I just read about the reason why Dunker got fired from the CBI. No 'resignation', just an immediate dismissal. The reason is "unwanted contact" that a female employee viewed "as sexual harassment". I do think that sexual harrassment is a very serious problem that should be tackled but it seem to me like a career destroying dismissal is a nuclear response generated by reputational panic on the part of the employer. This form of "revolutionary justice" is ultimately in no ones interest and we need to move away from it. From a practical point of view if you look at what fuels the popularity of masculine counter cultural figures like Andrew Tate, it is events like this.
That explanation of why he was fired (as with the official account) falls some way short if what might be expected.
That particular complaint was only one of several: ...After the Guardian inquired on Thursday about the formal complaint and raised several additional allegations about Danker’s behaviour towards other members of staff, including concern that the director general had been viewing employees’ personal Instagram profiles, the CBI said it had started an independent investigation and that Danker had asked to step aside during it... On top of which, he presumably bears some responsibility for the failure of the CBI adequately to investigate a number of other complaints against other individuals.
That you interpret all of that as 'revolutionary justice' as opposed to, for example, corporate coverup, is an interesting choice.
The Andrew Tate comment is just bizarre.
Presumably he either was viewing their public Instagram profiles or was invited to view their private Instagram profiles? Or did he hack Instagram?
Not sure viewing someones social media is worthy of dismissal?
I'm not sure I said it was.
It was the only specific in the link you provided, presumably to add weight to the argument that the dismissal was justified?
That they brought in an outside employment specialist to investigate, and the investigation resulted in dismissal, speaks for itself.
Well that sounds like a much more solid reason to sack someone.
The article says the following:
"It is alleged that as well as unwanted verbal remarks in the office, the UK’s most senior business lobbyist also sent her a barrage of unwanted messages, some featuring sexually suggestive language, over more than a year.... Danker said: “It’s been mortifying to hear that I have caused offence or anxiety to any colleague. It was completely unintentional, and I apologise profusely."
I've seen a lot of this, I don't deny that it goes on and it isn't acceptable. People that still engage in it are failing to understand cultural change and risk get caught out in a bad way, as what has probably happened here. It is possible that this was really bad - we don't know. But the fact that the guardian point to things like 'he also viewed their instagram profiles' to compound the apparent severity is rather curious. The point I would make here though is that it is better to try and resolve it through better internal procedures, rather than dramatic cancellations and instant dismissals - that is what I mean by my 'revolutionary justice' comment. There is probably a cultural failing here in the CBI, as there is in many other institutions, so it is probably right that he has left in any event... but even then, I would suggest that a negotiated solution where he resigns saying something like " he has made mistakes and the organisation need new leadership" would be more appropriate than what has actually happened. Regarding characters like Andrew Tate... my point is just that they feed on narratives of conspiracy which events like this can fuel. Like it or not they have traction with young men.
On Tate, I'm reminded of the Streisand effect.
Was chatting to my nephew, early teens. He mentioned Tate, saying they'd had a session at school in one of the tutorials about him. He claimed that he (and his friends) had not heard of Tate, before this, but had - of course - after the session looked him up.
Now, it may be that the session was still worthwhile - they'd have found Tate anyway, perhaps, so better to be (supposedly) more informed when they do. Nephew apparently thought he was a tosser. It does however seem like a bit of a moral panic and daft to be so focused on one person. Better to have sessions on how easy it is to present a false facade on social media and how little social media is policed - i.e. too many tweets make a twat - without getting into the specifics on one person.
Yeah it is quite amusing the panic about Andrew Tate... having some understanding of the process of teenage rebellion I am not sure the best way of dealing with this is to have classes in school that educate teenagers on 'the dangers of Andrew Tate'.
Thinking back to myself as a teenager, the thing that always confused me was why girls were often attracted to "bad" characters like Andrew Tate. I would guess that the world and the experience of teenagers within it hasn't changed all that much.
A rebellious male willing to flout authority gives off alpha vibes. He’s bold, audacious, aggressive - all alpha traits that women are naturally programmed to seek in a sexual partner. Because in days of old that guy would be the better hunter and more likely to survive and feed the kids
A man who womanises is also attractive to other women because they presume he is sexually satisfying. A self fulfilling prophecy
Women tend to seek different things in a husband, however. Fuck the alpha, marry the beta (who will stick around and be loyal as he has less opportunity to stray). Quite tough on deltas and gammas
This is one reason Andrew Tate creates a problem for the 'woke'. They have no way of explaining why women find him attractive, without also denying the agency of the women involved.
Andrew Tate is just a pimp. Men like him have always existed - there's nothing to explain - you find a weakness in another person, and you exploit it. He's not an alpha male, just the worst kind of grifter.
He seems really quite an unpleasant man, but I’m not sure he comes under any definition of “pimp” that I understand. And I’ve met a few
He’s a social media influencer. Of a highly malign variety
I just read about the reason why Dunker got fired from the CBI. No 'resignation', just an immediate dismissal. The reason is "unwanted contact" that a female employee viewed "as sexual harassment". I do think that sexual harrassment is a very serious problem that should be tackled but it seem to me like a career destroying dismissal is a nuclear response generated by reputational panic on the part of the employer. This form of "revolutionary justice" is ultimately in no ones interest and we need to move away from it. From a practical point of view if you look at what fuels the popularity of masculine counter cultural figures like Andrew Tate, it is events like this.
That explanation of why he was fired (as with the official account) falls some way short of what might be expected.
That particular complaint was only one of several: ...After the Guardian inquired on Thursday about the formal complaint and raised several additional allegations about Danker’s behaviour towards other members of staff, including concern that the director general had been viewing employees’ personal Instagram profiles, the CBI said it had started an independent investigation and that Danker had asked to step aside during it... On top of which, he presumably bears some responsibility for the failure of the CBI adequately to investigate a number of other complaints against other individuals.
That you interpret all of that as 'revolutionary justice' as opposed to, for example, corporate coverup, is an interesting choice.
The Andrew Tate comment is just bizarre.
The Andrew Tate comment was spot on in my opinion.
The intersecting set of those who pay any attention both to what goes on at the CBI, and the distasteful posturings of Tate, is likely a very small one indeed.
Possibly over-represented on PB ?
liking your use of 'intersectionality', in this context.
Step 1: allow opponents to define you as Mr Continuity Step 2: slowly drip feed out information about previous leadership scandal (keeping story alive) Step 3: decide on a relaunch just 10 days into leadership by pivoting to relitigating gender recognition reform.
Not sure that doctors enjoy the same level of public support for their action, as do lower-paid public sector workers such as nurses and teachers. Presumably we should see some polling this week?
Junior doctors' real terms pay has fallen by over a quarter in the last 15 years. They get plenty of sympathy from me.
2% payrise in the finyear just ended with 11% inflation was just insulting. 3.5% this year is another real terms pay cut.
Barclay needs to re-open negotiations with a serious offer.
The university strikes continue too.
And the teachers too. I'd wade through blood to get Labour in and stop the Tories destroying my kids' education.
By that you mean saving yourself €48?
Or paying the teachers properly so they don't keep quitting or going on strike. Either way, I'd wade through blood to do it. Bucket loads of the stuff.
I just read about the reason why Dunker got fired from the CBI. No 'resignation', just an immediate dismissal. The reason is "unwanted contact" that a female employee viewed "as sexual harassment". I do think that sexual harrassment is a very serious problem that should be tackled but it seem to me like a career destroying dismissal is a nuclear response generated by reputational panic on the part of the employer. This form of "revolutionary justice" is ultimately in no ones interest and we need to move away from it. From a practical point of view if you look at what fuels the popularity of masculine counter cultural figures like Andrew Tate, it is events like this.
That explanation of why he was fired (as with the official account) falls some way short if what might be expected.
That particular complaint was only one of several: ...After the Guardian inquired on Thursday about the formal complaint and raised several additional allegations about Danker’s behaviour towards other members of staff, including concern that the director general had been viewing employees’ personal Instagram profiles, the CBI said it had started an independent investigation and that Danker had asked to step aside during it... On top of which, he presumably bears some responsibility for the failure of the CBI adequately to investigate a number of other complaints against other individuals.
That you interpret all of that as 'revolutionary justice' as opposed to, for example, corporate coverup, is an interesting choice.
The Andrew Tate comment is just bizarre.
Presumably he either was viewing their public Instagram profiles or was invited to view their private Instagram profiles? Or did he hack Instagram?
Not sure viewing someones social media is worthy of dismissal?
I'm not sure I said it was.
It was the only specific in the link you provided, presumably to add weight to the argument that the dismissal was justified?
That they brought in an outside employment specialist to investigate, and the investigation resulted in dismissal, speaks for itself.
Well that sounds like a much more solid reason to sack someone.
The article says the following:
"It is alleged that as well as unwanted verbal remarks in the office, the UK’s most senior business lobbyist also sent her a barrage of unwanted messages, some featuring sexually suggestive language, over more than a year.... Danker said: “It’s been mortifying to hear that I have caused offence or anxiety to any colleague. It was completely unintentional, and I apologise profusely."
I've seen a lot of this, I don't deny that it goes on and it isn't acceptable. People that still engage in it are failing to understand cultural change and risk get caught out in a bad way, as what has probably happened here. It is possible that this was really bad - we don't know. But the fact that the guardian point to things like 'he also viewed their instagram profiles' to compound the apparent severity is rather curious. The point I would make here though is that it is better to try and resolve it through better internal procedures, rather than dramatic cancellations and instant dismissals - that is what I mean by my 'revolutionary justice' comment. There is probably a cultural failing here in the CBI, as there is in many other institutions, so it is probably right that he has left in any event... but even then, I would suggest that a negotiated solution where he resigns saying something like " he has made mistakes and the organisation need new leadership" would be more appropriate than what has actually happened. Regarding characters like Andrew Tate... my point is just that they feed on narratives of conspiracy which events like this can fuel. Like it or not they have traction with young men.
On Tate, I'm reminded of the Streisand effect.
Was chatting to my nephew, early teens. He mentioned Tate, saying they'd had a session at school in one of the tutorials about him. He claimed that he (and his friends) had not heard of Tate, before this, but had - of course - after the session looked him up.
Now, it may be that the session was still worthwhile - they'd have found Tate anyway, perhaps, so better to be (supposedly) more informed when they do. Nephew apparently thought he was a tosser. It does however seem like a bit of a moral panic and daft to be so focused on one person. Better to have sessions on how easy it is to present a false facade on social media and how little social media is policed - i.e. too many tweets make a twat - without getting into the specifics on one person.
Yeah it is quite amusing the panic about Andrew Tate... having some understanding of the process of teenage rebellion I am not sure the best way of dealing with this is to have classes in school that educate teenagers on 'the dangers of Andrew Tate'.
Thinking back to myself as a teenager, the thing that always confused me was why girls were often attracted to "bad" characters like Andrew Tate. I would guess that the world and the experience of teenagers within it hasn't changed all that much.
A rebellious male willing to flout authority gives off alpha vibes. He’s bold, audacious, aggressive - all alpha traits that women are naturally programmed to seek in a sexual partner. Because in days of old that guy would be the better hunter and more likely to survive and feed the kids
A man who womanises is also attractive to other women because they presume he is sexually satisfying. A self fulfilling prophecy
Women tend to seek different things in a husband, however. Fuck the alpha, marry the beta (who will stick around and be loyal as he has less opportunity to stray). Quite tough on deltas and gammas
This is one reason Andrew Tate creates a problem for the 'woke'. They have no way of explaining why women find him attractive, without also denying the agency of the women involved.
Andrew Tate is just a pimp. Men like him have always existed - there's nothing to explain - you find a weakness in another person, and you exploit it. He's not an alpha male, just the worst kind of grifter.
He seems really quite an unpleasant man, but I’m not sure he comes under any definition of “pimp” that I understand. And I’ve met a few
He’s a social media influencer. Of a highly malign variety
"Romania's DIICOT unit, which investigates terrorism and organised crimes, has said it has identified six victims who were subject to "acts of physical violence and mental coercion" and were "sexually exploited by group members".
It is alleged that he and his brother lured women to Romania on the pretence of a romantic relationship and then forced them into carrying out pornographic acts under duress, which were then filmed."
I just read about the reason why Dunker got fired from the CBI. No 'resignation', just an immediate dismissal. The reason is "unwanted contact" that a female employee viewed "as sexual harassment". I do think that sexual harrassment is a very serious problem that should be tackled but it seem to me like a career destroying dismissal is a nuclear response generated by reputational panic on the part of the employer. This form of "revolutionary justice" is ultimately in no ones interest and we need to move away from it. From a practical point of view if you look at what fuels the popularity of masculine counter cultural figures like Andrew Tate, it is events like this.
That explanation of why he was fired (as with the official account) falls some way short if what might be expected.
That particular complaint was only one of several: ...After the Guardian inquired on Thursday about the formal complaint and raised several additional allegations about Danker’s behaviour towards other members of staff, including concern that the director general had been viewing employees’ personal Instagram profiles, the CBI said it had started an independent investigation and that Danker had asked to step aside during it... On top of which, he presumably bears some responsibility for the failure of the CBI adequately to investigate a number of other complaints against other individuals.
That you interpret all of that as 'revolutionary justice' as opposed to, for example, corporate coverup, is an interesting choice.
The Andrew Tate comment is just bizarre.
Presumably he either was viewing their public Instagram profiles or was invited to view their private Instagram profiles? Or did he hack Instagram?
Not sure viewing someones social media is worthy of dismissal?
I'm not sure I said it was.
It was the only specific in the link you provided, presumably to add weight to the argument that the dismissal was justified?
That they brought in an outside employment specialist to investigate, and the investigation resulted in dismissal, speaks for itself.
Well that sounds like a much more solid reason to sack someone.
The article says the following:
"It is alleged that as well as unwanted verbal remarks in the office, the UK’s most senior business lobbyist also sent her a barrage of unwanted messages, some featuring sexually suggestive language, over more than a year.... Danker said: “It’s been mortifying to hear that I have caused offence or anxiety to any colleague. It was completely unintentional, and I apologise profusely."
I've seen a lot of this, I don't deny that it goes on and it isn't acceptable. People that still engage in it are failing to understand cultural change and risk get caught out in a bad way, as what has probably happened here. It is possible that this was really bad - we don't know. But the fact that the guardian point to things like 'he also viewed their instagram profiles' to compound the apparent severity is rather curious. The point I would make here though is that it is better to try and resolve it through better internal procedures, rather than dramatic cancellations and instant dismissals - that is what I mean by my 'revolutionary justice' comment. There is probably a cultural failing here in the CBI, as there is in many other institutions, so it is probably right that he has left in any event... but even then, I would suggest that a negotiated solution where he resigns saying something like " he has made mistakes and the organisation need new leadership" would be more appropriate than what has actually happened. Regarding characters like Andrew Tate... my point is just that they feed on narratives of conspiracy which events like this can fuel. Like it or not they have traction with young men.
On Tate, I'm reminded of the Streisand effect.
Was chatting to my nephew, early teens. He mentioned Tate, saying they'd had a session at school in one of the tutorials about him. He claimed that he (and his friends) had not heard of Tate, before this, but had - of course - after the session looked him up.
Now, it may be that the session was still worthwhile - they'd have found Tate anyway, perhaps, so better to be (supposedly) more informed when they do. Nephew apparently thought he was a tosser. It does however seem like a bit of a moral panic and daft to be so focused on one person. Better to have sessions on how easy it is to present a false facade on social media and how little social media is policed - i.e. too many tweets make a twat - without getting into the specifics on one person.
Yeah it is quite amusing the panic about Andrew Tate... having some understanding of the process of teenage rebellion I am not sure the best way of dealing with this is to have classes in school that educate teenagers on 'the dangers of Andrew Tate'.
Thinking back to myself as a teenager, the thing that always confused me was why girls were often attracted to "bad" characters like Andrew Tate. I would guess that the world and the experience of teenagers within it hasn't changed all that much.
A rebellious male willing to flout authority gives off alpha vibes. He’s bold, audacious, aggressive - all alpha traits that women are naturally programmed to seek in a sexual partner. Because in days of old that guy would be the better hunter and more likely to survive and feed the kids
A man who womanises is also attractive to other women because they presume he is sexually satisfying. A self fulfilling prophecy
Women tend to seek different things in a husband, however. Fuck the alpha, marry the beta (who will stick around and be loyal as he has less opportunity to stray). Quite tough on deltas and gammas
And lo we transport ourselves, in the blink of an eye, to the snug at the old bull and bush, where Miles is holding forth.
Not sure that doctors enjoy the same level of public support for their action, as do lower-paid public sector workers such as nurses and teachers. Presumably we should see some polling this week?
Junior doctors' real terms pay has fallen by over a quarter in the last 15 years. They get plenty of sympathy from me.
2% payrise in the finyear just ended with 11% inflation was just insulting. 3.5% this year is another real terms pay cut.
Barclay needs to re-open negotiations with a serious offer.
The university strikes continue too.
And the teachers too. I'd wade through blood to get Labour in and stop the Tories destroying my kids' education.
By that you mean saving yourself €48?
Or paying the teachers properly so they don't keep quitting or going on strike. Either way, I'd wade through blood to do it. Bucket loads of the stuff.
Are your children not being well educated?
They're doing OK but the school struggles to hold onto teachers because of a lack of funding, and now they are losing days of school to strikes.
I just read about the reason why Dunker got fired from the CBI. No 'resignation', just an immediate dismissal. The reason is "unwanted contact" that a female employee viewed "as sexual harassment". I do think that sexual harrassment is a very serious problem that should be tackled but it seem to me like a career destroying dismissal is a nuclear response generated by reputational panic on the part of the employer. This form of "revolutionary justice" is ultimately in no ones interest and we need to move away from it. From a practical point of view if you look at what fuels the popularity of masculine counter cultural figures like Andrew Tate, it is events like this.
That explanation of why he was fired (as with the official account) falls some way short if what might be expected.
That particular complaint was only one of several: ...After the Guardian inquired on Thursday about the formal complaint and raised several additional allegations about Danker’s behaviour towards other members of staff, including concern that the director general had been viewing employees’ personal Instagram profiles, the CBI said it had started an independent investigation and that Danker had asked to step aside during it... On top of which, he presumably bears some responsibility for the failure of the CBI adequately to investigate a number of other complaints against other individuals.
That you interpret all of that as 'revolutionary justice' as opposed to, for example, corporate coverup, is an interesting choice.
The Andrew Tate comment is just bizarre.
Presumably he either was viewing their public Instagram profiles or was invited to view their private Instagram profiles? Or did he hack Instagram?
Not sure viewing someones social media is worthy of dismissal?
I'm not sure I said it was.
It was the only specific in the link you provided, presumably to add weight to the argument that the dismissal was justified?
That they brought in an outside employment specialist to investigate, and the investigation resulted in dismissal, speaks for itself.
Well that sounds like a much more solid reason to sack someone.
The article says the following:
"It is alleged that as well as unwanted verbal remarks in the office, the UK’s most senior business lobbyist also sent her a barrage of unwanted messages, some featuring sexually suggestive language, over more than a year.... Danker said: “It’s been mortifying to hear that I have caused offence or anxiety to any colleague. It was completely unintentional, and I apologise profusely."
I've seen a lot of this, I don't deny that it goes on and it isn't acceptable. People that still engage in it are failing to understand cultural change and risk get caught out in a bad way, as what has probably happened here. It is possible that this was really bad - we don't know. But the fact that the guardian point to things like 'he also viewed their instagram profiles' to compound the apparent severity is rather curious. The point I would make here though is that it is better to try and resolve it through better internal procedures, rather than dramatic cancellations and instant dismissals - that is what I mean by my 'revolutionary justice' comment. There is probably a cultural failing here in the CBI, as there is in many other institutions, so it is probably right that he has left in any event... but even then, I would suggest that a negotiated solution where he resigns saying something like " he has made mistakes and the organisation need new leadership" would be more appropriate than what has actually happened. Regarding characters like Andrew Tate... my point is just that they feed on narratives of conspiracy which events like this can fuel. Like it or not they have traction with young men.
On Tate, I'm reminded of the Streisand effect.
Was chatting to my nephew, early teens. He mentioned Tate, saying they'd had a session at school in one of the tutorials about him. He claimed that he (and his friends) had not heard of Tate, before this, but had - of course - after the session looked him up.
Now, it may be that the session was still worthwhile - they'd have found Tate anyway, perhaps, so better to be (supposedly) more informed when they do. Nephew apparently thought he was a tosser. It does however seem like a bit of a moral panic and daft to be so focused on one person. Better to have sessions on how easy it is to present a false facade on social media and how little social media is policed - i.e. too many tweets make a twat - without getting into the specifics on one person.
Yeah it is quite amusing the panic about Andrew Tate... having some understanding of the process of teenage rebellion I am not sure the best way of dealing with this is to have classes in school that educate teenagers on 'the dangers of Andrew Tate'.
Thinking back to myself as a teenager, the thing that always confused me was why girls were often attracted to "bad" characters like Andrew Tate. I would guess that the world and the experience of teenagers within it hasn't changed all that much.
A rebellious male willing to flout authority gives off alpha vibes. He’s bold, audacious, aggressive - all alpha traits that women are naturally programmed to seek in a sexual partner. Because in days of old that guy would be the better hunter and more likely to survive and feed the kids
A man who womanises is also attractive to other women because they presume he is sexually satisfying. A self fulfilling prophecy
Women tend to seek different things in a husband, however. Fuck the alpha, marry the beta (who will stick around and be loyal as he has less opportunity to stray). Quite tough on deltas and gammas
This is one reason Andrew Tate creates a problem for the 'woke'. They have no way of explaining why women find him attractive, without also denying the agency of the women involved.
