Mr. Mark, few days ago now but cheers for posting that interesting anecdote on Meatloaf. [I'd left before you posted it, hence my absence of a response at the time].
Edited extra bit: Meatloaf/your wife, obviously.
Those being two separate people.
Last time I looked, yeah.
You would do anything for love, but you won't do that?
Meanwhile .... Perhaps I might garner an opinion or several from the collective knowledge of the PB petrol-heads.
Audi SQ7
Content Or Not Content ?
Will the good Lady JackW be able to get enough new shoes in the back after a trip to the shops?
I offered a similar view and was met with a countenance that would have stopped Attila The Hun stone dead. It could be so much worse. Some months back Mrs JackW was transported in a Bentley Bentayga with an interior, she informed me, that matched several outfits. I fear she wasn't entirely being frivolous.
That said the SQ7 advice is for a relative of Mrs JackW with numerous young offspring.
Just taken delivery of a Jaguar F Pace SUV 3 litre diesel. Excellent.
Admittedly a second slower than the Audi SQ7 at 6 secs 0-60 and 5mph slower at 150 mph but built in the Midlands.
Tried a Cayenne which is slightly bigger but does not drive as well as the Jaguar - and built in Volkswagen's Slovakia factory like the Audi SQ7.
Note there is an extra £300 pa Vehicle Excise duty on new cars over £40,000 registered after 1st April just gone.
Thank you David. They are in the market from September onward so I would be grateful of your continuing impressions over the next few months. Neither parent are "car" people so will rely on recommendations.
If they are not car people then they probably should not be going for the faster 'S' versions of SUVs.
Logically yes. However that has never stopped them in the past buying at the top end once the decision on the make and model was settled ....
Mrs JackW has the same weakness for high end personal tootsie mobility coverings ....
An off-the-wall suggestion for them, if they're not really car people but need to move a large family. Mercedes Viano - old fashioned "people carrier" rather than modern "SUV".
I remember being at Aberdeen airport and the flight was overbooked. They asked for volunteers. No-one budged. They asked again. No-one budged. They then said there was a payment of £42 to those who volunteered. I was nearly trampled to death in the rush.
Mr. Mark, few days ago now but cheers for posting that interesting anecdote on Meatloaf. [I'd left before you posted it, hence my absence of a response at the time].
Edited extra bit: Meatloaf/your wife, obviously.
Those being two separate people.
Last time I looked, yeah.
You would do anything for love, but you won't do that?
Finally, after many years of wondering, that song makes perfect sense.
Good to see Don trolling the PB tories in this post. I wish he'd hang around to contribute to discussion.
However, I don't see LibDems as that likely to get involved in any coalitions in the near term. With either Labour or Tories. The only exception I would see as worthwhile would be on the basis of an agreement to progress electoral reform. No bullshit referenda, a straight agreement involving support in exchange for Lords Reform and the introduction of PR.
Yet more "Liberal" "Democrat" contempt for democracy.
Unless they have inherited a profitable pie works, they would be well advised to steer clear of a diesel. The congestion charges are going to be horrific. Perhaps look at hybrids.
There will be no congestion or indigestion charges within "profitable pie works" as hybrid ingredients outwith Auchentennach Fine Pies usual comestibles are banned.
Absolutely No LibDems Coalition Of Contents Winning Here !!
Unless they have inherited a profitable pie works, they would be well advised to steer clear of a diesel. The congestion charges are going to be horrific. Perhaps look at hybrids.
There will be no congestion or indigestion charges within "profitable pie works" as hybrid ingredients outwith Auchentennach Fine Pies usual comestibles are banned.
Absolutely No LibDems Coalition Of Contents Winning Here !!
Diesels, SUV's and sandals are like matter and antimatter. Best kept apart...
Mr. Mark, few days ago now but cheers for posting that interesting anecdote on Meatloaf. [I'd left before you posted it, hence my absence of a response at the time].
Edited extra bit: Meatloaf/your wife, obviously.
Those being two separate people.
Meat Loaf; he is very insistent about the typography.
But in other news, can anyone think why Barclays' boss Jes Staley shouldn't be sacked?
I wondered what your view would be on the Staley story. The write-ups of it insinuate there is more to it, but IMV it stinks. There'd need to be some really good extenuating circumstances to excuse him ...
There are a number of oddities about the story. The oddest is the apparent involvement of the US enforcement authorities in assisting one of the internal investigation groups to try and identify one of the whistleblowers. This is such a no-no - both for any internal investigation team let alone for the regulators, certainly in the UK (and it's contrary to the spirit of the UK rules) - that one can't help feeling that there is something we are not being told.
The other oddity is that nothing is said about the initial investigation - assuming there was one - into the original allegations. There is something missing here.
One final oddity: who advised him or led Mr Staley to believe that he could find out the identity of the whistleblower?
Internal investigation teams don't go externally to enforcement agencies without very good reason and authority. Who authorized this and why?
The biggest problem - and Barclays exemplifies it - is that lots of firms are very good on setting up the right processes and procedures but have an absolute blind spot about the psychology of whistleblowers and how best to deal with them, how to protect their confidentiality, the confidentiality of the investigation and how to deal with those under investigation. That takes experience and emotional intelligence and some courage and some understanding of people. What is needed - in addition to good processes - are good investigators, a point often overlooked in the frenzy to get something that looks good down on paper.
It is also worth bearing in mind that some whistleblowers can be malicious or have a personal grudge. It is amazing how many aggrieved former partners are out there willing to put the knife in. It doesn't make their allegations untrue of course. But it can also mean that someone can be the target of an unfounded accusation and the consequent investigation, which is - believe me - no fun and can have repercussions when / if they move jobs.
Without knowing all the facts I don't know whether Mr Staley was saint or sinner or a mixture of both. But there is more than him at fault here.
They could do with a really ace and independent Head of an Investigations (Whistleblowings included) Group......
Meanwhile .... Perhaps I might garner an opinion or several from the collective knowledge of the PB petrol-heads.
Audi SQ7
Content Or Not Content ?
Will the good Lady JackW be able to get enough new shoes in the back after a trip to the shops?
I offered a similar view and was met with a countenance that would have stopped Attila The Hun stone dead. It could be so much worse. Some months back Mrs JackW was transported in a Bentley Bentayga with an interior, she informed me, that matched several outfits. I fear she wasn't entirely being frivolous.
That said the SQ7 advice is for a relative of Mrs JackW with numerous young offspring.
Just taken delivery of a Jaguar F Pace SUV 3 litre diesel. Excellent.
Admittedly a second slower than the Audi SQ7 at 6 secs 0-60 and 5mph slower at 150 mph but built in the Midlands.
Tried a Cayenne which is slightly bigger but does not drive as well as the Jaguar - and built in Volkswagen's Slovakia factory like the Audi SQ7.
Note there is an extra £300 pa Vehicle Excise duty on new cars over £40,000 registered after 1st April just gone.
Thank you David. They are in the market from September onward so I would be grateful of your continuing impressions over the next few months. Neither parent are "car" people so will rely on recommendations.
If they are not car people then they probably should not be going for the faster 'S' versions of SUVs.
Unless they have inherited a profitable pie works, they would be well advised to steer clear of a diesel. The congestion charges are going to be horrific. Perhaps look at hybrids.
An off-the-wall suggestion for them, if they're not really car people but need to move a large family. Mercedes Viano - old fashioned "people carrier" rather than modern "SUV".
Good lord @Sandpit I had to google that one. Er ....
Probably not. It appears like a well fitted van. Their vehicle also requires some off road capacity. They've had Range Rovers in the past and a Macan presently but another child looms as does the requirement for more seats !!
There are a number of oddities about the story. The oddest is the apparent involvement of the US enforcement authorities in assisting one of the internal investigation groups to try and identify one of the whistleblowers. This is such a no-no - both for any internal investigation team let alone for the regulators, certainly in the UK (and it's contrary to the spirit of the UK rules) - that one can't help feeling that there is something we are not being told.
The other oddity is that nothing is said about the initial investigation - assuming there was one - into the original allegations. There is something missing here.
One final oddity: who advised him or led Mr Staley to believe that he could find out the identity of the whistleblower?
Internal investigation teams don't go externally to enforcement agencies without very good reason and authority. Who authorized this and why?
The biggest problem - and Barclays exemplifies it - is that lots of firms are very good on setting up the right processes and procedures but have an absolute blind spot about the psychology of whistleblowers and how best to deal with them, how to protect their confidentiality, the confidentiality of the investigation and how to deal with those under investigation. That takes experience and emotional intelligence and some courage and some understanding of people. What is needed - in addition to good processes - are good investigators, a point often overlooked in the frenzy to get something that looks good down on paper.
