Miss Cyclefree, give people power, and some will abuse it. Simple as that.
Not to say there's nothing to be done. Wrongdoers should be prosecuted if they broke the law, and the odd circumstances of employment in Westminster means there's scope to improve the way such things are reported so that vested interests aren't in a position of judging their own side.
The media focus on knees when there are far, far worse allegations is pathetic.
If it's as reported, then she's been really silly. At best.
The whole Tory government is in hock to a number of unsavoury ME regimes, so from their perspective, Patel has done nothing wrong. If Corbyn was PM, he would take a much more principled approach, and I can imagine that a Labour government would have issued an apology for the infamous letter issued by a former foreign secretary 100 years ago yesterday.
What is there to apologise for? We should be proud of the Balfour Declaration.
Agreed.
But if you’re from a party which thinks, at its conference, that it should be ok to discuss whether the Holocaust happened, for all the world as if you were a member of the BNP or one of the wilder Denier groupuscules, then you might take a different view.
If it's as reported, then she's been really silly. At best.
The whole Tory government is in hock to a number of unsavoury ME regimes, so from their perspective, Patel has done nothing wrong. If Corbyn was PM, he would take a much more principled approach, and I can imagine that a Labour government would have issued an apology for the infamous letter issued by a former foreign secretary 100 years ago yesterday.
What is there to apologise for? We should be proud of the Balfour Declaration.
At the time it was made, Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire, albeit with British Imperial troops massing for conquest. It was not Britain's to give away.
If it's as reported, then she's been really silly. At best.
The whole Tory government is in hock to a number of unsavoury ME regimes, so from their perspective, Patel has done nothing wrong. If Corbyn was PM, he would take a much more principled approach, and I can imagine that a Labour government would have issued an apology for the infamous letter issued by a former foreign secretary 100 years ago yesterday.
What is there to apologise for? We should be proud of the Balfour Declaration.
Exactly, a Jewish state in their ancient homeland after 2/3 of European Jews were murdered in the Holocaust.
Miss Cyclefree, give people power, and some will abuse it. Simple as that.
Not to say there's nothing to be done. Wrongdoers should be prosecuted if they broke the law, and the odd circumstances of employment in Westminster means there's scope to improve the way such things are reported so that vested interests aren't in a position of judging their own side.
The media focus on knees when there are far, far worse allegations is pathetic.
The focus on the knee is because it is admitted. So they can safely go to town on it. The more serious stuff is not admitted so they have to be a lot more careful.
But we have ended up with a completely inappropriate moral equivalence. Fallon may have acted as a boor and in a reprehensible way but it is nothing like a criminal offence such as sexual assault. Without in any way condoning or excusing boorish behaviour we need to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Mr. L, I do understand the mechanics of that from a reporting perspective, but they could nevertheless pay far less attention to the 'confirmed knee' and focus on the background of serious allegations that matter far more.
I do fear that the ridiculousness of some of these claims, and the confusion of them with more serious cases, might mean that all such accusations are automatically devalued and we end up with the same-old, same-old.
I haven't been particularly following the rumours, but both Hopkins and Fallon seem to have been leery old men with wandering hands rather than anything more aggressive. Possibly more will come out.
A culture where that is tolerated does create space and opportunity for real offenses though, as we saw with Saville and Harris.
The allegations against Hopkins are that, at the age of 73, he rubbed himself up against a girl in her 20’s. A touch aggressive, I’d have thought, as well as a high yukk factor.
I agree, and such activity is not to be tolerated and is probably not isolated.
We are not yet at Saville, Harris or Weinstein levels though. My point is that a workplace culture that considers the first as banter, creates a climate where much worse can happen.
Agreed. It’s not difficult to behave politely around people. I’m not entirely sure why people find this so hard. Did people turn into baboons when I wasn’t looking?
No, some have been so all along.
I am not particularly concerned with my own opinions on this - rather the effects on society at large. Handled well, change to more enlightened behaviour will likely benefit everyone. Handled badly, we end up with our own version of the US culture wars.
While people may make friends among political allies or even opponents, dirty jokes of the kind only permissable among close friends should probably be avoided, since most even in your own ranks will not be friends, they're colleagues and you should should really only make rude, dirty and offensive jokes when there is no question anyone will mind. That might be a minefield, so just don't among politicos even on your own side, and definitely not on official business, it is not the place for that sort of humour.
If it's as reported, then she's been really silly. At best.
The whole Tory government is in hock to a number of unsavoury ME regimes, so from their perspective, Patel has done nothing wrong. If Corbyn was PM, he would take a much more principled approach, and I can imagine that a Labour government would have issued an apology for the infamous letter issued by a former foreign secretary 100 years ago yesterday.
What is there to apologise for? We should be proud of the Balfour Declaration.
At the time it was made, Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire, albeit with British Imperial troops massing for conquest. It was not Britain's to give away.
Did we not make similar promises to Arab leaders who were helping us in the war against Turkey and largely honour them too?
If it's as reported, then she's been really silly. At best.
The whole Tory government is in hock to a number of unsavoury ME regimes, so from their perspective, Patel has done nothing wrong. If Corbyn was PM, he would take a much more principled approach, and I can imagine that a Labour government would have issued an apology for the infamous letter issued by a former foreign secretary 100 years ago yesterday.
What is there to apologise for? We should be proud of the Balfour Declaration.
Exactly, a Jewish state in their ancient homeland after 2/3 of European Jews were murdered in the Holocaust.
That was 30 years later.