Andrew Tate is just a pimp. Men like him have always existed - there's nothing to explain - you find a weakness in another person, and you exploit it. He's not an alpha male, just the worst kind of grifter.
He doesn't get the same vilification on here that he might, if he was doing the appalling things he is alleged to be doing whilst moonlighting as a Rochdale taxi driver.
Peter Murrell has NOT been suspended from SNP despite his arrest last week, Humza Yousaf says
Preferential treatment?
eg, in 2015 Michelle Thomson MSP (then MP) was suspended amid police investigation into her ex lawyer.Police later said Thomson personally wasn't being probed
Step 1: allow opponents to define you as Mr Continuity Step 2: slowly drip feed out information about previous leadership scandal (keeping story alive) Step 3: decide on a relaunch just 10 days into leadership by pivoting to relitigating gender recognition reform.
The six-months-without-an-auditor story is quite amazing. Yousaf himself has admitted it is “problematic”
Well, yeah - because it looks like the SNP accounts are SO dodgy no self respecting finance firm will go near them
The other arising question is: why now? Why does this story emerge now, at a time when it will cause maximum damage to a crumbling party? The obvious explanation - to me - is that there are people deep inside the SNP who WANT to damage or destroy it. Or at least take down the whole Sturgeon/Yousaf cabal
Two of those are obvious lies. He travels by private helicopter, for a start.
Bottom left is just wrong
You grab the window seat and put your bag on the aisle seat.
Don't you put your bag in the overhead locker? Long time since I flew but that's how I remember it.
I believe it's referring to trains.
Ah ok. It was all this 'aisle seat vs window seat' discussion. That spells planes to me. I don't think of train seats that way. With trains the binary I fret about - if I'm in a fretting mood - is facing forwards or facing backwards. I dislike facing backwards on a train. Although not as much as I'd hate to be facing backwards on a plane, come to think of it. Imagine flying backwards. No thank you. Bet even Dura or Tom Cruise haven't done that. I'd probably skip the flight and forget the holiday if that were the only option.
Sure I have. Crab Air VC-10 C.1K. Brize to Akrotiri. It was alright except for the certain knowledge that the RAF cabin crew would have made sure that every comestible served to RN officers had a generous garnish of dick cheese.
Oh yuck. But to be 100% clear on this, I'm talking about you (or Cruise) being the pilot and facing backwards as you fly the plane. That surely never occurs?
Theoretically, yes, I know. I went to Imperial College and my best friend there did Aeronautics. But does it ever happen in practice? I can't see any upside whatsoever.
The most interesting pilot position tried was the Prone Meteor (pilot lying on his stomach)
That is an interesting position. But it's still facing forwards.
All American Nazi sympathiser Lindbergh’s Spirit of St Louis had no forward vision and the pilot had to look out of side windows, so in theory you could have faced backwards. I guess the pilot’s instinct is always to face forward though, sensibly enough.
This reminds me of a nature prog I watched a while ago about a fast-running animal that sees only to the side not the front. I found that very hard to imagine. Going like the clappers with no forward vision.
I just read about the reason why Dunker got fired from the CBI. No 'resignation', just an immediate dismissal. The reason is "unwanted contact" that a female employee viewed "as sexual harassment". I do think that sexual harrassment is a very serious problem that should be tackled but it seem to me like a career destroying dismissal is a nuclear response generated by reputational panic on the part of the employer. This form of "revolutionary justice" is ultimately in no ones interest and we need to move away from it. From a practical point of view if you look at what fuels the popularity of masculine counter cultural figures like Andrew Tate, it is events like this.
That explanation of why he was fired (as with the official account) falls some way short if what might be expected.
That particular complaint was only one of several: ...After the Guardian inquired on Thursday about the formal complaint and raised several additional allegations about Danker’s behaviour towards other members of staff, including concern that the director general had been viewing employees’ personal Instagram profiles, the CBI said it had started an independent investigation and that Danker had asked to step aside during it... On top of which, he presumably bears some responsibility for the failure of the CBI adequately to investigate a number of other complaints against other individuals.
That you interpret all of that as 'revolutionary justice' as opposed to, for example, corporate coverup, is an interesting choice.
The Andrew Tate comment is just bizarre.
Presumably he either was viewing their public Instagram profiles or was invited to view their private Instagram profiles? Or did he hack Instagram?
Not sure viewing someones social media is worthy of dismissal?
I'm not sure I said it was.
It was the only specific in the link you provided, presumably to add weight to the argument that the dismissal was justified?
That they brought in an outside employment specialist to investigate, and the investigation resulted in dismissal, speaks for itself.
Well that sounds like a much more solid reason to sack someone.
The article says the following:
"It is alleged that as well as unwanted verbal remarks in the office, the UK’s most senior business lobbyist also sent her a barrage of unwanted messages, some featuring sexually suggestive language, over more than a year.... Danker said: “It’s been mortifying to hear that I have caused offence or anxiety to any colleague. It was completely unintentional, and I apologise profusely."
I've seen a lot of this, I don't deny that it goes on and it isn't acceptable. People that still engage in it are failing to understand cultural change and risk get caught out in a bad way, as what has probably happened here. It is possible that this was really bad - we don't know. But the fact that the guardian point to things like 'he also viewed their instagram profiles' to compound the apparent severity is rather curious. The point I would make here though is that it is better to try and resolve it through better internal procedures, rather than dramatic cancellations and instant dismissals - that is what I mean by my 'revolutionary justice' comment. There is probably a cultural failing here in the CBI, as there is in many other institutions, so it is probably right that he has left in any event... but even then, I would suggest that a negotiated solution where he resigns saying something like " he has made mistakes and the organisation need new leadership" would be more appropriate than what has actually happened. Regarding characters like Andrew Tate... my point is just that they feed on narratives of conspiracy which events like this can fuel. Like it or not they have traction with young men.
On Tate, I'm reminded of the Streisand effect.
Was chatting to my nephew, early teens. He mentioned Tate, saying they'd had a session at school in one of the tutorials about him. He claimed that he (and his friends) had not heard of Tate, before this, but had - of course - after the session looked him up.
Now, it may be that the session was still worthwhile - they'd have found Tate anyway, perhaps, so better to be (supposedly) more informed when they do. Nephew apparently thought he was a tosser. It does however seem like a bit of a moral panic and daft to be so focused on one person. Better to have sessions on how easy it is to present a false facade on social media and how little social media is policed - i.e. too many tweets make a twat - without getting into the specifics on one person.
Yeah it is quite amusing the panic about Andrew Tate... having some understanding of the process of teenage rebellion I am not sure the best way of dealing with this is to have classes in school that educate teenagers on 'the dangers of Andrew Tate'.
Thinking back to myself as a teenager, the thing that always confused me was why girls were often attracted to "bad" characters like Andrew Tate. I would guess that the world and the experience of teenagers within it hasn't changed all that much.
A rebellious male willing to flout authority gives off alpha vibes. He’s bold, audacious, aggressive - all alpha traits that women are naturally programmed to seek in a sexual partner. Because in days of old that guy would be the better hunter and more likely to survive and feed the kids
A man who womanises is also attractive to other women because they presume he is sexually satisfying. A self fulfilling prophecy
Women tend to seek different things in a husband, however. Fuck the alpha, marry the beta (who will stick around and be loyal as he has less opportunity to stray). Quite tough on deltas and gammas
This is one reason Andrew Tate creates a problem for the 'woke'. They have no way of explaining why women find him attractive, without also denying the agency of the women involved.
Andrew Tate is just a pimp. Men like him have always existed - there's nothing to explain - you find a weakness in another person, and you exploit it. He's not an alpha male, just the worst kind of grifter.
He seems really quite an unpleasant man, but I’m not sure he comes under any definition of “pimp” that I understand. And I’ve met a few
He’s a social media influencer. Of a highly malign variety
"Romania's DIICOT unit, which investigates terrorism and organised crimes, has said it has identified six victims who were subject to "acts of physical violence and mental coercion" and were "sexually exploited by group members".
It is alleged that he and his brother lured women to Romania on the pretence of a romantic relationship and then forced them into carrying out pornographic acts under duress, which were then filmed."
That’s truly horrible but it’s still not pimping. BUT defending strict definitions of this nasty man is not a hill I want to die on. So if you want to call him pimpy fair enough
I do believe, however, that the much more interesting aspect of him is his extraordinary social media influence. Unfortunately
I just read about the reason why Dunker got fired from the CBI. No 'resignation', just an immediate dismissal. The reason is "unwanted contact" that a female employee viewed "as sexual harassment". I do think that sexual harrassment is a very serious problem that should be tackled but it seem to me like a career destroying dismissal is a nuclear response generated by reputational panic on the part of the employer. This form of "revolutionary justice" is ultimately in no ones interest and we need to move away from it. From a practical point of view if you look at what fuels the popularity of masculine counter cultural figures like Andrew Tate, it is events like this.
That explanation of why he was fired (as with the official account) falls some way short if what might be expected.
That particular complaint was only one of several: ...After the Guardian inquired on Thursday about the formal complaint and raised several additional allegations about Danker’s behaviour towards other members of staff, including concern that the director general had been viewing employees’ personal Instagram profiles, the CBI said it had started an independent investigation and that Danker had asked to step aside during it... On top of which, he presumably bears some responsibility for the failure of the CBI adequately to investigate a number of other complaints against other individuals.
That you interpret all of that as 'revolutionary justice' as opposed to, for example, corporate coverup, is an interesting choice.
The Andrew Tate comment is just bizarre.
Presumably he either was viewing their public Instagram profiles or was invited to view their private Instagram profiles? Or did he hack Instagram?
Not sure viewing someones social media is worthy of dismissal?
I'm not sure I said it was.
It was the only specific in the link you provided, presumably to add weight to the argument that the dismissal was justified?
That they brought in an outside employment specialist to investigate, and the investigation resulted in dismissal, speaks for itself.
Well that sounds like a much more solid reason to sack someone.
The article says the following:
"It is alleged that as well as unwanted verbal remarks in the office, the UK’s most senior business lobbyist also sent her a barrage of unwanted messages, some featuring sexually suggestive language, over more than a year.... Danker said: “It’s been mortifying to hear that I have caused offence or anxiety to any colleague. It was completely unintentional, and I apologise profusely."
I've seen a lot of this, I don't deny that it goes on and it isn't acceptable. People that still engage in it are failing to understand cultural change and risk get caught out in a bad way, as what has probably happened here. It is possible that this was really bad - we don't know. But the fact that the guardian point to things like 'he also viewed their instagram profiles' to compound the apparent severity is rather curious. The point I would make here though is that it is better to try and resolve it through better internal procedures, rather than dramatic cancellations and instant dismissals - that is what I mean by my 'revolutionary justice' comment. There is probably a cultural failing here in the CBI, as there is in many other institutions, so it is probably right that he has left in any event... but even then, I would suggest that a negotiated solution where he resigns saying something like " he has made mistakes and the organisation need new leadership" would be more appropriate than what has actually happened. Regarding characters like Andrew Tate... my point is just that they feed on narratives of conspiracy which events like this can fuel. Like it or not they have traction with young men.
On Tate, I'm reminded of the Streisand effect.
Was chatting to my nephew, early teens. He mentioned Tate, saying they'd had a session at school in one of the tutorials about him. He claimed that he (and his friends) had not heard of Tate, before this, but had - of course - after the session looked him up.
Now, it may be that the session was still worthwhile - they'd have found Tate anyway, perhaps, so better to be (supposedly) more informed when they do. Nephew apparently thought he was a tosser. It does however seem like a bit of a moral panic and daft to be so focused on one person. Better to have sessions on how easy it is to present a false facade on social media and how little social media is policed - i.e. too many tweets make a twat - without getting into the specifics on one person.
Yeah it is quite amusing the panic about Andrew Tate... having some understanding of the process of teenage rebellion I am not sure the best way of dealing with this is to have classes in school that educate teenagers on 'the dangers of Andrew Tate'.
Thinking back to myself as a teenager, the thing that always confused me was why girls were often attracted to "bad" characters like Andrew Tate. I would guess that the world and the experience of teenagers within it hasn't changed all that much.
A rebellious male willing to flout authority gives off alpha vibes. He’s bold, audacious, aggressive - all alpha traits that women are naturally programmed to seek in a sexual partner. Because in days of old that guy would be the better hunter and more likely to survive and feed the kids
A man who womanises is also attractive to other women because they presume he is sexually satisfying. A self fulfilling prophecy
Women tend to seek different things in a husband, however. Fuck the alpha, marry the beta (who will stick around and be loyal as he has less opportunity to stray). Quite tough on deltas and gammas
This is one reason Andrew Tate creates a problem for the 'woke'. They have no way of explaining why women find him attractive, without also denying the agency of the women involved.
Andrew Tate is just a pimp. Men like him have always existed - there's nothing to explain - you find a weakness in another person, and you exploit it. He's not an alpha male, just the worst kind of grifter.
He seems really quite an unpleasant man, but I’m not sure he comes under any definition of “pimp” that I understand. And I’ve met a few
He’s a social media influencer. Of a highly malign variety
"Romania's DIICOT unit, which investigates terrorism and organised crimes, has said it has identified six victims who were subject to "acts of physical violence and mental coercion" and were "sexually exploited by group members".
It is alleged that he and his brother lured women to Romania on the pretence of a romantic relationship and then forced them into carrying out pornographic acts under duress, which were then filmed."
Two of those are obvious lies. He travels by private helicopter, for a start.
Bottom left is just wrong
You grab the window seat and put your bag on the aisle seat.
Don't you put your bag in the overhead locker? Long time since I flew but that's how I remember it.
I believe it's referring to trains.
Ah ok. It was all this 'aisle seat vs window seat' discussion. That spells planes to me. [snip]
You toff! Us working class northern folk thought immediately of buses, didn't we TSE?
Buses are actually my milieu these days. I travel free and often on them. And what you want is top deck front left. Each bus has only one of them - and none at all unless it's a double decker - so if you can bags it that's much much bigger than anything seat related that can happen on a plane or train.
You can usually see if that seat is vacant as the bus arrives. So the question is, when it is occupied, have you ever been sad enough to wait for the next bus in the hope that your favourite seat will be free? Not that I have, of course.....
No - but I have 'rushed' for it elbowing others less able or motivated aside. Not proud of that.
Two of those are obvious lies. He travels by private helicopter, for a start.
Bottom left is just wrong
You grab the window seat and put your bag on the aisle seat.
Don't you put your bag in the overhead locker? Long time since I flew but that's how I remember it.
I believe it's referring to trains.
Ah ok. It was all this 'aisle seat vs window seat' discussion. That spells planes to me. I don't think of train seats that way. With trains the binary I fret about - if I'm in a fretting mood - is facing forwards or facing backwards. I dislike facing backwards on a train. Although not as much as I'd hate to be facing backwards on a plane, come to think of it. Imagine flying backwards. No thank you. Bet even Dura or Tom Cruise haven't done that. I'd probably skip the flight and forget the holiday if that were the only option.
Sure I have. Crab Air VC-10 C.1K. Brize to Akrotiri. It was alright except for the certain knowledge that the RAF cabin crew would have made sure that every comestible served to RN officers had a generous garnish of dick cheese.
Oh yuck. But to be 100% clear on this, I'm talking about you (or Cruise) being the pilot and facing backwards as you fly the plane. That surely never occurs?
Theoretically, yes, I know. I went to Imperial College and my best friend there did Aeronautics. But does it ever happen in practice? I can't see any upside whatsoever.
The most interesting pilot position tried was the Prone Meteor (pilot lying on his stomach)
That is an interesting position. But it's still facing forwards.
All American Nazi sympathiser Lindbergh’s Spirit of St Louis had no forward vision and the pilot had to look out of side windows, so in theory you could have faced backwards. I guess the pilot’s instinct is always to face forward though, sensibly enough.
This reminds me of a nature prog I watched a while ago about a fast-running animal that sees only to the side not the front. I found that very hard to imagine. Going like the clappers with no forward vision.
Could they have meant *binocular* vision? With little overlap to the front? But vision almost all round? That's the sort of thing cattle and pigeons have - both prey animals.
I just read about the reason why Dunker got fired from the CBI. No 'resignation', just an immediate dismissal. The reason is "unwanted contact" that a female employee viewed "as sexual harassment". I do think that sexual harrassment is a very serious problem that should be tackled but it seem to me like a career destroying dismissal is a nuclear response generated by reputational panic on the part of the employer. This form of "revolutionary justice" is ultimately in no ones interest and we need to move away from it. From a practical point of view if you look at what fuels the popularity of masculine counter cultural figures like Andrew Tate, it is events like this.
That explanation of why he was fired (as with the official account) falls some way short if what might be expected.
That particular complaint was only one of several: ...After the Guardian inquired on Thursday about the formal complaint and raised several additional allegations about Danker’s behaviour towards other members of staff, including concern that the director general had been viewing employees’ personal Instagram profiles, the CBI said it had started an independent investigation and that Danker had asked to step aside during it... On top of which, he presumably bears some responsibility for the failure of the CBI adequately to investigate a number of other complaints against other individuals.
That you interpret all of that as 'revolutionary justice' as opposed to, for example, corporate coverup, is an interesting choice.
The Andrew Tate comment is just bizarre.
Presumably he either was viewing their public Instagram profiles or was invited to view their private Instagram profiles? Or did he hack Instagram?
Not sure viewing someones social media is worthy of dismissal?
I'm not sure I said it was.
It was the only specific in the link you provided, presumably to add weight to the argument that the dismissal was justified?
That they brought in an outside employment specialist to investigate, and the investigation resulted in dismissal, speaks for itself.
Well that sounds like a much more solid reason to sack someone.
The article says the following:
"It is alleged that as well as unwanted verbal remarks in the office, the UK’s most senior business lobbyist also sent her a barrage of unwanted messages, some featuring sexually suggestive language, over more than a year.... Danker said: “It’s been mortifying to hear that I have caused offence or anxiety to any colleague. It was completely unintentional, and I apologise profusely."
I've seen a lot of this, I don't deny that it goes on and it isn't acceptable. People that still engage in it are failing to understand cultural change and risk get caught out in a bad way, as what has probably happened here. It is possible that this was really bad - we don't know. But the fact that the guardian point to things like 'he also viewed their instagram profiles' to compound the apparent severity is rather curious. The point I would make here though is that it is better to try and resolve it through better internal procedures, rather than dramatic cancellations and instant dismissals - that is what I mean by my 'revolutionary justice' comment. There is probably a cultural failing here in the CBI, as there is in many other institutions, so it is probably right that he has left in any event... but even then, I would suggest that a negotiated solution where he resigns saying something like " he has made mistakes and the organisation need new leadership" would be more appropriate than what has actually happened. Regarding characters like Andrew Tate... my point is just that they feed on narratives of conspiracy which events like this can fuel. Like it or not they have traction with young men.
On Tate, I'm reminded of the Streisand effect.
Was chatting to my nephew, early teens. He mentioned Tate, saying they'd had a session at school in one of the tutorials about him. He claimed that he (and his friends) had not heard of Tate, before this, but had - of course - after the session looked him up.
Now, it may be that the session was still worthwhile - they'd have found Tate anyway, perhaps, so better to be (supposedly) more informed when they do. Nephew apparently thought he was a tosser. It does however seem like a bit of a moral panic and daft to be so focused on one person. Better to have sessions on how easy it is to present a false facade on social media and how little social media is policed - i.e. too many tweets make a twat - without getting into the specifics on one person.
Yeah it is quite amusing the panic about Andrew Tate... having some understanding of the process of teenage rebellion I am not sure the best way of dealing with this is to have classes in school that educate teenagers on 'the dangers of Andrew Tate'.
Thinking back to myself as a teenager, the thing that always confused me was why girls were often attracted to "bad" characters like Andrew Tate. I would guess that the world and the experience of teenagers within it hasn't changed all that much.
A rebellious male willing to flout authority gives off alpha vibes. He’s bold, audacious, aggressive - all alpha traits that women are naturally programmed to seek in a sexual partner. Because in days of old that guy would be the better hunter and more likely to survive and feed the kids
A man who womanises is also attractive to other women because they presume he is sexually satisfying. A self fulfilling prophecy
Women tend to seek different things in a husband, however. Fuck the alpha, marry the beta (who will stick around and be loyal as he has less opportunity to stray). Quite tough on deltas and gammas
This is one reason Andrew Tate creates a problem for the 'woke'. They have no way of explaining why women find him attractive, without also denying the agency of the women involved.
Andrew Tate is just a pimp. Men like him have always existed - there's nothing to explain - you find a weakness in another person, and you exploit it. He's not an alpha male, just the worst kind of grifter.
He doesn't get the same vilification on here that he might, if he was doing the appalling things he is alleged to be doing whilst moonlighting as a Rochdale taxi driver.
Surely that would depend if he was raping under-age girls who were of a specific (and different) racial / religious group and passing them round his circle. Has he been accused of that?
Not sure that doctors enjoy the same level of public support for their action, as do lower-paid public sector workers such as nurses and teachers. Presumably we should see some polling this week?
Junior doctors' real terms pay has fallen by over a quarter in the last 15 years. They get plenty of sympathy from me.
2% payrise in the finyear just ended with 11% inflation was just insulting. 3.5% this year is another real terms pay cut.