It is also worth bearing in mind that some whistleblowers can be malicious or have a personal grudge. It is amazing how many aggrieved former partners are out there willing to put the knife in. It doesn't make their allegations untrue of course. But it can also mean that someone can be the target of an unfounded accusation and the consequent investigation, which is - believe me - no fun and can have repercussions when / if they move jobs.
Without knowing all the facts I don't know whether Mr Staley was saint or sinner or a mixture of both. But there is more than him at fault here.
They could do with a really ace and independent Head of an Investigations (Whistleblowings included) Group......
An off-the-wall suggestion for them, if they're not really car people but need to move a large family. Mercedes Viano - old fashioned "people carrier" rather than modern "SUV".
Good lord @Sandpit I had to google that one. Er ....
Probably not. It appears like a well fitted van. Their vehicle also requires some off road capacity. They've had Range Rovers in the past and a Macan presently but another child looms as does the requirement for more seats !!
Thanks anyway.
If they're just after more room for a baby, why not just fit a roofrack?
A nice little piece of Peak Guardian here; the comments are a treat.
This week’s question:
My parents never got us Easter eggs as kids and it didn’t harm us. Now my wife says we have to buy our four-year-old daughter one, but I resent having to take part in the annual sugar-fest that is Easter. Am I alone in feeling this way? Should I stick to my guns?
Unless they have inherited a profitable pie works, they would be well advised to steer clear of a diesel. The congestion charges are going to be horrific. Perhaps look at hybrids.
There will be no congestion or indigestion charges within "profitable pie works" as hybrid ingredients outwith Auchentennach Fine Pies usual comestibles are banned.
Absolutely No LibDems Coalition Of Contents Winning Here !!
Diesels, SUV's and sandals are like matter and antimatter. Best kept apart...
An off-the-wall suggestion for them, if they're not really car people but need to move a large family. Mercedes Viano - old fashioned "people carrier" rather than modern "SUV".
Good lord @Sandpit I had to google that one. Er ....
Probably not. It appears like a well fitted van. Their vehicle also requires some off road capacity. They've had Range Rovers in the past and a Macan presently but another child looms as does the requirement for more seats !!
Thanks anyway.
If they're just after more room for a baby, why not just fit a roofrack?
They're Conservatives so a roof rack seems superfluous, a mobile BBQ for the baby a more appropriate optional extra ....
There are a number of oddities about the story. The oddest is the apparent involvement of the US enforcement authorities in assisting one of the internal investigation groups to try and identify one of the whistleblowers. This is such a no-no - both for any internal investigation team let alone for the regulators, certainly in the UK (and it's contrary to the spirit of the UK rules) - that one can't help feeling that there is something we are not being told.
The other oddity is that nothing is said about the initial investigation - assuming there was one - into the original allegations. There is something missing here.
One final oddity: who advised him or led Mr Staley to believe that he could find out the identity of the whistleblower?
Internal investigation teams don't go externally to enforcement agencies without very good reason and authority. Who authorized this and why?
The biggest problem - and Barclays exemplifies it - is that lots of firms are very good on setting up the right processes and procedures but have an absolute blind spot about the psychology of whistleblowers and how best to deal with them, how to protect their confidentiality, the confidentiality of the investigation and how to deal with those under investigation. That takes experience and emotional intelligence and some courage and some understanding of people. What is needed - in addition to good processes - are good investigators, a point often overlooked in the frenzy to get something that looks good down on paper.
It is also worth bearing in mind that some whistleblowers can be malicious or have a personal grudge. It is amazing how many aggrieved former partners are out there willing to put the knife in. It doesn't make their allegations untrue of course. But it can also mean that someone can be the target of an unfounded accusation and the consequent investigation, which is - believe me - no fun and can have repercussions when / if they move jobs.
Without knowing all the facts I don't know whether Mr Staley was saint or sinner or a mixture of both. But there is more than him at fault here.
They could do with a really ace and independent Head of an Investigations (Whistleblowings included) Group......
Thanks. I shall amend my view accordingly.
My experience of Barclays: good at talking / lots of change of personnel = not a good sign / a nest of vipers under the surface.
Mind you, the FCA is not much better, according to my sources. And as for the BoE...... dear oh dear!
Cultures don't get created overnight. Nor do bad cultures get changed overnight
Perhaps this is time to bring out again Cyclefree's 10 Stages of a Crisis and the 5 Behaviours We (well I) Always Find. It could end up being the Monopoly game de nos jours for the City......
Fantastic - I've just discovered a local candidate in my area has been suspended for making Ken Livingstone esque comments (with explicit reference to Ken), only even more vulgar and directly offensive. That should spice things up.
Fantastic - I've just discovered a local candidate in my area has been suspended for making Ken Livingstone esque comments (with explicit reference to Ken), only even more vulgar and directly offensive. That should spice things up.
Fantastic - I've just discovered a local candidate in my area has been suspended for making Ken Livingstone esque comments (with explicit reference to Ken), only even more vulgar and directly offensive. That should spice things up.
How absolutely horrific. Hating people based on the sexuality is absolutely ridiculous.
Surely all you need to say is 'hating people is absolutely ridiculous.'
In general, yes, although if someone is a complete arsehole who has done terrible things to you a level of hate might well be justified, but hatred on the basis of characteristics is always ridiculous, and this was a story about gap people, hence the particular emphasis here, I would assume.
If I see a story about a racially motivated attack, I would still believe hating people is wrong, even if my reaction would be 'hating people on the basis of race is wrong'.
Meanwhile, it doesn't look like Trump has gotten much of a bump in his approval rating post Syria strikes. CBS have shown 3% increase in approval, Rasmussen (unbelievably) don't show any improvement, and Gallup also doesn't show any improvement in his rating since the strikes as well.
CBS, and YouGov polls show that while most Americans support the strike, they feel Trump should get Congressional approval if he wants to take further action.
Fantastic - I've just discovered a local candidate in my area has been suspended for making Ken Livingstone esque comments (with explicit reference to Ken), only even more vulgar and directly offensive. That should spice things up.
In one post Mr Couchman said he was "as critical of the Islamic State as I am of the notion of a Jewish State" while suggesting it was the "ZioNazi [Saudi and Israeli] Storm Troopers of IsraHell" that were using chemical weapons for ethnic cleansing."
Fantastic - I've just discovered a local candidate in my area has been suspended for making Ken Livingstone esque comments (with explicit reference to Ken), only even more vulgar and directly offensive. That should spice things up.
I think he actually out-bonkers Ken: 'In one post Mr Couchman said he was "as critical of the Islamic State as I am of the notion of a Jewish State" while suggesting it was the "ZioNazi [Saudi and Israeli] Storm Troopers of IsraHell" that were using chemical weapons for ethnic cleansing.'
Note that says 'notion', not 'nation'.
Well I did say it was more vulgar and directly offensive. I imagine Ken might not appreciate the comparison of their two situations which he made.
How absolutely horrific. Hating people based on the sexuality is absolutely ridiculous.
Surely all you need to say is 'hating people is absolutely ridiculous.'
In general, yes, although if someone is a complete arsehole who has done terrible things to you a level of hate might well be justified, but hatred on the basis of characteristics is always ridiculous, and this was a story about gap people, hence the particular emphasis here, I would assume.
If I see a story about a racially motivated attack, I would still believe hating people is wrong, even if my reaction would be 'hating people on the basis of race is wrong'.
Well I did say it was more vulgar and directly offensive. I imagine Ken might not appreciate the comparison of their two situations which he made.
You did say that, indeed. How these people keep getting put forward for public office is beyond me. And that includes candidates from all major parties.
How absolutely horrific. Hating people based on the sexuality is absolutely ridiculous.
Surely all you need to say is 'hating people is absolutely ridiculous.'
Is hating Nazis absolutely ridiculous?
I imagine some of them were a bit dim or very dim or pressured into joining the party. If you permit hatred of all members of any given class x you open the door to butthurt, toy-out-of-prammy blanket hatred of Leave voters.
Fantastic - I've just discovered a local candidate in my area has been suspended for making Ken Livingstone esque comments (with explicit reference to Ken), only even more vulgar and directly offensive. That should spice things up.
I think he actually out-bonkers Ken: 'In one post Mr Couchman said he was "as critical of the Islamic State as I am of the notion of a Jewish State" while suggesting it was the "ZioNazi [Saudi and Israeli] Storm Troopers of IsraHell" that were using chemical weapons for ethnic cleansing.'
