I don’t understand why British Conservatives seem so intent on fighting the American culture wars.
These Americans don’t have anything to teach us.
It's an analogue party in a digital age.
The members are quite frankly pining for a world that never existed and will never exist and the Tory Party is pandering to them.
Take WFH, they view it as skiving, not realising it boosts productivity when you're not spending 3 hours a day commuting.
It's great for mental health, for example, you can work with your kids sat on your lap, or you can take a 20 min break just to spend time with your family.
Take me this morning, I woke up at 6 this morning, started my breakfast at 6.30 in front of my work laptop, so it gives you so much latitude.
The work gets done quicker.
The newspaper owners truly hate it. There was a report that this, above all other recent changes, caused the greatest lobbying of Tory MPs and the Government. If people don't read the paper on their way to work, or pick up a paper en route to work, the danger to the newspapers is too great to accept. Thus the Mail's crusade against WFH and desperation to blame everything on it. They do have a demographic in their readership who, as mentioned earlier, assume anything that wasn't the way it was when they were working is wrong or skiving or woke or just plain dangerous.
And yet it's not entirely an illusion. In my experience, white collar bosses, while embracing a certain amount of WFH, also wish their employees were largely where they could see them. This isn't because they don't think their employees are productive from elsewhere - it's that without the interactivity which comes with being in an office, there is a greater tendency to miss details, go off on tangents, stall through being unable to get hold of people, etc. Anecdotally, more organisations than not seems to be trying to find ways of encouraging greater attendance from their staff. I don't necessarily think this needs fixing by government, mind. (The great challenge with WFH is for cities: are they still relevant? My view is that this challenge might be the making of cities: if people can choose whether or not to go to them, cities have to be significantly more attractive places. I think this is a challenge that can be met.)
The young guys on my recent Hurghada assignment say they’ve already noticed that the people who go to the office more often are the ones getting promotion quicker
They look keener and they develop better networks and they have sharper ideas from actual interaction. Plus it’s human nature to promote people you’ve actually like and met rather than faces you only ever see on a screen
That’s what will kill much WFH. The office goers will get ahead faster
But they are the same brown-nosing lickspittles who would have smarmed their way to promotion anyway.
Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.
Got that at work earlier, the key point before Rishi Fans and Brexiteers try and spin this as a heroic victory for their boy/cause.
The MoU does not deal with the access of UK-based firms to the Single Market – or EU firms' access to the UK market - nor does it prejudge the adoption of equivalence decisions.
An IT worker sued for sexual harassment after her “rich and powerful” male boss marked parts of an email where he wanted more information with “xx”, which she thought were kisses.
Karina Gasparova, a project manager, also claimed Aleksander Goulandris’s use of question marks in the same message were code for asking her when she would be “ready to engage in sexual acts”.
In a number of other innocent work-related incidents where she would find a “sinister motive”, Ms Gasparova thought his renaming a file with his initials AJG was an acronym for A Jumbo Genital.
Ms Gasparova took her employer, the paperless documents firm essDOCS, to the tribunal claiming sexual harassment.
But now a judge has thrown out her case, ruling that she has a “skewed perception of everyday events” and regularly misinterpreted “innocuous” interactions.
The tribunal, held in central London, heard she started working at essDOCS, which is based in the capital, as an IT project manager in November 2019 under Mr Goulandris, the co-head and former chief executive.
“Traffic violations were said to have included driving on the sidewalk, running red lights, reversing down a one-way street, driving while on the phone, driving while photographing and illegally blocking a moving vehicle.
It was claimed that individuals involved were confronted by uniformed police multiple times and sped off to continue the pursuit.
The family was staying at a private residence and did not want to compromise the security of their friend’s home, a source said. There is said to be footage taken from security along with other evidence to support the timeline and circumstances.
A spokesperson for the NYPD said: “We have no information.””
The media are utterly obsessed by the story
Does anyone in the real world care one bit about it
I simply don’t believe the “paparazzi” would risk their own and multiple other lives to drive crazily around nyc all to get images of the most photographed couple in the world….in a limo
What’s the value? Why take the risk? Who is going to buy these photos for $3m? It’s Harry and Meghan in a car
So why the chase??