Barclay needs to re-open negotiations with a serious offer.
The university strikes continue too.
And the teachers too. I'd wade through blood to get Labour in and stop the Tories destroying my kids' education.
By that you mean saving yourself €48?
Or paying the teachers properly so they don't keep quitting or going on strike. Either way, I'd wade through blood to do it. Bucket loads of the stuff.
Are your children not being well educated?
They're doing OK but the school struggles to hold onto teachers because of a lack of funding, and now they are losing days of school to strikes.
Lots of teachers quitting in my son's school mid year. I just don't think they are paid enough. Also, I think the pressure from Ofsted just makes the job unbearable.
I just read about the reason why Dunker got fired from the CBI. No 'resignation', just an immediate dismissal. The reason is "unwanted contact" that a female employee viewed "as sexual harassment". I do think that sexual harrassment is a very serious problem that should be tackled but it seem to me like a career destroying dismissal is a nuclear response generated by reputational panic on the part of the employer. This form of "revolutionary justice" is ultimately in no ones interest and we need to move away from it. From a practical point of view if you look at what fuels the popularity of masculine counter cultural figures like Andrew Tate, it is events like this.
That explanation of why he was fired (as with the official account) falls some way short if what might be expected.
That particular complaint was only one of several: ...After the Guardian inquired on Thursday about the formal complaint and raised several additional allegations about Danker’s behaviour towards other members of staff, including concern that the director general had been viewing employees’ personal Instagram profiles, the CBI said it had started an independent investigation and that Danker had asked to step aside during it... On top of which, he presumably bears some responsibility for the failure of the CBI adequately to investigate a number of other complaints against other individuals.
That you interpret all of that as 'revolutionary justice' as opposed to, for example, corporate coverup, is an interesting choice.
The Andrew Tate comment is just bizarre.
Presumably he either was viewing their public Instagram profiles or was invited to view their private Instagram profiles? Or did he hack Instagram?
Not sure viewing someones social media is worthy of dismissal?
I'm not sure I said it was.
It was the only specific in the link you provided, presumably to add weight to the argument that the dismissal was justified?
That they brought in an outside employment specialist to investigate, and the investigation resulted in dismissal, speaks for itself.
Well that sounds like a much more solid reason to sack someone.
The article says the following:
"It is alleged that as well as unwanted verbal remarks in the office, the UK’s most senior business lobbyist also sent her a barrage of unwanted messages, some featuring sexually suggestive language, over more than a year.... Danker said: “It’s been mortifying to hear that I have caused offence or anxiety to any colleague. It was completely unintentional, and I apologise profusely."
I've seen a lot of this, I don't deny that it goes on and it isn't acceptable. People that still engage in it are failing to understand cultural change and risk get caught out in a bad way, as what has probably happened here. It is possible that this was really bad - we don't know. But the fact that the guardian point to things like 'he also viewed their instagram profiles' to compound the apparent severity is rather curious. The point I would make here though is that it is better to try and resolve it through better internal procedures, rather than dramatic cancellations and instant dismissals - that is what I mean by my 'revolutionary justice' comment. There is probably a cultural failing here in the CBI, as there is in many other institutions, so it is probably right that he has left in any event... but even then, I would suggest that a negotiated solution where he resigns saying something like " he has made mistakes and the organisation need new leadership" would be more appropriate than what has actually happened. Regarding characters like Andrew Tate... my point is just that they feed on narratives of conspiracy which events like this can fuel. Like it or not they have traction with young men.
On Tate, I'm reminded of the Streisand effect.
Was chatting to my nephew, early teens. He mentioned Tate, saying they'd had a session at school in one of the tutorials about him. He claimed that he (and his friends) had not heard of Tate, before this, but had - of course - after the session looked him up.
Now, it may be that the session was still worthwhile - they'd have found Tate anyway, perhaps, so better to be (supposedly) more informed when they do. Nephew apparently thought he was a tosser. It does however seem like a bit of a moral panic and daft to be so focused on one person. Better to have sessions on how easy it is to present a false facade on social media and how little social media is policed - i.e. too many tweets make a twat - without getting into the specifics on one person.
Yeah it is quite amusing the panic about Andrew Tate... having some understanding of the process of teenage rebellion I am not sure the best way of dealing with this is to have classes in school that educate teenagers on 'the dangers of Andrew Tate'.
Thinking back to myself as a teenager, the thing that always confused me was why girls were often attracted to "bad" characters like Andrew Tate. I would guess that the world and the experience of teenagers within it hasn't changed all that much.
A rebellious male willing to flout authority gives off alpha vibes. He’s bold, audacious, aggressive - all alpha traits that women are naturally programmed to seek in a sexual partner. Because in days of old that guy would be the better hunter and more likely to survive and feed the kids
A man who womanises is also attractive to other women because they presume he is sexually satisfying. A self fulfilling prophecy
Women tend to seek different things in a husband, however. Fuck the alpha, marry the beta (who will stick around and be loyal as he has less opportunity to stray). Quite tough on deltas and gammas
This is one reason Andrew Tate creates a problem for the 'woke'. They have no way of explaining why women find him attractive, without also denying the agency of the women involved.
Andrew Tate is just a pimp. Men like him have always existed - there's nothing to explain - you find a weakness in another person, and you exploit it. He's not an alpha male, just the worst kind of grifter.
He doesn't get the same vilification on here that he might, if he was doing the appalling things he is alleged to be doing whilst moonlighting as a Rochdale taxi driver.
Surely that would depend if he was raping under-age girls who were of a specific (and different) racial / religious group and passing them round his circle. Has he been accused of that?
I’m also not aware (tho happy to be schooled if wrong) that he and his circle have been accused of raping, abusing, torturing and sometimes even murdering up to a million of these girls?
Two of those are obvious lies. He travels by private helicopter, for a start.
Bottom left is just wrong
You grab the window seat and put your bag on the aisle seat.
Don't you put your bag in the overhead locker? Long time since I flew but that's how I remember it.
I believe it's referring to trains.
Ah ok. It was all this 'aisle seat vs window seat' discussion. That spells planes to me. I don't think of train seats that way. With trains the binary I fret about - if I'm in a fretting mood - is facing forwards or facing backwards. I dislike facing backwards on a train. Although not as much as I'd hate to be facing backwards on a plane, come to think of it. Imagine flying backwards. No thank you. Bet even Dura or Tom Cruise haven't done that. I'd probably skip the flight and forget the holiday if that were the only option.
Sure I have. Crab Air VC-10 C.1K. Brize to Akrotiri. It was alright except for the certain knowledge that the RAF cabin crew would have made sure that every comestible served to RN officers had a generous garnish of dick cheese.
Oh yuck. But to be 100% clear on this, I'm talking about you (or Cruise) being the pilot and facing backwards as you fly the plane. That surely never occurs?
Theoretically, yes, I know. I went to Imperial College and my best friend there did Aeronautics. But does it ever happen in practice? I can't see any upside whatsoever.
The most interesting pilot position tried was the Prone Meteor (pilot lying on his stomach)
That is an interesting position. But it's still facing forwards.
Peter Murrell has NOT been suspended from SNP despite his arrest last week, Humza Yousaf says
Preferential treatment?
eg, in 2015 Michelle Thomson MSP (then MP) was suspended amid police investigation into her ex lawyer.Police later said Thomson personally wasn't being probed
Possibly, although I slightly query what suspending someone from membership of a political party really means in practice (whereas withdrawing the whip from an MSP/MP has practical implications). What would he be prevented from doing exactly? Are there any internal elections just at the moment for him to be unable to vote in? Or would he simply be barred from entry to the Pitlochry SNP barn dance and raffle?
Not sure if this equates to wading through blood, but interesting.
Notable: After a Texas judge nixed federal approval for abortion medication and Tennessee Republicans expelled two young black lawmakers, the group Run For Something saw a big spike in candidate recruitment. This madness is driving young Ds into politics https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1645758235666796545
Peter Murrell has NOT been suspended from SNP despite his arrest last week, Humza Yousaf says
Preferential treatment?
eg, in 2015 Michelle Thomson MSP (then MP) was suspended amid police investigation into her ex lawyer.Police later said Thomson personally wasn't being probed
Possibly, although I slightly query what suspending someone from membership of a political party really means in practice (whereas withdrawing the whip from an MSP/MP has practical implications). What would he be prevented from doing exactly? Are there any internal elections just at the moment for him to be unable to vote in? Or would he simply be barred from entry to the Pitlochry SNP barn dance and raffle?
Also, he is an employee. Different situation legally.
Two of those are obvious lies. He travels by private helicopter, for a start.
Bottom left is just wrong
You grab the window seat and put your bag on the aisle seat.
Don't you put your bag in the overhead locker? Long time since I flew but that's how I remember it.
I believe it's referring to trains.
Ah ok. It was all this 'aisle seat vs window seat' discussion. That spells planes to me. I don't think of train seats that way. With trains the binary I fret about - if I'm in a fretting mood - is facing forwards or facing backwards. I dislike facing backwards on a train. Although not as much as I'd hate to be facing backwards on a plane, come to think of it. Imagine flying backwards. No thank you. Bet even Dura or Tom Cruise haven't done that. I'd probably skip the flight and forget the holiday if that were the only option.
Sure I have. Crab Air VC-10 C.1K. Brize to Akrotiri. It was alright except for the certain knowledge that the RAF cabin crew would have made sure that every comestible served to RN officers had a generous garnish of dick cheese.
Oh yuck. But to be 100% clear on this, I'm talking about you (or Cruise) being the pilot and facing backwards as you fly the plane. That surely never occurs?
Theoretically, yes, I know. I went to Imperial College and my best friend there did Aeronautics. But does it ever happen in practice? I can't see any upside whatsoever.
The most interesting pilot position tried was the Prone Meteor (pilot lying on his stomach)
That is an interesting position. But it's still facing forwards.
I'm quite amused that Tony Danker chose the adjective "shocked" to describe his reaction to being dismissed as CBI Director General.
I can see he might be "disappointed" or even "angry". But "shocked"? Surely it was utterly inevitable following the unraveling of political and business support for the organisation over the past few days, and only a total moron would be "shocked"?
I just read about the reason why Dunker got fired from the CBI. No 'resignation', just an immediate dismissal. The reason is "unwanted contact" that a female employee viewed "as sexual harassment". I do think that sexual harrassment is a very serious problem that should be tackled but it seem to me like a career destroying dismissal is a nuclear response generated by reputational panic on the part of the employer. This form of "revolutionary justice" is ultimately in no ones interest and we need to move away from it. From a practical point of view if you look at what fuels the popularity of masculine counter cultural figures like Andrew Tate, it is events like this.
That explanation of why he was fired (as with the official account) falls some way short if what might be expected.
That particular complaint was only one of several: ...After the Guardian inquired on Thursday about the formal complaint and raised several additional allegations about Danker’s behaviour towards other members of staff, including concern that the director general had been viewing employees’ personal Instagram profiles, the CBI said it had started an independent investigation and that Danker had asked to step aside during it... On top of which, he presumably bears some responsibility for the failure of the CBI adequately to investigate a number of other complaints against other individuals.
That you interpret all of that as 'revolutionary justice' as opposed to, for example, corporate coverup, is an interesting choice.
The Andrew Tate comment is just bizarre.
Presumably he either was viewing their public Instagram profiles or was invited to view their private Instagram profiles? Or did he hack Instagram?
Not sure viewing someones social media is worthy of dismissal?
I'm not sure I said it was.
It was the only specific in the link you provided, presumably to add weight to the argument that the dismissal was justified?
That they brought in an outside employment specialist to investigate, and the investigation resulted in dismissal, speaks for itself.
Well that sounds like a much more solid reason to sack someone.
The article says the following:
"It is alleged that as well as unwanted verbal remarks in the office, the UK’s most senior business lobbyist also sent her a barrage of unwanted messages, some featuring sexually suggestive language, over more than a year.... Danker said: “It’s been mortifying to hear that I have caused offence or anxiety to any colleague. It was completely unintentional, and I apologise profusely."
I've seen a lot of this, I don't deny that it goes on and it isn't acceptable. People that still engage in it are failing to understand cultural change and risk get caught out in a bad way, as what has probably happened here. It is possible that this was really bad - we don't know. But the fact that the guardian point to things like 'he also viewed their instagram profiles' to compound the apparent severity is rather curious. The point I would make here though is that it is better to try and resolve it through better internal procedures, rather than dramatic cancellations and instant dismissals - that is what I mean by my 'revolutionary justice' comment. There is probably a cultural failing here in the CBI, as there is in many other institutions, so it is probably right that he has left in any event... but even then, I would suggest that a negotiated solution where he resigns saying something like " he has made mistakes and the organisation need new leadership" would be more appropriate than what has actually happened. Regarding characters like Andrew Tate... my point is just that they feed on narratives of conspiracy which events like this can fuel. Like it or not they have traction with young men.
On Tate, I'm reminded of the Streisand effect.
Was chatting to my nephew, early teens. He mentioned Tate, saying they'd had a session at school in one of the tutorials about him. He claimed that he (and his friends) had not heard of Tate, before this, but had - of course - after the session looked him up.
Now, it may be that the session was still worthwhile - they'd have found Tate anyway, perhaps, so better to be (supposedly) more informed when they do. Nephew apparently thought he was a tosser. It does however seem like a bit of a moral panic and daft to be so focused on one person. Better to have sessions on how easy it is to present a false facade on social media and how little social media is policed - i.e. too many tweets make a twat - without getting into the specifics on one person.
Yeah it is quite amusing the panic about Andrew Tate... having some understanding of the process of teenage rebellion I am not sure the best way of dealing with this is to have classes in school that educate teenagers on 'the dangers of Andrew Tate'.
Thinking back to myself as a teenager, the thing that always confused me was why girls were often attracted to "bad" characters like Andrew Tate. I would guess that the world and the experience of teenagers within it hasn't changed all that much.
A rebellious male willing to flout authority gives off alpha vibes. He’s bold, audacious, aggressive - all alpha traits that women are naturally programmed to seek in a sexual partner. Because in days of old that guy would be the better hunter and more likely to survive and feed the kids
A man who womanises is also attractive to other women because they presume he is sexually satisfying. A self fulfilling prophecy
Women tend to seek different things in a husband, however. Fuck the alpha, marry the beta (who will stick around and be loyal as he has less opportunity to stray). Quite tough on deltas and gammas
This is one reason Andrew Tate creates a problem for the 'woke'. They have no way of explaining why women find him attractive, without also denying the agency of the women involved.
Andrew Tate is just a pimp. Men like him have always existed - there's nothing to explain - you find a weakness in another person, and you exploit it. He's not an alpha male, just the worst kind of grifter.
He doesn't get the same vilification on here that he might, if he was doing the appalling things he is alleged to be doing whilst moonlighting as a Rochdale taxi driver.
Surely that would depend if he was raping under-age girls who were of a specific (and different) racial / religious group and passing them round his circle. Has he been accused of that?
From what I have read of Mr Tate, the allegations against him are quite repulsive.
Peter Murrell has NOT been suspended from SNP despite his arrest last week, Humza Yousaf says
Preferential treatment?
eg, in 2015 Michelle Thomson MSP (then MP) was suspended amid police investigation into her ex lawyer.Police later said Thomson personally wasn't being probed
Possibly, although I slightly query what suspending someone from membership of a political party really means in practice (whereas withdrawing the whip from an MSP/MP has practical implications). What would he be prevented from doing exactly? Are there any internal elections just at the moment for him to be unable to vote in? Or would he simply be barred from entry to the Pitlochry SNP barn dance and raffle?
Also, he is an employee. Different situation legally.
He's not an employee, is he? He resigned as SNP Chief Executive a few weeks ago, and I believe his only "position" now is as a member of the party.
Not sure that doctors enjoy the same level of public support for their action, as do lower-paid public sector workers such as nurses and teachers. Presumably we should see some polling this week?
Junior doctors' real terms pay has fallen by over a quarter in the last 15 years. They get plenty of sympathy from me.
2% payrise in the finyear just ended with 11% inflation was just insulting. 3.5% this year is another real terms pay cut.
Barclay needs to re-open negotiations with a serious offer.
The university strikes continue too.
And the teachers too. I'd wade through blood to get Labour in and stop the Tories destroying my kids' education.
By that you mean saving yourself €48?
Or paying the teachers properly so they don't keep quitting or going on strike. Either way, I'd wade through blood to do it. Bucket loads of the stuff.
Are your children not being well educated?
They're doing OK but the school struggles to hold onto teachers because of a lack of funding, and now they are losing days of school to strikes.
Lots of teachers quitting in my son's school mid year. I just don't think they are paid enough. Also, I think the pressure from Ofsted just makes the job unbearable.
Even in schools with good management, coupled with a middle class cohort, it’s a lot of pressure. The other end of the spectrum - socially deprived area, and a school unlucky in its senior leadership team - it’s impossible.
(My family have quite recent experience of teaching in both, so that’s not guesswork.)
It'll be interesting to see if the Tories can get 35% at the local elections, because the party is averaging around 29% in the opinion polls; and Reform UK are averaging about 6% but have failed to put candidates in 94% of seats.
I just read about the reason why Dunker got fired from the CBI. No 'resignation', just an immediate dismissal. The reason is "unwanted contact" that a female employee viewed "as sexual harassment". I do think that sexual harrassment is a very serious problem that should be tackled but it seem to me like a career destroying dismissal is a nuclear response generated by reputational panic on the part of the employer. This form of "revolutionary justice" is ultimately in no ones interest and we need to move away from it. From a practical point of view if you look at what fuels the popularity of masculine counter cultural figures like Andrew Tate, it is events like this.
That explanation of why he was fired (as with the official account) falls some way short if what might be expected.
That particular complaint was only one of several: ...After the Guardian inquired on Thursday about the formal complaint and raised several additional allegations about Danker’s behaviour towards other members of staff, including concern that the director general had been viewing employees’ personal Instagram profiles, the CBI said it had started an independent investigation and that Danker had asked to step aside during it... On top of which, he presumably bears some responsibility for the failure of the CBI adequately to investigate a number of other complaints against other individuals.
That you interpret all of that as 'revolutionary justice' as opposed to, for example, corporate coverup, is an interesting choice.
The Andrew Tate comment is just bizarre.
Presumably he either was viewing their public Instagram profiles or was invited to view their private Instagram profiles? Or did he hack Instagram?
Not sure viewing someones social media is worthy of dismissal?
I'm not sure I said it was.
It was the only specific in the link you provided, presumably to add weight to the argument that the dismissal was justified?
That they brought in an outside employment specialist to investigate, and the investigation resulted in dismissal, speaks for itself.
Well that sounds like a much more solid reason to sack someone.
The article says the following:
"It is alleged that as well as unwanted verbal remarks in the office, the UK’s most senior business lobbyist also sent her a barrage of unwanted messages, some featuring sexually suggestive language, over more than a year.... Danker said: “It’s been mortifying to hear that I have caused offence or anxiety to any colleague. It was completely unintentional, and I apologise profusely."
I've seen a lot of this, I don't deny that it goes on and it isn't acceptable. People that still engage in it are failing to understand cultural change and risk get caught out in a bad way, as what has probably happened here. It is possible that this was really bad - we don't know. But the fact that the guardian point to things like 'he also viewed their instagram profiles' to compound the apparent severity is rather curious. The point I would make here though is that it is better to try and resolve it through better internal procedures, rather than dramatic cancellations and instant dismissals - that is what I mean by my 'revolutionary justice' comment. There is probably a cultural failing here in the CBI, as there is in many other institutions, so it is probably right that he has left in any event... but even then, I would suggest that a negotiated solution where he resigns saying something like " he has made mistakes and the organisation need new leadership" would be more appropriate than what has actually happened. Regarding characters like Andrew Tate... my point is just that they feed on narratives of conspiracy which events like this can fuel. Like it or not they have traction with young men.
On Tate, I'm reminded of the Streisand effect.
Was chatting to my nephew, early teens. He mentioned Tate, saying they'd had a session at school in one of the tutorials about him. He claimed that he (and his friends) had not heard of Tate, before this, but had - of course - after the session looked him up.
Now, it may be that the session was still worthwhile - they'd have found Tate anyway, perhaps, so better to be (supposedly) more informed when they do. Nephew apparently thought he was a tosser. It does however seem like a bit of a moral panic and daft to be so focused on one person. Better to have sessions on how easy it is to present a false facade on social media and how little social media is policed - i.e. too many tweets make a twat - without getting into the specifics on one person.
Yeah it is quite amusing the panic about Andrew Tate... having some understanding of the process of teenage rebellion I am not sure the best way of dealing with this is to have classes in school that educate teenagers on 'the dangers of Andrew Tate'.
Thinking back to myself as a teenager, the thing that always confused me was why girls were often attracted to "bad" characters like Andrew Tate. I would guess that the world and the experience of teenagers within it hasn't changed all that much.
A rebellious male willing to flout authority gives off alpha vibes. He’s bold, audacious, aggressive - all alpha traits that women are naturally programmed to seek in a sexual partner. Because in days of old that guy would be the better hunter and more likely to survive and feed the kids
A man who womanises is also attractive to other women because they presume he is sexually satisfying. A self fulfilling prophecy
Women tend to seek different things in a husband, however. Fuck the alpha, marry the beta (who will stick around and be loyal as he has less opportunity to stray). Quite tough on deltas and gammas
This is one reason Andrew Tate creates a problem for the 'woke'. They have no way of explaining why women find him attractive, without also denying the agency of the women involved.