Note that says 'notion', not 'nation'.
Well I did say it was more vulgar and directly offensive. I imagine Ken might not appreciate the comparison of their two situations which he made.
You did say that, indeed. How these people keep getting put forward for public office is beyond me. And that includes candidates from all major parties.
At local level it would appear he's been elected before, they don't have the resources to scour every person who offers to stand for them in no hope areas (though really all parties even at local level should have someone do a quick run through any social media accounts), it's probably easy to slip through.
Where it happens multiple times in the same area, then you know there's a real problem.
How absolutely horrific. Hating people based on the sexuality is absolutely ridiculous.
Surely all you need to say is 'hating people is absolutely ridiculous.'
In general, yes, although if someone is a complete arsehole who has done terrible things to you a level of hate might well be justified, but hatred on the basis of characteristics is always ridiculous, and this was a story about gap people, hence the particular emphasis here, I would assume.
If I see a story about a racially motivated attack, I would still believe hating people is wrong, even if my reaction would be 'hating people on the basis of race is wrong'.
This.
Well, apart from my reference to 'gap people' rather than gay people.
How absolutely horrific. Hating people based on the sexuality is absolutely ridiculous.
Surely all you need to say is 'hating people is absolutely ridiculous.'
In general, yes, although if someone is a complete arsehole who has done terrible things to you a level of hate might well be justified, but hatred on the basis of characteristics is always ridiculous, and this was a story about gap people, hence the particular emphasis here, I would assume.
If I see a story about a racially motivated attack, I would still believe hating people is wrong, even if my reaction would be 'hating people on the basis of race is wrong'.
Genius typo/autocorrect: I think prejudice against gap people is entirely justified.
How absolutely horrific. Hating people based on the sexuality is absolutely ridiculous.
Surely all you need to say is 'hating people is absolutely ridiculous.'
In general, yes, although if someone is a complete arsehole who has done terrible things to you a level of hate might well be justified, but hatred on the basis of characteristics is always ridiculous, and this was a story about gap people, hence the particular emphasis here, I would assume.
If I see a story about a racially motivated attack, I would still believe hating people is wrong, even if my reaction would be 'hating people on the basis of race is wrong'.
This.
Well, apart from my reference to 'gap people' rather than gay people.
Theresa May's taken time out of her busy schedule of fashion magazine interviews to tell us about her plan for the precious union.
twitter.com/theresa_may/status/851451171730591745
Wasn't this on the PPB earlier?
Possibly - I've only just seen it.
She says she wants a welfare system that tackles the 'historic injustices of racial and gender discrimination'. Does she have any policies to back that up?
At local level it would appear he's been elected before, they don't have the resources to scour every person who offers to stand for them in no hope areas (though really all parties even at local level should have someone do a quick run through any social media accounts), it's probably easy to slip through.
Where it happens multiple times in the same area, then you know there's a real problem.
5 minutes checking social media. 1% of the time needed to fill out the various forms and pass through the various approval committees no doubt. Easy for me to say from the comfort of my armchair, obviously, but at a time where Labour is being pilloried for antisemitism, you'd have thought they'd have upped their game.
Theresa May's taken time out of her busy schedule of fashion magazine interviews to tell us about her plan for the precious union.
twitter.com/theresa_may/status/851451171730591745
Wasn't this on the PPB earlier?
Possibly - I've only just seen it.
She says she wants a welfare system that tackles the 'historic injustices of racial and gender discrimination'. Does she have any policies to back that up?
How absolutely horrific. Hating people based on the sexuality is absolutely ridiculous.
Surely all you need to say is 'hating people is absolutely ridiculous.'
In general, yes, although if someone is a complete arsehole who has done terrible things to you a level of hate might well be justified, but hatred on the basis of characteristics is always ridiculous, and this was a story about gap people, hence the particular emphasis here, I would assume.
If I see a story about a racially motivated attack, I would still believe hating people is wrong, even if my reaction would be 'hating people on the basis of race is wrong'.
This.
Well, apart from my reference to 'gap people' rather than gay people.
Gap people can get stuffed.
They are literally worse than Hitler.
They're better than H&M people, but not as good as Amanda Wakeley people.
Theresa May's taken time out of her busy schedule of fashion magazine interviews to tell us about her plan for the precious union.
twitter.com/theresa_may/status/851451171730591745
Wasn't this on the PPB earlier?
Possibly - I've only just seen it.
She says she wants a welfare system that tackles the 'historic injustices of racial and gender discrimination'. Does she have any policies to back that up?
Theresa May's taken time out of her busy schedule of fashion magazine interviews to tell us about her plan for the precious union.
twitter.com/theresa_may/status/851451171730591745
Wasn't this on the PPB earlier?
Possibly - I've only just seen it.
She says she wants a welfare system that tackles the 'historic injustices of racial and gender discrimination'. Does she have any policies to back that up?
Genuine question this: is this the proper role of a welfare system?
Shouldn't welfare be there to assist those who are in need of help so that they can get themselves into a position where they no longer need help?
Race/gender discrimination is surely something to be tackled by the law and other effective action.
At local level it would appear he's been elected before, they don't have the resources to scour every person who offers to stand for them in no hope areas (though really all parties even at local level should have someone do a quick run through any social media accounts), it's probably easy to slip through.
Where it happens multiple times in the same area, then you know there's a real problem.
5 minutes checking social media. 1% of the time needed to fill out the various forms and pass through the various approval committees no doubt. Easy for me to say from the comfort of my armchair, obviously, but at a time where Labour is being pilloried for antisemitism, you'd have thought they'd have upped their game.
No, it's ok, I found a page where he says this:
I am a Musician, a Counsellor / Therapist and Advocate. I often use my music to convey an important social or political message. I am Anti-Abuse of all kinds and a 'Human Rights' Campaigner. My primary concern is with the Institutional & Professional Abuses of power; Intellectual Ignorance; Unethical Behaviour, Blinkered Thinking; Incompetence; Delusional Judgements; Poor Training; Poor ethical Adherence; Flawed Thinking; Academic Short-sightedness.
Well, he probably won't get picked up by Guido at least.
Theresa May's taken time out of her busy schedule of fashion magazine interviews to tell us about her plan for the precious union.
twitter.com/theresa_may/status/851451171730591745
Wasn't this on the PPB earlier?
Possibly - I've only just seen it.
She says she wants a welfare system that tackles the 'historic injustices of racial and gender discrimination'. Does she have any policies to back that up?
Queen's speech coming up in May.
Genes-tested benefits on the cards?
Probably not, but it is the first Queen's speech of her government, so would make sense such policies would feature there.
At local level it would appear he's been elected before, they don't have the resources to scour every person who offers to stand for them in no hope areas (though really all parties even at local level should have someone do a quick run through any social media accounts), it's probably easy to slip through.
Where it happens multiple times in the same area, then you know there's a real problem.
5 minutes checking social media. 1% of the time needed to fill out the various forms and pass through the various approval committees no doubt. Easy for me to say from the comfort of my armchair, obviously, but at a time where Labour is being pilloried for antisemitism, you'd have thought they'd have upped their game.
Don't forget there was an independent Review that concluded there wasn't a problem. Members are surely entitled to believe that Review's conclusion?
At local level it would appear he's been elected before, they don't have the resources to scour every person who offers to stand for them in no hope areas (though really all parties even at local level should have someone do a quick run through any social media accounts), it's probably easy to slip through.
Where it happens multiple times in the same area, then you know there's a real problem.
5 minutes checking social media. 1% of the time needed to fill out the various forms and pass through the various approval committees no doubt. Easy for me to say from the comfort of my armchair, obviously, but at a time where Labour is being pilloried for antisemitism, you'd have thought they'd have upped their game.
You would. If you assumed that (a) they accept they have a problem; (b) understand that anti-Semitism is a problem; and (c) really want to do something about it.
I'm not at all sure that (a) and (b) can be said about the current Labour party - or its Corbynite leadership, at any event. And if (a) and (b) are missing, it's not surprising that (c) is not happening effectively.
Labour certainly want to appear as if they're doing something about the criticisms they face about allegations of anti-Semitism. But that's a very different thing.
Theresa May's taken time out of her busy schedule of fashion magazine interviews to tell us about her plan for the precious union.
twitter.com/theresa_may/status/851451171730591745
Wasn't this on the PPB earlier?
Possibly - I've only just seen it.
