Going back for a moment to the discussion Hezza's speech in the Lords, while it was excellent in so many ways it, SFAICS, missed out the difficulties; which are these
1) He lauds the single market. But with the single exception of FoM between countries at very different levels of development the SM was not the big issue in the Brexit debate. SM as regulatory trade harmonisation with an international arbitration system would never have precipitated Brexit.
2) He ignores the repeated Referendum issues. He ignores the political union aspects. He ignored the non democratic elements. he ignores the creeping politicisation of what began as a big trade association.
So while the rhetoric is great, he actually repeats the problem. On the whole the UK wanted half of what the EU had become (mostly about trade) but not the other half (mostly about politics).
But the thrust of his speech was about the undesirability of the regulations bill, and more generally the cluelessness around what Brexit is about, not a call to rejoin.
...Once the decision was taken—I was rather against it—it was important to get on and do something about the new world, because the uncertainty was bound to be burdensome and frustrating. I thought it was absolutely right that the principal Brexiteers were put in charge of the show: Boris Johnson, David Davis and Liam Fox. They, after all, presumably knew what the opportunities were, what needed to be done and what was holding us back, so they were in charge. Well, that did not last long. We had Jacob Rees-Mogg, with his Robespierrean fanaticism, and a whole new government department called Exiting the European Union. Let us not get carried away: the nameplate on the door changed. With Robespierrean fanaticism, he threw himself into the task. There was an uncharacteristic lack of history here, because of course Robespierre followed Louis XIV to the guillotine. Well, it is a more generous and kinder world that we live in today. Four Prime Ministers later, Jacob Rees-Mogg is back on the Back Benches. Dozens of Ministers have lost their jobs. I say to my noble friends on the Front Bench, “Beware: here today, gone tomorrow”. That has an ominous ring for anyone who becomes mired in this Brexit saga.
The essence, of course, is that, for all the empty generalisations, all the promises and all that new world, there was nothing there. This Bill demonstrates beyond peradventure that they did not know what they were doing. Six years on, they did not know what they were doing. They have now actually created a giant question mark over a whole realm of regulations that are the custodian that separates us from the law of the jungle. They are what defines a civilised society. At a time of economic stress, when we need desperately to increase the levels of investment in our economy, what have they provided? A giant question mark for anyone seeking to know whether to spend a penny piece in the United Kingdom economy. I beg noble Lords not to let this legislation leave this place unscathed...
Yes. But he has consistently ignored the bits of the EU as it developed which were never going to be acceptable to the UK population as a whole; it is this development, under the watch of his generation which makes squaring the circle so difficult now.
Not that the current lot has helped of course. But the great failure of statecraft was from about 1950-2016.
The current failure, 2016 onwards, is in responding the best possible to an insoluble dilemma. (Answer, as always EFTA/EEA).
The 3rd party clients were making a lot of revenue that Twitter are going to try and collect. It’s going to cost thousands a month to run coprorate Twitter accounts, complete with the analytics software similar to that which the 3rd parties used to sell to corporates.
There’s hundreds of millions in extra revenue, and more importantly a diversification away from the fickle and cyclical advertising market.
Okay but here in the present the Twitter app is absolute trash. They seem to have taken out the competition rather than trying to improve.
They also considerably degraded the general user experience. Though I recognise that could be temporary, I suspect it won't be, given the drive to increase revenue per user. That's what made Facebook a mess.
The USP of Twitter was (and still is) basically for the user to be able to curate their own user experience; that's what makes it so useful a tool. They've made that considerably more hit and miss.
They seem to think a service which is designed around up to the minute information, to be showing you information days or weeks old. They seem totally against having a chronological timeline, I just cannot understand why they think this is a good idea.
It's not; that implementation is just shit. You can more or less now default back to your own followed accounts, which seems to work reasonably well at the moment.
But they're still determinedly trying to get users to change to features users don't want, just because that's easier to monetise.
For now it's still usable, but that could still change. It's not a technical problem; it's that Twitter isn't going to change into the kind of ap Musk wants; or at least most if its users would be reluctant to stay committed to such a thing.
You literally just toggle to “Following” and Twitter is exactly what it was. You move one finger for about 1/3 of a second
That’s it. And the For You stream is sometimes rather enlightening, and sometimes not. It is the Tik Tok algo applied to Twitter
I am also (tho this IS more subjective) seeing fewer ads - “promoted tweets”, I think (which is an improvement if this is the case)
Indeed, that's what I said. For now it works.
And at the moment, there's nothing that provides what Twitter does. But it's not at all hard to imagine how someone might recreate the user-personalised news/information/gossip service, with a similar reach, using an AI.
What people are missing about current AIs is that while they aren't necessarily particularly intelligent or interesting in themselves, they enable all sorts of services. See also the threat to Amazon's retail model.
So basically your complaint about Twitter is that "Twitter is basically the same as it was, and it works, but it also gives you other options, now"
This doesn't sound devastating for Elon and Twitter, TBH
I agree that AI is a threat to Twitter, but then it is a threat to everyone and everything as we know it
No, that's not what I said (you perhaps mix my comments with others ?). Rather, that for a brief time it was unusable, and now it isn't. And it might or might not stay that way.
But it's probably not going to make him much money without a radical change to the user experience - which is what I worry about, as I use it a lot.
And the user base, while currently captive since there's nothing else that provides the service it does, might not be so for all that much longer.
Anyway, today is my birthday. When my father reached the age I am now he had less than 9 months left to live.
Also the cats decided to mark the occasion by leaving a large dead bird on the kitchen floor - along with feathers scattered everywhere - so clearing that up will be my first task of the day. There is no cat flap in the kitchen so they must have killed it outside, dragged it in through the cat flap downstairs and brought it upstairs. It is quite determined and skilful of them. I only wish they could use that skill to bring me a cup of tea in bed or, even, clean the bloody thing up themselves.
The joys of country living, eh!
It could be worse, when I had two cats I came home to find the kitchen floor covered in blood and seagull feathers. Never found the corpse and I don't believe 2 cats could eat a whole seagull. Needless to say the cats pretended complete innocence
But things we do - like preventing white men from joining the RAF, for example - would appear to be placing another objective ahead of your ability to carry out war effectively.
You still end up with the same number of pilots, etc. so how does biasing recruitment against white men affect combat efficacy?
It doesn't, if you assume all potential pilots are equally good. But if you assume that only a small minority will have the potential to be good pilots, and your recruitment exercise is trying to find these, if you exclude 90% of potential candidates, it is less likely you will find the candidates at the top end of that.
The selection process isn't trying to find the "best". It can't. It's impossible to assess a young person for three days and then determine if they are going to be Giora Epstein or Rodney Fucknuckle. They are trying to find candidates they think have a good chance of making it through training without jacking it in or getting chopped.
Once that baseline has been established the quality of the crew you get is much more dependent on the rigour of the training system than the qualities of the individuals themselves.
Talking of RAF recruitment last night some friends took me to yet another amazing Bangkok restaurant
The curries are sublime. The food in Bangkok now is possibly the best in the world. The competition is so intense
I really wish this restaurant would expand into london. But they might have to change the name. Because in Thailand everyone casually calls this chain (without malice) “super N-word”. That’s how they pronounce it
For westerners it is quite startling and causes grave awkwardness
It is rather childishly amusing how every slightly dodgy/rude weird in English seems to be a staple of the Thai language.
Keeping a straight face when being checked into a top hotel by a young lady sporting a name badge* that says "Supaporn" takes some doing.
(*Always assuming it was her name badge and not just a boast....)
Sky News also understands business, energy and industrial strategy secretary Grant Shapps will be made energy security secretary in a newly created department dedicated to energy.
And former Tory leadership contender Kemi Badenoch is to be moved from international trade secretary to business secretary, taking over part of the role Mr Shapps leaves vacant.
Big job for Kemi, responsible for business regulation and growth opportunities.
Worth a few quid on the next leader market.
Yes Badenoch or Barclay I would now make as favourites to be next Conservative leader.
Truss has had her go at the leadership but blew it
How about Penny?
To paraphrase David Cameron, she was the future once.
She looked like a potential future leader, until she got caught introducing a bill sponsored by Stonewall, that was awfully similar to the bill that got Nicola Sturgeon into her recent troubles.
Going back for a moment to the discussion Hezza's speech in the Lords, while it was excellent in so many ways it, SFAICS, missed out the difficulties; which are these
1) He lauds the single market. But with the single exception of FoM between countries at very different levels of development the SM was not the big issue in the Brexit debate. SM as regulatory trade harmonisation with an international arbitration system would never have precipitated Brexit.
2) He ignores the repeated Referendum issues. He ignores the political union aspects. He ignored the non democratic elements. he ignores the creeping politicisation of what began as a big trade association.
So while the rhetoric is great, he actually repeats the problem. On the whole the UK wanted half of what the EU had become (mostly about trade) but not the other half (mostly about politics).
But the thrust of his speech was about the undesirability of the regulations bill, and more generally the cluelessness around what Brexit is about, not a call to rejoin.
In which case it is rather a waste of time and energy. Moaning about the past doesn't improve the future.
His speech was a call to modify a bill that is both undemocratic (in handing fiat powers to ministers) and could be very damaging to business. That might be a waste of time given the government's majority in Parliament, but it's rather more than 'moaning about the past'.
Going back for a moment to the discussion Hezza's speech in the Lords, while it was excellent in so many ways it, SFAICS, missed out the difficulties; which are these
1) He lauds the single market. But with the single exception of FoM between countries at very different levels of development the SM was not the big issue in the Brexit debate. SM as regulatory trade harmonisation with an international arbitration system would never have precipitated Brexit.
2) He ignores the repeated Referendum issues. He ignores the political union aspects. He ignored the non democratic elements. he ignores the creeping politicisation of what began as a big trade association.
So while the rhetoric is great, he actually repeats the problem. On the whole the UK wanted half of what the EU had become (mostly about trade) but not the other half (mostly about politics).
But the thrust of his speech was about the undesirability of the regulations bill, and more generally the cluelessness around what Brexit is about, not a call to rejoin.
...Once the decision was taken—I was rather against it—it was important to get on and do something about the new world, because the uncertainty was bound to be burdensome and frustrating. I thought it was absolutely right that the principal Brexiteers were put in charge of the show: Boris Johnson, David Davis and Liam Fox. They, after all, presumably knew what the opportunities were, what needed to be done and what was holding us back, so they were in charge. Well, that did not last long. We had Jacob Rees-Mogg, with his Robespierrean fanaticism, and a whole new government department called Exiting the European Union. Let us not get carried away: the nameplate on the door changed. With Robespierrean fanaticism, he threw himself into the task. There was an uncharacteristic lack of history here, because of course Robespierre followed Louis XIV to the guillotine. Well, it is a more generous and kinder world that we live in today. Four Prime Ministers later, Jacob Rees-Mogg is back on the Back Benches. Dozens of Ministers have lost their jobs. I say to my noble friends on the Front Bench, “Beware: here today, gone tomorrow”. That has an ominous ring for anyone who becomes mired in this Brexit saga.
The essence, of course, is that, for all the empty generalisations, all the promises and all that new world, there was nothing there. This Bill demonstrates beyond peradventure that they did not know what they were doing. Six years on, they did not know what they were doing. They have now actually created a giant question mark over a whole realm of regulations that are the custodian that separates us from the law of the jungle. They are what defines a civilised society. At a time of economic stress, when we need desperately to increase the levels of investment in our economy, what have they provided? A giant question mark for anyone seeking to know whether to spend a penny piece in the United Kingdom economy. I beg noble Lords not to let this legislation leave this place unscathed...
Yes. But he has consistently ignored the bits of the EU as it developed which were never going to be acceptable to the UK population as a whole; it is this development, under the watch of his generation which makes squaring the circle so difficult now.
Not that the current lot has helped of course. But the great failure of statecraft was from about 1950-2016.
The current failure, 2016 onwards, is in responding the best possible to an insoluble dilemma. (Answer, as always EFTA/EEA).
