Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Not to mention people (eg Brooks Newmark) texting and email pictures of their genitalia to strangers.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Is that not describing the sex industry since time began? Its not a glamorous tale.
Kay Burley has just said not to name the presenter or you could lose your house
Wise words
Sound advice, although what we on here tend to forget is that there are plenty in society with no house, nor indeed anything else of any value to lose.
For those people, what does it matter if they get sued for scullions? (See also, car insurance, etc.)
PS Should we have whip-round for Leon?
Squillions not scullions! Bloody autocorrupt!
Is it set to American? We call them squillions and spring onions.
That's scallions. Scullions do the washing up. Cullions is balls.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
Whilst I understand where you're coming from, is that not potentially age discrimination?
Not really, if the person has got no significant gaps in their recent employment and are over 50 and a good role fit I'd definitely have them do the screening call.
Even "over 50" is not on.
A former principal of mine given a choice between two members of staff to make redundant told one 'I'm letting you go because you're older.'
He was trying to guilt trip her into going quietly (yes, he really was that stupid. English graduate of the University of Cambridge).
HR can't stop age discrimination. If you don't want to hire someone you'll always manage to find an official reason that passes muster, its remarkable anyone ever gets caught.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
If it had the wit to do so, the government has a good tale to tell on employment and economic inactivity rates.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Is that not describing the sex industry since time began? Its not a glamorous tale.
Ancient Greek hetairai had cameras? Huge if true.
It's all part of my seminal course 'history by people who don't know history'.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
What exactly has the BBC done wrong?
BTW, don't spend time trying to understand sex or the less amusing aspects of male nature. That which is not rational does not respond to rationalisation.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
Whilst I understand where you're coming from, is that not potentially age discrimination?
Not really, if the person has got no significant gaps in their recent employment and are over 50 and a good role fit I'd definitely have them do the screening call.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
Was anyone from HR present? You've got yourself potentially bang to rights for age discrimination.
Would you say that about women? "They might **** off back home when they get pregnant."
In addition; you might get someone who has recharged batteries and is ready and raring to rejoin the workforce, rather than someone who has been working all hours Godsend because they desperately need money and are burnt out.
Also, you might get someone who is a little more rounded.
Och, we can all put on a few lbs with advancing years..
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Is that not describing the sex industry since time began? Its not a glamorous tale.
Even Disney gets that.
Tale as old as time True as it can be Barely even friends Then somebody bends Unexpectedly..
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
The lawyer in this instance is merely a mouthpiece for the client. Lawyers are neither judges nor oracles: they simply say what the client instructs them to say. The only situation they do not do this is when they know what they are instructed to say to be false.
I don't think we have been told which firm of solicitors are involved in this letter. Solicitors are not under any obligation to accept a client, and can advise in certain ways which assist better rather than worse outcomes. A letter from Sue, Grabbit and Runne, or indeed Mr Vhoules, sole practitioner of Little Snoring, may mean differently from a letter from one of the well known human rights/media law outfits.
We have been told it is an international firm of solicitors. Earlier, Carter Ruck was mentioned but I don't recall whether that was for the boy or one of the falsely accused BBC stars.
HR can't stop age discrimination. If you don't want to hire someone you'll always manage to find an official reason that passes muster, its remarkable anyone ever gets caught.
I can answer that. The higher reaches of the private and public sector abound with people who think that laws are for little people.
So, they'll shout at the HR department "Get rid of X, I just want him/her out of here." Or they'll demand that HR unilaterally vary contractual terms. Ed Balls demanding the summary dismissal of Sharon Shoosmith is the classic example.
It can be very expensive for the organisation concerned.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
Whilst I understand where you're coming from, is that not potentially age discrimination?
Not really, if the person has got no significant gaps in their recent employment and are over 50 and a good role fit I'd definitely have them do the screening call.
Even "over 50" is not on.
So you're saying I should take age into account?
No: ignore it. Look at objective issues suich as experience and up to dateness.
HR can't stop age discrimination. If you don't want to hire someone you'll always manage to find an official reason that passes muster, its remarkable anyone ever gets caught.
My limited experience in hiring would incline me to look favourably in those over 50, rather than otherwise, FWIW.
But in any event, the right person is the right person.
HR can't stop age discrimination. If you don't want to hire someone you'll always manage to find an official reason that passes muster, its remarkable anyone ever gets caught.
IBM has been sued for age discrimination in the United States but that is for mass redundancies when it is easier to show a pattern.
HR can't stop age discrimination. If you don't want to hire someone you'll always manage to find an official reason that passes muster, its remarkable anyone ever gets caught.
I can answer that. The higher reaches of the private and public sector abound with people who think that laws are for little people.
So, they'll shout at the HR department "Get rid of X, I just want him/her out of here." Or they'll demand that HR unilaterally vary contractual terms. Ed Balls demanding the summary dismissal of Sharon Shoosmith is the classic example.
It can be very expensive for the organisation concerned.
Exactly so. And not just at higher levels, e.g. "I don't care about the law, ev en if she's been here more than two years, I am not putting her on a permanent contract."
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
The lawyer in this instance is merely a mouthpiece for the client. Lawyers are neither judges nor oracles: they simply say what the client instructs them to say. The only situation they do not do this is when they know what they are instructed to say to be false.
Is he ?
Does not so categoric a statement, as far as I can see not prefaced by 'my clients insists that...', require a certain amount if due diligence from an officer if the court ?
“For the avoidance of doubt, nothing inappropriate or unlawful has taken place between our client and the BBC personality and the allegations reported in the Sun newspaper are rubbish.”
Genuine question for the lawyers in the house.
Oh I do like a bit of parsing.
First the statement is not being made to a court. But, yes, you want to make sure that you're not going to look like a fool. However, it rather depends who the client is here. Is it the child or the child and A.N. Other and who is paying? The lawyer cannot check things with third parties so whatever they say will be on the instructions of their client.
Next the statement -
1. "Inappropriate" - this is a value judgment and legally meaningless. 2. "Unlawful" - this qualifies actions that have taken place "between our client and the BBC personality". Careful wording there. 3. The "allegations" in the Sun. What were these? Did the Sun make allegations or did it report the concerns or allegations of others? No idea. Don't read the Sun. 4. "are rubbish". Lawyers tend to use phrases like "wholly untrue" or "baseless" or "without foundation". "Rubbish" is a perfectly good word. It's slightly unusual that's all.
Edit: essentially the proper name. One doesn't change the spelling of Cholmondeley-ffotherington to Chumley-Fotherington.
The Nazis deserved to lose the war if that’s what they did to Roman numerals.
So at least Wiki is innocent (and admirably accurate - imagine looking for XXXXVIII.PK and not findijng it cos someone had helpfully edited it to XLV.PK).
HR can't stop age discrimination. If you don't want to hire someone you'll always manage to find an official reason that passes muster, its remarkable anyone ever gets caught.
My limited experience in hiring would incline me to look favourably in those over 50, rather than otherwise, FWIW.
But in any event, the right person is the right person.
That is no better than Brexit means Brexit....more importantly the chosen person is likely to the perception of the right person by the selector/selection panel, rather than the right person. Often they will be the same, but both biases and incomplete and misleading information mean that often they are not.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Is that not describing the sex industry since time began? Its not a glamorous tale.
There is quite an illuminating thread on Twitter about the sordid nature of prostitution in Zurich.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Is that not describing the sex industry since time began? Its not a glamorous tale.
There is quite an illuminating thread on Twitter about the sordid nature of prostitution in Zurich.
Coincidentally I’m off to Zurich in September.
Although it cannot be as bad as Davos on the escort front.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
Whilst I understand where you're coming from, is that not potentially age discrimination?