She says she wants a welfare system that tackles the 'historic injustices of racial and gender discrimination'. Does she have any policies to back that up?
Genuine question this: is this the proper role of a welfare system?
Shouldn't welfare be there to assist those who are in need of help so that they can get themselves into a position where they no longer need help?
Race/gender discrimination is surely something to be tackled by the law and other effective action.
If the purpose of welfare is to reduce inequality, then yes. If it's a safety net to prevent destitution, then no.
You're proposing the latter interpretation. Others would endorse the former.
At local level it would appear he's been elected before, they don't have the resources to scour every person who offers to stand for them in no hope areas (though really all parties even at local level should have someone do a quick run through any social media accounts), it's probably easy to slip through.
Where it happens multiple times in the same area, then you know there's a real problem.
5 minutes checking social media. 1% of the time needed to fill out the various forms and pass through the various approval committees no doubt. Easy for me to say from the comfort of my armchair, obviously, but at a time where Labour is being pilloried for antisemitism, you'd have thought they'd have upped their game.
Don't forget there was an independent Review that concluded there wasn't a problem. Members are surely entitled to believe that Review's conclusion?
Ah, yes. You've nailed down the problem. No problem, so nothing to look for.
Just like gays in Chechnya. "There aren't any, so how can we be detaining and torturing them?"
Talking of cars, I just got nearly run over by one of those new electric BMWs. They're so quiet - basically silent - you have no warning they're coming. Apparently this is a real safety issue.
It also occurred to me that in 10-15 years all cars will be electric. This will transform our cities, acoustically. We are so used to the constant drone of traffic, the endless grumble of the internal combustion engine. It's very hard to imagine life without it, in the background.
Yet that is about to happen. A new silence beckons.
Soon all you will hear are those bastards with extremely loud motorbikes.. grumble grumble...
How absolutely horrific. Hating people based on the sexuality is absolutely ridiculous.
Surely all you need to say is 'hating people is absolutely ridiculous.'
In general, yes, although if someone is a complete arsehole who has done terrible things to you a level of hate might well be justified, but hatred on the basis of characteristics is always ridiculous, and this was a story about gap people, hence the particular emphasis here, I would assume.
If I see a story about a racially motivated attack, I would still believe hating people is wrong, even if my reaction would be 'hating people on the basis of race is wrong'.
This.
Well, apart from my reference to 'gap people' rather than gay people.
Gap people can get stuffed.
I don't know anyone who shops at Gap. I also can't remember the last time I last went in a Gap store.
@williamglenn H&M is brilliant. 50% of wardrobe is basically H&M stuff.
All the other stores don't compare - NEXT has gone down in recent years, River Island too. Zara is way too expensive.
At local level it would appear he's been elected before, they don't have the resources to scour every person who offers to stand for them in no hope areas (though really all parties even at local level should have someone do a quick run through any social media accounts), it's probably easy to slip through.
Where it happens multiple times in the same area, then you know there's a real problem.
5 minutes checking social media. 1% of the time needed to fill out the various forms and pass through the various approval committees no doubt. Easy for me to say from the comfort of my armchair, obviously, but at a time where Labour is being pilloried for antisemitism, you'd have thought they'd have upped their game.
Don't forget there was an independent Review that concluded there wasn't a problem. Members are surely entitled to believe that Review's conclusion?
That rather depends on what you understand by the word "independent".
Talking of cars, I just got nearly run over by one of those new electric BMWs. They're so quiet - basically silent - you have no warning they're coming. Apparently this is a real safety issue.
It also occurred to me that in 10-15 years all cars will be electric. This will transform our cities, acoustically. We are so used to the constant drone of traffic, the endless grumble of the internal combustion engine. It's very hard to imagine life without it, in the background.
Yet that is about to happen. A new silence beckons.
Few people will notice. Everyone walks around with earphones in these days.
Theresa May's taken time out of her busy schedule of fashion magazine interviews to tell us about her plan for the precious union.
twitter.com/theresa_may/status/851451171730591745
Wasn't this on the PPB earlier?
Possibly - I've only just seen it.
She says she wants a welfare system that tackles the 'historic injustices of racial and gender discrimination'. Does she have any policies to back that up?
Genuine question this: is this the proper role of a welfare system?
Shouldn't welfare be there to assist those who are in need of help so that they can get themselves into a position where they no longer need help?
Race/gender discrimination is surely something to be tackled by the law and other effective action.
No it isn't. The implication is that some needy individuals will be treated worse than other needy individuals because they come from groups that are deemed to be privileged in aggregate.
Talking of cars, I just got nearly run over by one of those new electric BMWs. They're so quiet - basically silent - you have no warning they're coming. Apparently this is a real safety issue.
It also occurred to me that in 10-15 years all cars will be electric. This will transform our cities, acoustically. We are so used to the constant drone of traffic, the endless grumble of the internal combustion engine. It's very hard to imagine life without it, in the background.
Yet that is about to happen. A new silence beckons.
They'll be fitted with mandatory sirens, for safety.
Talking of cars, I just got nearly run over by one of those new electric BMWs. They're so quiet - basically silent - you have no warning they're coming. Apparently this is a real safety issue.
It also occurred to me that in 10-15 years all cars will be electric. This will transform our cities, acoustically. We are so used to the constant drone of traffic, the endless grumble of the internal combustion engine. It's very hard to imagine life without it, in the background.
Yet that is about to happen. A new silence beckons.
Few people will notice. Everyone walks around with earphones in these days.
Given the propensity for terrorists to use trucks to ram people, I've stopped doing that while walking about.
Theresa May's taken time out of her busy schedule of fashion magazine interviews to tell us about her plan for the precious union.
twitter.com/theresa_may/status/851451171730591745
Wasn't this on the PPB earlier?
Possibly - I've only just seen it.
She says she wants a welfare system that tackles the 'historic injustices of racial and gender discrimination'. Does she have any policies to back that up?
Genuine question this: is this the proper role of a welfare system?
Shouldn't welfare be there to assist those who are in need of help so that they can get themselves into a position where they no longer need help?
Race/gender discrimination is surely something to be tackled by the law and other effective action.
Out of interest, exactly how many benefits are there that are available to white men that aren't available to ethnic minority women?
At local level it would appear he's been elected before, they don't have the resources to scour every person who offers to stand for them in no hope areas (though really all parties even at local level should have someone do a quick run through any social media accounts), it's probably easy to slip through.
Where it happens multiple times in the same area, then you know there's a real problem.
5 minutes checking social media. 1% of the time needed to fill out the various forms and pass through the various approval committees no doubt. Easy for me to say from the comfort of my armchair, obviously, but at a time where Labour is being pilloried for antisemitism, you'd have thought they'd have upped their game.
No, it's ok, I found a page where he says this:
I am a Musician, a Counsellor / Therapist and Advocate. I often use my music to convey an important social or political message. I am Anti-Abuse of all kinds and a 'Human Rights' Campaigner. My primary concern is with the Institutional & Professional Abuses of power; Intellectual Ignorance; Unethical Behaviour, Blinkered Thinking; Incompetence; Delusional Judgements; Poor Training; Poor ethical Adherence; Flawed Thinking; Academic Short-sightedness.
Well, he probably won't get picked up by Guido at least.
Theresa May's taken time out of her busy schedule of fashion magazine interviews to tell us about her plan for the precious union.
twitter.com/theresa_may/status/851451171730591745
Wasn't this on the PPB earlier?
Possibly - I've only just seen it.
She says she wants a welfare system that tackles the 'historic injustices of racial and gender discrimination'. Does she have any policies to back that up?
Genuine question this: is this the proper role of a welfare system?
Shouldn't welfare be there to assist those who are in need of help so that they can get themselves into a position where they no longer need help?
Race/gender discrimination is surely something to be tackled by the law and other effective action.
Out of interest, exactly how many benefits are there that are available to white men that aren't available to ethnic minority women?
She's talking about what she wants, not what we already have. So I'd say there are no race-specific benefits.
At local level it would appear he's been elected before, they don't have the resources to scour every person who offers to stand for them in no hope areas (though really all parties even at local level should have someone do a quick run through any social media accounts), it's probably easy to slip through.
Where it happens multiple times in the same area, then you know there's a real problem.
5 minutes checking social media. 1% of the time needed to fill out the various forms and pass through the various approval committees no doubt. Easy for me to say from the comfort of my armchair, obviously, but at a time where Labour is being pilloried for antisemitism, you'd have thought they'd have upped their game.