In which case, abolishing the entirety of EEC/EU derived law by an arbitrary deadline seems like a foolish way forward. What are the odds of the government accidentally breaking something important? Pretty high, I suspect.
Hezza's speech can be summarised as "If you must do this damn silly thing, at least don't do it in this damn silly way".
The great crisis of both politics and business in the UK is generally poor management skills. This is a theme that has emerged in the serious UK media in the past few months.
In that light the Brexit fiasco is a rebellion against dishonest leadership, and a desire to bring the political process under more democratic control. Even as a Remainer, I could see the logic of that, and although the dishonesty with which the Brexit mob made their case left me coldly furious, they were not wholly wrong.
Some argue that part of the problem is that there is a "Jack´s-as-good-as-his master" attitude across British society. The British do not, in general, admire success except perhaps acting or music. The stereotype of leaders is negative. Britain is not a particularly fair place, and that many think success is not earned, but acquired through cheating. We show remarkable contempt to our public figures across society, from celebrities to business people.
The media has much to answer for too, Paxman´s "who is this lying liar who is lying to me?", attitude was maybe good entertainment, but not a sane way to find a happier and more prosperous country, However, it also goes hand-in-hand with genuine failure: an Oxford PPE degree is a network, not a syllabus, and that goes for bankers or industrialists or journalists as well as politicians.
Tories are in a a leadership vacuum but the palpable lack of vision on both front benches increasingly difficult to ignore. Changing the party of government will change surprisingly little. For example, it wont reverse Brexit, although that is what polls say the majority of voters want.
The problem for the UK is the system of government has delivered so much failure, of which Brexit is only a part, that it is becoming inescapable that major reform is needed. Our local government tier hollowed out by decades of cuts and mostly bankrupt. Our Parliament is woefully undemocratic- the continuing membership of the hereditary Lords in our Parliament is so sad, it is almost funny. A"safe seat" in the Commons is an insult to democracy. The relationship between the central government in Westminster and national governments in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast is rickety, and the failure of local government has destroyed the power of English cities and counties.
Large parts of public administration, from Companies House,the Passport office, to the NHS itself, are in crisis, and the situation is getting worse. We need to talk about these issues. Whether by Royal Commission, Peoples Assemblies or some other public debate, we need to rebuild leadership of, and trust in our system of government.
We need a new national consensus. Who will lead it?
I'd like to think we'd fight hard, especially if we were in the Ukrainian situation, where (say) Devon and Cornwall had been captured eight years earlier. But I can imagine some of us talking about how the French were in the right...
The analogy only works if you assume Devon and Cornwall are 40% ethnically, linguistically and culturally French with the percentage increasing the closer you get to Penzance.
One thing the UK would have going for it over Ukraine (and Russia) in that situation is that geography makes it a lot harder to leave to avoid mobilisation. 19% of the Ukrainian population (~8m) has just left. 6m going west and 2m going to Russia. They lost a lot of potential conscriptees for the meat grinder that way.
Maybe Russia would be conscripting women and children, but I doubt Ukraine would.
Ukraine has been conscripting women since October though only volunteers get combat roles.
Last April, a lefty friend of mine expressed some outrage that Ukraine had been preventing men leaving in order to run an army, but allowing women to do so. 'Not very 2020s', she said, rather sniffily. On reflection, she then admitted she'd be horrified to be conscripted, could never kill anyone and would be useless as a soldier. What rankled with her was someone else assuming this would be so because of her sex. This sort of illustrates the earlier point - we in the west place adhering to a set of 2020s values ahead of doing what works. What would we do in a war situation? I don't know and I hope I never find out.
It wasn’t compulsory for the women to leave Ukraine. Millions of them have stayed behind and signed up voluntarily, serving in a wide number of roles within the Ukranian military.
Anyway, today is my birthday. When my father reached the age I am now he had less than 9 months left to live.
Also the cats decided to mark the occasion by leaving a large dead bird on the kitchen floor - along with feathers scattered everywhere - so clearing that up will be my first task of the day. There is no cat flap in the kitchen so they must have killed it outside, dragged it in through the cat flap downstairs and brought it upstairs. It is quite determined and skilful of them. I only wish they could use that skill to bring me a cup of tea in bed or, even, clean the bloody thing up themselves.
The joys of country living, eh!
It could be worse, when I had two cats I came home to find the kitchen floor covered in blood and seagull feathers. Never found the corpse and I don't believe 2 cats could eat a whole seagull. Needless to say the cats pretended complete innocence
When I was living in Durham, the local Chinese restaurant was raided by health inspectors, who found the sweet and sour chicken was actually seagull.
The cats may have found a lucrative line of business....
I'd like to think we'd fight hard, especially if we were in the Ukrainian situation, where (say) Devon and Cornwall had been captured eight years earlier. But I can imagine some of us talking about how the French were in the right...
The analogy only works if you assume Devon and Cornwall are 40% ethnically, linguistically and culturally French with the percentage increasing the closer you get to Penzance.
One thing the UK would have going for it over Ukraine (and Russia) in that situation is that geography makes it a lot harder to leave to avoid mobilisation. 19% of the Ukrainian population (~8m) has just left. 6m going west and 2m going to Russia. They lost a lot of potential conscriptees for the meat grinder that way.
No analogy is perfect, but the question is how much would we fight any aggressor that utilises Russia's sort of methods?
But your initial paragraph is interesting for another reason: despite those deep cultural links (basically formed by previous invasions), the vast majority of Ukrainians don't want to be Russian. They may be 40% ethnically, linguistically and culturally Russian, but it's clear that the vast majority of those don't want to *be* Russian.
Remember, the big Z himself is a Russian speaker.
The conflicts since 2014 have actually created a Ukrainian identity.
The great crisis of both politics and business in the UK is generally poor management skills. This is a theme that has emerged in the serious UK media in the past few months.
In that light the Brexit fiasco is a rebellion against dishonest leadership, and a desire to bring the political process under more democratic control. Even as a Remainer, I could see the logic of that, and although the dishonesty with which the Brexit mob made their case left me coldly furious, they were not wholly wrong.
Some argue that part of the problem is that there is a "Jack´s-as-good-as-his master" attitude across British society. The British do not, in general, admire success except perhaps acting or music. The stereotype of leaders is negative. Britain is not a particularly fair place, and that many think success is not earned, but acquired through cheating. We show remarkable contempt to our public figures across society, from celebrities to business people.
The media has much to answer for too, Paxman´s "who is this lying liar who is lying to me?", attitude was maybe good entertainment, but not a sane way to find a happier and more prosperous country, However, it also goes hand-in-hand with genuine failure: an Oxford PPE degree is a network, not a syllabus, and that goes for bankers or industrialists or journalists as well as politicians.
Tories are in a a leadership vacuum but the palpable lack of vision on both front benches increasingly difficult to ignore. Changing the party of government will change surprisingly little. For example, it wont reverse Brexit, although that is what polls say the majority of voters want.
The problem for the UK is the system of government has delivered so much failure, of which Brexit is only a part, that it is becoming inescapable that major reform is needed. Our local government tier hollowed out by decades of cuts and mostly bankrupt. Our Parliament is woefully undemocratic- the continuing membership of the hereditary Lords in our Parliament is so sad, it is almost funny. A"safe seat" in the Commons is an insult to democracy. The relationship between the central government in Westminster and national governments in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast is rickety, and the failure of local government has destroyed the power of English cities and counties.
Large parts of public administration, from Companies House,the Passport office, to the NHS itself, are in crisis, and the situation is getting worse. We need to talk about these issues. Whether by Royal Commission, Peoples Assemblies or some other public debate, we need to rebuild leadership of, and trust in our system of government.
We need a new national consensus. Who will lead it?
But things we do - like preventing white men from joining the RAF, for example - would appear to be placing another objective ahead of your ability to carry out war effectively.
You still end up with the same number of pilots, etc. so how does biasing recruitment against white men affect combat efficacy?
I think someone is assuming a drop in standards to get sufficient applicants, in the required groups.
To be fair, this is what the police did.
The problem is that if you lower fitness and strength requirements such as the Police and Fire Service have done, you end up recruiting at the lowest possible levels and many recruits never get above that minimum. In my last year, we had a mid 20s white male recruit fail his very first annual fitness test, and that happened to a number of new recruits. When I first joined, there were no annual fitness tests and a lot of overweight old white fellas in the job. Then proper fitness tests were introduced and we all got fitter-at 49, I had to achieve the same level as a 22 year old England Fire Service Rugby player, and it really made me up my game. At 54, my last test was a 12 minute walk on an increasing incline treadmill at 6kmh, the same test that the recruit failed after a year.
We live in an era where people who have got all the way to the highest office in the land now hilariously claim structural discrimination against the fact that, after varying amounts of time, they just weren’t good enough. When both of these chancers left office, they had not simply passed their best-before date – they had sailed beyond the use-by date and moved formally into the realms of biohazard. Yet instead of bucking the f up and accepting this, they have turned into the political equivalent of “incels” – involuntarily rejected by the people who determine whether or not you get to be prime minister, and bleating about it in self-reflection-free style on every available forum.
But things we do - like preventing white men from joining the RAF, for example - would appear to be placing another objective ahead of your ability to carry out war effectively.
You still end up with the same number of pilots, etc. so how does biasing recruitment against white men affect combat efficacy?
I think someone is assuming a drop in standards to get sufficient applicants, in the required groups.
To be fair, this is what the police did.
The British military aviation training system is very narrow pipeline that wings comparatively few crew every year. The pool of applicants is so large compared to the available places there is no need to reduce entry standards no matter how the intake is demographically conditioned.
For decades aircrew in particular were recruited by looking for a definite type - privately educated hooligans with an excess of self-confidence, an aptitude for team sports and a lack of intellect. Basically, people like me. Of course, the system wasn't perfect and the occasional comprehensively educated intellectual introvert slipped through but they could be shuffled off to the C-130 fleet.
So the senior officers on selection panels tended to be of a particular type looking to recruit 21 year old versions of themselves. Without some active measures this particular niche of the Armed Forces is never going to reflect the composition of the country it is putative defending.
Yep, key point - if there's a far greater number of people who both want to do something and could do it well than there are slots available this means you can do things like quotas (eg to boost diversity) without jeopardizing the (slightly mythical but nevertheless not completely meaningless) "best person for the job" objective.
Another good example is places at top unis. Will skewing that towards applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds and state schools lead to a drop in standards? No. Probably raise them if anything.
But things we do - like preventing white men from joining the RAF, for example - would appear to be placing another objective ahead of your ability to carry out war effectively.
You still end up with the same number of pilots, etc. so how does biasing recruitment against white men affect combat efficacy?
I think someone is assuming a drop in standards to get sufficient applicants, in the required groups.
To be fair, this is what the police did.
The British military aviation training system is very narrow pipeline that wings comparatively few crew every year. The pool of applicants is so large compared to the available places there is no need to reduce entry standards no matter how the intake is demographically conditioned.
For decades aircrew in particular were recruited by looking for a definite type - privately educated hooligans with an excess of self-confidence, an aptitude for team sports and a lack of intellect. Basically, people like me. Of course, the system wasn't perfect and the occasional comprehensively educated intellectual introvert slipped through but they could be shuffled off to the C-130 fleet.
So the senior officers on selection panels tended to be of a particular type looking to recruit 21 year old versions of themselves. Without some active measures this particular niche of the Armed Forces is never going to reflect the composition of the country it is putative defending.
Whilst that's all very good and well (and IMO diversity is good), the RAF is *much* more than just pilots, and even much more than just aircrew.
From a quick Google, in 2015 there were 1,790 trained, regular pilots in the RAF (1) out of about 32k staff. Assuming a 15-year service span (and that might be too much), you are looking at replacing (i.e. recruiting) ~2k staff per year.
Fuck's sake, I'm voting Labour, this government hates users of the rail system.
