather than later.
And as I pointed out in a previous comment - the timescales of a VONC would force Tory MPs to pick the next leader and allow the Tory party to blame Labour for the fact there wasn't a membership vote.
That is probably a win for everyone except Boris looking forward to a few weeks of sunshine in Chequers.
Rishi Sunak will pitch himself as the 'serious candidate for a serious time', arguing he is the only candidate with integrity to salvage Tory brand and experience to handle the economic crisis
LOL! His wife was a nom-dom while he as Chancellor was taxing everyone left, right and center. Don't think much else needs to be said...
That's true, but will nobody think of the more serious and pressing issues of our time?
Like my betting slip.
If Rishi wins the crown what on earth will @HYUFD do as he is implacable against him
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
I note our SLS /Starship bet is still live. Indeed a version of Starship HAS actually flown and landed , which is more than SLS...
I can't even remember what the bet was! Can you confirm?
I'd love it if SLS flies successfully before Starship. And even more if New Glenn reaches orbit before Starship (though that's unlikely).
In other news, ArianeSpace's Vega C is due for its first launch in a few days.
It is quite startling that Starship has been allowed to progress to this point. It is, among other things, a direct attack on SLS, a major government aerospace project. I was fully expecting that Shelby etc would have pulled SpaceX's government contracts over that.
From what I understand, there were some noises about "getting Elon back in his lane", but the military purchasers of SpaceX services said "national interest" to several politicians.
New Glenn would have to exist first. I have a theory that Sue Origin exists purely as objective proof that simply having a really big pile of personal money doesn't make successful rocket company - the painful progress of the BE-4 etc.
Orbital launch is so far away that Bezos had to buy launches (for his Project Kuiper - the competitor to Starlink) from every single provider who wasn't SpaceX at a huge markup over the SpaceX prices. If I were an Amazon shareholder, I would not be impressed.
Mind you, that has some interesting politics ramifications for Amazon. Suddenly they are the best friends of Arianespace, ULA etc - Bezos has given the non-SpaceX launch companies a few more years of life from their otherwise over priced expendable rockets.....
Scorching here. Picked the right week for a staycation, and a few days holiday on the Isle of Wight.
Who would be abroad when England is like this?
I've come to the conclusion that if Europe wants my hard-earned cash they can stop treating me like dirt at the airport. Meanwhile we're off to Sussex next week and Kielder Forest in August.
If @Scott_xP is anything to go by, the Departure of the Boris has done nothing to cure or even soothe The Brexit Psychosis, and the madness will continue forever
Great
This has political implications. I am still convinced Starmer will yield to pressure from the Labour versions of Scott, and tack towards the Single Market, if and when he becomes PM
I’m not quite a serious a case as psychosis - not yet anyway, I hope - but I am certainly still smouldering with resentment at losing my EU citizenship, which I don’t think will ever go away. And there are tens of millions like me. And I think a lot of younger people reaching maturity now and in the coming years probably feel the same.
I also think that the Red Wall, and working class people generally all over the country, were conned by right wingers who just wanted to be free of the moderating, redistributive hand of the EU. I think that is gradually becoming realised.
I don’t think it will ever go away. I think it will get worse. It will be like a boil, oozing pus, on the arse of our politics for years.
If Starmer doesn’t yield to pressure to at least rejoin the SM, a successor will. Personally I’d love to see a Lab/Lib Dem, maybe even SNP for shits and gigs, coalition. Starmer would, regretfully as part of the grubby politicking of securing a coalition deal, tack back towards the EU. Fantastic.
That is a very good post and I'm sure you speak for approximately 20,000,000 people and rising. 'Smouldering with resentment at losing your EU citizenship' describes it perfectly.
We find all kinds of reasons that Scott posts daily to be angry but what it boils down to is that we've had our EU citizenship taken from us. We've been shafted by our own government led by a self serving oaf and we wont let it go. We have been robbed but It REALLY isn't the money
BBC analysis showed many of the top liked comments on Weibo, one of China's biggest social media platforms, gloated at the former PM's shooting, while the state-backed broadcaster CCTV's TikTok account videos also posted mocking videos.
A Chinese friend tells me that it is only the fact that Mandarin isn't so widely spoken, outside China, that is protecting China's reputation in a number of areas.
The Xi Fanboy Nationalists are, apparently, MAGA grade Knuts and express themselves very openly on social media.
Rishi Sunak will pitch himself as the 'serious candidate for a serious time', arguing he is the only candidate with integrity to salvage Tory brand and experience to handle the economic crisis
LOL! His wife was a nom-dom while he as Chancellor was taxing everyone left, right and center. Don't think much else needs to be said...
That's true, but will nobody think of the more serious and pressing issues of our time?
Like my betting slip.
If Rishi wins the crown what on earth will @HYUFD do as he is implacable against him
Await his software update.
HYUFE?
"The HYUFD series is the most reliable computer ever made. No HYUFD computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error."
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
BBC analysis showed many of the top liked comments on Weibo, one of China's biggest social media platforms, gloated at the former PM's shooting, while the state-backed broadcaster CCTV's TikTok account videos also posted mocking videos.
There is a visceral dislike of the Japanese which unites the Chinese people. It isn't nice, but it is perhaps understandable.
That hatred stems from 75+ years ago. Everyone involved is now dead....
Their nephews and nieces aren't! Some memories last a long time; I think you can still find people in South Wales who believe that Churchill ordered shooting the miners 110 years ago!
I’ve just realised that Boris is going to haunt the nightmares of the Left (and some on the right, too) for years and years, the same way Thatcher did. Even when he’s long gone his name will provoke a weird reflexive mix of fear, loathing, anger and nameless dread
BBC analysis showed many of the top liked comments on Weibo, one of China's biggest social media platforms, gloated at the former PM's shooting, while the state-backed broadcaster CCTV's TikTok account videos also posted mocking videos.
There is a visceral dislike of the Japanese which unites the Chinese people. It isn't nice, but it is perhaps understandable.
Taking it to the point of cheering on a political assassination, is perhaps just a little too far.
Sad news.
Yeah. Not trying to excuse it, but to explain it a little. Chinese have a reflexive tendency to define individuals by their nationality. It explains much about the country.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
Just on Boris approval rating which was around -50 Thats 25 approve 75% disapprove
But of the 75% who disapprove at at least 60% would be labour and lib dems who would never vote for him
So that leaves around 15% disapprove who are conservatives and 25 % approve But wait The 15% who disapprove are likely middle class southerners in safe seats who wouldn't swing an election anyway And of the 25% who approve they are concentrated in red wall seats who will swing an election and many of these really love him
Just on Boris approval rating which was around -50 Thats 25 approve 75% disapprove
But of the 75% who disapprove at at least 60% would be labour and lib dems who would never vote for him
So that leaves around 15% disapprove who are conservatives and 25 % approve But wait The 15% who disapprove are likely middle class southerners in safe seats who wouldn't swing an election anyway And of the 25% who approve they are concentrated in red wall seats who will swing an election and many of these really love him
The conservatives have made a disastrous decision
Yougov have 2019 Tory voters as 52% disapprove of him vs 43% approve so your numbers are way off.
Keir Starmer does politics. Poster here doesn’t like it.
Keir Starmer takes a break from politics to watch tennis after being invited by a friend. Poster here doesn’t like it.
I’m starting to think they just hate Starmer and Labour.
Starmer has the chance to pull ahead into an unassailable lead. His opponent has just fallen and has lost his rider. All he has to do is make no mistakes and he's home and dry
Sebastian Payne @SebastianEPayne · 1h MPs are acutely aware of their responsibilities in choosing a shortlist.
“The grassroots are well to the right of the parliamentary party. We’ve got to make sure we don’t end up giving them a shortlist that could produce someone unsuitable to be PM.”
If @Scott_xP is anything to go by, the Departure of the Boris has done nothing to cure or even soothe The Brexit Psychosis, and the madness will continue forever
Great
This has political implications. I am still convinced Starmer will yield to pressure from the Labour versions of Scott, and tack towards the Single Market, if and when he becomes PM
I’m not quite a serious a case as psychosis - not yet anyway, I hope - but I am certainly still smouldering with resentment at losing my EU citizenship, which I don’t think will ever go away. And there are tens of millions like me. And I think a lot of younger people reaching maturity now and in the coming years probably feel the same.
I also think that the Red Wall, and working class people generally all over the country, were conned by right wingers who just wanted to be free of the moderating, redistributive hand of the EU. I think that is gradually becoming realised.
I don’t think it will ever go away. I think it will get worse. It will be like a boil, oozing pus, on the arse of our politics for years.
If Starmer doesn’t yield to pressure to at least rejoin the SM, a successor will. Personally I’d love to see a Lab/Lib Dem, maybe even SNP for shits and gigs, coalition. Starmer would, regretfully as part of the grubby politicking of securing a coalition deal, tack back towards the EU. Fantastic.
Your last paragraph rings true to me. I’ve said it myself. Something like this could easily - probably? - happen. Korma is unlikely to get an overall majority. How convenient for him if he is forced by the nature of Coalitions to do something - rejoin the SM in some form - which he secretly wants to do anyway
With the added advantage of clearly being the best answer foe the country.
I’m not sure, but I am willing to be convinced. This is of course the debate we should have had, as a nation, around the time of the referendum
It should have been two stages: Remain/Leave, then, if Leave, what kind of Leave: EFTA/EEA or hard
Of course if the referendum had been like that we'd have ended up with nearly two-thirds voting to Leave and two-thirds voting for EFTA, and that wouldn't have satisfied either Cameron, or his Europhobic backbenchers, so we had to have the forced choice instead - with all the division between extremes that has resulted.