It was done, as I understand the history, because it was felt that it would aid the British war effort during WW1. The Kaiser had also been looking at how the various different factions in the Ottoman Empire could be helped/undermined to aid Germany’s war aims. All the Great Powers had form in interfering in the territories of the Ottoman Empire regardless of whether such territories were theirs or not.
It is an interesting counter-factual whether Israel would have been created if the Holocaust had not happened. After all the Kurds are still waiting for the promises made to them at around the same time to be honoured.
And, of course, it was the United Nations rather than Britain which was responsible for the decision to divide the land into an Israeli state and a Palestinian one.
In the not so distant future we might be asking did Harvey Weinstein bring down Theresa May's government and make Corbyn Prime Minister?
And maybe even stop Brexit.
How does Corbyn being pm stop Brexit when he and the party officially back going through with it?
I suspect he'll be amenable to a jobs first Brexit, which he can sell as remaining in the single market and customs union, or a rather long transitional phase.
Which sees Brexit can kicked further down the road.
Corbyn, with a lot of justification, can argue Mrs May has wasted 17 months, and it would be unfair for him to sort Brexit out in the next year or so.
If it's as reported, then she's been really silly. At best.
It's extremely difficult to get into Israel. They suspect everyone travelling privately of being a terrorist. When I went they were pretty unpleasant even though I had accreditation from Yad Vashem that I was visiting them for scholarly reasons. It's one reason why their tourist trade, which should be off the scale given that Israel is not only a sacred and historic country but is also quite stunningly beautiful, is actually pretty underwhelming.
Without going into details, if it is found that she was able to have her path smoothed for this holiday by agreeing to meet senior officials, she's toast.
That's odd. I can't say I can recall anyone who has travelled to Israel for a holiday outside of religious reasons, but I do know lots of people who have travelled there on business - Israel has some very good tech firms. I can't recall having heard of any problems.
I guess there're different rules for business and leisure.
I did some voluntary work in East Jerusalem and in the West Bank, staying with Palestinian Christians. I flew El Al, and apart from the vetting at the airport in both directions no issues at all.
First time I went to Israel they asked why I was going.
You don't need a visa, but they are pretty sticky unless you have accreditation from the person you are visiting (I'm guessing that's how your friends got in, Josias).
Even then as I found they ask some pretty searching questions. One member of the party was even strip-searched.
Worth it when you get in though.
I travelled independently to Israel this summer with my daughter and had absolutely no difficulty at all. We weren’t even questioned on entry, let alone be regarded as terrorists. My daughter has been there several times, again with no problems. A very interesting country. I fully intend to return and explore some more. I would also love to explore more of the Middle East, once it becomes safe to do so.
I was lucky enough to spend a month in Egypt in the early 1990s, but what I really want to do in the region is follow my grandfather's postcards - Alexandria, Cairo, slightly less going backwards and forwards between Alamein, Tobruk and Benghazi, Tunis, Sicily, Italy.
There was a brief window when that looked possible, but I don't think I'll ever get the chance now.
•Between Quarter 1 1997 and Quarter 2 (Apr to June) 2017, the UK had the lowest average value of GFCF as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) of any Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) nation.
In the not so distant future we might be asking did Harvey Weinstein bring down Theresa May's government and make Corbyn Prime Minister?
And maybe even stop Brexit.
How does Corbyn being pm stop Brexit when he and the party officially back going through with it?
I suspect he'll be amenable to a jobs first Brexit, which he can sell as remaining in the single market and customs union, or a rather long transitional phase.
Which sees Brexit can kicked further down the road.
Corbyn, with a lot of justification, can argue Mrs May has wasted 17 months, and it would be unfair for him to sort Brexit out in the next year or so.
That's still not stopping brexit though, it's softer Brexit or longer transition.
You don't need a visa, but they are pretty sticky unless you have accreditation from the person you are visiting (I'm guessing that's how your friends got in, Josias).
Even then as I found they ask some pretty searching questions. One member of the party was even strip-searched.
Worth it when you get in though.
I travelled independently to Israel this summer with my daughter and had absolutely no difficulty at all. We weren’t even questioned on entry, let alone be regarded as terrorists. My daughter has been there several times, again with no problems. A very interesting country. I fully intend to return and explore some more. I would also love to explore more of the Middle East, once it becomes safe to do so.
I was lucky enough to spend a month in Egypt in the early 1990s, but what I really want to do in the region is follow my grandfather's postcards - Alexandria, Cairo, slightly less going backwards and forwards between Alamein, Tobruk and Benghazi, Tunis, Sicily, Italy.
There was a brief window when that looked possible, but I don't think I'll ever get the chance now.
I regret not visiting Syria and Libya before they descended into savagery. I’d have loved to see Aleppo and Palmyra and Leptis Magna. Fat chance now......
I do fear that the ridiculousness of some of these claims, and the confusion of them with more serious cases, might mean that all such accusations are automatically devalued and we end up with the same-old, same-old.
I haven't been particularly following the rumours, but both Hopkins and Fallon seem to have been leery old men with wandering hands rather than anything more aggressive. Possibly more will come out.
A culture where that is tolerated does create space and opportunity for real offenses though, as we saw with Saville and Harris.
The allegations against Hopkins are that, at the age of 73, he rubbed himself up against a girl in her 20’s. A touch aggressive, I’d have thought, as well as a high yukk factor.
I agree, and such activity is not to be tolerated and is probably not isolated.
