I've managed to get to 50 without ever feeling inclined to use such authority as I have to press myself onto others. I don't regard myself as some kind of unworldly saint.
Talk about Puritanism is ridiculous,
Absolutely, Alastair. I'd be ashamed if my sons, aged 18, 20 and 22 had to have some sort of Code Of Conduct on how to behave around young women. That it is the great and the good who clearly can't control themselves just shows how morally corrupt they all are.
We must stop tarring everyone as being corrupt. Yes, there are some who have overstepped the mark and, in some case, their behaviour could well have been bad enough to warrant criminal charges being laid. But it is not true of all of 'the great and the good' - it is a small subset of people who have transgressed.
First, the subset doesn't seem that small.
Secondly, such actions seem to have been universally tolerated, indeed seen as useful leverage by others.
Westminster seems to have a serious culture problem.
They really don't seem to have learned from the expenses scandal. They've just carried on partying like it's 1899.
I've managed to get to 50 without ever feeling inclined to use such authority as I have to press myself onto others. I don't regard myself as some kind of unworldly saint.
Talk about Puritanism is ridiculous,
As a Nonconformist Protestant I am quite comfortable with Puritanism...
Puritanism is about self control, and sublimating base urges away from the sins of the flesh and towards making the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. Plenty of hypocrisy and priggishness about it at times of course, but at its heart is a sound doctrine.
VP Pence has a policy of only meeting female colleagues when a third party is present. That looks like a rule that others could usefully follow.
When we see a House of Commons apparently stuffed full of weirdos, crooks, chancers, drunks and perverts, all there at public expense, perhaps Guy Fawkes had the right idea all those years ago.
When we see a House of Commons apparently stuffed full of weirdos, crooks, chancers, drunks and perverts, all there at public expense, perhaps Guy Fawkes had the right idea all those years ago.
Put like that, they are very representative of the general public.
I've managed to get to 50 without ever feeling inclined to use such authority as I have to press myself onto others. I don't regard myself as some kind of unworldly saint.
Talk about Puritanism is ridiculous,
Absolutely, Alastair. I'd be ashamed if my sons, aged 18, 20 and 22 had to have some sort of Code Of Conduct on how to behave around young women. That it is the great and the good who clearly can't control themselves just shows how morally corrupt they all are.
We must stop tarring everyone as being corrupt. Yes, there are some who have overstepped the mark and, in some case, their behaviour could well have been bad enough to warrant criminal charges being laid. But it is not true of all of 'the great and the good' - it is a small subset of people who have transgressed.
First, the subset doesn't seem that small.
Secondly, such actions seem to have been universally tolerated, indeed seen as useful leverage by others.
Westminster seems to have a serious culture problem.
There is a lot of 'seem'ing going on there. We don't honestly know the scale of the issue and we have resist the urge to believe every bit of gossip that floats our way.
Once investigations have been carried out and a clear picture has emerged, there will be serious questions to be asked of a whole range of people.
I sincerely believe we have to be patient and allow due process to take place. That doesn't make for good headlines but we need to work with the rule of law, not Trial by Twitter.
I've managed to get to 50 without ever feeling inclined to use such authority as I have to press myself onto others. I don't regard myself as some kind of unworldly saint.
Talk about Puritanism is ridiculous,
As a Nonconformist Protestant I am quite comfortable with Puritanism...
Puritanism is about self control, and sublimating base urges away from the sins of the flesh and towards making the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. Plenty of hypocrisy and priggishness about it at times of course, but at its heart is a sound doctrine.
VP Pence has a policy of only meeting female colleagues when a third party is present. That looks like a rule that others could usefully follow.
I've managed to get to 50 without ever feeling inclined to use such authority as I have to press myself onto others. I don't regard myself as some kind of unworldly saint.
Talk about Puritanism is ridiculous,
As a Nonconformist Protestant I am quite comfortable with Puritanism...
Puritanism is about self control, and sublimating base urges away from the sins of the flesh and towards making the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. Plenty of hypocrisy and priggishness about it at times of course, but at its heart is a sound doctrine.
VP Pence has a policy of only meeting female colleagues when a third party is present. That looks like a rule that others could usefully follow.
Turning that around, you seem to be suggesting that a woman should not be able to meet a male colleague without a chaperone. That is absurd.
I've managed to get to 50 without ever feeling inclined to use such authority as I have to press myself onto others. I don't regard myself as some kind of unworldly saint.
Talk about Puritanism is ridiculous,
Absolutely, Alastair. I'd be ashamed if my sons, aged 18, 20 and 22 had to have some sort of Code Of Conduct on how to behave around young women. That it is the great and the good who clearly can't control themselves just shows how morally corrupt they all are.
We must stop tarring everyone as being corrupt. Yes, there are some who have overstepped the mark and, in some case, their behaviour could well have been bad enough to warrant criminal charges being laid. But it is not true of all of 'the great and the good' - it is a small subset of people who have transgressed.
Tory MPs apparently need a code of conduct on appropriate behaviour. These are grown men, some of them Knights of the Realm, on a minimum 75 grand plus expenses, and elected to allegedly run the country. Doesn't that concern you?
Perhaps, but moral panics have a tendency to provoke a reaction in the other direction.
We are already getting a reaction from the usual suspects: Douglas Murray, most likely Brendan O'Neil. But the reality is much of this is a reaction to the election of Trump, the revelation of alleged sexual harassment at FOX, and now Weinstein. This is the 'backlash' against recent examples of men appearing to 'get away' with sexual harassment and worse. Also, this is not a 'moral panic'; it involves low-level cases of alleged harassment ranging all the way up to alleged rape. That cannot be simply dismissed as everyone getting wound up over 'nothing'.
Right wingers have already had their 'backlash' with Brexit, with Trump, with all the right-leaning to far right parties being elected across Europe. Now, this is the backlash to that socially conservative worldview.
Pretty much everything, in my view (I'm very socially liberal). I'm not a fan of the because 'I put up with it in my generation so should you' attitude, for example that social conservatives that I know have been telling me over the last week in light of these recent allegations in Westminster.
Yet it is people who purport to be socially liberal who have a remarkable silence about FGM.
Something which tends to be mentioned here only by people of the political centre or right and it should be noted a large majority of the victims reside in areas with Labour MPs and Labour councils.
There is a sort of white middle aged Conservative who only seems bothered about young ethnic women when their genitals are being discussed.
In reality nearly all the real campaigning against FGM is by socially liberal female health workers and social workers, not alt.right keyboard warriors.
I've managed to get to 50 without ever feeling inclined to use such authority as I have to press myself onto others. I don't regard myself as some kind of unworldly saint.
Talk about Puritanism is ridiculous,
Absolutely, Alastair. I'd be ashamed if my sons, aged 18, 20 and 22 had to have some sort of Code Of Conduct on how to behave around young women. That it is the great and the good who clearly can't control themselves just shows how morally corrupt they all are.
We must stop tarring everyone as being corrupt. Yes, there are some who have overstepped the mark and, in some case, their behaviour could well have been bad enough to warrant criminal charges being laid. But it is not true of all of 'the great and the good' - it is a small subset of people who have transgressed.
First, the subset doesn't seem that small.
Secondly, such actions seem to have been universally tolerated, indeed seen as useful leverage by others.
Westminster seems to have a serious culture problem.