Andrew Tate is just a pimp. Men like him have always existed - there's nothing to explain - you find a weakness in another person, and you exploit it. He's not an alpha male, just the worst kind of grifter.
He’s a cross between a pimp and a pyramid/timeshare/crypto salesman, saying that if you do what he does you’ll be rich too.
But what he does isn’t what the mark thinks he does - what he does is sells the ‘training courses’, and for some reason there’s hundreds of thousands of young men throwing monthly subscriptions at him.
It’s been said many times before, but a society in which there’s large numbers of disaffected young men, is a potentially dangerous place.
“Speaking to the media in Leith today, Mr Yousaf agreed that it was “extraordinary” that the party had failed to appoint a new set of financial overseers since the resignation.
He admitted it would now be "challenging" for the SNP to file its 2022 accounts by the July deadline, and the party would work "furiously" to hit it.
He said: “They resigned last year. I think it was in and and about October last year.
“But the fact that we don't have auditors in place is one of the major priorities.
“You can imagine when I found that out, being the party leader, the party is quickly looking to secure another auditor.””
And….
“Asked if the continued absence of auditors indicated party dysfunction, Mr Yousaf said: “It’s certainly problematic. I won't deny that at all.”
Peter Murrell has NOT been suspended from SNP despite his arrest last week, Humza Yousaf says
Preferential treatment?
eg, in 2015 Michelle Thomson MSP (then MP) was suspended amid police investigation into her ex lawyer.Police later said Thomson personally wasn't being probed
Possibly, although I slightly query what suspending someone from membership of a political party really means in practice (whereas withdrawing the whip from an MSP/MP has practical implications). What would he be prevented from doing exactly? Are there any internal elections just at the moment for him to be unable to vote in? Or would he simply be barred from entry to the Pitlochry SNP barn dance and raffle?
Also, he is an employee. Different situation legally.
In what organisation would you not be able to suspend an employee the subject of a dawn police raid, investigating a missing £600k? Keep them on full pay if you don't want to be on dodgy ground later if nothing happens, but if there is a live investigation, surely you don't have to wait for charges?
Two of those are obvious lies. He travels by private helicopter, for a start.
Bottom left is just wrong
You grab the window seat and put your bag on the aisle seat.
Don't you put your bag in the overhead locker? Long time since I flew but that's how I remember it.
I believe it's referring to trains.
Ah ok. It was all this 'aisle seat vs window seat' discussion. That spells planes to me. I don't think of train seats that way. With trains the binary I fret about - if I'm in a fretting mood - is facing forwards or facing backwards. I dislike facing backwards on a train. Although not as much as I'd hate to be facing backwards on a plane, come to think of it. Imagine flying backwards. No thank you. Bet even Dura or Tom Cruise haven't done that. I'd probably skip the flight and forget the holiday if that were the only option.
Sure I have. Crab Air VC-10 C.1K. Brize to Akrotiri. It was alright except for the certain knowledge that the RAF cabin crew would have made sure that every comestible served to RN officers had a generous garnish of dick cheese.
Oh yuck. But to be 100% clear on this, I'm talking about you (or Cruise) being the pilot and facing backwards as you fly the plane. That surely never occurs?
Theoretically, yes, I know. I went to Imperial College and my best friend there did Aeronautics. But does it ever happen in practice? I can't see any upside whatsoever.
The most interesting pilot position tried was the Prone Meteor (pilot lying on his stomach)
That is an interesting position. But it's still facing forwards.
I just read about the reason why Dunker got fired from the CBI. No 'resignation', just an immediate dismissal. The reason is "unwanted contact" that a female employee viewed "as sexual harassment". I do think that sexual harrassment is a very serious problem that should be tackled but it seem to me like a career destroying dismissal is a nuclear response generated by reputational panic on the part of the employer. This form of "revolutionary justice" is ultimately in no ones interest and we need to move away from it. From a practical point of view if you look at what fuels the popularity of masculine counter cultural figures like Andrew Tate, it is events like this.
That explanation of why he was fired (as with the official account) falls some way short if what might be expected.
That particular complaint was only one of several: ...After the Guardian inquired on Thursday about the formal complaint and raised several additional allegations about Danker’s behaviour towards other members of staff, including concern that the director general had been viewing employees’ personal Instagram profiles, the CBI said it had started an independent investigation and that Danker had asked to step aside during it... On top of which, he presumably bears some responsibility for the failure of the CBI adequately to investigate a number of other complaints against other individuals.
That you interpret all of that as 'revolutionary justice' as opposed to, for example, corporate coverup, is an interesting choice.
The Andrew Tate comment is just bizarre.
Presumably he either was viewing their public Instagram profiles or was invited to view their private Instagram profiles? Or did he hack Instagram?
Not sure viewing someones social media is worthy of dismissal?
I'm not sure I said it was.
It was the only specific in the link you provided, presumably to add weight to the argument that the dismissal was justified?
That they brought in an outside employment specialist to investigate, and the investigation resulted in dismissal, speaks for itself.
Well that sounds like a much more solid reason to sack someone.
The article says the following:
"It is alleged that as well as unwanted verbal remarks in the office, the UK’s most senior business lobbyist also sent her a barrage of unwanted messages, some featuring sexually suggestive language, over more than a year.... Danker said: “It’s been mortifying to hear that I have caused offence or anxiety to any colleague. It was completely unintentional, and I apologise profusely."
I've seen a lot of this, I don't deny that it goes on and it isn't acceptable. People that still engage in it are failing to understand cultural change and risk get caught out in a bad way, as what has probably happened here. It is possible that this was really bad - we don't know. But the fact that the guardian point to things like 'he also viewed their instagram profiles' to compound the apparent severity is rather curious. The point I would make here though is that it is better to try and resolve it through better internal procedures, rather than dramatic cancellations and instant dismissals - that is what I mean by my 'revolutionary justice' comment. There is probably a cultural failing here in the CBI, as there is in many other institutions, so it is probably right that he has left in any event... but even then, I would suggest that a negotiated solution where he resigns saying something like " he has made mistakes and the organisation need new leadership" would be more appropriate than what has actually happened. Regarding characters like Andrew Tate... my point is just that they feed on narratives of conspiracy which events like this can fuel. Like it or not they have traction with young men.
On Tate, I'm reminded of the Streisand effect.
Was chatting to my nephew, early teens. He mentioned Tate, saying they'd had a session at school in one of the tutorials about him. He claimed that he (and his friends) had not heard of Tate, before this, but had - of course - after the session looked him up.
Now, it may be that the session was still worthwhile - they'd have found Tate anyway, perhaps, so better to be (supposedly) more informed when they do. Nephew apparently thought he was a tosser. It does however seem like a bit of a moral panic and daft to be so focused on one person. Better to have sessions on how easy it is to present a false facade on social media and how little social media is policed - i.e. too many tweets make a twat - without getting into the specifics on one person.
Yeah it is quite amusing the panic about Andrew Tate... having some understanding of the process of teenage rebellion I am not sure the best way of dealing with this is to have classes in school that educate teenagers on 'the dangers of Andrew Tate'.
Thinking back to myself as a teenager, the thing that always confused me was why girls were often attracted to "bad" characters like Andrew Tate. I would guess that the world and the experience of teenagers within it hasn't changed all that much.
A rebellious male willing to flout authority gives off alpha vibes. He’s bold, audacious, aggressive - all alpha traits that women are naturally programmed to seek in a sexual partner. Because in days of old that guy would be the better hunter and more likely to survive and feed the kids
A man who womanises is also attractive to other women because they presume he is sexually satisfying. A self fulfilling prophecy
Women tend to seek different things in a husband, however. Fuck the alpha, marry the beta (who will stick around and be loyal as he has less opportunity to stray). Quite tough on deltas and gammas
This is one reason Andrew Tate creates a problem for the 'woke'. They have no way of explaining why women find him attractive, without also denying the agency of the women involved.
Andrew Tate is just a pimp. Men like him have always existed - there's nothing to explain - you find a weakness in another person, and you exploit it. He's not an alpha male, just the worst kind of grifter.
He doesn't get the same vilification on here that he might, if he was doing the appalling things he is alleged to be doing whilst moonlighting as a Rochdale taxi driver.
Surely that would depend if he was raping under-age girls who were of a specific (and different) racial / religious group and passing them round his circle. Has he been accused of that?
I’m also not aware (tho happy to be schooled if wrong) that he and his circle have been accused of raping, abusing, torturing and sometimes even murdering up to a million of these girls?
A million? Some mistake surely, nonetheless someone appears to have been busy. No time for taxi driving duties then.
Peter Murrell has NOT been suspended from SNP despite his arrest last week, Humza Yousaf says
Preferential treatment?
eg, in 2015 Michelle Thomson MSP (then MP) was suspended amid police investigation into her ex lawyer.Police later said Thomson personally wasn't being probed
Possibly, although I slightly query what suspending someone from membership of a political party really means in practice (whereas withdrawing the whip from an MSP/MP has practical implications). What would he be prevented from doing exactly? Are there any internal elections just at the moment for him to be unable to vote in? Or would he simply be barred from entry to the Pitlochry SNP barn dance and raffle?
Also, he is an employee. Different situation legally.
In what organisation would you not be able to suspend an employee the subject of a dawn police raid, investigating a missing £600k? Keep them on full pay if you don't want to be on dodgy ground later if nothing happens, but if there is a live investigation, surely you don't have to wait for charges?
Siuspending an employee in that sort of situation - quite so. But it is different from suspending a party member, that's all. Different issues. But as Sir N points out he's not an employee any more. So it is moot.
Not sure that doctors enjoy the same level of public support for their action, as do lower-paid public sector workers such as nurses and teachers. Presumably we should see some polling this week?
Junior doctors' real terms pay has fallen by over a quarter in the last 15 years. They get plenty of sympathy from me.
2% payrise in the finyear just ended with 11% inflation was just insulting. 3.5% this year is another real terms pay cut.
Barclay needs to re-open negotiations with a serious offer.
The university strikes continue too.
And the teachers too. I'd wade through blood to get Labour in and stop the Tories destroying my kids' education.
By that you mean saving yourself €48?
Or paying the teachers properly so they don't keep quitting or going on strike. Either way, I'd wade through blood to do it. Bucket loads of the stuff.
Are your children not being well educated?
They're doing OK but the school struggles to hold onto teachers because of a lack of funding, and now they are losing days of school to strikes.
Lots of teachers quitting in my son's school mid year. I just don't think they are paid enough. Also, I think the pressure from Ofsted just makes the job unbearable.
Even in schools with good management, coupled with a middle class cohort, it’s a lot of pressure. The other end of the spectrum - socially deprived area, and a school unlucky in its senior leadership team - it’s impossible.
(My family have quite recent experience of teaching in both, so that’s not guesswork.)
Two out of three of my son's teachers, in the last 3 years have quit. This is a school with good management and a mixed intake. The last thing was his current teacher, who was brilliant and the children loved, left over the easter break with us being told in the school newsletter, with only one weeks notice. We don't know where these teachers are going.
The two teachers who quit were the really good ones. The ones who are staying are mediocre at best. It feels to me like the pressure on the teaching staff in the school is absolutely impossible and unbearable. I'd guess it is financial constraints, Ofsted, bureaucracy and personalities.
I just read about the reason why Dunker got fired from the CBI. No 'resignation', just an immediate dismissal. The reason is "unwanted contact" that a female employee viewed "as sexual harassment". I do think that sexual harrassment is a very serious problem that should be tackled but it seem to me like a career destroying dismissal is a nuclear response generated by reputational panic on the part of the employer. This form of "revolutionary justice" is ultimately in no ones interest and we need to move away from it. From a practical point of view if you look at what fuels the popularity of masculine counter cultural figures like Andrew Tate, it is events like this.
That explanation of why he was fired (as with the official account) falls some way short if what might be expected.
That particular complaint was only one of several: ...After the Guardian inquired on Thursday about the formal complaint and raised several additional allegations about Danker’s behaviour towards other members of staff, including concern that the director general had been viewing employees’ personal Instagram profiles, the CBI said it had started an independent investigation and that Danker had asked to step aside during it... On top of which, he presumably bears some responsibility for the failure of the CBI adequately to investigate a number of other complaints against other individuals.
That you interpret all of that as 'revolutionary justice' as opposed to, for example, corporate coverup, is an interesting choice.
The Andrew Tate comment is just bizarre.
Presumably he either was viewing their public Instagram profiles or was invited to view their private Instagram profiles? Or did he hack Instagram?
Not sure viewing someones social media is worthy of dismissal?
I'm not sure I said it was.
It was the only specific in the link you provided, presumably to add weight to the argument that the dismissal was justified?
That they brought in an outside employment specialist to investigate, and the investigation resulted in dismissal, speaks for itself.
Well that sounds like a much more solid reason to sack someone.
The article says the following:
"It is alleged that as well as unwanted verbal remarks in the office, the UK’s most senior business lobbyist also sent her a barrage of unwanted messages, some featuring sexually suggestive language, over more than a year.... Danker said: “It’s been mortifying to hear that I have caused offence or anxiety to any colleague. It was completely unintentional, and I apologise profusely."
I've seen a lot of this, I don't deny that it goes on and it isn't acceptable. People that still engage in it are failing to understand cultural change and risk get caught out in a bad way, as what has probably happened here. It is possible that this was really bad - we don't know. But the fact that the guardian point to things like 'he also viewed their instagram profiles' to compound the apparent severity is rather curious. The point I would make here though is that it is better to try and resolve it through better internal procedures, rather than dramatic cancellations and instant dismissals - that is what I mean by my 'revolutionary justice' comment. There is probably a cultural failing here in the CBI, as there is in many other institutions, so it is probably right that he has left in any event... but even then, I would suggest that a negotiated solution where he resigns saying something like " he has made mistakes and the organisation need new leadership" would be more appropriate than what has actually happened. Regarding characters like Andrew Tate... my point is just that they feed on narratives of conspiracy which events like this can fuel. Like it or not they have traction with young men.
On Tate, I'm reminded of the Streisand effect.
Was chatting to my nephew, early teens. He mentioned Tate, saying they'd had a session at school in one of the tutorials about him. He claimed that he (and his friends) had not heard of Tate, before this, but had - of course - after the session looked him up.
Now, it may be that the session was still worthwhile - they'd have found Tate anyway, perhaps, so better to be (supposedly) more informed when they do. Nephew apparently thought he was a tosser. It does however seem like a bit of a moral panic and daft to be so focused on one person. Better to have sessions on how easy it is to present a false facade on social media and how little social media is policed - i.e. too many tweets make a twat - without getting into the specifics on one person.
Yeah it is quite amusing the panic about Andrew Tate... having some understanding of the process of teenage rebellion I am not sure the best way of dealing with this is to have classes in school that educate teenagers on 'the dangers of Andrew Tate'.
Thinking back to myself as a teenager, the thing that always confused me was why girls were often attracted to "bad" characters like Andrew Tate. I would guess that the world and the experience of teenagers within it hasn't changed all that much.
A rebellious male willing to flout authority gives off alpha vibes. He’s bold, audacious, aggressive - all alpha traits that women are naturally programmed to seek in a sexual partner. Because in days of old that guy would be the better hunter and more likely to survive and feed the kids
A man who womanises is also attractive to other women because they presume he is sexually satisfying. A self fulfilling prophecy
Women tend to seek different things in a husband, however. Fuck the alpha, marry the beta (who will stick around and be loyal as he has less opportunity to stray). Quite tough on deltas and gammas
This is one reason Andrew Tate creates a problem for the 'woke'. They have no way of explaining why women find him attractive, without also denying the agency of the women involved.
Andrew Tate is just a pimp. Men like him have always existed - there's nothing to explain - you find a weakness in another person, and you exploit it. He's not an alpha male, just the worst kind of grifter.
He doesn't get the same vilification on here that he might, if he was doing the appalling things he is alleged to be doing whilst moonlighting as a Rochdale taxi driver.
Surely that would depend if he was raping under-age girls who were of a specific (and different) racial / religious group and passing them round his circle. Has he been accused of that?
Wait:
So, it's ok to rape people from the same ethnic group?
“Speaking to the media in Leith today, Mr Yousaf agreed that it was “extraordinary” that the party had failed to appoint a new set of financial overseers since the resignation.
He admitted it would now be "challenging" for the SNP to file its 2022 accounts by the July deadline, and the party would work "furiously" to hit it.
He said: “They resigned last year. I think it was in and and about October last year.
“But the fact that we don't have auditors in place is one of the major priorities.
“You can imagine when I found that out, being the party leader, the party is quickly looking to secure another auditor.””
And….
“Asked if the continued absence of auditors indicated party dysfunction, Mr Yousaf said: “It’s certainly problematic. I won't deny that at all.”
Peter Murrell has NOT been suspended from SNP despite his arrest last week, Humza Yousaf says
Preferential treatment?
eg, in 2015 Michelle Thomson MSP (then MP) was suspended amid police investigation into her ex lawyer.Police later said Thomson personally wasn't being probed
Possibly, although I slightly query what suspending someone from membership of a political party really means in practice (whereas withdrawing the whip from an MSP/MP has practical implications). What would he be prevented from doing exactly? Are there any internal elections just at the moment for him to be unable to vote in? Or would he simply be barred from entry to the Pitlochry SNP barn dance and raffle?
Also, he is an employee. Different situation legally.
In what organisation would you not be able to suspend an employee the subject of a dawn police raid, investigating a missing £600k? Keep them on full pay if you don't want to be on dodgy ground later if nothing happens, but if there is a live investigation, surely you don't have to wait for charges?
I agree but, as I noted below, he's not an SNP employee any more having resigned as Chief Exec a few weeks ago. At this stage "suspension" can only mean suspension of his membership. Which maybe they should do but seems a bit meaningless given what benefits do you get as an SNP membership? 5% off every purchase at the Edinburgh Woolen Mill?
Peter Murrell has NOT been suspended from SNP despite his arrest last week, Humza Yousaf says
Preferential treatment?
eg, in 2015 Michelle Thomson MSP (then MP) was suspended amid police investigation into her ex lawyer.Police later said Thomson personally wasn't being probed
Two of those are obvious lies. He travels by private helicopter, for a start.
Bottom left is just wrong
You grab the window seat and put your bag on the aisle seat.
Don't you put your bag in the overhead locker? Long time since I flew but that's how I remember it.
I believe it's referring to trains.
Ah ok. It was all this 'aisle seat vs window seat' discussion. That spells planes to me. I don't think of train seats that way. With trains the binary I fret about - if I'm in a fretting mood - is facing forwards or facing backwards. I dislike facing backwards on a train. Although not as much as I'd hate to be facing backwards on a plane, come to think of it. Imagine flying backwards. No thank you. Bet even Dura or Tom Cruise haven't done that. I'd probably skip the flight and forget the holiday if that were the only option.
Sure I have. Crab Air VC-10 C.1K. Brize to Akrotiri. It was alright except for the certain knowledge that the RAF cabin crew would have made sure that every comestible served to RN officers had a generous garnish of dick cheese.
Oh yuck. But to be 100% clear on this, I'm talking about you (or Cruise) being the pilot and facing backwards as you fly the plane. That surely never occurs?
Theoretically, yes, I know. I went to Imperial College and my best friend there did Aeronautics. But does it ever happen in practice? I can't see any upside whatsoever.
The most interesting pilot position tried was the Prone Meteor (pilot lying on his stomach)
That is an interesting position. But it's still facing forwards.
"Landing the XFY-1 was difficult, as the pilot had to look over his shoulder while carefully working the throttle to land."
Not my cup of tea, I must say.
I bet Dura would try it if offered, if only the once.
Oh yes. If I were a highly qualified psychologist with decades of experience in the field I'd tentatively venture that he misses the adrenaline rush of combat airborne ops as much as I miss the same from using 3 phones at once on the fixed income trading floor.
It'll be interesting to see if the Tories can get 35% at the local elections, because the party is averaging around 29% in the opinion polls; and Reform UK are averaging about 6% but have failed to put candidates in 94% of seats.
Con might be tempted to bring the general election forwards to this autumn or next spring if they do better than expected in the locals and the polls continue to narrow?
It'll be interesting to see if the Tories can get 35% at the local elections, because the party is averaging around 29% in the opinion polls; and Reform UK are averaging about 6% but have failed to put candidates in 94% of seats.
Two of those are obvious lies. He travels by private helicopter, for a start.
Bottom left is just wrong
You grab the window seat and put your bag on the aisle seat.
Don't you put your bag in the overhead locker? Long time since I flew but that's how I remember it.
I believe it's referring to trains.
Ah ok. It was all this 'aisle seat vs window seat' discussion. That spells planes to me. I don't think of train seats that way. With trains the binary I fret about - if I'm in a fretting mood - is facing forwards or facing backwards. I dislike facing backwards on a train. Although not as much as I'd hate to be facing backwards on a plane, come to think of it. Imagine flying backwards. No thank you. Bet even Dura or Tom Cruise haven't done that. I'd probably skip the flight and forget the holiday if that were the only option.
Sure I have. Crab Air VC-10 C.1K. Brize to Akrotiri. It was alright except for the certain knowledge that the RAF cabin crew would have made sure that every comestible served to RN officers had a generous garnish of dick cheese.
Oh yuck. But to be 100% clear on this, I'm talking about you (or Cruise) being the pilot and facing backwards as you fly the plane. That surely never occurs?
Theoretically, yes, I know. I went to Imperial College and my best friend there did Aeronautics. But does it ever happen in practice? I can't see any upside whatsoever.