Re Boris Book; I worked in the book trade for a good few years and would be *astonished* if he doesn't make a mint from a deal. A few reasons:
1) Publishers tend to pay over the odds for political memoirs. 2) He's a former journo; he can write (or a least type,) a bit. 3) It's been eventful - to say the least. Even if it isn't prurient, I expect it'll be juicy. 4) While his broad popularity has shrunk, he still has millions of loyal fans; maybe the strongest 'personal vote' an PM's had since Thatcher - and this will almost certainly be 'Boris - My Story'. When the gallery is that big, you play to it, and reap the commensurate reward. 5) He does have a global profile - I'd expect it to sell reasonably well in the US for example.
I’ve just realised that Boris is going to haunt the nightmares of the Left (and some on the right, too) for years and years, the same way Thatcher did. Even when he’s long gone his name will provoke a weird reflexive mix of fear, loathing, anger and nameless dread
HAHAHAHAHA
I don't know that I qualify as 'the Left', but it my case it will be mild contempt, FWIW.
His legacy won't be anything like Thatcher's. She set the terms of politics for the next two, perhaps even three decades. In his case, the motivation will be largely to move on and forget him - and that's his own side. I don't think "the Left" have much to fear - other than failing fully to capitalise electorally.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
I note our SLS /Starship bet is still live. Indeed a version of Starship HAS actually flown and landed , which is more than SLS...
I can't even remember what the bet was! Can you confirm?
I'd love it if SLS flies successfully before Starship. And even more if New Glenn reaches orbit before Starship (though that's unlikely).
In other news, ArianeSpace's Vega C is due for its first launch in a few days.
It is quite startling that Starship has been allowed to progress to this point. It is, among other things, a direct attack on SLS, a major government aerospace project. I was fully expecting that Shelby etc would have pulled SpaceX's government contracts over that.
From what I understand, there were some noises about "getting Elon back in his lane", but the military purchasers of SpaceX services said "national interest" to several politicians.
New Glenn would have to exist first. I have a theory that Sue Origin exists purely as objective proof that simply having a really big pile of personal money doesn't make successful rocket company - the painful progress of the BE-4 etc.
Orbital launch is so far away that Bezos had to buy launches (for his Project Kuiper - the competitor to Starlink) from every single provider who wasn't SpaceX at a huge markup over the SpaceX prices. If I were an Amazon shareholder, I would not be impressed.
Mind you, that has some interesting politics ramifications for Amazon. Suddenly they are the best friends of Arianespace, ULA etc - Bezos has given the non-SpaceX launch companies a few more years of life from their otherwise over priced expendable rockets.....
I have issues with the way you refer to stuff up there. You write great posts, but you do come across as a bit of a Musk fanboi at times.
You mention BE-4 as being 'painful'. Raptor was started earlier, and has yet to get to orbit. They're on their second iteration after a significant redesign, and are still suffering RUDs on the test stand. It really will be interesting to see whether BO or SpaceX get a payload to orbit first. How is that not 'painful' ?
I wish SpaceX and New Glenn well. I wish Blue Origin and New Glenn well. I'd like SLS to continue until those two are reliable, after that, chuck it on the scrapheap.
Heck, I'll even wish Virgin Orbit well, especially with their upcoming launch from Cornwall. I won't extend that to Virgin Galactic, though...
I’ve just realised that Boris is going to haunt the nightmares of the Left (and some on the right, too) for years and years, the same way Thatcher did. Even when he’s long gone his name will provoke a weird reflexive mix of fear, loathing, anger and nameless dread
HAHAHAHAHA
I don't know that I qualify as 'the Left', but it my case it will be mild contempt, FWIW.
His legacy won't be anything like Thatcher's. She set the terms of politics for the next two, perhaps even three decades. In his case, the motivation will be largely to move on and forget him - and that's his own side. I don't think "the Left" have much to fear - other than failing fully to capitalise electorally.
The people who disliked Boris the most were the centre right and centre!
Sebastian Payne @SebastianEPayne · 1h MPs are acutely aware of their responsibilities in choosing a shortlist.
“The grassroots are well to the right of the parliamentary party. We’ve got to make sure we don’t end up giving them a shortlist that could produce someone unsuitable to be PM.”
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Keir Starmer does politics. Poster here doesn’t like it.
Keir Starmer takes a break from politics to watch tennis after being invited by a friend. Poster here doesn’t like it.
I’m starting to think they just hate Starmer and Labour.
Starmer has the chance to pull ahead into an unassailable lead. His opponent has just fallen and has lost his rider. All he has to do is make no mistakes and he's home and dry
His strategy - to do nothing and win by default against Boris who had become toxic - has just evaporated. He now desperately needs to come out with some policies as there's plenty of us who wil be listening to what the new Tory leader has to say.
Re Boris Book; I worked in the book trade for a good few years and would be *astonished* if he doesn't make a mint from a deal. A few reasons:
1) Publishers tend to pay over the odds for political memoirs. 2) He's a former journo; he can write (or a least type,) a bit. 3) It's been eventful - to say the least. Even if it isn't prurient, I expect it'll be juicy. 4) While his broad popularity has shrunk, he still has millions of loyal fans; maybe the strongest 'personal vote' an PM's had since Thatcher - and this will almost certainly be 'Boris - My Story'. When the gallery is that big, you play to it, and reap the commensurate reward. 5) He does have a global profile - I'd expect it to sell reasonably well in the US for example.
Spot on, the debate is silly. And the book deal whilst it will be big bucks, is still tiny compared to what he will make in the US from his Boris brand.
Keir Starmer does politics. Poster here doesn’t like it.
Keir Starmer takes a break from politics to watch tennis after being invited by a friend. Poster here doesn’t like it.
I’m starting to think they just hate Starmer and Labour.
Starmer has the chance to pull ahead into an unassailable lead. His opponent has just fallen and has lost his rider. All he has to do is make no mistakes and he's home and dry
He's not home and dry yet - he still needs to set out a vision which I am told he will do at the Conference. That really is his last chance.
We should discuss what an "unassailable" lead really is. Johnson was 20 points ahead in 2020 and is now gone. Blair was 30 points ahead leading up to 1997 and went onto win a massive landslide.
If Starmer gets a 15 point lead - which I still think he will - then he will feel very confident. But if it starts to shrink, questions will be raised.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
So long as the university students are over 18 and consenting, yes of course I do.
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
University lecturers often have relationship with students. At UCL there's a book in which you have detail any such relationships, so conflicts of interests can be avoided with the marking of exam papers etc. Apparently, all the lecherous dons use it to find out who the free-and-easy students are, so they can then make a move on them.
Just on Boris approval rating which was around -50 Thats 25 approve 75% disapprove
But of the 75% who disapprove at at least 60% would be labour and lib dems who would never vote for him
So that leaves around 15% disapprove who are conservatives and 25 % approve But wait The 15% who disapprove are likely middle class southerners in safe seats who wouldn't swing an election anyway And of the 25% who approve they are concentrated in red wall seats who will swing an election and many of these really love him
The conservatives have made a disastrous decision
Yougov have 2019 Tory voters as 52% disapprove of him vs 43% approve so your numbers are way off.
The Conservative party frequently make disastrous decisions, just usually disastrous for the under 50s outside the elite.
OK but within the 43% who approve many will love him And the 52% who disapprove many will be middle class southerners in safe seats expressing mild contempt
If @Scott_xP is anything to go by, the Departure of the Boris has done nothing to cure or even soothe The Brexit Psychosis, and the madness will continue forever
Great
This has political implications. I am still convinced Starmer will yield to pressure from the Labour versions of Scott, and tack towards the Single Market, if and when he becomes PM
I’m not quite a serious a case as psychosis - not yet anyway, I hope - but I am certainly still smouldering with resentment at losing my EU citizenship, which I don’t think will ever go away. And there are tens of millions like me. And I think a lot of younger people reaching maturity now and in the coming years probably feel the same.
I also think that the Red Wall, and working class people generally all over the country, were conned by right wingers who just wanted to be free of the moderating, redistributive hand of the EU. I think that is gradually becoming realised.
I don’t think it will ever go away. I think it will get worse. It will be like a boil, oozing pus, on the arse of our politics for years.
If Starmer doesn’t yield to pressure to at least rejoin the SM, a successor will. Personally I’d love to see a Lab/Lib Dem, maybe even SNP for shits and gigs, coalition. Starmer would, regretfully as part of the grubby politicking of securing a coalition deal, tack back towards the EU. Fantastic.
That is a very good post and I'm sure you speak for approximately 20,000,000 people and rising. 'Smouldering with resentment at losing your EU citizenship' describes it perfectly.
We find all kinds of reasons that Scott posts daily to be angry but what it boils down to is that we've had our EU citizenship taken from us. We've been shafted by our own government led by a self serving oaf and we wont let it go. We have been robbed but It REALLY isn't the money
Heh. The “reverse UKIP” is born. I do hope it keeps “banging on about europe” while the consensus quietly moves on.
A small number of people (perhaps a million or two if you’re lucky) REALLY care and would accept what was need d to rejoin. A bigger number miss what we had but grasp that it’s gone now. Most people don’t think about it much. And the first two categories are then mirrored by leavers.
It will become a truism for the next Labour Government that SM/CU must not be touched, and so the consensus will be built as we gradually decouple at it becomes less and less possible.
Sebastian Payne @SebastianEPayne · 1h MPs are acutely aware of their responsibilities in choosing a shortlist.
“The grassroots are well to the right of the parliamentary party. We’ve got to make sure we don’t end up giving them a shortlist that could produce someone unsuitable to be PM.”
There's a word missing in that: after the phrase 'unsuitable to be PM' there should be the word 'again'!