Rail fares will fluctuate based on demand, in a similar way to airline tickets, under a trial to be announced by Mark Harper, the transport secretary.
Tickets on some London North Eastern Railway (LNER) services will be more or less expensive depending on how many seats have been filled.
The Department for Transport believes so-called demand-based pricing will help manage capacity while also raising revenue.
Harper will also confirm plans to expand single leg pricing across the entire LNER network, which runs between London King’s Cross and Scotland via the east coast main line.
That means a single fare will always be half the cost of a return. Currently, many return fares only cost marginally more than singles.
I'd like to think we'd fight hard, especially if we were in the Ukrainian situation, where (say) Devon and Cornwall had been captured eight years earlier. But I can imagine some of us talking about how the French were in the right...
The analogy only works if you assume Devon and Cornwall are 40% ethnically, linguistically and culturally French with the percentage increasing the closer you get to Penzance.
One thing the UK would have going for it over Ukraine (and Russia) in that situation is that geography makes it a lot harder to leave to avoid mobilisation. 19% of the Ukrainian population (~8m) has just left. 6m going west and 2m going to Russia. They lost a lot of potential conscriptees for the meat grinder that way.
Maybe Russia would be conscripting women and children, but I doubt Ukraine would.
Ukraine has been conscripting women since October though only volunteers get combat roles.
Last April, a lefty friend of mine expressed some outrage that Ukraine had been preventing men leaving in order to run an army, but allowing women to do so. 'Not very 2020s', she said, rather sniffily. On reflection, she then admitted she'd be horrified to be conscripted, could never kill anyone and would be useless as a soldier. What rankled with her was someone else assuming this would be so because of her sex. This sort of illustrates the earlier point - we in the west place adhering to a set of 2020s values ahead of doing what works. What would we do in a war situation? I don't know and I hope I never find out.
Given its teeny tiny number it is perhaps unsurprising that it is difficult to get into the British Army these days; and to get into some regiments in the teeth arms very difficult indeed.
In my day they were still using the two doctor method (two doctor look in both of your ears and unless they can see each other, you're in).
A friend of mine who looks after recruitment in one regiment mentioned that the quality of female officer cadets at Sandhurst regularly outstrips that of the male ones.
Which in turn makes for some challenging decisions for some regiments.
But things we do - like preventing white men from joining the RAF, for example - would appear to be placing another objective ahead of your ability to carry out war effectively.
You still end up with the same number of pilots, etc. so how does biasing recruitment against white men affect combat efficacy?
I think someone is assuming a drop in standards to get sufficient applicants, in the required groups.
To be fair, this is what the police did.
The British military aviation training system is very narrow pipeline that wings comparatively few crew every year. The pool of applicants is so large compared to the available places there is no need to reduce entry standards no matter how the intake is demographically conditioned.
For decades aircrew in particular were recruited by looking for a definite type - privately educated hooligans with an excess of self-confidence, an aptitude for team sports and a lack of intellect. Basically, people like me. Of course, the system wasn't perfect and the occasional comprehensively educated intellectual introvert slipped through but they could be shuffled off to the C-130 fleet.
So the senior officers on selection panels tended to be of a particular type looking to recruit 21 year old versions of themselves. Without some active measures this particular niche of the Armed Forces is never going to reflect the composition of the country it is putative defending.
Does that road not lead simply to “BBC diversity”, in that the recruiting officers end up choosing the black or brown face they remember from the OTC, as opposed to people from genuinely different walks of life?
As far as I can see Liz Truss isn’t listed on any next Tory leader/next PM markets, I am prepared to sell my family into indentured servitude to obtain funds to lay her in the next Tory leader/next PM markets if she is added.
Fuck's sake, I'm voting Labour, this government hates users of the rail system.
Rail fares will fluctuate based on demand, in a similar way to airline tickets, under a trial to be announced by Mark Harper, the transport secretary.
Tickets on some London North Eastern Railway (LNER) services will be more or less expensive depending on how many seats have been filled.
The Department for Transport believes so-called demand-based pricing will help manage capacity while also raising revenue.
Harper will also confirm plans to expand single leg pricing across the entire LNER network, which runs between London King’s Cross and Scotland via the east coast main line.
That means a single fare will always be half the cost of a return. Currently, many return fares only cost marginally more than singles.
On topic - who the hell are these "Tory members" who would Truss is supposedly popular with?
1. She will never get a chance to stand again - the MPs will see to that.
2. The members wouldn't go near her again with a 20 foot pole.
Sorry to say it, but as someone still inside the Conservative Party, this header is utter - uninformed - fantasy.
Yes - that was my reaction too. She would have close to zero chance of being one of the two choices selected by the MPs.
It would be interesting to get some actual polling of conservative members. As I recall there was some unrest at the effective coronation of Sunak last year. I don't think it can be assumed that previous support for Truss would translate in to support for her again but it can't be ruled out because unfortunately the Conservative membership have been proven to make terrible decisions, as was obvious when they elected Truss the first time around...
Fuck's sake, I'm voting Labour, this government hates users of the rail system.
Rail fares will fluctuate based on demand, in a similar way to airline tickets, under a trial to be announced by Mark Harper, the transport secretary.
Tickets on some London North Eastern Railway (LNER) services will be more or less expensive depending on how many seats have been filled.
The Department for Transport believes so-called demand-based pricing will help manage capacity while also raising revenue.
Harper will also confirm plans to expand single leg pricing across the entire LNER network, which runs between London King’s Cross and Scotland via the east coast main line.
That means a single fare will always be half the cost of a return. Currently, many return fares only cost marginally more than singles.
Incidentally, whilst we're talking about aircrew, this made me smile the other day. "B-1 baby on board: Meet Maj. Lauren Olme, the first USAF Aviatrix to fly during entire pregnancy"
But things we do - like preventing white men from joining the RAF, for example - would appear to be placing another objective ahead of your ability to carry out war effectively.
You still end up with the same number of pilots, etc. so how does biasing recruitment against white men affect combat efficacy?
I think someone is assuming a drop in standards to get sufficient applicants, in the required groups.
To be fair, this is what the police did.
The British military aviation training system is very narrow pipeline that wings comparatively few crew every year. The pool of applicants is so large compared to the available places there is no need to reduce entry standards no matter how the intake is demographically conditioned.
For decades aircrew in particular were recruited by looking for a definite type - privately educated hooligans with an excess of self-confidence, an aptitude for team sports and a lack of intellect. Basically, people like me. Of course, the system wasn't perfect and the occasional comprehensively educated intellectual introvert slipped through but they could be shuffled off to the C-130 fleet.
So the senior officers on selection panels tended to be of a particular type looking to recruit 21 year old versions of themselves. Without some active measures this particular niche of the Armed Forces is never going to reflect the composition of the country it is putative defending.
Yep, key point - if there's a far greater number of people who both want to do something and could do it well than there are slots available this means you can do things like quotas (eg to boost diversity) without jeopardizing the (slightly mythical but nevertheless not completely meaningless) "best person for the job" objective.
Another good example is places at top unis. Will skewing that towards applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds and state schools lead to a drop in standards? No. Probably raise them if anything.
Many employers have a "recommend a friend and get some £££" recruitment policy. Not good for improving diversity.
Anyway, something to celebrate. After hearing the calls but failing to see them over the past few days, I finally spotted a pair of parakeets in the garden. Another species to add to the list.
There has been a subtle change in our flexible working guidelines.
Before: 2-3 days per week in the office.
After: Up to 2 days per week at home.
Full disclosure: I will be in the office 1 day this week.
The difference in lifestyle between two days in the office, and three days in the office, is massive.
Two days in the office (say in London) and I’m living in Rutland or Devon, buying one teturn train ticket per week and one cheap hotel night in Town.
Three days in the office, I’m buying the full damn annual season ticket, and need to be no further out than about Basingstoke, in a much smaller house than in Devon or Rutland.
But things we do - like preventing white men from joining the RAF, for example - would appear to be placing another objective ahead of your ability to carry out war effectively.
You still end up with the same number of pilots, etc. so how does biasing recruitment against white men affect combat efficacy?
I think someone is assuming a drop in standards to get sufficient applicants, in the required groups.
To be fair, this is what the police did.
The British military aviation training system is very narrow pipeline that wings comparatively few crew every year. The pool of applicants is so large compared to the available places there is no need to reduce entry standards no matter how the intake is demographically conditioned.
For decades aircrew in particular were recruited by looking for a definite type - privately educated hooligans with an excess of self-confidence, an aptitude for team sports and a lack of intellect. Basically, people like me. Of course, the system wasn't perfect and the occasional comprehensively educated intellectual introvert slipped through but they could be shuffled off to the C-130 fleet.
So the senior officers on selection panels tended to be of a particular type looking to recruit 21 year old versions of themselves. Without some active measures this particular niche of the Armed Forces is never going to reflect the composition of the country it is putative defending.
Yep, key point - if there's a far greater number of people who both want to do something and could do it well than there are slots available this means you can do things like quotas (eg to boost diversity) without jeopardizing the (slightly mythical but nevertheless not completely meaningless) "best person for the job" objective.
Another good example is places at top unis. Will skewing that towards applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds and state schools lead to a drop in standards? No. Probably raise them if anything.
I think that you can accept that bias exists and should be tackled; but it is a sound principle that merit should be the determining factor in these decisions.
Also, people will game any system that is put in to place to try and achieve equality. An acquaintance in a £1mn house got his kids through university without paying any fees because he comes from a deprived town (correct, just the best road in the whole town), and his kids went to state school (albeit in another town, driven there and back by taxi every day).
There has been a subtle change in our flexible working guidelines.
Before: 2-3 days per week in the office.
After: Up to 2 days per week at home.
Full disclosure: I will be in the office 1 day this week.
Obviously I know SFA about jobs, offices and all that malarkey but aren't the WFH arrangements part of the recruitment package about which companies have to be competitive?
But things we do - like preventing white men from joining the RAF, for example - would appear to be placing another objective ahead of your ability to carry out war effectively.
You still end up with the same number of pilots, etc. so how does biasing recruitment against white men affect combat efficacy?
I think someone is assuming a drop in standards to get sufficient applicants, in the required groups.
To be fair, this is what the police did.
The British military aviation training system is very narrow pipeline that wings comparatively few crew every year. The pool of applicants is so large compared to the available places there is no need to reduce entry standards no matter how the intake is demographically conditioned.
For decades aircrew in particular were recruited by looking for a definite type - privately educated hooligans with an excess of self-confidence, an aptitude for team sports and a lack of intellect. Basically, people like me. Of course, the system wasn't perfect and the occasional comprehensively educated intellectual introvert slipped through but they could be shuffled off to the C-130 fleet.
So the senior officers on selection panels tended to be of a particular type looking to recruit 21 year old versions of themselves. Without some active measures this particular niche of the Armed Forces is never going to reflect the composition of the country it is putative defending.
Yep, key point - if there's a far greater number of people who both want to do something and could do it well than there are slots available this means you can do things like quotas (eg to boost diversity) without jeopardizing the (slightly mythical but nevertheless not completely meaningless) "best person for the job" objective.
Another good example is places at top unis. Will skewing that towards applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds and state schools lead to a drop in standards? No. Probably raise them if anything.
Many employers have a "recommend a friend and get some £££" recruitment policy. Not good for improving diversity.
Which comes out of the vast savings on using recruiters.
Many people don't know how big the recruitment fees can be. £3K bung for someone finding a mate who can do the job is cheap.
Richard Sharp reveals he went to see Boris Johnson in No10 to discuss the BBC chairmanship before applying.
An opportunity not afforded to others during “open and fair” contest — and another detail not disclosed alongside involvement in talks about Johnson’s finances.
Carrick given 36 life sentences and will serve a minimum 30 years in prison
Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb sentences Carrick to 36 life sentences and tells him he will serve a minimum of 30 years and 239 days in prison before being considered for parole
There has been a subtle change in our flexible working guidelines.