No, it's ok, I found a page where he says this:
I am a Musician, a Counsellor / Therapist and Advocate. I often use my music to convey an important social or political message. I am Anti-Abuse of all kinds and a 'Human Rights' Campaigner. My primary concern is with the Institutional & Professional Abuses of power; Intellectual Ignorance; Unethical Behaviour, Blinkered Thinking; Incompetence; Delusional Judgements; Poor Training; Poor ethical Adherence; Flawed Thinking; Academic Short-sightedness.
Well, he probably won't get picked up by Guido at least.
Some real person actually said (or wrote) this?
Check out the 'gazette' link down thread. You can see all the other things he's said. Screw loose.
Theresa May's taken time out of her busy schedule of fashion magazine interviews to tell us about her plan for the precious union.
twitter.com/theresa_may/status/851451171730591745
Wasn't this on the PPB earlier?
Possibly - I've only just seen it.
She says she wants a welfare system that tackles the 'historic injustices of racial and gender discrimination'. Does she have any policies to back that up?
Genuine question this: is this the proper role of a welfare system?
Shouldn't welfare be there to assist those who are in need of help so that they can get themselves into a position where they no longer need help?
Race/gender discrimination is surely something to be tackled by the law and other effective action.
If the purpose of welfare is to reduce inequality, then yes. If it's a safety net to prevent destitution, then no.
You're proposing the latter interpretation. Others would endorse the former.
Shouldn't that question be asked first? What is the purpose of the welfare system? How to achieve that purpose? How to pay for it?
After all, we've morphed from the original intention to this without any real debate just by politicians tackling lots of extra goodies on. Now they may be good things to tackle: I'm all in favour of dealing with racial and gender discrimination, for instance. But is a welfare system the right way of dealing with such issues?
How to tackle such discrimination is the question?
And what is meant by "historic" discrimination?
It's the unthinking assumptions and sloppy language I'm challenging.
Theresa May's taken time out of her busy schedule of fashion magazine interviews to tell us about her plan for the precious union.
twitter.com/theresa_may/status/851451171730591745
Wasn't this on the PPB earlier?
Possibly - I've only just seen it.
She says she wants a welfare system that tackles the 'historic injustices of racial and gender discrimination'. Does she have any policies to back that up?
Genuine question this: is this the proper role of a welfare system?
Shouldn't welfare be there to assist those who are in need of help so that they can get themselves into a position where they no longer need help?
Race/gender discrimination is surely something to be tackled by the law and other effective action.
Out of interest, exactly how many benefits are there that are available to white men that aren't available to ethnic minority women?
That's backwards.
Welfare is about providing those who need it. Because of historic injustice, that's disproportionately going to be women and ethnic minorities, when compared to the general population.
At local level it would appear he's been elected before, they don't have the resources to scour every person who offers to stand for them in no hope areas (though really all parties even at local level should have someone do a quick run through any social media accounts), it's probably easy to slip through.
Where it happens multiple times in the same area, then you know there's a real problem.
5 minutes checking social media. 1% of the time needed to fill out the various forms and pass through the various approval committees no doubt. Easy for me to say from the comfort of my armchair, obviously, but at a time where Labour is being pilloried for antisemitism, you'd have thought they'd have upped their game.
No, it's ok, I found a page where he says this:
I am a Musician, a Counsellor / Therapist and Advocate. I often use my music to convey an important social or political message. I am Anti-Abuse of all kinds and a 'Human Rights' Campaigner. My primary concern is with the Institutional & Professional Abuses of power; Intellectual Ignorance; Unethical Behaviour, Blinkered Thinking; Incompetence; Delusional Judgements; Poor Training; Poor ethical Adherence; Flawed Thinking; Academic Short-sightedness.
Well, he probably won't get picked up by Guido at least.
At local level it would appear he's been elected before, they don't have the resources to scour every person who offers to stand for them in no hope areas (though really all parties even at local level should have someone do a quick run through any social media accounts), it's probably easy to slip through.
Where it happens multiple times in the same area, then you know there's a real problem.
5 minutes checking social media. 1% of the time needed to fill out the various forms and pass through the various approval committees no doubt. Easy for me to say from the comfort of my armchair, obviously, but at a time where Labour is being pilloried for antisemitism, you'd have thought they'd have upped their game.
Don't forget there was an independent Review that concluded there wasn't a problem. Members are surely entitled to believe that Review's conclusion?
That rather depends on what you understand by the word "independent".
Talking of cars, I just got nearly run over by one of those new electric BMWs. They're so quiet - basically silent - you have no warning they're coming. Apparently this is a real safety issue.
It also occurred to me that in 10-15 years all cars will be electric. This will transform our cities, acoustically. We are so used to the constant drone of traffic, the endless grumble of the internal combustion engine. It's very hard to imagine life without it, in the background.
Yet that is about to happen. A new silence beckons.
They'll be fitted with mandatory sirens, for safety.
Theresa May's taken time out of her busy schedule of fashion magazine interviews to tell us about her plan for the precious union.
twitter.com/theresa_may/status/851451171730591745
Wasn't this on the PPB earlier?
Possibly - I've only just seen it.
She says she wants a welfare system that tackles the 'historic injustices of racial and gender discrimination'. Does she have any policies to back that up?
Genuine question this: is this the proper role of a welfare system?
Shouldn't welfare be there to assist those who are in need of help so that they can get themselves into a position where they no longer need help?
Race/gender discrimination is surely something to be tackled by the law and other effective action.
Out of interest, exactly how many benefits are there that are available to white men that aren't available to ethnic minority women?
That's backwards.
Welfare is about providing those who need it. Because of historic injustice, that's disproportionately going to be women and ethnic minorities, when compared to the general population.
Try telling that to an unemployed former steel worker in Hartlepool.
Talking of cars, I just got nearly run over by one of those new electric BMWs. They're so quiet - basically silent - you have no warning they're coming. Apparently this is a real safety issue.
It also occurred to me that in 10-15 years all cars will be electric. This will transform our cities, acoustically. We are so used to the constant drone of traffic, the endless grumble of the internal combustion engine. It's very hard to imagine life without it, in the background.
Yet that is about to happen. A new silence beckons.
They'll be fitted with mandatory sirens, for safety.
Yep. There's lots of research going into what the sound should be, how loud, and how directional. I'll see if I can find a linky.
Still, if it stops the w@nkers who drive around without the silencers in their exhausts ...
At local level it would appear he's been elected before, they don't have the resources to scour every person who offers to stand for them in no hope areas (though really all parties even at local level should have someone do a quick run through any social media accounts), it's probably easy to slip through.
Where it happens multiple times in the same area, then you know there's a real problem.
5 minutes checking social media. 1% of the time needed to fill out the various forms and pass through the various approval committees no doubt. Easy for me to say from the comfort of my armchair, obviously, but at a time where Labour is being pilloried for antisemitism, you'd have thought they'd have upped their game.
No, it's ok, I found a page where he says this:
I am a Musician, a Counsellor / Therapist and Advocate. I often use my music to convey an important social or political message. I am Anti-Abuse of all kinds and a 'Human Rights' Campaigner. My primary concern is with the Institutional & Professional Abuses of power; Intellectual Ignorance; Unethical Behaviour, Blinkered Thinking; Incompetence; Delusional Judgements; Poor Training; Poor ethical Adherence; Flawed Thinking; Academic Short-sightedness.
Well, he probably won't get picked up by Guido at least.
At local level it would appear he's been elected before, they don't have the resources to scour every person who offers to stand for them in no hope areas (though really all parties even at local level should have someone do a quick run through any social media accounts), it's probably easy to slip through.
Where it happens multiple times in the same area, then you know there's a real problem.
5 minutes checking social media. 1% of the time needed to fill out the various forms and pass through the various approval committees no doubt. Easy for me to say from the comfort of my armchair, obviously, but at a time where Labour is being pilloried for antisemitism, you'd have thought they'd have upped their game.
No, it's ok, I found a page where he says this:
I am a Musician, a Counsellor / Therapist and Advocate. I often use my music to convey an important social or political message. I am Anti-Abuse of all kinds and a 'Human Rights' Campaigner. My primary concern is with the Institutional & Professional Abuses of power; Intellectual Ignorance; Unethical Behaviour, Blinkered Thinking; Incompetence; Delusional Judgements; Poor Training; Poor ethical Adherence; Flawed Thinking; Academic Short-sightedness.
Well, he probably won't get picked up by Guido at least.
Theresa May's taken time out of her busy schedule of fashion magazine interviews to tell us about her plan for the precious union.
twitter.com/theresa_may/status/851451171730591745
Wasn't this on the PPB earlier?