There is a lot of 'seem'ing going on there. We don't honestly know the scale of the issue and we have resist the urge to believe every bit of gossip that floats our way.
Once investigations have been carried out and a clear picture has emerged, there will be serious questions to be asked of a whole range of people.
I sincerely believe we have to be patient and allow due process to take place. That doesn't make for good headlines but we need to work with the rule of law, not Trial by Twitter.
You confidently asserted that it was a small subset. You are determined to minimise the problem, Why?
I've managed to get to 50 without ever feeling inclined to use such authority as I have to press myself onto others. I don't regard myself as some kind of unworldly saint.
Talk about Puritanism is ridiculous,
Absolutely, Alastair. I'd be ashamed if my sons, aged 18, 20 and 22 had to have some sort of Code Of Conduct on how to behave around young women. That it is the great and the good who clearly can't control themselves just shows how morally corrupt they all are.
We must stop tarring everyone as being corrupt. Yes, there are some who have overstepped the mark and, in some case, their behaviour could well have been bad enough to warrant criminal charges being laid. But it is not true of all of 'the great and the good' - it is a small subset of people who have transgressed.
Tory MPs apparently need a code of conduct on appropriate behaviour. These are grown men, some of them Knights of the Realm, on a minimum 75 grand plus expenses, and elected to allegedly run the country. Doesn't that concern you?
I am urging a sense of perspective.
I made no comment at all about the party of any of those at the centre of the allegations. If you genuinely believe that it only affects Conservative MPs, then you are clearly deluded. This is very clearly not a party political issue.
Are people not overrating Ruth Davidson? She is an opposition leader to an SNP govt that has been in power for ages and is vulnerable to charges over incompetence in education and energy policy combined with a nanny state altitude and Scotland has little economic growth If Ruth Davidson was in power in Scotland or the PM not a given her reputation would stand up.
Ruthie has taken the Scottish Tories from third place no-hopers to the main opposition. She made big gains at the GE that kept the Tories in power and Tezzie in Downing St. Not a bad record.
And has a massive problem with bigots and sectarians in her party.
She gets pretty much a free pass from the press because A ) she is mates with most of them due to her years at the BBC. B ) SCons have been shit for so long in Scotland (including a couple of worst ever results under Ruth) that polling mid twenties is considered amazing.
I've managed to get to 50 without ever feeling inclined to use such authority as I have to press myself onto others. I don't regard myself as some kind of unworldly saint.
Talk about Puritanism is ridiculous,
Absolutely, Alastair. I'd be ashamed if my sons, aged 18, 20 and 22 had to have some sort of Code Of Conduct on how to behave around young women. That it is the great and the good who clearly can't control themselves just shows how morally corrupt they all are.
We must stop tarring everyone as being corrupt. Yes, there are some who have overstepped the mark and, in some case, their behaviour could well have been bad enough to warrant criminal charges being laid. But it is not true of all of 'the great and the good' - it is a small subset of people who have transgressed.
First, the subset doesn't seem that small.
Secondly, such actions seem to have been universally tolerated, indeed seen as useful leverage by others.
Westminster seems to have a serious culture problem.
There is a lot of 'seem'ing going on there. We don't honestly know the scale of the issue and we have resist the urge to believe every bit of gossip that floats our way.
Once investigations have been carried out and a clear picture has emerged, there will be serious questions to be asked of a whole range of people.
I sincerely believe we have to be patient and allow due process to take place. That doesn't make for good headlines but we need to work with the rule of law, not Trial by Twitter.
You confidently asserted that it was a small subset. You are determined to minimise the problem, Why?
Not trying to minimise anything - I just want to wait until the dust settles and we can really see what has been going on. Not what people think has been.
We have to work with facts - and as things stand, there are far more MPs who are not facing questions about their behaviour than those that are.
If that changes, I will change my view. But I am not going to react to suppositions and speculation.
I've managed to get to 50 without ever feeling inclined to use such authority as I have to press myself onto others. I don't regard myself as some kind of unworldly saint.
Talk about Puritanism is ridiculous,
Absolutely, Alastair. I'd be ashamed if my sons, aged 18, 20 and 22 had to have some sort of Code Of Conduct on how to behave around young women. That it is the great and the good who clearly can't control themselves just shows how morally corrupt they all are.
We must stop tarring everyone as being corrupt. Yes, there are some who have overstepped the mark and, in some case, their behaviour could well have been bad enough to warrant criminal charges being laid. But it is not true of all of 'the great and the good' - it is a small subset of people who have transgressed.
Tory MPs apparently need a code of conduct on appropriate behaviour. These are grown men, some of them Knights of the Realm, on a minimum 75 grand plus expenses, and elected to allegedly run the country. Doesn't that concern you?
I am urging a sense of perspective.
I made no comment at all about the party of any of those at the centre of the allegations. If you genuinely believe that it only affects Conservative MPs, then you are clearly deluded. This is very clearly not a party political issue.
I'm not deluded, it's affecting all parties. I'm merely commenting on the fact that highly paid grown men apparently need a code of conduct on how to behave in Westminster's bars and social areas. If I was a Tory MP I'd find that deeply shameful.
Perhaps, but moral panics have a tendency to provoke a reaction in the other direction.
We are already getting a reaction from the usual suspects: Douglas Murray, most likely Brendan O'Neil. But the reality is much of this is a reaction to the election of Trump, the revelation of alleged sexual harassment at FOX, and now Weinstein. This is the 'backlash' against recent examples of men appearing to 'get away' with sexual harassment and worse. Also, this is not a 'moral panic'; it involves low-level cases of alleged harassment ranging all the way up to alleged rape. That cannot be simply dismissed as everyone getting wound up over 'nothing'.
Right wingers have already had their 'backlash' with Brexit, with Trump, with all the right-leaning to far right parties being elected across Europe. Now, this is the backlash to that socially conservative worldview.
Pretty much everything, in my view (I'm very socially liberal). I'm not a fan of the because 'I put up with it in my generation so should you' attitude, for example that social conservatives that I know have been telling me over the last week in light of these recent allegations in Westminster.
Yet it is people who purport to be socially liberal who have a remarkable silence about FGM.
Something which tends to be mentioned here only by people of the political centre or right and it should be noted a large majority of the victims reside in areas with Labour MPs and Labour councils.
I don't agree with that at all. Social liberals do talk about FGM.
The centre-right, like a lot of these matters, tends to bring up FGM only as means of whataboutery in relation to incidents of sexism that they feel are 'lesser.'
On topic, I'd rather be laying than backing at present. If I had to back, I'd be backing women since they seem much less likely to be unhorsed in the current round of scandals.
Perhaps, but moral panics have a tendency to provoke a reaction in the other direction.
We are already getting a reaction from the usual suspects: Douglas Murray, most likely Brendan O'Neil. But the reality is much of this is a reaction to the election of Trump, the revelation of alleged sexual harassment at FOX, and now Weinstein. This is the 'backlash' against recent examples of men appearing to 'get away' with sexual harassment and worse. Also, this is not a 'moral panic'; it involves low-level cases of alleged harassment ranging all the way up to alleged rape. That cannot be simply dismissed as everyone getting wound up over 'nothing'.
Right wingers have already had their 'backlash' with Brexit, with Trump, with all the right-leaning to far right parties being elected across Europe. Now, this is the backlash to that socially conservative worldview.