Not really, if the person has got no significant gaps in their recent employment and are over 50 and a good role fit I'd definitely have them do the screening call.
Even "over 50" is not on.
A former principal of mine given a choice between two members of staff to make redundant told one 'I'm letting you go because you're older.'
He was trying to guilt trip her into going quietly (yes, he really was that stupid. English graduate of the University of Cambridge).
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
Whilst I understand where you're coming from, is that not potentially age discrimination?
Not really, if the person has got no significant gaps in their recent employment and are over 50 and a good role fit I'd definitely have them do the screening call.
Even "over 50" is not on.
So you're saying I should take age into account?
No: ignore it. Look at objective issues suich as experience and up to dateness.
And 2-3 year career gaps do what for the second bit? And say what about their potential longevity in the role/company?
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
Whilst I understand where you're coming from, is that not potentially age discrimination?
Not really, if the person has got no significant gaps in their recent employment and are over 50 and a good role fit I'd definitely have them do the screening call.
Even "over 50" is not on.
So you're saying I should take age into account?
No: ignore it. Look at objective issues suich as experience and up to dateness.
And 2-3 year career gaps do what for the second bit? And say what about their potential longevity in the role/company?
But now you are forcussing on those - not on age or sex or gender. Which is at least an improvement.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
If it had the wit to do so, the government has a good tale to tell on employment and economic inactivity rates.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
Whilst I understand where you're coming from, is that not potentially age discrimination?
Not really, if the person has got no significant gaps in their recent employment and are over 50 and a good role fit I'd definitely have them do the screening call.
Even "over 50" is not on.
So you're saying I should take age into account?
No: ignore it. Look at objective issues suich as experience and up to dateness.
And 2-3 year career gaps do what for the second bit? And say what about their potential longevity in the role/company?
But now you are forcussing on those - not on age or sex or gender. Which is at least an improvement.
That was always the focus, the early retirement career gap, that they all happen to be 50+ is what it is.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Is that not describing the sex industry since time began? Its not a glamorous tale.
There is quite an illuminating thread on Twitter about the sordid nature of prostitution in Zurich.
Coincidentally I’m off to Zurich in September.
Although it cannot be as bad as Davos on the escort front.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
The lawyer in this instance is merely a mouthpiece for the client. Lawyers are neither judges nor oracles: they simply say what the client instructs them to say. The only situation they do not do this is when they know what they are instructed to say to be false.
Is he ?
Does not so categoric a statement, as far as I can see not prefaced by 'my clients insists that...', require a certain amount if due diligence from an officer if the court ?
“For the avoidance of doubt, nothing inappropriate or unlawful has taken place between our client and the BBC personality and the allegations reported in the Sun newspaper are rubbish.”
Genuine question for the lawyers in the house.
Oh I do like a bit of parsing.
First the statement is not being made to a court. But, yes, you want to make sure that you're not going to look like a fool. However, it rather depends who the client is here. Is it the child or the child and A.N. Other and who is paying? The lawyer cannot check things with third parties so whatever they say will be on the instructions of their client.
Next the statement -
1. "Inappropriate" - this is a value judgment and legally meaningless. 2. "Unlawful" - this qualifies actions that have taken place "between our client and the BBC personality". Careful wording there. 3. The "allegations" in the Sun. What were these? Did the Sun make allegations or did it report the concerns or allegations of others? No idea. Don't read the Sun. 4. "are rubbish". Lawyers tend to use phrases like "wholly untrue" or "baseless" or "without foundation". "Rubbish" is a perfectly good word. It's slightly unusual that's all.
TBF the qualification about 'unlawful' is not unreasonable. The letter is not saying the client has never driven at 35 in a 30 mph zone.
If 'unlawful' was the only word used it would be open to the allegation of narrowly restricting the denials.
I agree that 'inappropriate' is an interesting word. What is the best word to suggest that the clients relation to Mr X is within the bounds of modern moral convention? The word is the modern form of the Victorian 'improper'.
I'm troubled more than you about 'rubbish'. When things are untrue, you say so. I doubt if 'rubbish' is a term of art.
HR can't stop age discrimination. If you don't want to hire someone you'll always manage to find an official reason that passes muster, its remarkable anyone ever gets caught.
My limited experience in hiring would incline me to look favourably in those over 50, rather than otherwise, FWIW.
But in any event, the right person is the right person.
That is no better than Brexit means Brexit....
If that was unclear, I meant that age, if it has any bearing at all, is trumped entirely by the other qualities of the candidate.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
Whilst I understand where you're coming from, is that not potentially age discrimination?
Not really, if the person has got no significant gaps in their recent employment and are over 50 and a good role fit I'd definitely have them do the screening call.
Even "over 50" is not on.
So you're saying I should take age into account?
No: ignore it. Look at objective issues suich as experience and up to dateness.
If your business employment model involves substantial elements of training are you allowed to consider younger people in general learn skills faster than older people?
If your business employment model means you don't make much profit out of staff unless they stay for three years plus are you allowed to consider the chance they will stay for three years?
Or do businesses have to be blind for anything involving protected characteristics?
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
Whilst I understand where you're coming from, is that not potentially age discrimination?
Not really, if the person has got no significant gaps in their recent employment and are over 50 and a good role fit I'd definitely have them do the screening call.
Even "over 50" is not on.
So you're saying I should take age into account?
No: ignore it. Look at objective issues suich as experience and up to dateness.
And 2-3 year career gaps do what for the second bit? And say what about their potential longevity in the role/company?
But now you are forcussing on those - not on age or sex or gender. Which is at least an improvement.
That was always the focus, the early retirement career gap, that they all happen to be 50+ is what it is.
Your original complaint was 'so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks"' - that makes age your primary complaint up front, as others have noted.
I think it would be very stupid of an MP to do that. There doesn't appear to be any illegality or a cover-up (in the sense that people are now investigating the claims), so it seems hard to justify.
Just like when John Hemming was naming and shaming people seemingly every week.
John Hemming breached super injunctions - the wealthy gagging people. Naming someone who might go on trial is interfering with the course of justice.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
Whilst I understand where you're coming from, is that not potentially age discrimination?
Not really, if the person has got no significant gaps in their recent employment and are over 50 and a good role fit I'd definitely have them do the screening call.
Even "over 50" is not on.
So you're saying I should take age into account?
No: ignore it. Look at objective issues suich as experience and up to dateness.
If your business employment model involves substantial elements of training are you allowed to consider younger people in general learn skills faster than older people?
If your business employment model means you don't make much profit out of staff unless they stay for three years plus are you allowed to consider the chance they will stay for three years?
Or do businesses have to be blind for anything involving protected characteristics?
Age is not relevant. More specific issues are. As the law will tell you.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
The lawyer in this instance is merely a mouthpiece for the client. Lawyers are neither judges nor oracles: they simply say what the client instructs them to say. The only situation they do not do this is when they know what they are instructed to say to be false.
I don't think we have been told which firm of solicitors are involved in this letter. Solicitors are not under any obligation to accept a client, and can advise in certain ways which assist better rather than worse outcomes. A letter from Sue, Grabbit and Runne, or indeed Mr Vhoules, sole practitioner of Little Snoring, may mean differently from a letter from one of the well known human rights/media law outfits.
We have been told it is an international firm of solicitors. Earlier, Carter Ruck was mentioned but I don't recall whether that was for the boy or one of the falsely accused BBC stars.
Persephone from Carter Ruck was representing the BBC bod.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
I worked for an MP many years ago, and we had a green ink letter from an elderly gentleman who was concerned about the access provided by the internet to pornography that may "warp the minds of young people". It included the line, "In the course of my research, I have witnessed depictions of such depraved acts as..." then a list going on for several pages. A most useful reference guide.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
If it had the wit to do so, the government has a good tale to tell on employment and economic inactivity rates.