We are not yet at Saville, Harris or Weinstein levels though. My point is that a workplace culture that considers the first as banter, creates a climate where much worse can happen.
Agreed. It’s not difficult to behave politely around people. I’m not entirely sure why people find this so hard. Did people turn into baboons when I wasn’t looking?
No, some have been so all along.
I am not particularly concerned with my own opinions on this - rather the effects on society at large. Handled well, change to more enlightened behaviour will likely benefit everyone. Handled badly, we end up with our own version of the US culture wars.
I think one problem is while there is a pretty clear consensus about what is rape or serious sexual assault, there is much less of a consensus about where you draw the lines between minor sexual assault/sexual harassment/inappropriate behaviour/an unwelcome advance/off colour jokes/office banter/harmless flirtation.
In the not so distant future we might be asking did Harvey Weinstein bring down Theresa May's government and make Corbyn Prime Minister?
And maybe even stop Brexit.
How does Corbyn being pm stop Brexit when he and the party officially back going through with it?
I suspect he'll be amenable to a jobs first Brexit, which he can sell as remaining in the single market and customs union, or a rather long transitional phase.
Which sees Brexit can kicked further down the road.
Corbyn, with a lot of justification, can argue Mrs May has wasted 17 months, and it would be unfair for him to sort Brexit out in the next year or so.
That's still not stopping brexit though, it's softer Brexit or longer transition.
If it's as reported, then she's been really silly. At best.
The whole Tory government is in hock to a number of unsavoury ME regimes, so from their perspective, Patel has done nothing wrong. If Corbyn was PM, he would take a much more principled approach, and I can imagine that a Labour government would have issued an apology for the infamous letter issued by a former foreign secretary 100 years ago yesterday.
What is there to apologise for? We should be proud of the Balfour Declaration.
Exactly, a Jewish state in their ancient homeland after 2/3 of European Jews were murdered in the Holocaust.
That was 30 years later.
It was done, as I understand the history, because it was felt that it would aid the British war effort during WW1. The Kaiser had also been looking at how the various different factions in the Ottoman Empire could be helped/undermined to aid Germany’s war aims. All the Great Powers had form in interfering in the territories of the Ottoman Empire regardless of whether such territories were theirs or not.
It is an interesting counter-factual whether Israel would have been created if the Holocaust had not happened. After all the Kurds are still waiting for the promises made to them at around the same time to be honoured.
And, of course, it was the United Nations rather than Britain which was responsible for the decision to divide the land into an Israeli state and a Palestinian one.
No, Israel would almost certainly not have become an independent country without the holocaust, certainly not in the timeframe that it did and how it did. But I'm not sure how that's particularly relevant to the Balfour Declaration. In any case, Jews were still suffering serious persecution across much of the world in 1917 so while the worst was still to come, the promise of a homeland - one which respected the civil and religious rights of the pre-existing non-Jewish population - was a progressive step.
Of course part of the rationale was to disrupt the Central Powers. It is possible to pursue policies that have solid humanitarian rationales and which simultaneously advance a war aim. Whether the policy would have been advanced without the war stimulus is another matter; we can certainly debate the motive for the Declaration. But that doesn't change whether the decision, once taken, was a good one or not (though it does affect whether it was a good or bad one by accident).
•Between Quarter 1 1997 and Quarter 2 (Apr to June) 2017, the UK had the lowest average value of GFCF as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) of any Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) nation.
It’s not good but does it not reflect the fact that most of our growth over that period has come from services such as finance and law which do not require substantial capital investment?
I do fear that the ridiculousness of some of these claims, and the confusion of them with more serious cases, might mean that all such accusations are automatically devalued and we end up with the same-old, same-old.
I haven't been particularly following the rumours, but both Hopkins and Fallon seem to have been leery old men with wandering hands rather than anything more aggressive. Possibly more will come out.
A culture where that is tolerated does create space and opportunity for real offenses though, as we saw with Saville and Harris.
The allegations against Hopkins are that, at the age of 73, he rubbed himself up against a girl in her 20’s. A touch aggressive, I’d have thought, as well as a high yukk factor.
I agree, and such activity is not to be tolerated and is probably not isolated.
We are not yet at Saville, Harris or Weinstein levels though. My point is that a workplace culture that considers the first as banter, creates a climate where much worse can happen.
Agreed. It’s not difficult to behave politely around people. I’m not entirely sure why people find this so hard. Did people turn into baboons when I wasn’t looking?
No, some have been so all along.
I am not particularly concerned with my own opinions on this - rather the effects on society at large. Handled well, change to more enlightened behaviour will likely benefit everyone. Handled badly, we end up with our own version of the US culture wars.
I think one problem is while there is a pretty clear consensus about what is rape or serious sexual assault, there is much less of a consensus about where you draw the lines between minor sexual assault/sexual harassment/inappropriate behaviour/an unwelcome advance/off colour jokes/office banter/harmless flirtation.
And when it comes to comments what is sacking worthy and what can be handled by apology. Is a single very rude and offensive 'joke' sackable? Would it take a pattern of behaviour?
I imagine a lot it will depend on specific circumstance at that level, although anything involving unwanted contact will be much clearer and setious.
If it's as reported, then she's been really silly. At best.
The whole Tory government is in hock to a number of unsavoury ME regimes, so from their perspective, Patel has done nothing wrong. If Corbyn was PM, he would take a much more principled approach, and I can imagine that a Labour government would have issued an apology for the infamous letter issued by a former foreign secretary 100 years ago yesterday.