Pretty much everything, in my view (I'm very socially liberal). I'm not a fan of the because 'I put up with it in my generation so should you' attitude, for example that social conservatives that I know have been telling me over the last week in light of these recent allegations in Westminster.
Yet it is people who purport to be socially liberal who have a remarkable silence about FGM.
.
There is a sort of white middle aged Conservative who only seems bothered about young ethnic women when their genitals are being discussed.
In reality nearly all the real campaigning against FGM is by socially liberal female health workers and social workers, not alt.right keyboard warriors.
+1. If I could like this post a million times I would.
The people I find really interesting are the old school moralistic religious/post-religious social conservatives - esp. socially conservative women who preach monogamous marriage / purity-in-thought-and-deed / strong punishment for those who transgress.
In my mind, they form a natural coalition with the young #metoo 's
For eg, Anne Widdecombe surprised me with her thoughts;
Perhaps, but moral panics have a tendency to provoke a reaction in the other direction.
We are already getting a reaction from the usual suspects: Douglas Murray, most likely Brendan O'Neil. But the reality is much of this is a reaction to the election of Trump, the revelation of alleged sexual harassment at FOX, and now Weinstein. This is the 'backlash' against recent examples of men appearing to 'get away' with sexual harassment and worse. Also, this is not a 'moral panic'; it involves low-level cases of alleged harassment ranging all the way up to alleged rape. That cannot be simply dismissed as everyone getting wound up over 'nothing'.
Right wingers have already had their 'backlash' with Brexit, with Trump, with all the right-leaning to far right parties being elected across Europe. Now, this is the backlash to that socially conservative worldview.
Pretty much everything, in my view (I'm very socially liberal). I'm not a fan of the because 'I put up with it in my generation so should you' attitude, for example that social conservatives that I know have been telling me over the last week in light of these recent allegations in Westminster.
Yet it is people who purport to be socially liberal who have a remarkable silence about FGM.
Something which tends to be mentioned here only by people of the political centre or right and it should be noted a large majority of the victims reside in areas with Labour MPs and Labour councils.
I don't agree with that at all. Social liberals do talk about FGM.
The centre-right, like a lot of these matters, tends to bring up FGM only as means of whataboutery in relation to incidents of sexism that they feel are 'lesser.'
Interestingly many of these who are now (laudably) adopting FGM as a cause are not so keen to say anything about Male Genital Mutilation. Oh no.
Perhaps, but moral panics have a tendency to provoke a reaction in the other direction.
We are already getting a reaction from the usual suspects: Douglas Murray, most likely Brendan O'Neil. But the reality is much of this is a reaction to the election of Trump, the revelation of alleged sexual harassment at FOX, and now Weinstein. This is the 'backlash' against recent examples of men appearing to 'get away' with sexual harassment and worse. Also, this is not a 'moral panic'; it involves low-level cases of alleged harassment ranging all the way up to alleged rape. That cannot be simply dismissed as everyone getting wound up over 'nothing'.
Right wingers have already had their 'backlash' with Brexit, with Trump, with all the right-leaning to far right parties being elected across Europe. Now, this is the backlash to that socially conservative worldview.
Pretty much everything, in my view (I'm very socially liberal). I'm not a fan of the because 'I put up with it in my generation so should you' attitude, for example that social conservatives that I know have been telling me over the last week in light of these recent allegations in Westminster.
Yet it is people who purport to be socially liberal who have a remarkable silence about FGM.
Something which tends to be mentioned here only by people of the political centre or right and it should be noted a large majority of the victims reside in areas with Labour MPs and Labour councils.
I don't agree with that at all. Social liberals do talk about FGM.
The centre-right, like a lot of these matters, tends to bring up FGM only as means of whataboutery in relation to incidents of sexism that they feel are 'lesser.'
The first people to make FGM a big issue being feminists in the 1980s.
I've managed to get to 50 without ever feeling inclined to use such authority as I have to press myself onto others. I don't regard myself as some kind of unworldly saint.
Talk about Puritanism is ridiculous,
Absolutely, Alastair. I'd be ashamed if my sons, aged 18, 20 and 22 had to have some sort of Code Of Conduct on how to behave around young women. That it is the great and the good who clearly can't control themselves just shows how morally corrupt they all are.
We must stop tarring everyone as being corrupt. Yes, there are some who have overstepped the mark and, in some case, their behaviour could well have been bad enough to warrant criminal charges being laid. But it is not true of all of 'the great and the good' - it is a small subset of people who have transgressed.
Tory MPs apparently need a code of conduct on appropriate behaviour. These are grown men, some of them Knights of the Realm, on a minimum 75 grand plus expenses, and elected to allegedly run the country. Doesn't that concern you?
I am urging a sense of perspective.
I made no comment at all about the party of any of those at the centre of the allegations. If you genuinely believe that it only affects Conservative MPs, then you are clearly deluded. This is very clearly not a party political issue.
I'm not deluded, it's affecting all parties. I'm merely commenting on the fact that highly paid grown men apparently need a code of conduct on how to behave in Westminster's bars and social areas. If I was a Tory MP I'd find that deeply shameful.
My thoughts exactly. And in my working life I was at times in some fairly sexist environments. As far as I was concerned, women with whom I worked were colleagues. No more, no less.
At the dance hall, in the club was different. Not that I ‘groped”. Not without encouragement, anyway!
I've managed to get to 50 without ever feeling inclined to use such authority as I have to press myself onto others. I don't regard myself as some kind of unworldly saint.
Talk about Puritanism is ridiculous,
Absolutely, Alastair. I'd be ashamed if my sons, aged 18, 20 and 22 had to have some sort of Code Of Conduct on how to behave around young women. That it is the great and the good who clearly can't control themselves just shows how morally corrupt they all are.
We must stop tarring everyone as being corrupt. Yes, there are some who have overstepped the mark and, in some case, their behaviour could well have been bad enough to warrant criminal charges being laid. But it is not true of all of 'the great and the good' - it is a small subset of people who have transgressed.
Tory MPs apparently need a code of conduct on appropriate behaviour. These are grown men, some of them Knights of the Realm, on a minimum 75 grand plus expenses, and elected to allegedly run the country. Doesn't that concern you?
I am urging a sense of perspective.
I made no comment at all about the party of any of those at the centre of the allegations. If you genuinely believe that it only affects Conservative MPs, then you are clearly deluded. This is very clearly not a party political issue.
I'm not deluded, it's affecting all parties. I'm merely commenting on the fact that highly paid grown men apparently need a code of conduct on how to behave in Westminster's bars and social areas. If I was a Tory MP I'd find that deeply shameful.
Almost every big workplace has a code of conduct relating to such matters. I have to go through tedious online training course on the topic each year.
Why is it that the expectation that it will be the Sunday papers that will break more misconduct stories? Are the allegations not serious enough to be reported to police and/or political parties and announced during working week rather than on Sunday? For kiss and tell stories, I might expect the papers to be the ones to break the stories, but for these abuse of power stories, why are we getting things like "Now we await the Sunday papers. Will they change anything?"
I've managed to get to 50 without ever feeling inclined to use such authority as I have to press myself onto others. I don't regard myself as some kind of unworldly saint.
Talk about Puritanism is ridiculous,
Absolutely, Alastair. I'd be ashamed if my sons, aged 18, 20 and 22 had to have some sort of Code Of Conduct on how to behave around young women. That it is the great and the good who clearly can't control themselves just shows how morally corrupt they all are.
