@Dair And yet men overall in their lifetimes will still earn more than women. And that advantage that young women have btw, in terms of earnings disappears as soon as women are considered likely to have children. In my part-time jobs (since 16) I've only worked for male bosses.
Men born in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s will earn more in their lifetimes than women. Which is the bulk of the population but not reflective of the position TODAY.
Men born in the 1990s will earn far less than women. They will also face considerable societal pressure (mainly from older generations) to be the "breadwinner" which, rightly or more appropriately wrongly, will mean their families put them under considerable mental stress.
Maybe up until their early thirties once most women start having children then even now women fall behind men in terms of earnings
Men tend to work longer hours, over a lifetime, than women do. It's not unfair that people who work longer hours earn more, on average.
I don't particularly wish to engage in the oppression Olympics. Most British people have drawn first prize in the lottery of life. But, the Left will go on as if some groups are oppressed.
Ms Vance, was this in Scotland. That the contrary example was could be relevant.
Couldn't it?
Despite the SHS having consistently better outcomes over the years than the NHS in E&W
Link?
You could always start with Life Expectancy.....
You really just can't stop lying.
You really just can't back up your claims......but its what we've come to expect from the Nats.....
you lie about a Swiss national receiving free NHS healthcare
Quote?
Where did I say that?
Or just more lies, from you?
We know you cult followers hate apostates.....
Eh? I said that. Nor was it a lie, it was my parent's friend; he's now gone back to Geneva. He did receive free healthcare - someone here has now told me there is every likelihood he is entitled anyway - I accepted that and didn't argue the point. Get a grip!
EEA visitors can get treated (for free) for things that need to happen now (i.e. emergency treatments), but not for things that could wait until they get back to their host country.
They are NOT treated for free. Their national government/health service is billed directly by the NHS trust which carries out the service (the same thing happens within the UK).
Just because the individual does not get given a bill does not mean she is treated "for free". No-one who is not a UK resident gets treated for free by any part of the NHS.
DOW, S&P CLOSE LOWER IN BIGGEST REVERSAL SINCE OCT. 08 (CNBC)
U.S. stocks closed lower, after a failed attempt to rally from the Dow's worst 3-day point decline in history, as investor confidence waned amid continued concerns about China and global growth.
The Dow Jones industrial average and the S&P 500 closed about 1.3 percent lower after rallying nearly 3 percent earlier, their biggest reversal to the downside since Oct. 29, 2008. The S&P 500 remained in correction territory after falling there on Monday. The index also posted its first six-day losing streak since July 2012.
"That crash (Monday) was so big and so long since we had one (investors) don't want a repeat of 2008 so they bail out," said Lance Roberts, general partner at STA Wealth Management.
The Dow fell 205 points and S&P 500 closed below 1,900 after falling into negative territory in the last half hour of trade. The Nasdaq Composite failed to hold slight gains and closed 0.44 percent lower. ---------------------- IF CHINA FALLS AGAIN OVERNIGHT WE COULD BE IN FOR A PROLONGED COLD SPELL
Damned SNP, Salmond has a lot to answer for. Except for the part that's Nicola's fault.
Oh we know the Sainted Eck and Beloved Nicola are beyond criticism....how's that $100 oil doing?
The Union seems to be a very bad deal.
Your compatriots didn't seem to think so 11 months ago.....
Scottish born residents voted to dissolve the UK.
In any case you are wrong, Scottish born referendum voters voted 51-49% No
DOW, S&P CLOSE LOWER IN BIGGEST REVERSAL SINCE OCT. 08 (CNBC)
U.S. stocks closed lower, after a failed attempt to rally from the Dow's worst 3-day point decline in history, as investor confidence waned amid continued concerns about China and global growth.
The Dow Jones industrial average and the S&P 500 closed about 1.3 percent lower after rallying nearly 3 percent earlier, their biggest reversal to the downside since Oct. 29, 2008. The S&P 500 remained in correction territory after falling there on Monday. The index also posted its first six-day losing streak since July 2012.
"That crash (Monday) was so big and so long since we had one (investors) don't want a repeat of 2008 so they bail out," said Lance Roberts, general partner at STA Wealth Management.
The Dow fell 205 points and S&P 500 closed below 1,900 after falling into negative territory in the last half hour of trade. The Nasdaq Composite failed to hold slight gains and closed 0.44 percent lower. ---------------------- IF CHINA FALLS AGAIN OVERNIGHT WE COULD BE IN FOR A PROLONGED COLD SPELL
Damned SNP, Salmond has a lot to answer for. Except for the part that's Nicola's fault.
Oh we know the Sainted Eck and Beloved Nicola are beyond criticism....how's that $100 oil doing?
The Union seems to be a very bad deal.
Your compatriots didn't seem to think so 11 months ago.....
Scottish born residents voted to dissolve the UK.
But that wasn't the electorate!
So much for 'civic nationalism'!
Or are you more of a 'blood & soil' type?
Ah the "resort to fascism". You never avoid the chance to lie.
May I suggest a thesaurus? The 'l' word has been far too overused by you in this thread.
Ms Vance, was this in Scotland. That the contrary example was could be relevant.
Couldn't it?
Despite the SHS having consistently better outcomes over the years than the NHS in E&W
Link?
You could always start with Life Expectancy.....
You really just can't stop lying.
You really just can't back up your claims......but its what we've come to expect from the Nats.....
you lie about a Swiss national receiving free NHS healthcare
Quote?
Where did I say that?
Or just more lies, from you?
We know you cult followers hate apostates.....
Eh? I said that. Nor was it a lie, it was my parent's friend; he's now gone back to Geneva. He did receive free healthcare - someone here has now told me there is every likelihood he is entitled anyway - I accepted that and didn't argue the point. Get a grip!
EEA visitors can get treated (for free) for things that need to happen now (i.e. emergency treatments), but not for things that could wait until they get back to their host country.
They are NOT treated for free. Their national government/health service is billed directly by the NHS trust which carries out the service (the same thing happens within the UK).
Just because the individual does not get given a bill does not mean she is treated "for free". No-one who is not a UK resident gets treated for free by any part of the NHS.
Oh not this whole 'poor white men' thing again that some on the Right do. Corbyn's idea is barmy, but it's hardly targeted against white men specifically for a start. And @Sean_F I could easily say that the Right must think being of a BME background is a reprehensible and wonder why most BMEs don't vote for them - but it wouldn't be true, just like your statement isn't.
So when Julie Bindel heads an article on CIF "Why I Hate Men" how do you think one should interpret it?
Do you think a right wing journalist would head an article "Why I hate blacks?"
When did Julie Bindel represent everyone on the Left? And while a right-wing journalist may not have said the above, post-2011 riots David Starkey, a right-winger pretty much said borderline racist comments on Newsnight.
And when that right winger said something so obviously racist, he was widely condemned all round in a chorus of disapproval as there was massive coverage of it. Meanwhile, when Julie Bindel writes something so horribly sexist, the media ignores it.
A media owned by men mostly, and of whom a large part of it is right-wing.
@Dair And yet men overall in their lifetimes will still earn more than women. And that advantage that young women have btw, in terms of earnings disappears as soon as women are considered likely to have children. In my part-time jobs (since 16) I've only worked for male bosses.
Men born in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s will earn more in their lifetimes than women. Which is the bulk of the population but not reflective of the position TODAY.
Men born in the 1990s will earn far less than women. They will also face considerable societal pressure (mainly from older generations) to be the "breadwinner" which, rightly or more appropriately wrongly, will mean their families put them under considerable mental stress.
DOW, S&P CLOSE LOWER IN BIGGEST REVERSAL SINCE OCT. 08 (CNBC)
U.S. stocks closed lower, after a failed attempt to rally from the Dow's worst 3-day point decline in history, as investor confidence waned amid continued concerns about China and global growth.
The Dow Jones industrial average and the S&P 500 closed about 1.3 percent lower after rallying nearly 3 percent earlier, their biggest reversal to the downside since Oct. 29, 2008. The S&P 500 remained in correction territory after falling there on Monday. The index also posted its first six-day losing streak since July 2012.
"That crash (Monday) was so big and so long since we had one (investors) don't want a repeat of 2008 so they bail out," said Lance Roberts, general partner at STA Wealth Management.
The Dow fell 205 points and S&P 500 closed below 1,900 after falling into negative territory in the last half hour of trade. The Nasdaq Composite failed to hold slight gains and closed 0.44 percent lower. ---------------------- IF CHINA FALLS AGAIN OVERNIGHT WE COULD BE IN FOR A PROLONGED COLD SPELL
Damned SNP, Salmond has a lot to answer for. Except for the part that's Nicola's fault.