She's long odds so the profit on her alone will be miserly but I can't believe for one moment the Tories will choose Braverman so she's a lay for me even at 50-60s.
A reminder that Margaret Thatcher used multiple VONC's, as a tactic whilst LOTO. The point isn't whether they are successful or not. It is to force the government to defend itself for a change, rather then setting its own timetable of issues. And to put support on record. I really do think there hasn't been a more appropriate time recently. And it can hardly be "a waste of time" when the government has explicitly said it won't be doing anything for months anyways.
The question isn't whether it should be done, but how well Labour will do it. If it's just Angela Rayner having a rant, for example, then it's a bit pointless.
BBC analysis showed many of the top liked comments on Weibo, one of China's biggest social media platforms, gloated at the former PM's shooting, while the state-backed broadcaster CCTV's TikTok account videos also posted mocking videos.
A Chinese friend tells me that it is only the fact that Mandarin isn't so widely spoken, outside China, that is protecting China's reputation in a number of areas.
The Xi Fanboy Nationalists are, apparently, MAGA grade Knuts and express themselves very openly on social media.
The top comments on China’s largest newspaper, People’s Daily, all mock the murdered Japanese PM Shinzo Abe.
Just on Boris approval rating which was around -50 Thats 25 approve 75% disapprove
But of the 75% who disapprove at at least 60% would be labour and lib dems who would never vote for him
So that leaves around 15% disapprove who are conservatives and 25 % approve But wait The 15% who disapprove are likely middle class southerners in safe seats who wouldn't swing an election anyway And of the 25% who approve they are concentrated in red wall seats who will swing an election and many of these really love him
The conservatives have made a disastrous decision
Yougov have 2019 Tory voters as 52% disapprove of him vs 43% approve so your numbers are way off.
The Conservative party frequently make disastrous decisions, just usually disastrous for the under 50s outside the elite.
OK but within the 43% who approve many will love him And the 52% who disapprove many will be middle class southerners in safe seats expressing mild contempt
Chesham & Amersham and Tiverton & Honiton say hello.
BBC analysis showed many of the top liked comments on Weibo, one of China's biggest social media platforms, gloated at the former PM's shooting, while the state-backed broadcaster CCTV's TikTok account videos also posted mocking videos.
There is a visceral dislike of the Japanese which unites the Chinese people. It isn't nice, but it is perhaps understandable.
Taking it to the point of cheering on a political assassination, is perhaps just a little too far.
Sad news.
Hypothetical: Putin is assassinated.
I imagine there would be substantial cheering from what have hitherto been considered "rational" quarters.
The remarkable thing about this Tory leadership election is quite how open it is right now. Having heard various vox pops in the media last night and this morning, at least 6 candidates have been mentioned with no one standing out.
I think that was the reason Boris was able to stay so long - no obvious standout successor.
I think an open contest is a positive for both the Tories and the country. The last contest was simply dominated by Boris, and look how that ended up.
You could also mention Gordon Brown as a coronation that ended very badly.
We have May and Jezza to show that contested elections don't always work well.
I think a contested election is fair enough if there are several big beasts with long and prominent records of service at the highest level, as when Margaret left. But now it smacks more of the relative lack of such in the Cabinet. So I think it's a bad symptom rather than a good one.
I’ve just realised that Boris is going to haunt the nightmares of the Left (and some on the right, too) for years and years, the same way Thatcher did. Even when he’s long gone his name will provoke a weird reflexive mix of fear, loathing, anger and nameless dread
HAHAHAHAHA
I don't know that I qualify as 'the Left', but it my case it will be mild contempt, FWIW.
His legacy won't be anything like Thatcher's. She set the terms of politics for the next two, perhaps even three decades. In his case, the motivation will be largely to move on and forget him - and that's his own side. I don't think "the Left" have much to fear - other than failing fully to capitalise electorally.
The people who disliked Boris the most were the centre right and centre!
I disliked him intensely as PM. Once he's gone, I really can't be bothered.
BBC analysis showed many of the top liked comments on Weibo, one of China's biggest social media platforms, gloated at the former PM's shooting, while the state-backed broadcaster CCTV's TikTok account videos also posted mocking videos.
There is a visceral dislike of the Japanese which unites the Chinese people. It isn't nice, but it is perhaps understandable.
Taking it to the point of cheering on a political assassination, is perhaps just a little too far.
Sad news.
Hypothetical: Putin is assassinated.
I imagine there would be substantial cheering from what have hitherto been considered "rational" quarters.
I'd be blooming frightened if Putin got assassinated; its a really worrying scenario. Who takes over? How does the system around him react? Who do they blame? How do they respond?
I’ve just realised that Boris is going to haunt the nightmares of the Left (and some on the right, too) for years and years, the same way Thatcher did. Even when he’s long gone his name will provoke a weird reflexive mix of fear, loathing, anger and nameless dread
HAHAHAHAHA
I don't know that I qualify as 'the Left', but it my case it will be mild contempt, FWIW.
His legacy won't be anything like Thatcher's. She set the terms of politics for the next two, perhaps even three decades. In his case, the motivation will be largely to move on and forget him - and that's his own side. I don't think "the Left" have much to fear - other than failing fully to capitalise electorally.
The people who disliked Boris the most were the centre right and centre!
I disliked him intensely as PM. Once he's gone, I really can't be bothered.
Yeah, I will be happy to never have to give him a moment's thought ever again.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
University lecturers often have relationship with students. At UCL there's a book in which you have detail any such relationships, so conflicts of interests can be avoided with the marking of exam papers etc. Apparently, all the lecherous dons use it to find out who the free-and-easy students are, so they can then make a move on them.
And that's the problem, and why some universities are banning it.
If @Scott_xP is anything to go by, the Departure of the Boris has done nothing to cure or even soothe The Brexit Psychosis, and the madness will continue forever
Great
This has political implications. I am still convinced Starmer will yield to pressure from the Labour versions of Scott, and tack towards the Single Market, if and when he becomes PM
I’m not quite a serious a case as psychosis - not yet anyway, I hope - but I am certainly still smouldering with resentment at losing my EU citizenship, which I don’t think will ever go away. And there are tens of millions like me. And I think a lot of younger people reaching maturity now and in the coming years probably feel the same.
I also think that the Red Wall, and working class people generally all over the country, were conned by right wingers who just wanted to be free of the moderating, redistributive hand of the EU. I think that is gradually becoming realised.
I don’t think it will ever go away. I think it will get worse. It will be like a boil, oozing pus, on the arse of our politics for years.
If Starmer doesn’t yield to pressure to at least rejoin the SM, a successor will. Personally I’d love to see a Lab/Lib Dem, maybe even SNP for shits and gigs, coalition. Starmer would, regretfully as part of the grubby politicking of securing a coalition deal, tack back towards the EU. Fantastic.
“Oozing pus”: a perfect description of the British state.
Just on Boris approval rating which was around -50 Thats 25 approve 75% disapprove
But of the 75% who disapprove at at least 60% would be labour and lib dems who would never vote for him
So that leaves around 15% disapprove who are conservatives and 25 % approve But wait The 15% who disapprove are likely middle class southerners in safe seats who wouldn't swing an election anyway And of the 25% who approve they are concentrated in red wall seats who will swing an election and many of these really love him
The conservatives have made a disastrous decision
Yougov have 2019 Tory voters as 52% disapprove of him vs 43% approve so your numbers are way off.
The Conservative party frequently make disastrous decisions, just usually disastrous for the under 50s outside the elite.
OK but within the 43% who approve many will love him And the 52% who disapprove many will be middle class southerners in safe seats expressing mild contempt
Of course he still has his fans, not just in the north but in the south too. Plenty of the NRG group of northern new intake MPs were amongst the people who forced him out, as they were concerned about retaining their seats. He would have lost a lot of seats both in the north and south.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
So long as the university students are over 18 and consenting, yes of course I do.
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
Not if its abusive. And abuse of power is an abuse.
Just on Boris approval rating which was around -50 Thats 25 approve 75% disapprove
But of the 75% who disapprove at at least 60% would be labour and lib dems who would never vote for him
So that leaves around 15% disapprove who are conservatives and 25 % approve But wait The 15% who disapprove are likely middle class southerners in safe seats who wouldn't swing an election anyway And of the 25% who approve they are concentrated in red wall seats who will swing an election and many of these really love him
The conservatives have made a disastrous decision
Yougov have 2019 Tory voters as 52% disapprove of him vs 43% approve so your numbers are way off.
The Conservative party frequently make disastrous decisions, just usually disastrous for the under 50s outside the elite.
OK but within the 43% who approve many will love him And the 52% who disapprove many will be middle class southerners in safe seats expressing mild contempt
Chesham & Amersham and Tiverton & Honiton say hello.
A by election giving disaffected tories a free hit. Lib dems always make big gains in mid term by elections
I’ve just realised that Boris is going to haunt the nightmares of the Left (and some on the right, too) for years and years, the same way Thatcher did. Even when he’s long gone his name will provoke a weird reflexive mix of fear, loathing, anger and nameless dread
HAHAHAHAHA
I don't know that I qualify as 'the Left', but it my case it will be mild contempt, FWIW.
His legacy won't be anything like Thatcher's. She set the terms of politics for the next two, perhaps even three decades. In his case, the motivation will be largely to move on and forget him - and that's his own side. I don't think "the Left" have much to fear - other than failing fully to capitalise electorally.
I largely agree with you about Legacy. Tho Boris did get Brexit done, which will influence our politics for decades
My point is more about the psychic ghost he will become, haunting people. You can see it happening already
Interestingly (and worryingly), it appears that the gun used to shoot Shinzo Abe in Japan might have been home-made. From the piccies, it certainly looks unusual (but as ever, IANAE).