We must stop tarring everyone as being corrupt. Yes, there are some who have overstepped the mark and, in some case, their behaviour could well have been bad enough to warrant criminal charges being laid. But it is not true of all of 'the great and the good' - it is a small subset of people who have transgressed.
Tory MPs apparently need a code of conduct on appropriate behaviour. These are grown men, some of them Knights of the Realm, on a minimum 75 grand plus expenses, and elected to allegedly run the country. Doesn't that concern you?
I am urging a sense of perspective.
I made no comment at all about the party of any of those at the centre of the allegations. If you genuinely believe that it only affects Conservative MPs, then you are clearly deluded. This is very clearly not a party political issue.
I'm not deluded, it's affecting all parties. I'm merely commenting on the fact that highly paid grown men apparently need a code of conduct on how to behave in Westminster's bars and social areas. If I was a Tory MP I'd find that deeply shameful.
Almost every workplace has a code of conduct relating to such matters. I have to go through tedious online training course on the topic each year.
Don't we all? But May explicitly ordered a new one this week to try and get a grip on the spiralling scandal, replacing a previous voluntary one. They have to promise not to bully or harass anyone and to try to rein in general naughtiness. It's embarrassing.
I've managed to get to 50 without ever feeling inclined to use such authority as I have to press myself onto others. I don't regard myself as some kind of unworldly saint.
Talk about Puritanism is ridiculous,
Absolutely, Alastair. I'd be ashamed if my sons, aged 18, 20 and 22 had to have some sort of Code Of Conduct on how to behave around young women. That it is the great and the good who clearly can't control themselves just shows how morally corrupt they all are.
We must stop tarring everyone as being corrupt. Yes, there are some who have overstepped the mark and, in some case, their behaviour could well have been bad enough to warrant criminal charges being laid. But it is not true of all of 'the great and the good' - it is a small subset of people who have transgressed.
Tory MPs apparently need a code of conduct on appropriate behaviour. These are grown men, some of them Knights of the Realm, on a minimum 75 grand plus expenses, and elected to allegedly run the country. Doesn't that concern you?
I am urging a sense of perspective.
I made no comment at all about the party of any of those at the centre of the allegations. If you genuinely believe that it only affects Conservative MPs, then you are clearly deluded. This is very clearly not a party political issue.
I'm not deluded, it's affecting all parties. I'm merely commenting on the fact that highly paid grown men apparently need a code of conduct on how to behave in Westminster's bars and social areas. If I was a Tory MP I'd find that deeply shameful.
Almost every workplace has a code of conduct relating to such matters. I have to go through tedious online training course on the topic each year.
Don't we all? But May explicitly ordered a new one this week to try and get a grip on the spiralling scandal, replacing a previous voluntary one. They have to promise not to bully or harass anyone and to try to rein in general naughtiness. It's embarrassing.
Is it? The alternative, to do nothing, would look far worse.
It is notable that most of the events that come to light are not directly at political business meetings, but rather in the miasma around them, at conference hotels, or at social functions.
It is perfectly reasonable to adopt such a policy of only having such meetings when others are present.
I work in a largely female department where I have a certain amount of authority over women a decade or more younger than me. If we need to discuss issues then I either meet in my office, which has a see through window in the door, and with me seated at the far end of the room,and their chair nearer the door that opens to the rest of the offices.
A social event is different, and I do like to dad dance at our Christmas party, which can be well lubricated, but that is out in the open and in full view of other members of the team. I wouldn't meet them for drinks on my own. That would be overstepping my red line.
The basis of good manners is making other people feel comfortable. That works both ways.
I've managed to get to 50 without ever feeling inclined to use such authority as I have to press myself onto others. I don't regard myself as some kind of unworldly saint.
Talk about Puritanism is ridiculous,
Absolutely, Alastair. I'd be ashamed if my sons, aged 18, 20 and 22 had to have some sort of Code Of Conduct on how to behave around young women. That it is the great and the good who clearly can't control themselves just shows how morally corrupt they all are.
We must stop tarring everyone as being corrupt. Yes, there are some who have overstepped the mark and, in some case, their behaviour could well have been bad enough to warrant criminal charges being laid. But it is not true of all of 'the great and the good' - it is a small subset of people who have transgressed.
Tory MPs apparently need a code of conduct on appropriate behaviour. These are grown men, some of them Knights of the Realm, on a minimum 75 grand plus expenses, and elected to allegedly run the country. Doesn't that concern you?
I am urging a sense of perspective.
I made no comment at all about the party of any of those at the centre of the allegations. If you genuinely believe that it only affects Conservative MPs, then you are clearly deluded. This is very clearly not a party political issue.
I'm not deluded, it's affecting all parties. I'm merely commenting on the fact that highly paid grown men apparently need a code of conduct on how to behave in Westminster's bars and social areas. If I was a Tory MP I'd find that deeply shameful.
Almost every workplace has a code of conduct relating to such matters. I have to go through tedious online training course on the topic each year.
Don't we all? But May explicitly ordered a new one this week to try and get a grip on the spiralling scandal, replacing a previous voluntary one. They have to promise not to bully or harass anyone and to try to rein in general naughtiness. It's embarrassing.
Is it? The alternative, to do nothing, would look far worse.
So without a new code of conduct, the Tory MPs don't know how to behave? They only now, in 2017, have realised that they can't act in inappropriate ways? And we pay these fuckers 75k?
Perhaps, but moral panics have a tendency to provoke a reaction in the other direction.
We are already getting a reaction from the usual suspects: Douglas Murray, most likely Brendan O'Neil. But the reality is much of this is a reaction to the election of Trump, the revelation of alleged sexual harassment at FOX, and now Weinstein. This is the 'backlash' against recent examples of men appearing to 'get away' with sexual harassment and worse. Also, this is not a 'moral panic'; it involves low-level cases of alleged harassment ranging all the way up to alleged rape. That cannot be simply dismissed as everyone getting wound up over 'nothing'.
Right wingers have already had their 'backlash' with Brexit, with Trump, with all the right-leaning to far right parties being elected across Europe. Now, this is the backlash to that socially conservative worldview.
Pretty much everything, in my view (I'm very socially liberal). I'm not a fan of the because 'I put up with it in my generation so should you' attitude, for example that social conservatives that I know have been telling me over the last week in light of these recent allegations in Westminster.
Yet it is people who purport to be socially liberal who have a remarkable silence about FGM.
Something which tends to be mentioned here only by people of the political centre or right and it should be noted a large majority of the victims reside in areas with Labour MPs and Labour councils.
There is a sort of white middle aged Conservative who only seems bothered about young ethnic women when their genitals are being discussed.
In reality nearly all the real campaigning against FGM is by socially liberal female health workers and social workers, not alt.right keyboard warriors.
Remind me about the number of prosecutions and convictions for FGM in this country.
There is a sort of 'progressive' leftist who tried to shut down any mention of inconvenient issues.
Perhaps, but moral panics have a tendency to provoke a reaction in the other direction.
We are already getting a reaction from the usual suspects: Douglas Murray, most likely Brendan O'Neil. But the reality is much of this is a reaction to the election of Trump, the revelation of alleged sexual harassment at FOX, and now Weinstein. This is the 'backlash' against recent examples of men appearing to 'get away' with sexual harassment and worse. Also, this is not a 'moral panic'; it involves low-level cases of alleged harassment ranging all the way up to alleged rape. That cannot be simply dismissed as everyone getting wound up over 'nothing'.