Oh we know the Sainted Eck and Beloved Nicola are beyond criticism....how's that $100 oil doing?
The Union seems to be a very bad deal.
Your compatriots didn't seem to think so 11 months ago.....
Scottish born residents voted to dissolve the UK.
In any case you are wrong, Scottish born referendum voters voted 51-49% No
What?
The sainted Dair didn't tell - you know - a fib?
I'm shocked I tell you! Shocked!
Yes, normally such an objective observer of the Scottish political scene
Oh not this whole 'poor white men' thing again that some on the Right do. Corbyn's idea is barmy, but it's hardly targeted against white men specifically for a start. And @Sean_F I could easily say that the Right must think being of a BME background is a reprehensible and wonder why most BMEs don't vote for them - but it wouldn't be true, just like your statement isn't.
So when Julie Bindel heads an article on CIF "Why I Hate Men" how do you think one should interpret it?
Do you think a right wing journalist would head an article "Why I hate blacks?"
When did Julie Bindel represent everyone on the Left? And while a right-wing journalist may not have said the above, post-2011 riots David Starkey, a right-winger pretty much said borderline racist comments on Newsnight.
Since when did David Starkey represent all right wingers?
I never said he did, I was responding to Sean_F's comment: ''Do you think a right wing journalist would head an article "Why I hate blacks?"
no. But you did say "When did Julie Bindel represent everyone on the Left? " and the continued by labelling David Starkey a right winger and thus linking his abhorrent statements with being right wing. Smacks of double standards.
Loonies exist on both wings, let's not assume of each other the worst traits of the extremists eh?
Corbyn really is bonkers.. Does he back "men only" carriages. I doubt he understands what anything is about as prejudice gets in the way..
A moron in fact.
Why would be the benefit of giving men their own carriages?
And what would be the benefit of "women only " carriages.. Its like Apartheid.
The front page suggests that it's part of a "plan to tackle sex attacks". It may turn out to be a loony and unenforceable idea, but since we don't know any of the details I don't see how we can pronounce on it one way or the other.
What possible other details would make the idea of gender segregated train carriages a good idea? It may be too soon to pronounce on merits of the overall plan, but that aspect of it is clearly bonkers already, and it is the right time to pronounce upon it.
I think that eg the occurrence, severity and nature of sexual attacks would be relevant.
If the stats are the same as the rest of society, then they have fallen very significantly in the last 20 years, but I need to see the numbers before I can reach an informed opinion.
Ms Vance, was this in Scotland. That the contrary example was could be relevant.
Couldn't it?
Despite the SHS having consistently better outcomes over the years than the NHS in E&W
Link?
You could always start with Life Expectancy.....
You really just can't stop lying.
You really just can't back up your claims......but its what we've come to expect from the Nats.....
you lie about a Swiss national receiving free NHS healthcare
Quote?
Where did I say that?
Or just more lies, from you?
We know you cult followers hate apostates.....
Eh? I said that. Nor was it a lie, it was my parent's friend; he's now gone back to Geneva. He did receive free healthcare - someone here has now told me there is every likelihood he is entitled anyway - I accepted that and didn't argue the point. Get a grip!
EEA visitors can get treated (for free) for things that need to happen now (i.e. emergency treatments), but not for things that could wait until they get back to their host country.
They are NOT treated for free. Their national government/health service is billed directly by the NHS trust which carries out the service (the same thing happens within the UK).
Just because the individual does not get given a bill does not mean she is treated "for free". No-one who is not a UK resident gets treated for free by any part of the NHS.
But we know from the last few years that the NHS is very abdly set up for backcharging and accounting for treatment.
Oh not this whole 'poor white men' thing again that some on the Right do. Corbyn's idea is barmy, but it's hardly targeted against white men specifically for a start. And @Sean_F I could easily say that the Right must think being of a BME background is a reprehensible and wonder why most BMEs don't vote for them - but it wouldn't be true, just like your statement isn't.
So when Julie Bindel heads an article on CIF "Why I Hate Men" how do you think one should interpret it?
Do you think a right wing journalist would head an article "Why I hate blacks?"
When did Julie Bindel represent everyone on the Left? And while a right-wing journalist may not have said the above, post-2011 riots David Starkey, a right-winger pretty much said borderline racist comments on Newsnight.
Since when did David Starkey represent all right wingers?
I never said he did, I was responding to Sean_F's comment: ''Do you think a right wing journalist would head an article "Why I hate blacks?"
no. But you did say "When did Julie Bindel represent everyone on the Left? " and the continued by labelling David Starkey a right winger and thus linking his abhorrent statements with being right wing. Smacks of double standards.
Loonies exist on both wings, let's not assume of each other the worst traits of the extremists eh?
No I didn't link it to him being right-wing, I was providing a counter-example. As I said in the previous post, he asked me ''Do you think a right wing journalist would head an article "Why I hate blacks?", implying that someone on the Right would never do such a thing.
@Dair And yet men overall in their lifetimes will still earn more than women. And that advantage that young women have btw, in terms of earnings disappears as soon as women are considered likely to have children. In my part-time jobs (since 16) I've only worked for male bosses.
Men born in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s will earn more in their lifetimes than women. Which is the bulk of the population but not reflective of the position TODAY.
Men born in the 1990s will earn far less than women. They will also face considerable societal pressure (mainly from older generations) to be the "breadwinner" which, rightly or more appropriately wrongly, will mean their families put them under considerable mental stress.
Maybe up until their early thirties once most women start having children then even now women fall behind men in terms of earnings
Men tend to work longer hours, over a lifetime, than women do. It's not unfair that people who work longer hours earn more, on average.
I don't particularly wish to engage in the oppression Olympics. Most British people have drawn first prize in the lottery of life. But, the Left will go on as if some groups are oppressed.
Indeed, though some women like Nicola Horlick do have it all they have to work phenomonally hard to do so
Oh not this whole 'poor white men' thing again that some on the Right do. Corbyn's idea is barmy, but it's hardly targeted against white men specifically for a start. And @Sean_F I could easily say that the Right must think being of a BME background is a reprehensible and wonder why most BMEs don't vote for them - but it wouldn't be true, just like your statement isn't.
So when Julie Bindel heads an article on CIF "Why I Hate Men" how do you think one should interpret it?
Do you think a right wing journalist would head an article "Why I hate blacks?"
When did Julie Bindel represent everyone on the Left? And while a right-wing journalist may not have said the above, post-2011 riots David Starkey, a right-winger pretty much said borderline racist comments on Newsnight.
And when that right winger said something so obviously racist, he was widely condemned all round in a chorus of disapproval as there was massive coverage of it. Meanwhile, when Julie Bindel writes something so horribly sexist, the media ignores it.
A media owned by men mostly, and of whom a large part of it is right-wing.
The vast majority of news output consumed in the UK is by the BBC, with Channel 4 the next biggest. These are liberal bastions, where most of the white men involved suffer from white male guilt.
Part of the reason why men probably work longer houses because women are expected to do most of the child-care, and therefore have to take time out of work to care for young children.
Ms Vance, was this in Scotland. That the contrary example was could be relevant.
Couldn't it?
Despite the SHS having consistently better outcomes over the years than the NHS in E&W
Link?
You could always start with Life Expectancy.....
You really just can't stop lying.
You really just can't back up your claims......but its what we've come to expect from the Nats.....
you lie about a Swiss national receiving free NHS healthcare
Quote?
Where did I say that?
Or just more lies, from you?
We know you cult followers hate apostates.....
Eh? I said that. Nor was it a lie, it was my parent's friend; he's now gone back to Geneva. He did receive free healthcare - someone here has now told me there is every likelihood he is entitled anyway - I accepted that and didn't argue the point. Get a grip!
EEA visitors can get treated (for free) for things that need to happen now (i.e. emergency treatments), but not for things that could wait until they get back to their host country.
They are NOT treated for free. Their national government/health service is billed directly by the NHS trust which carries out the service (the same thing happens within the UK).
Just because the individual does not get given a bill does not mean she is treated "for free". No-one who is not a UK resident gets treated for free by any part of the NHS.
So more posts you know are sensationalist, media lies.
Which part of it is a lie?
The bits he doesn't like - or which criticise the SNP.....
Hilarious.. but you must remember Dair does not represent any party
.. Just like Nick Palmer no longer "represents" Labour.. He opines but seems to have moved to the left since he lost his seat.. Mind you, not sure anyone knows who Labour represent any more..