Before: 2-3 days per week in the office.
After: Up to 2 days per week at home.
Full disclosure: I will be in the office 1 day this week.
The difference in lifestyle between two days in the office, and three days in the office, is massive.
Two days in the office (say in London) and I’m living in Rutland or Devon, buying one teturn train ticket per week and one cheap hotel night in Town.
Three days in the office, I’m buying the full damn annual season ticket, and need to be no further out than about Basingstoke, in a much smaller house than in Devon or Rutland.
Much of this is going to depend on the employer. Some are remote and happy to save on the office costs; others are 3 days in the office. You have choice that never used to exist.
Incidentally, whilst we're talking about aircrew, this made me smile the other day. "B-1 baby on board: Meet Maj. Lauren Olme, the first USAF Aviatrix to fly during entire pregnancy"
'Former Met Police officer David Carrick receives 36 life sentences after pleading guilty to 85 offences, including multiple rapes.'
That'll learn him.
We are not paranoid types here in Castle PtP, but I have taken to carrying around a small recording device with me, and Mrs PtP is under instructions not to admit any Police Officer on to the premises without a warrant.
There has been a subtle change in our flexible working guidelines.
Before: 2-3 days per week in the office.
After: Up to 2 days per week at home.
Full disclosure: I will be in the office 1 day this week.
Obviously I know SFA about jobs, offices and all that malarkey but aren't the WFH arrangements part of the recruitment package about which companies have to be competitive?
There is nearly always weasel words in contracts, for perks - "Subject to the requirement of the business" or some such.
Most companies have offered WFH as a part of office policies, not in the contracts, anyway.
So they say at interview "We are WFH 3 days a week". And they can change that at no notice.....
There has been a subtle change in our flexible working guidelines.
Before: 2-3 days per week in the office.
After: Up to 2 days per week at home.
Full disclosure: I will be in the office 1 day this week.
Obviously I know SFA about jobs, offices and all that malarkey but aren't the WFH arrangements part of the recruitment package about which companies have to be competitive?
Absolutely. They must think that 2 days WFH is sufficient inducement, and more than this has a negative impact on performance.
However, when you have individuals whose base office is different from the rest of their team, being in or out makes very little difference.
Incidentally, whilst we're talking about aircrew, this made me smile the other day. "B-1 baby on board: Meet Maj. Lauren Olme, the first USAF Aviatrix to fly during entire pregnancy"
The English Football League (EFL) would have no obligation to accept Manchester City in the extraordinary event the club were expelled from the Premier League over alleged breaches of financial rules, Telegraph Sport understands.
The English Football League (EFL) would have no obligation to accept Manchester City in the extraordinary event the club were expelled from the Premier League over alleged breaches of financial rules, Telegraph Sport understands.
But things we do - like preventing white men from joining the RAF, for example - would appear to be placing another objective ahead of your ability to carry out war effectively.
You still end up with the same number of pilots, etc. so how does biasing recruitment against white men affect combat efficacy?
I think someone is assuming a drop in standards to get sufficient applicants, in the required groups.
To be fair, this is what the police did.
The British military aviation training system is very narrow pipeline that wings comparatively few crew every year. The pool of applicants is so large compared to the available places there is no need to reduce entry standards no matter how the intake is demographically conditioned.
For decades aircrew in particular were recruited by looking for a definite type - privately educated hooligans with an excess of self-confidence, an aptitude for team sports and a lack of intellect. Basically, people like me. Of course, the system wasn't perfect and the occasional comprehensively educated intellectual introvert slipped through but they could be shuffled off to the C-130 fleet.
So the senior officers on selection panels tended to be of a particular type looking to recruit 21 year old versions of themselves. Without some active measures this particular niche of the Armed Forces is never going to reflect the composition of the country it is putative defending.
Yep, key point - if there's a far greater number of people who both want to do something and could do it well than there are slots available this means you can do things like quotas (eg to boost diversity) without jeopardizing the (slightly mythical but nevertheless not completely meaningless) "best person for the job" objective.
Another good example is places at top unis. Will skewing that towards applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds and state schools lead to a drop in standards? No. Probably raise them if anything.
Many employers have a "recommend a friend and get some £££" recruitment policy. Not good for improving diversity.
That sort of scheme only usually pays out if the friend actually gets recruited, not just for the application.
But things we do - like preventing white men from joining the RAF, for example - would appear to be placing another objective ahead of your ability to carry out war effectively.
You still end up with the same number of pilots, etc. so how does biasing recruitment against white men affect combat efficacy?
I think someone is assuming a drop in standards to get sufficient applicants, in the required groups.
To be fair, this is what the police did.
The British military aviation training system is very narrow pipeline that wings comparatively few crew every year. The pool of applicants is so large compared to the available places there is no need to reduce entry standards no matter how the intake is demographically conditioned.
For decades aircrew in particular were recruited by looking for a definite type - privately educated hooligans with an excess of self-confidence, an aptitude for team sports and a lack of intellect. Basically, people like me. Of course, the system wasn't perfect and the occasional comprehensively educated intellectual introvert slipped through but they could be shuffled off to the C-130 fleet.
So the senior officers on selection panels tended to be of a particular type looking to recruit 21 year old versions of themselves. Without some active measures this particular niche of the Armed Forces is never going to reflect the composition of the country it is putative defending.
Yep, key point - if there's a far greater number of people who both want to do something and could do it well than there are slots available this means you can do things like quotas (eg to boost diversity) without jeopardizing the (slightly mythical but nevertheless not completely meaningless) "best person for the job" objective.
Another good example is places at top unis. Will skewing that towards applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds and state schools lead to a drop in standards? No. Probably raise them if anything.
Many employers have a "recommend a friend and get some £££" recruitment policy. Not good for improving diversity.
That sort of scheme only usually pays out if the friend actually gets recruited, not just for the application.
Usually it is on the same terms the recruiter gets - if the person gets the job and stays for 6 months.
The English Football League (EFL) would have no obligation to accept Manchester City in the extraordinary event the club were expelled from the Premier League over alleged breaches of financial rules, Telegraph Sport understands.
Since the EFL – which covers the Championship, League One and League Two – cannot have more than 72 clubs, it is also unclear how City would be accommodated in such a scenario without a change in regulations.
If they are expelled then there is a vacancy in the PL which would presumably be filled by either an extra promotion from the Championship at the end of the season it happens or the next season, or (possibly less likely given the effect on TV contracts?) running the PL with 19 clubs for one year and then relegating only two at the end of it. Either way leaves a vacancy in the EFL.
[Edit: or probably most likely, relegating only 2 and accepting the usual 3 promotions at the end of the season in question. Still leaves a vacancy in the EFL.]
Expulsion and relegation are not the same thing – the Premier League’s independent disciplinary commission have the power to expel a club but there is no provision in the rules for them to relegate one.
Perhaps technically true, but they can effectively do so by deducting them 100 points.
There has been a subtle change in our flexible working guidelines.
Before: 2-3 days per week in the office.
After: Up to 2 days per week at home.
Full disclosure: I will be in the office 1 day this week.
Obviously I know SFA about jobs, offices and all that malarkey but aren't the WFH arrangements part of the recruitment package about which companies have to be competitive?
Yes they are.
Most job vacancies I see now have some element of WFH.
But things we do - like preventing white men from joining the RAF, for example - would appear to be placing another objective ahead of your ability to carry out war effectively.
You still end up with the same number of pilots, etc. so how does biasing recruitment against white men affect combat efficacy?
I think someone is assuming a drop in standards to get sufficient applicants, in the required groups.
To be fair, this is what the police did.
The British military aviation training system is very narrow pipeline that wings comparatively few crew every year. The pool of applicants is so large compared to the available places there is no need to reduce entry standards no matter how the intake is demographically conditioned.
For decades aircrew in particular were recruited by looking for a definite type - privately educated hooligans with an excess of self-confidence, an aptitude for team sports and a lack of intellect. Basically, people like me. Of course, the system wasn't perfect and the occasional comprehensively educated intellectual introvert slipped through but they could be shuffled off to the C-130 fleet.
So the senior officers on selection panels tended to be of a particular type looking to recruit 21 year old versions of themselves. Without some active measures this particular niche of the Armed Forces is never going to reflect the composition of the country it is putative defending.
Yep, key point - if there's a far greater number of people who both want to do something and could do it well than there are slots available this means you can do things like quotas (eg to boost diversity) without jeopardizing the (slightly mythical but nevertheless not completely meaningless) "best person for the job" objective.
Another good example is places at top unis. Will skewing that towards applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds and state schools lead to a drop in standards? No. Probably raise them if anything.
I think that you can accept that bias exists and should be tackled; but it is a sound principle that merit should be the determining factor in these decisions.
Also, people will game any system that is put in to place to try and achieve equality. An acquaintance in a £1mn house got his kids through university without paying any fees because he comes from a deprived town (correct, just the best road in the whole town), and his kids went to state school (albeit in another town, driven there and back by taxi every day).
Well you need to weigh up the pros and cons of this sort of thing. Eg is a system so open to abuse that it's counterproductive? Merit is important, yes, but merit is a non-straightforward concept. It's hard to define let alone measure. Eg you often don't know how good someone will be at something until they're given the opportunity to do it. And if you ignore the need for diversity you might be making what looks like lots of individually sound decisions which when grossed up over time make no sense at all - on the macro level ending up with clear bias and much waste of people's potential.
There has been a subtle change in our flexible working guidelines.
Before: 2-3 days per week in the office.
After: Up to 2 days per week at home.
Full disclosure: I will be in the office 1 day this week.
Obviously I know SFA about jobs, offices and all that malarkey but aren't the WFH arrangements part of the recruitment package about which companies have to be competitive?
Absolutely. They must think that 2 days WFH is sufficient inducement, and more than this has a negative impact on performance.
However, when you have individuals whose base office is different from the rest of their team, being in or out makes very little difference.
2 days WFH (in London) is the worst of all worlds. You still have to live within a reasonable daily commute, buy the full season ticket, and maintain a home office.
There’s a massive business opportunity, for the first company to turn a full City tower office block into a £50/night basic ‘hotel’, of 50 sqft rooms with a bed, a shower, and a bar downstairs. The difficult bit is the plumbing, when hundreds of hot showers are required simultaneously at 7am.
The English Football League (EFL) would have no obligation to accept Manchester City in the extraordinary event the club were expelled from the Premier League over alleged breaches of financial rules, Telegraph Sport understands.
Could they get the full Glasgow Rangers treatment?
Expulsion and relegation are not the same thing – the Premier League’s independent disciplinary commission have the power to expel a club but there is no provision in the rules for them to relegate one.
Man City were as short as 37-1 to be relegated on Betfair (can now be layed for 450), but I guess punters have clued up on the rules (there was a court case about this re Rangers).
The English Football League (EFL) would have no obligation to accept Manchester City in the extraordinary event the club were expelled from the Premier League over alleged breaches of financial rules, Telegraph Sport understands.
Since the EFL – which covers the Championship, League One and League Two – cannot have more than 72 clubs, it is also unclear how City would be accommodated in such a scenario without a change in regulations.
If they are expelled then there is a vacancy in the PL which would presumably be filled by either an extra promotion from the Championship at the end of the season it happens or the next season, or (possibly less likely given the effect on TV contracts?) running the PL with 19 clubs for one year and then relegating only two at the end of it. Either way leaves a vacancy in the EFL.
Expulsion and relegation are not the same thing – the Premier League’s independent disciplinary commission have the power to expel a club but there is no provision in the rules for them to relegate one.
Perhaps technically true, but they can effectively do so by deducting them 100 points.
Quite. The history of football demotions is littered with sides being deducted some very odd points totals - turns out to be the number needed to relegate them that season. My club, Swindon, were initially relegated two divisions in 1990 from 1 to 3, then reduced to just one relegation. Effectively the Play-Off win at Wembley was awarded to Sunderland instead, which was tricky for some. Sunderland had lost to Swindon in the final, Blackburn had lost in the semi-final. Why should Sunderland go up?