What is there to apologise for? We should be proud of the Balfour Declaration.
Agreed.
But if you’re from a party which thinks, at its conference, that it should be ok to discuss whether the Holocaust happened, for all the world as if you were a member of the BNP or one of the wilder Denier groupuscules, then you might take a different view.
The issue with the Balfour Decleration is not the document itself but how the French reacted to it.
They assumed that Perfidious Albion was scheming to steal Syria from them and hence started funding and arming both Jewish terrorists and Arab nationalists.
So, much of today's disaster in the Middle East is down to the French
I do fear that the ridiculousness of some of these claims, and the confusion of them with more serious cases, might mean that all such accusations are automatically devalued and we end up with the same-old, same-old.
I haven't been particularly following the rumours, but both Hopkins and Fallon seem to have been leery old men with wandering hands rather than anything more aggressive. Possibly more will come out.
A culture where that is tolerated does create space and opportunity for real offenses though, as we saw with Saville and Harris.
The allegations against Hopkins are that, at the age of 73, he rubbed himself up against a girl in her 20’s. A touch aggressive, I’d have thought, as well as a high yukk factor.
I agree, and such activity is not to be tolerated and is probably not isolated.
We are not yet at Saville, Harris or Weinstein levels though. My point is that a workplace culture that considers the first as banter, creates a climate where much worse can happen.
Agreed. It’s not difficult to behave politely around people. I’m not entirely sure why people find this so hard. Did people turn into baboons when I wasn’t looking?
No, some have been so all along.
I am not particularly concerned with my own opinions on this - rather the effects on society at large. Handled well, change to more enlightened behaviour will likely benefit everyone. Handled badly, we end up with our own version of the US culture wars.
I think one problem is while there is a pretty clear consensus about what is rape or serious sexual assault, there is much less of a consensus about where you draw the lines between minor sexual assault/sexual harassment/inappropriate behaviour/an unwelcome advance/off colour jokes/office banter/harmless flirtation.
A good rule of thumb on the latter is that if you’re on the receiving end of off colour jokes/banter in the office which you find uncomfortable, you say something at the time so that others know where to draw the line. If they keep going then you escalate.
And if you’re the boss then you have to be sensitive to make sure that you intervene on behalf of those who may be too shy/unwilling to speak up.
Edited: And of course if you go too far you apologise at the time.
So, more than a few of her potential replacements have the Sword of Damocles hanging over them and two (Fallon & Leadsom) are out of the equation...not been an altogether bad week for the PM..
Why would this damage Leadsome? Is being the target of smut now a crime?
Yes - she’s a woman who didn’t agree with the boys that this was just “banter” and, really, why doesn’t she just get a sense of humour etc ? (Sarcasm alert....)
I've seen groups of women together making comments that are deeply misandric. Should I just get a sense of humour? In one case, I just told them to p*ss off and grow up.
It's important to address such things as early as possible. If you say something you object to, tell them. It's then up to them to decide if you're being silly, or apologise, or alter their behaviour in future. Letting it fester just allows the behaviour to worsen.
Mrs J works in a very male environment, and there are such comments made. In some cases, she joins in because they're a reaction to a situation, and light-hearted, amongst people she likes and trusts. In a previous job she and others were bullied (non-sexually), and any such comments would have got a very different reaction.
I've no doubt the men making the comments at this company would not make them to strangers, or in different company. Its the mutual trust that helps.
Context matters of course. But there’s a time and place for everything and in a work environment you need to behave around your colleagues in a civilised and polite manner. It is possible to be funny without being sexually insulting.
That's fair enough. Mrs J works for a very large company, but the core of her group is a much smaller one, the remaining nucleus of a company that was taken over. Hence it is sometimes them versus us.
In one recent case, they were in a teleconference from an American office. Anything Mrs J said was routinely ignored by the Americans, a bit like the comedy sketch below. After the call, her boss - who she gets on well with - said: "they'd have listened to you if you had a dick."
Now, that's rude. He probably should have said: "if you were male." But she thinks it was utterly appropriate because the Yanks were being, in effect, pricks, and she trusts her boss.
I also doubt her boss would have said it if he was amongst strangers. So I think there is a place for bawdy language if - and especially if - you are willing to apologise and alter behaviour if offence is given.
Can anyone think of a time when the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition were both forced to resign in the same week? Because these stories are starting to look terminal for both party leaders (and it's easy to imagine Cable could be in trouble too).
I doubt either are going anywhere. Wandering hands may well cut a swathe through May’s potential replacements, and there are no problems in the Labour Party - just ask Lady Chakrabati for a whitewash report.
According to reports, the Labour Party Chief Whip, Rosie Winterton investigated the complaint and the MP concerned was reprimanded
Seems to be missing out the reported reprimand, and no, I was not involved and can only go on what is said by others on the radio and TV. However, I am probably not the only one who thinks that too many are playing different games intending specific outcomes which are coming into conflict, going in to dangerous areas and ending up with unintended results...
They have a veto over new engine regulations in 2021. And just nearly won the title. And threaten this every year or so. If they spent more time on reliability and less time on this tosh, they might win a title.
I do fear that the ridiculousness of some of these claims, and the confusion of them with more serious cases, might mean that all such accusations are automatically devalued and we end up with the same-old, same-old.
I haven't been particularly following the rumours, but both Hopkins and Fallon seem to have been leery old men with wandering hands rather than anything more aggressive. Possibly more will come out.
A culture where that is tolerated does create space and opportunity for real offenses though, as we saw with Saville and Harris.