Right wingers have already had their 'backlash' with Brexit, with Trump, with all the right-leaning to far right parties being elected across Europe. Now, this is the backlash to that socially conservative worldview.
Pretty much everything, in my view (I'm very socially liberal). I'm not a fan of the because 'I put up with it in my generation so should you' attitude, for example that social conservatives that I know have been telling me over the last week in light of these recent allegations in Westminster.
Yet it is people who purport to be socially liberal who have a remarkable silence about FGM.
Something which tends to be mentioned here only by people of the political centre or right and it should be noted a large majority of the victims reside in areas with Labour MPs and Labour councils.
I don't agree with that at all. Social liberals do talk about FGM.
The centre-right, like a lot of these matters, tends to bring up FGM only as means of whataboutery in relation to incidents of sexism that they feel are 'lesser.'
Interestingly many of these who are now (laudably) adopting FGM as a cause are not so keen to say anything about Male Genital Mutilation. Oh no.
I'd ban that on children as well.
Doubtless that will get me accused of being anti-Jewish or anti-Muslim.
I've managed to get to 50 without ever feeling inclined to use such authority as I have to press myself onto others. I don't regard myself as some kind of unworldly saint.
Talk about Puritanism is ridiculous,
Absolutely, Alastair. I'd be ashamed if my sons, aged 18, 20 and 22 had to have some sort of Code Of Conduct on how to behave around young women. That it is the great and the good who clearly can't control themselves just shows how morally corrupt they all are.
We must stop tarring everyone as being corrupt. Yes, there are some who have overstepped the mark and, in some case, their behaviour could well have been bad enough to warrant criminal charges being laid. But it is not true of all of 'the great and the good' - it is a small subset of people who have transgressed.
Tory MPs apparently need a code of conduct on appropriate behaviour. These are grown men, some of them Knights of the Realm, on a minimum 75 grand plus expenses, and elected to allegedly run the country. Doesn't that concern you?
I am urging a sense of perspective.
I made no comment at all about the party of any of those at the centre of the allegations. If you genuinely believe that it only affects Conservative MPs, then you are clearly deluded. This is very clearly not a party political issue.
I'm not deluded, it's affecting all parties. I'm merely commenting on the fact that highly paid grown men apparently need a code of conduct on how to behave in Westminster's bars and social areas. If I was a Tory MP I'd find that deeply shameful.
Almost every workplace has a code of conduct relating to such matters. I have to go through tedious online training course on the topic each year.
Don't we all? But May explicitly ordered a new one this week to try and get a grip on the spiralling scandal, replacing a previous voluntary one. They have to promise not to bully or harass anyone and to try to rein in general naughtiness. It's embarrassing.
Is it? The alternative, to do nothing, would look far worse.
So without a new code of conduct, the Tory MPs don't know how to behave? They only now, in 2017, have realised that they can't act in inappropriate ways? And we pay these fuckers 75k?
Why do our employers inisit on yearly online training?
Perhaps, but moral panics have a tendency to provoke a reaction in the other direction.
Right wingers have already had their 'backlash' with Brexit, with Trump, with all the right-leaning to far right parties being elected across Europe. Now, this is the backlash to that socially conservative worldview.
Pretty much everything, in my view (I'm very socially liberal). I'm not a fan of the because 'I put up with it in my generation so should you' attitude, for example that social conservatives that I know have been telling me over the last week in light of these recent allegations in Westminster.
Yet it is people who purport to be socially liberal who have a remarkable silence about FGM.
Something which tends to be mentioned here only by people of the political centre or right and it should be noted a large majority of the victims reside in areas with Labour MPs and Labour councils.
I don't agree with that at all. Social liberals do talk about FGM.
The centre-right, like a lot of these matters, tends to bring up FGM only as means of whataboutery in relation to incidents of sexism that they feel are 'lesser.'
Interestingly many of these who are now (laudably) adopting FGM as a cause are not so keen to say anything about Male Genital Mutilation. Oh no.
I'd ban that on children as well.
Doubtless that will get me accused of being anti-Jewish or anti-Muslim.
Too right. Male circumcision should only be undertaken for medical reasons.
Perhaps, but moral panics have a tendency to provoke a reaction in the other direction.
We are already getting a reaction from the usual suspec
Right wingers have already had their 'backlash' with Brexit, with Trump, with all the right-leaning to far right parties being elected across Europe. Now, this is the backlash to that socially conservative worldview.
Pretty much everything, in my view (I'm very socially liberal). I'm not a fan of the because 'I put up with it in my generation so should you' attitude, for example that social conservatives that I know have been telling me over the last week in light of these recent allegations in Westminster.
Yet it is people who purport to be socially liberal who have a remarkable silence about FGM.
Something which tends to be mentioned here only by people of the political centre or right and it should be noted a large majority of the victims reside in areas with Labour MPs and Labour councils.
There is a sort of white middle aged Conservative who only seems bothered about young ethnic women when their genitals are being discussed.
In reality nearly all the real campaigning against FGM is by socially liberal female health workers and social workers, not alt.right keyboard warriors.
Remind me about the number of prosecutions and convictions for FGM in this country.
There is a sort of 'progressive' leftist who tried to shut down any mention of inconvenient issues.
As a matter of fact there have been trials, and indeed one has just started.
Prosecution is not the entirety of how an anti FGM campaign should be conducted. The real change to make it an anachronism is via social and health education amongst appropriate communities.
I've managed to get to 50 without ever feeling inclined to use such authority as I have to press myself onto others. I don't regard myself as some kind of unworldly saint.
Talk about Puritanism is ridiculous,
Absolutely, Alastair. I'd be ashamed if my sons, aged 18, 20 and 22 had to have some sort of Code Of Conduct on how to behave around young women. That it is the great and the good who clearly can't control themselves just shows how morally corrupt they all are.
We must stop tarring everyone as being corrupt. Yes, there are some who have overstepped I am urging a sense of perspective.
I made no comment at all about the party of any of those at the centre of the allegations. If you genuinely believe that it only affects Conservative MPs, then you are clearly deluded. This is very clearly not a party political issue.
I'm not deluded, it's affecting all parties. I'm merely commenting on the fact that highly paid grown men apparently need a code of conduct on how to behave in Westminster's bars and social areas. If I was a Tory MP I'd find that deeply shameful.
Almost every workplace has a code of conduct relating to such matters. I have to go through tedious online training course on the topic each year.
Don't we all? But May explicitly ordered a new one this week to try and get a grip on the spiralling scandal, replacing a previous voluntary one. They have to promise not to bully or harass anyone and to try to rein in general naughtiness. It's embarrassing.
Is it? The alternative, to do nothing, would look far worse.
So without a new code of conduct, the Tory MPs don't know how to behave? They only now, in 2017, have realised that they can't act in inappropriate ways? And we pay these fuckers 75k?
Why do our employers inisit on yearly online training?
So they can sack us if we cross the line. Tory MPs clearly have only in the past few days been made aware where the line is. Perhaps the old code of conduct didn't make it clear that bullying and harassment and inappropriate behaviour wasn't encouraged.
I've managed to get to 50 without ever feeling inclined to use such authority as I have to press myself onto others. I don't regard myself as some kind of unworldly saint.