Former Self Defence Force guy allegedly, they're pretty resourceful. There was an old guy near me who decided to kill himself after his wife left him and got most of his stuff in the divorce settlement, blew up his house, his car and himself.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
University lecturers often have relationship with students. At UCL there's a book in which you have detail any such relationships, so conflicts of interests can be avoided with the marking of exam papers etc. Apparently, all the lecherous dons use it to find out who the free-and-easy students are, so they can then make a move on them.
And that's the problem, and why some universities are banning it.
They are wrong to do so.
Puritanical bullshit will just drive relationships underground, it won't prevent people from having a sex drive. 🤦♂️
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
So long as the university students are over 18 and consenting, yes of course I do.
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
Not if its abusive. And abuse of power is an abuse.
If it's abusive it should be a matter for the Police.
As far as work relationships are concerned quite a few of my male pharmacist acquaintances got together with female dispensing technicians, back in the day. And it's not uncommon for doctors to marry nurses. Indeed, that was said to be the reason for middle-class girls to go to work as trainee nurses in teaching hospitals! I once worked with a young lady hospital pharmacist whose parents were very disappointed that she became enamoured of a bodybuilding porter.
I’ve just realised that Boris is going to haunt the nightmares of the Left (and some on the right, too) for years and years, the same way Thatcher did. Even when he’s long gone his name will provoke a weird reflexive mix of fear, loathing, anger and nameless dread
HAHAHAHAHA
I don't know that I qualify as 'the Left', but it my case it will be mild contempt, FWIW.
His legacy won't be anything like Thatcher's. She set the terms of politics for the next two, perhaps even three decades. In his case, the motivation will be largely to move on and forget him - and that's his own side. I don't think "the Left" have much to fear - other than failing fully to capitalise electorally.
I largely agree with you about Legacy. Tho Boris did get Brexit done, which will influence our politics for decades
My point is more about the psychic ghost he will become, haunting people. You can see it happening already
The Tories have a lot more to fear about him hanging around like a bad smell and haunting his successor. I doubt that his ambitions to be PM are over. He won't exit the stage.
Just on Boris approval rating which was around -50 Thats 25 approve 75% disapprove
But of the 75% who disapprove at at least 60% would be labour and lib dems who would never vote for him
So that leaves around 15% disapprove who are conservatives and 25 % approve But wait The 15% who disapprove are likely middle class southerners in safe seats who wouldn't swing an election anyway And of the 25% who approve they are concentrated in red wall seats who will swing an election and many of these really love him
The conservatives have made a disastrous decision
Yougov have 2019 Tory voters as 52% disapprove of him vs 43% approve so your numbers are way off.
The Conservative party frequently make disastrous decisions, just usually disastrous for the under 50s outside the elite.
OK but within the 43% who approve many will love him And the 52% who disapprove many will be middle class southerners in safe seats expressing mild contempt
Chesham & Amersham and Tiverton & Honiton say hello.
A by election giving disaffected tories a free hit. Lib dems always make big gains in mid term by elections
No. The quantum of their swings (High 20s to low 30s) hasn't been seen since the early to mid nineties.
A "standard" Lib Dem swing & gain was observed in Brecon in 2019. ~ Low teens, no worries for the gov't. High 20s, low 30s. Big worries.
I’ve just realised that Boris is going to haunt the nightmares of the Left (and some on the right, too) for years and years, the same way Thatcher did. Even when he’s long gone his name will provoke a weird reflexive mix of fear, loathing, anger and nameless dread
HAHAHAHAHA
I don't know that I qualify as 'the Left', but it my case it will be mild contempt, FWIW.
His legacy won't be anything like Thatcher's. She set the terms of politics for the next two, perhaps even three decades. In his case, the motivation will be largely to move on and forget him - and that's his own side. I don't think "the Left" have much to fear - other than failing fully to capitalise electorally.
I largely agree with you about Legacy. Tho Boris did get Brexit done, which will influence our politics for decades
My point is more about the psychic ghost he will become, haunting people. You can see it happening already
If the Tories lose the next election and end up in opposition for a while, I think some of them will become fascinated by his electoral magic and he might come to dominate them from his political afterlife like Thatcher did.
As far as work relationships are concerned quite a few of my acquaintance got together with female dispensing technician. And it's not uncommon for doctors to marry nurses or indeed for two nurses or two doctors. Indeed, that was said to be the reason for middle-class girls to go to work in teaching hospitals!\ I want worked with a young lady pharmacist whose parents were very disappointed that she became enamoured of a bodybuilding porter.
It is a tough one, I think BR is probably on the right side and we are getting too puritanical on this, but don't think it is purely a matter of consenting adults either, as the business is a third party that is impacted too.
Probably depends on the workplace and power relationships as well, so tricky for HR to get the rules right, assuming a company is big enough to have an HR department.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
I note our SLS /Starship bet is still live. Indeed a version of Starship HAS actually flown and landed , which is more than SLS...
I can't even remember what the bet was! Can you confirm?
I'd love it if SLS flies successfully before Starship. And even more if New Glenn reaches orbit before Starship (though that's unlikely).
In other news, ArianeSpace's Vega C is due for its first launch in a few days.
It is quite startling that Starship has been allowed to progress to this point. It is, among other things, a direct attack on SLS, a major government aerospace project. I was fully expecting that Shelby etc would have pulled SpaceX's government contracts over that.
From what I understand, there were some noises about "getting Elon back in his lane", but the military purchasers of SpaceX services said "national interest" to several politicians.
New Glenn would have to exist first. I have a theory that Sue Origin exists purely as objective proof that simply having a really big pile of personal money doesn't make successful rocket company - the painful progress of the BE-4 etc.
Orbital launch is so far away that Bezos had to buy launches (for his Project Kuiper - the competitor to Starlink) from every single provider who wasn't SpaceX at a huge markup over the SpaceX prices. If I were an Amazon shareholder, I would not be impressed.
Mind you, that has some interesting politics ramifications for Amazon. Suddenly they are the best friends of Arianespace, ULA etc - Bezos has given the non-SpaceX launch companies a few more years of life from their otherwise over priced expendable rockets.....
I have issues with the way you refer to stuff up there. You write great posts, but you do come across as a bit of a Musk fanboi at times.
You mention BE-4 as being 'painful'. Raptor was started earlier, and has yet to get to orbit. They're on their second iteration after a significant redesign, and are still suffering RUDs on the test stand. It really will be interesting to see whether BO or SpaceX get a payload to orbit first. How is that not 'painful' ?
I wish SpaceX and New Glenn well. I wish Blue Origin and New Glenn well. I'd like SLS to continue until those two are reliable, after that, chuck it on the scrapheap.
Heck, I'll even wish Virgin Orbit well, especially with their upcoming launch from Cornwall. I won't extend that to Virgin Galactic, though...
BE-4 is later than Aerojet would have been with the AR-1. Much, much later than promised. Being later than an "Old Space" company with a reputation for not being especially fast at engine development.
The engines delivered, finally, to ULA aren't quite ready for flight. Apparently they will be retrofitted after delivery.
Blue Origin have made very slow progress in building an orbital rocket. They should actually launch something. MVP and all that.
Raptor is doing 300+ second burns at McGregor, as observed by locals. The first version have powered the various Starship tests - some might say that means they have flown. I would give a half credit for that - on a vehicle, with the whole moving environment, vibration etc vs test stand.
SLS is a slow moving disaster - it can't sustain the flight rate to do anything.
Virgin Orbit is a serious effort, though their long term viability is a question - the cost of a carrier aircraft vs the cost of a bigger first stage.
Virgin Galactic - yeah. Lethally dangerous. Fundamental flaws.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
So long as the university students are over 18 and consenting, yes of course I do.
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
Just looked up my employer's (university) policy.
No prohibition on any relationships.
Relationship involving student with which staff member has any professional involvement (e.g. if lecturer, supervisor, in any position to influence grades etc) has to be reported to line manager. Same for relationship with line manager/other person above in chain of command (reported to someone more senior, in that case). Colleague relationships reported to line manager.
Essentially, no prohibition, but disclosure to someone more senior if there's any possible perception of conflict of interest. Senior person then decides whether to reassign any duties. Seems sensible.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
So long as the university students are over 18 and consenting, yes of course I do.
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
Not if its abusive. And abuse of power is an abuse.
Yes a boss asking his secretary out for a date is not an abuse of power. An mp going round parliament touching up young men is. The difference is obvious
Javid and others all triple figures, only her, Wallace, and Sunak are shorter.
My strat is to lay Wallace and no hopers so far. I mean in F1 a 200-1 shot can come in. Graham Brady isn't even going to run, I think he did it last time for amusement value.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
So long as the university students are over 18 and consenting, yes of course I do.
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
Not if its abusive. And abuse of power is an abuse.
If it's abusive it should be a matter for the Police.
If it's consenting, it should not be.
Either way, it's up to the adults involved.
Oh lordy, you're missing the point. What does 'consenting' mean if a boss promises an employee an advantage? Is that fair towards other employees? If such a promise is later made, how does the company work out if it is true? What happens if it is 'sleep with me or you won't get promotion'? How do you prove that? Disprove it?
And there are many other potential conflicts as well.
When there are power disparities, it's best all round if relationships are avoided. And if they cannot, they have to be open and visible, not hidden. Which is difficult if one or both of the parties are married...
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
University lecturers often have relationship with students. At UCL there's a book in which you have detail any such relationships, so conflicts of interests can be avoided with the marking of exam papers etc. Apparently, all the lecherous dons use it to find out who the free-and-easy students are, so they can then make a move on them.
And that's the problem, and why some universities are banning it.
They are wrong to do so.