Out of curiosity, why is it that you didn't believe it was possible? People tell lies, and the notion that politicians are especially prone to this hardly came in with New Labour. Was there a particular mechanism that you thought would prevent a PM from telling big lies, or that would stop such a person becoming PM in the first place?
Because there was a general view - I admit it seems naive now - that senior politicians, certainly those who get to be PM, are honourable. So, yes, we'd expect some fudging and stretching of the truth in the normal run of things, but when it came to something like going to war, something which is non-partisan and which relates to the gravest issues of state and which involves the certainty of British lives being lost even if all went well, we assumed honest dealing.
It's embarrassing to write these words now, after Blair. But that's how it was, for very many people.
@Dair And yet men overall in their lifetimes will still earn more than women. And that advantage that young women have btw, in terms of earnings disappears as soon as women are considered likely to have children. In my part-time jobs (since 16) I've only worked for male bosses.
Men born in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s will earn more in their lifetimes than women. Which is the bulk of the population but not reflective of the position TODAY.
Men born in the 1990s will earn far less than women. They will also face considerable societal pressure (mainly from older generations) to be the "breadwinner" which, rightly or more appropriately wrongly, will mean their families put them under considerable mental stress.
Maybe up until their early thirties once most women start having children then even now women fall behind men in terms of earnings
Men tend to work longer hours, over a lifetime, than women do. It's not unfair that people who work longer hours earn more, on average.
I don't particularly wish to engage in the oppression Olympics. Most British people have drawn first prize in the lottery of life. But, the Left will go on as if some groups are oppressed.
Indeed, though some women like Nicola Horlick do have it all they have to work phenomonally hard to do so
She invested her clients' money with Bernie Madoff
DOW, S&P CLOSE LOWER IN BIGGEST REVERSAL SINCE OCT. 08 (CNBC)
U.S. stocks closed lower, after a failed attempt to rally from the Dow's worst 3-day point decline in history, as investor confidence waned amid continued concerns about China and global growth.
The Dow Jones industrial average and the S&P 500 closed about 1.3 percent lower after rallying nearly 3 percent earlier, their biggest reversal to the downside since Oct. 29, 2008. The S&P 500 remained in correction territory after falling there on Monday. The index also posted its first six-day losing streak since July 2012.
"That crash (Monday) was so big and so long since we had one (investors) don't want a repeat of 2008 so they bail out," said Lance Roberts, general partner at STA Wealth Management.
The Dow fell 205 points and S&P 500 closed below 1,900 after falling into negative territory in the last half hour of trade. The Nasdaq Composite failed to hold slight gains and closed 0.44 percent lower. ---------------------- IF CHINA FALLS AGAIN OVERNIGHT WE COULD BE IN FOR A PROLONGED COLD SPELL
Damned SNP, Salmond has a lot to answer for. Except for the part that's Nicola's fault.
Oh we know the Sainted Eck and Beloved Nicola are beyond criticism....how's that $100 oil doing?
The Union seems to be a very bad deal.
Your compatriots didn't seem to think so 11 months ago.....
Scottish born residents voted to dissolve the UK.
But that wasn't the electorate!
So much for 'civic nationalism'!
Or are you more of a 'blood & soil' type?
Ah the "resort to fascism". You never avoid the chance to lie.
May I suggest a thesaurus? The 'l' word has been far too overused by you in this thread.
Oh not this whole 'poor white men' thing again that some on the Right do. Corbyn's idea is barmy, but it's hardly targeted against white men specifically for a start. And @Sean_F I could easily say that the Right must think being of a BME background is a reprehensible and wonder why most BMEs don't vote for them - but it wouldn't be true, just like your statement isn't.
So when Julie Bindel heads an article on CIF "Why I Hate Men" how do you think one should interpret it?
Do you think a right wing journalist would head an article "Why I hate blacks?"
When did Julie Bindel represent everyone on the Left? And while a right-wing journalist may not have said the above, post-2011 riots David Starkey, a right-winger pretty much said borderline racist comments on Newsnight.
Since when did David Starkey represent all right wingers?
I never said he did, I was responding to Sean_F's comment: ''Do you think a right wing journalist would head an article "Why I hate blacks?"
no. But you did say "When did Julie Bindel represent everyone on the Left? " and the continued by labelling David Starkey a right winger and thus linking his abhorrent statements with being right wing. Smacks of double standards.
Loonies exist on both wings, let's not assume of each other the worst traits of the extremists eh?
No I didn't link it to him being right-wing, I was providing a counter-example. As I said in the previous post, he asked me ''Do you think a right wing journalist would head an article "Why I hate blacks?", implying that someone on the Right would never do such a thing.
My point on Bindel was a separate point.
It is possible to condemn both without linking either of their outpourings being solely due to their political leanings.
Indie - The leader of one of Britain’s major trade unions has been banned from voting in the Labour Party’s leadership election.
Mark Serwotka, the general secretary of the PCS union, which represents civil servants, had his ballot retroactively revoked after having voted online earlier this month.
@Dair And yet men overall in their lifetimes will still earn more than women. And that advantage that young women have btw, in terms of earnings disappears as soon as women are considered likely to have children. In my part-time jobs (since 16) I've only worked for male bosses.
Oh not this whole 'poor white men' thing again that some on the Right do. Corbyn's idea is barmy, but it's hardly targeted against white men specifically for a start. And @Sean_F I could easily say that the Right must think being of a BME background is a reprehensible and wonder why most BMEs don't vote for them - but it wouldn't be true, just like your statement isn't.
There is a clear difference in that the Right do not bring forward proposals that explicitly discriminate against black people or women. The Left regularly bring forward proposals that explicitly discriminate against white people or men. In the same way, if a Conservative MP came out and said something racist against all black people, they would be kicked out of the party, but if a Labour MP came out and said something racist against all white people, it is ignored.
Yet the Right felt the need to prove how inclusive they were of women and BMEs in the Cameron era. Again, I do not see how Corbyn's plans specifically discriminate against white men. There are other men who won't be able to go in those carriages that aren't white. The Labour party is mostly white, its supporters on the whole are mostly white, so the idea they actually are anti-white, and anti-male is weird. All their leaders have been white and male, and for that matter most of those within top positions in the party.
When the Right go out of their way to be inclusive of women and non-white people, that is a good thing, and does not imply some negative "they needed to prove" something. It shows the Conservatives are interested in reaching out to people. It's clear the Left does not do its best to reach out to voting groups that tend to vote against it, like men and white people.
I agree that this particular policy only discriminates against men. There are other policies being put forward, such as those by Sadiq Khan that are anti-white, however, which is what I was alluding to.
Yes, but why then? The Tories have been around for centuries, so why therefore did they suddenly decide to ''reach out to people'' (a strategy with mixed success) around 2005/6? Sadiq Khan isn't likely to win Labour's mayoral nomination, and his silly ideas are hardly official party policy.
Part of the reason why men probably work longer houses because women are expected to do most of the child-care, and therefore have to take time out of work to care for young children.
Out of interest, would you choose to sit it one of Corbyn's 'Ladies Carriages' or wing it in one packed with men?
Oh not this whole 'poor white men' thing again that some on the Right do. Corbyn's idea is barmy, but it's hardly targeted against white men specifically for a start. And @Sean_F I could easily say that the Right must think being of a BME background is a reprehensible and wonder why most BMEs don't vote for them - but it wouldn't be true, just like your statement isn't.
So when Julie Bindel heads an article on CIF "Why I Hate Men" how do you think one should interpret it?
Do you think a right wing journalist would head an article "Why I hate blacks?"
When did Julie Bindel represent everyone on the Left? And while a right-wing journalist may not have said the above, post-2011 riots David Starkey, a right-winger pretty much said borderline racist comments on Newsnight.
Since when did David Starkey represent all right wingers?
I never said he did, I was responding to Sean_F's comment: ''Do you think a right wing journalist would head an article "Why I hate blacks?"
no. But you did say "When did Julie Bindel represent everyone on the Left? " and the continued by labelling David Starkey a right winger and thus linking his abhorrent statements with being right wing. Smacks of double standards.
Loonies exist on both wings, let's not assume of each other the worst traits of the extremists eh?
No I didn't link it to him being right-wing, I was providing a counter-example. As I said in the previous post, he asked me ''Do you think a right wing journalist would head an article "Why I hate blacks?", implying that someone on the Right would never do such a thing.
My point on Bindel was a separate point.
if you don't mind me saying so you comment on Starkey was in itself a nonsense. What you said was, " ... pretty much said borderline racist comments". Now I have no idea what Starkey said or didn't say, but either the remarks were racist, in which case there are remedies in place, or they were not in which case there is no complaint to be made.