Possibly - I've only just seen it.
She says she wants a welfare system that tackles the 'historic injustices of racial and gender discrimination'. Does she have any policies to back that up?
Genuine question this: is this the proper role of a welfare system?
Shouldn't welfare be there to assist those who are in need of help so that they can get themselves into a position where they no longer need help?
Race/gender discrimination is surely something to be tackled by the law and other effective action.
If the purpose of welfare is to reduce inequality, then yes. If it's a safety net to prevent destitution, then no.
You're proposing the latter interpretation. Others would endorse the former.
Shouldn't that question be asked first? What is the purpose of the welfare system? How to achieve that purpose? How to pay for it?
After all, we've morphed from the original intention to this without any real debate just by politicians tackling lots of extra goodies on. Now they may be good things to tackle: I'm all in favour of dealing with racial and gender discrimination, for instance. But is a welfare system the right way of dealing with such issues?
How to tackle such discrimination is the question?
And what is meant by "historic" discrimination?
It's the unthinking assumptions and sloppy language I'm challenging.
In principle, I have no objection to things being re-purposed. Whether that was the right decision for the welfare system is another question, but it has undoubtedly moved so far from its original remit as to be unrecognisable.
Your question on How To Achieve It and Who Pays are, of course, far from the politicians mind when they dream-up their latest vote-winning wheeze. Evidence-based policy making was a slogan that was doomed to fail when faced with the civil service and the ministerial merry-go-round. [the answer to the second question is of course 'everyone']
Not sure why you take exception to "historic", unless you'd like either a more specific time-band or the word "historical" in its stead.
Theresa May's taken time out of her busy schedule of fashion magazine interviews to tell us about her plan for the precious union.
twitter.com/theresa_may/status/851451171730591745
Wasn't this on the PPB earlier?
Possibly - I've only just seen it.
She says she wants a welfare system that tackles the 'historic injustices of racial and gender discrimination'. Does she have any policies to back that up?
Genuine question this: is this the proper role of a welfare system?
Shouldn't welfare be there to assist those who are in need of help so that they can get themselves into a position where they no longer need help?
Race/gender discrimination is surely something to be tackled by the law and other effective action.
Out of interest, exactly how many benefits are there that are available to white men that aren't available to ethnic minority women?
That's backwards.
Welfare is about providing those who need it. Because of historic injustice, that's disproportionately going to be women and ethnic minorities, when compared to the general population.
Try telling that to an unemployed former steel worker in Hartlepool.
what would I be telling him? that welfare is for him... and some other people? doesn't he know that already?
Theresa May's taken time out of her busy schedule of fashion magazine interviews to tell us about her plan for the precious union.
twitter.com/theresa_may/status/851451171730591745
Wasn't this on the PPB earlier?
Possibly - I've only just seen it.
She says she wants a welfare system that tackles the 'historic injustices of racial and gender discrimination'. Does she have any policies to back that up?
Genuine question this: is this the proper role of a welfare system?
Shouldn't welfare be there to assist those who are in need of help so that they can get themselves into a position where they no longer need help?
Race/gender discrimination is surely something to be tackled by the law and other effective action.
If the purpose of welfare is to reduce inequality, then yes. If it's a safety net to prevent destitution, then no.
You're proposing the latter interpretation. Others would endorse the former.
Shouldn't that question be asked first? What is the purpose of the welfare system? How to achieve that purpose? How to pay for it?
After all, we've morphed from the original intention to this without any real debate just by politicians tackling lots of extra goodies on. Now they may be good things to tackle: I'm all in favour of dealing with racial and gender discrimination, for instance. But is a welfare system the right way of dealing with such issues?
How to tackle such discrimination is the question?
And what is meant by "historic" discrimination?
It's the unthinking assumptions and sloppy language I'm challenging.
Few (if any) would support direct discrimination so that some benefits were only payable to certain groups*. I suspect what is meant is to tackle indirect discrimination. For example May plans to site her new Grammar schools in deprived areas and specify that a high percentage are on free school meals. In practice this means that these new Grammar schools are going to over-recruit from children of single mothers, or second generation migrants.
A case could be made that the new restrictions on tax credits to only two children indirectly discriminates against Muslims, Catholics and Travellers, all of whom have bigger than average families. A welfare system promoting gender and ethnic equality, might repeal this provision.
*When I lived in NZ the government did precisely this. Maori and Pacific Islanders were entitled to University grants that Pakekha (literally "settlers") were not. The purpose was to right historic wrongs. I think some Indian states do this too to benefit Dalits and scheduled castes.
Theresa May's taken time out of her busy schedule of fashion magazine interviews to tell us about her plan for the precious union.
twitter.com/theresa_may/status/851451171730591745
Wasn't this on the PPB earlier?
Possibly - I've only just seen it.
She says she wants a welfare system that tackles the 'historic injustices of racial and gender discrimination'. Does she have any policies to back that up?
Genuine question this: is this the proper role of a welfare system?
Shouldn't welfare be there to assist those who are in need of help so that they can get themselves into a position where they no longer need help?
Race/gender discrimination is surely something to be tackled by the law and other effective action.
Out of interest, exactly how many benefits are there that are available to white men that aren't available to ethnic minority women?
That's backwards.
Welfare is about providing those who need it. Because of historic injustice, that's disproportionately going to be women and ethnic minorities, when compared to the general population.
Try telling that to an unemployed former steel worker in Hartlepool.
what would I be telling him? that welfare is for him... and some other people? doesn't he know that already?
Try telling him that his benefit is being cut, but it's OK, because that money is being used to tackle historic racial and gender discrimination.
I have a cup of warm sick handy if you'd like to ask him to drink that, too.
Theresa May's taken time out of her busy schedule of fashion magazine interviews to tell us about her plan for the precious union.
twitter.com/theresa_may/status/851451171730591745
Wasn't this on the PPB earlier?
Possibly - I've only just seen it.
She says she wants a welfare system that tackles the 'historic injustices of racial and gender discrimination'. Does she have any policies to back that up?
Genuine question this: is this the proper role of a welfare system?
Shouldn't welfare be there to assist those who are in need of help so that they can get themselves into a position where they no longer need help?
Race/gender discrimination is surely something to be tackled by the law and other effective action.
If the purpose of welfare is to reduce inequality, then yes. If it's a safety net to prevent destitution, then no.
You're proposing the latter interpretation. Others would endorse the former.
Shouldn't that question be asked first? What is the purpose of the welfare system? How to achieve that purpose? How to pay for it?
After all, we've morphed from the original intention to this without any real debate just by politicians tackling lots of extra goodies on. Now they may be good things to tackle: I'm all in favour of dealing with racial and gender discrimination, for instance. But is a welfare system the right way of dealing with such issues?
How to tackle such discrimination is the question?
And what is meant by "historic" discrimination?
It's the unthinking assumptions and sloppy language I'm challenging.
A case could be made that the new restrictions on tax credits to only two children indirectly discriminates against Muslims, Catholics and Travellers, all of whom have bigger than average families. A welfare system promoting gender and ethnic equality, might repeal this provision.
Talking of cars, I just got nearly run over by one of those new electric BMWs. They're so quiet - basically silent - you have no warning they're coming. Apparently this is a real safety issue.
It also occurred to me that in 10-15 years all cars will be electric. This will transform our cities, acoustically. We are so used to the constant drone of traffic, the endless grumble of the internal combustion engine. It's very hard to imagine life without it, in the background.
Yet that is about to happen. A new silence beckons.
They'll be fitted with mandatory sirens, for safety.
Yep. There's lots of research going into what the sound should be, how loud, and how directional. I'll see if I can find a linky.
Still, if it stops the w@nkers who drive around without the silencers in their exhausts ...
Fascinating. Streets of directionally chiming electro-cars.
Why can't they play a directional snatch of Mozart?
It would seem simpler for them to play simulated engine noise. You could have a selection dial allowing your Volkswagen Butterfly to sound like a Ferrari, or a tractor, or a lawn mower.
Theresa May's taken time out of her busy schedule of fashion magazine interviews to tell us about her plan for the precious union.
twitter.com/theresa_may/status/851451171730591745
Wasn't this on the PPB earlier?
Possibly - I've only just seen it.
She says she wants a welfare system that tackles the 'historic injustices of racial and gender discrimination'. Does she have any policies to back that up?
Genuine question this: is this the proper role of a welfare system?
Shouldn't welfare be there to assist those who are in need of help so that they can get themselves into a position where they no longer need help?