The allegations against Hopkins are that, at the age of 73, he rubbed himself up against a girl in her 20’s. A touch aggressive, I’d have thought, as well as a high yukk factor.
I agree, and such activity is not to be tolerated and is probably not isolated.
We are not yet at Saville, Harris or Weinstein levels though. My point is that a workplace culture that considers the first as banter, creates a climate where much worse can happen.
Agreed. It’s not difficult to behave politely around people. I’m not entirely sure why people find this so hard. Did people turn into baboons when I wasn’t looking?
No, some have been so all along.
I am not particularly concerned with my own opinions on this - rather the effects on society at large. Handled well, change to more enlightened behaviour will likely benefit everyone. Handled badly, we end up with our own version of the US culture wars.
I think one problem is while there is a pretty clear consensus about what is rape or serious sexual assault, there is much less of a consensus about where you draw the lines between minor sexual assault/sexual harassment/inappropriate behaviour/an unwelcome advance/off colour jokes/office banter/harmless flirtation.
Certainly, but let's take the example of rubbing against someone. Categorise it as you want, involve the police or have an official enquiry if you will, but that, simply, is not appropriate behaviour for anyone, anywhere.
"Yes he is a shit but he is a great MP/actor/carpenter" is for posterity to judge (cf. Picasso). Happily we can't have categories of people who are allowed a bit of wiggle room for this kind of behaviour.
I do fear that the ridiculousness of some of these claims, and the confusion of them with more serious cases, might mean that all such accusations are automatically devalued and we end up with the same-old, same-old.
I haven't been particularly following the rumours, but both Hopkins and Fallon seem to have been leery old men with wandering hands rather than anything more aggressive. Possibly more will come out.
A culture where that is tolerated does create space and opportunity for real offenses though, as we saw with Saville and Harris.
The allegations against Hopkins are that, at the age of 73, he rubbed himself up against a girl in her 20’s. A touch aggressive, I’d have thought, as well as a high yukk factor.
I agree, and such activity is not to be tolerated and is probably not isolated.
We are not yet at Saville, Harris or Weinstein levels though. My point is that a workplace culture that considers the first as banter, creates a climate where much worse can happen.
Agreed. It’s not difficult to behave politely around people. I’m not entirely sure why people find this so hard. Did people turn into baboons when I wasn’t looking?
No, some have been so all along.
I am not particularly concerned with my own opinions on this - rather the effects on society at large. Handled well, change to more enlightened behaviour will likely benefit everyone. Handled badly, we end up with our own version of the US culture wars.
I think one problem is while there is a pretty clear consensus about what is rape or serious sexual assault, there is much less of a consensus about where you draw the lines between minor sexual assault/sexual harassment/inappropriate behaviour/an unwelcome advance/off colour jokes/office banter/harmless flirtation.
Indeed - and a resignation like Fallon's, where we are still arguing about why he resigned (forget whether it was right that he should), is not in the slightest bit helpful.
'Minor sexual assault' is still AFAIK, a crime, so there isn't much of a line to be drawn, but your general point is, I think, right. Moreover, we are still at a point where actual assaults/crimes haven't been dealt with .
I do fear that the ridiculousness of some of these claims, and the confusion of them with more serious cases, might mean that all such accusations are automatically devalued and we end up with the same-old, same-old.
I haven't been particularly following the rumours, but both Hopkins and Fallon seem to have been leery old men with wandering hands rather than anything more aggressive. Possibly more will come out.
A culture where that is tolerated does create space and opportunity for real offenses though, as we saw with Saville and Harris.
The allegations against Hopkins are that, at the age of 73, he rubbed himself up against a girl in her 20’s. A touch aggressive, I’d have thought, as well as a high yukk factor.
I agree, and such activity is not to be tolerated and is probably not isolated.
We are not yet at Saville, Harris or Weinstein levels though. My point is that a workplace culture that considers the first as banter, creates a climate where much worse can happen.
Agreed. It’s not difficult to behave politely around people. I’m not entirely sure why people find this so hard. Did people turn into baboons when I wasn’t looking?
No, some have been so all along.
I am not particularly concerned with my own opinions on this - rather the effects on society at large. Handled well, change to more enlightened behaviour will likely benefit everyone. Handled badly, we end up with our own version of the US culture wars.
I think one problem is while there is a pretty clear consensus about what is rape or serious sexual assault, there is much less of a consensus about where you draw the lines between minor sexual assault/sexual harassment/inappropriate behaviour/an unwelcome advance/off colour jokes/office banter/harmless flirtation.
Certainly, but let's take the example of rubbing against someone. Categorise it as you want, involve the police or have an official enquiry if you will, but that, simply, is not appropriate behaviour for anyone, anywhere.
"Yes he is a shit but he is a great MP/actor/carpenter" is for posterity to judge (cf. Picasso). Happily we can't have categories of people who are allowed a bit of wiggle room for this kind of behaviour.
I do fear that the ridiculousness of some of these claims, and the confusion of them with more serious cases, might mean that all such accusations are automatically devalued and we end up with the same-old, same-old.
I haven't been particularly following the rumours, but both Hopkins and Fallon seem to have been leery old men with wandering hands rather than anything more aggressive. Possibly more will come out.
A culture where that is tolerated does create space and opportunity for real offenses though, as we saw with Saville and Harris.
The allegations against Hopkins are that, at the age of 73, he rubbed himself up against a girl in her 20’s. A touch aggressive, I’d have thought, as well as a high yukk factor.
