Story about 'sexist dress rules' on the BBC this morning.
Too right there are sexist dress rules - just look in parliament - men trussed up in tie and jacket while women can turn up in a frock or jumper, or pretty much whatever they feel like wearing.
The case in question was that of a receptionist I believe. To be honest in that job, and that role, I would actually think that an employer would be in their rights to proscribe a set dress code in the manner of what they did. They are the 'front face' of that company and are there to set a impression.
A peculiar case.
Nicola Thorp had previously had similar issues elsewhere at Harrods and left there in 2013. Here she:
1 - Read and signed the dress code when accepting the job. 2 - Turned up on day one and refused to comply. 3 - Made an immediate huge splash complaining to the media, complaining about compulsion to wear heels and waving around a set twice as high as the ones she was actually allowed to wear under the policy.
To me it smacks somewhat of Charlotte Proudman / Criado-Perez style trolling. I would love to know if a setup such as Fawcett are coordinating these "outraged of xyz" splashes behind the scenes, and if the application was part of a premeditated campaign, but I do not see the inside media side.
That's jolly good. Who knew the Dutch could be so funny?
It's also an excellent impersonation of Trump's voice, one of the best I've heard.
I love the Dutch. Great, great people.
That is my experience too. Along with the Portuguese branch, we have had for about ten years a small Dutch branch of the Llama family. What I most like about the cloggies is that they take their pleasures seriously but themselves not so much. I also cannot understand how a nation that eats so much does not have a serious obesity problem.
The Netherlands is a lovely country full of lovely people. When we were looking to move it was high on our list of possible destinations. That is not to say it does not have its problems, many the same as over here.
In my experience - and I've been doing it for 50 years now! - politics isn't really a rough trade in *personal* interaction unless you cooperate in making it so. George Gallloway once called me a murderer (for voting for Iraq, so actually an arguable political point), and someone once threatened by phone to kill me if I voted to ban fox-hunting (I did and he didn't, so meh), but after that I'm down to people saying "nah, sod off" and stuff like that. And there isn't any sort of neighbourhood that I've not canvassed, often on my own - Glasgow tenements, semi-derelict buildings, dark alleys, whatever. The thing is that I always start the conversation politely, and if someone's said they're sorry to bother you it's difficult to respond by swearing at them, even if you're a bit drunk. No PB reader should be put off from politics by thinking that they'll runinto constant abuse.
The advent of social media circumvents that, since people aren't responding to any conversational approach but just venting about public figures who they're probably not met. Equally, it doesn't matter very much that some stranger doesn't like you - I've never lost any sleep over someone anonymous on PB calling me a traitor or whatever. The one area where it does matter is when social media abuse spills into direct contact and/or encourages personal aggression and violence (as in the Gina case), and I agree that's a modern, genuine problem.
Good analysis Nick.
Off Topic, what's the feeling in Broxtowe to Anna Soubry's Brexit position? She seem's to be positioning herself to inherit the Ken Clarke mantle within the Tory party, which (at least locally) hasn't done him any harm.
Ken though has a long, long history with his constituency. He represents a by-gone era of his party when they were in favour of Europe and joining common market and so on. Ted Heath etc etc. His vote must be so personal by now that his views on Brexit are neither here nor there.
Will anyone else be given that leeway?
Anyway:
Remain 57% in Rushcliffe; 45% in Broxtowe.
Why would constituents hold their MP's view on EU membership against them post-Brexit when they never worried about it in years gone by? If they were that bothered by it then surely the opposite would have been true. Or is making vendettas against the defeated side ('We're the masters now') a prevailing mood?
Mr. Royale, it's still disturbing. Grown men and women are acting like vicious children. "He's a Nazi, so assaulting him is ok" is an alarming mindset.
In Viking society, a niding (nothing) could be abused and murdered because they were beyond the bounds of the law. But that's the 9th century for you.
Even if they were Nazis it wouldn't be ok.
During WWII we didn't assault unarmed German POWs as a matter of policy, and prosecuted those accused of war crimes in the courts.
Yes, there are plenty of incidents where Allied troops shot prisoners out of hand, and some of the trials were a bit victors justice, but never as a matter of policy.
What something thinks or believes does not override the rule of law, no matter how odious they might be.
But the failure to put guilty Allied troops on trial whilst executing German and Japanese soldiers for the same offence made us seem thoroughly hypocritical.
Also, if May loses a confidence issue she can legitimately seek to repeal the stupid Fixed Term Parliament Act, which should've had a sunset clause in any event.
Much better presentation from May today, I reckon.