Saying something is borderline racist is rather like saying a lady is almost pregnant.
DOW, S&P CLOSE LOWER IN BIGGEST REVERSAL SINCE OCT. 08 (CNBC)
U.S. stocks closed lower, after a failed attempt to rally from the Dow's worst 3-day point decline in history, as investor confidence waned amid continued concerns about China and global growth.
The Dow Jones industrial average and the S&P 500 closed about 1.3 percent lower after rallying nearly 3 percent earlier, their biggest reversal to the downside since Oct. 29, 2008. The S&P 500 remained in correction territory after falling there on Monday. The index also posted its first six-day losing streak since July 2012.
"That crash (Monday) was so big and so long since we had one (investors) don't want a repeat of 2008 so they bail out," said Lance Roberts, general partner at STA Wealth Management.
The Dow fell 205 points and S&P 500 closed below 1,900 after falling into negative territory in the last half hour of trade. The Nasdaq Composite failed to hold slight gains and closed 0.44 percent lower. ---------------------- IF CHINA FALLS AGAIN OVERNIGHT WE COULD BE IN FOR A PROLONGED COLD SPELL
Damned SNP, Salmond has a lot to answer for. Except for the part that's Nicola's fault.
Oh we know the Sainted Eck and Beloved Nicola are beyond criticism....how's that $100 oil doing?
The Union seems to be a very bad deal.
Your compatriots didn't seem to think so 11 months ago.....
Scottish born residents voted to dissolve the UK.
You sound like Jacques Parizeau in Quebec in 1995, 'noting that 60% of French-speakers had voted yes, he stated that he would address French-speaking Québécois as nous ("we"), and that they had spoken clearly in favour of the "Yes". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_referendum,_1995#Aftermath
"I'm quite sceptical about the whole 'offensive language' project - though I suppose it helps keep some journalists and Diversity Officers in jobs.'
I heard a comedian discussing the concept of political correctness and he wondered whether Shakin' Stephens could still be referred to as Shakin' Stephens if he got Parkinsons
Oh not this whole 'poor white men' thing again that some on the Right do. Corbyn's idea is barmy, but it's hardly targeted against white men specifically for a start. And @Sean_F I could easily say that the Right must think being of a BME background is a reprehensible and wonder why most BMEs don't vote for them - but it wouldn't be true, just like your statement isn't.
So when Julie Bindel heads an article on CIF "Why I Hate Men" how do you think one should interpret it?
Do you think a right wing journalist would head an article "Why I hate blacks?"
When did Julie Bindel represent everyone on the Left? And while a right-wing journalist may not have said the above, post-2011 riots David Starkey, a right-winger pretty much said borderline racist comments on Newsnight.
Since when did David Starkey represent all right wingers?
I never said he did, I was responding to Sean_F's comment: ''Do you think a right wing journalist would head an article "Why I hate blacks?"
no. But you did say "When did Julie Bindel represent everyone on the Left? " and the continued by labelling David Starkey a right winger and thus linking his abhorrent statements with being right wing. Smacks of double standards.
Loonies exist on both wings, let's not assume of each other the worst traits of the extremists eh?
No I didn't link it to him being right-wing, I was providing a counter-example. As I said in the previous post, he asked me ''Do you think a right wing journalist would head an article "Why I hate blacks?", implying that someone on the Right would never do such a thing.
My point on Bindel was a separate point.
if you don't mind me saying so you comment on Starkey was in itself a nonsense. What you said was, " ... pretty much said borderline racist comments". Now I have no idea what Starkey said or didn't say, but either the remarks were racist, in which case there are remedies in place, or they were not in which case there is no complaint to be made.
Saying something is borderline racist is rather like saying a lady is almost pregnant.
Part of the reason why men probably work longer houses because women are expected to do most of the child-care, and therefore have to take time out of work to care for young children.
The main reason is that men are far more likely to be workaholics than women. You always get extremes with men: more men who don't work at all, more men who work more than they need to.
Part of the reason why men probably work longer houses because women are expected to do most of the child-care, and therefore have to take time out of work to care for young children.
Out of interest, would you choose to sit it one of Corbyn's 'Ladies Carriages' or wing it in one packed with men?
I would hope to never encounter such a situation, tbh. Though why do you ask this?
1) You are not to refer to any of The_Apocalypse's posts, directly or indirectly going forward.
2) You have forgotten Mike's warning to you in the past, not to insinuate new posters are old posters
Please adhere to this please.
Hi
Yes I remember I got banned for saying Bobajob was Boba Fett/The Last Boy Scout... and he was, and is now banned under all of those names for having multiple accounts...
I wonder how he gets around that?
No apology received for the constant "don't accuse him" even though I was 100% right of course
Interesting BBC article: Looking for my Shanghai father. About the expulsion of tens of thousands Chinese people from the UK at the end of WW2. (Since everybody seems in a bad mood tonight, I shall stir the pot: had it been a Conservative rather than Labour government that had pursued their removal, would the Left still be up in arms over the issue, and added this "act of ethnic cleansing" to their Big List of Reasons Tories Are Evil?)
Oh not this whole 'poor white men' thing again that some on the Right do. Corbyn's idea is barmy, but it's hardly targeted against white men specifically for a start. And @Sean_F I could easily say that the Right must think being of a BME background is a reprehensible and wonder why most BMEs don't vote for them - but it wouldn't be true, just like your statement isn't.
So when Julie Bindel heads an article on CIF "Why I Hate Men" how do you think one should interpret it?
Do you think a right wing journalist would head an article "Why I hate blacks?"
When did Julie Bindel represent everyone on the Left? And while a right-wing journalist may not have said the above, post-2011 riots David Starkey, a right-winger pretty much said borderline racist comments on Newsnight.
Since when did David Starkey represent all right wingers?
I never said he did, I was responding to Sean_F's comment: ''Do you think a right wing journalist would head an article "Why I hate blacks?"
no. But you did say "When did Julie Bindel represent everyone on the Left? " and the continued by labelling David Starkey a right winger and thus linking his abhorrent statements with being right wing. Smacks of double standards.
Loonies exist on both wings, let's not assume of each other the worst traits of the extremists eh?
No I didn't link it to him being right-wing, I was providing a counter-example. As I said in the previous post, he asked me ''Do you think a right wing journalist would head an article "Why I hate blacks?", implying that someone on the Right would never do such a thing.
My point on Bindel was a separate point.
if you don't mind me saying so you comment on Starkey was in itself a nonsense. What you said was, " ... pretty much said borderline racist comments". Now I have no idea what Starkey said or didn't say, but either the remarks were racist, in which case there are remedies in place, or they were not in which case there is no complaint to be made.
Saying something is borderline racist is rather like saying a lady is almost pregnant.
Part of the reason why men probably work longer houses because women are expected to do most of the child-care, and therefore have to take time out of work to care for young children.
Out of interest, would you choose to sit it one of Corbyn's 'Ladies Carriages' or wing it in one packed with men?
I would hope to never encounter such a situation, tbh. Though why do you ask this?
As one of the few ladies here, it would be interesting to hear your views on segregated transport.
Part of the reason why men probably work longer houses because women are expected to do most of the child-care, and therefore have to take time out of work to care for young children.
The main reason is that men are far more likely to be workaholics than women. You always get extremes with men: more men who don't work at all, more men who work more than they need to.
Yes, but then that's because men aren't expected to have multiple responsibilities. These days women are expected to work, be a full-time mum, and do most of the housework. Whereas men are expected to be purely breadwinners.
The Tories have definitely tried reaching out to specific groups, as they perceived they had a problem with those groups, but by and large I think they have dialled back on it a bit - either because it wasn't working (but I believe they are doing a bit better?), worked well enough so can be dialled back as they never really wanted to go any further, or think it would work better if it does not look like obvious pandering. That is, reaching out to people directly works for a start, but if you go too far you get accused of favouring groups, and even some in that group don't like it. Just theorizing here - I sometimes felt the Tories believed a little too much in their own reputation as the nasty party, and so perpetuated the idea they were nasty to new generations (certainly I grew up with no memories of Tory rule, so by constantly acting as though they needed to atone, it might make one think that it must be true they were awful)
Surely a woman in a "Womens only" carriage late at night on the train is less safe than if she was in a normal one? I'd have thought it was helpful to would be attackers
Part of the reason why men probably work longer houses because women are expected to do most of the child-care, and therefore have to take time out of work to care for young children.