Government good news does not make the news
Yup, and that's why this government is trouble. Beyond a certain point, the public have had enough and want a different set of faces. The Conservatives appear to have reached that point; they've breached the trust thermocline and are sinking to the bottom of the ocean.
The thing is, the way old governments fall is also the way new governments arise. It's why Labour lost in 2010 and the Conservatives lost in 1997.
A government complaining that the public aren't being fair is like a fish complaining that they're surrounded by water.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
Whilst I understand where you're coming from, is that not potentially age discrimination?
Not really, if the person has got no significant gaps in their recent employment and are over 50 and a good role fit I'd definitely have them do the screening call.
Even "over 50" is not on.
A former principal of mine given a choice between two members of staff to make redundant told one 'I'm letting you go because you're older.'
He was trying to guilt trip her into going quietly (yes, he really was that stupid. English graduate of the University of Cambridge).
It was a very expensive mistake for him.
That's Leavisite school of criticism for you.
But did he actually pay, or just the school?
The school.
Bizarrely, he's still in post, although that was far from his only expensive mistake.
But - the word got out about this and other matters, and no other principal or decent teacher in the West Midlands will give him the time of day.
Which has apparently embittered him very much.
(If he is more sour and bitter than when I had the misfortune to work for him, his state of mind must be really bad.)
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
Whilst I understand where you're coming from, is that not potentially age discrimination?
Not really, if the person has got no significant gaps in their recent employment and are over 50 and a good role fit I'd definitely have them do the screening call.
Even "over 50" is not on.
So you're saying I should take age into account?
No: ignore it. Look at objective issues suich as experience and up to dateness.
If your business employment model involves substantial elements of training are you allowed to consider younger people in general learn skills faster than older people?
If your business employment model means you don't make much profit out of staff unless they stay for three years plus are you allowed to consider the chance they will stay for three years?
Or do businesses have to be blind for anything involving protected characteristics?
Age is not relevant. More specific issues are. As the law will tell you.
Not sure what that means? Are you suggesting learning skills do not diminish by age? Or that a business cannot lawfully consider that? Or that a business can consider it, but has to be based very specifically on learning skills rather than age as a proxy for learning skills.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Is that not describing the sex industry since time began? Its not a glamorous tale.
There is quite an illuminating thread on Twitter about the sordid nature of prostitution in Zurich.
It's not Pretty Woman, is it, where you meet the love of your life when offering sex for sale?
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
I'm 57 and retired at 55. Unlike you, I've never earned diamond encrusted air miles or worked abroad and been paid a Kings ransom for it. My last years earnings before retirement was just over 30 grand. I haven't worked a day since, bar helping out my kids who are self employed if they needed a hand, and fully intend to never work again. I have a half decent pension, inherited a modest bit of property via my wife's parents and still manage to live a great life. You carry on slaving away, enjoy it. Leave us inactive old feckers alone.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
Personally I have no interest in any kind of pornography and have never watched any. But it's absurd to try to police other people's behaviour by the standards of one's own preferences, because everyone is different (I don't think Cyclefree was doing this, incidentally). This whole story is wholly uninteresting to me, especially if no laws have been broken. The only moderately interesting angle here is the hypocrisy of the Sun, a paper that used to shift copies by printing topless photos of teenage girls. But the Sun is such a pathetic, hypocritical rag that even this angle is so commonplace as to be barely of interest. I'm sure that a good proportion of the people glued to this story are getting off on it - as the tabloids know only too well, which is why these types of stories always appear.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
Whilst I understand where you're coming from, is that not potentially age discrimination?
Not really, if the person has got no significant gaps in their recent employment and are over 50 and a good role fit I'd definitely have them do the screening call.
Even "over 50" is not on.
So you're saying I should take age into account?
No: ignore it. Look at objective issues suich as experience and up to dateness.
And 2-3 year career gaps do what for the second bit? And say what about their potential longevity in the role/company?
But now you are forcussing on those - not on age or sex or gender. Which is at least an improvement.
That was always the focus, the early retirement career gap, that they all happen to be 50+ is what it is.
Your original complaint was 'so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks"' - that makes age your primary complaint up front, as others have noted.
Yes, the two together are noticeable. Career breaks for health, babies and travelling are fine, career breaks because you wanted to retire but realised you don't have enough money right now aren't.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
The only type in A1 is two Royal Navy blokes thinking of England as is tradition. All other categories deviate from this ideal.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
Whilst I understand where you're coming from, is that not potentially age discrimination?
Not really, if the person has got no significant gaps in their recent employment and are over 50 and a good role fit I'd definitely have them do the screening call.
Even "over 50" is not on.
So you're saying I should take age into account?
No: ignore it. Look at objective issues suich as experience and up to dateness.
And 2-3 year career gaps do what for the second bit? And say what about their potential longevity in the role/company?
But now you are forcussing on those - not on age or sex or gender. Which is at least an improvement.
That was always the focus, the early retirement career gap, that they all happen to be 50+ is what it is.
Your original complaint was 'so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks"' - that makes age your primary complaint up front, as others have noted.
Yes, the two together are noticeable. Career breaks for health, babies and travelling are fine, career breaks because you wanted to retire but realised you don't have enough money right now aren't.
What about those who took career breaks to look after dying parents? Asking for a friend.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
I'll put Persuasion at the top of my 'to read' pile. I read Pride and Prejudice for the first time during the Easter holidays and loved it.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
Personally I have no interest in any kind of pornography and have never watched any. But it's absurd to try to police other people's behaviour by the standards of one's own preferences, because everyone is different (I don't think Cyclefree was doing this, incidentally). This whole story is wholly uninteresting to me, especially if no laws have been broken. The only moderately interesting angle here is the hypocrisy of the Sun, a paper that used to shift copies by printing topless photos of teenage girls. But the Sun is such a pathetic, hypocritical rag that even this angle is so commonplace as to be barely of interest. I'm sure that a good proportion of the people glued to this story are getting off on it - as the tabloids know only too well, which is why these types of stories always appear.
It's a bit of a "don't push the red button" story. No one cares but when the headlines are splashed all over every paper titillatingly saying "BBC Star" (which is the term needed for a twitter search) and also that twitter doesn't know who it is, then it would be inhuman not to become at least vaguely interested in who it might be. What they did doesn't matter at all.
Also if it really is "rubbish" then there is plenty of schadenfreude to be had also.
Suffice to say I was relieved when Evan Davis popped up on PM yesterday. It's like a sports competition - everyone wants to go early so they can enjoy everyone else's performance with no stress.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
The lawyer in this instance is merely a mouthpiece for the client. Lawyers are neither judges nor oracles: they simply say what the client instructs them to say. The only situation they do not do this is when they know what they are instructed to say to be false.
Is he ?
Does not so categoric a statement, as far as I can see not prefaced by 'my clients insists that...', require a certain amount if due diligence from an officer if the court ?
“For the avoidance of doubt, nothing inappropriate or unlawful has taken place between our client and the BBC personality and the allegations reported in the Sun newspaper are rubbish.”
Genuine question for the lawyers in the house.
Oh I do like a bit of parsing.
First the statement is not being made to a court. But, yes, you want to make sure that you're not going to look like a fool. However, it rather depends who the client is here. Is it the child or the child and A.N. Other and who is paying? The lawyer cannot check things with third parties so whatever they say will be on the instructions of their client.
Next the statement -
1. "Inappropriate" - this is a value judgment and legally meaningless. 2. "Unlawful" - this qualifies actions that have taken place "between our client and the BBC personality". Careful wording there. 3. The "allegations" in the Sun. What were these? Did the Sun make allegations or did it report the concerns or allegations of others? No idea. Don't read the Sun. 4. "are rubbish". Lawyers tend to use phrases like "wholly untrue" or "baseless" or "without foundation". "Rubbish" is a perfectly good word. It's slightly unusual that's all.