The English Football League (EFL) would have no obligation to accept Manchester City in the extraordinary event the club were expelled from the Premier League over alleged breaches of financial rules, Telegraph Sport understands.
Could they get the full Glasgow Rangers treatment?
Expulsion and relegation are not the same thing – the Premier League’s independent disciplinary commission have the power to expel a club but there is no provision in the rules for them to relegate one.
Man City were as short as 37-1 to be relegated on Betfair (can now be layed for 450), but I guess punters have clued up on the rules (there was a court case about this re Rangers).
Reminiscent of the farrago with Jokavic last year at the Aussie Open. I thought laying him was a sure fire win once the immigration issue kicked off, but in the end the bet was voided as he didn't get to compete at all.
But things we do - like preventing white men from joining the RAF, for example - would appear to be placing another objective ahead of your ability to carry out war effectively.
You still end up with the same number of pilots, etc. so how does biasing recruitment against white men affect combat efficacy?
I think someone is assuming a drop in standards to get sufficient applicants, in the required groups.
To be fair, this is what the police did.
The British military aviation training system is very narrow pipeline that wings comparatively few crew every year. The pool of applicants is so large compared to the available places there is no need to reduce entry standards no matter how the intake is demographically conditioned.
For decades aircrew in particular were recruited by looking for a definite type - privately educated hooligans with an excess of self-confidence, an aptitude for team sports and a lack of intellect. Basically, people like me. Of course, the system wasn't perfect and the occasional comprehensively educated intellectual introvert slipped through but they could be shuffled off to the C-130 fleet.
So the senior officers on selection panels tended to be of a particular type looking to recruit 21 year old versions of themselves. Without some active measures this particular niche of the Armed Forces is never going to reflect the composition of the country it is putative defending.
Yep, key point - if there's a far greater number of people who both want to do something and could do it well than there are slots available this means you can do things like quotas (eg to boost diversity) without jeopardizing the (slightly mythical but nevertheless not completely meaningless) "best person for the job" objective.
Another good example is places at top unis. Will skewing that towards applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds and state schools lead to a drop in standards? No. Probably raise them if anything.
Many employers have a "recommend a friend and get some £££" recruitment policy. Not good for improving diversity.
Surely works fine if some of your your employees' best friends are black?
But things we do - like preventing white men from joining the RAF, for example - would appear to be placing another objective ahead of your ability to carry out war effectively.
You still end up with the same number of pilots, etc. so how does biasing recruitment against white men affect combat efficacy?
It doesn't, if you assume all potential pilots are equally good. But if you assume that only a small minority will have the potential to be good pilots, and your recruitment exercise is trying to find these, if you exclude 90% of potential candidates, it is less likely you will find the candidates at the top end of that.
The selection process isn't trying to find the "best". It can't. It's impossible to assess a young person for three days and then determine if they are going to be Giora Epstein or Rodney Fucknuckle. They are trying to find candidates they think have a good chance of making it through training without jacking it in or getting chopped.
Once that baseline has been established the quality of the crew you get is much more dependent on the rigour of the training system than the qualities of the individuals themselves.
Which do we actually want btw? - I'm guessing Rodney Fucknuckle?
The English Football League (EFL) would have no obligation to accept Manchester City in the extraordinary event the club were expelled from the Premier League over alleged breaches of financial rules, Telegraph Sport understands.
Could they get the full Glasgow Rangers treatment?
Expulsion and relegation are not the same thing – the Premier League’s independent disciplinary commission have the power to expel a club but there is no provision in the rules for them to relegate one.
Man City were as short as 37-1 to be relegated on Betfair (can now be layed for 450), but I guess punters have clued up on the rules (there was a court case about this re Rangers).
Reminiscent of the farrago with Jokavic last year at the Aussie Open. I thought laying him was a sure fire win once the immigration issue kicked off, but in the end the bet was voided as he didn't get to compete at all.
That was a very contentious Betfair market, as many punters ‘backed him to be a non-runner’ in a wide portfolio, and got screwed when all bets on him were voided.
The English Football League (EFL) would have no obligation to accept Manchester City in the extraordinary event the club were expelled from the Premier League over alleged breaches of financial rules, Telegraph Sport understands.
The question is what would the current PL rights holders - both domestically and internationally - say if City was kicked out? My guess would be that they would see it as a material change in their contracts (given City's dominance) and potentially take the EPL to Court. UEFA might also not be happy given (1) what it means for the Champions League but maybe more importantly (2) City's owners have a massive incentive to then disrupt the current system in the form of joining the ESL.
The English Football League (EFL) would have no obligation to accept Manchester City in the extraordinary event the club were expelled from the Premier League over alleged breaches of financial rules, Telegraph Sport understands.
The question is what would the current PL rights holders - both domestically and internationally - say if City was kicked out? My guess would be that they would see it as a material change in their contracts (given City's dominance) and potentially take the EPL to Court. UEFA might also not be happy given (1) what it means for the Champions League but maybe more importantly (2) City's owners have a massive incentive to then disrupt the current system in the form of joining the ESL.
I doubt media contracts guarantee the participation of any specific club. And surely the PL would say "it's not our fault MCFC broke the rules".
The English Football League (EFL) would have no obligation to accept Manchester City in the extraordinary event the club were expelled from the Premier League over alleged breaches of financial rules, Telegraph Sport understands.
Could they get the full Glasgow Rangers treatment?
Expulsion and relegation are not the same thing – the Premier League’s independent disciplinary commission have the power to expel a club but there is no provision in the rules for them to relegate one.
Man City were as short as 37-1 to be relegated on Betfair (can now be layed for 450), but I guess punters have clued up on the rules (there was a court case about this re Rangers).
Reminiscent of the farrago with Jokavic last year at the Aussie Open. I thought laying him was a sure fire win once the immigration issue kicked off, but in the end the bet was voided as he didn't get to compete at all.
That was a very contentious Betfair market, as many punters ‘backed him to be a non-runner’ in a wide portfolio, and got screwed when all bets on him were voided.
Emails from an employee of a US company contain signatures recognising that the company office is on native peoples' lands and thanking the native peoples. No offer to return said lands, so sounds a bit hollow to me.
One such email, in asking for fun ideas for uses for a Raspberry Pi also notes that we all have "different lived experiences" so there are bound to be some interesting things. "Lived experience" does have a use as a term to recognise that what someone experiences may be different to what another observer thinks they did (or should have) experienced, but here it seems that "lived experiences" is just replacing "experiences".
The English Football League (EFL) would have no obligation to accept Manchester City in the extraordinary event the club were expelled from the Premier League over alleged breaches of financial rules, Telegraph Sport understands.
Could they get the full Glasgow Rangers treatment?
Expulsion and relegation are not the same thing – the Premier League’s independent disciplinary commission have the power to expel a club but there is no provision in the rules for them to relegate one.
Man City were as short as 37-1 to be relegated on Betfair (can now be layed for 450), but I guess punters have clued up on the rules (there was a court case about this re Rangers).
Reminiscent of the farrago with Jokavic last year at the Aussie Open. I thought laying him was a sure fire win once the immigration issue kicked off, but in the end the bet was voided as he didn't get to compete at all.
That was a very contentious Betfair market, as many punters ‘backed him to be a non-runner’ in a wide portfolio, and got screwed when all bets on him were voided.
Don't expect any sense from Betfair.
Thankfully I don’t need to care about them any more.
(Not that they were too unreasonable about kicking me off, when it finally became obvious to them that I was living abroad!)
The English Football League (EFL) would have no obligation to accept Manchester City in the extraordinary event the club were expelled from the Premier League over alleged breaches of financial rules, Telegraph Sport understands.
Since the EFL – which covers the Championship, League One and League Two – cannot have more than 72 clubs, it is also unclear how City would be accommodated in such a scenario without a change in regulations.
If they are expelled then there is a vacancy in the PL which would presumably be filled by either an extra promotion from the Championship at the end of the season it happens or the next season, or (possibly less likely given the effect on TV contracts?) running the PL with 19 clubs for one year and then relegating only two at the end of it. Either way leaves a vacancy in the EFL.
Expulsion and relegation are not the same thing – the Premier League’s independent disciplinary commission have the power to expel a club but there is no provision in the rules for them to relegate one.
Perhaps technically true, but they can effectively do so by deducting them 100 points.
Quite. The history of football demotions is littered with sides being deducted some very odd points totals - turns out to be the number needed to relegate them that season. My club, Swindon, were initially relegated two divisions in 1990 from 1 to 3, then reduced to just one relegation. Effectively the Play-Off win at Wembley was awarded to Sunderland instead, which was tricky for some. Sunderland had lost to Swindon in the final, Blackburn had lost in the semi-final. Why should Sunderland go up?
Oh the game has a rich history in these matters, as Arsenal supporters can attest:
'When the Football League resumed play in 1919 after World War I, Arsenal—which had finished fifth in the Second Division before the war—was controversially promoted to the First Division over higher-placing Tottenham after Arsenal's chairman argued that his club deserved promotion because of its longer history,'
I think this is generally referred to as 'skilful negotiation', or bribery as they used to say on the North Bank.
The English Football League (EFL) would have no obligation to accept Manchester City in the extraordinary event the club were expelled from the Premier League over alleged breaches of financial rules, Telegraph Sport understands.
Could they get the full Glasgow Rangers treatment?
Expulsion and relegation are not the same thing – the Premier League’s independent disciplinary commission have the power to expel a club but there is no provision in the rules for them to relegate one.
Man City were as short as 37-1 to be relegated on Betfair (can now be layed for 450), but I guess punters have clued up on the rules (there was a court case about this re Rangers).
Reminiscent of the farrago with Jokavic last year at the Aussie Open. I thought laying him was a sure fire win once the immigration issue kicked off, but in the end the bet was voided as he didn't get to compete at all.
That was a very contentious Betfair market, as many punters ‘backed him to be a non-runner’ in a wide portfolio, and got screwed when all bets on him were voided.
Don't expect any sense from Betfair.
Thankfully I don’t need to care about them any more.
(Not that they were too unreasonable about kicking me off, when it finally became obvious to them that I was living abroad!)
It's irritating that I can't place a bet with BF when abroad. It's never an issue with Smarkets.
Emails from an employee of a US company contain signatures recognising that the company office is on native peoples' lands and thanking the native peoples. No offer to return said lands, so sounds a bit hollow to me.
The English Football League (EFL) would have no obligation to accept Manchester City in the extraordinary event the club were expelled from the Premier League over alleged breaches of financial rules, Telegraph Sport understands.
Since the EFL – which covers the Championship, League One and League Two – cannot have more than 72 clubs, it is also unclear how City would be accommodated in such a scenario without a change in regulations.
If they are expelled then there is a vacancy in the PL which would presumably be filled by either an extra promotion from the Championship at the end of the season it happens or the next season, or (possibly less likely given the effect on TV contracts?) running the PL with 19 clubs for one year and then relegating only two at the end of it. Either way leaves a vacancy in the EFL.
Expulsion and relegation are not the same thing – the Premier League’s independent disciplinary commission have the power to expel a club but there is no provision in the rules for them to relegate one.
Perhaps technically true, but they can effectively do so by deducting them 100 points.
Quite. The history of football demotions is littered with sides being deducted some very odd points totals - turns out to be the number needed to relegate them that season. My club, Swindon, were initially relegated two divisions in 1990 from 1 to 3, then reduced to just one relegation. Effectively the Play-Off win at Wembley was awarded to Sunderland instead, which was tricky for some. Sunderland had lost to Swindon in the final, Blackburn had lost in the semi-final. Why should Sunderland go up?
Oh the game has a rich history in these matters, as Arsenal supporters can attest:
'When the Football League resumed play in 1919 after World War I, Arsenal—which had finished fifth in the Second Division before the war—was controversially promoted to the First Division over higher-placing Tottenham after Arsenal's chairman argued that his club deserved promotion because of its longer history,'
I think this is generally referred to as 'skilful negotiation', or bribery as they used to say on the North Bank.