Talk about Puritanism is ridiculous,
Absolutely, Alastair. I'd be ashamed if my sons, aged 18, 20 and 22 had to have some sort of Code Of Conduct on how to behave around young women. That it is the great and the good who clearly can't control themselves just shows how morally corrupt they all are.
We must stop tarring everyone as being corrupt. Yes, there are some who have overstepped the mark and, in some case, their behaviour could well have been bad enough to warrant criminal charges being laid. But it is not true of all of 'the great and the good' - it is a small subset of people who have transgressed.
Tory MPs apparently need a code of conduct on appropriate behaviour. These are grown men, some of them Knights of the Realm, on a minimum 75 grand plus expenses, and elected to allegedly run the country. Doesn't that concern you?
I am urging a sense of perspective.
I made no comment at all about the party of any of those at the centre of the allegations. If you genuinely believe that it only affects Conservative MPs, then you are clearly deluded. This is very clearly not a party political issue.
I'm not deluded, it's affecting all parties. I'm merely commenting on the fact that highly paid grown men apparently need a code of conduct on how to behave in Westminster's bars and social areas. If I was a Tory MP I'd find that deeply shameful.
Almost every workplace has a code of conduct relating to such matters. I have to go through tedious online training course on the topic each year.
Don't we all? But May explicitly ordered a new one this week to try and get a grip on the spiralling scandal, replacing a previous voluntary one. They have to promise not to bully or harass anyone and to try to rein in general naughtiness. It's embarrassing.
Is it? The alternative, to do nothing, would look far worse.
So without a new code of conduct, the Tory MPs don't know how to behave? They only now, in 2017, have realised that they can't act in inappropriate ways? And we pay these fuckers 75k?
"Don't pork the payroll" would cover most of what these would-be lotharios need to know.
Perhaps, but moral panics have a tendency to provoke a reaction in the other direction.
We are already getting a reaction from the usual suspects: Douglas Murray, most likely Brendan O'Neil. But the reality is much of this is a reaction to the election of Trump, the revelation of alleged sexual harassment at FOX, and now Weinstein. This is the 'backlash' against recent examples of men appearing to 'get away' with sexual harassment and worse. Also, this is not a 'moral panic'; it involves low-level cases of alleged harassment ranging all the way up to alleged rape. That cannot be simply dismissed as everyone getting wound up over 'nothing'.
Right wingers have already had their 'backlash' with Brexit, with Trump, with all the right-leaning to far right parties being elected across Europe. Now, this is the backlash to that socially conservative worldview.
Pretty much everything, in my view (I'm very socially liberal). I'm not a fan of the because 'I put up with it in my generation so should you' attitude, for example that social conservatives that I know have been telling me over the last week in light of these recent allegations in Westminster.
Yet it is people who purport to be socially liberal who have a remarkable silence about FGM.
Something which tends to be mentioned here only by people of the political centre or right and it should be noted a large majority of the victims reside in areas with Labour MPs and Labour councils.
I don't agree with that at all. Social liberals do talk about FGM.
The centre-right, like a lot of these matters, tends to bring up FGM only as means of whataboutery in relation to incidents of sexism that they feel are 'lesser.'
Well I'd say that putting a hand on a knee is lesser than FGM. More to the point so does the law - although as we know the authorities have an averseion to upholding that.
The centre-right mentions FGM far more than those of the Left do in my experience (all be it that's from my experience on PB and the like).
In fact I'd say some of those on the Left seem to have a Pavlovian reaction to attack people who mention it as they can't abide any criticism of 'multicultralism'. To be fair some of those who mention FGM might well be doing so to attack 'multicultralism' in general.
Perhaps, but moral panics have a tendency to provoke a reaction in the other direction.
We are already getting a reaction from the usual suspects: Douglas Murray, most likely Brendan O'Neil. But the reality is much of this is a reaction to the election of Trump, the revelation of alleged sexual harassment at FOX, and now Weinstein. This is the 'backlash' against recent examples of men appearing to 'get away' with sexual harassment and worse. Also, this is not a 'moral panic'; it involves low-level cases of alleged harassment ranging all the way up to alleged rape. That cannot be simply dismissed as everyone getting wound up over 'nothing'.
Right wingers have already had their 'backlash' with Brexit, with Trump, with all the right-leaning to far right parties being elected across Europe. Now, this is the backlash to that socially conservative worldview.
Pretty much everything, in my view (I'm very socially liberal). I'm not a fan of the because 'I put up with it in my generation so should you' attitude, for example that social conservatives that I know have been telling me over the last week in light of these recent allegations in Westminster.
Yet it is people who purport to be socially liberal who have a remarkable silence about FGM.
.
There is a sort of white middle aged Conservative who only seems bothered about young ethnic women when their genitals are being discussed.
In reality nearly all the real campaigning against FGM is by socially liberal female health workers and social workers, not alt.right keyboard warriors.
+1. If I could like this post a million times I would.
It's certainly an impressive example of stereotyping
As a matter of fact there have been trials, and indeed one has just started.
Prosecution is not the entirety of how an anti FGM campaign should be conducted. The real change to make it an anachronism is via social and health education amongst appropriate communities.
Perhaps not the entirety, but is it not the the main bulwark? Would we expect success in recent campaigns on other socially unacceptable things like smoking in restaurants and pubs, not using mobile phones in cars, not drink driving etc. if the likelihood of any legal consequences was virtually nil?
Perhaps, but moral panics have a tendency to provoke a reaction in the other direction.
Right wingers have already had their 'backlash' with Brexit, with Trump, with all the right-leaning to far right parties being elected across Europe. Now, this is the backlash to that socially conservative worldview.
Pretty much everything, in my view (I'm very socially liberal). I'm not a fan of the because 'I put up with it in my generation so should you' attitude, for example that social conservatives that I know have been telling me over the last week in light of these recent allegations in Westminster.
Yet it is people who purport to be socially liberal who have a remarkable silence about FGM.
Something which tends to be mentioned here only by people of the political centre or right and it should be noted a large majority of the victims reside in areas with Labour MPs and Labour councils.
I don't agree with that at all. Social liberals do talk about FGM.
The centre-right, like a lot of these matters, tends to bring up FGM only as means of whataboutery in relation to incidents of sexism that they feel are 'lesser.'
Well I'd say that putting a hand on a knee is lesser than FGM. More to the point so does the law - although as we know the authorities have an averseion to upholding that.
The centre-right mentions FGM far more than those of the Left do in my experience (all be it that's from my experience on PB and the like).
In fact I'd say some of those on the Left seem to have a Pavlovian reaction to attack people who mention it as they can't abide any criticism of 'multicultralism'. To be fair some of those who mention FGM might well be doing so to attack 'multicultralism' in general.
Precisely like sexual harassment, FGM is an issue which ought not to present a party political - or indeed a social liberal/conservative - divide. And just as with sexual harassment, it is something that up until now has been tacitly tolerated, and should not be.
That it is serious crime, with irreparable consequences for the victims, and that there can be no argument about whether or not it occurred, is the only real contrast between the two things.
Perhaps when Williamson does speak from the front bench, if he is any good, Tory MPs will warm to him as a future leader. One thing is for sure, none of the "Old Gang" will win the Tories a majority, and Corbyn alone will keep the Tories in power after the next election.