TBF the qualification about 'unlawful' is not unreasonable. The letter is not saying the client has never driven at 35 in a 30 mph zone.
If 'unlawful' was the only word used it would be open to the allegation of narrowly restricting the denials.
I agree that 'inappropriate' is an interesting word. What is the best word to suggest that the clients relation to Mr X is within the bounds of modern moral convention? The word is the modern form of the Victorian 'improper'.
I'm troubled more than you about 'rubbish'. When things are untrue, you say so. I doubt if 'rubbish' is a term of art.
"Rubbish" is the word that stands out at me too. It sounds like something that an ordinary person - rather than a lawyer - would write.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
Whilst I understand where you're coming from, is that not potentially age discrimination?
Not really, if the person has got no significant gaps in their recent employment and are over 50 and a good role fit I'd definitely have them do the screening call.
Even "over 50" is not on.
So you're saying I should take age into account?
No: ignore it. Look at objective issues suich as experience and up to dateness.
And 2-3 year career gaps do what for the second bit? And say what about their potential longevity in the role/company?
But now you are forcussing on those - not on age or sex or gender. Which is at least an improvement.
That was always the focus, the early retirement career gap, that they all happen to be 50+ is what it is.
Your original complaint was 'so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks"' - that makes age your primary complaint up front, as others have noted.
Yes, the two together are noticeable. Career breaks for health, babies and travelling are fine, career breaks because you wanted to retire but realised you don't have enough money right now aren't.
What about those who took career breaks to look after dying parents? Asking for a friend.
It'd be a bit rough if your friend was discriminated against for that.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
Whilst I understand where you're coming from, is that not potentially age discrimination?
Not really, if the person has got no significant gaps in their recent employment and are over 50 and a good role fit I'd definitely have them do the screening call.
Even "over 50" is not on.
So you're saying I should take age into account?
No: ignore it. Look at objective issues suich as experience and up to dateness.
And 2-3 year career gaps do what for the second bit? And say what about their potential longevity in the role/company?
But now you are forcussing on those - not on age or sex or gender. Which is at least an improvement.
That was always the focus, the early retirement career gap, that they all happen to be 50+ is what it is.
Your original complaint was 'so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks"' - that makes age your primary complaint up front, as others have noted.
Yes, the two together are noticeable. Career breaks for health, babies and travelling are fine, career breaks because you wanted to retire but realised you don't have enough money right now aren't.
What about those who took career breaks to look after dying parents? Asking for a friend.
It'd be a bit rough if that was discriminated against.
TBF, it wouldn't bother me too much either way as I was pondering a change of direction anyway and would generally prefer to work for myself now.
But as a general point it would seem a bit off if people in that situation were discriminated against, particularly given the crisis in social care.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
Personally I have no interest in any kind of pornography and have never watched any. But it's absurd to try to police other people's behaviour by the standards of one's own preferences, because everyone is different (I don't think Cyclefree was doing this, incidentally). This whole story is wholly uninteresting to me, especially if no laws have been broken. The only moderately interesting angle here is the hypocrisy of the Sun, a paper that used to shift copies by printing topless photos of teenage girls. But the Sun is such a pathetic, hypocritical rag that even this angle is so commonplace as to be barely of interest. I'm sure that a good proportion of the people glued to this story are getting off on it - as the tabloids know only too well, which is why these types of stories always appear.
It's a bit of a "don't push the red button" story. No one cares but when the headlines are splashed all over every paper titillatingly saying "BBC Star" (which is the term needed for a twitter search) and also that twitter doesn't know who it is, then it would be inhuman not to become at least vaguely interested in who it might be. What they did doesn't matter at all.
Also if it really is "rubbish" then there is plenty of schadenfreude to be had also.
Suffice to say I was relieved when Evan Davis popped up on PM yesterday. It's like a sports competition - everyone wants to go early so they can enjoy everyone else's performance with no stress.
Imagine my unbounded relief when the delightful Danielle Jalowiecka read the Shipping Forecast last night.
On topic, would it terminate the career of a new leader to challenge Sunak, win, (I presume) call an election shortly afterward, and deliver a Sunak-Truss sized loss? If so who will do it instead of waiting.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
I'll put Persuasion at the top of my 'to read' pile. I read Pride and Prejudice for the first time during the Easter holidays and loved it.
In all seriousness, I wouldn't object at all to an occasional 'why x is wonderful' header which is nothing to do with politics. Mike et al do a fantastic job on keeping the threads ticking over at a rate which works, but sometimes there are only so many ways of saying 'another bad poll for Rishi Sunak' and 500 words of praise for the subject of the writers' enthusiasm would work just as well as a conversation starter.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
I'll put Persuasion at the top of my 'to read' pile. I read Pride and Prejudice for the first time during the Easter holidays and loved it.
You should read all he works if you can. Truly glorious writing.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
I'll put Persuasion at the top of my 'to read' pile. I read Pride and Prejudice for the first time during the Easter holidays and loved it.
On topic, would it terminate the career of a new leader to challenge Sunak, win, (I presume) call an election shortly afterward, and deliver a Sunak-Truss sized loss? If so who will do it instead of waiting.
Somebody who would rather be PM for two months than LOTO for four years?
Thing is, I can't think who that would be. I suspect most of the contenders genuinely believe despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary that they would be the person to lead the Tories back to government after one term in the wilderness.
We need a good few years of real wage growth. And if that's at a high rate, then so much the better for rebalancing the economy while reducing the risk of negative equity.
Its so funny how many people insist that there should never be negative equity, and that you can solve high price-to-income ratios by having prices never decline but grow less than incomes . . . but you'd better not have incomes grow as that's inflationary.
To correct the imbalances in the economy we need either steep price falls, or high wage growth. Or both. Over a sustained period.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
I’m looking forward to this series of headers, “The shoes of PB” where each week a poster writes a header on their newest or favourite shoes. We can deduce their class or get it totally wrong and have thrilling arguments about what colour socks should be worn to go with the shoes (trick question) and laugh at those who have tiny feet. There will at least be something for those from the left and the right.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
I'll put Persuasion at the top of my 'to read' pile. I read Pride and Prejudice for the first time during the Easter holidays and loved it.
You should read all he works if you can. Truly glorious writing.
Mimsy English snobbery. Chick lit. Burn before reading.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
I’m looking forward to this series of headers, “The shoes of PB” where each week a poster writes a header on their newest or favourite shoes. We can deduce their class or get it totally wrong and have thrilling arguments about what colour socks should be worn to go with the shoes (trick question) and laugh at those who have tiny feet. There will at least be something for those from the left and the right.
How about @El_Capitano and I discussing our favourite organ shoes? Just for variety.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
I had a friend to stay this last weekend. Spouse died three years ago dropped dead of a heart attack. Left them and their now 16-yr old child. Both still deeply traumatised. The child developed all kinds of anxieties but also a profound interest in gardening. We went to a garden exhibition (actually exhibition of several gardens) and there was not a name, English, latin, slang, that he didn't know; nor a behaviour or habitat or preference of each plant he was unfamiliar with.
Gardening bores the pants off me save for appreciating a pretty one but this child really brought it alive. I even asked them to choose some shrubs for me to plant (sea holly, mock orange, something else) which I will keep an eye on in the coming months and years.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
The lawyer in this instance is merely a mouthpiece for the client. Lawyers are neither judges nor oracles: they simply say what the client instructs them to say. The only situation they do not do this is when they know what they are instructed to say to be false.