The most interesting pilot position tried was the Prone Meteor (pilot lying on his stomach)
That is an interesting position. But it's still facing forwards.
All American Nazi sympathiser Lindbergh’s Spirit of St Louis had no forward vision and the pilot had to look out of side windows, so in theory you could have faced backwards. I guess the pilot’s instinct is always to face forward though, sensibly enough.
This reminds me of a nature prog I watched a while ago about a fast-running animal that sees only to the side not the front. I found that very hard to imagine. Going like the clappers with no forward vision.
Could they have meant *binocular* vision? With little overlap to the front? But vision almost all round? That's the sort of thing cattle and pigeons have - both prey animals.
That's interesting. But, no, this one I'm referring to sees to the sides only and is effectively blind as regards what's straight ahead. Yet it moves very fast and forwards. It doesn't run sideways.
Two of those are obvious lies. He travels by private helicopter, for a start.
Bottom left is just wrong
You grab the window seat and put your bag on the aisle seat.
Don't you put your bag in the overhead locker? Long time since I flew but that's how I remember it.
I believe it's referring to trains.
Ah ok. It was all this 'aisle seat vs window seat' discussion. That spells planes to me. I don't think of train seats that way. With trains the binary I fret about - if I'm in a fretting mood - is facing forwards or facing backwards. I dislike facing backwards on a train. Although not as much as I'd hate to be facing backwards on a plane, come to think of it. Imagine flying backwards. No thank you. Bet even Dura or Tom Cruise haven't done that. I'd probably skip the flight and forget the holiday if that were the only option.
Sure I have. Crab Air VC-10 C.1K. Brize to Akrotiri. It was alright except for the certain knowledge that the RAF cabin crew would have made sure that every comestible served to RN officers had a generous garnish of dick cheese.
Oh yuck. But to be 100% clear on this, I'm talking about you (or Cruise) being the pilot and facing backwards as you fly the plane. That surely never occurs?
Theoretically, yes, I know. I went to Imperial College and my best friend there did Aeronautics. But does it ever happen in practice? I can't see any upside whatsoever.
The most interesting pilot position tried was the Prone Meteor (pilot lying on his stomach)
That is an interesting position. But it's still facing forwards.
"Landing the XFY-1 was difficult, as the pilot had to look over his shoulder while carefully working the throttle to land."
Not my cup of tea, I must say.
I bet Dura would try it if offered, if only the once.
Oh yes. If I were a highly qualified psychologist with decades of experience in the field I'd tentatively venture that he misses the adrenaline rush of combat airborne ops as much as I miss the same from using 3 phones at once on the fixed income trading floor.
I thought you primarily identified as a chartered accountant, not a bond trader.
It'll be interesting to see if the Tories can get 35% at the local elections, because the party is averaging around 29% in the opinion polls; and Reform UK are averaging about 6% but have failed to put candidates in 94% of seats.
Con might be tempted to bring the general election forwards to this autumn or next spring if they do better than expected in the locals and the polls continue to narrow?
Labour would go into panic mode if the blues got 35%. Really cannot see that at this stage.
Peter Murrell has NOT been suspended from SNP despite his arrest last week, Humza Yousaf says
Preferential treatment?
eg, in 2015 Michelle Thomson MSP (then MP) was suspended amid police investigation into her ex lawyer.Police later said Thomson personally wasn't being probed
Possibly, although I slightly query what suspending someone from membership of a political party really means in practice (whereas withdrawing the whip from an MSP/MP has practical implications). What would he be prevented from doing exactly? Are there any internal elections just at the moment for him to be unable to vote in? Or would he simply be barred from entry to the Pitlochry SNP barn dance and raffle?
Also, he is an employee. Different situation legally.
In what organisation would you not be able to suspend an employee the subject of a dawn police raid, investigating a missing £600k? Keep them on full pay if you don't want to be on dodgy ground later if nothing happens, but if there is a live investigation, surely you don't have to wait for charges?
I agree but, as I noted below, he's not an SNP employee any more having resigned as Chief Exec a few weeks ago. At this stage "suspension" can only mean suspension of his membership. Which maybe they should do but seems a bit meaningless given what benefits do you get as an SNP membership? 5% off every purchase at the Edinburgh Woolen Mill?
It would show the SNP are getting serious about cleaning the stables. The fact they are not doing this, shows that they are not seriously keen on actual transparency. Why? Presumably because lots of people in the party fear that even worse corruption could be unearthed if the meltdown continues. And some might end up in jail. So they are simply praying it all goes away, and they get by with some fake house cleaning and under-the-carpet brushing
Yousaf won’t even reveal WHY the last auditors resigned. And he claims he never knew they resigned last October until he became leader two weeks ago
It'll be interesting to see if the Tories can get 35% at the local elections, because the party is averaging around 29% in the opinion polls; and Reform UK are averaging about 6% but have failed to put candidates in 94% of seats.
I think it's pretty unlikely Conservatives (or Labour) will match let alone substantially beat their poll ratings in this election. Lib Dems tend to do a bit better in local elections than their poll rating, Greens do quite a lot better, and independents tend to get around 10% in this particular round within the cycle (a lot of small district seats are up where people vote for good ol' Terry from down the road, or whoever it is).
I just read about the reason why Dunker got fired from the CBI. No 'resignation', just an immediate dismissal. The reason is "unwanted contact" that a female employee viewed "as sexual harassment". I do think that sexual harrassment is a very serious problem that should be tackled but it seem to me like a career destroying dismissal is a nuclear response generated by reputational panic on the part of the employer. This form of "revolutionary justice" is ultimately in no ones interest and we need to move away from it. From a practical point of view if you look at what fuels the popularity of masculine counter cultural figures like Andrew Tate, it is events like this.
That explanation of why he was fired (as with the official account) falls some way short if what might be expected.
That particular complaint was only one of several: ...After the Guardian inquired on Thursday about the formal complaint and raised several additional allegations about Danker’s behaviour towards other members of staff, including concern that the director general had been viewing employees’ personal Instagram profiles, the CBI said it had started an independent investigation and that Danker had asked to step aside during it... On top of which, he presumably bears some responsibility for the failure of the CBI adequately to investigate a number of other complaints against other individuals.
That you interpret all of that as 'revolutionary justice' as opposed to, for example, corporate coverup, is an interesting choice.
The Andrew Tate comment is just bizarre.
Presumably he either was viewing their public Instagram profiles or was invited to view their private Instagram profiles? Or did he hack Instagram?
Not sure viewing someones social media is worthy of dismissal?
I'm not sure I said it was.
It was the only specific in the link you provided, presumably to add weight to the argument that the dismissal was justified?
That they brought in an outside employment specialist to investigate, and the investigation resulted in dismissal, speaks for itself.
Well that sounds like a much more solid reason to sack someone.
The article says the following:
"It is alleged that as well as unwanted verbal remarks in the office, the UK’s most senior business lobbyist also sent her a barrage of unwanted messages, some featuring sexually suggestive language, over more than a year.... Danker said: “It’s been mortifying to hear that I have caused offence or anxiety to any colleague. It was completely unintentional, and I apologise profusely."
I've seen a lot of this, I don't deny that it goes on and it isn't acceptable. People that still engage in it are failing to understand cultural change and risk get caught out in a bad way, as what has probably happened here. It is possible that this was really bad - we don't know. But the fact that the guardian point to things like 'he also viewed their instagram profiles' to compound the apparent severity is rather curious. The point I would make here though is that it is better to try and resolve it through better internal procedures, rather than dramatic cancellations and instant dismissals - that is what I mean by my 'revolutionary justice' comment. There is probably a cultural failing here in the CBI, as there is in many other institutions, so it is probably right that he has left in any event... but even then, I would suggest that a negotiated solution where he resigns saying something like " he has made mistakes and the organisation need new leadership" would be more appropriate than what has actually happened. Regarding characters like Andrew Tate... my point is just that they feed on narratives of conspiracy which events like this can fuel. Like it or not they have traction with young men.
On Tate, I'm reminded of the Streisand effect.
Was chatting to my nephew, early teens. He mentioned Tate, saying they'd had a session at school in one of the tutorials about him. He claimed that he (and his friends) had not heard of Tate, before this, but had - of course - after the session looked him up.
Now, it may be that the session was still worthwhile - they'd have found Tate anyway, perhaps, so better to be (supposedly) more informed when they do. Nephew apparently thought he was a tosser. It does however seem like a bit of a moral panic and daft to be so focused on one person. Better to have sessions on how easy it is to present a false facade on social media and how little social media is policed - i.e. too many tweets make a twat - without getting into the specifics on one person.
Yeah it is quite amusing the panic about Andrew Tate... having some understanding of the process of teenage rebellion I am not sure the best way of dealing with this is to have classes in school that educate teenagers on 'the dangers of Andrew Tate'.
Thinking back to myself as a teenager, the thing that always confused me was why girls were often attracted to "bad" characters like Andrew Tate. I would guess that the world and the experience of teenagers within it hasn't changed all that much.
A rebellious male willing to flout authority gives off alpha vibes. He’s bold, audacious, aggressive - all alpha traits that women are naturally programmed to seek in a sexual partner. Because in days of old that guy would be the better hunter and more likely to survive and feed the kids
A man who womanises is also attractive to other women because they presume he is sexually satisfying. A self fulfilling prophecy
Women tend to seek different things in a husband, however. Fuck the alpha, marry the beta (who will stick around and be loyal as he has less opportunity to stray). Quite tough on deltas and gammas
This is one reason Andrew Tate creates a problem for the 'woke'. They have no way of explaining why women find him attractive, without also denying the agency of the women involved.
Andrew Tate is just a pimp. Men like him have always existed - there's nothing to explain - you find a weakness in another person, and you exploit it. He's not an alpha male, just the worst kind of grifter.
He doesn't get the same vilification on here that he might, if he was doing the appalling things he is alleged to be doing whilst moonlighting as a Rochdale taxi driver.
Surely that would depend if he was raping under-age girls who were of a specific (and different) racial / religious group and passing them round his circle. Has he been accused of that?
Wait:
So, it's ok to rape people from the same ethnic group?
Of course not, but a racial motive is an aggravating factor.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Peter Murrell has NOT been suspended from SNP despite his arrest last week, Humza Yousaf says
Preferential treatment?
eg, in 2015 Michelle Thomson MSP (then MP) was suspended amid police investigation into her ex lawyer.Police later said Thomson personally wasn't being probed
Possibly, although I slightly query what suspending someone from membership of a political party really means in practice (whereas withdrawing the whip from an MSP/MP has practical implications). What would he be prevented from doing exactly? Are there any internal elections just at the moment for him to be unable to vote in? Or would he simply be barred from entry to the Pitlochry SNP barn dance and raffle?
Also, he is an employee. Different situation legally.
In what organisation would you not be able to suspend an employee the subject of a dawn police raid, investigating a missing £600k? Keep them on full pay if you don't want to be on dodgy ground later if nothing happens, but if there is a live investigation, surely you don't have to wait for charges?
I agree but, as I noted below, he's not an SNP employee any more having resigned as Chief Exec a few weeks ago. At this stage "suspension" can only mean suspension of his membership. Which maybe they should do but seems a bit meaningless given what benefits do you get as an SNP membership? 5% off every purchase at the Edinburgh Woolen Mill?
It would show the SNP are getting serious about cleaning the stables. The fact they are not doing this, shows that they are not seriously keen on actual transparency. Why? Presumably because lots of people in the party fear that even worse corruption could be unearthed if the meltdown continues. And some might end up in jail. So they are simply praying it all goes away, and they get by with some fake house cleaning and under-the-carpet brushing
Yousaf won’t even reveal WHY the last auditors resigned. And he claims he never knew they resigned last October until he became leader two weeks ago
The SNP is close to being Ratnered
Hence the hurry to get him elected to cover as a rearguard and obfuscate as much as possible. He will not be there long.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
I was thinking, how many PB rightists complained about Mrs Johnson (or Mrs J-to-be, depending on date) and e.g. her green politics? And that was on their end of the spectrum!
I just read about the reason why Dunker got fired from the CBI. No 'resignation', just an immediate dismissal. The reason is "unwanted contact" that a female employee viewed "as sexual harassment". I do think that sexual harrassment is a very serious problem that should be tackled but it seem to me like a career destroying dismissal is a nuclear response generated by reputational panic on the part of the employer. This form of "revolutionary justice" is ultimately in no ones interest and we need to move away from it. From a practical point of view if you look at what fuels the popularity of masculine counter cultural figures like Andrew Tate, it is events like this.
That explanation of why he was fired (as with the official account) falls some way short if what might be expected.
That particular complaint was only one of several: ...After the Guardian inquired on Thursday about the formal complaint and raised several additional allegations about Danker’s behaviour towards other members of staff, including concern that the director general had been viewing employees’ personal Instagram profiles, the CBI said it had started an independent investigation and that Danker had asked to step aside during it... On top of which, he presumably bears some responsibility for the failure of the CBI adequately to investigate a number of other complaints against other individuals.
That you interpret all of that as 'revolutionary justice' as opposed to, for example, corporate coverup, is an interesting choice.
The Andrew Tate comment is just bizarre.
Presumably he either was viewing their public Instagram profiles or was invited to view their private Instagram profiles? Or did he hack Instagram?
Not sure viewing someones social media is worthy of dismissal?
I'm not sure I said it was.
It was the only specific in the link you provided, presumably to add weight to the argument that the dismissal was justified?
That they brought in an outside employment specialist to investigate, and the investigation resulted in dismissal, speaks for itself.
Well that sounds like a much more solid reason to sack someone.
The article says the following:
"It is alleged that as well as unwanted verbal remarks in the office, the UK’s most senior business lobbyist also sent her a barrage of unwanted messages, some featuring sexually suggestive language, over more than a year.... Danker said: “It’s been mortifying to hear that I have caused offence or anxiety to any colleague. It was completely unintentional, and I apologise profusely."
I've seen a lot of this, I don't deny that it goes on and it isn't acceptable. People that still engage in it are failing to understand cultural change and risk get caught out in a bad way, as what has probably happened here. It is possible that this was really bad - we don't know. But the fact that the guardian point to things like 'he also viewed their instagram profiles' to compound the apparent severity is rather curious. The point I would make here though is that it is better to try and resolve it through better internal procedures, rather than dramatic cancellations and instant dismissals - that is what I mean by my 'revolutionary justice' comment. There is probably a cultural failing here in the CBI, as there is in many other institutions, so it is probably right that he has left in any event... but even then, I would suggest that a negotiated solution where he resigns saying something like " he has made mistakes and the organisation need new leadership" would be more appropriate than what has actually happened. Regarding characters like Andrew Tate... my point is just that they feed on narratives of conspiracy which events like this can fuel. Like it or not they have traction with young men.
On Tate, I'm reminded of the Streisand effect.
Was chatting to my nephew, early teens. He mentioned Tate, saying they'd had a session at school in one of the tutorials about him. He claimed that he (and his friends) had not heard of Tate, before this, but had - of course - after the session looked him up.
Now, it may be that the session was still worthwhile - they'd have found Tate anyway, perhaps, so better to be (supposedly) more informed when they do. Nephew apparently thought he was a tosser. It does however seem like a bit of a moral panic and daft to be so focused on one person. Better to have sessions on how easy it is to present a false facade on social media and how little social media is policed - i.e. too many tweets make a twat - without getting into the specifics on one person.
Yeah it is quite amusing the panic about Andrew Tate... having some understanding of the process of teenage rebellion I am not sure the best way of dealing with this is to have classes in school that educate teenagers on 'the dangers of Andrew Tate'.
Thinking back to myself as a teenager, the thing that always confused me was why girls were often attracted to "bad" characters like Andrew Tate. I would guess that the world and the experience of teenagers within it hasn't changed all that much.
A rebellious male willing to flout authority gives off alpha vibes. He’s bold, audacious, aggressive - all alpha traits that women are naturally programmed to seek in a sexual partner. Because in days of old that guy would be the better hunter and more likely to survive and feed the kids
A man who womanises is also attractive to other women because they presume he is sexually satisfying. A self fulfilling prophecy
Women tend to seek different things in a husband, however. Fuck the alpha, marry the beta (who will stick around and be loyal as he has less opportunity to stray). Quite tough on deltas and gammas
This is one reason Andrew Tate creates a problem for the 'woke'. They have no way of explaining why women find him attractive, without also denying the agency of the women involved.
Andrew Tate is just a pimp. Men like him have always existed - there's nothing to explain - you find a weakness in another person, and you exploit it. He's not an alpha male, just the worst kind of grifter.
He doesn't get the same vilification on here that he might, if he was doing the appalling things he is alleged to be doing whilst moonlighting as a Rochdale taxi driver.
Surely that would depend if he was raping under-age girls who were of a specific (and different) racial / religious group and passing them round his circle. Has he been accused of that?
Wait:
So, it's ok to rape people from the same ethnic group?
Well, there is a history in this country regarding child brides, teachers and social workers.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
Peter Murrell has NOT been suspended from SNP despite his arrest last week, Humza Yousaf says
Preferential treatment?
eg, in 2015 Michelle Thomson MSP (then MP) was suspended amid police investigation into her ex lawyer.Police later said Thomson personally wasn't being probed
Possibly, although I slightly query what suspending someone from membership of a political party really means in practice (whereas withdrawing the whip from an MSP/MP has practical implications). What would he be prevented from doing exactly? Are there any internal elections just at the moment for him to be unable to vote in? Or would he simply be barred from entry to the Pitlochry SNP barn dance and raffle?
Also, he is an employee. Different situation legally.
In what organisation would you not be able to suspend an employee the subject of a dawn police raid, investigating a missing £600k? Keep them on full pay if you don't want to be on dodgy ground later if nothing happens, but if there is a live investigation, surely you don't have to wait for charges?
I agree but, as I noted below, he's not an SNP employee any more having resigned as Chief Exec a few weeks ago. At this stage "suspension" can only mean suspension of his membership. Which maybe they should do but seems a bit meaningless given what benefits do you get as an SNP membership? 5% off every purchase at the Edinburgh Woolen Mill?
It would show the SNP are getting serious about cleaning the stables. The fact they are not doing this, shows that they are not seriously keen on actual transparency. Why? Presumably because lots of people in the party fear that even worse corruption could be unearthed if the meltdown continues. And some might end up in jail. So they are simply praying it all goes away, and they get by with some fake house cleaning and under-the-carpet brushing
Yousaf won’t even reveal WHY the last auditors resigned. And he claims he never knew they resigned last October until he became leader two weeks ago
The SNP is close to being Ratnered
Don't get me wrong, I'd suspend his membership.
But it's pretty meaningless when membership carries so few benefits, and I don't think it would really show anything very much.
They are in a difficult situation here - the allegations are very serious, but they are so serious that they are out of the hands of the SNP and in the hands of the Police. So there is a limited amount the SNP can do at this stage (and a lot they should have done many months ago).
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Likewise. The nonce poster was disgraceful. Sunak’s billionaire non Dom wife is fair game
I just read about the reason why Dunker got fired from the CBI. No 'resignation', just an immediate dismissal. The reason is "unwanted contact" that a female employee viewed "as sexual harassment". I do think that sexual harrassment is a very serious problem that should be tackled but it seem to me like a career destroying dismissal is a nuclear response generated by reputational panic on the part of the employer. This form of "revolutionary justice" is ultimately in no ones interest and we need to move away from it. From a practical point of view if you look at what fuels the popularity of masculine counter cultural figures like Andrew Tate, it is events like this.
That explanation of why he was fired (as with the official account) falls some way short if what might be expected.
That particular complaint was only one of several: ...After the Guardian inquired on Thursday about the formal complaint and raised several additional allegations about Danker’s behaviour towards other members of staff, including concern that the director general had been viewing employees’ personal Instagram profiles, the CBI said it had started an independent investigation and that Danker had asked to step aside during it... On top of which, he presumably bears some responsibility for the failure of the CBI adequately to investigate a number of other complaints against other individuals.
That you interpret all of that as 'revolutionary justice' as opposed to, for example, corporate coverup, is an interesting choice.
The Andrew Tate comment is just bizarre.
Presumably he either was viewing their public Instagram profiles or was invited to view their private Instagram profiles? Or did he hack Instagram?
Not sure viewing someones social media is worthy of dismissal?
I'm not sure I said it was.
It was the only specific in the link you provided, presumably to add weight to the argument that the dismissal was justified?
That they brought in an outside employment specialist to investigate, and the investigation resulted in dismissal, speaks for itself.
Well that sounds like a much more solid reason to sack someone.
The article says the following:
"It is alleged that as well as unwanted verbal remarks in the office, the UK’s most senior business lobbyist also sent her a barrage of unwanted messages, some featuring sexually suggestive language, over more than a year.... Danker said: “It’s been mortifying to hear that I have caused offence or anxiety to any colleague. It was completely unintentional, and I apologise profusely."
I've seen a lot of this, I don't deny that it goes on and it isn't acceptable. People that still engage in it are failing to understand cultural change and risk get caught out in a bad way, as what has probably happened here. It is possible that this was really bad - we don't know. But the fact that the guardian point to things like 'he also viewed their instagram profiles' to compound the apparent severity is rather curious. The point I would make here though is that it is better to try and resolve it through better internal procedures, rather than dramatic cancellations and instant dismissals - that is what I mean by my 'revolutionary justice' comment. There is probably a cultural failing here in the CBI, as there is in many other institutions, so it is probably right that he has left in any event... but even then, I would suggest that a negotiated solution where he resigns saying something like " he has made mistakes and the organisation need new leadership" would be more appropriate than what has actually happened. Regarding characters like Andrew Tate... my point is just that they feed on narratives of conspiracy which events like this can fuel. Like it or not they have traction with young men.