As a matter of fact there have been trials, and indeed one has just started.
Prosecution is not the entirety of how an anti FGM campaign should be conducted. The real change to make it an anachronism is via social and health education amongst appropriate communities.
Perhaps not the entirety, but is it not the the main bulwark? Would we expect success in recent campaigns on other socially unacceptable things like smoking in restaurants and pubs, not using mobile phones in cars, not drink driving etc. if the likelihood of any legal consequences was virtually nil?
The likelihood of legal consequences for one of those at least is virtually nil. And I've often wondered how rigorously drink driving laws are actually enforced.
Pretty much everything, in my view (I'm very socially liberal). I'm not a fan of the because 'I put up with it in my generation so should you' attitude, for example that social conservatives that I know have been telling me over the last week in light of these recent allegations in Westminster.
Yet it is people who purport to be socially liberal who have a remarkable silence about FGM.
Something which tends to be mentioned here only by people of the political centre or right and it should be noted a large majority of the victims reside in areas with Labour MPs and Labour councils.
There is a sort of white middle aged Conservative who only seems bothered about young ethnic women when their genitals are being discussed.
In reality nearly all the real campaigning against FGM is by socially liberal female health workers and social workers, not alt.right keyboard warriors.
Remind me about the number of prosecutions and convictions for FGM in this country.
There is a sort of 'progressive' leftist who tried to shut down any mention of inconvenient issues.
As a matter of fact there have been trials, and indeed one has just started.
Prosecution is not the entirety of how an anti FGM campaign should be conducted. The real change to make it an anachronism is via social and health education amongst appropriate communities.
There have been two trials including the one which has just started and no convictions in the 32 years since the law was passed.
And while prosecution is not the entirety of how an anti-FGM campaign should be conducted it is a necessary part.
Just as, for example, prosecutions for drink-driving are a necessary part but not the entirety of an anti-drink and drive campaign.
Instead the lack of criminal prosecutions have been an encouragement for the continuation of FGM in this country. In fact being an FGM practiioner might well be the job with the least risk of prosecution - 'No income tax, no VAT, no health and safety, no guarantee', I could almost see some 'Citizen Khan' type comedy as an FGM practioner practices his trade in South London outwitting the social services.
I've managed to get to 50 without ever feeling inclined to use such authority as I have to press myself onto others. I don't regard myself as some kind of unworldly saint.
Talk about Puritanism is ridiculous,
.
First, the subset doesn't seem that small.
Secondly, such actions seem to have been universally tolerated, indeed seen as useful leverage by others.
Westminster seems to have a serious culture problem.
I sincerely believe we have to be patient and allow due process to take place. That doesn't make for good headlines but we need to work with the rule of law, not Trial by Twitter.
You confidently asserted that it was a small subset. You are determined to minimise the problem, Why?
Apologies to interrupt this exchange.
Alastair - You are as I understand it a lawyer.
Are you not just a bit concerned about an environment where anyone can make an allegation about someone else's conduct which - whilst not illegal - then destroys their career and reputation, without any evidence being assessed, due process being followed, or even any sort of objective standard against which they are being judged?
Isn't this totally irrational and counter to the whole idea of the rule of law?
Thats what it seems like to me. I'm a layperson, but I rather like living in a democracy with protection of the rule of law. I don't want to abandon that in pursuit of some vaguely defined moral ideal universe.
Even if it is true that there is sexism and abuse going on in politics to the extent that is alleged, surely it is best to try and undertake some sort of evidence based analysis of it, to then create fairer rules for MP's that are properly enforced? Isn't that a better way forward, rather than jumping to conclusions based on a few stories and our gut instinct of what we think is going on?
Secondly, the allegations of rape and sexual assault are exactly that - allegations. Nothing has been proven in court. These type of allegations are hardly a new development in politics as in other areas of life. Surely you believe in the idea of innocent until proven guilty? Isn't that also an important part of the rule of law?
As a matter of fact there have been trials, and indeed one has just started.
Prosecution is not the entirety of how an anti FGM campaign should be conducted. The real change to make it an anachronism is via social and health education amongst appropriate communities.
Perhaps not the entirety, but is it not the the main bulwark? Would we expect success in recent campaigns on other socially unacceptable things like smoking in restaurants and pubs, not using mobile phones in cars, not drink driving etc. if the likelihood of any legal consequences was virtually nil?
I am not saying that prosecution is not a useful tool, but it should be in the overal context and governance of the child protection team. This is a multi-disciplinary team of paediatricians, social workers and police.
As a matter of fact there have been trials, and indeed one has just started.
Prosecution is not the entirety of how an anti FGM campaign should be conducted. The real change to make it an anachronism is via social and health education amongst appropriate communities.
Perhaps not the entirety, but is it not the the main bulwark? Would we expect success in recent campaigns on other socially unacceptable things like smoking in restaurants and pubs, not using mobile phones in cars, not drink driving etc. if the likelihood of any legal consequences was virtually nil?
The likelihood of legal consequences for one of those at least is virtually nil. And I've often wondered how rigorously drink driving laws are actually enforced.
It has very severe legal consequences for venues that don't conform to the letter and spirit of the licensing laws, as well as the convictions of the drink drivers themselves.
As a matter of fact there have been trials, and indeed one has just started.
Prosecution is not the entirety of how an anti FGM campaign should be conducted. The real change to make it an anachronism is via social and health education amongst appropriate communities.
Perhaps not the entirety, but is it not the the main bulwark? Would we expect success in recent campaigns on other socially unacceptable things like smoking in restaurants and pubs, not using mobile phones in cars, not drink driving etc. if the likelihood of any legal consequences was virtually nil?
The likelihood of legal consequences for one of those at least is virtually nil. And I've often wondered how rigorously drink driving laws are actually enforced.
@another_richard No one is doubting that FGM is more serious than a hand on knee. What I was criticising is a tendency to generally bring FGM up more as a means of 'whataboutery', and to dismiss the discussion of another offence. You can care about both low-level harassment and very serious matters such as FGM - it isn't an either or thing.
I have no issues with FGM actually being discussed as opposed to being used to deflect from a subject at hand. I certainly don't see discussing it as an attack on multiculturalism.
As a matter of fact there have been trials, and indeed one has just started.
Prosecution is not the entirety of how an anti FGM campaign should be conducted. The real change to make it an anachronism is via social and health education amongst appropriate communities.
Perhaps not the entirety, but is it not the the main bulwark? Would we expect success in recent campaigns on other socially unacceptable things like smoking in restaurants and pubs, not using mobile phones in cars, not drink driving etc. if the likelihood of any legal consequences was virtually nil?
The likelihood of legal consequences for one of those at least is virtually nil. And I've often wondered how rigorously drink driving laws are actually enforced.
Smokers here were already half-persuaded that their habit was reprehensible. In countries like Spain, where smokers see nothing wrong with their habit, smoking bans are unworkable.
As a matter of fact there have been trials, and indeed one has just started.
Prosecution is not the entirety of how an anti FGM campaign should be conducted. The real change to make it an anachronism is via social and health education amongst appropriate communities.
Perhaps not the entirety, but is it not the the main bulwark? Would we expect success in recent campaigns on other socially unacceptable things like smoking in restaurants and pubs, not using mobile phones in cars, not drink driving etc. if the likelihood of any legal consequences was virtually nil?