Race/gender discrimination is surely something to be tackled by the law and other effective action.
If the purpose of welfare is to reduce inequality, then yes. If it's a safety net to prevent destitution, then no.
You're proposing the latter interpretation. Others would endorse the former.
Shouldn't that question be asked first? What is the purpose of the welfare system? How to achieve that purpose? How to pay for it?
After all, we've morphed from the original intention to this without any real debate just by politicians tackling lots of extra goodies on. Now they may be good things to tackle: I'm all in favour of dealing with racial and gender discrimination, for instance. But is a welfare system the right way of dealing with such issues?
How to tackle such discrimination is the question?
And what is meant by "historic" discrimination?
It's the unthinking assumptions and sloppy language I'm challenging.
A case could be made that the new restrictions on tax credits to only two children indirectly discriminates against Muslims, Catholics and Travellers, all of whom have bigger than average families. A welfare system promoting gender and ethnic equality, might repeal this provision.
That's a knock against it then.
Yeah, like the Grammar schools, I do not expect the implementation to match the rhetoric
Talking of cars, I just got nearly run over by one of those new electric BMWs. They're so quiet - basically silent - you have no warning they're coming. Apparently this is a real safety issue.
It also occurred to me that in 10-15 years all cars will be electric. This will transform our cities, acoustically. We are so used to the constant drone of traffic, the endless grumble of the internal combustion engine. It's very hard to imagine life without it, in the background.
Yet that is about to happen. A new silence beckons.
I've had that experience too (of getting almost run over). The implications of electric cars are fascinating in many respects, and are being considered by some clever people. Living close to the M60, I'm hoping it will have a positive impact for me, though I suspect at 70mph and at 400 yards away tire noise is more significant than engine noise.
Theresa May's taken time out of her busy schedule of fashion magazine interviews to tell us about her plan for the precious union.
twitter.com/theresa_may/status/851451171730591745
Wasn't this on the PPB earlier?
Possibly - I've only just seen it.
She says she wants a welfare system that tackles the 'historic injustices of racial and gender discrimination'. Does she have any policies to back that up?
Shouldn't that question be asked first? What is the purpose of the welfare system? How to achieve that purpose? How to pay for it?
After all, we've morphed from the original intention to this without any real debate just by politicians tackling lots of extra goodies on. Now they may be good things to tackle: I'm all in favour of dealing with racial and gender discrimination, for instance. But is a welfare system the right way of dealing with such issues?
How to tackle such discrimination is the question?
And what is meant by "historic" discrimination?
It's the unthinking assumptions and sloppy language I'm challenging.
In principle, I have no objection to things being re-purposed. Whether that was the right decision for the welfare system is another question, but it has undoubtedly moved so far from its original remit as to be unrecognisable.
Your question on How To Achieve It and Who Pays are, of course, far from the politicians mind when they dream-up their latest vote-winning wheeze. Evidence-based policy making was a slogan that was doomed to fail when faced with the civil service and the ministerial merry-go-round. [the answer to the second question is of course 'everyone']
Not sure why you take exception to "historic", unless you'd like either a more specific time-band or the word "historical" in its stead.
Women used to be discriminated against in the past e.g. being made to leave certain Civil Service jobs when they got married.
I don't see why that is relevant now when determining the role of women in the public sector or indeed whether or not to promote a particular woman.
If I have not suffered any discrimination why should I benefit just because I'm the same sex as my grandmother who was discriminated against, for instance?
That's what I mean when I say I don't understand what the meaning of "historic" is in this context.
I also find it bizarre that we avoid dealing with the one characteristic which, probably more than any other, determines how well you do in our country: class.
*snipped for length* Women used to be discriminated against in the past e.g. being made to leave certain Civil Service jobs when they got married.
I don't see why that is relevant now when determining the role of women in the public sector or indeed whether or not to promote a particular woman.
If I have not suffered any discrimination why should I benefit just because I'm the same sex as my grandmother who was discriminated against, for instance?
That's what I mean when I say I don't understand what the meaning of "historic" is in this context.
I also find it bizarre that we avoid dealing with the one characteristic which, probably more than any other, determines how well you do in our country: class.
"Women used to be discriminated against in the past".
Even as a benighted man I can see that gender discrimination is still widespread and indeed endemic in certain sectors. My wife works in financial services and is subject to (or hears in passing) all sorts of misogynistic crap. And that's a sector with a very, very highly educated workforce.
Not sure I've addressed your point very well, I'm afraid (and I do understand what you're saying). Anyway, dinner beckons - cooked by me
Theresa May's taken time out of her busy schedule of fashion magazine interviews to tell us about her plan for the precious union.
twitter.com/theresa_may/status/851451171730591745
Wasn't this on the PPB earlier?
Possibly - I've only just seen it.
She says she wants a welfare system that tackles the 'historic injustices of racial and gender discrimination'. Does she have any policies to back that up?
Genuine question this: is this the proper role of a welfare system?
Shouldn't welfare be there to assist those who are in need of help so that they can get themselves into a position where they no longer need help?
Race/gender discrimination is surely something to be tackled by the law and other effective action.
If the purpose of welfare is to reduce inequality, then yes. If it's a safety net to prevent destitution, then no.
You're proposing the latter interpretation. Others would endorse the former.
Shouldn't that question be asked first? What is
How to tackle such discrimination is the question?
And what is meant by "historic" discrimination?
It's the unthinking assumptions and sloppy language I'm challenging.
Few (if any) would support direct discrimination so that some benefits were only payable to certain groups*. I suspect what is meant is to tackle indirect discrimination. For example May plans to site her new Grammar schools in deprived areas and specify that a high percentage are on free school meals. In practice this means that these new Grammar schools are going to over-recruit from children of single mothers, or second generation migrants.
A case could be made that the new restrictions on tax credits to only two children indirectly discriminates against Muslims, Catholics and Travellers, all of whom have bigger than average families. A welfare system promoting gender and ethnic equality, might repeal this provision.
*When I lived in NZ the government did precisely this. Maori and Pacific Islanders were entitled to University grants that Pakekha (literally "settlers") were not. The purpose was to right historic wrongs. I think some Indian states do this too to benefit Dalits and scheduled castes.
Direct discrimination is frequently justified by reference to historic wrongs. Afrikaaners frequently justified apartheid by reference to wrongs suffered at British hands; African nationalists justified ill-treatment of Asians by reference to past wrongs; so do Malays justify their treatment of Chinese.
Theresa May's taken time out of her busy schedule of fashion magazine interviews to tell us about her plan for the precious union.
twitter.com/theresa_may/status/851451171730591745
Wasn't this on the PPB earlier?
Possibly - I've only just seen it.
She says she wants a welfare system that tackles the 'historic injustices of racial and gender discrimination'. Does she have any policies to back that up?
Genuine question this: is this the proper role of a welfare system?
Shouldn't welfare be there to assist those who are in need of help so that they can get themselves into a position where they no longer need help?
Race/gender discrimination is surely something to be tackled by the law and other effective action.
If the purpose of welfare is to reduce inequality, then yes. If it's a safety net to prevent destitution, then no.
You're proposing the latter interpretation. Others would endorse the former.
Shouldn't that question be asked first? What is the purpose of the welfare system? How to achieve that purpose? How to pay for it?
After all, we've morphed from the original intention to this without any real debate just by politicians tackling lots of extra goodies on. Now they may be good things to tackle: I'm all in favour of dealing with racial and gender discrimination, for instance. But is a welfare system the right way of dealing with such issues?
How to tackle such discrimination is the question?
And what is meant by "historic" discrimination?
It's the unthinking assumptions and sloppy language I'm challenging.
A case could be made that the new restrictions on tax credits to only two children indirectly discriminates against Muslims, Catholics and Travellers, all of whom have bigger than average families. A welfare system promoting gender and ethnic equality, might repeal this provision.
And such a case is bollocks on stilts. Being Catholic or Muslim is a choice. Having children is a choice. If you choose to have lots of children, good for you. But your religious or racial yearnings for a large family should not be the deciding factor for public policy.
Just because one group may be affected by a policy more than another does not mean that it is discrimination which ought to be outlawed. You may as well say that any policy which pays for children is indirect discrimination against the childless.
We discriminate - in the sense of making choices - all the time. As we should. And as governments should. To govern is to choose, as some Labour Poo-Bah once said.
Talking of cars, I just got nearly run over by one of those new electric BMWs. They're so quiet - basically silent - you have no warning they're coming. Apparently this is a real safety issue.