The main reason is that men are far more likely to be workaholics than women. You always get extremes with men: more men who don't work at all, more men who work more than they need to.
Yes, but then that's because men aren't expected to have multiple responsibilities. These days women are expected to work, be a full-time mum, and do most of the housework. Whereas men are expected to be purely breadwinners.
@Dair And yet men overall in their lifetimes will still earn more than women. And that advantage that young women have btw, in terms of earnings disappears as soon as women are considered likely to have children. In my part-time jobs (since 16) I've only worked for male bosses.
Men born in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s will earn more in their lifetimes than women. Which is the bulk of the population but not reflective of the position TODAY.
Men born in the 1990s will earn far less than women. They will also face considerable societal pressure (mainly from older generations) to be the "breadwinner" which, rightly or more appropriately wrongly, will mean their families put them under considerable mental stress.
Maybe up until their early thirties once most women start having children then even now women fall behind men in terms of earnings
Men tend to work longer hours, over a lifetime, than women do. It's not unfair that people who work longer hours earn more, on average.
I don't particularly wish to engage in the oppression Olympics. Most British people have drawn first prize in the lottery of life. But, the Left will go on as if some groups are oppressed.
Indeed, though some women like Nicola Horlick do have it all they have to work phenomonally hard to do so
She invested her clients' money with Bernie Madoff
I never said she was the world's best financier and a lot of people invested with Madoff
DOW, S&P CLOSE LOWER IN BIGGEST REVERSAL SINCE OCT. 08 (CNBC)
U.S. stocks closed lower, after a failed attempt to rally from the Dow's worst 3-day point decline in history, as investor confidence waned amid continued concerns about China and global growth.
The Dow Jones industrial average and the S&P 500 closed about 1.3 percent lower after rallying nearly 3 percent earlier, their biggest reversal to the downside since Oct. 29, 2008. The S&P 500 remained in correction territory after falling there on Monday. The index also posted its first six-day losing streak since July 2012.
"That crash (Monday) was so big and so long since we had one (investors) don't want a repeat of 2008 so they bail out," said Lance Roberts, general partner at STA Wealth Management.
The Dow fell 205 points and S&P 500 closed below 1,900 after falling into negative territory in the last half hour of trade. The Nasdaq Composite failed to hold slight gains and closed 0.44 percent lower. ---------------------- IF CHINA FALLS AGAIN OVERNIGHT WE COULD BE IN FOR A PROLONGED COLD SPELL
Damned SNP, Salmond has a lot to answer for. Except for the part that's Nicola's fault.
Oh we know the Sainted Eck and Beloved Nicola are beyond criticism....how's that $100 oil doing?
The Union seems to be a very bad deal.
Your compatriots didn't seem to think so 11 months ago.....
Scottish born residents voted to dissolve the UK.
You sound like Jacques Parizeau in Quebec in 1995, 'noting that 60% of French-speakers had voted yes, he stated that he would address French-speaking Québécois as nous ("we"), and that they had spoken clearly in favour of the "Yes". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_referendum,_1995#Aftermath
Part of the reason why men probably work longer houses because women are expected to do most of the child-care, and therefore have to take time out of work to care for young children.
Out of interest, would you choose to sit it one of Corbyn's 'Ladies Carriages' or wing it in one packed with men?
I would hope to never encounter such a situation, tbh. Though why do you ask this?
As one of the few ladies here, it would be interesting to hear your views on segregated transport.
I don't agree with it, I think Corbyn's idea is stupid and simply displaces crime. It doesn't deal with the real issue: which is why are sex attacks occurring in the first place.
Another interesting day on the markets. Great buying opportunity on US stocks for a UK investor in early October once we get this correction out of the way in my opinion. Where the Dow bottoms is open to question though. Somewhere in the low 13k area would be good! We need this final terminal move into the short end of the global sovereign bond market before the great collapse of government debt worldwide can commence in earnest:
Part of the reason why men probably work longer houses because women are expected to do most of the child-care, and therefore have to take time out of work to care for young children.
The main reason is that men are far more likely to be workaholics than women. You always get extremes with men: more men who don't work at all, more men who work more than they need to.
Yes, but then that's because men aren't expected to have multiple responsibilities. These days women are expected to work, be a full-time mum, and do most of the housework. Whereas men are expected to be purely breadwinners.
Bollocks! This isn't the fifties.
It may not be, but progress is slow. Women are still considered the main care-giver, and stats show they still do most housework.
Indie - The leader of one of Britain’s major trade unions has been banned from voting in the Labour Party’s leadership election.
Mark Serwotka, the general secretary of the PCS union, which represents civil servants, had his ballot retroactively revoked after having voted online earlier this month.
It's surprising that this possible motivation hasn't really yet made an impact. It seems quite possible (and understandable) to me that PLP might want to massage the vote in this way to save a little bit of face. How embarrassing if they were sussed.
Surely a woman in a "Womens only" carriage late at night on the train is less safe than if she was in a normal one? I'd have thought it was helpful to would be attackers
Surely a woman in a "Womens only" carriage late at night on the train is less safe than if she was in a normal one? I'd have thought it was helpful to would be attackers
What's to stop a man dressing up and sitting in one? Perhaps in a Burqa. Some males choose to masquerade as women, for personal reasons. Would they be able to sneak in?
How would entry be policed? Checks on the doors would be time consuming and prohibitive.
Part of the reason why men probably work longer houses because women are expected to do most of the child-care, and therefore have to take time out of work to care for young children.
Out of interest, would you choose to sit it one of Corbyn's 'Ladies Carriages' or wing it in one packed with men?
I would hope to never encounter such a situation, tbh. Though why do you ask this?
As one of the few ladies here, it would be interesting to hear your views on segregated transport.
I find the idea silly. If women are being attacked, then we need to catch the attackers not expect the potential victims to hide themselves away.
That said, if there were a rapist on the loose on the Northern Line, there might be a case for some temporary measures to protect women pending the police catching the attacker. But on a permanent basis - no. It's dealing with symptoms rather than causes.
Surely a woman in a "Womens only" carriage late at night on the train is less safe than if she was in a normal one? I'd have thought it was helpful to would be attackers
What's to stop a man dressing up and sitting in one? Perhaps in a Burqa. Some males choose to masquerade as women, for personal reasons. Would they be able to sneak in?
How would entry be policed? Checks on the doors would be time consuming and prohibitive.
Logic dictates that the women-only carriages would soon be empty...
Surely a woman in a "Womens only" carriage late at night on the train is less safe than if she was in a normal one? I'd have thought it was helpful to would be attackers
Yes, there's a certain stupidity in artificially creating a target rich environment. You might as well do the job properly and provide black-out curtains, plastic sheeting on the floor and a plentiful supply of bleach.
Part of the reason why men probably work longer houses because women are expected to do most of the child-care, and therefore have to take time out of work to care for young children.
Out of interest, would you choose to sit it one of Corbyn's 'Ladies Carriages' or wing it in one packed with men?
I would hope to never encounter such a situation, tbh. Though why do you ask this?
As one of the few ladies here, it would be interesting to hear your views on segregated transport.
Surely a woman in a "Womens only" carriage late at night on the train is less safe than if she was in a normal one? I'd have thought it was helpful to would be attackers
What's to stop a man dressing up and sitting in one? Perhaps in a Burqa. Some males choose to masquerade as women, for personal reasons. Would they be able to sneak in?
How would entry be policed? Checks on the doors would be time consuming and prohibitive.
Logic dictates that the women-only carriages would soon be empty...
I wouldn't be so sure - if a touch of lipstick, some mascara and a dress guaranteed one a seat on the 7.20am from Haslemere, they'd soon be filling up with "Don't you know I'm a lady" City gents dragging it up.
Perhaps Apocalypse could give some of us novices tips in the art of beautifying oneself?
Surely a woman in a "Womens only" carriage late at night on the train is less safe than if she was in a normal one? I'd have thought it was helpful to would be attackers
What's to stop a man dressing up and sitting in one? Perhaps in a Burqa. Some males choose to masquerade as women, for personal reasons. Would they be able to sneak in?
How would entry be policed? Checks on the doors would be time consuming and prohibitive.
Logic dictates that the women-only carriages would soon be empty...
I wouldn't be so sure - if a touch of lipstick, some mascara and a dress guaranteed one a seat on the 7.20am from Haslemere, they'd soon be filling up with "Don't you know I'm a lady" City gents dragging it up.
Still, I'd dispute how common the use of the word actually is. Something referenced by Guardian journos, as we all know doesn't necessarily reflect the real world.