Corbyn's shot fox - the White Paper having been conceded - took the wind out of his sails and he really flailed after that. He looked - and sounded - rattled.
Forget Prime Minister's Questions, we've learned two very important things about Theresa May today. First, she can count. And second, she's a moveable object.
Forget Prime Minister's Questions, we've learned two very important things about Theresa May today. First, she can count. And second, she's a moveable object.
Forget Prime Minister's Questions, we've learned two very important things about Theresa May today. First, she can count. And second, she's a moveable object.
Meanwhile the giant man baby focuses on the key issue of the day...
@realDonaldTrump: I will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states, those who are illegal and....
Corbyn expressing condolences over the death of a man who isn't dead suggests he doesn't pay attention/care when terrorists shoot police officers and he's been told he has to mention it or it will look bad.
'High Court is wrong, we will appeal, confident we'll win'.
Loses Supreme Court case.
'Wrong to set down principles before starting negotiations'
Backbenchers start flexing muscles, one day later:
'We will publish a White Paper'.
Great politics I'm sure.
All this smacks of talking the talk to assuage UKIP and the Tory hard Right, whilst slowly but surely watering down Brexit. The hard Right need to stay alert here: by the time they realize what's going on there could be nothing of Brexit left.
Mr. Meeks, May's in an odd position, though. Suppose she makes a White Paper without amendments a confidence issue.
Does Labour block it? She'd love a General Election against Corbyn, especially on those terms.
The government can lose a 'confidence' issue like this and there's no automaticity of a general election.
Hurrah for the Fixed Term Parliament Act.
God, I hate that piece of legislation.
Prior to the general election, I went to a briefing by some academics, constitutional lawyers and experts they said it is entirely possible for a government to go an entire a five year parliament and not being able to pass a budget because of the FTPA.
Corbyn expressing condolences over the death of a man who isn't dead suggests he doesn't pay attention/care when terrorists shoot police officers and he's been told he has to mention it or it will look bad.
I noticed that too - hardly 'heartfelt' is it......
Snap PMQs verdict: That was probably May’s best PMQs since her debut. She used a classic ambush at the start to wrongfoot Corbyn (her surprise announcement in response to the previous question about publishing a white paper on Brexit) and after that she prevailed in all six questions. Corbyn, to his credit, responded to the fact that his most obvious line of attack had vanished reasonably well, but after that his questions on Brexit failed to hit home, and May successfully deployed a Sadiq Khan quote to quash his claims about her wanting to rip up workers’s rights. Towards the end Corbyn switched to Trump, but he could not successfully stand up the charge that May is offering Trump a “blank cheque” (perhaps she will, but Corbyn did not say anything that made the case). His challenge to May to condemn Trump’s misogyny was a good one, but even that did not work because May had a plausible response.
'High Court is wrong, we will appeal, confident we'll win'.
Loses Supreme Court case.
'Wrong to set down principles before starting negotiations'
Backbenchers start flexing muscles, one day later:
'We will publish a White Paper'.
Great politics I'm sure.
All this smacks of talking the talk to assuage UKIP and the Tory hard Right, whilst slowly but surely watering down Brexit. The hard Right need to stay alert here: by the time they realize what's going on there could be nothing of Brexit left.
"Women who wear high heels and who speak while standing have a communication disadvantage compared with people wearing flat shoes. As men are not required to wear high heels to work, employers who require female staff to wear them are therefore acting in a discriminatory manner.
Standing to speak in high heels has the following effects:
1. It reduces clarity of thought by adversely affecting breathing patterns"
"Women who wear high heels and who speak while standing have a communication disadvantage compared with people wearing flat shoes. As men are not required to wear high heels to work, employers who require female staff to wear them are therefore acting in a discriminatory manner.
Standing to speak in high heels has the following effects:
1. It reduces clarity of thought by adversely affecting breathing patterns"
Women, wear kitten heels if you want to get on. And lead the country, for example.
Can someone explain to me the purpose of setting red lines before negotiations. Don't forget if we don't get what Parliament decides, that surely means an ultra-hard Brexit. Ah! So that's the cunning plan. Apres moi, le deluge.
If we can't have our way, we'll totally f*ck things up.
Very interesting PMQs IMO. Series of co-ordinated(?) questions about Trump meeting. Suggests there is little support for rolling over to kiss the Orange ass.
I could understand if an American politician that made this blunder, but in the UK, fortunately, murders of police officers and the killing by police officers are so rare, they dominate the news cycle for ages. Even the ones in Northern Ireland.