Well, it would take a brave person to argue with a load of lads in charge of the local weapons cache
Mr. 86, any ETA for penalties Man City might face for financial naughtiness?
August 2008?
In all seriousness, I don't want them losing points this season (I don't think they would anyway as its far too short notice).
As it's a first offence, I think they should have one point deducted from the 2011-12 season. ;-)
1 point for the first offence, 2 points for the second offence, 4 points for the third offence, and so on…
(Yes, I know, it’s a variation on the old ‘grains of rice on a chessboard’ problem - but with a 10x10 chessboard!).
Good morning
Reading various reports on this City are facing extremely serious charges dating back to 2008 right up to now and the Premier League could even demote them
Apparently there is no appeal against the Premier League decision and any penalty is likely to be applied in the season the Premier League's investigation concludes, so it could even be in the 2023 - 24 season
It is said the Premier League are alarmed at the government's proposals for an Independent authority governing all matters football and they have decided now is the time to show their own compliance is robust
It seems Pep will resign if allegations are proven, and it must be a toss up between City and Liverpool supporters as to who are most depressed today
If City are guilty then they will deserve any penalties they get.
However can we finally dispense with the charade that this has anything to do with "Fair Play". If the PL and UEFA were genuinely trying to make things fairer then they would be introducing things like pay caps and maximum transfer budgets. Simple tying spending to current income simply guarantees that the established wealthy clubs can never be challenged.
Unlimited spending was never questioned when it was Man United and Real Madrid doing it. It only became a "problem" when clubs like City and PSG started to pose a threat to their financial hegemony that pressure was put on UEFA and the PL to protect the old cabal. It never had anything to do with protecting clubs like Brighton and Southampton from losing their best players every year.
Once they demote City they will have achieved their objective then they will go for Newcastle, Chelsea and anyone else who has the temerity to spend as much as United. Before long we will back to be being able predict the top 4 every season before it even starts.
The English Football League (EFL) would have no obligation to accept Manchester City in the extraordinary event the club were expelled from the Premier League over alleged breaches of financial rules, Telegraph Sport understands.
Since the EFL – which covers the Championship, League One and League Two – cannot have more than 72 clubs, it is also unclear how City would be accommodated in such a scenario without a change in regulations.
If they are expelled then there is a vacancy in the PL which would presumably be filled by either an extra promotion from the Championship at the end of the season it happens or the next season, or (possibly less likely given the effect on TV contracts?) running the PL with 19 clubs for one year and then relegating only two at the end of it. Either way leaves a vacancy in the EFL.
[Edit: or probably most likely, relegating only 2 and accepting the usual 3 promotions at the end of the season in question. Still leaves a vacancy in the EFL.]
Expulsion and relegation are not the same thing – the Premier League’s independent disciplinary commission have the power to expel a club but there is no provision in the rules for them to relegate one.
Perhaps technically true, but they can effectively do so by deducting them 100 points.
The reality is that it is inconceivable that Man City would go much below EFL level. It would eventually become nonsensical from a policing and security point of view. That would have weighed heavily when Rangers re-formed a number of years ago and they were accommodated at the lowest SFL level.
That would be the central concern for where a reinsertion of the club into the pyramid would take place.
The English Football League (EFL) would have no obligation to accept Manchester City in the extraordinary event the club were expelled from the Premier League over alleged breaches of financial rules, Telegraph Sport understands.
Since the EFL – which covers the Championship, League One and League Two – cannot have more than 72 clubs, it is also unclear how City would be accommodated in such a scenario without a change in regulations.
If they are expelled then there is a vacancy in the PL which would presumably be filled by either an extra promotion from the Championship at the end of the season it happens or the next season, or (possibly less likely given the effect on TV contracts?) running the PL with 19 clubs for one year and then relegating only two at the end of it. Either way leaves a vacancy in the EFL.
Expulsion and relegation are not the same thing – the Premier League’s independent disciplinary commission have the power to expel a club but there is no provision in the rules for them to relegate one.
Perhaps technically true, but they can effectively do so by deducting them 100 points.
Quite. The history of football demotions is littered with sides being deducted some very odd points totals - turns out to be the number needed to relegate them that season. My club, Swindon, were initially relegated two divisions in 1990 from 1 to 3, then reduced to just one relegation. Effectively the Play-Off win at Wembley was awarded to Sunderland instead, which was tricky for some. Sunderland had lost to Swindon in the final, Blackburn had lost in the semi-final. Why should Sunderland go up?
Oh the game has a rich history in these matters, as Arsenal supporters can attest:
'When the Football League resumed play in 1919 after World War I, Arsenal—which had finished fifth in the Second Division before the war—was controversially promoted to the First Division over higher-placing Tottenham after Arsenal's chairman argued that his club deserved promotion because of its longer history,'
I think this is generally referred to as 'skilful negotiation', or bribery as they used to say on the North Bank.
It's funny how that story is always portrayed as Arsenal v Tottenham. The reality is that Tottenham finish bottom of the first division in 1915. It's Barnsley and Wolves that were overlooked for promotion at the resumption after the war.
Going back to my earlier chat about Twitter, one of the things credited with bringing their dev and feature pipeline back into a solid position was reinstating the 4 day in office week. Disney are also doing likewise, we're mandating a three day week from next FY and all new hires have full time written in as default with flexible working being a company handbook modification. Some people have said they will leave if the the policy is enforced but I'm not afraid to lose them. I think the next PM will have to impose this on the public sector as well, a minimum 4 day working week in office, anyone who doesn't like it can get fucked and find a different job. Chances are they won't leave.
The English Football League (EFL) would have no obligation to accept Manchester City in the extraordinary event the club were expelled from the Premier League over alleged breaches of financial rules, Telegraph Sport understands.
Could they get the full Glasgow Rangers treatment?
Expulsion and relegation are not the same thing – the Premier League’s independent disciplinary commission have the power to expel a club but there is no provision in the rules for them to relegate one.
Man City were as short as 37-1 to be relegated on Betfair (can now be layed for 450), but I guess punters have clued up on the rules (there was a court case about this re Rangers).
Reminiscent of the farrago with Jokavic last year at the Aussie Open. I thought laying him was a sure fire win once the immigration issue kicked off, but in the end the bet was voided as he didn't get to compete at all.
That was a very contentious Betfair market, as many punters ‘backed him to be a non-runner’ in a wide portfolio, and got screwed when all bets on him were voided.
Don't expect any sense from Betfair.
Thankfully I don’t need to care about them any more.
(Not that they were too unreasonable about kicking me off, when it finally became obvious to them that I was living abroad!)
It's irritating that I can't place a bet with BF when abroad. It's never an issue with Smarkets.
They’re all getting better at the “non-physical non-public network” detection, but my credit card getting cancelled by the UK bank was their final straw.
I took a six-month work contract abroad initially, and over time that ended up as emigration. It was a fun exercise to see which companies and institutions clocked what had happened, and how long it took each of them to notice.
'Former Met Police officer David Carrick receives 36 life sentences after pleading guilty to 85 offences, including multiple rapes.'
That'll learn him.
We are not paranoid types here in Castle PtP, but I have taken to carrying around a small recording device with me, and Mrs PtP is under instructions not to admit any Police Officer on to the premises without a warrant.
Sad, but true.
On an iPhone there's a shortcut you can install then use 'Siri, I'm getting pulled over' and it'll dim and lock the phone, text a contact to let them know and start recording video (which it can then send to your contact too if you want).
I assume there's a similar thing for Android devices.
There has been a subtle change in our flexible working guidelines.
Before: 2-3 days per week in the office.
After: Up to 2 days per week at home.
Full disclosure: I will be in the office 1 day this week.
Obviously I know SFA about jobs, offices and all that malarkey but aren't the WFH arrangements part of the recruitment package about which companies have to be competitive?
Absolutely. They must think that 2 days WFH is sufficient inducement, and more than this has a negative impact on performance.
However, when you have individuals whose base office is different from the rest of their team, being in or out makes very little difference.
2 days WFH (in London) is the worst of all worlds. You still have to live within a reasonable daily commute, buy the full season ticket, and maintain a home office.
There’s a massive business opportunity, for the first company to turn a full City tower office block into a £50/night basic ‘hotel’, of 50 sqft rooms with a bed, a shower, and a bar downstairs. The difficult bit is the plumbing, when hundreds of hot showers are required simultaneously at 7am.
And depending on how good the wifi is, hundreds of cold showers at 10pm...
The English Football League (EFL) would have no obligation to accept Manchester City in the extraordinary event the club were expelled from the Premier League over alleged breaches of financial rules, Telegraph Sport understands.
Since the EFL – which covers the Championship, League One and League Two – cannot have more than 72 clubs, it is also unclear how City would be accommodated in such a scenario without a change in regulations.
If they are expelled then there is a vacancy in the PL which would presumably be filled by either an extra promotion from the Championship at the end of the season it happens or the next season, or (possibly less likely given the effect on TV contracts?) running the PL with 19 clubs for one year and then relegating only two at the end of it. Either way leaves a vacancy in the EFL.
Expulsion and relegation are not the same thing – the Premier League’s independent disciplinary commission have the power to expel a club but there is no provision in the rules for them to relegate one.
Perhaps technically true, but they can effectively do so by deducting them 100 points.
Quite. The history of football demotions is littered with sides being deducted some very odd points totals - turns out to be the number needed to relegate them that season. My club, Swindon, were initially relegated two divisions in 1990 from 1 to 3, then reduced to just one relegation. Effectively the Play-Off win at Wembley was awarded to Sunderland instead, which was tricky for some. Sunderland had lost to Swindon in the final, Blackburn had lost in the semi-final. Why should Sunderland go up?
And Newcastle finished 3rd. We should have gone up.
Although, to be fair, we should never have lost to the Mackems in the playoffs.
Emails from an employee of a US company contain signatures recognising that the company office is on native peoples' lands and thanking the native peoples. No offer to return said lands, so sounds a bit hollow to me.
I've spotted it on Australian TV shows (especially cookery shows for some reason). I've never been quite sure what adding a 2 second 'We acknowledge that this show was filmed on the lands of native people XYZ' studio-based programme was supposed to achieve. But I can't help wondering if there are really native people XYZ watching the show thinking 'At last!'. Doesn't do any harm I suppose.
There has been a subtle change in our flexible working guidelines.
Before: 2-3 days per week in the office.
After: Up to 2 days per week at home.
Full disclosure: I will be in the office 1 day this week.
Obviously I know SFA about jobs, offices and all that malarkey but aren't the WFH arrangements part of the recruitment package about which companies have to be competitive?
Absolutely. They must think that 2 days WFH is sufficient inducement, and more than this has a negative impact on performance.
However, when you have individuals whose base office is different from the rest of their team, being in or out makes very little difference.
2 days WFH (in London) is the worst of all worlds. You still have to live within a reasonable daily commute, buy the full season ticket, and maintain a home office.
There’s a massive business opportunity, for the first company to turn a full City tower office block into a £50/night basic ‘hotel’, of 50 sqft rooms with a bed, a shower, and a bar downstairs. The difficult bit is the plumbing, when hundreds of hot showers are required simultaneously at 7am.
I've actually seen some plans for such conversions - the simplest solution seems to be central hot water, provided by a big fuckoff pipe in the services stack, with x number of tanks off that to provide peak capacity.
The biggest issue, in London, will probably be religious opposition to conversion to living space. The City for London used to try and stop any such conversions, on principle.
Going back to my earlier chat about Twitter, one of the things credited with bringing their dev and feature pipeline back into a solid position was reinstating the 4 day in office week. Disney are also doing likewise, we're mandating a three day week from next FY and all new hires have full time written in as default with flexible working being a company handbook modification. Some people have said they will leave if the the policy is enforced but I'm not afraid to lose them. I think the next PM will have to impose this on the public sector as well, a minimum 4 day working week in office, anyone who doesn't like it can get fucked and find a different job. Chances are they won't leave.