On Tate, I'm reminded of the Streisand effect.
Was chatting to my nephew, early teens. He mentioned Tate, saying they'd had a session at school in one of the tutorials about him. He claimed that he (and his friends) had not heard of Tate, before this, but had - of course - after the session looked him up.
Now, it may be that the session was still worthwhile - they'd have found Tate anyway, perhaps, so better to be (supposedly) more informed when they do. Nephew apparently thought he was a tosser. It does however seem like a bit of a moral panic and daft to be so focused on one person. Better to have sessions on how easy it is to present a false facade on social media and how little social media is policed - i.e. too many tweets make a twat - without getting into the specifics on one person.
Yeah it is quite amusing the panic about Andrew Tate... having some understanding of the process of teenage rebellion I am not sure the best way of dealing with this is to have classes in school that educate teenagers on 'the dangers of Andrew Tate'.
Thinking back to myself as a teenager, the thing that always confused me was why girls were often attracted to "bad" characters like Andrew Tate. I would guess that the world and the experience of teenagers within it hasn't changed all that much.
A rebellious male willing to flout authority gives off alpha vibes. He’s bold, audacious, aggressive - all alpha traits that women are naturally programmed to seek in a sexual partner. Because in days of old that guy would be the better hunter and more likely to survive and feed the kids
A man who womanises is also attractive to other women because they presume he is sexually satisfying. A self fulfilling prophecy
Women tend to seek different things in a husband, however. Fuck the alpha, marry the beta (who will stick around and be loyal as he has less opportunity to stray). Quite tough on deltas and gammas
This is one reason Andrew Tate creates a problem for the 'woke'. They have no way of explaining why women find him attractive, without also denying the agency of the women involved.
Andrew Tate is just a pimp. Men like him have always existed - there's nothing to explain - you find a weakness in another person, and you exploit it. He's not an alpha male, just the worst kind of grifter.
He’s a cross between a pimp and a pyramid/timeshare/crypto salesman, saying that if you do what he does you’ll be rich too.
But what he does isn’t what the mark thinks he does - what he does is sells the ‘training courses’, and for some reason there’s hundreds of thousands of young men throwing monthly subscriptions at him.
It’s been said many times before, but a society in which there’s large numbers of disaffected young men, is a potentially dangerous place.
Yeah that is my main concern as well. I think that a lot of men perceive the world as being rigged against them. Lots of them don't have the skills to adapt to cultural change, the ideas that they get from their families etc are often very out of date and devastating in the modern workplace. The solution seems to be to ridicule their failings and mistakes, and to punish them in order to terrorise people in to conforming with the new situation.
The problem here is that this does not necessarily move society forward in the way that we think it might, because resentment can find a political expression as it did with Trump in 2016 and may well do so again in 2024. It may well be that people find this idea deplorable, but that won't stop it happening.
Back from the hospital a couple of hours ago. Interesting chats.
Small number of pickets outside. My clinic appointment turned out to be with a senior Junior Doctor (7 years), who was more sympathetic to the previous Nurses' Strike than the Junior Doctors' one based on how Doctors make more money later. Brought up in May-denhead as a Labour voter, and will continue to do so. Introduced him to a bit of political history of the Ashfield area, the demographic shift and recent recent Tory flip; and how no one has a f*cking idea what will happen next time.
Areas most affected are Accident & Emergency, and Wards.
Excellent service, including a new blood test and an appointment in a fortnight to discuss further treatment (Leukemia, so priority), and added a prostate test to the request due to a possible symptom mentioned.
Strange shift in mask-wearing - the place has switched from masks imposed at the main door, to masks required by a BIG RED SIGN at the clinic door which says YOU ARE ENTERING A HIGH RISK AREA. WEAR A MASK, with a mask / sanitisation stand. Around 15% of patients or carers, some with obvious coughs / colds etc, not wearing masks or wearing incorrectly. Including one of the receptionists wearing her mask like a false beard all morning. This is in a haematology clinic where a significant number of patients will have significantly weak immune systems. Minor complaint required requesting proper enforcement by reception staff.
And I noticed a bizarre series of bollards which block off 20-25% of the pedestrian footpath on the main entrance to allow cars to overhang from the car park. WTF? They'll stop 2 mobility scooters passing safely. This is known as motor-normativity, and is a strange cultural assumption we have. They have been there for at least 10 years. They probably did not even think about it, any more than pavement parkers think about their forcing of wheelchairs and parents / buggies into the road.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
I was thinking, how many PB rightists complained about Mrs Johnson (or Mrs J-to-be, depending on date) and e.g. her green politics? And that was on their end of the spectrum!
Hands up if you remember Ed Miliband being vilified for his late alleged Soviet sympathising dad. Or Cherie Blair? Now she was a wrong-'un, or the baby Leo Blair, cast by the Tory press as Damien, the Antichrist.
Two of those are obvious lies. He travels by private helicopter, for a start.
Bottom left is just wrong
You grab the window seat and put your bag on the aisle seat.
Don't you put your bag in the overhead locker? Long time since I flew but that's how I remember it.
I believe it's referring to trains.
Ah ok. It was all this 'aisle seat vs window seat' discussion. That spells planes to me. I don't think of train seats that way. With trains the binary I fret about - if I'm in a fretting mood - is facing forwards or facing backwards. I dislike facing backwards on a train. Although not as much as I'd hate to be facing backwards on a plane, come to think of it. Imagine flying backwards. No thank you. Bet even Dura or Tom Cruise haven't done that. I'd probably skip the flight and forget the holiday if that were the only option.
Sure I have. Crab Air VC-10 C.1K. Brize to Akrotiri. It was alright except for the certain knowledge that the RAF cabin crew would have made sure that every comestible served to RN officers had a generous garnish of dick cheese.
Oh yuck. But to be 100% clear on this, I'm talking about you (or Cruise) being the pilot and facing backwards as you fly the plane. That surely never occurs?
Theoretically, yes, I know. I went to Imperial College and my best friend there did Aeronautics. But does it ever happen in practice? I can't see any upside whatsoever.
The most interesting pilot position tried was the Prone Meteor (pilot lying on his stomach)
That is an interesting position. But it's still facing forwards.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Peter Murrell has NOT been suspended from SNP despite his arrest last week, Humza Yousaf says
Preferential treatment?
eg, in 2015 Michelle Thomson MSP (then MP) was suspended amid police investigation into her ex lawyer.Police later said Thomson personally wasn't being probed
Possibly, although I slightly query what suspending someone from membership of a political party really means in practice (whereas withdrawing the whip from an MSP/MP has practical implications). What would he be prevented from doing exactly? Are there any internal elections just at the moment for him to be unable to vote in? Or would he simply be barred from entry to the Pitlochry SNP barn dance and raffle?
Also, he is an employee. Different situation legally.
In what organisation would you not be able to suspend an employee the subject of a dawn police raid, investigating a missing £600k? Keep them on full pay if you don't want to be on dodgy ground later if nothing happens, but if there is a live investigation, surely you don't have to wait for charges?
I agree but, as I noted below, he's not an SNP employee any more having resigned as Chief Exec a few weeks ago. At this stage "suspension" can only mean suspension of his membership. Which maybe they should do but seems a bit meaningless given what benefits do you get as an SNP membership? 5% off every purchase at the Edinburgh Woolen Mill?
It would show the SNP are getting serious about cleaning the stables. The fact they are not doing this, shows that they are not seriously keen on actual transparency. Why? Presumably because lots of people in the party fear that even worse corruption could be unearthed if the meltdown continues. And some might end up in jail. So they are simply praying it all goes away, and they get by with some fake house cleaning and under-the-carpet brushing
Yousaf won’t even reveal WHY the last auditors resigned. And he claims he never knew they resigned last October until he became leader two weeks ago
The SNP is close to being Ratnered
Hence the hurry to get him elected to cover as a rearguard and obfuscate as much as possible. He will not be there long.
Two of those are obvious lies. He travels by private helicopter, for a start.
Bottom left is just wrong
You grab the window seat and put your bag on the aisle seat.
Don't you put your bag in the overhead locker? Long time since I flew but that's how I remember it.
I believe it's referring to trains.
Ah ok. It was all this 'aisle seat vs window seat' discussion. That spells planes to me. I don't think of train seats that way. With trains the binary I fret about - if I'm in a fretting mood - is facing forwards or facing backwards. I dislike facing backwards on a train. Although not as much as I'd hate to be facing backwards on a plane, come to think of it. Imagine flying backwards. No thank you. Bet even Dura or Tom Cruise haven't done that. I'd probably skip the flight and forget the holiday if that were the only option.
Sure I have. Crab Air VC-10 C.1K. Brize to Akrotiri. It was alright except for the certain knowledge that the RAF cabin crew would have made sure that every comestible served to RN officers had a generous garnish of dick cheese.
Oh yuck. But to be 100% clear on this, I'm talking about you (or Cruise) being the pilot and facing backwards as you fly the plane. That surely never occurs?
Theoretically, yes, I know. I went to Imperial College and my best friend there did Aeronautics. But does it ever happen in practice? I can't see any upside whatsoever.
The most interesting pilot position tried was the Prone Meteor (pilot lying on his stomach)
That is an interesting position. But it's still facing forwards.
"Landing the XFY-1 was difficult, as the pilot had to look over his shoulder while carefully working the throttle to land."
Not my cup of tea, I must say.
I bet Dura would try it if offered, if only the once.
Oh yes. If I were a highly qualified psychologist with decades of experience in the field I'd tentatively venture that he misses the adrenaline rush of combat airborne ops as much as I miss the same from using 3 phones at once on the fixed income trading floor.
I thought you primarily identified as a chartered accountant, not a bond trader.
I do, but people would take the piss if I compared that to being a fighter pilot. Whereas bond trading - well like I say you have to be able to juggle phones around and look at multiple screens, so it's a better comparison. You're essentially stationery though.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
I was thinking, how many PB rightists complained about Mrs Johnson (or Mrs J-to-be, depending on date) and e.g. her green politics? And that was on their end of the spectrum!
Hands up if you remember Ed Miliband being vilified for his late alleged Soviet sympathising dad. Or Cherie Blair? Now she was a wrong-'un, or the baby Leo Blair, cast by the Tory press as Damien, the Antichrist.
Also a Labour MP vilified because his family claimed a perfectly normal IHT procedure for a parental will. Wasn't that the Milibands again?
Nicola Sturgeon was a significantly more mendacious politician than Boris Johnson.
Significantly.
link?
What did Nippy lie about that BoZo did not also lie about?
For example, Nippy was transparently lying about the situation with Salmond. Somebody with so little recall of events should be being treated for Alzheimers, not running a country.
It was always somewhat amusing to watch those of her supporters treat her as a saint at the same time as having vituperation for Boris the Liar. Everything she has said and done as leader will soon be reviewed through the prism of her own legacy of untruth.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
Back from the hospital a couple of hours ago. Interesting chats.
Small number of pickets outside. My clinic appointment turned out to be with a senior Junior Doctor (7 years), who was more sympathetic to the previous Nurses' Strike than the Junior Doctors' one based on how Doctors make more money later. Brought up in May-denhead as a Labour voter, and will continue to do so. Introduced him to a bit of political history of the Ashfield area, the demographic shift and recent recent Tory flip; and how no one has a f*cking idea what will happen next time.
Excellent service, including a new blood test and an appointment in a fortnight to discuss further treatment (Leukemia, so priority), and added a prostate test to the request due to a possible symptom mentioned.
Strange shift in mask-wearing - the place has switched from masks imposed at the main door, to masks required by a BIG RED SIGN at the clinic door which says YOU ARE ENTERING A HIGH RISK AREA. WEAR A MASK, with a mask / sanitisation stand. Around 15% of patients or carers, some with obvious coughs / colds etc, not wearing masks or wearing incorrectly. Including one of the receptionists wearing her mask like a false beard all morning. This is in a haematology clinic where a significant number of patients will have significantly weak immune systems. Minor complaint required requesting proper enforcement by reception staff.
And I noticed a bizarre series of bollards which block off 20-25% of the pedestrian footpath on the main entrance to allow cars to overhang from the car park. WTF? They'll stop 2 mobility scooters passing safely. This is known as motor-normativity, and is a strange cultural assumption we have. They have been there for at least 10 years. They probably did not even think about it, any more than pavement parkers think about their forcing of wheelchairs and parents / buggies into the road. img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/5020679/uploads/editor/87/yflyhwf1cx4b.png" alt="" />
Those bollards are there, because without them cars would park with their wheels against the kerb, overhanging the pavement in an irregular manner - which is more dangerous and potentially blocks more pavement.
Two of those are obvious lies. He travels by private helicopter, for a start.
Bottom left is just wrong
You grab the window seat and put your bag on the aisle seat.
Don't you put your bag in the overhead locker? Long time since I flew but that's how I remember it.
I believe it's referring to trains.
Ah ok. It was all this 'aisle seat vs window seat' discussion. That spells planes to me. I don't think of train seats that way. With trains the binary I fret about - if I'm in a fretting mood - is facing forwards or facing backwards. I dislike facing backwards on a train. Although not as much as I'd hate to be facing backwards on a plane, come to think of it. Imagine flying backwards. No thank you. Bet even Dura or Tom Cruise haven't done that. I'd probably skip the flight and forget the holiday if that were the only option.
Sure I have. Crab Air VC-10 C.1K. Brize to Akrotiri. It was alright except for the certain knowledge that the RAF cabin crew would have made sure that every comestible served to RN officers had a generous garnish of dick cheese.
Oh yuck. But to be 100% clear on this, I'm talking about you (or Cruise) being the pilot and facing backwards as you fly the plane. That surely never occurs?
Theoretically, yes, I know. I went to Imperial College and my best friend there did Aeronautics. But does it ever happen in practice? I can't see any upside whatsoever.
The most interesting pilot position tried was the Prone Meteor (pilot lying on his stomach)
That is an interesting position. But it's still facing forwards.
"Landing the XFY-1 was difficult, as the pilot had to look over his shoulder while carefully working the throttle to land."
Not my cup of tea, I must say.
I bet Dura would try it if offered, if only the once.
Oh yes. If I were a highly qualified psychologist with decades of experience in the field I'd tentatively venture that he misses the adrenaline rush of combat airborne ops as much as I miss the same from using 3 phones at once on the fixed income trading floor.
I thought you primarily identified as a chartered accountant, not a bond trader.
I do, but people would take the piss if I compared that to being a fighter pilot. Whereas bond trading - well like I say you have to be able to juggle phones around and look at multiple screens, so it's a better comparison. You're essentially stationery though.
Nicola Sturgeon was a significantly more mendacious politician than Boris Johnson.
Significantly.
link?
What did Nippy lie about that BoZo did not also lie about?
For example, Nippy was transparently lying about the situation with Salmond. Somebody with so little recall of events should be being treated for Alzheimers, not running a country.
It was always somewhat amusing to watch those of her supporters treat her as a saint at the same time as having vituperation for Boris the Liar. Everything she has said and done as leader will soon be reviewed through the prism of her own legacy of untruth.
Her reputation is collapsing faster than Merkel’s. Much much faster
I just read about the reason why Dunker got fired from the CBI. No 'resignation', just an immediate dismissal. The reason is "unwanted contact" that a female employee viewed "as sexual harassment". I do think that sexual harrassment is a very serious problem that should be tackled but it seem to me like a career destroying dismissal is a nuclear response generated by reputational panic on the part of the employer. This form of "revolutionary justice" is ultimately in no ones interest and we need to move away from it. From a practical point of view if you look at what fuels the popularity of masculine counter cultural figures like Andrew Tate, it is events like this.
That explanation of why he was fired (as with the official account) falls some way short if what might be expected.
That particular complaint was only one of several: ...After the Guardian inquired on Thursday about the formal complaint and raised several additional allegations about Danker’s behaviour towards other members of staff, including concern that the director general had been viewing employees’ personal Instagram profiles, the CBI said it had started an independent investigation and that Danker had asked to step aside during it... On top of which, he presumably bears some responsibility for the failure of the CBI adequately to investigate a number of other complaints against other individuals.
That you interpret all of that as 'revolutionary justice' as opposed to, for example, corporate coverup, is an interesting choice.
The Andrew Tate comment is just bizarre.
Presumably he either was viewing their public Instagram profiles or was invited to view their private Instagram profiles? Or did he hack Instagram?
Not sure viewing someones social media is worthy of dismissal?
I'm not sure I said it was.
It was the only specific in the link you provided, presumably to add weight to the argument that the dismissal was justified?
That they brought in an outside employment specialist to investigate, and the investigation resulted in dismissal, speaks for itself.
Well that sounds like a much more solid reason to sack someone.
The article says the following:
"It is alleged that as well as unwanted verbal remarks in the office, the UK’s most senior business lobbyist also sent her a barrage of unwanted messages, some featuring sexually suggestive language, over more than a year.... Danker said: “It’s been mortifying to hear that I have caused offence or anxiety to any colleague. It was completely unintentional, and I apologise profusely."
I've seen a lot of this, I don't deny that it goes on and it isn't acceptable. People that still engage in it are failing to understand cultural change and risk get caught out in a bad way, as what has probably happened here. It is possible that this was really bad - we don't know. But the fact that the guardian point to things like 'he also viewed their instagram profiles' to compound the apparent severity is rather curious. The point I would make here though is that it is better to try and resolve it through better internal procedures, rather than dramatic cancellations and instant dismissals - that is what I mean by my 'revolutionary justice' comment. There is probably a cultural failing here in the CBI, as there is in many other institutions, so it is probably right that he has left in any event... but even then, I would suggest that a negotiated solution where he resigns saying something like " he has made mistakes and the organisation need new leadership" would be more appropriate than what has actually happened. Regarding characters like Andrew Tate... my point is just that they feed on narratives of conspiracy which events like this can fuel. Like it or not they have traction with young men.
On Tate, I'm reminded of the Streisand effect.
Was chatting to my nephew, early teens. He mentioned Tate, saying they'd had a session at school in one of the tutorials about him. He claimed that he (and his friends) had not heard of Tate, before this, but had - of course - after the session looked him up.
Now, it may be that the session was still worthwhile - they'd have found Tate anyway, perhaps, so better to be (supposedly) more informed when they do. Nephew apparently thought he was a tosser. It does however seem like a bit of a moral panic and daft to be so focused on one person. Better to have sessions on how easy it is to present a false facade on social media and how little social media is policed - i.e. too many tweets make a twat - without getting into the specifics on one person.
Yeah it is quite amusing the panic about Andrew Tate... having some understanding of the process of teenage rebellion I am not sure the best way of dealing with this is to have classes in school that educate teenagers on 'the dangers of Andrew Tate'.
Thinking back to myself as a teenager, the thing that always confused me was why girls were often attracted to "bad" characters like Andrew Tate. I would guess that the world and the experience of teenagers within it hasn't changed all that much.
A rebellious male willing to flout authority gives off alpha vibes. He’s bold, audacious, aggressive - all alpha traits that women are naturally programmed to seek in a sexual partner. Because in days of old that guy would be the better hunter and more likely to survive and feed the kids
A man who womanises is also attractive to other women because they presume he is sexually satisfying. A self fulfilling prophecy
Women tend to seek different things in a husband, however. Fuck the alpha, marry the beta (who will stick around and be loyal as he has less opportunity to stray). Quite tough on deltas and gammas
This is one reason Andrew Tate creates a problem for the 'woke'. They have no way of explaining why women find him attractive, without also denying the agency of the women involved.
Andrew Tate is just a pimp. Men like him have always existed - there's nothing to explain - you find a weakness in another person, and you exploit it. He's not an alpha male, just the worst kind of grifter.
He doesn't get the same vilification on here that he might, if he was doing the appalling things he is alleged to be doing whilst moonlighting as a Rochdale taxi driver.
Surely that would depend if he was raping under-age girls who were of a specific (and different) racial / religious group and passing them round his circle. Has he been accused of that?
Wait:
So, it's ok to rape people from the same ethnic group?
Of course not, but a racial motive is an aggravating factor.
I think adding racial motivations to crimes as an "aggravating factor" is utter bullshit. If you beat the shit out of someone because they looked at your pint funny, or because they are black, or whatever, it should all be treated the same.
You attacked someone with the intent of causing harm.
"Race as an aggravating factor" is a genuinely evil concept that is the root racial identity politics, because it puts some arbitrary classification above the individual.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I don't think the poster really does 'go after' his wife directly. Mr Sunak is presiding over the most punitive tax regime since 1975. I think it's a fit subject for public comment that he has made arrangements within his immediate family to avoid paying those taxes.
Whether Labour will do anything different is an entirely different story, especially not as more shitey windfall taxes seem to be their answer. It's the 'windiest wind-fall in history' to misquote Blair.
Two of those are obvious lies. He travels by private helicopter, for a start.
Bottom left is just wrong
You grab the window seat and put your bag on the aisle seat.
Don't you put your bag in the overhead locker? Long time since I flew but that's how I remember it.
I believe it's referring to trains.
Ah ok. It was all this 'aisle seat vs window seat' discussion. That spells planes to me. I don't think of train seats that way. With trains the binary I fret about - if I'm in a fretting mood - is facing forwards or facing backwards. I dislike facing backwards on a train. Although not as much as I'd hate to be facing backwards on a plane, come to think of it. Imagine flying backwards. No thank you. Bet even Dura or Tom Cruise haven't done that. I'd probably skip the flight and forget the holiday if that were the only option.