Puritanical bullshit will just drive relationships underground, it won't prevent people from having a sex drive. 🤦♂️
You applying for a lectureship or something?
No, I don't mean that seriously - but if I am working for an organization (or the UK) then it is my duty to do nothing, NOTHING, that interferes with that. And messing up the internal power structures is a big conflict with that.
BBC analysis showed many of the top liked comments on Weibo, one of China's biggest social media platforms, gloated at the former PM's shooting, while the state-backed broadcaster CCTV's TikTok account videos also posted mocking videos.
There is a visceral dislike of the Japanese which unites the Chinese people. It isn't nice, but it is perhaps understandable.
Taking it to the point of cheering on a political assassination, is perhaps just a little too far.
Sad news.
Hypothetical: Putin is assassinated.
I imagine there would be substantial cheering from what have hitherto been considered "rational" quarters.
I'd be blooming frightened if Putin got assassinated; its a really worrying scenario. Who takes over? How does the system around him react? Who do they blame? How do they respond?
Oh, you are quite right. It would be an alarming and highly destabilizing turn of events.
But there would be plenty in the "seemed like an ordinary bloke, kept himself to himself" category who will be out cheering on the socials.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
So long as the university students are over 18 and consenting, yes of course I do.
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
Just looked up my employer's (university) policy.
No prohibition on any relationships.
Relationship involving student with which staff member has any professional involvement (e.g. if lecturer, supervisor, in any position to influence grades etc) has to be reported to line manager. Same for relationship with line manager/other person above in chain of command (reported to someone more senior, in that case). Colleague relationships reported to line manager.
Essentially, no prohibition, but disclosure to someone more senior if there's any possible perception of conflict of interest. Senior person then decides whether to reassign any duties. Seems sensible.
Absolutely rational.
Saying "there's other people they could have sex with instead" is like saying to a man "there's women you could have sex with instead" of the man they're attracted to.
Consenting adults should be able to have sex with whoever they want to, so long as the other party is also a consenting adult who wants to have sex with them too.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
So long as the university students are over 18 and consenting, yes of course I do.
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
Just looked up my employer's (university) policy.
No prohibition on any relationships.
Relationship involving student with which staff member has any professional involvement (e.g. if lecturer, supervisor, in any position to influence grades etc) has to be reported to line manager. Same for relationship with line manager/other person above in chain of command (reported to someone more senior, in that case). Colleague relationships reported to line manager.
Essentially, no prohibition, but disclosure to someone more senior if there's any possible perception of conflict of interest. Senior person then decides whether to reassign any duties. Seems sensible.
Be careful - you'll only trigger the anti-woke wearriors who think that unis should date from the era of History Man (if not Piltdown Man).
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
University lecturers often have relationship with students. At UCL there's a book in which you have detail any such relationships, so conflicts of interests can be avoided with the marking of exam papers etc. Apparently, all the lecherous dons use it to find out who the free-and-easy students are, so they can then make a move on them.
And that's the problem, and why some universities are banning it.
You are a bit all over the place.
Should we ban trans women from women's loos because they might abuse women? It is the abuse that should be targeted not the framework.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
So long as the university students are over 18 and consenting, yes of course I do.
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
Not if its abusive. And abuse of power is an abuse.
If it's abusive it should be a matter for the Police.
If it's consenting, it should not be.
Either way, it's up to the adults involved.
Oh lordy, you're missing the point. What does 'consenting' mean if a boss promises an employee an advantage? Is that fair towards other employees? If such a promise is later made, how does the company work out if it is true? What happens if it is 'sleep with me or you won't get promotion'? How do you prove that? Disprove it?
And there are many other potential conflicts as well.
When there are power disparities, it's best all round if relationships are avoided. And if they cannot, they have to be open and visible, not hidden. Which is difficult if one or both of the parties are married...
Only solution to this then is to have all male workplaces and ban gays lol
Interestingly (and worryingly), it appears that the gun used to shoot Shinzo Abe in Japan might have been home-made. From the piccies, it certainly looks unusual (but as ever, IANAE).
Former Self Defence Force guy allegedly, they're pretty resourceful. There was an old guy near me who decided to kill himself after his wife left him and got most of his stuff in the divorce settlement, blew up his house, his car and himself.
This will get worse in the coming years. A real worry will be 3D printing combined with a coil gun design.
Most improvised firearms involve "real" ammunition - the picture of the gun used to shoot Abe suggest a home made double barrel shotgun. "Bang sticks" and the like have been around for years....
With a coil gun, there are no components that could be realistically banned.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
So long as the university students are over 18 and consenting, yes of course I do.
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
Not if its abusive. And abuse of power is an abuse.
If it's abusive it should be a matter for the Police.
If it's consenting, it should not be.
Either way, it's up to the adults involved
Oh lordy, you're missing the point. What does 'consenting' mean if a boss promises an employee an advantage? Is that fair towards other employees? If such a promise is later made, how does the company work out if it is true? What happens if it is 'sleep with me or you won't get promotion'? How do you prove that? Disprove it?
And there are many other potential conflicts as well.
When there are power disparities, it's best all round if relationships are avoided. And if they cannot, they have to be open and visible, not hidden. Which is difficult if one or both of the parties are married...
Basically, the old phrase remains true for all those reasons. Don’t f*ck the payroll.
If @Scott_xP is anything to go by, the Departure of the Boris has done nothing to cure or even soothe The Brexit Psychosis, and the madness will continue forever
Great
This has political implications. I am still convinced Starmer will yield to pressure from the Labour versions of Scott, and tack towards the Single Market, if and when he becomes PM
But Starmer stands for honesty and integrity ?
In any case, the new Tory leader may be an even more extreme Brexiter. Just look at the DM and DE.
I do not take either those publications as the arbiter of the next leader
Er, who's buying them if not Tory Party members and voters?
The conservative mps will be the arbiter of the two going forward and I have every expectation they will make the right choice
Er, largely the same chaps and chapesses who put Mr J. forward. Slight problem with judgement there.
I am not sure how you come to that conclusion after just 60 mps were left in the Johnson camp
Yes, quite so, but the ones who supported him in the first place did so in 2019 - irrespective of whom they vote for, now. They didn't make the right choice then and it does not bode well.
Edit: Apart from changes in MPs since then, obviously: but those tended to shift the body of MPs to more Johnsonite.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
So long as the university students are over 18 and consenting, yes of course I do.
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
Not if its abusive. And abuse of power is an abuse.
If it's abusive it should be a matter for the Police.
If it's consenting, it should not be.
Either way, it's up to the adults involved.
Oh lordy, you're missing the point. What does 'consenting' mean if a boss promises an employee an advantage? Is that fair towards other employees? If such a promise is later made, how does the company work out if it is true? What happens if it is 'sleep with me or you won't get promotion'? How do you prove that? Disprove it?
And there are many other potential conflicts as well.
When there are power disparities, it's best all round if relationships are avoided. And if they cannot, they have to be open and visible, not hidden. Which is difficult if one or both of the parties are married...
And how are you going to promote openly visible relationships when you puritanically try to drive relationships underground by prohibiting them? Your own logic is self-contradictory.
If you want to encourage honesty and openness, then being puritanical or promoting a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude won't get it.
Just on Boris approval rating which was around -50 Thats 25 approve 75% disapprove
But of the 75% who disapprove at at least 60% would be labour and lib dems who would never vote for him
So that leaves around 15% disapprove who are conservatives and 25 % approve But wait The 15% who disapprove are likely middle class southerners in safe seats who wouldn't swing an election anyway And of the 25% who approve they are concentrated in red wall seats who will swing an election and many of these really love him
The conservatives have made a disastrous decision
Yougov have 2019 Tory voters as 52% disapprove of him vs 43% approve so your numbers are way off.
The Conservative party frequently make disastrous decisions, just usually disastrous for the under 50s outside the elite.
OK but within the 43% who approve many will love him And the 52% who disapprove many will be middle class southerners in safe seats expressing mild contempt
Chesham & Amersham and Tiverton & Honiton say hello.
A by election giving disaffected tories a free hit. Lib dems always make big gains in mid term by elections
No. The quantum of their swings (High 20s to low 30s) hasn't been seen since the early to mid nineties.
A "standard" Lib Dem swing & gain was observed in Brecon in 2019. ~ Low teens, no worries for the gov't. High 20s, low 30s. Big worries.
Yeah, there's definitely a meme overtaking even political commentators that I respect on the whole "LDs always do well in by-elections so ignore this result".
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
I note our SLS /Starship bet is still live. Indeed a version of Starship HAS actually flown and landed , which is more than SLS...
I can't even remember what the bet was! Can you confirm?
I'd love it if SLS flies successfully before Starship. And even more if New Glenn reaches orbit before Starship (though that's unlikely).
In other news, ArianeSpace's Vega C is due for its first launch in a few days.
It is quite startling that Starship has been allowed to progress to this point. It is, among other things, a direct attack on SLS, a major government aerospace project. I was fully expecting that Shelby etc would have pulled SpaceX's government contracts over that.
From what I understand, there were some noises about "getting Elon back in his lane", but the military purchasers of SpaceX services said "national interest" to several politicians.
New Glenn would have to exist first. I have a theory that Sue Origin exists purely as objective proof that simply having a really big pile of personal money doesn't make successful rocket company - the painful progress of the BE-4 etc.
Orbital launch is so far away that Bezos had to buy launches (for his Project Kuiper - the competitor to Starlink) from every single provider who wasn't SpaceX at a huge markup over the SpaceX prices. If I were an Amazon shareholder, I would not be impressed.
Mind you, that has some interesting politics ramifications for Amazon. Suddenly they are the best friends of Arianespace, ULA etc - Bezos has given the non-SpaceX launch companies a few more years of life from their otherwise over priced expendable rockets.....