I would guess that for around a third of office jobs, full WFH works well, for a third it's debatable, and for a third it's greatly detrimental. Policy ought to recognise that.
Going back to my earlier chat about Twitter, one of the things credited with bringing their dev and feature pipeline back into a solid position was reinstating the 4 day in office week. Disney are also doing likewise, we're mandating a three day week from next FY and all new hires have full time written in as default with flexible working being a company handbook modification. Some people have said they will leave if the the policy is enforced but I'm not afraid to lose them. I think the next PM will have to impose this on the public sector as well, a minimum 4 day working week in office, anyone who doesn't like it can get fucked and find a different job. Chances are they won't leave.
I would guess that for around a third of office jobs, full WFH works well, for a third it's debatable, and for a third it's greatly detrimental. Policy ought to recognise that.
Not in the public sector. There are far, far too many dossers to work without supervision. The private sector may come to that sort of arrangement but in the public sector we clearly have lost a huge amount of productivity since the pandemic, simply - nothing in the country works any more. If those who don't like it leave, I'd be pretty confident in saying we'd lose very little overall anyway and I think I'd be pretty confident in predicting that very few will leave if a 4 day week was enforced.
The English Football League (EFL) would have no obligation to accept Manchester City in the extraordinary event the club were expelled from the Premier League over alleged breaches of financial rules, Telegraph Sport understands.
Since the EFL – which covers the Championship, League One and League Two – cannot have more than 72 clubs, it is also unclear how City would be accommodated in such a scenario without a change in regulations.
If they are expelled then there is a vacancy in the PL which would presumably be filled by either an extra promotion from the Championship at the end of the season it happens or the next season, or (possibly less likely given the effect on TV contracts?) running the PL with 19 clubs for one year and then relegating only two at the end of it. Either way leaves a vacancy in the EFL.
Expulsion and relegation are not the same thing – the Premier League’s independent disciplinary commission have the power to expel a club but there is no provision in the rules for them to relegate one.
Perhaps technically true, but they can effectively do so by deducting them 100 points.
Quite. The history of football demotions is littered with sides being deducted some very odd points totals - turns out to be the number needed to relegate them that season. My club, Swindon, were initially relegated two divisions in 1990 from 1 to 3, then reduced to just one relegation. Effectively the Play-Off win at Wembley was awarded to Sunderland instead, which was tricky for some. Sunderland had lost to Swindon in the final, Blackburn had lost in the semi-final. Why should Sunderland go up?
Oh the game has a rich history in these matters, as Arsenal supporters can attest:
'When the Football League resumed play in 1919 after World War I, Arsenal—which had finished fifth in the Second Division before the war—was controversially promoted to the First Division over higher-placing Tottenham after Arsenal's chairman argued that his club deserved promotion because of its longer history,'
I think this is generally referred to as 'skilful negotiation', or bribery as they used to say on the North Bank.
It's funny how that story is always portrayed as Arsenal v Tottenham. The reality is that Tottenham finish bottom of the first division in 1915. It's Barnsley and Wolves that were overlooked for promotion at the resumption after the war.
Personally I've always regarded it as evidence that the business was as crooked then as it is now, although probably less incompetent. Don't see it as a Tottenham thing particularly.
Emails from an employee of a US company contain signatures recognising that the company office is on native peoples' lands and thanking the native peoples. No offer to return said lands, so sounds a bit hollow to me.
Yep, that link was in the signature. Person based in California.
Would be interesting to get views of indigenous peoples on this, whether it's welcome of just tokenism (can also be both, of course). As the website says "these acknowledgements can easily be a token gesture rather than a meaningful practice".
(I write this from Yorkshire. I acknowledge my presence on the traditional homelands of the Brigantes and Parisii - and later Romans, Angles, Saxons and Danes - and pay gratitude and respect to the Indigenous people – past, present, and future – who have stewarded this land)
There has been a subtle change in our flexible working guidelines.
Before: 2-3 days per week in the office.
After: Up to 2 days per week at home.
Full disclosure: I will be in the office 1 day this week.
Obviously I know SFA about jobs, offices and all that malarkey but aren't the WFH arrangements part of the recruitment package about which companies have to be competitive?
Absolutely. They must think that 2 days WFH is sufficient inducement, and more than this has a negative impact on performance.
However, when you have individuals whose base office is different from the rest of their team, being in or out makes very little difference.
2 days WFH (in London) is the worst of all worlds. You still have to live within a reasonable daily commute, buy the full season ticket, and maintain a home office.
There’s a massive business opportunity, for the first company to turn a full City tower office block into a £50/night basic ‘hotel’, of 50 sqft rooms with a bed, a shower, and a bar downstairs. The difficult bit is the plumbing, when hundreds of hot showers are required simultaneously at 7am.
I wfh 2 days a week and it's perfect. No season ticket required as I don't live in the sticks.
Going back to my earlier chat about Twitter, one of the things credited with bringing their dev and feature pipeline back into a solid position was reinstating the 4 day in office week. Disney are also doing likewise, we're mandating a three day week from next FY and all new hires have full time written in as default with flexible working being a company handbook modification. Some people have said they will leave if the the policy is enforced but I'm not afraid to lose them. I think the next PM will have to impose this on the public sector as well, a minimum 4 day working week in office, anyone who doesn't like it can get fucked and find a different job. Chances are they won't leave.
I would guess that for around a third of office jobs, full WFH works well, for a third it's debatable, and for a third it's greatly detrimental. Policy ought to recognise that.
It also depends on the equipment, organisational structure and methodology.
If you are working in Agile software development, in a stable project, with a stable team, and you have a high quality setup at home and a high quality VM setup from work - Awesome.
If you are working in a structureless team with piles of paperwork and no methedology, and the only technology is ancient laptops - This will fail as WFH.
The English Football League (EFL) would have no obligation to accept Manchester City in the extraordinary event the club were expelled from the Premier League over alleged breaches of financial rules, Telegraph Sport understands.
The question is what would the current PL rights holders - both domestically and internationally - say if City was kicked out? My guess would be that they would see it as a material change in their contracts (given City's dominance) and potentially take the EPL to Court. UEFA might also not be happy given (1) what it means for the Champions League but maybe more importantly (2) City's owners have a massive incentive to then disrupt the current system in the form of joining the ESL.
I doubt media contracts guarantee the participation of any specific club. And surely the PL would say "it's not our fault MCFC broke the rules".
They don't guarantee the participation of any club but it's a fair bet to say that kicking City out knocks the commercial value of the rights, especially when it comes to pubs and clubs.
Fuck's sake, I'm voting Labour, this government hates users of the rail system.
Rail fares will fluctuate based on demand, in a similar way to airline tickets, under a trial to be announced by Mark Harper, the transport secretary.
Tickets on some London North Eastern Railway (LNER) services will be more or less expensive depending on how many seats have been filled.
The Department for Transport believes so-called demand-based pricing will help manage capacity while also raising revenue.
Harper will also confirm plans to expand single leg pricing across the entire LNER network, which runs between London King’s Cross and Scotland via the east coast main line.
That means a single fare will always be half the cost of a return. Currently, many return fares only cost marginally more than singles.
There has been a subtle change in our flexible working guidelines.
Before: 2-3 days per week in the office.
After: Up to 2 days per week at home.
Full disclosure: I will be in the office 1 day this week.
Obviously I know SFA about jobs, offices and all that malarkey but aren't the WFH arrangements part of the recruitment package about which companies have to be competitive?
Absolutely. They must think that 2 days WFH is sufficient inducement, and more than this has a negative impact on performance.
However, when you have individuals whose base office is different from the rest of their team, being in or out makes very little difference.
2 days WFH (in London) is the worst of all worlds. You still have to live within a reasonable daily commute, buy the full season ticket, and maintain a home office.
There’s a massive business opportunity, for the first company to turn a full City tower office block into a £50/night basic ‘hotel’, of 50 sqft rooms with a bed, a shower, and a bar downstairs. The difficult bit is the plumbing, when hundreds of hot showers are required simultaneously at 7am.
I wfh 2 days a week and it's perfect. No season ticket required as I don't live in the sticks.
Indeed, I do 3 days and it's just tap in at East Finchley, tap out at Moorgate and walk for 5 mins through Finsbury Circus. I think it's £7 per day, no need for a season ticket at £21 per week, no need to pay £170 per month.
There has been a subtle change in our flexible working guidelines.
Before: 2-3 days per week in the office.
After: Up to 2 days per week at home.
Full disclosure: I will be in the office 1 day this week.
Obviously I know SFA about jobs, offices and all that malarkey but aren't the WFH arrangements part of the recruitment package about which companies have to be competitive?
Absolutely. They must think that 2 days WFH is sufficient inducement, and more than this has a negative impact on performance.
However, when you have individuals whose base office is different from the rest of their team, being in or out makes very little difference.
2 days WFH (in London) is the worst of all worlds. You still have to live within a reasonable daily commute, buy the full season ticket, and maintain a home office.
There’s a massive business opportunity, for the first company to turn a full City tower office block into a £50/night basic ‘hotel’, of 50 sqft rooms with a bed, a shower, and a bar downstairs. The difficult bit is the plumbing, when hundreds of hot showers are required simultaneously at 7am.
I've actually seen some plans for such conversions - the simplest solution seems to be central hot water, provided by a big fuckoff pipe in the services stack, with x number of tanks off that to provide peak capacity.
The biggest issue, in London, will probably be religious opposition to conversion to living space. The City for London used to try and stop any such conversions, on principle.
The CoL is less against it now and actually trying to encourage people to live in the City.
The English Football League (EFL) would have no obligation to accept Manchester City in the extraordinary event the club were expelled from the Premier League over alleged breaches of financial rules, Telegraph Sport understands.
Since the EFL – which covers the Championship, League One and League Two – cannot have more than 72 clubs, it is also unclear how City would be accommodated in such a scenario without a change in regulations.
If they are expelled then there is a vacancy in the PL which would presumably be filled by either an extra promotion from the Championship at the end of the season it happens or the next season, or (possibly less likely given the effect on TV contracts?) running the PL with 19 clubs for one year and then relegating only two at the end of it. Either way leaves a vacancy in the EFL.
Expulsion and relegation are not the same thing – the Premier League’s independent disciplinary commission have the power to expel a club but there is no provision in the rules for them to relegate one.
Perhaps technically true, but they can effectively do so by deducting them 100 points.
Quite. The history of football demotions is littered with sides being deducted some very odd points totals - turns out to be the number needed to relegate them that season. My club, Swindon, were initially relegated two divisions in 1990 from 1 to 3, then reduced to just one relegation. Effectively the Play-Off win at Wembley was awarded to Sunderland instead, which was tricky for some. Sunderland had lost to Swindon in the final, Blackburn had lost in the semi-final. Why should Sunderland go up?
Oh the game has a rich history in these matters, as Arsenal supporters can attest:
'When the Football League resumed play in 1919 after World War I, Arsenal—which had finished fifth in the Second Division before the war—was controversially promoted to the First Division over higher-placing Tottenham after Arsenal's chairman argued that his club deserved promotion because of its longer history,'
I think this is generally referred to as 'skilful negotiation', or bribery as they used to say on the North Bank.
It's funny how that story is always portrayed as Arsenal v Tottenham. The reality is that Tottenham finish bottom of the first division in 1915. It's Barnsley and Wolves that were overlooked for promotion at the resumption after the war.
Personally I've always regarded it as evidence that the business was as crooked then as it is now, although probably less incompetent. Don't see it as a Tottenham thing particularly.
No one quite knows what went on, but it's possible that Henry Norris (the then owner of Arsenal) had evidence that Liverpool and Man Utd were in on the fixed match at the end of the 1914-15 season that saw Man Utd avoid relegation (as it happens, Chelsea stayed up anyway, quite possibly because their relegation was due to fixing).