It also occurred to me that in 10-15 years all cars will be electric. This will transform our cities, acoustically. We are so used to the constant drone of traffic, the endless grumble of the internal combustion engine. It's very hard to imagine life without it, in the background.
Yet that is about to happen. A new silence beckons.
They'll be fitted with mandatory sirens, for safety.
Yep. There's lots of research going into what the sound should be, how loud, and how directional. I'll see if I can find a linky.
Still, if it stops the w@nkers who drive around without the silencers in their exhausts ...
Fascinating. Streets of directionally chiming electro-cars.
Why can't they play a directional snatch of Mozart?
It would seem simpler for them to play simulated engine noise. You could have a selection dial allowing your Volkswagen Butterfly to sound like a Ferrari, or a tractor, or a lawn mower.
Couldn't people just use their, I don't know, eyes? Instead of having bloody Vivaldi or Noddy-poop-poop car music being played down our streets.
Comments
Absolutely No LibDems Coalition Of Contents Winning Here !!
There are a number of oddities about the story. The oddest is the apparent involvement of the US enforcement authorities in assisting one of the internal investigation groups to try and identify one of the whistleblowers. This is such a no-no - both for any internal investigation team let alone for the regulators, certainly in the UK (and it's contrary to the spirit of the UK rules) - that one can't help feeling that there is something we are not being told.
The other oddity is that nothing is said about the initial investigation - assuming there was one - into the original allegations. There is something missing here.
One final oddity: who advised him or led Mr Staley to believe that he could find out the identity of the whistleblower?
Internal investigation teams don't go externally to enforcement agencies without very good reason and authority. Who authorized this and why?
The biggest problem - and Barclays exemplifies it - is that lots of firms are very good on setting up the right processes and procedures but have an absolute blind spot about the psychology of whistleblowers and how best to deal with them, how to protect their confidentiality, the confidentiality of the investigation and how to deal with those under investigation. That takes experience and emotional intelligence and some courage and some understanding of people. What is needed - in addition to good processes - are good investigators, a point often overlooked in the frenzy to get something that looks good down on paper.
It is also worth bearing in mind that some whistleblowers can be malicious or have a personal grudge. It is amazing how many aggrieved former partners are out there willing to put the knife in. It doesn't make their allegations untrue of course. But it can also mean that someone can be the target of an unfounded accusation and the consequent investigation, which is - believe me - no fun and can have repercussions when / if they move jobs.
Without knowing all the facts I don't know whether Mr Staley was saint or sinner or a mixture of both. But there is more than him at fault here.
They could do with a really ace and independent Head of an Investigations (Whistleblowings included) Group......
Probably not. It appears like a well fitted van. Their vehicle also requires some off road capacity. They've had Range Rovers in the past and a Macan presently but another child looms as does the requirement for more seats !!
Thanks anyway.
Mind you, the FCA is not much better, according to my sources. And as for the BoE...... dear oh dear!
Cultures don't get created overnight. Nor do bad cultures get changed overnight
Perhaps this is time to bring out again Cyclefree's 10 Stages of a Crisis and the 5 Behaviours We (well I) Always Find. It could end up being the Monopoly game de nos jours for the City......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-39558207
[or 'enquiring', perhaps?]
If I see a story about a racially motivated attack, I would still believe hating people is wrong, even if my reaction would be 'hating people on the basis of race is wrong'.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_trump_job_approval-6179.html
CBS, and YouGov polls show that while most Americans support the strike, they feel Trump should get Congressional approval if he wants to take further action.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/poll-airstrikes-syria_us_58ea0331e4b00de14104006c
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2017/04/10/donald-trump-syria-airstrike-poll/
In one post Mr Couchman said he was "as critical of the Islamic State as I am of the notion of a Jewish State" while suggesting it was the "ZioNazi [Saudi and Israeli] Storm Troopers of IsraHell" that were using chemical weapons for ethnic cleansing."
Note that says 'notion', not 'nation'.
https://twitter.com/theresa_may/status/851451171730591745
I'm not sure if despise and pity isn't equally effective
Where it happens multiple times in the same area, then you know there's a real problem.
Gap people can get stuffed.
She says she wants a welfare system that tackles the 'historic injustices of racial and gender discrimination'. Does she have any policies to back that up?
Shouldn't welfare be there to assist those who are in need of help so that they can get themselves into a position where they no longer need help?
Race/gender discrimination is surely something to be tackled by the law and other effective action.
I am a Musician, a Counsellor / Therapist and Advocate. I often use my music to convey an important social or political message. I am Anti-Abuse of all kinds and a 'Human Rights' Campaigner. My primary concern is with the Institutional & Professional Abuses of power; Intellectual Ignorance; Unethical Behaviour, Blinkered Thinking; Incompetence; Delusional Judgements; Poor Training; Poor ethical Adherence; Flawed Thinking; Academic Short-sightedness.
Well, he probably won't get picked up by Guido at least.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/10/freed-eus-shackles-brexit-britain-can-rekindle-regions/
I'm not at all sure that (a) and (b) can be said about the current Labour party - or its Corbynite leadership, at any event. And if (a) and (b) are missing, it's not surprising that (c) is not happening effectively.
Labour certainly want to appear as if they're doing something about the criticisms they face about allegations of anti-Semitism. But that's a very different thing.
http://www.thetower.org/article/britains-labour-party-tries-to-whitewash-its-anti-semitism/
You're proposing the latter interpretation. Others would endorse the former.
Just like gays in Chechnya. "There aren't any, so how can we be detaining and torturing them?"
@williamglenn H&M is brilliant. 50% of wardrobe is basically H&M stuff.
All the other stores don't compare - NEXT has gone down in recent years, River Island too. Zara is way too expensive.
After all, we've morphed from the original intention to this without any real debate just by politicians tackling lots of extra goodies on. Now they may be good things to tackle: I'm all in favour of dealing with racial and gender discrimination, for instance. But is a welfare system the right way of dealing with such issues?
How to tackle such discrimination is the question?
And what is meant by "historic" discrimination?
It's the unthinking assumptions and sloppy language I'm challenging.
Welfare is about providing those who need it. Because of historic injustice, that's disproportionately going to be women and ethnic minorities, when compared to the general population.
http://www.thunderstorm-entertainment.com/
Still, if it stops the w@nkers who drive around without the silencers in their exhausts ...
Edit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_vehicle_warning_sounds
Your question on How To Achieve It and Who Pays are, of course, far from the politicians mind when they dream-up their latest vote-winning wheeze. Evidence-based policy making was a slogan that was doomed to fail when faced with the civil service and the ministerial merry-go-round. [the answer to the second question is of course 'everyone']
Not sure why you take exception to "historic", unless you'd like either a more specific time-band or the word "historical" in its stead.
A case could be made that the new restrictions on tax credits to only two children indirectly discriminates against Muslims, Catholics and Travellers, all of whom have bigger than average families. A welfare system promoting gender and ethnic equality, might repeal this provision.
*When I lived in NZ the government did precisely this. Maori and Pacific Islanders were entitled to University grants that Pakekha (literally "settlers") were not. The purpose was to right historic wrongs. I think some Indian states do this too to benefit Dalits and scheduled castes.
I have a cup of warm sick handy if you'd like to ask him to drink that, too.
The implications of electric cars are fascinating in many respects, and are being considered by some clever people. Living close to the M60, I'm hoping it will have a positive impact for me, though I suspect at 70mph and at 400 yards away tire noise is more significant than engine noise.
I don't see why that is relevant now when determining the role of women in the public sector or indeed whether or not to promote a particular woman.
If I have not suffered any discrimination why should I benefit just because I'm the same sex as my grandmother who was discriminated against, for instance?
That's what I mean when I say I don't understand what the meaning of "historic" is in this context.
I also find it bizarre that we avoid dealing with the one characteristic which, probably more than any other, determines how well you do in our country: class.
Even as a benighted man I can see that gender discrimination is still widespread and indeed endemic in certain sectors. My wife works in financial services and is subject to (or hears in passing) all sorts of misogynistic crap. And that's a sector with a very, very highly educated workforce.
Not sure I've addressed your point very well, I'm afraid (and I do understand what you're saying). Anyway, dinner beckons - cooked by me
Just because one group may be affected by a policy more than another does not mean that it is discrimination which ought to be outlawed. You may as well say that any policy which pays for children is indirect discrimination against the childless.
We discriminate - in the sense of making choices - all the time. As we should. And as governments should. To govern is to choose, as some Labour Poo-Bah once said.