I'd give more weight to Guardian journo's who aren't campaigning on a particular issue and mention something in passing. Guardian campaigning journalists can be given to bouts of imagination, and none of the Oxford Arts ones can do Maths :-D .
But I think we have to listen to the people with direct experience, though.
I was used to hearing "spaz" at primary school as an insult / term of endearment from one able-bodied child to another, though I'm not convinced in those circs it was harmful. To a disabled child, maybe .. but that does not change my point.
Part of the reason why men probably work longer houses because women are expected to do most of the child-care, and therefore have to take time out of work to care for young children.
Out of interest, would you choose to sit it one of Corbyn's 'Ladies Carriages' or wing it in one packed with men?
I would hope to never encounter such a situation, tbh. Though why do you ask this?
As one of the few ladies here, it would be interesting to hear your views on segregated transport.
Watford30 are you Ave it's other half?
We did go out for dinner once, but when it became clear that he was only interested in me for my ISA, things went cold.
Part of the reason why men probably work longer houses because women are expected to do most of the child-care, and therefore have to take time out of work to care for young children.
Out of interest, would you choose to sit it one of Corbyn's 'Ladies Carriages' or wing it in one packed with men?
I would hope to never encounter such a situation, tbh. Though why do you ask this?
As one of the few ladies here, it would be interesting to hear your views on segregated transport.
Watford30 are you Ave it's other half?
We did go out for dinner once, but when it became clear that he was only interested in me for my ISA, things went cold.
Surely a woman in a "Womens only" carriage late at night on the train is less safe than if she was in a normal one? I'd have thought it was helpful to would be attackers
Yes, there's a certain stupidity in artificially creating a target rich environment. You might as well do the job properly and provide black-out curtains, plastic sheeting on the floor and a plentiful supply of bleach.
On the other hand you could have a self-driving train, as many of them are already, and have the driver in regular attendance.
Still, I'd dispute how common the use of the word actually is. Something referenced by Guardian journos, as we all know doesn't necessarily reflect the real world.
I'd give more weight to Guardian journo's who aren't campaigning on a particular issue and mention something in passing. Guardian campaigning journalists can be given to bouts of imagination, and none of the Oxford Arts ones can do Maths :-D .
But I think we have to listen to the people with direct experience, though.
I was used to hearing "spaz" at primary school as an insult / term of endearment from one able-bodied child to another, though I'm not convinced in those circs it was harmful. To a disabled child, maybe .. but that does not change my point.
I don't understand how the word 'spaz' being harmful to a disabled child doesn't change your point. I also don't see how Guardian journos mentioning it, again means that they have direct experience.
We must ignore the truth, particularly when it is uncomfortable.
So one guy's testimony suddenly makes Starkey's comments gospel? Even he had to roll back on his previous comments to Burley.
But then somehow, I'm not that surprised that you share Starkey's views, especially after Harridan-gate.
The naivety of youth.
No, more like just not agreeing with Starkey's racism.
Starkey is a polemicist, in the same way that Polly Toynbee is, they get invited on these shows specifically because the producers know that they will go close to the knuckle and sometimes cross over the line. It does seem that Starkey veered over the line somewhat.
But you will learn that some truths are very uncomfortable and sometimes people collectively would rather something wasnt true, and ignore it, than deal with the issue.
I think there is an argument for women's-only carriages at night. The conductor could stay in the carriage between stops and it would allow women to take journeys in peace without feeling threatened.
Do I agree with it? No. I don't think women being attacked, or feeling threatened, on trains is a big enough problem to justify a rather extreme solution.
But I also don't think the occasional bombing was a big enough problem to justify the rather extreme solution of removing bins from train stations. I'm clearly not the one in charge!
I imagine it was an off-hand idea mooted by Corbyn and amplified for a headline, such is the nature of the modern media and the current sensationalistic incarnation of The Independent.
I do find it quite funny that JEO recently claimed to be a conservative because they are "pragmatic", then dismiss such a pragmatic idea out of hand! I'd argue the right has a very selective idea of pragmatism!
Part of the reason why men probably work longer houses because women are expected to do most of the child-care, and therefore have to take time out of work to care for young children.
Out of interest, would you choose to sit it one of Corbyn's 'Ladies Carriages' or wing it in one packed with men?
I would hope to never encounter such a situation, tbh. Though why do you ask this?
As one of the few ladies here, it would be interesting to hear your views on segregated transport.
Watford30 are you Ave it's other half?
We did go out for dinner once, but when it became clear that he was only interested in me for my ISA, things went cold.
Surely a woman in a "Womens only" carriage late at night on the train is less safe than if she was in a normal one? I'd have thought it was helpful to would be attackers
Yes, there's a certain stupidity in artificially creating a target rich environment. You might as well do the job properly and provide black-out curtains, plastic sheeting on the floor and a plentiful supply of bleach.
On the other hand you could have a self-driving train, as many of them are already, and have the driver in regular attendance.
Absolutely. The sooner London underground automates its trains the better and puts 2 fingers up to the rmt. What are they pussyfooting about for?
Interesting developments with Harvey Proctor today. I have my own views on his comments but the less said the better.
Yes, but why then? The Tories have been around for centuries, so why therefore did they suddenly decide to ''reach out to people'' (a strategy with mixed success) around 2005/6? Sadiq Khan isn't likely to win Labour's mayoral nomination, and his silly ideas are hardly official party policy.
Because, for most of the 20th Century, women voted Conservative at higher rates than men. That changed about a decade a go so we needed to reach out more to women again. I also need not point out that we elected a woman leader almost 40 years ago. That is part of a long tradition back to Wellington and Disraeli of appointing leaders from different backgrounds - part of the proud Tory tradition of meritocracy, putting in the best person for the job, regardless of religion, ethnicity or gender. Labour could learn a lot from that.
I'll remember your comment on Khan when he becomes the nominee.
All this talk about Corbyn and his Provo mates from Belfast.
Corbyn apparently associates with the so called oppressed. He doesn't really, he associates with losers. The Provos lost, Hamas lead what is basically an oversized dump in Gaza. Good luck to him.
Becoming Labour leader isn't exactly a big win either.
That is about all you need to know about the man and indeed many of those on the left. Socialism lost, capitalism won.
FWIW there's polling evidence from last year on women and single-sex carriages: 45% of women in London would like them. 20% say they've been physically abused on the Tube.
Surely a woman in a "Womens only" carriage late at night on the train is less safe than if she was in a normal one? I'd have thought it was helpful to would be attackers
What's to stop a man dressing up and sitting in one? Perhaps in a Burqa. Some males choose to masquerade as women, for personal reasons. Would they be able to sneak in?
How would entry be policed? Checks on the doors would be time consuming and prohibitive.
Im sure the unions that represent tube workers would accept the idea of their staff becoming security guards without too much fuss...
FWIW there's polling evidence from last year on women and single-sex carriages: 45% of women in London would like them. 20% say they've been physically abused on the Tube.
It'd be helpful to have fuller - did the other 55% disagree, or is there a don't know chunk?
So, women-only carriages might be OK, but men-only clubs are not? Or what about mother-and-child free carriages so that we men can have an undisturbed journey?
Yes, but why then? The Tories have been around for centuries, so why therefore did they suddenly decide to ''reach out to people'' (a strategy with mixed success) around 2005/6? Sadiq Khan isn't likely to win Labour's mayoral nomination, and his silly ideas are hardly official party policy.
Because, for most of the 20th Century, women voted Conservative at higher rates than men. That changed about a decade a go so we needed to reach out more to women again. I also need not point out that we elected a woman leader almost 40 years ago. That is part of a long tradition back to Wellington and Disraeli of appointing leaders from different backgrounds - part of the proud Tory tradition of meritocracy, putting in the best person for the job, regardless of religion, ethnicity or gender. Labour could learn a lot from that.
I'll remember your comment on Khan when he becomes the nominee.
But the A-list wasn't just about women voters. It was also about the Conservatives' long-standing issues with BMEs, too. And you may have selected a woman leader more than 40 years ago, and apparently have a 'proud Tory tradition of meritocracy', but it's strange, in that case that the party had to go to significant lengths to prove how inclusive they are, given that many groups were not convinced by this 'proud tradition of meritocracy'. And still remain unconvinced. Something for Tories to ponder?
I think there is an argument for women's-only carriages at night. The conductor could stay in the carriage between stops and it would allow women to take journeys in peace without feeling threatened.
Do I agree with it? No. I don't think women being attacked, or feeling threatened, on trains is a big enough problem to justify a rather extreme solution.