Is he ?
Does not so categoric a statement, as far as I can see not prefaced by 'my clients insists that...', require a certain amount if due diligence from an officer if the court ?
“For the avoidance of doubt, nothing inappropriate or unlawful has taken place between our client and the BBC personality and the allegations reported in the Sun newspaper are rubbish.”
Genuine question for the lawyers in the house.
Oh I do like a bit of parsing.
First the statement is not being made to a court. But, yes, you want to make sure that you're not going to look like a fool. However, it rather depends who the client is here. Is it the child or the child and A.N. Other and who is paying? The lawyer cannot check things with third parties so whatever they say will be on the instructions of their client.
Next the statement -
1. "Inappropriate" - this is a value judgment and legally meaningless. 2. "Unlawful" - this qualifies actions that have taken place "between our client and the BBC personality". Careful wording there. 3. The "allegations" in the Sun. What were these? Did the Sun make allegations or did it report the concerns or allegations of others? No idea. Don't read the Sun. 4. "are rubbish". Lawyers tend to use phrases like "wholly untrue" or "baseless" or "without foundation". "Rubbish" is a perfectly good word. It's slightly unusual that's all.
TBF the qualification about 'unlawful' is not unreasonable. The letter is not saying the client has never driven at 35 in a 30 mph zone.
If 'unlawful' was the only word used it would be open to the allegation of narrowly restricting the denials.
I agree that 'inappropriate' is an interesting word. What is the best word to suggest that the clients relation to Mr X is within the bounds of modern moral convention? The word is the modern form of the Victorian 'improper'.
I'm troubled more than you about 'rubbish'. When things are untrue, you say so. I doubt if 'rubbish' is a term of art.
"Rubbish" is the word that stands out at me too. It sounds like something that an ordinary person - rather than a lawyer - would write.
You'd probably get "rubbish" (and far nastier terms) if the firm in question were Mishcon de Reya.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
Whilst I understand where you're coming from, is that not potentially age discrimination?
Not really, if the person has got no significant gaps in their recent employment and are over 50 and a good role fit I'd definitely have them do the screening call.
Even "over 50" is not on.
So you're saying I should take age into account?
No: ignore it. Look at objective issues suich as experience and up to dateness.
And 2-3 year career gaps do what for the second bit? And say what about their potential longevity in the role/company?
But now you are forcussing on those - not on age or sex or gender. Which is at least an improvement.
That was always the focus, the early retirement career gap, that they all happen to be 50+ is what it is.
Your original complaint was 'so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks"' - that makes age your primary complaint up front, as others have noted.
Yes, the two together are noticeable. Career breaks for health, babies and travelling are fine, career breaks because you wanted to retire but realised you don't have enough money right now aren't.
So it is not the career break per se, but that they are coming back for money. Have you trialled not paying any of your employees so you can be sure they work for love not material reward? I fear you might be disappointed.
As a separate angle on this, we've seen this before when discussing forcing the unreliable workshy off the dole and back to work. Most PBers were in favour, but strangely not for their own firms.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
Was anyone from HR present? You've got yourself potentially bang to rights for age discrimination.
Would you say that about women? "They might **** off back home when they get pregnant."
In addition; you might get someone who has recharged batteries and is ready and raring to rejoin the workforce, rather than someone who has been working all hours Godsend because they desperately need money and are burnt out.
Also, you might get someone who is a little more rounded.
I knew a chap would hire, for his smallish consultancy business, quite a few women returning to the workforce after children.
Because they’d had children, it was less likely they’d have more. They often had a previously illustrious careers - so lots of experience and contacts. And with (often) a decade gap in employment they were cheaper and eager.
He’d take them on - rapidly increasing their pay, but knowing that after a few years they would often go back to the big name firms, at rates he couldn’t afford.
His theory was that he was helping people back into the workforce, getting cheap(ish) employees and creating a list of friends in various big name companies.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
I’m looking forward to this series of headers, “The shoes of PB” where each week a poster writes a header on their newest or favourite shoes. We can deduce their class or get it totally wrong and have thrilling arguments about what colour socks should be worn to go with the shoes (trick question) and laugh at those who have tiny feet. There will at least be something for those from the left and the right.
How about @El_Capitano and I discussing our favourite organ shoes? Just for variety.
Is that actually specialised footwear you wear for organ playing? Do you clip into the pedals like with bicycles?
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
I'll put Persuasion at the top of my 'to read' pile. I read Pride and Prejudice for the first time during the Easter holidays and loved it.
You'll love Austen. And then at some point, could be S&S, could even be P&P you will find her the most boring writer on the planet. If I were you I'd read Northanger Abbey and have done with it.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
I'll put Persuasion at the top of my 'to read' pile. I read Pride and Prejudice for the first time during the Easter holidays and loved it.
Back to a sensible and sensibility subject for a moment, good. May I put in word for Emma, which has unique qualities. On the face of it, it isn't about anything at all, but it is in the deepest possible sense a comedy, as profoundly as Lear is a tragedy, and goes just as deep.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
Whilst I understand where you're coming from, is that not potentially age discrimination?
Not really, if the person has got no significant gaps in their recent employment and are over 50 and a good role fit I'd definitely have them do the screening call.
Even "over 50" is not on.
So you're saying I should take age into account?
No: ignore it. Look at objective issues suich as experience and up to dateness.
If your business employment model involves substantial elements of training are you allowed to consider younger people in general learn skills faster than older people?
If your business employment model means you don't make much profit out of staff unless they stay for three years plus are you allowed to consider the chance they will stay for three years?
Or do businesses have to be blind for anything involving protected characteristics?
Age is not relevant. More specific issues are. As the law will tell you.
Not sure what that means? Are you suggesting learning skills do not diminish by age? Or that a business cannot lawfully consider that? Or that a business can consider it, but has to be based very specifically on learning skills rather than age as a proxy for learning skills.
Might be a peculiarity of my field, but it has never crossed my mind to link age with learning skills. Perhaps academia is different in that 'life-long learning' is more than just a buzzword phrase - we are all learning new things/techniques/ideas/approaches all the time, but I haven't seen any evidence of a link. Even if inate learning ability does decrease, the more experienced person (which generally, but not always, correlates with age) will likely have more related/close experience that will aid the learning (and the past experience of learning new techniques will likely make them good at learning new techniques).
We really don't consider age, but experience in combination with likelihood to stay does come into it a bit. Your person who has just finished a PhD in a slightly different area will likely bring less initially than a more experienced person, so one might look for indications of real interest in the subject area that means an investment of time in that person will be worthwhile. The more experienced person can likely slot in and if they only stay 1-2 years for the duration of the project will still add plenty of value. A person who has just finished a PhD in a very close/relevant area may however look an even better fit.
ETA: I changed field quite drastically after my PhD. My hiring line manage later told me that one of the main things they were interested in at interview was whether I had a real interest in the field or was just looking for a stop-gap job/job in a particular location as I would clearly have some learning to do before really getting to grips with the subject area. I considered that perfectly fair.
We need a good few years of real wage growth. And if that's at a high rate, then so much the better for rebalancing the economy while reducing the risk of negative equity.
Its so funny how many people insist that there should never be negative equity, and that you can solve high price-to-income ratios by having prices never decline but grow less than incomes . . . but you'd better not have incomes grow as that's inflationary.
To correct the imbalances in the economy we need either steep price falls, or high wage growth. Or both. Over a sustained period.
Pick a poison, as there's no painfree options.