Sure I have. Crab Air VC-10 C.1K. Brize to Akrotiri. It was alright except for the certain knowledge that the RAF cabin crew would have made sure that every comestible served to RN officers had a generous garnish of dick cheese.
Oh yuck. But to be 100% clear on this, I'm talking about you (or Cruise) being the pilot and facing backwards as you fly the plane. That surely never occurs?
Theoretically, yes, I know. I went to Imperial College and my best friend there did Aeronautics. But does it ever happen in practice? I can't see any upside whatsoever.
The most interesting pilot position tried was the Prone Meteor (pilot lying on his stomach)
That is an interesting position. But it's still facing forwards.
"Landing the XFY-1 was difficult, as the pilot had to look over his shoulder while carefully working the throttle to land."
Not my cup of tea, I must say.
I bet Dura would try it if offered, if only the once.
Oh yes. If I were a highly qualified psychologist with decades of experience in the field I'd tentatively venture that he misses the adrenaline rush of combat airborne ops as much as I miss the same from using 3 phones at once on the fixed income trading floor.
I thought you primarily identified as a chartered accountant, not a bond trader.
I do, but people would take the piss if I compared that to being a fighter pilot. Whereas bond trading - well like I say you have to be able to juggle phones around and look at multiple screens, so it's a better comparison. You're essentially stationery though.
If you were stationery I guess you must have been a Basildon Bond trader.
I'm not a huge fan of his either, but I admit he has pleasantly surprised me as PM.
He has undoubtedly been a much better PM than he was Chancellor, though of course it's still relatively early days.
But he hasn't proposed any of the radical solutions I think we need to many of our economic problems, nor is there any indication he will.
If you add nor has he sacked Braverman, then that’s fair comment.
I suspect he has been allowed more of a free pass than he deserves because his two immediate predecessors were so dire. Sunak is a distinct improvement on both of them.
Back from the hospital a couple of hours ago. Interesting chats.
Small number of pickets outside. My clinic appointment turned out to be with a senior Junior Doctor (7 years), who was more sympathetic to the previous Nurses' Strike than the Junior Doctors' one based on how Doctors make more money later. Brought up in May-denhead as a Labour voter, and will continue to do so. Introduced him to a bit of political history of the Ashfield area, the demographic shift and recent recent Tory flip; and how no one has a f*cking idea what will happen next time.
Excellent service, including a new blood test and an appointment in a fortnight to discuss further treatment (Leukemia, so priority), and added a prostate test to the request due to a possible symptom mentioned.
Strange shift in mask-wearing - the place has switched from masks imposed at the main door, to masks required by a BIG RED SIGN at the clinic door which says YOU ARE ENTERING A HIGH RISK AREA. WEAR A MASK, with a mask / sanitisation stand. Around 15% of patients or carers, some with obvious coughs / colds etc, not wearing masks or wearing incorrectly. Including one of the receptionists wearing her mask like a false beard all morning. This is in a haematology clinic where a significant number of patients will have significantly weak immune systems. Minor complaint required requesting proper enforcement by reception staff.
And I noticed a bizarre series of bollards which block off 20-25% of the pedestrian footpath on the main entrance to allow cars to overhang from the car park. WTF? They'll stop 2 mobility scooters passing safely. This is known as motor-normativity, and is a strange cultural assumption we have. They have been there for at least 10 years. They probably did not even think about it, any more than pavement parkers think about their forcing of wheelchairs and parents / buggies into the road. img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/5020679/uploads/editor/87/yflyhwf1cx4b.png" alt="" />
Those bollards are there, because without them cars would park with their wheels against the kerb, overhanging the pavement in an irregular manner - which is more dangerous and potentially blocks more pavement.
Good luck with your ongoing treatment.
I know. Plan view below (best I can get) - it is a perfectly generous car park. The bollards should be in the car park just on the car park side of the kerb, so the footway retains it's full design width. There is no reason for the parked vehicles to overhang, or for any compromise whatsoever of the pedestrian space.
Peter Murrell has NOT been suspended from SNP despite his arrest last week, Humza Yousaf says
Preferential treatment?
eg, in 2015 Michelle Thomson MSP (then MP) was suspended amid police investigation into her ex lawyer.Police later said Thomson personally wasn't being probed
Possibly, although I slightly query what suspending someone from membership of a political party really means in practice (whereas withdrawing the whip from an MSP/MP has practical implications). What would he be prevented from doing exactly? Are there any internal elections just at the moment for him to be unable to vote in? Or would he simply be barred from entry to the Pitlochry SNP barn dance and raffle?
Also, he is an employee. Different situation legally.
In what organisation would you not be able to suspend an employee the subject of a dawn police raid, investigating a missing £600k? Keep them on full pay if you don't want to be on dodgy ground later if nothing happens, but if there is a live investigation, surely you don't have to wait for charges?
I agree but, as I noted below, he's not an SNP employee any more having resigned as Chief Exec a few weeks ago. At this stage "suspension" can only mean suspension of his membership. Which maybe they should do but seems a bit meaningless given what benefits do you get as an SNP membership? 5% off every purchase at the Edinburgh Woolen Mill?
It would show the SNP are getting serious about cleaning the stables. The fact they are not doing this, shows that they are not seriously keen on actual transparency. Why? Presumably because lots of people in the party fear that even worse corruption could be unearthed if the meltdown continues. And some might end up in jail. So they are simply praying it all goes away, and they get by with some fake house cleaning and under-the-carpet brushing
Yousaf won’t even reveal WHY the last auditors resigned. And he claims he never knew they resigned last October until he became leader two weeks ago
That’s quite possibly true - and also possible that he doesn’t yet know the full story of why they resigned.
I agree, though, that he’s either going to prove a useful sacrifice quite soon, or the party is in danger of extinction. A bit sad for him, but them's the breaks.
Back from the hospital a couple of hours ago. Interesting chats.
Small number of pickets outside. My clinic appointment turned out to be with a senior Junior Doctor (7 years), who was more sympathetic to the previous Nurses' Strike than the Junior Doctors' one based on how Doctors make more money later. Brought up in May-denhead as a Labour voter, and will continue to do so. Introduced him to a bit of political history of the Ashfield area, the demographic shift and recent recent Tory flip; and how no one has a f*cking idea what will happen next time.
Areas most affected are Accident & Emergency, and Wards.
Excellent service, including a new blood test and an appointment in a fortnight to discuss further treatment (Leukemia, so priority), and added a prostate test to the request due to a possible symptom mentioned.
Strange shift in mask-wearing - the place has switched from masks imposed at the main door, to masks required by a BIG RED SIGN at the clinic door which says YOU ARE ENTERING A HIGH RISK AREA. WEAR A MASK, with a mask / sanitisation stand. Around 15% of patients or carers, some with obvious coughs / colds etc, not wearing masks or wearing incorrectly. Including one of the receptionists wearing her mask like a false beard all morning. This is in a haematology clinic where a significant number of patients will have significantly weak immune systems. Minor complaint required requesting proper enforcement by reception staff.
And I noticed a bizarre series of bollards which block off 20-25% of the pedestrian footpath on the main entrance to allow cars to overhang from the car park. WTF? They'll stop 2 mobility scooters passing safely. This is known as motor-normativity, and is a strange cultural assumption we have. They have been there for at least 10 years. They probably did not even think about it, any more than pavement parkers think about their forcing of wheelchairs and parents / buggies into the road.
I am sorry to hear you're unwell - wish you the swiftest of recoveries.
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
Cherie Blair? Baby Leo Blair? Ewan Blair?
Cherie was fair game, she styled herself as “Britain’s First First Lady” and promoted her own political causes from No.10.
Their children were not the subject of political attack ads AFAICR, they were only ever discussed when their father dragged them out for a photocall, or when a teenage Euan was arrested, which was a genuine public interest story.
I just read about the reason why Dunker got fired from the CBI. No 'resignation', just an immediate dismissal. The reason is "unwanted contact" that a female employee viewed "as sexual harassment". I do think that sexual harrassment is a very serious problem that should be tackled but it seem to me like a career destroying dismissal is a nuclear response generated by reputational panic on the part of the employer. This form of "revolutionary justice" is ultimately in no ones interest and we need to move away from it. From a practical point of view if you look at what fuels the popularity of masculine counter cultural figures like Andrew Tate, it is events like this.
That explanation of why he was fired (as with the official account) falls some way short if what might be expected.
That particular complaint was only one of several: ...After the Guardian inquired on Thursday about the formal complaint and raised several additional allegations about Danker’s behaviour towards other members of staff, including concern that the director general had been viewing employees’ personal Instagram profiles, the CBI said it had started an independent investigation and that Danker had asked to step aside during it... On top of which, he presumably bears some responsibility for the failure of the CBI adequately to investigate a number of other complaints against other individuals.
That you interpret all of that as 'revolutionary justice' as opposed to, for example, corporate coverup, is an interesting choice.
The Andrew Tate comment is just bizarre.
Presumably he either was viewing their public Instagram profiles or was invited to view their private Instagram profiles? Or did he hack Instagram?
Not sure viewing someones social media is worthy of dismissal?
I'm not sure I said it was.
It was the only specific in the link you provided, presumably to add weight to the argument that the dismissal was justified?
That they brought in an outside employment specialist to investigate, and the investigation resulted in dismissal, speaks for itself.
Well that sounds like a much more solid reason to sack someone.
The article says the following:
"It is alleged that as well as unwanted verbal remarks in the office, the UK’s most senior business lobbyist also sent her a barrage of unwanted messages, some featuring sexually suggestive language, over more than a year.... Danker said: “It’s been mortifying to hear that I have caused offence or anxiety to any colleague. It was completely unintentional, and I apologise profusely."
I've seen a lot of this, I don't deny that it goes on and it isn't acceptable. People that still engage in it are failing to understand cultural change and risk get caught out in a bad way, as what has probably happened here. It is possible that this was really bad - we don't know. But the fact that the guardian point to things like 'he also viewed their instagram profiles' to compound the apparent severity is rather curious. The point I would make here though is that it is better to try and resolve it through better internal procedures, rather than dramatic cancellations and instant dismissals - that is what I mean by my 'revolutionary justice' comment. There is probably a cultural failing here in the CBI, as there is in many other institutions, so it is probably right that he has left in any event... but even then, I would suggest that a negotiated solution where he resigns saying something like " he has made mistakes and the organisation need new leadership" would be more appropriate than what has actually happened. Regarding characters like Andrew Tate... my point is just that they feed on narratives of conspiracy which events like this can fuel. Like it or not they have traction with young men.
On Tate, I'm reminded of the Streisand effect.
Was chatting to my nephew, early teens. He mentioned Tate, saying they'd had a session at school in one of the tutorials about him. He claimed that he (and his friends) had not heard of Tate, before this, but had - of course - after the session looked him up.
Now, it may be that the session was still worthwhile - they'd have found Tate anyway, perhaps, so better to be (supposedly) more informed when they do. Nephew apparently thought he was a tosser. It does however seem like a bit of a moral panic and daft to be so focused on one person. Better to have sessions on how easy it is to present a false facade on social media and how little social media is policed - i.e. too many tweets make a twat - without getting into the specifics on one person.
Yeah it is quite amusing the panic about Andrew Tate... having some understanding of the process of teenage rebellion I am not sure the best way of dealing with this is to have classes in school that educate teenagers on 'the dangers of Andrew Tate'.
Thinking back to myself as a teenager, the thing that always confused me was why girls were often attracted to "bad" characters like Andrew Tate. I would guess that the world and the experience of teenagers within it hasn't changed all that much.
A rebellious male willing to flout authority gives off alpha vibes. He’s bold, audacious, aggressive - all alpha traits that women are naturally programmed to seek in a sexual partner. Because in days of old that guy would be the better hunter and more likely to survive and feed the kids
A man who womanises is also attractive to other women because they presume he is sexually satisfying. A self fulfilling prophecy
Women tend to seek different things in a husband, however. Fuck the alpha, marry the beta (who will stick around and be loyal as he has less opportunity to stray). Quite tough on deltas and gammas
This is one reason Andrew Tate creates a problem for the 'woke'. They have no way of explaining why women find him attractive, without also denying the agency of the women involved.
Andrew Tate is just a pimp. Men like him have always existed - there's nothing to explain - you find a weakness in another person, and you exploit it. He's not an alpha male, just the worst kind of grifter.
He doesn't get the same vilification on here that he might, if he was doing the appalling things he is alleged to be doing whilst moonlighting as a Rochdale taxi driver.
Surely that would depend if he was raping under-age girls who were of a specific (and different) racial / religious group and passing them round his circle. Has he been accused of that?
Wait:
So, it's ok to rape people from the same ethnic group?
Of course not, but a racial motive is an aggravating factor.
I think adding racial motivations to crimes as an "aggravating factor" is utter bullshit. If you beat the shit out of someone because they looked at your pint funny, or because they are black, or whatever, it should all be treated the same.
You attacked someone with the intent of causing harm.
"Race as an aggravating factor" is a genuinely evil concept that is the root racial identity politics, because it puts some arbitrary classification above the individual.
It can certainly be overly influential but it is not utter bullshit either. If a gang is assaulting a group with the intent of not just physical pain on the victim but also psychological terror on many others, it is indeed a worse crime.
Take lynchings in the States in the past. More about control and domination of a group than it was about the murder of the individual.
It is a fine line to get the balance right, but there is most definitely a difference between racial lynching and a domestic murder even if both are murders.
I just read about the reason why Dunker got fired from the CBI. No 'resignation', just an immediate dismissal. The reason is "unwanted contact" that a female employee viewed "as sexual harassment". I do think that sexual harrassment is a very serious problem that should be tackled but it seem to me like a career destroying dismissal is a nuclear response generated by reputational panic on the part of the employer. This form of "revolutionary justice" is ultimately in no ones interest and we need to move away from it. From a practical point of view if you look at what fuels the popularity of masculine counter cultural figures like Andrew Tate, it is events like this.
That explanation of why he was fired (as with the official account) falls some way short if what might be expected.
That particular complaint was only one of several: ...After the Guardian inquired on Thursday about the formal complaint and raised several additional allegations about Danker’s behaviour towards other members of staff, including concern that the director general had been viewing employees’ personal Instagram profiles, the CBI said it had started an independent investigation and that Danker had asked to step aside during it... On top of which, he presumably bears some responsibility for the failure of the CBI adequately to investigate a number of other complaints against other individuals.
That you interpret all of that as 'revolutionary justice' as opposed to, for example, corporate coverup, is an interesting choice.
The Andrew Tate comment is just bizarre.
Presumably he either was viewing their public Instagram profiles or was invited to view their private Instagram profiles? Or did he hack Instagram?
Not sure viewing someones social media is worthy of dismissal?
I'm not sure I said it was.
It was the only specific in the link you provided, presumably to add weight to the argument that the dismissal was justified?
That they brought in an outside employment specialist to investigate, and the investigation resulted in dismissal, speaks for itself.
Well that sounds like a much more solid reason to sack someone.
The article says the following:
"It is alleged that as well as unwanted verbal remarks in the office, the UK’s most senior business lobbyist also sent her a barrage of unwanted messages, some featuring sexually suggestive language, over more than a year.... Danker said: “It’s been mortifying to hear that I have caused offence or anxiety to any colleague. It was completely unintentional, and I apologise profusely."
I've seen a lot of this, I don't deny that it goes on and it isn't acceptable. People that still engage in it are failing to understand cultural change and risk get caught out in a bad way, as what has probably happened here. It is possible that this was really bad - we don't know. But the fact that the guardian point to things like 'he also viewed their instagram profiles' to compound the apparent severity is rather curious. The point I would make here though is that it is better to try and resolve it through better internal procedures, rather than dramatic cancellations and instant dismissals - that is what I mean by my 'revolutionary justice' comment. There is probably a cultural failing here in the CBI, as there is in many other institutions, so it is probably right that he has left in any event... but even then, I would suggest that a negotiated solution where he resigns saying something like " he has made mistakes and the organisation need new leadership" would be more appropriate than what has actually happened. Regarding characters like Andrew Tate... my point is just that they feed on narratives of conspiracy which events like this can fuel. Like it or not they have traction with young men.
On Tate, I'm reminded of the Streisand effect.
Was chatting to my nephew, early teens. He mentioned Tate, saying they'd had a session at school in one of the tutorials about him. He claimed that he (and his friends) had not heard of Tate, before this, but had - of course - after the session looked him up.
Now, it may be that the session was still worthwhile - they'd have found Tate anyway, perhaps, so better to be (supposedly) more informed when they do. Nephew apparently thought he was a tosser. It does however seem like a bit of a moral panic and daft to be so focused on one person. Better to have sessions on how easy it is to present a false facade on social media and how little social media is policed - i.e. too many tweets make a twat - without getting into the specifics on one person.
Yeah it is quite amusing the panic about Andrew Tate... having some understanding of the process of teenage rebellion I am not sure the best way of dealing with this is to have classes in school that educate teenagers on 'the dangers of Andrew Tate'.
Thinking back to myself as a teenager, the thing that always confused me was why girls were often attracted to "bad" characters like Andrew Tate. I would guess that the world and the experience of teenagers within it hasn't changed all that much.
A rebellious male willing to flout authority gives off alpha vibes. He’s bold, audacious, aggressive - all alpha traits that women are naturally programmed to seek in a sexual partner. Because in days of old that guy would be the better hunter and more likely to survive and feed the kids
A man who womanises is also attractive to other women because they presume he is sexually satisfying. A self fulfilling prophecy
Women tend to seek different things in a husband, however. Fuck the alpha, marry the beta (who will stick around and be loyal as he has less opportunity to stray). Quite tough on deltas and gammas
This is one reason Andrew Tate creates a problem for the 'woke'. They have no way of explaining why women find him attractive, without also denying the agency of the women involved.
Andrew Tate is just a pimp. Men like him have always existed - there's nothing to explain - you find a weakness in another person, and you exploit it. He's not an alpha male, just the worst kind of grifter.
He doesn't get the same vilification on here that he might, if he was doing the appalling things he is alleged to be doing whilst moonlighting as a Rochdale taxi driver.
Surely that would depend if he was raping under-age girls who were of a specific (and different) racial / religious group and passing them round his circle. Has he been accused of that?
Wait:
So, it's ok to rape people from the same ethnic group?
Of course not, but a racial motive is an aggravating factor.
I think adding racial motivations to crimes as an "aggravating factor" is utter bullshit. If you beat the shit out of someone because they looked at your pint funny, or because they are black, or whatever, it should all be treated the same.
You attacked someone with the intent of causing harm.
"Race as an aggravating factor" is a genuinely evil concept that is the root racial identity politics, because it puts some arbitrary classification above the individual.
So if the Holocaust had been 6m randomly chosen victims rather a determined attempt to eradicate a specific race of people it wouldn't change the nature of the crime for you?
I just read about the reason why Dunker got fired from the CBI. No 'resignation', just an immediate dismissal. The reason is "unwanted contact" that a female employee viewed "as sexual harassment". I do think that sexual harrassment is a very serious problem that should be tackled but it seem to me like a career destroying dismissal is a nuclear response generated by reputational panic on the part of the employer. This form of "revolutionary justice" is ultimately in no ones interest and we need to move away from it. From a practical point of view if you look at what fuels the popularity of masculine counter cultural figures like Andrew Tate, it is events like this.
That explanation of why he was fired (as with the official account) falls some way short if what might be expected.
That particular complaint was only one of several: ...After the Guardian inquired on Thursday about the formal complaint and raised several additional allegations about Danker’s behaviour towards other members of staff, including concern that the director general had been viewing employees’ personal Instagram profiles, the CBI said it had started an independent investigation and that Danker had asked to step aside during it... On top of which, he presumably bears some responsibility for the failure of the CBI adequately to investigate a number of other complaints against other individuals.
That you interpret all of that as 'revolutionary justice' as opposed to, for example, corporate coverup, is an interesting choice.
The Andrew Tate comment is just bizarre.
Presumably he either was viewing their public Instagram profiles or was invited to view their private Instagram profiles? Or did he hack Instagram?
Not sure viewing someones social media is worthy of dismissal?
I'm not sure I said it was.
It was the only specific in the link you provided, presumably to add weight to the argument that the dismissal was justified?
That they brought in an outside employment specialist to investigate, and the investigation resulted in dismissal, speaks for itself.
Well that sounds like a much more solid reason to sack someone.
The article says the following:
"It is alleged that as well as unwanted verbal remarks in the office, the UK’s most senior business lobbyist also sent her a barrage of unwanted messages, some featuring sexually suggestive language, over more than a year.... Danker said: “It’s been mortifying to hear that I have caused offence or anxiety to any colleague. It was completely unintentional, and I apologise profusely."
I've seen a lot of this, I don't deny that it goes on and it isn't acceptable. People that still engage in it are failing to understand cultural change and risk get caught out in a bad way, as what has probably happened here. It is possible that this was really bad - we don't know. But the fact that the guardian point to things like 'he also viewed their instagram profiles' to compound the apparent severity is rather curious. The point I would make here though is that it is better to try and resolve it through better internal procedures, rather than dramatic cancellations and instant dismissals - that is what I mean by my 'revolutionary justice' comment. There is probably a cultural failing here in the CBI, as there is in many other institutions, so it is probably right that he has left in any event... but even then, I would suggest that a negotiated solution where he resigns saying something like " he has made mistakes and the organisation need new leadership" would be more appropriate than what has actually happened. Regarding characters like Andrew Tate... my point is just that they feed on narratives of conspiracy which events like this can fuel. Like it or not they have traction with young men.