But I also don't think the occasional bombing was a big enough problem to justify the rather extreme solution of removing bins from train stations. I'm clearly not the one in charge!
I imagine it was an off-hand idea mooted by Corbyn and amplified for a headline, such is the nature of the modern media and the current sensationalistic incarnation of The Independent.
I do find it quite funny that JEO recently claimed to be a conservative because they are "pragmatic", then dismiss such a pragmatic idea out of hand! I'd argue the right has a very selective idea of pragmatism!
Having a pragmatic attitude in no way requires someone to modulate their positions on everything. It's good to be open to pragmatism, but it should not be automatic - sometimes stubborn people arguing for all or nothing on an issue are right, and the debate should be had each time to determine that.
Corbyn really is bonkers.. Does he back "men only" carriages. I doubt he understands what anything is about as prejudice gets in the way..
A moron in fact.
Why would be the benefit of giving men their own carriages?
And what would be the benefit of "women only " carriages.. Its like Apartheid.
Women would be safer. FFS. What sort of contrarian are you? Unfortunately women are at risk of being propositioned, groped, touched up, assaulted etc etc on public transport. By men. And we don't like it or enjoy it and sometimes it is quite frightening. Usually worse late at night, after football or drink. Men are not generally at risk of any of those things from women. But you know that really, don't you? If you try to pretend it's not true, then you are either an idiot or Godfrey Bloom. Which amounts to the same thing.
So soon I could be living in a city that gives non white people preference in the jobs market, (despite white british people being in the minority), and segregates carriages on the tube depending on your sex...
.. and this is progress?
Progress from not living in a segregated society to the state forcing me to live in one... grrreat
Corbyn really is bonkers.. Does he back "men only" carriages. I doubt he understands what anything is about as prejudice gets in the way..
A moron in fact.
Why would be the benefit of giving men their own carriages?
And what would be the benefit of "women only " carriages.. Its like Apartheid.
Women would be safer. FFS. What sort of contrarian are you? Unfortunately women are at risk of being propositioned, groped, touched up, assaulted etc etc on public transport. By men. And we don't like it or enjoy it and sometimes it is quite frightening. Usually worse late at night, after football or drink. Men are not generally at risk of any of those things from women. But you know that really, don't you? If you try to pretend it's not true, then you are either an idiot or Godfrey Bloom. Which amounts to the same thing.
So soon I could be living in a city that gives non white people preference in the jobs market, (despite white british people being in the minority), and segregates carriages on the tube depending on your sex...
.. and this is progress?
Progress from not living in a segregated society to the state forcing me to live in one... grrreat
Whatever next, the rich being segregated from the poor?
Perhaps the rich would live and work in separate areas and go to different schools! It would be horrible!
Corbyn really is bonkers.. Does he back "men only" carriages. I doubt he understands what anything is about as prejudice gets in the way..
A moron in fact.
Why would be the benefit of giving men their own carriages?
And what would be the benefit of "women only " carriages.. Its like Apartheid.
Women would be safer. FFS. What sort of contrarian are you? Unfortunately women are at risk of being propositioned, groped, touched up, assaulted etc etc on public transport. By men. And we don't like it or enjoy it and sometimes it is quite frightening. Usually worse late at night, after football or drink. Men are not generally at risk of any of those things from women. But you know that really, don't you? If you try to pretend it's not true, then you are either an idiot or Godfrey Bloom. Which amounts to the same thing.
Night all.
Yes, travelling home on an almost empty late night tube in a carriage with a big sign saying only women allowed on it...
Doesnt get much safer than that, I am sure no wrong un will think its an easy target
Yes, but why then? The Tories have been around for centuries, so why therefore did they suddenly decide to ''reach out to people'' (a strategy with mixed success) around 2005/6? Sadiq Khan isn't likely to win Labour's mayoral nomination, and his silly ideas are hardly official party policy.
Because, for most of the 20th Century, women voted Conservative at higher rates than men. That changed about a decade a go so we needed to reach out more to women again. I also need not point out that we elected a woman leader almost 40 years ago. That is part of a long tradition back to Wellington and Disraeli of appointing leaders from different backgrounds - part of the proud Tory tradition of meritocracy, putting in the best person for the job, regardless of religion, ethnicity or gender. Labour could learn a lot from that.
I'll remember your comment on Khan when he becomes the nominee.
But the A-list wasn't just about women voters. It was also about the Conservatives' long-standing issues with BMEs, too. And you may have selected a woman leader more than 40 years ago, and apparently have a 'proud Tory tradition of meritocracy', but it's strange, in that case that the party had to go to significant lengths to prove how inclusive they are, given that many groups were not convinced by this 'proud tradition of meritocracy'. And still remain unconvinced. Something for Tories to ponder?
Many remain unconvinced because many do not pay close attention to politics, and those on the left, like Diane Abbott, are often stirring the pot about how Tories don't represent black people. Then there are men like Khan who promise preferences to non-white racial groups, and imply those that oppose such things are anti-ethnic minority. As a great man once said, you can fool some of the people all of the time. We must just keep on making our case.
FWIW there's polling evidence from last year on women and single-sex carriages: 45% of women in London would like them. 20% say they've been physically abused on the Tube.
It'd be helpful to have fuller - did the other 55% disagree, or is there a don't know chunk?
So, women-only carriages might be OK, but men-only clubs are not? Or what about mother-and-child free carriages so that we men can have an undisturbed journey?
Women only swim sessions at my local swimming pool annoy me. Why not men only sessions as well if you're having women only sessions? surely that breaks some gender equality legislation? ! Not in favour of sex segregation generally in society. People should just learn to get on with each other and rub along.
Corbyn really is bonkers.. Does he back "men only" carriages. I doubt he understands what anything is about as prejudice gets in the way..
A moron in fact.
Why would be the benefit of giving men their own carriages?
And what would be the benefit of "women only " carriages.. Its like Apartheid.
Women would be safer.
They'd be safe if we segregated men and women in areas besides train carriages, presumably.
This reminds me of the debate the other day about corporal punishment in schools. I'm firmly of the view that you can control and protect children without the threat or act of hitting other children - we know that to be the case as most children and schools get by just fine - and therefore those areas that are suffering problems don't need corporal punishment even if they want it.
Perhaps we could instead concentrate on making things safe without having to segregate our society? Harder to do, more expensive to do, longer to do and involving cultural change and vigilance, no doubt, but better than just declaring it, in essence, an unsolvable problem so let's just prevent all possibilities of it occurring in this place only because moving the problem is exactly the same thing as solving the problem, right?
I'm certainly not advocating this issue be hijacked into the 'white men are oppressed' argument, but it is equally unfair to imply simple contrariness or, implicitly, darker and unwelcome attitudes toward women lay behind disliking the idea of such segregation.
I think there is an argument for women's-only carriages at night. The conductor could stay in the carriage between stops and it would allow women to take journeys in peace without feeling threatened.
Do I agree with it? No. I don't think women being attacked, or feeling threatened, on trains is a big enough problem to justify a rather extreme solution.
But I also don't think the occasional bombing was a big enough problem to justify the rather extreme solution of removing bins from train stations. I'm clearly not the one in charge!
I imagine it was an off-hand idea mooted by Corbyn and amplified for a headline, such is the nature of the modern media and the current sensationalistic incarnation of The Independent.
I do find it quite funny that JEO recently claimed to be a conservative because they are "pragmatic", then dismiss such a pragmatic idea out of hand! I'd argue the right has a very selective idea of pragmatism!
My pragmatic experience is that societies that treat people equally are superior to those that divide people. Women are not the only ones that sometimes feel threatened at night, and men are not the only ones that commit crimes. It would not be good for sexual equality to create a dynamic where men are seen to all be potential sexual abusers, which is the concept this policy is based on.
Oh not this whole 'poor white men' thing again that some on the Right do. Corbyn's idea is barmy, but it's hardly targeted against white men specifically for a start. And @Sean_F I could easily say that the Right must think being of a BME background is a reprehensible and wonder why most BMEs don't vote for them - but it wouldn't be true, just like your statement isn't.
So when Julie Bindel heads an article on CIF "Why I Hate Men" how do you think one should interpret it?
Do you think a right wing journalist would head an article "Why I hate blacks?"
When did Julie Bindel represent everyone on the Left? And while a right-wing journalist may not have said the above, post-2011 riots David Starkey, a right-winger pretty much said borderline racist comments on Newsnight.
Since when did David Starkey represent all right wingers?