Diana was involved in a scandalous relationship leaving a Parisian hotel late at night with her new lover and her driver was drunk and the images WERE valuable
This is entirely different
I'm very cynical about this story. But logic doesn't necessarily come into it. When it comes to getting *that* photo, it's a competition between the pap. And for some idiots, the more risk they take, the better the bragging rights - and potential income if you get *that* shot.
But what is “the shot” here? It’s Harry and Meghan
But use your noggin. It'd be an action shot - them being chased. Car chases are thrilling spectacles. Hence why they are so often crowbarred into films. The Italian Job? Bullitt? No end of Bond movies? So, imagine that sort of footage but for real and with H & M starring in it. Of course the paps will fall over themselves to secure something like that. It'd be worth a shedload. The question is, did they actually manage to get any footage of the actual chase? If none emerges it'll indicate that they failed. Which makes the whole thing even more of a scandal when you think about it.
Hmmm. I’m decidedly dubious but who knows
We will have proof shortly - if it happened there will be hundreds of images and videos from New Yorkers with their phone cameras. After all, this dramatic near fatal chase went on around Manhattan for TWO HOURS
If these images don’t emerge then the whole thing - or most of it - is bullshit
It will turn out they sat in a traffic jam for two hours and someone took a photograph of them.
Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.
Got that at work earlier, the key point before Rishi Fans and Brexiteers try and spin this as a heroic victory for their boy/cause.
The MoU does not deal with the access of UK-based firms to the Single Market – or EU firms' access to the UK market - nor does it prejudge the adoption of equivalence decisions.
Yes, I read that. If it did deal with those topics, I don't think it would be in the form of an MoU though, it would be a big negotation. So I think they're just pointing that out for avoidance of doubt.
Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.
Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need. I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.
Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.
Got that at work earlier, the key point before Rishi Fans and Brexiteers try and spin this as a heroic victory for their boy/cause.
The MoU does not deal with the access of UK-based firms to the Single Market – or EU firms' access to the UK market - nor does it prejudge the adoption of equivalence decisions.
Translation: "The MoU means we will adopt an equivalence decision but want to maintain the fiction that there is nothing political about it."
The young grads are in the office. Networking, flirting, arranging after-work drinks. Live walking distance away, so no bother getting in. And nowhere to work comfortably in their shared flat.
The middle aged middle managers are the ones who want to WFH. Kids, dogs, separate study, lie in every morning, avoid long commute.
The track is "Money Run" by Harry Gregson-Williams, who also did the score for Dredd[1]. It is very good for keeping your hindbrain happy whilst your forebrain is working...
Good play. Problem is I'm not a big fan of that style of French comedy which involves facial closeups whist screaming...
Now you'd probably expect me to counter with "Ronin" or "Die Hard III" ("well, maybe the mime"). But instead I give you the Exchange scene in "Mission Impossible: Fallout". It has the cop cars, the bikes (BMWs for added cachet), the elongated shadows for the filmed-at-5am-to-avoid-traffic look[1] plus of course it's all fer realz because Tom.
[1] Interestingly, because it wasn't done in one take, the shadow lengths differ: see 3:37 where the shadows and clouds switch to a different time of day
Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.
Got that at work earlier, the key point before Rishi Fans and Brexiteers try and spin this as a heroic victory for their boy/cause.
The MoU does not deal with the access of UK-based firms to the Single Market – or EU firms' access to the UK market - nor does it prejudge the adoption of equivalence decisions.
Translation: "The MoU means we will adopt an equivalence decision but want to maintain the fiction that there is nothing political about it."
Yet the reality for those of us working in financial services is vastly different to your wishcasting.
Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.
Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need. I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
Too many people, not too few homes.
And plenty of empty and under-occupied homes too.
Rather than how many dwellings, how many bed spaces are there in the UK? Probably more than enough.
Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.
Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
He hasn't had to do much. He's benefitting from the context created by Johnson's support for Ukraine, aided by not being Boris Johnson.
He's had to do quite a lot actually. Dropping the NIP bill, forcing through a deeply unequal framework protocol, and probably watering down the Revocation bill too, tacitly agreeing to de facto regulatory alignment for the whole of the UK. I'd be sending him fruit baskets if I were the EU.
Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.
Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need. I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
Too many people, not too few homes.