Emails from an employee of a US company contain signatures recognising that the company office is on native peoples' lands and thanking the native peoples. No offer to return said lands, so sounds a bit hollow to me.
Yep, that link was in the signature. Person based in California.
Would be interesting to get views of indigenous peoples on this, whether it's welcome of just tokenism (can also be both, of course). As the website says "these acknowledgements can easily be a token gesture rather than a meaningful practice".
(I write this from Yorkshire. I acknowledge my presence on the traditional homelands of the Brigantes and Parisii - and later Romans, Angles and Saxons - and pay gratitude and respect to the Indigenous people – past, present, and future – who have stewarded this land)
I have a friend in Canada and where she works they do land acknowledgements - they are tokenistic acts of white guilt that don't deal with the actual issue. She was telling me that when discussing the recent discovery of graves of native people at residential schools, one of the native staff members specifically asked people not to discuss it as their parents had been through the system and stories of it had horrified them. The manager (not native), on the other hand, said it was an important issue to discuss and ignored them.
But this is corporate speak to try and do PR aimed at a younger generation more willing to accept past wrongs (even if they aren't willing to alleviate their impacts) - rather than doing anything about the issue...
There has been a subtle change in our flexible working guidelines.
Before: 2-3 days per week in the office.
After: Up to 2 days per week at home.
Full disclosure: I will be in the office 1 day this week.
Obviously I know SFA about jobs, offices and all that malarkey but aren't the WFH arrangements part of the recruitment package about which companies have to be competitive?
Absolutely. They must think that 2 days WFH is sufficient inducement, and more than this has a negative impact on performance.
However, when you have individuals whose base office is different from the rest of their team, being in or out makes very little difference.
2 days WFH (in London) is the worst of all worlds. You still have to live within a reasonable daily commute, buy the full season ticket, and maintain a home office.
There’s a massive business opportunity, for the first company to turn a full City tower office block into a £50/night basic ‘hotel’, of 50 sqft rooms with a bed, a shower, and a bar downstairs. The difficult bit is the plumbing, when hundreds of hot showers are required simultaneously at 7am.
I wfh 2 days a week and it's perfect. No season ticket required as I don't live in the sticks.
Indeed, I do 3 days and it's just tap in at East Finchley, tap out at Moorgate and walk for 5 mins through Finsbury Circus. I think it's £7 per day, no need for a season ticket at £21 per week, no need to pay £170 per month.
Oh, 3 days is great for the top 1%, who can afford to live in London. For those on the couple of tiers below, who have no choice but to move out if they want more than a flat with no good schools, it makes a massive difference.
Comments
Not that the current lot has helped of course. But the great failure of statecraft was from about 1950-2016.
The current failure, 2016 onwards, is in responding the best possible to an insoluble dilemma. (Answer, as always EFTA/EEA).
Rather, that for a brief time it was unusable, and now it isn't. And it might or might not stay that way.
But it's probably not going to make him much money without a radical change to the user experience - which is what I worry about, as I use it a lot.
And the user base, while currently captive since there's nothing else that provides the service it does, might not be so for all that much longer.
Once that baseline has been established the quality of the crew you get is much more dependent on the rigour of the training system than the qualities of the individuals themselves.
Keeping a straight face when being checked into a top hotel by a young lady sporting a name badge* that says "Supaporn" takes some doing.
(*Always assuming it was her name badge and not just a boast....)
She looked like a potential future leader, until she got caught introducing a bill sponsored by Stonewall, that was awfully similar to the bill that got Nicola Sturgeon into her recent troubles.
That might be a waste of time given the government's majority in Parliament, but it's rather more than 'moaning about the past'.
Hezza's speech can be summarised as "If you must do this damn silly thing, at least don't do it in this damn silly way".
The cats may have found a lucrative line of business....
Very much Ukranian now, for some weird reason.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/feb/07/britain-liz-truss-boris-johnson-blame
Another good example is places at top unis. Will skewing that towards applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds and state schools lead to a drop in standards? No. Probably raise them if anything.
His… https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1622933484833480704
From a quick Google, in 2015 there were 1,790 trained, regular pilots in the RAF (1) out of about 32k staff. Assuming a 15-year service span (and that might be too much), you are looking at replacing (i.e. recruiting) ~2k staff per year.
(1): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/420879/PUBLIC_1427452359.pdf
Rail fares will fluctuate based on demand, in a similar way to airline tickets, under a trial to be announced by Mark Harper, the transport secretary.
Tickets on some London North Eastern Railway (LNER) services will be more or less expensive depending on how many seats have been filled.
The Department for Transport believes so-called demand-based pricing will help manage capacity while also raising revenue.
Harper will also confirm plans to expand single leg pricing across the entire LNER network, which runs between London King’s Cross and Scotland via the east coast main line.
That means a single fare will always be half the cost of a return. Currently, many return fares only cost marginally more than singles.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rail-fares-to-fluctuate-under-demand-pricing-trial-x0rjsnnrj
In my day they were still using the two doctor method (two doctor look in both of your ears and unless they can see each other, you're in).
A friend of mine who looks after recruitment in one regiment mentioned that the quality of female officer cadets at Sandhurst regularly outstrips that of the male ones.
Which in turn makes for some challenging decisions for some regiments.
Before: 2-3 days per week in the office.
After: Up to 2 days per week at home.
Full disclosure: I will be in the office 1 day this week.
As far as I can see Liz Truss isn’t listed on any next Tory leader/next PM markets, I am prepared to sell my family into indentured servitude to obtain funds to lay her in the next Tory leader/next PM markets if she is added.
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/b-1-baby-on-board-meet-maj-lauren-olme-the-first-usaf-aviatrix-to-fly-during-pregnancy/
The rules and regulations to allow a woman to fly whilst pregnant seem utterly reasonable.
Two days in the office (say in London) and I’m living in Rutland or Devon, buying one teturn train ticket per week and one cheap hotel night in Town.
Three days in the office, I’m buying the full damn annual season ticket, and need to be no further out than about Basingstoke, in a much smaller house than in Devon or Rutland.
Also, people will game any system that is put in to place to try and achieve equality. An acquaintance in a £1mn house got his kids through university without paying any fees because he comes from a deprived town (correct, just the best road in the whole town), and his kids went to state school (albeit in another town, driven there and back by taxi every day).
Many people don't know how big the recruitment fees can be. £3K bung for someone finding a mate who can do the job is cheap.
Richard Sharp reveals he went to see Boris Johnson in No10 to discuss the BBC chairmanship before applying.
An opportunity not afforded to others during “open and fair” contest — and another detail not disclosed alongside involvement in talks about Johnson’s finances.
https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1622907329703301120
Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb sentences Carrick to 36 life sentences and tells him he will serve a minimum of 30 years and 239 days in prison before being considered for parole
That'll learn him.
We are not paranoid types here in Castle PtP, but I have taken to carrying around a small recording device with me, and Mrs PtP is under instructions not to admit any Police Officer on to the premises without a warrant.
Sad, but true.
Most companies have offered WFH as a part of office policies, not in the contracts, anyway.
So they say at interview "We are WFH 3 days a week". And they can change that at no notice.....
However, when you have individuals whose base office is different from the rest of their team, being in or out makes very little difference.
Most airlines send flight and cabin crew to ground duties after first trimester.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2023/02/07/manchester-city-news-relegation-ffp-rules-points-deduction-premier/
Since the EFL – which covers the Championship, League One and League Two – cannot have more than 72 clubs, it is also unclear how City would be accommodated in such a scenario without a change in regulations.
If they are expelled then there is a vacancy in the PL which would presumably be filled by either an extra promotion from the Championship at the end of the season it happens or the next season, or (possibly less likely given the effect on TV contracts?) running the PL with 19 clubs for one year and then relegating only two at the end of it. Either way leaves a vacancy in the EFL.
[Edit: or probably most likely, relegating only 2 and accepting the usual 3 promotions at the end of the season in question. Still leaves a vacancy in the EFL.]
Expulsion and relegation are not the same thing – the Premier League’s independent disciplinary commission have the power to expel a club but there is no provision in the rules for them to relegate one.
Perhaps technically true, but they can effectively do so by deducting them 100 points.
Most job vacancies I see now have some element of WFH.
Which is unsupportable for me.
There’s a massive business opportunity, for the first company to turn a full City tower office block into a £50/night basic ‘hotel’, of 50 sqft rooms with a bed, a shower, and a bar downstairs. The difficult bit is the plumbing, when hundreds of hot showers are required simultaneously at 7am.
Man City were as short as 37-1 to be relegated on Betfair (can now be layed for 450), but I guess punters have clued up on the rules (there was a court case about this re Rangers).
Also wondered whether she was involved in the Epstein scandal. Bit of a tainted name now, that
Emails from an employee of a US company contain signatures recognising that the company office is on native peoples' lands and thanking the native peoples. No offer to return said lands, so sounds a bit hollow to me.
One such email, in asking for fun ideas for uses for a Raspberry Pi also notes that we all have "different lived experiences" so there are bound to be some interesting things. "Lived experience" does have a use as a term to recognise that what someone experiences may be different to what another observer thinks they did (or should have) experienced, but here it seems that "lived experiences" is just replacing "experiences".
Also, get off my lawn!
(Not that they were too unreasonable about kicking me off, when it finally became obvious to them that I was living abroad!)
'When the Football League resumed play in 1919 after World War I, Arsenal—which had finished fifth in the Second Division before the war—was controversially promoted to the First Division over higher-placing Tottenham after Arsenal's chairman argued that his club deserved promotion because of its longer history,'
I think this is generally referred to as 'skilful negotiation', or bribery as they used to say on the North Bank.
https://native-land.ca/resources/territory-acknowledgement/
However can we finally dispense with the charade that this has anything to do with "Fair Play". If the PL and UEFA were genuinely trying to make things fairer then they would be introducing things like pay caps and maximum transfer budgets. Simple tying spending to current income simply guarantees that the established wealthy clubs can never be challenged.
Unlimited spending was never questioned when it was Man United and Real Madrid doing it. It only became a "problem" when clubs like City and PSG started to pose a threat to their financial hegemony that pressure was put on UEFA and the PL to protect the old cabal. It never had anything to do with protecting clubs like Brighton and Southampton from losing their best players every year.
Once they demote City they will have achieved their objective then they will go for Newcastle, Chelsea and anyone else who has the temerity to spend as much as United. Before long we will back to be being able predict the top 4 every season before it even starts.
That would be the central concern for where a reinsertion of the club into the pyramid would take place.
I took a six-month work contract abroad initially, and over time that ended up as emigration. It was a fun exercise to see which companies and institutions clocked what had happened, and how long it took each of them to notice.
I assume there's a similar thing for Android devices.
Although, to be fair, we should never have lost to the Mackems in the playoffs.
The biggest issue, in London, will probably be religious opposition to conversion to living space. The City for London used to try and stop any such conversions, on principle.
detrimental.
Policy ought to recognise that.
Would be interesting to get views of indigenous peoples on this, whether it's welcome of just tokenism (can also be both, of course). As the website says "these acknowledgements can easily be a token gesture rather than a meaningful practice".
(I write this from Yorkshire. I acknowledge my presence on the traditional homelands of the Brigantes and Parisii - and later Romans, Angles, Saxons and Danes - and pay gratitude and respect to the Indigenous people – past, present, and future – who have stewarded this land)
If you are working in Agile software development, in a stable project, with a stable team, and you have a high quality setup at home and a high quality VM setup from work - Awesome.
If you are working in a structureless team with piles of paperwork and no methedology, and the only technology is ancient laptops - This will fail as WFH.
Liz Truss
Kwasi Kwartang
Nerine Skinner
Can't think of anyone else.
New Labour had a genuine vision for the future of Britain. One day soon, we will get back to that.
But this is corporate speak to try and do PR aimed at a younger generation more willing to accept past wrongs (even if they aren't willing to alleviate their impacts) - rather than doing anything about the issue...
I enjoyed this.