The challenge is how society achieves sustained and rapid real wage growth when internationally traded input good prices are far higher than they were two years ago.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
Personally I have no interest in any kind of pornography and have never watched any. But it's absurd to try to police other people's behaviour by the standards of one's own preferences, because everyone is different (I don't think Cyclefree was doing this, incidentally). This whole story is wholly uninteresting to me, especially if no laws have been broken. The only moderately interesting angle here is the hypocrisy of the Sun, a paper that used to shift copies by printing topless photos of teenage girls. But the Sun is such a pathetic, hypocritical rag that even this angle is so commonplace as to be barely of interest. I'm sure that a good proportion of the people glued to this story are getting off on it - as the tabloids know only too well, which is why these types of stories always appear.
It's a bit of a "don't push the red button" story. No one cares but when the headlines are splashed all over every paper titillatingly saying "BBC Star" (which is the term needed for a twitter search) and also that twitter doesn't know who it is, then it would be inhuman not to become at least vaguely interested in who it might be. What they did doesn't matter at all.
Also if it really is "rubbish" then there is plenty of schadenfreude to be had also.
Suffice to say I was relieved when Evan Davis popped up on PM yesterday. It's like a sports competition - everyone wants to go early so they can enjoy everyone else's performance with no stress.
Imagine my unbounded relief when the delightful Danielle Jalowiecka read the Shipping Forecast last night.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
The lawyer in this instance is merely a mouthpiece for the client. Lawyers are neither judges nor oracles: they simply say what the client instructs them to say. The only situation they do not do this is when they know what they are instructed to say to be false.
Is he ?
Does not so categoric a statement, as far as I can see not prefaced by 'my clients insists that...', require a certain amount if due diligence from an officer if the court ?
“For the avoidance of doubt, nothing inappropriate or unlawful has taken place between our client and the BBC personality and the allegations reported in the Sun newspaper are rubbish.”
Genuine question for the lawyers in the house.
Oh I do like a bit of parsing.
First the statement is not being made to a court. But, yes, you want to make sure that you're not going to look like a fool. However, it rather depends who the client is here. Is it the child or the child and A.N. Other and who is paying? The lawyer cannot check things with third parties so whatever they say will be on the instructions of their client.
Next the statement -
1. "Inappropriate" - this is a value judgment and legally meaningless. 2. "Unlawful" - this qualifies actions that have taken place "between our client and the BBC personality". Careful wording there. 3. The "allegations" in the Sun. What were these? Did the Sun make allegations or did it report the concerns or allegations of others? No idea. Don't read the Sun. 4. "are rubbish". Lawyers tend to use phrases like "wholly untrue" or "baseless" or "without foundation". "Rubbish" is a perfectly good word. It's slightly unusual that's all.
TBF the qualification about 'unlawful' is not unreasonable. The letter is not saying the client has never driven at 35 in a 30 mph zone.
If 'unlawful' was the only word used it would be open to the allegation of narrowly restricting the denials.
I agree that 'inappropriate' is an interesting word. What is the best word to suggest that the clients relation to Mr X is within the bounds of modern moral convention? The word is the modern form of the Victorian 'improper'.
I'm troubled more than you about 'rubbish'. When things are untrue, you say so. I doubt if 'rubbish' is a term of art.
"Rubbish" is the word that stands out at me too. It sounds like something that an ordinary person - rather than a lawyer - would write.
You'd probably get "rubbish" (and far nastier terms) if the firm in question were Mishcon de Reya.
But, they aren't a firm I'd rate highly.
The full lawyerspeak for rubbish is
"Save and except for those assertions which are expressly admitted or not admitted, the Defendant denies each and every allegation in the Points of Claim as if it were set out herein and traversed seriatim."
Sometimes simpler is better, esp if you are writing in the knowledge it will end up on twitter.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
I’m looking forward to this series of headers, “The shoes of PB” where each week a poster writes a header on their newest or favourite shoes. We can deduce their class or get it totally wrong and have thrilling arguments about what colour socks should be worn to go with the shoes (trick question) and laugh at those who have tiny feet. There will at least be something for those from the left and the right.
I have one pair of black shoes to wear with a suit and one pair of brown shoes to wear with other work clothes, both Clarks. I have some suede trainers (vans or converse, I can't remember which) that I wear on the weekends. I have a pair of Nike trainers that I wear for cycling and other exercising. I have some walking boots (Decathlon) for walking. I have some wellies for when it's raining. I have some dress shoes with long laces that I wear with my kilt. Each of these shoes is at least five years old. My main concern with shoes is that they don't give me blisters and that I don't own any more than are strictly necessary.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
”Pretty obvious that drug laws have been broken” ?
All we have is the estranged parent’s testimony that drug laws have been broken & that the police declined to investigate when the parents complained to them.
For me at least, that doesn’t rise to the threshold of “pretty obvious”. Possible? Sure. But it’s equally easy to conceive of a scenario where this is something dreamt up by the parents to justify their need to interfere in their adult child’s life choices.
We need a good few years of real wage growth. And if that's at a high rate, then so much the better for rebalancing the economy while reducing the risk of negative equity.
Its so funny how many people insist that there should never be negative equity, and that you can solve high price-to-income ratios by having prices never decline but grow less than incomes . . . but you'd better not have incomes grow as that's inflationary.
To correct the imbalances in the economy we need either steep price falls, or high wage growth. Or both. Over a sustained period.
Pick a poison, as there's no painfree options.
The challenge is how society achieves sustained and rapid real wage growth when internationally traded input good prices are far higher than they were two years ago.
Input price rises should be fading soon, and we have full employment and companies objecting they "can't find the staff".
So have wages growing, firms that can't keep up with wage growth going bust and competitor firms who can fund better wages absorb their customers instead, and the economy becomes more productive with higher, real wages.
Might mean that you need to pay a decent price to fund the wage of the person who makes your artisanal soy latte mocha frappuccino though.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
Whilst I understand where you're coming from, is that not potentially age discrimination?
Not really, if the person has got no significant gaps in their recent employment and are over 50 and a good role fit I'd definitely have them do the screening call.
Even "over 50" is not on.
So you're saying I should take age into account?
No: ignore it. Look at objective issues suich as experience and up to dateness.
And 2-3 year career gaps do what for the second bit? And say what about their potential longevity in the role/company?
But now you are forcussing on those - not on age or sex or gender. Which is at least an improvement.
That was always the focus, the early retirement career gap, that they all happen to be 50+ is what it is.
Your original complaint was 'so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks"' - that makes age your primary complaint up front, as others have noted.
Yes, the two together are noticeable. Career breaks for health, babies and travelling are fine, career breaks because you wanted to retire but realised you don't have enough money right now aren't.
What about those who took career breaks to look after dying parents? Asking for a friend.
It'd be a bit rough if that was discriminated against.
TBF, it wouldn't bother me too much either way as I was pondering a change of direction anyway and would generally prefer to work for myself now.
But as a general point it would seem a bit off if people in that situation were discriminated against, particularly given the crisis in social care.
It’s less bad than it was, but career breaks are poison for trying to get a job as good as the one you had before the break.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
I’m looking forward to this series of headers, “The shoes of PB” where each week a poster writes a header on their newest or favourite shoes. We can deduce their class or get it totally wrong and have thrilling arguments about what colour socks should be worn to go with the shoes (trick question) and laugh at those who have tiny feet. There will at least be something for those from the left and the right.
How about @El_Capitano and I discussing our favourite organ shoes? Just for variety.
Is that actually specialised footwear you wear for organ playing? Do you clip into the pedals like with bicycles?
Organ shoes actually are exactly that. IIRC this field is so specialised that, as with baby giant pandas, Amazon don't know about them. They, though not giant pandas, are imported from the US by some sort of organist outfit with a website or a phone number. (No pedal clips by the way).
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
See my tipping point is men who do not wear ties correctly.
You’re a grown man not a schoolboy is what I’ve muttered very loudly.