I agree, and such activity is not to be tolerated and is probably not isolated.
We are not yet at Saville, Harris or Weinstein levels though. My point is that a workplace culture that considers the first as banter, creates a climate where much worse can happen.
Agreed. It’s not difficult to behave politely around people. I’m not entirely sure why people find this so hard. Did people turn into baboons when I wasn’t looking?
No, some have been so all along.
I am not particularly concerned with my own opinions on this - rather the effects on society at large. Handled well, change to more enlightened behaviour will likely benefit everyone. Handled badly, we end up with our own version of the US culture wars.
I think one problem is while there is a pretty clear consensus about what is rape or serious sexual assault, there is much less of a consensus about where you draw the lines between minor sexual assault/sexual harassment/inappropriate behaviour/an unwelcome advance/off colour jokes/office banter/harmless flirtation.
Certainly, but let's take the example of rubbing against someone. Categorise it as you want, involve the police or have an official enquiry if you will, but that, simply, is not appropriate behaviour for anyone, anywhere.
"Yes he is a shit but he is a great MP/actor/carpenter" is for posterity to judge (cf. Picasso). Happily we can't have categories of people who are allowed a bit of wiggle room for this kind of behaviour.
I do fear that the ridiculousness of some of these claims, and the confusion of them with more serious cases, might mean that all such accusations are automatically devalued and we end up with the same-old, same-old.
I haven't been particularly following the rumours, but both Hopkins and Fallon seem to have been leery old men with wandering hands rather than anything more aggressive. Possibly more will come out.
A culture where that is tolerated does create space and opportunity for real offenses though, as we saw with Saville and Harris.
The allegations against Hopkins are that, at the age of 73, he rubbed himself up against a girl in her 20’s. A touch aggressive, I’d have thought, as well as a high yukk factor.
I agree, and such activity is not to be tolerated and is probably not isolated.
We are not yet at Saville, Harris or Weinstein levels though. My point is that a workplace culture that considers the first as banter, creates a climate where much worse can happen.
Agreed. It’s not difficult to behave politely around people. I’m not entirely sure why people find this so hard. Did people turn into baboons when I wasn’t looking?
No, some have been so all along.
I am not particularly concerned with my own opinions on this - rather the effects on society at large. Handled well, change to more enlightened behaviour will likely benefit everyone. Handled badly, we end up with our own version of the US culture wars.
I think one problem is while there is a pretty clear consensus about what is rape or serious sexual assault, there is much less of a consensus about where you draw the lines between minor sexual assault/sexual harassment/inappropriate behaviour/an unwelcome advance/off colour jokes/office banter/harmless flirtation.
Certainly, but let's take the example of rubbing against someone. Categorise it as you want, involve the police or have an official enquiry if you will, but that, simply, is not appropriate behaviour for anyone, anywhere...
•Between Quarter 1 1997 and Quarter 2 (Apr to June) 2017, the UK had the lowest average value of GFCF as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) of any Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) nation.
It’s not good but does it not reflect the fact that most of our growth over that period has come from services such as finance and law which do not require substantial capital investment?
But which came first, the underinvestment or the change in the economy ? And has that change in the economy been a good or bad for the country ?
As the UK has moved from running quarterly balance of payment surpluses in 1997 to having the largest current account deficit on record in 2016 it rather looks as if we've been following the wrong economic strategy.
And it does expose the rhetoric we've heard from certain Chancellors about 'investment'.
If it's as reported, then she's been really silly. At best.
The whole Tory government is in hock to a number of unsavoury ME regimes, so from their perspective, Patel has done nothing wrong. If Corbyn was PM, he would take a much more principled approach, and I can imagine that a Labour government would have issued an apology for the infamous letter issued by a former foreign secretary 100 years ago yesterday.
What is there to apologise for? We should be proud of the Balfour Declaration.
Exactly, a Jewish state in their ancient homeland after 2/3 of European Jews were murdered in the Holocaust.
That was 30 years later.
It was done, as I understand the history, because it was felt that it would aid the British war effort during WW1. The Kaiser had also been looking at how the various different factions in the Ottoman Empire could be helped/undermined to aid Germany’s war aims. All the Great Powers had form in interfering in the territories of the Ottoman Empire regardless of whether such territories were theirs or not.
It is an interesting counter-factual whether Israel would have been created if the Holocaust had not happened. After all the Kurds are still waiting for the promises made to them at around the same time to be honoured.
And, of course, it was the United Nations rather than Britain which was responsible for the decision to divide the land into an Israeli state and a Palestinian one.
The history of Britain's role in Palestine is not a pretty one. After all we did close down Jewish immigration in the 1930's to Palestine at the time of peak peril to European Jews, and again post war.
The Balfour declaration was part of the war aims to destabilize the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires. I don't think we really thought through what would happen next.
We copped out of our promises to the Armenians, Assyrian Christians and Anatolian Greeks at the time too, despite them already being the targets of genocide. The Jewish genocide was in the future. The British Empire in the Middle East was not a glorious affair. A half century earlier it would have been less remarkeable, but in a war with the right of self determination as one of its aims, less so.
A footnote: My Grandfather invaded Mesopotamia in 1917 as an infantry private. He had survived the Somme, and while the fighting at Kut was savage, was spared Passchendale and the battles of 1918.
In the not so distant future we might be asking did Harvey Weinstein bring down Theresa May's government and make Corbyn Prime Minister?
And maybe even stop Brexit.