I never said he did, I was responding to Sean_F's comment: ''Do you think a right wing journalist would head an article "Why I hate blacks?"
no. But you did say "When did Julie Bindel represent everyone on the Left? " and the continued by labelling David Starkey a right winger and thus linking his abhorrent statements with being right wing. Smacks of double standards.
Loonies exist on both wings, let's not assume of each other the worst traits of the extremists eh?
No I didn't link it to him being right-wing, I was providing a counter-example. As I said in the previous post, he asked me ''Do you think a right wing journalist would head an article "Why I hate blacks?", implying that someone on the Right would never do such a thing.
My point on Bindel was a separate point.
if you don't mind me saying so you comment on Starkey was in itself a nonsense. What you said was, " ... pretty much said borderline racist comments". Now I have no idea what Starkey said or didn't say, but either the remarks were racist, in which case there are remedies in place, or they were not in which case there is no complaint to be made.
Saying something is borderline racist is rather like saying a lady is almost pregnant.
Fine, Starkey's comments were racist.
In a Newsnight discussion on 12 August [2011], historian David Starkey blamed black gangster culture, saying that it had influenced youths of all races.[213] The BBC received nearly 700 complaints about his statement that the "whites have become black".[298]
I think there is an argument for women's-only carriages at night. The conductor could stay in the carriage between stops and it would allow women to take journeys in peace without feeling threatened.
Do I agree with it? No. I don't think women being attacked, or feeling threatened, on trains is a big enough problem to justify a rather extreme solution.
But I also don't think the occasional bombing was a big enough problem to justify the rather extreme solution of removing bins from train stations. I'm clearly not the one in charge!
I imagine it was an off-hand idea mooted by Corbyn and amplified for a headline, such is the nature of the modern media and the current sensationalistic incarnation of The Independent.
I do find it quite funny that JEO recently claimed to be a conservative because they are "pragmatic", then dismiss such a pragmatic idea out of hand! I'd argue the right has a very selective idea of pragmatism!
My pragmatic experience is that societies that treat people equally are superior to those that divide people.
So it's ideological, not pragmatic?
And I fundamentally don't see how that's compatible with free market capitalism. Sounds rather socialist to me!
And, thinking about it, I assume this makes you a republican?
Sanders polling well in new Hampshire today. Hillary is so corrupt with her so called personal emails. I absolutely can't stand her. Quite how the trump and sanders campaigns turn out is anyone's guess but the anti establishment mood is palpable ideal for a 3rd party candidate.
Comments
I don't particularly wish to engage in the oppression Olympics. Most British people have drawn first prize in the lottery of life. But, the Left will go on as if some groups are oppressed.
The sainted Dair didn't tell - you know - a fib?
I'm shocked I tell you! Shocked!
Loonies exist on both wings, let's not assume of each other the worst traits of the extremists eh?
If the stats are the same as the rest of society, then they have fallen very significantly in the last 20 years, but I need to see the numbers before I can reach an informed opinion.
My point on Bindel was a separate point.
.. Just like Nick Palmer no longer "represents" Labour.. He opines but seems to have moved to the left since he lost his seat.. Mind you, not sure anyone knows who Labour represent any more..
It's embarrassing to write these words now, after Blair. But that's how it was, for very many people.
Mark Serwotka, the general secretary of the PCS union, which represents civil servants, had his ballot retroactively revoked after having voted online earlier this month.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trade-union-leader-mark-serwotka-banned-from-voting-in-labour-leadership-election-10471851.html
Is it cos he’s a Corbynite..?
Saying something is borderline racist is rather like saying a lady is almost pregnant.
1) You are not to refer to any of The_Apocalypse's posts, directly or indirectly going forward.
2) You have forgotten Mike's warning to you in the past, not to insinuate new posters are old posters
Please adhere to this please.
"I'm quite sceptical about the whole 'offensive language' project - though I suppose it helps keep some journalists and Diversity Officers in jobs.'
I heard a comedian discussing the concept of political correctness and he wondered whether Shakin' Stephens could still be referred to as Shakin' Stephens if he got Parkinsons
Yes I remember I got banned for saying Bobajob was Boba Fett/The Last Boy Scout... and he was, and is now banned under all of those names for having multiple accounts...
I wonder how he gets around that?
No apology received for the constant "don't accuse him" even though I was 100% right of course
C'est La Vie
http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/36526
https://twitter.com/OmarWaraich/status/636284003293745152
A reminder that Corbyn invited Adams to London after Docklands bomb, and after IRA bomber blew himself up.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/18/newsid_4165000/4165719.stm
Corbyn could be regarded as brave meeting Adams in London, or a complete bloody fool.
We must ignore the truth, particularly when it is uncomfortable.
How would entry be policed? Checks on the doors would be time consuming and prohibitive.
That said, if there were a rapist on the loose on the Northern Line, there might be a case for some temporary measures to protect women pending the police catching the attacker. But on a permanent basis - no. It's dealing with symptoms rather than causes.
But then somehow, I'm not that surprised that you share Starkey's views, especially after Harridan-gate.
Perhaps Apocalypse could give some of us novices tips in the art of beautifying oneself?
But I think we have to listen to the people with direct experience, though.
I was used to hearing "spaz" at primary school as an insult / term of endearment from one able-bodied child to another, though I'm not convinced in those circs it was harmful. To a disabled child, maybe .. but that does not change my point.
As pointed out by a conservative minister....!
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/women-only-train-carriages-could-introduced-4349573
Mr Nutjob 1948 seems a bit slow off the mark.
So there is indeed a problem - but is it on the scale that needs segregation??
But you will learn that some truths are very uncomfortable and sometimes people collectively would rather something wasnt true, and ignore it, than deal with the issue.
Do I agree with it? No. I don't think women being attacked, or feeling threatened, on trains is a big enough problem to justify a rather extreme solution.
But I also don't think the occasional bombing was a big enough problem to justify the rather extreme solution of removing bins from train stations. I'm clearly not the one in charge!
I imagine it was an off-hand idea mooted by Corbyn and amplified for a headline, such is the nature of the modern media and the current sensationalistic incarnation of The Independent.
I do find it quite funny that JEO recently claimed to be a conservative because they are "pragmatic", then dismiss such a pragmatic idea out of hand! I'd argue the right has a very selective idea of pragmatism!
Interesting developments with Harvey Proctor today. I have my own views on his comments but the less said the better.
I'll remember your comment on Khan when he becomes the nominee.
Corbyn apparently associates with the so called oppressed. He doesn't really, he associates with losers. The Provos lost, Hamas lead what is basically an oversized dump in Gaza. Good luck to him.
Becoming Labour leader isn't exactly a big win either.
That is about all you need to know about the man and indeed many of those on the left. Socialism lost, capitalism won.
Tough on ye.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29818435
It'd be helpful to have fuller - did the other 55% disagree, or is there a don't know chunk?
Unfortunately women are at risk of being propositioned, groped, touched up, assaulted etc etc on public transport. By men. And we don't like it or enjoy it and sometimes it is quite frightening. Usually worse late at night, after football or drink. Men are not generally at risk of any of those things from women. But you know that really, don't you? If you try to pretend it's not true, then you are either an idiot or Godfrey Bloom. Which amounts to the same thing.
Night all.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/251842-clinton-still-leads-dems-and-gop-candidates-despite
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/25/hillary-vs-biden-would-get-ugly-fast.html
.. and this is progress?
Progress from not living in a segregated society to the state forcing me to live in one... grrreat
Perhaps the rich would live and work in separate areas and go to different schools! It would be horrible!
Doesnt get much safer than that, I am sure no wrong un will think its an easy target
This reminds me of the debate the other day about corporal punishment in schools. I'm firmly of the view that you can control and protect children without the threat or act of hitting other children - we know that to be the case as most children and schools get by just fine - and therefore those areas that are suffering problems don't need corporal punishment even if they want it.
Perhaps we could instead concentrate on making things safe without having to segregate our society? Harder to do, more expensive to do, longer to do and involving cultural change and vigilance, no doubt, but better than just declaring it, in essence, an unsolvable problem so let's just prevent all possibilities of it occurring in this place only because moving the problem is exactly the same thing as solving the problem, right?
I'm certainly not advocating this issue be hijacked into the 'white men are oppressed' argument, but it is equally unfair to imply simple contrariness or, implicitly, darker and unwelcome attitudes toward women lay behind disliking the idea of such segregation.
And I fundamentally don't see how that's compatible with free market capitalism. Sounds rather socialist to me!
And, thinking about it, I assume this makes you a republican?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0684q75/worlds-busiest-railway-2015-episode-1
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0684q75/worlds-busiest-railway-2015-episode-2