And plenty of empty and under-occupied homes too.
Rather than how many dwellings, how many bed spaces are there in the UK? Probably more than enough.
You want to force every bedroom full all the time? I rent a 3 bedroom, one is my office as I work from home. One is for friends and family visiting and is occuppied about 10 weeks a year. The governement tell me I need to take in a lodger I will knock 2 bedrooms into 1 so I have no spare rooms for a lodger and improvise a room divider for use when visitors come
I don’t understand why British Conservatives seem so intent on fighting the American culture wars.
These Americans don’t have anything to teach us.
It's an analogue party in a digital age.
The members are quite frankly pining for a world that never existed and will never exist and the Tory Party is pandering to them.
Take WFH, they view it as skiving, not realising it boosts productivity when you're not spending 3 hours a day commuting.
It's great for mental health, for example, you can work with your kids sat on your lap, or you can take a 20 min break just to spend time with your family.
Take me this morning, I woke up at 6 this morning, started my breakfast at 6.30 in front of my work laptop, so it gives you so much latitude.
The work gets done quicker.
The newspaper owners truly hate it. There was a report that this, above all other recent changes, caused the greatest lobbying of Tory MPs and the Government. If people don't read the paper on their way to work, or pick up a paper en route to work, the danger to the newspapers is too great to accept. Thus the Mail's crusade against WFH and desperation to blame everything on it. They do have a demographic in their readership who, as mentioned earlier, assume anything that wasn't the way it was when they were working is wrong or skiving or woke or just plain dangerous.
And yet it's not entirely an illusion. In my experience, white collar bosses, while embracing a certain amount of WFH, also wish their employees were largely where they could see them. This isn't because they don't think their employees are productive from elsewhere - it's that without the interactivity which comes with being in an office, there is a greater tendency to miss details, go off on tangents, stall through being unable to get hold of people, etc. Anecdotally, more organisations than not seems to be trying to find ways of encouraging greater attendance from their staff. I don't necessarily think this needs fixing by government, mind. (The great challenge with WFH is for cities: are they still relevant? My view is that this challenge might be the making of cities: if people can choose whether or not to go to them, cities have to be significantly more attractive places. I think this is a challenge that can be met.)
A hybrid method can work well. I go in one day per week, regardless, just to get the interactivity. Although I don't find it any easier to get hold of people in there, to be honest.
“Traffic violations were said to have included driving on the sidewalk, running red lights, reversing down a one-way street, driving while on the phone, driving while photographing and illegally blocking a moving vehicle.
It was claimed that individuals involved were confronted by uniformed police multiple times and sped off to continue the pursuit.
The family was staying at a private residence and did not want to compromise the security of their friend’s home, a source said. There is said to be footage taken from security along with other evidence to support the timeline and circumstances.
A spokesperson for the NYPD said: “We have no information.””
The media are utterly obsessed by the story
Does anyone in the real world care one bit about it
I simply don’t believe the “paparazzi” would risk their own and multiple other lives to drive crazily around nyc all to get images of the most photographed couple in the world….in a limo
What’s the value? Why take the risk? Who is going to buy these photos for $3m? It’s Harry and Meghan in a car
So why the chase??
Diana was involved in a scandalous relationship leaving a Parisian hotel late at night with her new lover and her driver was drunk and the images WERE valuable
This is entirely different
I'm very cynical about this story. But logic doesn't necessarily come into it. When it comes to getting *that* photo, it's a competition between the pap. And for some idiots, the more risk they take, the better the bragging rights - and potential income if you get *that* shot.
But what is “the shot” here? It’s Harry and Meghan
But use your noggin. It'd be an action shot - them being chased. Car chases are thrilling spectacles. Hence why they are so often crowbarred into films. The Italian Job? Bullitt? No end of Bond movies? So, imagine that sort of footage but for real and with H & M starring in it. Of course the paps will fall over themselves to secure something like that. It'd be worth a shedload. The question is, did they actually manage to get any footage of the actual chase? If none emerges it'll indicate that they failed. Which makes the whole thing even more of a scandal when you think about it.
The paps tried to get photos of me, Liz Hurley and Salma Hayek having a Nick Palmer but they didn’t get any which by your logic means they failed whereas the more cynical PB’ers might say my tryst never actually happened. Which is a true scandal.