How does Corbyn being pm stop Brexit when he and the party officially back going through with it?
I suspect he'll be amenable to a jobs first Brexit, which he can sell as remaining in the single market and customs union, or a rather long transitional phase.
Which sees Brexit can kicked further down the road.
Corbyn, with a lot of justification, can argue Mrs May has wasted 17 months, and it would be unfair for him to sort Brexit out in the next year or so.
That's still not stopping brexit though, it's softer Brexit or longer transition.
A 'Brexit' that retains freedom of movement is not Brexit as a great many people would understand it.
So, more than a few of her potential replacements have the Sword of Damocles hanging over them and two (Fallon & Leadsom) are out of the equation...not been an altogether bad week for the PM..
Why would this damage Leadsome? Is being the target of smut now a crime?
Yes - she’s a woman who didn’t agree with the boys that this was just “banter” and, really, why doesn’t she just get a sense of humour etc ? (Sarcasm alert....)
Quite - while I strongly dislike Leadsom, I don't blame her for this (though the categoric denial of the one specific allegation we've seen is every bit as unsatisfactory as Fallon's resignation statement). The problem for me is that the whole debate over sexual harassment is descending into a confused morass, and no one is providing clear leadership.
The contrast with the way in which Cameron rather adroitly managed a change in social attitudes over gay marriage is notable.
We're confusing far too many issues here and are in real danger of changing the relationships between men and women for the worse. I can see a time looming where the only dating will be online. Anything more traditional will require a lawyer present.
What has happened with children where men are reluctant to even smile in their direction will soon apply to male/female contacts. Which man hasn't made a pass at a woman or woman hasn't made one at a man? Sometimes they might read the signals wrongly but that shouldn't be a police matter.
I was with my little niece at a fair recently and she was on a ride. When it finished she was left on her own because the man running the ride wouldn't pick her up and bring her to me. I had to clambour over the machinery and pick her up myself. I was embarrassed for him.
In Italy and Spain and to a lesser extent France where I work a lot it's completely different. The females at the companies I work for hug you when they greet you link arms when they walk beside you they'll kiss you when they like something you've done and thy'll go to sleep on you on airoplanes......
...And they love children. It's makes for a nice environment to work in when you get used to it.
My Spanish producer has an old Etonian English boyfriend. She tells the story of how shocked she was when she first met his family. He shook hands with his Mother!
In the not so distant future we might be asking did Harvey Weinstein bring down Theresa May's government and make Corbyn Prime Minister?
And maybe even stop Brexit.
How does Corbyn being pm stop Brexit when he and the party officially back going through with it?
I suspect he'll be amenable to a jobs first Brexit, which he can sell as remaining in the single market and customs union, or a rather long transitional phase.
Which sees Brexit can kicked further down the road.
Corbyn, with a lot of justification, can argue Mrs May has wasted 17 months, and it would be unfair for him to sort Brexit out in the next year or so.
Corbyn opposed staying in the single market at the general election as he knew almost 40% of 2015 Labour voters voted Leave and he wanted to gain some UKIP voters, almost all those Labour Leave voters did so to reduce immigration.
The longer he agrees a transition period and leaves free movement in place the more he risks losing Labour Leave voters to the Tories or back to UKIP.
In the not so distant future we might be asking did Harvey Weinstein bring down Theresa May's government and make Corbyn Prime Minister?
And maybe even stop Brexit.
How does Corbyn being pm stop Brexit when he and the party officially back going through with it?
I suspect he'll be amenable to a jobs first Brexit, which he can sell as remaining in the single market and customs union, or a rather long transitional phase.
Which sees Brexit can kicked further down the road.
Corbyn, with a lot of justification, can argue Mrs May has wasted 17 months, and it would be unfair for him to sort Brexit out in the next year or so.
That's still not stopping brexit though, it's softer Brexit or longer transition.
A 'Brexit' that retains freedom of movement is not Brexit as a great many people would understand it.
Indeed, but it woukd still be Brexit regardless, just softer than a great many would like, to the point they'd say what was the point.
In the not so distant future we might be asking did Harvey Weinstein bring down Theresa May's government and make Corbyn Prime Minister?
And maybe even stop Brexit.
How does Corbyn being pm stop Brexit when he and the party officially back going through with it?
I suspect he'll be amenable to a jobs first Brexit, which he can sell as remaining in the single market and customs union, or a rather long transitional phase.
Which sees Brexit can kicked further down the road.
Corbyn, with a lot of justification, can argue Mrs May has wasted 17 months, and it would be unfair for him to sort Brexit out in the next year or so.
That's still not stopping brexit though, it's softer Brexit or longer transition.
A 'Brexit' that retains freedom of movement is not Brexit as a great many people would understand it.
Indeed, but it woukd still be Brexit regardless, just softer than a great many would like, to the point they'd say what was the point.
Indeed. Which is at the heart of the government's problem in trying to square a circle. To satisfy the political meaning of Brexit, there can be no oversight of the ECJ and no freedom of movement. If those aspects remain, a large slice of Leave voters will feel betrayed by the political class. That means no membership of the Single Market. However, leaving the SM without some very comprehensive trade deal will cost a lot of money and a lot of jobs, which the public at large neither wants nor expects.
Comments
Not to say there's nothing to be done. Wrongdoers should be prosecuted if they broke the law, and the odd circumstances of employment in Westminster means there's scope to improve the way such things are reported so that vested interests aren't in a position of judging their own side.
The media focus on knees when there are far, far worse allegations is pathetic.