I haven’t hired people solely because of their tie styles.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
I’m looking forward to this series of headers, “The shoes of PB” where each week a poster writes a header on their newest or favourite shoes. We can deduce their class or get it totally wrong and have thrilling arguments about what colour socks should be worn to go with the shoes (trick question) and laugh at those who have tiny feet. There will at least be something for those from the left and the right.
How about @El_Capitano and I discussing our favourite organ shoes? Just for variety.
I saw these for sale a while ago, talking of organ shoes. I guess the model of the shoe was “Clint”.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
I don't know how to do the strikethrough thing - but I would replace the word 'barbarian' above with 'man'.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
”Pretty obvious that drug laws have been broken” ?
All we have is the estranged parent’s testimony that drug laws have been broken & that the police declined to investigate when the parents complained to them.
For me at least, that doesn’t rise to the threshold of “pretty obvious”. Possible? Sure. But it’s equally easy to conceive of a scenario where this is something dreamt up by the parents to justify their need to interfere in their adult child’s life choices.
Quite. Until yesterday people thought it was pretty obvious that all kinds of other things had happened.
The 20-year-old "child" has evidently "lawyered up", so I think people should be as wary of making potentially defamatory remarks about them as about the BBC presenter.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
”Pretty obvious that drug laws have been broken” ?
All we have is the estranged parent’s testimony that drug laws have been broken & that the police declined to investigate when the parents complained to them.
For me at least, that doesn’t rise to the threshold of “pretty obvious”. Possible? Sure. But it’s equally easy to conceive of a scenario where this is something dreamt up by the parents to justify their need to interfere in their adult child’s life choices.
Quite. Until yesterday people thought it was pretty obvious that all kinds of other things had happened.
The 20-year-old "child" has evidently "lawyered up", so I think people should be as wary of making potentially defamatory remarks about them as about the BBC presenter.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
If it had the wit to do so, the government has a good tale to tell on employment and economic inactivity rates.
They tried that on R4 this morning but I can’t be the only one who raised an eyebrow at the motivation being to undermine wage increases that are still below the inflation rate.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
It's not the individual shoes but how they go with the outfit as a whole that is key. I have upwards of 60 pairs and often decide my outfit on the basis of the shoes I want to wear. Then there is the question of what types of tights or socks. One hideous mistake is thick opaque tights with delicate shoes, for instance. Glossy beige tights are another horror.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
See my tipping point is men who do not wear ties correctly.
You’re a grown man not a schoolboy is what I’ve muttered very loudly.
I haven’t hired people solely because of their tie styles.
Just curious. The 20-year-old "child's" step-father was reportedly told by the police that no law had been broken. The police now say there is no investigation. The "child's" lawyers say no law was broken.
So what is this all about? Just a salacious expose of a famous person allegedly having a gay affair? Have we gone back to the 1950s?
the alleged victim’s lawyer might be correct
It's vanishingly unlikely that he isn't.
In fact, it's nigh impossible.
The only reason some people are reluctant to accept this is because they've been made to look stupid.
Not enough pedantry on here I feel. Pretty obvious that drugs laws have been broken.
Oh, is that not what you meant .... ?
Weren't you asking me yesterday to write a header on this?
Well I won't because I don't know the facts and a prurient story about a family in distress and someone else who may also now face their own family issues is not of any interest to me. How badly the BBC is handling this is not a surprise.
And, frankly, I simply do not understand a world where people perform sex acts on camera for strangers. It seems utterly tawdry and unerotic and pathetic. And really rather grotesque.
Perhaps you could write instead a header on permissable types of sex which are not tawdry, unerotic and pathetic. A simple categorisation, say A-E or 1-10 might help people know where they stand.
No. I do not understand this world of performance sex. It is not for me.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Could you and @TSE write a joint thread header on this?
I’ve recently bought a pair of Louis Vuitton loafers and I’ll do a thread on that.
I’m looking forward to this series of headers, “The shoes of PB” where each week a poster writes a header on their newest or favourite shoes. We can deduce their class or get it totally wrong and have thrilling arguments about what colour socks should be worn to go with the shoes (trick question) and laugh at those who have tiny feet. There will at least be something for those from the left and the right.
How about @El_Capitano and I discussing our favourite organ shoes? Just for variety.
Is that actually specialised footwear you wear for organ playing? Do you clip into the pedals like with bicycles?
Inactivity rate is dropping quite precipitously, it's almost as if people who thought they could retire at 50 realised that life is fucking expensive.
We've got a mid level analyst role out at the moment and so many of the applicants are 50+ who took "career breaks". I was chatting to other division heads about it and one of the reasons I'm reluctant to hire is that they may just fuck off back into retirement again if inflation drops to 2% in the next 12 months. This view was echoed among the other managers too.
Whilst I understand where you're coming from, is that not potentially age discrimination?
Not really, if the person has got no significant gaps in their recent employment and are over 50 and a good role fit I'd definitely have them do the screening call.
Even "over 50" is not on.
So you're saying I should take age into account?
No: ignore it. Look at objective issues suich as experience and up to dateness.
If your business employment model involves substantial elements of training are you allowed to consider younger people in general learn skills faster than older people?
If your business employment model means you don't make much profit out of staff unless they stay for three years plus are you allowed to consider the chance they will stay for three years?
Or do businesses have to be blind for anything involving protected characteristics?
Age is not relevant. More specific issues are. As the law will tell you.
Not sure what that means? Are you suggesting learning skills do not diminish by age? Or that a business cannot lawfully consider that? Or that a business can consider it, but has to be based very specifically on learning skills rather than age as a proxy for learning skills.
Might be a peculiarity of my field, but it has never crossed my mind to link age with learning skills. Perhaps academia is different in that 'life-long learning' is more than just a buzzword phrase - we are all learning new things/techniques/ideas/approaches all the time, but I haven't seen any evidence of a link. Even if inate learning ability does decrease, the more experienced person (which generally, but not always, correlates with age) will likely have more related/close experience that will aid the learning (and the past experience of learning new techniques will likely make them good at learning new techniques).
We really don't consider age, but experience in combination with likelihood to stay does come into it a bit. Your person who has just finished a PhD in a slightly different area will likely bring less initially than a more experienced person, so one might look for indications of real interest in the subject area that means an investment of time in that person will be worthwhile. The more experienced person can likely slot in and if they only stay 1-2 years for the duration of the project will still add plenty of value. A person who has just finished a PhD in a very close/relevant area may however look an even better fit.
ETA: I changed field quite drastically after my PhD. My hiring line manage later told me that one of the main things they were interested in at interview was whether I had a real interest in the field or was just looking for a stop-gap job/job in a particular location as I would clearly have some learning to do before really getting to grips with the subject area. I considered that perfectly fair.
Different skills peak at different ages, on average of course.
And yes of course, those who are used to life long learning have an advantage in future learning over those who tend to stick mostly with what they already know.
This study for example has:
Information Processing 18-19 Short Term Memory 25-35 Emotional Intelligence 40-60 Vocabulary 70
Comments
He was trying to guilt trip her into going quietly (yes, he really was that stupid. English graduate of the University of Cambridge).
It was a very expensive mistake for him.
My eye has been twitching like a frog in a science experiment since I saw it.
BTW, don't spend time trying to understand sex or the less amusing aspects of male nature. That which is not rational does not respond to rationalisation.
Tale as old as time
True as it can be
Barely even friends
Then somebody bends
Unexpectedly..
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Special_Bibliography/S9VhYNuWTmUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=xxxxviii+panzer+korps&pg=PA131&printsec=frontcover
Edit: essentially the proper name. One doesn't change the spelling of Cholmondeley-ffotherington to Chumley-Fotherington.