Off Topic, what's the feeling in Broxtowe to Anna Soubry's Brexit position? She seem's to be positioning herself to inherit the Ken Clarke mantle within the Tory party, which (at least locally) hasn't done him any harm.
Ken though has a long, long history with his constituency. He represents a by-gone era of his party when they were in favour of Europe and joining common market and so on. Ted Heath etc etc. His vote must be so personal by now that his views on Brexit are neither here nor there.
Will anyone else be given that leeway?
Anyway:
Remain 57% in Rushcliffe; 45% in Broxtowe.
Ken has a huge personal vote built up on a history of following up constituents' problems with the zeal of an MP in an ultra-marginal - I have a LibDem friend with an obscure, complex issue and he was astonished for far Ken got stuck into it.
I'm obviously biased with respect to Broxtowe and Anna, but I think she'd agree herself that she's a Marmite MP - many people have very strong views on her in each direction, much more than most constituency MPs. I don't think her views will have affected the Broxtowe referendum result much either way - all local parties except UKIP were pro-Remain but a large chunk of the seat is the sort of traditional WWC trerritory which went leave across the East Midlands.
If the boundary changes go through, half the seat (the section full of Guardian and even some Morning Star readers) joins Notiingham South and becomes safe Labour, and the other half becomes a more marginal Tory seat - winnable in 2015 but probably not forever. Rushcliffe would be a natural fit but some local people think she might be headhunted for a high-profile media job instead - she'd be a good Paxmaneque interviewer, and being a backbencher might not be something she thought was long-term fun. But she's also been mentioned as a possible Speaker.
Bloody hell, how many SNP have been called at PMQs today?
The SNP usually out number Labour MPs in the number of their people that get into the top 15. Clearly they are trying harder by putting forward a bigger % of their MPs than Labour do. It is as if the Labour MPs just could not be bothered. Who would have thunk it? https://order-order.com/2017/01/25/pmqs-whos-asking-questions-3/
Very interesting PMQs IMO. Series of co-ordinated(?) questions about Trump meeting. Suggests there is little support for rolling over to kiss the Orange ass.
In order of likelihood:
(1) We do a very basic trade deal before GE2020 (2) US proposes something more ambitious - and we talk - but it gets bogged down in negotiations because it's clearly skewed against UK interests. No agreement by GE2020. (3) Trump goes on twitter/TV to tell May to go f*ck herself (4) Democrats do very well in the 2018 mid-terms and instigate a go-slow (5) We agree a very good comprehensive goods/services UK-US trade deal before GE2020
@faisalislam: One MP tells me he has gone back over all the Bill Cash Maastricht procedural amendments, and will now deploy same tactics on A50 Bill...
Very interesting PMQs IMO. Series of co-ordinated(?) questions about Trump meeting. Suggests there is little support for rolling over to kiss the Orange ass.
In order of likelihood:
(1) We do a very basic trade deal before GE2020 (2) US proposes something more ambitious - and we talk - but it gets bogged down in negotiations because it's clearly skewed against UK interests. No agreement by GE2020. (3) Trump goes on twitter/TV to tell May to go f*ck herself (4) Democrats do very well in the 2018 mid-terms and instigate a go-slow (5) We agree a very good comprehensive goods/services UK-US trade deal before GE2020
I think the main attraction of US - UK trade deal is not that it will increase our exports or reduce our total level of imports but that it will allow us to play of EU exporters against US exporters. The EU may be a bit more willing to offer us a good deal if they know that, for instance, their farmers will lose their UK export market to the US.
Comments
Nicola Thorp had previously had similar issues elsewhere at Harrods and left there in 2013. Here she:
1 - Read and signed the dress code when accepting the job.
2 - Turned up on day one and refused to comply.
3 - Made an immediate huge splash complaining to the media, complaining about compulsion to wear heels and waving around a set twice as high as the ones she was actually allowed to wear under the policy.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/nicola-thorp-firm-at-centre-of-workplace-dresscode-sexism-row-to-review-high-heels-guidelines-a3245676.html
To me it smacks somewhat of Charlotte Proudman / Criado-Perez style trolling. I would love to know if a setup such as Fawcett are coordinating these "outraged of xyz" splashes behind the scenes, and if the application was part of a premeditated campaign, but I do not see the inside media side.
Thorp's oral testimony in Parliament is here. Clearly she has long been a campaigner on this.
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/petitions-committee/high-heels-and-workplace-dress-codes/oral/34671.html
Now in the sticky position of saying she will publish the plan only after the house votes on it...