That's hardly an apt comparison. There has to be a basic credibility to the core proposition.
“Traffic violations were said to have included driving on the sidewalk, running red lights, reversing down a one-way street, driving while on the phone, driving while photographing and illegally blocking a moving vehicle.
It was claimed that individuals involved were confronted by uniformed police multiple times and sped off to continue the pursuit.
The family was staying at a private residence and did not want to compromise the security of their friend’s home, a source said. There is said to be footage taken from security along with other evidence to support the timeline and circumstances.
A spokesperson for the NYPD said: “We have no information.””
The media are utterly obsessed by the story
Does anyone in the real world care one bit about it
I simply don’t believe the “paparazzi” would risk their own and multiple other lives to drive crazily around nyc all to get images of the most photographed couple in the world….in a limo
What’s the value? Why take the risk? Who is going to buy these photos for $3m? It’s Harry and Meghan in a car
So why the chase??
Diana was involved in a scandalous relationship leaving a Parisian hotel late at night with her new lover and her driver was drunk and the images WERE valuable
This is entirely different
I'm very cynical about this story. But logic doesn't necessarily come into it. When it comes to getting *that* photo, it's a competition between the pap. And for some idiots, the more risk they take, the better the bragging rights - and potential income if you get *that* shot.
But what is “the shot” here? It’s Harry and Meghan
But use your noggin. It'd be an action shot - them being chased. Car chases are thrilling spectacles. Hence why they are so often crowbarred into films. The Italian Job? Bullitt? No end of Bond movies? So, imagine that sort of footage but for real and with H & M starring in it. Of course the paps will fall over themselves to secure something like that. It'd be worth a shedload. The question is, did they actually manage to get any footage of the actual chase? If none emerges it'll indicate that they failed. Which makes the whole thing even more of a scandal when you think about it.
Hmmm. I’m decidedly dubious but who knows
We will have proof shortly - if it happened there will be hundreds of images and videos from New Yorkers with their phone cameras. After all, this dramatic near fatal chase went on around Manhattan for TWO HOURS
If these images don’t emerge then the whole thing - or most of it - is bullshit
I imagine something happened but it's been exaggerated. Which as someone who never does that I guess explains your disapproval.
Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.
Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
There are two possible explanations for this: 1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible 2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top
I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
An IT worker sued for sexual harassment after her “rich and powerful” male boss marked parts of an email where he wanted more information with “xx”, which she thought were kisses.
Karina Gasparova, a project manager, also claimed Aleksander Goulandris’s use of question marks in the same message were code for asking her when she would be “ready to engage in sexual acts”.
In a number of other innocent work-related incidents where she would find a “sinister motive”, Ms Gasparova thought his renaming a file with his initials AJG was an acronym for A Jumbo Genital.
Ms Gasparova took her employer, the paperless documents firm essDOCS, to the tribunal claiming sexual harassment.
But now a judge has thrown out her case, ruling that she has a “skewed perception of everyday events” and regularly misinterpreted “innocuous” interactions.
The tribunal, held in central London, heard she started working at essDOCS, which is based in the capital, as an IT project manager in November 2019 under Mr Goulandris, the co-head and former chief executive.
Wasn't there a sketch on The Fast Show (or similar) based around this premise?
We had someone like this work at a company I worked at. Genuinely nuts combined with criminal scheming. She claimed *everything* was harassment - people reviewing code she wrote, being required to attend meetings etc
Left the company and filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against one of the directors.
It turned out she’d left behind a folder, including the previous lawsuits, NDAs, settlements. And notes, in her own handwriting, detailing how the allegations (past and present) were made up and her previous false testimony.
Ok, it's only a MoU, but at least they're on speaking terms.
Don't tell @Luckyguy1983, but Sunak has done a terrific job in building relationships with the EU.
Building relationships with the EU when caving into their demands for little more than Scotch Mist in return is quite easy. See also Tony Blair. They will give you handshakes and smiles aplenty whilst you're doing as they wish. Having a relationship based on mutual respect with the EU is a lot more difficult. Only Margaret Thatcher managed it, and then only to a certain extent.