I have issues with the way you refer to stuff up there. You write great posts, but you do come across as a bit of a Musk fanboi at times.
You mention BE-4 as being 'painful'. Raptor was started earlier, and has yet to get to orbit. They're on their second iteration after a significant redesign, and are still suffering RUDs on the test stand. It really will be interesting to see whether BO or SpaceX get a payload to orbit first. How is that not 'painful' ?
I wish SpaceX and New Glenn well. I wish Blue Origin and New Glenn well. I'd like SLS to continue until those two are reliable, after that, chuck it on the scrapheap.
Heck, I'll even wish Virgin Orbit well, especially with their upcoming launch from Cornwall. I won't extend that to Virgin Galactic, though...
BE-4 is later than Aerojet would have been with the AR-1. Much, much later than promised. Being later than an "Old Space" company with a reputation for not being especially fast at engine development.
The engines delivered, finally, to ULA aren't quite ready for flight. Apparently they will be retrofitted after delivery.
Blue Origin have made very slow progress in building an orbital rocket. They should actually launch something. MVP and all that.
Raptor is doing 300+ second burns at McGregor, as observed by locals. The first version have powered the various Starship tests - some might say that means they have flown. I would give a half credit for that - on a vehicle, with the whole moving environment, vibration etc vs test stand.
SLS is a slow moving disaster - it can't sustain the flight rate to do anything.
Virgin Orbit is a serious effort, though their long term viability is a question - the cost of a carrier aircraft vs the cost of a bigger first stage.
Virgin Galactic - yeah. Lethally dangerous. Fundamental flaws.
Raptor has had (I think) at least three RUDs in a couple of months. Perhaps they're exploring the envelope, or perhaps they're having significant problems. We cannot know. BE-4 is doing long burns as well. Tory Bruno seems happy - and I pretty much trust him as a reasonably straight arrow in the industry.
But RUDs are not a good sign - especially when your rocket has dozens of them.
Let's see what happens. I wish them both good luck (and also RocketLab, Astra and some of the UK microlaunchers).
Incidentally, RocketLab is an example of why 'going small' to get to orbit early, the building bigger, may *not* have been the correct approach for BO. That's what RL did, and now they're going bigger to try to compete. And they're having to design not only a new rocket, but new engines as well.
Part of my issue is that I think Bezos's dream is more achievable than Musk's. Large space stations are doable. A Mars civilisation is far less certain. But I wish their companys all the best.
The difference between if Putin was killed and some people on twitter cheering is that a) we won't have the BBC doing it and b) in China nothing gets on social media for more than a few minutes (and certainty not promoted by tik tok) without the state agreeing that it is something they agree with.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
So long as the university students are over 18 and consenting, yes of course I do.
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
Not if its abusive. And abuse of power is an abuse.
If it's abusive it should be a matter for the Police.
If it's consenting, it should not be.
Either way, it's up to the adults involved.
Oh lordy, you're missing the point. What does 'consenting' mean if a boss promises an employee an advantage? Is that fair towards other employees? If such a promise is later made, how does the company work out if it is true? What happens if it is 'sleep with me or you won't get promotion'? How do you prove that? Disprove it?
And there are many other potential conflicts as well.
When there are power disparities, it's best all round if relationships are avoided. And if they cannot, they have to be open and visible, not hidden. Which is difficult if one or both of the parties are married...
And how are you going to promote openly visible relationships when you puritanically try to drive relationships underground by prohibiting them? Your own logic is self-contradictory.
If you want to encourage honesty and openness, then being puritanical or promoting a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude won't get it.
It really isn't self-contradictory. And it's about preventing and reducing the abuses that the approach you seem to prefer has caused so many times.
Hunt and Javid will probably fade out of contention. Both of them showed their limitations during the previous leadership election and there’s no reason they are stronger candidates now. Hunt was relying on being the default anti-Boris but that will be irrelevant now.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
So long as the university students are over 18 and consenting, yes of course I do.
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
Not if its abusive. And abuse of power is an abuse.
If it's abusive it should be a matter for the Police.
If it's consenting, it should not be.
Either way, it's up to the adults involved.
Oh lordy, you're missing the point. What does 'consenting' mean if a boss promises an employee an advantage? Is that fair towards other employees? If such a promise is later made, how does the company work out if it is true? What happens if it is 'sleep with me or you won't get promotion'? How do you prove that? Disprove it?
And there are many other potential conflicts as well.
When there are power disparities, it's best all round if relationships are avoided. And if they cannot, they have to be open and visible, not hidden. Which is difficult if one or both of the parties are married...
And how are you going to promote openly visible relationships when you puritanically try to drive relationships underground by prohibiting them? Your own logic is self-contradictory.
If you want to encourage honesty and openness, then being puritanical or promoting a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude won't get it.
It really isn't self-contradictory. And it's about preventing and reducing the abuses that the approach you seem to prefer has caused so many times.
Yup. I’d actually argue you should only be appointing people to managerial/responsible positions if this is all obvious to them anyway.
Ms. Hughes, just because she should does not mean she will.
Mr. Pulpstar, I'm still annoyed that Perez and Ocon collided at an Azerbaijan Grand Prix years ago. I had a bet on Perez at 201 or so, and might've had one on Ocon as well.
The difference between if Putin was killed and some people on twitter cheering is that a) we won't have the BBC doing it and b) in China nothing gets on social media for more than a few minutes (and certainty not promoted by tik tok) without the state agreeing that it is something they agree with.
Yes. 38000 likes for I hope he dies on a national newspaper comment page. Horrible people.
Hunt and Javid will probably fade out of contention. Both of them showed their limitations during the previous leadership election and there’s no reason they are stronger candidates now. Hunt was relying on being the default anti-Boris but that will be irrelevant now.
I mostly agree, but he’s made noises on defence/security. Were he to partner with Wallace/Mercer etc. I can see him and Tugenhat running to the front via a hawkish defence spending auction.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
So long as the university students are over 18 and consenting, yes of course I do.
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
Not if its abusive. And abuse of power is an abuse.
If it's abusive it should be a matter for the Police.
If it's consenting, it should not be.
Either way, it's up to the adults involved.
Oh lordy, you're missing the point. What does 'consenting' mean if a boss promises an employee an advantage? Is that fair towards other employees? If such a promise is later made, how does the company work out if it is true? What happens if it is 'sleep with me or you won't get promotion'? How do you prove that? Disprove it?
And there are many other potential conflicts as well.
When there are power disparities, it's best all round if relationships are avoided. And if they cannot, they have to be open and visible, not hidden. Which is difficult if one or both of the parties are married...
And how are you going to promote openly visible relationships when you puritanically try to drive relationships underground by prohibiting them? Your own logic is self-contradictory.
If you want to encourage honesty and openness, then being puritanical or promoting a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude won't get it.
It really isn't self-contradictory. And it's about preventing and reducing the abuses that the approach you seem to prefer has caused so many times.
Abusers need to be punished and abuse taken seriously not brushed under the rug.
Taking away everyone else's liberties isn't a way to do that. Driving relationships underground as you've frowned upon them and made them socially unacceptable just plays into the abusers hands, as abusers have more opportunities for abuse when everything is underground.
Openness and honesty is the polar opposite of prohibition, not its friend. Your puritanical prohibitionism won't stop adults screwing each other, it will just make them do so in secret more, which will make the abusers job easier. 🤦♂️
I’ve just realised that Boris is going to haunt the nightmares of the Left (and some on the right, too) for years and years, the same way Thatcher did. Even when he’s long gone his name will provoke a weird reflexive mix of fear, loathing, anger and nameless dread
HAHAHAHAHA
I don't know that I qualify as 'the Left', but it my case it will be mild contempt, FWIW.
His legacy won't be anything like Thatcher's. She set the terms of politics for the next two, perhaps even three decades. In his case, the motivation will be largely to move on and forget him - and that's his own side. I don't think "the Left" have much to fear - other than failing fully to capitalise electorally.
I largely agree with you about Legacy. Tho Boris did get Brexit done, which will influence our politics for decades
My point is more about the psychic ghost he will become, haunting people. You can see it happening already
Possibly.
I'm sceptical, though, since he's still in post and the damage he's done is fresh in the mind, so current reactions are misleading. There will be a few who will carry that loathing for some time, just as there are those shedding genuine tears at his departure who will continue to hold a candle for him. I just don't think either category will be particularly large.
As far as Brexit's concerned, it wasn't his project. It enabled him, and he it, in the end. But he doesn't rise to the level of Ted Heath on Europe... take that how you will.
Interestingly (and worryingly), it appears that the gun used to shoot Shinzo Abe in Japan might have been home-made. From the piccies, it certainly looks unusual (but as ever, IANAE).
Former Self Defence Force guy allegedly, they're pretty resourceful. There was an old guy near me who decided to kill himself after his wife left him and got most of his stuff in the divorce settlement, blew up his house, his car and himself.
This will get worse in the coming years. A real worry will be 3D printing combined with a coil gun design.
Most improvised firearms involve "real" ammunition - the picture of the gun used to shoot Abe suggest a home made double barrel shotgun. "Bang sticks" and the like have been around for years....
With a coil gun, there are no components that could be realistically banned.
I know nothing but Japanese Twitter seem to think it's home-made gunpowder, judging by the smoke and the length of the bang.
So also nothing that could realistically be banned, probably not even a 3D printer: Just pipes, tape, a battery, wires and initiative.
Hunt and Javid will probably fade out of contention. Both of them showed their limitations during the previous leadership election and there’s no reason they are stronger candidates now. Hunt was relying on being the default anti-Boris but that will be irrelevant now.