Does Labour block it? She'd love a General Election against Corbyn, especially on those terms.
The Netherlands is a lovely country full of lovely people. When we were looking to move it was high on our list of possible destinations. That is not to say it does not have its problems, many the same as over here.
Hurrah for the Fixed Term Parliament Act.
Also, if May loses a confidence issue she can legitimately seek to repeal the stupid Fixed Term Parliament Act, which should've had a sunset clause in any event.
Corbyn's shot fox - the White Paper having been conceded - took the wind out of his sails and he really flailed after that. He looked - and sounded - rattled.
A "bargain basement" Labour leader.
Some of this is very worrying to many people in this House," says Corbyn. Translation: "I am very worried about what on earth to ask next"
I actually think that was the worst PMQs yet for Corbyn.
The pain is acute...
@IanDunt: Sad part is Corbyn is mostly following the right lines of questioning, but he's just so bad it doesn't matter.
Loses High Court case.
'High Court is wrong, we will appeal, confident we'll win'.
Loses Supreme Court case.
'Wrong to set down principles before starting negotiations'
Backbenchers start flexing muscles, one day later:
'We will publish a White Paper'.
Great politics I'm sure.
@realDonaldTrump: I will be asking for a major investigation into VOTER FRAUD, including those registered to vote in two states, those who are illegal and....
Brave, brave, brave Theresa....
That Holy Grail is so elusive.
@tnewtondunn: Corbyn somehow managed to turn an embarrassing Govt climbdown into a 6-0 whacking from Theresa May. Quite some feat even for him #PMQs
Snap PMQs verdict: That was probably May’s best PMQs since her debut. She used a classic ambush at the start to wrongfoot Corbyn (her surprise announcement in response to the previous question about publishing a white paper on Brexit) and after that she prevailed in all six questions. Corbyn, to his credit, responded to the fact that his most obvious line of attack had vanished reasonably well, but after that his questions on Brexit failed to hit home, and May successfully deployed a Sadiq Khan quote to quash his claims about her wanting to rip up workers’s rights. Towards the end Corbyn switched to Trump, but he could not successfully stand up the charge that May is offering Trump a “blank cheque” (perhaps she will, but Corbyn did not say anything that made the case). His challenge to May to condemn Trump’s misogyny was a good one, but even that did not work because May had a plausible response.
http://data.parliament.uk/WrittenEvidence/CommitteeEvidence.svc/EvidenceDocument/Petitions/High heels and workplace dress codes/written/35072.html
"Women who wear high heels and who speak while standing have a communication disadvantage compared with people wearing flat shoes. As men are not required to wear high heels to work, employers who require female staff to wear them are therefore acting in a discriminatory manner.
Standing to speak in high heels has the following effects:
1. It reduces clarity of thought by adversely affecting breathing patterns"
If we can't have our way, we'll totally f*ck things up.
That'll learn 'em.
Yes, Jezza there is a pulse still.
Tezza blinked due to pressure from "moderate" Tories.
https://twitter.com/Indy_Research/status/824229335661887490
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/AICMFP
It was intended as a humorous way of pointing out your statement's ambiguity had the Corbynesque effect of appearing to regret the copper's survival.
I'm obviously biased with respect to Broxtowe and Anna, but I think she'd agree herself that she's a Marmite MP - many people have very strong views on her in each direction, much more than most constituency MPs. I don't think her views will have affected the Broxtowe referendum result much either way - all local parties except UKIP were pro-Remain but a large chunk of the seat is the sort of traditional WWC trerritory which went leave across the East Midlands.
If the boundary changes go through, half the seat (the section full of Guardian and even some Morning Star readers) joins Notiingham South and becomes safe Labour, and the other half becomes a more marginal Tory seat - winnable in 2015 but probably not forever. Rushcliffe would be a natural fit but some local people think she might be headhunted for a high-profile media job instead - she'd be a good Paxmaneque interviewer, and being a backbencher might not be something she thought was long-term fun. But she's also been mentioned as a possible Speaker.
https://order-order.com/2017/01/25/pmqs-whos-asking-questions-3/
(1) We do a very basic trade deal before GE2020
(2) US proposes something more ambitious - and we talk - but it gets bogged down in negotiations because it's clearly skewed against UK interests. No agreement by GE2020.
(3) Trump goes on twitter/TV to tell May to go f*ck herself
(4) Democrats do very well in the 2018 mid-terms and instigate a go-slow
(5) We agree a very good comprehensive goods/services UK-US trade deal before GE2020
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Klutz
Has Corbyn lowered the bar even further?
Chortles.