There are two possible explanations for this: 1. we are a much weaker country than you suppose and getting more is not possible 2. our political system is completely broken and doesn't allow the people who are capable of doing better to rise to the top
I assume you think 2. is closer to the mark in which case what do you think we should do about it?
I think it's far too simplistic to narrow the answer down to two reasons, let alone choose one. In Tony Blair's case I think he was just stupid and naive, surrendering part of the rebate for a vague 'intention' on the part of the French to reform the CAP that never materialised. In Sunak's case I think he is genuinely on board with a grand scheme to reconnect us to the EU, and I am growingly concerned that the strategy includes wrecking the UK economy to such an extent that we need IMF or other help and are forced to accept a package of terms with it that involve reaccession.
Ok, we can add in a third explanation: your policy of ruthlessly squeezing our European frenemies is just not that popular with the electorate. I mean, Blair won all his elections, didn't he? Perhaps you're just a bit out of step with the British public and most people don't care that much?
I would agree there, but this is an attitude that will need to change for national survival of any kind. It is an odd phenomenon of Britain that the general public is so unconnected with their own commercial good, in the sense of 'buying British' for example - even those words sound stupidly gauche, and evoke images of teapots shaped like thatched cottages etc. We're completely disconnected from the national implications of foreign takeovers, British companies losing out on contracts, 'made in China', importing a huge chunk of our energy, in a way that France, Germany, Spain, America, Japan, Australia, just aren't. I hope we don't have to become very poor before we realise that the flow of where money is coming from and going to is important and has real world consequences.
And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
Fecking stupid idea. All green spaces should be preserved, whether designated "Green Belt" or not.
Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
I'm very, very sceptical there is enough brownfield land in the UK for 500,000 new homes a year. Which is what we need. I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
The problem you have is that much housebuilding in England involves stick a cul-de-sac on to a green field and whacking on a row of bog standard house types: job done. The developer then goes on to congratulate themselves on building something trivial like a pavement to a bus stop and maybe something like a set of traffic lights, and then they try to get out of doing that, making it the Council's problem, leaving bits of the development unfinished and in a mess, then dealing with snagging complaints for the next decade. Then they start complaining about NIMBY's, and present themselves as the heroic saviours of the housing crisis, and wonder why they are hated.
The answer is a bit more nuanced than just 'brownbelt only', it is clearly a mix of both - brownfield and well planned out new greenfield development - but for the latter to be politically palatable the builders need to up their game massively.
Comments
Brownfield development only. And somebody's big garden is not brownfield. That's another case of idiocy.
The MoU does not deal with the access of UK-based firms to the Single Market – or EU firms' access to the UK market - nor does it prejudge the adoption of equivalence decisions.
https://degrowthuk.org/2023/04/27/degrowth-london-launches/
I'm even more sceptical that a brownfield-only policy will do wonders for the affordability crisis in housing. You're adding, what, 20% to build costs.
The middle aged middle managers are the ones who want to WFH. Kids, dogs, separate study, lie in every morning, avoid long commute.
Now you'd probably expect me to counter with "Ronin" or "Die Hard III" ("well, maybe the mime"). But instead I give you the Exchange scene in "Mission Impossible: Fallout". It has the cop cars, the bikes (BMWs for added cachet), the elongated shadows for the filmed-at-5am-to-avoid-traffic look[1] plus of course it's all fer realz because Tom.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4pf2PoLvHk
[1] Interestingly, because it wasn't done in one take, the shadow lengths differ: see 3:37 where the shadows and clouds switch to a different time of day
And plenty of empty and under-occupied homes too.
Rather than how many dwellings, how many bed spaces are there in the UK? Probably more than enough.
NEW THREAD
Although I don't find it any easier to get hold of people in there, to be honest.
Left the company and filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against one of the directors.
It turned out she’d left behind a folder, including the previous lawsuits, NDAs, settlements. And notes, in her own handwriting, detailing how the allegations (past and present) were made up and her previous false testimony.
And I don't believe in 'ruthlessly squeezing' anyone - I believe in setting out ones stall clearly and firmly from the beginning, which I think is where respect comes from. The same goes for our dealings with China.
The answer is a bit more nuanced than just 'brownbelt only', it is clearly a mix of both - brownfield and well planned out new greenfield development - but for the latter to be politically palatable the builders need to up their game massively.