I mostly agree, but he’s made noises on defence/security. Were he to partner with Wallace/Mercer etc. I can see him and Tugenhat running to the front via a hawkish defence spending auction.
You've got the saver with laying Hunt that he won't win with the members.
Tugendhat has come out the gate racing for that section of the selectorate I think.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
I note our SLS /Starship bet is still live. Indeed a version of Starship HAS actually flown and landed , which is more than SLS...
I can't even remember what the bet was! Can you confirm?
I'd love it if SLS flies successfully before Starship. And even more if New Glenn reaches orbit before Starship (though that's unlikely).
In other news, ArianeSpace's Vega C is due for its first launch in a few days.
It is quite startling that Starship has been allowed to progress to this point. It is, among other things, a direct attack on SLS, a major government aerospace project. I was fully expecting that Shelby etc would have pulled SpaceX's government contracts over that.
From what I understand, there were some noises about "getting Elon back in his lane", but the military purchasers of SpaceX services said "national interest" to several politicians.
New Glenn would have to exist first. I have a theory that Sue Origin exists purely as objective proof that simply having a really big pile of personal money doesn't make successful rocket company - the painful progress of the BE-4 etc.
Orbital launch is so far away that Bezos had to buy launches (for his Project Kuiper - the competitor to Starlink) from every single provider who wasn't SpaceX at a huge markup over the SpaceX prices. If I were an Amazon shareholder, I would not be impressed.
Mind you, that has some interesting politics ramifications for Amazon. Suddenly they are the best friends of Arianespace, ULA etc - Bezos has given the non-SpaceX launch companies a few more years of life from their otherwise over priced expendable rockets.....
I have issues with the way you refer to stuff up there. You write great posts, but you do come across as a bit of a Musk fanboi at times.
You mention BE-4 as being 'painful'. Raptor was started earlier, and has yet to get to orbit. They're on their second iteration after a significant redesign, and are still suffering RUDs on the test stand. It really will be interesting to see whether BO or SpaceX get a payload to orbit first. How is that not 'painful' ?
I wish SpaceX and New Glenn well. I wish Blue Origin and New Glenn well. I'd like SLS to continue until those two are reliable, after that, chuck it on the scrapheap.
Heck, I'll even wish Virgin Orbit well, especially with their upcoming launch from Cornwall. I won't extend that to Virgin Galactic, though...
BE-4 is later than Aerojet would have been with the AR-1. Much, much later than promised. Being later than an "Old Space" company with a reputation for not being especially fast at engine development.
The engines delivered, finally, to ULA aren't quite ready for flight. Apparently they will be retrofitted after delivery.
Blue Origin have made very slow progress in building an orbital rocket. They should actually launch something. MVP and all that.
Raptor is doing 300+ second burns at McGregor, as observed by locals. The first version have powered the various Starship tests - some might say that means they have flown. I would give a half credit for that - on a vehicle, with the whole moving environment, vibration etc vs test stand.
SLS is a slow moving disaster - it can't sustain the flight rate to do anything.
Virgin Orbit is a serious effort, though their long term viability is a question - the cost of a carrier aircraft vs the cost of a bigger first stage.
Virgin Galactic - yeah. Lethally dangerous. Fundamental flaws.
Raptor has had (I think) at least three RUDs in a couple of months. Perhaps they're exploring the envelope, or perhaps they're having significant problems. We cannot know. BE-4 is doing long burns as well. Tory Bruno seems happy - and I pretty much trust him as a reasonably straight arrow in the industry.
But RUDs are not a good sign - especially when your rocket has dozens of them.
Let's see what happens. I wish them both good luck (and also RocketLab, Astra and some of the UK microlaunchers).
Incidentally, RocketLab is an example of why 'going small' to get to orbit early, the building bigger, may *not* have been the correct approach for BO. That's what RL did, and now they're going bigger to try to compete. And they're having to design not only a new rocket, but new engines as well.
Part of my issue is that I think Bezos's dream is more achievable than Musk's. Large space stations are doable. A Mars civilisation is far less certain. But I wish their companys all the best.
Tory has staked his future on BE-4. At the time it seemed like a good bet and they will probably get good engines in the end, but the time lost has been a serious issue.
On the RUDs - SpaceX were regularly destroying Merlins through the development cycles of the various versions. If nothing else, they popularised the term. It seems their style of engine development is hardware rich.
The flight engines on the various Starship tests seemed to have pretty good, stable burns.
RocketLab needed to prove that they had a viable product/team to get the investment to build bigger. Falcon 1 and all that. I think that they are more viable in the longer term than Virgin Orbit.
As to which dream will win, that isn't really up to either Bezos or Musk. If you have enough throw weight to start doing much on Mars, you have the throw weight to setup vast space stations as well. If you can chuck 50 or 100 tons into LEO for a few tens of millions, *preventing* space stations will be hard work.
Blue Origin needs to build a launcher, and learn how to use it. Then build a better one. Trying to design and build perfection from the first instance has been proven, multiple times, to be a bad idea.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
So long as the university students are over 18 and consenting, yes of course I do.
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
Not if its abusive. And abuse of power is an abuse.
If it's abusive it should be a matter for the Police.
If it's consenting, it should not be.
Either way, it's up to the adults involved.
Oh lordy, you're missing the point. What does 'consenting' mean if a boss promises an employee an advantage? Is that fair towards other employees? If such a promise is later made, how does the company work out if it is true? What happens if it is 'sleep with me or you won't get promotion'? How do you prove that? Disprove it?
And there are many other potential conflicts as well.
When there are power disparities, it's best all round if relationships are avoided. And if they cannot, they have to be open and visible, not hidden. Which is difficult if one or both of the parties are married...
And how are you going to promote openly visible relationships when you puritanically try to drive relationships underground by prohibiting them? Your own logic is self-contradictory.
If you want to encourage honesty and openness, then being puritanical or promoting a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude won't get it.
It really isn't self-contradictory. And it's about preventing and reducing the abuses that the approach you seem to prefer has caused so many times.
Abusers need to be punished and abuse taken seriously not brushed under the rug.
Taking away everyone else's liberties isn't a way to do that. Driving relationships underground as you've frowned upon them and made them socially unacceptable just plays into the abusers hands, as abusers have more opportunities for abuse when everything is underground.
Openness and honesty is the polar opposite of prohibition, not its friend. Your puritanical prohibitionism won't stop adults screwing each other, it will just make them do so in secret more, which will make the abusers job easier. 🤦♂️
Prohibition does not work.
He’s not being puritanical. His is the policy (written and unwritten) of every large organisation I’ve ever worked in. As a manager or as someone responsible for students, you refrain from relationships with them. Even if you wouldn’t dream of favouring them, they might think you would. When it comes out, and it will, their peers might also think you would, or that you have.
As a manager toy don’t f*ck the payroll. As a teacher you don’t f*ck your students.
The difference between if Putin was killed and some people on twitter cheering is that a) we won't have the BBC doing it and b) in China nothing gets on social media for more than a few minutes (and certainty not promoted by tik tok) without the state agreeing that it is something they agree with.
That is a fair distinction, yes.
<bad_joke>There'll be plenty of it on the Daily Mail comment section, and at least up until yesterday, that was the State Media</bad_joke>
The difference between if Putin was killed and some people on twitter cheering is that a) we won't have the BBC doing it and b) in China nothing gets on social media for more than a few minutes (and certainty not promoted by tik tok) without the state agreeing that it is something they agree with.
The other difference is that Putin has arranged for people to be poisoned horribly here, unleashed a completely unecessary barbaric war that’s cost tens of thousands of lives and is a kleptocrat. Understandable that people would cheer his demise.
I might not be up on my Japanese news but pretty certain Abe hasn’t done any of those things.
Comments
And as I pointed out in a previous comment - the timescales of a VONC would force Tory MPs to pick the next leader and allow the Tory party to blame Labour for the fact there wasn't a membership vote.
That is probably a win for everyone except Boris looking forward to a few weeks of sunshine in Chequers.
From what I understand, there were some noises about "getting Elon back in his lane", but the military purchasers of SpaceX services said "national interest" to several politicians.
New Glenn would have to exist first. I have a theory that Sue Origin exists purely as objective proof that simply having a really big pile of personal money doesn't make successful rocket company - the painful progress of the BE-4 etc.
Orbital launch is so far away that Bezos had to buy launches (for his Project Kuiper - the competitor to Starlink) from every single provider who wasn't SpaceX at a huge markup over the SpaceX prices. If I were an Amazon shareholder, I would not be impressed.
Mind you, that has some interesting politics ramifications for Amazon. Suddenly they are the best friends of Arianespace, ULA etc - Bezos has given the non-SpaceX launch companies a few more years of life from their otherwise over priced expendable rockets.....
We find all kinds of reasons that Scott posts daily to be angry but what it boils down to is that we've had our EU citizenship taken from us. We've been shafted by our own government led by a self serving oaf and we wont let it go. We have been robbed but It REALLY isn't the money
The Xi Fanboy Nationalists are, apparently, MAGA grade Knuts and express themselves very openly on social media.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
It explains much about the country.
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
Thats 25 approve 75% disapprove
But of the 75% who disapprove at at least 60% would be labour and lib dems who would never vote for him
So that leaves around 15% disapprove who are conservatives and 25 % approve
But wait
The 15% who disapprove are likely middle class southerners in safe seats who wouldn't swing an election anyway
And of the 25% who approve they are concentrated in red wall seats who will swing an election and many of
these really love him
The conservatives have made a disastrous decision
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/07/07/he-resigns-boris-johnsons-favourability-drops-lowe
The Conservative party frequently make disastrous decisions, just usually disastrous for the under 50s outside the elite.