So, they'll shout at the HR department "Get rid of X, I just want him/her out of here." Or they'll demand that HR unilaterally vary contractual terms. Ed Balls demanding the summary dismissal of Sharon Shoosmith is the classic example.
It can be very expensive for the organisation concerned.
But in any event, the right person is the right person.
First the statement is not being made to a court. But, yes, you want to make sure that you're not going to look like a fool. However, it rather depends who the client is here. Is it the child or the child and A.N. Other and who is paying? The lawyer cannot check things with third parties so whatever they say will be on the instructions of their client.
Next the statement -
1. "Inappropriate" - this is a value judgment and legally meaningless.
2. "Unlawful" - this qualifies actions that have taken place "between our client and the BBC personality". Careful wording there.
3. The "allegations" in the Sun. What were these? Did the Sun make allegations or did it report the concerns or allegations of others? No idea. Don't read the Sun.
4. "are rubbish". Lawyers tend to use phrases like "wholly untrue" or "baseless" or "without foundation". "Rubbish" is a perfectly good word. It's slightly unusual that's all.
Although it cannot be as bad as Davos on the escort front.
But did he actually pay, or just the school?
If 'unlawful' was the only word used it would be open to the allegation of narrowly restricting the denials.
I agree that 'inappropriate' is an interesting word. What is the best word to suggest that the clients relation to Mr X is within the bounds of modern moral convention? The word is the modern form of the Victorian 'improper'.
I'm troubled more than you about 'rubbish'. When things are untrue, you say so. I doubt if 'rubbish' is a term of art.
If your business employment model means you don't make much profit out of staff unless they stay for three years plus are you allowed to consider the chance they will stay for three years?
Or do businesses have to be blind for anything involving protected characteristics?
The thing is, the way old governments fall is also the way new governments arise. It's why Labour lost in 2010 and the Conservatives lost in 1997.
A government complaining that the public aren't being fair is like a fish complaining that they're surrounded by water.
Bizarrely, he's still in post, although that was far from his only expensive mistake.
But - the word got out about this and other matters, and no other principal or decent teacher in the West Midlands will give him the time of day.
Which has apparently embittered him very much.
(If he is more sour and bitter than when I had the misfortune to work for him, his state of mind must be really bad.)
https://twitter.com/Figensport/status/1678549842845396992
This whole story is wholly uninteresting to me, especially if no laws have been broken. The only moderately interesting angle here is the hypocrisy of the Sun, a paper that used to shift copies by printing topless photos of teenage girls. But the Sun is such a pathetic, hypocritical rag that even this angle is so commonplace as to be barely of interest. I'm sure that a good proportion of the people glued to this story are getting off on it - as the tabloids know only too well, which is why these types of stories always appear.
The only sex I'm interested in is that involving me and I'm certainly not sharing that with you or anyone else on this or any other forum.
OTOH this site needs more headers about gardening (a fantastically sensuous activity), the Lake District, the glories of Naples, how to cook pasta properly, why good shoes are essential to looking elegant, Irish writers you must read and why Persuasion is, I now think, Austen's greatest novel.
So I shall sharpen my pencil in anticipation of the "Yes please!" demands ....
Also if it really is "rubbish" then there is plenty of schadenfreude to be had also.
Suffice to say I was relieved when Evan Davis popped up on PM yesterday. It's like a sports competition - everyone wants to go early so they can enjoy everyone else's performance with no stress.
But as a general point it would seem a bit off if people in that situation were discriminated against, particularly given the crisis in social care.
And the film version of it with Ciaran Hinds and Amanda Root from 1995 is very good indeed. Ignore all other versions.
Thing is, I can't think who that would be. I suspect most of the contenders genuinely believe despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary that they would be the person to lead the Tories back to government after one term in the wilderness.
We need a good few years of real wage growth. And if that's at a high rate, then so much the better for rebalancing the economy while reducing the risk of negative equity.
Its so funny how many people insist that there should never be negative equity, and that you can solve high price-to-income ratios by having prices never decline but grow less than incomes . . . but you'd better not have incomes grow as that's inflationary.
To correct the imbalances in the economy we need either steep price falls, or high wage growth. Or both. Over a sustained period.
Pick a poison, as there's no painfree options.
Gardening bores the pants off me save for appreciating a pretty one but this child really brought it alive. I even asked them to choose some shrubs for me to plant (sea holly, mock orange, something else) which I will keep an eye on in the coming months and years.
But, they aren't a firm I'd rate highly.
As a separate angle on this, we've seen this before when discussing forcing the unreliable workshy off the dole and back to work. Most PBers were in favour, but strangely not for their own firms.
Because they’d had children, it was less likely they’d have more. They often had a previously illustrious careers - so lots of experience and contacts. And with (often) a decade gap in employment they were cheaper and eager.
He’d take them on - rapidly increasing their pay, but knowing that after a few years they would often go back to the big name firms, at rates he couldn’t afford.
His theory was that he was helping people back into the workforce, getting cheap(ish) employees and creating a list of friends in various big name companies.
It's the Julian of Norwich of novels.
We really don't consider age, but experience in combination with likelihood to stay does come into it a bit. Your person who has just finished a PhD in a slightly different area will likely bring less initially than a more experienced person, so one might look for indications of real interest in the subject area that means an investment of time in that person will be worthwhile. The more experienced person can likely slot in and if they only stay 1-2 years for the duration of the project will still add plenty of value. A person who has just finished a PhD in a very close/relevant area may however look an even better fit.
ETA: I changed field quite drastically after my PhD. My hiring line manage later told me that one of the main things they were interested in at interview was whether I had a real interest in the field or was just looking for a stop-gap job/job in a particular location as I would clearly have some learning to do before really getting to grips with the subject area. I considered that perfectly fair.
oh yes.
"Save and except for those assertions which are expressly admitted or not admitted, the Defendant denies each and every allegation in the Points of Claim as if it were set out herein and traversed seriatim."
Sometimes simpler is better, esp if you are writing in the knowledge it will end up on twitter.
You can never have too many shoes. You can never have too many comfortable shoes. Or handbags, come to that. Plus nice gloves and scarves. Accessories are most important.
When you buy a coat or jacket, always change the buttons: they are usually - even on expensive items - cheap rubbish.
Anyone who thinks that you can make do with some work shoes and a pair of smelly old trainers is a barbarian.
All we have is the estranged parent’s testimony that drug laws have been broken & that the police declined to investigate when the parents complained to them.
For me at least, that doesn’t rise to the threshold of “pretty obvious”. Possible? Sure. But it’s equally easy to conceive of a scenario where this is something dreamt up by the parents to justify their need to interfere in their adult child’s life choices.
So have wages growing, firms that can't keep up with wage growth going bust and competitor firms who can fund better wages absorb their customers instead, and the economy becomes more productive with higher, real wages.
Might mean that you need to pay a decent price to fund the wage of the person who makes your artisanal soy latte mocha frappuccino though.
Dance shoes are a parallel subject.
You’re a grown man not a schoolboy is what I’ve muttered very loudly.
I haven’t hired people solely because of their tie styles.
“Wearing loud shoes in a built up area, Sir.”
The 20-year-old "child" has evidently "lawyered up", so I think people should be as wary of making potentially defamatory remarks about them as about the BBC presenter.
can you defame someone who is unidentified?
IAMFI.
And yes of course, those who are used to life long learning have an advantage in future learning over those who tend to stick mostly with what they already know.
This study for example has:
Information Processing 18-19
Short Term Memory 25-35
Emotional Intelligence 40-60
Vocabulary 70
https://news.mit.edu/2015/brain-peaks-at-different-ages-0306
Rally is second only to drag racing when it comes to destroying your car in a highly expensive fashion so I've never really been tempted.