On Tate, I'm reminded of the Streisand effect.
Was chatting to my nephew, early teens. He mentioned Tate, saying they'd had a session at school in one of the tutorials about him. He claimed that he (and his friends) had not heard of Tate, before this, but had - of course - after the session looked him up.
Now, it may be that the session was still worthwhile - they'd have found Tate anyway, perhaps, so better to be (supposedly) more informed when they do. Nephew apparently thought he was a tosser. It does however seem like a bit of a moral panic and daft to be so focused on one person. Better to have sessions on how easy it is to present a false facade on social media and how little social media is policed - i.e. too many tweets make a twat - without getting into the specifics on one person.
Yeah it is quite amusing the panic about Andrew Tate... having some understanding of the process of teenage rebellion I am not sure the best way of dealing with this is to have classes in school that educate teenagers on 'the dangers of Andrew Tate'.
Thinking back to myself as a teenager, the thing that always confused me was why girls were often attracted to "bad" characters like Andrew Tate. I would guess that the world and the experience of teenagers within it hasn't changed all that much.
A rebellious male willing to flout authority gives off alpha vibes. He’s bold, audacious, aggressive - all alpha traits that women are naturally programmed to seek in a sexual partner. Because in days of old that guy would be the better hunter and more likely to survive and feed the kids
A man who womanises is also attractive to other women because they presume he is sexually satisfying. A self fulfilling prophecy
Women tend to seek different things in a husband, however. Fuck the alpha, marry the beta (who will stick around and be loyal as he has less opportunity to stray). Quite tough on deltas and gammas
This is one reason Andrew Tate creates a problem for the 'woke'. They have no way of explaining why women find him attractive, without also denying the agency of the women involved.
Andrew Tate is just a pimp. Men like him have always existed - there's nothing to explain - you find a weakness in another person, and you exploit it. He's not an alpha male, just the worst kind of grifter.
He doesn't get the same vilification on here that he might, if he was doing the appalling things he is alleged to be doing whilst moonlighting as a Rochdale taxi driver.
Surely that would depend if he was raping under-age girls who were of a specific (and different) racial / religious group and passing them round his circle. Has he been accused of that?
Wait:
So, it's ok to rape people from the same ethnic group?
Of course not, but a racial motive is an aggravating factor.
I think adding racial motivations to crimes as an "aggravating factor" is utter bullshit. If you beat the shit out of someone because they looked at your pint funny, or because they are black, or whatever, it should all be treated the same.
You attacked someone with the intent of causing harm.
"Race as an aggravating factor" is a genuinely evil concept that is the root racial identity politics, because it puts some arbitrary classification above the individual.
So if some gang of white guys preyed upon, abused, tortured and raped black girls specifically BECAUSE they were non-white, and referred to the girls as “black meat”, “black sluts”, “n*****r whores” you think that would not be an aggravating factor?
This is not a facetious question. I can actually see your logic and in a way I agree with you. But I also see why the legal system has a different view
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
Cherie Blair? Baby Leo Blair? Ewan Blair?
Cherie was fair game, she styled herself as “Britain’s First First Lady” and promoted her own political causes from No.10.
Their children were not the subject of political attack ads AFAICR, they were only ever discussed when their father dragged them out for a photocall, or when a teenage Euan was arrested, which was a genuine public interest story.
Mrs S. was busted as a non-dom. Surely the Chancellor's wife living amongst us and paying minimal tax is a public interest story.
I just read about the reason why Dunker got fired from the CBI. No 'resignation', just an immediate dismissal. The reason is "unwanted contact" that a female employee viewed "as sexual harassment". I do think that sexual harrassment is a very serious problem that should be tackled but it seem to me like a career destroying dismissal is a nuclear response generated by reputational panic on the part of the employer. This form of "revolutionary justice" is ultimately in no ones interest and we need to move away from it. From a practical point of view if you look at what fuels the popularity of masculine counter cultural figures like Andrew Tate, it is events like this.
That explanation of why he was fired (as with the official account) falls some way short if what might be expected.
That particular complaint was only one of several: ...After the Guardian inquired on Thursday about the formal complaint and raised several additional allegations about Danker’s behaviour towards other members of staff, including concern that the director general had been viewing employees’ personal Instagram profiles, the CBI said it had started an independent investigation and that Danker had asked to step aside during it... On top of which, he presumably bears some responsibility for the failure of the CBI adequately to investigate a number of other complaints against other individuals.
That you interpret all of that as 'revolutionary justice' as opposed to, for example, corporate coverup, is an interesting choice.
The Andrew Tate comment is just bizarre.
Presumably he either was viewing their public Instagram profiles or was invited to view their private Instagram profiles? Or did he hack Instagram?
Not sure viewing someones social media is worthy of dismissal?
I'm not sure I said it was.
It was the only specific in the link you provided, presumably to add weight to the argument that the dismissal was justified?
That they brought in an outside employment specialist to investigate, and the investigation resulted in dismissal, speaks for itself.
Well that sounds like a much more solid reason to sack someone.
The article says the following:
"It is alleged that as well as unwanted verbal remarks in the office, the UK’s most senior business lobbyist also sent her a barrage of unwanted messages, some featuring sexually suggestive language, over more than a year.... Danker said: “It’s been mortifying to hear that I have caused offence or anxiety to any colleague. It was completely unintentional, and I apologise profusely."
I've seen a lot of this, I don't deny that it goes on and it isn't acceptable. People that still engage in it are failing to understand cultural change and risk get caught out in a bad way, as what has probably happened here. It is possible that this was really bad - we don't know. But the fact that the guardian point to things like 'he also viewed their instagram profiles' to compound the apparent severity is rather curious. The point I would make here though is that it is better to try and resolve it through better internal procedures, rather than dramatic cancellations and instant dismissals - that is what I mean by my 'revolutionary justice' comment. There is probably a cultural failing here in the CBI, as there is in many other institutions, so it is probably right that he has left in any event... but even then, I would suggest that a negotiated solution where he resigns saying something like " he has made mistakes and the organisation need new leadership" would be more appropriate than what has actually happened. Regarding characters like Andrew Tate... my point is just that they feed on narratives of conspiracy which events like this can fuel. Like it or not they have traction with young men.
On Tate, I'm reminded of the Streisand effect.
Was chatting to my nephew, early teens. He mentioned Tate, saying they'd had a session at school in one of the tutorials about him. He claimed that he (and his friends) had not heard of Tate, before this, but had - of course - after the session looked him up.
Now, it may be that the session was still worthwhile - they'd have found Tate anyway, perhaps, so better to be (supposedly) more informed when they do. Nephew apparently thought he was a tosser. It does however seem like a bit of a moral panic and daft to be so focused on one person. Better to have sessions on how easy it is to present a false facade on social media and how little social media is policed - i.e. too many tweets make a twat - without getting into the specifics on one person.
Yeah it is quite amusing the panic about Andrew Tate... having some understanding of the process of teenage rebellion I am not sure the best way of dealing with this is to have classes in school that educate teenagers on 'the dangers of Andrew Tate'.
Thinking back to myself as a teenager, the thing that always confused me was why girls were often attracted to "bad" characters like Andrew Tate. I would guess that the world and the experience of teenagers within it hasn't changed all that much.
A rebellious male willing to flout authority gives off alpha vibes. He’s bold, audacious, aggressive - all alpha traits that women are naturally programmed to seek in a sexual partner. Because in days of old that guy would be the better hunter and more likely to survive and feed the kids
A man who womanises is also attractive to other women because they presume he is sexually satisfying. A self fulfilling prophecy
Women tend to seek different things in a husband, however. Fuck the alpha, marry the beta (who will stick around and be loyal as he has less opportunity to stray). Quite tough on deltas and gammas
This is one reason Andrew Tate creates a problem for the 'woke'. They have no way of explaining why women find him attractive, without also denying the agency of the women involved.
Andrew Tate is just a pimp. Men like him have always existed - there's nothing to explain - you find a weakness in another person, and you exploit it. He's not an alpha male, just the worst kind of grifter.
He doesn't get the same vilification on here that he might, if he was doing the appalling things he is alleged to be doing whilst moonlighting as a Rochdale taxi driver.
Surely that would depend if he was raping under-age girls who were of a specific (and different) racial / religious group and passing them round his circle. Has he been accused of that?
Wait:
So, it's ok to rape people from the same ethnic group?
Of course not, but a racial motive is an aggravating factor.
I think adding racial motivations to crimes as an "aggravating factor" is utter bullshit. If you beat the shit out of someone because they looked at your pint funny, or because they are black, or whatever, it should all be treated the same.
You attacked someone with the intent of causing harm.
"Race as an aggravating factor" is a genuinely evil concept that is the root racial identity politics, because it puts some arbitrary classification above the individual.
I agree to some extent, see posts immediately above this one, but it is the current situation with regard to the law, and was clearly a factor in the ‘Rotherham’ crimes, where the perpetrators saw the victims as ‘sub-human’ on account of their race, and left young ladies of their own race well alone.
And yet, bizarrely, Humza Yousaf now finds himself like Greyfriars’ Bobby, sitting by the grave of this deeply unpopular proposal. It is not often that a politician does something so mad that it defies all rational explanation. The new first minister had a golden opportunity to distance himself from a widely divisive policy and to refocus the SNP on issues that matter to Scottish voters. Mystifyingly, he has instead chosen to double down on self-ID.
In the drama unfolding in Scottish politics today, the central character’s flaws are neither vaulting ambition nor a susceptibility to flattery, but rather blind faith, plain ineptitude and poor judgement. When the curtain finally falls, and this plan inevitably blows up in Yousaf’s face, there will be few clapping in the audience.
Back from the hospital a couple of hours ago. Interesting chats.
Small number of pickets outside. My clinic appointment turned out to be with a senior Junior Doctor (7 years), who was more sympathetic to the previous Nurses' Strike than the Junior Doctors' one based on how Doctors make more money later. Brought up in May-denhead as a Labour voter, and will continue to do so. Introduced him to a bit of political history of the Ashfield area, the demographic shift and recent recent Tory flip; and how no one has a f*cking idea what will happen next time.
Areas most affected are Accident & Emergency, and Wards.
Excellent service, including a new blood test and an appointment in a fortnight to discuss further treatment (Leukemia, so priority), and added a prostate test to the request due to a possible symptom mentioned.
Strange shift in mask-wearing - the place has switched from masks imposed at the main door, to masks required by a BIG RED SIGN at the clinic door which says YOU ARE ENTERING A HIGH RISK AREA. WEAR A MASK, with a mask / sanitisation stand. Around 15% of patients or carers, some with obvious coughs / colds etc, not wearing masks or wearing incorrectly. Including one of the receptionists wearing her mask like a false beard all morning. This is in a haematology clinic where a significant number of patients will have significantly weak immune systems. Minor complaint required requesting proper enforcement by reception staff.
And I noticed a bizarre series of bollards which block off 20-25% of the pedestrian footpath on the main entrance to allow cars to overhang from the car park. WTF? They'll stop 2 mobility scooters passing safely. This is known as motor-normativity, and is a strange cultural assumption we have. They have been there for at least 10 years. They probably did not even think about it, any more than pavement parkers think about their forcing of wheelchairs and parents / buggies into the road.
Sorry to hear of your illness. Nasty. Best of wishes for your recovery
So it's OK to tar Nippy with the Peter Murrell brush with no evidence, but complaining about the recent non-dom status of Rishi's wife is not "classy".
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Murrell was a public political figure, as was Carrie Johnson. Fair game.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
I can’t see any picture of his wife? Sunak benefitted from her status as this was family money, and this money was not taxed because of a tax loophole
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
Have the rules from which Mrs Sunak benefits, been changed in any way since Mr Sunak has been a minister?
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.
Two of those are obvious lies. He travels by private helicopter, for a start.
Bottom left is just wrong
You grab the window seat and put your bag on the aisle seat.
Don't you put your bag in the overhead locker? Long time since I flew but that's how I remember it.
I believe it's referring to trains.
Ah ok. It was all this 'aisle seat vs window seat' discussion. That spells planes to me. [snip]
You toff! Us working class northern folk thought immediately of buses, didn't we TSE?
Buses are actually my milieu these days. I travel free and often on them. And what you want is top deck front left. Each bus has only one of them - and none at all unless it's a double decker - so if you can bags it that's much much bigger than anything seat related that can happen on a plane or train.
You can usually see if that seat is vacant as the bus arrives. So the question is, when it is occupied, have you ever been sad enough to wait for the next bus in the hope that your favourite seat will be free? Not that I have, of course.....
Comments
He’s a social media influencer. Of a highly malign variety
Step 2: slowly drip feed out information about previous leadership scandal (keeping story alive)
Step 3: decide on a relaunch just 10 days into leadership by pivoting to relitigating gender recognition reform.
Masterful...
https://twitter.com/deanmthomson/status/1645764826877120512
It is alleged that he and his brother lured women to Romania on the pretence of a romantic relationship and then forced them into carrying out pornographic acts under duress, which were then filmed."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/who-is-andrew-tate-the-self-styled-king-of-toxic-masculinity-arrested-in-romania-12776832
Seems kind of pimpy to me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_End_tube_station
Seymour Hersh is really dialing the crazy and Russian talking points up to 11 in this latest interview.
He starts off by the old "Kyiv was a feint", stating that Russia had no intention of attempting to take Kyiv.
https://twitter.com/OAlexanderDK/status/1645727385138888704
Preferential treatment?
eg, in 2015 Michelle Thomson MSP (then MP) was suspended amid police investigation into her ex lawyer.Police later said Thomson personally wasn't being probed
https://twitter.com/ChrisMusson/status/1645761313484808192?s=20
Well, yeah - because it looks like the SNP accounts are SO dodgy no self respecting finance firm will go near them
The other arising question is: why now? Why does this story emerge now, at a time when it will cause maximum damage to a crumbling party? The obvious explanation - to me - is that there are people deep inside the SNP who WANT to damage or destroy it. Or at least take down the whole Sturgeon/Yousaf cabal
But his approach to wait out the strikers has actually worked.
No one is even talking about them in the real world anymore, as far as I can tell...
I do believe, however, that the much more interesting aspect of him is his extraordinary social media influence. Unfortunately
https://similarbutdifferentanimals.com/2021/01/06/what-is-an-animals-arc-of-vision/
‘Biden ate our chips’: Ireland prepares for a presidential homecoming
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/10/europe/biden-irish-cousins-intl-cmd/index.html
Not my cup of tea, I must say.
Notable: After a Texas judge nixed federal approval for abortion medication and Tennessee Republicans expelled two young black lawmakers, the group Run For Something saw a big spike in candidate recruitment. This madness is driving young Ds into politics
https://twitter.com/ThePlumLineGS/status/1645758235666796545
I can see he might be "disappointed" or even "angry". But "shocked"? Surely it was utterly inevitable following the unraveling of political and business support for the organisation over the past few days, and only a total moron would be "shocked"?
The other end of the spectrum - socially deprived area, and a school unlucky in its senior leadership team - it’s impossible.
(My family have quite recent experience of teaching in both, so that’s not guesswork.)
But what he does isn’t what the mark thinks he does - what he does is sells the ‘training courses’, and for some reason there’s hundreds of thousands of young men throwing monthly subscriptions at him.
It’s been said many times before, but a society in which there’s large numbers of disaffected young men, is a potentially dangerous place.
“Speaking to the media in Leith today, Mr Yousaf agreed that it was “extraordinary” that the party had failed to appoint a new set of financial overseers since the resignation.
He admitted it would now be "challenging" for the SNP to file its 2022 accounts by the July deadline, and the party would work "furiously" to hit it.
He said: “They resigned last year. I think it was in and and about October last year.
“But the fact that we don't have auditors in place is one of the major priorities.
“You can imagine when I found that out, being the party leader, the party is quickly looking to secure another auditor.””
And….
“Asked if the continued absence of auditors indicated party dysfunction, Mr Yousaf said: “It’s certainly problematic. I won't deny that at all.”
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23447841.snp-hid-resignation-auditors-six-months-humza-yousaf-reveals/
Is it possible that the SNP might just be wound up? If this was a company they would be facing that strong possibility
Even getting in ...
Her resignation was a fraud and she must surely be questioned by the coppers
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57394351.amp
Nicola Sturgeon was a significantly more mendacious politician than Boris Johnson.
Significantly.
The two teachers who quit were the really good ones. The ones who are staying are mediocre at best. It feels to me like the pressure on the teaching staff in the school is absolutely impossible and unbearable. I'd guess it is financial constraints, Ofsted, bureaucracy and personalities.
So, it's ok to rape people from the same ethnic group?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/11/labour-defends-sunak-attack-ads-pm-wife-akshata-murty-non-dom-tax
What did Nippy lie about that BoZo did not also lie about?
He has undoubtedly been a much better PM than he was Chancellor, though of course it's still relatively early days.
But he hasn't proposed any of the radical solutions I think we need to many of our economic problems, nor is there any indication he will.
Yousaf won’t even reveal WHY the last auditors resigned. And he claims he never knew they resigned last October until he became leader two weeks ago
The SNP is close to being Ratnered
I didn't like the "nonce" poster, but I have no problems with this one.
Mrs Sunak, Mr May, Mrs Starmer, Mr Truss etc. private citizens.
Go after Sunak because he’s filthy rich, don’t go after his wife directly.
But it's pretty meaningless when membership carries so few benefits, and I don't think it would really show anything very much.
They are in a difficult situation here - the allegations are very serious, but they are so serious that they are out of the hands of the SNP and in the hands of the Police. So there is a limited amount the SNP can do at this stage (and a lot they should have done many months ago).
The problem here is that this does not necessarily move society forward in the way that we think it might, because resentment can find a political expression as it did with Trump in 2016 and may well do so again in 2024. It may well be that people find this idea deplorable, but that won't stop it happening.
Small number of pickets outside. My clinic appointment turned out to be with a senior Junior Doctor (7 years), who was more sympathetic to the previous Nurses' Strike than the Junior Doctors' one based on how Doctors make more money later. Brought up in May-denhead as a Labour voter, and will continue to do so. Introduced him to a bit of political history of the Ashfield area, the demographic shift and recent recent Tory flip; and how no one has a f*cking idea what will happen next time.
Areas most affected are Accident & Emergency, and Wards.
Excellent service, including a new blood test and an appointment in a fortnight to discuss further treatment (Leukemia, so priority), and added a prostate test to the request due to a possible symptom mentioned.
Strange shift in mask-wearing - the place has switched from masks imposed at the main door, to masks required by a BIG RED SIGN at the clinic door which says YOU ARE ENTERING A HIGH RISK AREA. WEAR A MASK, with a mask / sanitisation stand. Around 15% of patients or carers, some with obvious coughs / colds etc, not wearing masks or wearing incorrectly. Including one of the receptionists wearing her mask like a false beard all morning. This is in a haematology clinic where a significant number of patients will have significantly weak immune systems. Minor complaint required requesting proper enforcement by reception staff.
And I noticed a bizarre series of bollards which block off 20-25% of the pedestrian footpath on the main entrance to allow cars to overhang from the car park. WTF? They'll stop 2 mobility scooters passing safely. This is known as motor-normativity, and is a strange cultural assumption we have. They have been there for at least 10 years. They probably did not even think about it, any more than pavement parkers think about their forcing of wheelchairs and parents / buggies into the road.
It’s actually very large.
The aircraft, that is.
It’s rough politics but it’s not a vile smear like the pedo poster. Likewise if the Tories find some dirt on Mrs Starmer that benefited Sir Kir Royale in anyway, they’d be entitled to use that
It was always somewhat amusing to watch those of her supporters treat her as a saint at the same time as having vituperation for Boris the Liar. Everything she has said and done as leader will soon be reviewed through the prism of her own legacy of untruth.
Good luck with your ongoing treatment.
You attacked someone with the intent of causing harm.
"Race as an aggravating factor" is a genuinely evil concept that is the root racial identity politics, because it puts some arbitrary classification above the individual.
Whether Labour will do anything different is an entirely different story, especially not as more shitey windfall taxes seem to be their answer. It's the 'windiest wind-fall in history' to misquote Blair.
Thanks for the good wishes.
I agree, though, that he’s either going to prove a useful sacrifice quite soon, or the party is in danger of extinction.
A bit sad for him, but them's the breaks.
Their children were not the subject of political attack ads AFAICR, they were only ever discussed when their father dragged them out for a photocall, or when a teenage Euan was arrested, which was a genuine public interest story.
Take lynchings in the States in the past. More about control and domination of a group than it was about the murder of the individual.
It is a fine line to get the balance right, but there is most definitely a difference between racial lynching and a domestic murder even if both are murders.
https://sex-matters.org/faqs/
This is not a facetious question. I can actually see your logic and in a way I agree with you. But I also see why the legal system has a different view
In the drama unfolding in Scottish politics today, the central character’s flaws are neither vaulting ambition nor a susceptibility to flattery, but rather blind faith, plain ineptitude and poor judgement. When the curtain finally falls, and this plan inevitably blows up in Yousaf’s face, there will be few clapping in the audience.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/04/11/humza-yousaf-and-the-folly-of-self-id/
If he’d enacted a specific policy that hugely benefitted his family, then fair enough. But AIUI he hasn’t.