@SebastianEPayne
·
1h
MPs are acutely aware of their responsibilities in choosing a shortlist.
“The grassroots are well to the right of the parliamentary party. We’ve got to make sure we don’t end up giving them a shortlist that could produce someone unsuitable to be PM.”
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne
===
Let's hope they get this right.
No Patels or Nadines near the membership.
1) Publishers tend to pay over the odds for political memoirs.
2) He's a former journo; he can write (or a least type,) a bit.
3) It's been eventful - to say the least. Even if it isn't prurient, I expect it'll be juicy.
4) While his broad popularity has shrunk, he still has millions of loyal fans; maybe the strongest 'personal vote' an PM's had since Thatcher - and this will almost certainly be 'Boris - My Story'. When the gallery is that big, you play to it, and reap the commensurate reward.
5) He does have a global profile - I'd expect it to sell reasonably well in the US for example.
His legacy won't be anything like Thatcher's. She set the terms of politics for the next two, perhaps even three decades. In his case, the motivation will be largely to move on and forget him - and that's his own side.
I don't think "the Left" have much to fear - other than failing fully to capitalise electorally.
You mention BE-4 as being 'painful'. Raptor was started earlier, and has yet to get to orbit. They're on their second iteration after a significant redesign, and are still suffering RUDs on the test stand. It really will be interesting to see whether BO or SpaceX get a payload to orbit first. How is that not 'painful' ?
I wish SpaceX and New Glenn well. I wish Blue Origin and New Glenn well. I'd like SLS to continue until those two are reliable, after that, chuck it on the scrapheap.
Heck, I'll even wish Virgin Orbit well, especially with their upcoming launch from Cornwall. I won't extend that to Virgin Galactic, though...
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
We should discuss what an "unassailable" lead really is. Johnson was 20 points ahead in 2020 and is now gone. Blair was 30 points ahead leading up to 1997 and went onto win a massive landslide.
If Starmer gets a 15 point lead - which I still think he will - then he will feel very confident. But if it starts to shrink, questions will be raised.
Declared: Braverman, Tugendhat
Publicly expressed interest: Badenoch, Baker, Berry, Buckland, Javid, Mordaunt, Shapps, Sunak, Truss, Wallace, Zahawi
Potential: Barclay, Harper, Hunt, Kwarteng, McVey, Patel, Shapps
Declined: Cleverly, Ellwood, Gove, Hancock, Leadsom, Raab
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
And the 52% who disapprove many will be middle class southerners in safe seats expressing mild contempt
A small number of people (perhaps a million or two if you’re lucky) REALLY care and would accept what was need d to rejoin. A bigger number miss what we had but grasp that it’s gone now. Most people don’t think about it much. And the first two categories are then mirrored by leavers.
It will become a truism for the next Labour Government that SM/CU must not be touched, and so the consensus will be built as we gradually decouple at it becomes less and less possible.
The question isn't whether it should be done, but how well Labour will do it. If it's just Angela Rayner having a rant, for example, then it's a bit pointless.
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1545338656042500097
I imagine there would be substantial cheering from what have hitherto been considered "rational" quarters.
https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2022/07/07/boris-johnsons-resignation-did-the-constitution-work/
We have May and Jezza to show that contested elections don't always work well.
I think a contested election is fair enough if there are several big beasts with long and prominent records of service at the highest level, as when Margaret left. But now it smacks more of the relative lack of such in the Cabinet. So I think it's a bad symptom rather than a good one.
There's £6 to lay on Graham Brady at 200-1 if anyone wants it, have had a bit but I'm not running a book to that size.
My point is more about the psychic ghost he will become, haunting people. You can see it happening already
Puritanical bullshit will just drive relationships underground, it won't prevent people from having a sex drive. 🤦♂️
If it's consenting, it should not be.
Either way, it's up to the adults involved.
Javid and others all triple figures, only her, Wallace, and Sunak are shorter.
I once worked with a young lady hospital pharmacist whose parents were very disappointed that she became enamoured of a bodybuilding porter.
https://twitter.com/adam_crampsie/status/1545155805481246723?s=21&t=56wPtGadTtJ0PqYxL2lv9w
A "standard" Lib Dem swing & gain was observed in Brecon in 2019. ~ Low teens, no worries for the gov't. High 20s, low 30s. Big worries.
Probably depends on the workplace and power relationships as well, so tricky for HR to get the rules right, assuming a company is big enough to have an HR department.
The engines delivered, finally, to ULA aren't quite ready for flight. Apparently they will be retrofitted after delivery.
Blue Origin have made very slow progress in building an orbital rocket. They should actually launch something. MVP and all that.
Raptor is doing 300+ second burns at McGregor, as observed by locals. The first version have powered the various Starship tests - some might say that means they have flown. I would give a half credit for that - on a vehicle, with the whole moving environment, vibration etc vs test stand.
SLS is a slow moving disaster - it can't sustain the flight rate to do anything.
Virgin Orbit is a serious effort, though their long term viability is a question - the cost of a carrier aircraft vs the cost of a bigger first stage.
Virgin Galactic - yeah. Lethally dangerous. Fundamental flaws.
No prohibition on any relationships.
Relationship involving student with which staff member has any professional involvement (e.g. if lecturer, supervisor, in any position to influence grades etc) has to be reported to line manager. Same for relationship with line manager/other person above in chain of command (reported to someone more senior, in that case). Colleague relationships reported to line manager.
Essentially, no prohibition, but disclosure to someone more senior if there's any possible perception of conflict of interest. Senior person then decides whether to reassign any duties. Seems sensible.
And there are many other potential conflicts as well.
When there are power disparities, it's best all round if relationships are avoided. And if they cannot, they have to be open and visible, not hidden. Which is difficult if one or both of the parties are married...
No, I don't mean that seriously - but if I am working for an organization (or the UK) then it is my duty to do nothing, NOTHING, that interferes with that. And messing up the internal power structures is a big conflict with that.
But there would be plenty in the "seemed like an ordinary bloke, kept himself to himself" category who will be out cheering on the socials.
Saying "there's other people they could have sex with instead" is like saying to a man "there's women you could have sex with instead" of the man they're attracted to.
Consenting adults should be able to have sex with whoever they want to, so long as the other party is also a consenting adult who wants to have sex with them too.
Should we ban trans women from women's loos because they might abuse women? It is the abuse that should be targeted not the framework.
Most improvised firearms involve "real" ammunition - the picture of the gun used to shoot Abe suggest a home made double barrel shotgun. "Bang sticks" and the like have been around for years....
With a coil gun, there are no components that could be realistically banned.
Edit: Apart from changes in MPs since then, obviously: but those tended to shift the body of MPs to more Johnsonite.
If you want to encourage honesty and openness, then being puritanical or promoting a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude won't get it.
I'm like like, "30% swing MFs, pay attention".
But RUDs are not a good sign - especially when your rocket has dozens of them.
Let's see what happens. I wish them both good luck (and also RocketLab, Astra and some of the UK microlaunchers).
Incidentally, RocketLab is an example of why 'going small' to get to orbit early, the building bigger, may *not* have been the correct approach for BO. That's what RL did, and now they're going bigger to try to compete. And they're having to design not only a new rocket, but new engines as well.
Part of my issue is that I think Bezos's dream is more achievable than Musk's. Large space stations are doable. A Mars civilisation is far less certain. But I wish their companys all the best.
Mr. Pulpstar, I'm still annoyed that Perez and Ocon collided at an Azerbaijan Grand Prix years ago. I had a bet on Perez at 201 or so, and might've had one on Ocon as well.
Taking away everyone else's liberties isn't a way to do that. Driving relationships underground as you've frowned upon them and made them socially unacceptable just plays into the abusers hands, as abusers have more opportunities for abuse when everything is underground.
Openness and honesty is the polar opposite of prohibition, not its friend. Your puritanical prohibitionism won't stop adults screwing each other, it will just make them do so in secret more, which will make the abusers job easier. 🤦♂️
Prohibition does not work.
I'm sceptical, though, since he's still in post and the damage he's done is fresh in the mind, so current reactions are misleading.
There will be a few who will carry that loathing for some time, just as there are those shedding genuine tears at his departure who will continue to hold a candle for him.
I just don't think either category will be particularly large.
As far as Brexit's concerned, it wasn't his project. It enabled him, and he it, in the end. But he doesn't rise to the level of Ted Heath on Europe... take that how you will.
So also nothing that could realistically be banned, probably not even a 3D printer: Just pipes, tape, a battery, wires and initiative.
Tugendhat has come out the gate racing for that section of the selectorate I think.
On the RUDs - SpaceX were regularly destroying Merlins through the development cycles of the various versions. If nothing else, they popularised the term. It seems their style of engine development is hardware rich.
The flight engines on the various Starship tests seemed to have pretty good, stable burns.
RocketLab needed to prove that they had a viable product/team to get the investment to build bigger. Falcon 1 and all that. I think that they are more viable in the longer term than Virgin Orbit.
As to which dream will win, that isn't really up to either Bezos or Musk. If you have enough throw weight to start doing much on Mars, you have the throw weight to setup vast space stations as well. If you can chuck 50 or 100 tons into LEO for a few tens of millions, *preventing* space stations will be hard work.
Blue Origin needs to build a launcher, and learn how to use it. Then build a better one. Trying to design and build perfection from the first instance has been proven, multiple times, to be a bad idea.
As a manager toy don’t f*ck the payroll. As a teacher you don’t f*ck your students.
<bad_joke>There'll be plenty of it on the Daily Mail comment section, and at least up until yesterday, that was the State Media</bad_joke>
I might not be up on my Japanese news but pretty certain Abe hasn’t done any of those things.