But if you’re from a party which thinks, at its conference, that it should be ok to discuss whether the Holocaust happened, for all the world as if you were a member of the BNP or one of the wilder Denier groupuscules, then you might take a different view.
But we have ended up with a completely inappropriate moral equivalence. Fallon may have acted as a boor and in a reprehensible way but it is nothing like a criminal offence such as sexual assault. Without in any way condoning or excusing boorish behaviour we need to sort the wheat from the chaff.
I am not particularly concerned with my own opinions on this - rather the effects on society at large.
Handled well, change to more enlightened behaviour will likely benefit everyone. Handled badly, we end up with our own version of the US culture wars.
It is an interesting counter-factual whether Israel would have been created if the Holocaust had not happened. After all the Kurds are still waiting for the promises made to them at around the same time to be honoured.
And, of course, it was the United Nations rather than Britain which was responsible for the decision to divide the land into an Israeli state and a Palestinian one.
Which sees Brexit can kicked further down the road.
Corbyn, with a lot of justification, can argue Mrs May has wasted 17 months, and it would be unfair for him to sort Brexit out in the next year or so.
I told them the truth.
"To visit a biological manufacturing facility"
That was not wise.
There was a brief window when that looked possible, but I don't think I'll ever get the chance now.
•Between Quarter 1 1997 and Quarter 2 (Apr to June) 2017, the UK had the lowest average value of GFCF as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) of any Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) nation.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/articles/aninternationalcomparisonofgrossfixedcapitalformation/2017-11-02
Of course part of the rationale was to disrupt the Central Powers. It is possible to pursue policies that have solid humanitarian rationales and which simultaneously advance a war aim. Whether the policy would have been advanced without the war stimulus is another matter; we can certainly debate the motive for the Declaration. But that doesn't change whether the decision, once taken, was a good one or not (though it does affect whether it was a good or bad one by accident).
I imagine a lot it will depend on specific circumstance at that level, although anything involving unwanted contact will be much clearer and setious.
They assumed that Perfidious Albion was scheming to steal Syria from them and hence started funding and arming both Jewish terrorists and Arab nationalists.
So, much of today's disaster in the Middle East is down to the French
And if you’re the boss then you have to be sensitive to make sure that you intervene on behalf of those who may be too shy/unwilling to speak up.
Edited: And of course if you go too far you apologise at the time.
In one recent case, they were in a teleconference from an American office. Anything Mrs J said was routinely ignored by the Americans, a bit like the comedy sketch below. After the call, her boss - who she gets on well with - said: "they'd have listened to you if you had a dick."
Now, that's rude. He probably should have said: "if you were male." But she thinks it was utterly appropriate because the Yanks were being, in effect, pricks, and she trusts her boss.
I also doubt her boss would have said it if he was amongst strangers. So I think there is a place for bawdy language if - and especially if - you are willing to apologise and alter behaviour if offence is given.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfJeDAaE9yc
(Although to be fair, I think this happens in any group where there are majority insiders and minority outsiders).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/41800959
*sighs*
They have a veto over new engine regulations in 2021. And just nearly won the title. And threaten this every year or so. If they spent more time on reliability and less time on this tosh, they might win a title.
"Yes he is a shit but he is a great MP/actor/carpenter" is for posterity to judge (cf. Picasso). Happily we can't have categories of people who are allowed a bit of wiggle room for this kind of behaviour.
Must be right then.
'Minor sexual assault' is still AFAIK, a crime, so there isn't much of a line to be drawn, but your general point is, I think, right. Moreover, we are still at a point where actual assaults/crimes haven't been dealt with .
In the context of frotting? Really?
NEW THREAD
As the UK has moved from running quarterly balance of payment surpluses in 1997 to having the largest current account deficit on record in 2016 it rather looks as if we've been following the wrong economic strategy.
And it does expose the rhetoric we've heard from certain Chancellors about 'investment'.
The Balfour declaration was part of the war aims to destabilize the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires. I don't think we really thought through what would happen next.
We copped out of our promises to the Armenians, Assyrian Christians and Anatolian Greeks at the time too, despite them already being the targets of genocide. The Jewish genocide was in the future.
The British Empire in the Middle East was not a glorious affair. A half century earlier it would have been less remarkeable, but in a war with the right of self determination as one of its aims, less so.
A footnote: My Grandfather invaded Mesopotamia in 1917 as an infantry private. He had survived the Somme, and while the fighting at Kut was savage, was spared Passchendale and the battles of 1918.
What has happened with children where men are reluctant to even smile in their direction will soon apply to male/female contacts. Which man hasn't made a pass at a woman or woman hasn't made one at a man? Sometimes they might read the signals wrongly but that shouldn't be a police matter.
I was with my little niece at a fair recently and she was on a ride. When it finished she was left on her own because the man running the ride wouldn't pick her up and bring her to me. I had to clambour over the machinery and pick her up myself. I was embarrassed for him.
In Italy and Spain and to a lesser extent France where I work a lot it's completely different. The females at the companies I work for hug you when they greet you link arms when they walk beside you they'll kiss you when they like something you've done and thy'll go to sleep on you on airoplanes......
...And they love children. It's makes for a nice environment to work in when you get used to it.
My Spanish producer has an old Etonian English boyfriend. She tells the story of how shocked she was when she first met his family. He shook hands with his Mother!
The longer he agrees a transition period and leaves free movement in place the more he risks losing Labour Leave voters to the Tories or back to UKIP.