The likelihood of legal consequences for one of those at least is virtually nil. And I've often wondered how rigorously drink driving laws are actually enforced.
It has very severe legal consequences for venues that don't conform to the letter and spirit of the licensing laws, as well as the convictions of the drink drivers themselves.
I was talking about using mobile phones while driving!
As a matter of fact there have been trials, and indeed one has just started.
Prosecution is not the entirety of how an anti FGM campaign should be conducted. The real change to make it an anachronism is via social and health education amongst appropriate communities.
Perhaps not the entirety, but is it not the the main bulwark? Would we expect success in recent campaigns on other socially unacceptable things like smoking in restaurants and pubs, not using mobile phones in cars, not drink driving etc. if the likelihood of any legal consequences was virtually nil?
The likelihood of legal consequences for one of those at least is virtually nil. And I've often wondered how rigorously drink driving laws are actually enforced.
Perhaps when Williamson does speak from the front bench, if he is any good, Tory MPs will warm to him as a future leader. One thing is for sure, none of the "Old Gang" will win the Tories a majority, and Corbyn alone will keep the Tories in power after the next election.
You appear to be quite obsessed with Corbyn and rather in denial of psephological evidence which gives Labour a good prospect of emerging with circa 310 seats at the next election.
Perhaps, but moral panics have a tendency to provoke a reaction in the other direction.
We are already getting a reaction from the usual suspects: Douglas Murray, most likely Brendan O'Neil. But the reality is much of this is a reaction to the election of Trump, the revelation of alleged sexual harassment at FOX, and now Weinstein. This is the 'backlash' against recent examples of men appearing to 'get away' with sexual harassment and worse. Also, this is not a 'moral panic'; it involves low-level cases of alleged harassment ranging all the way up to alleged rape. That cannot be simply dismissed as everyone getting wound up over 'nothing'.
Right wingers have already had their 'backlash' with Brexit, with Trump, with all the right-leaning to far right parties being elected across Europe. Now, this is the backlash to that socially conservative worldview.
Pretty much everything, in my view (I'm very socially liberal). I'm not a fan of the because 'I put up with it in my generation so should you' attitude, for example that social conservatives that I know have been telling me over the last week in light of these recent allegations in Westminster.
Yet it is people who purport to be socially liberal who have a remarkable silence about FGM.
.
There is a sort of white middle aged Conservative who only seems bothered about young ethnic women when their genitals are being discussed.
In reality nearly all the real campaigning against FGM is by socially liberal female health workers and social workers, not alt.right keyboard warriors.
+1. If I could like this post a million times I would.
It's certainly an impressive example of stereotyping
When someone mentions something inconvenient then sterotype them.
Secondly, such actions seem to have been universally tolerated, indeed seen as useful leverage by others.
Westminster seems to have a serious culture problem.
I sincerely believe we have to be patient and allow due process to take place. That doesn't make for good headlines but we need to work with the rule of law, not Trial by Twitter.
You confidently asserted that it was a small subset. You are determined to minimise the problem, Why?
Apologies to interrupt this exchange.
Alastair - You are as I understand it a lawyer.
Are you not just a bit concerned about an environment where anyone can make an allegation about someone else's conduct which - whilst not illegal - then destroys their career and reputation, without any evidence being assessed, due process being followed, or even any sort of objective standard against which they are being judged?
Isn't this totally irrational and counter to the whole idea of the rule of law?
Thats what it seems like to me. I'm a layperson, but I rather like living in a democracy with protection of the rule of law. I don't want to abandon that in pursuit of some vaguely defined moral ideal universe.
Even if it is true that there is sexism and abuse going on in politics to the extent that is alleged, surely it is best to try and undertake some sort of evidence based analysis of it, to then create fairer rules for MP's that are properly enforced? Isn't that a better way forward, rather than jumping to conclusions based on a few stories and our gut instinct of what we think is going on?
Secondly, the allegations of rape and sexual assault are exactly that - allegations. Nothing has been proven in court. These type of allegations are hardly a new development in politics as in other areas of life. Surely you believe in the idea of innocent until proven guilty? Isn't that also an important part of the rule of law?
Five different things.
1) are these allegations to be relied upon uncritically? No. 2) are they important in establishing whether there is a problem of culture? Yes. 3) are individuals in public life entitled to a fair hearing? Yes. 4) if there are allegations of criminality, those should be judged on the criminal standard of proof, i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt. 5) for establishing whether they are fit for public office, the appropriate standard should be the civil standard, the balance of probabilities.
Right now I have seen no particular evidence that women are systematically weaponising false accusations of misconduct to bring down politicians. It's possible but not likely.
Yes, the PBtories are. They are believing her publicity, and as usual, not the reality.
Isn't one of the qualifications of a successful politician the ability to get people to believe their publicity ? The reality is that neither you, nor her proponents, really know how she would turn out should she ever gain the leadership,
Secondly, such actions seem to have been universally tolerated, indeed seen as useful leverage by others.
Westminster seems to have a serious culture problem.
I sincerely believe we have to be patient and allow due process to take place. That doesn't make for good headlines but we need to work with the rule of law, not Trial by Twitter.
You confidently asserted that it was a small subset. You are determined to minimise the problem, Why?
Apologies to interrupt this exchange.
Alastair - You are as I understand it a lawyer.
Are you not just a bit concerned about an environment where anyone can make an allegation about someone else's conduct which - whilst not illegal - then destroys their career and reputation, without any evidence being assessed, due process being followed, or even any sort of objective standard against which they are being judged?
Isn't this totally irrational and counter to the whole idea of the rule of law?
Thats what it seems like to me. I'm a layperson, but I rather like living in a democracy with protection of the rule of law. I don't want to abandon that in pursuit of some vaguely defined moral ideal universe.
Even if it is true that there is sexism and abuse going on in politics to the extent that is alleged, surely it is best to try and undertake some sort of evidence based analysis of it, to then create fairer rules for MP's that are properly enforced? Isn't that a better way forward, rather than jumping to conclusions based on a few stories and our gut instinct of what we think is going on?
Secondly, the allegations of rape and sexual assault are exactly that - allegations. Nothing has been proven in court. These type of allegations are hardly a new development in politics as in other areas of life. Surely you believe in the idea of innocent until proven guilty? Isn't that also an important part of the rule of law?
Five different things.
1) are these allegations to be relied upon uncritically? No. 2) are they important in establishing whether there is a problem of culture? Yes. 3) are individuals in public life entitled to a fair hearing? Yes. 4) if there are allegations of criminality, those should be judged on the criminal standard of proof, i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt. 5) for establishing whether they are fit for public office, the appropriate standard should be the civil standard, the balance of probabilities.
Right now I have seen no particular evidence that women are systematically weaponising false accusations of misconduct to bring down politicians. It's possible but not likely.
Perhaps when Williamson does speak from the front bench, if he is any good, Tory MPs will warm to him as a future leader. One thing is for sure, none of the "Old Gang" will win the Tories a majority, and Corbyn alone will keep the Tories in power after the next election.
You appear to be quite obsessed with Corbyn and rather in denial of psephological evidence which gives Labour a good prospect of emerging with circa 310 seats at the next election.
Let them keep believing it Justin. Many Tories find it totally inconceivable that anyone could vote for a Corbyn-led Labour party - there's no point in trying to convince them otherwise.
It is notable that most of the events that come to light are not directly at political business meetings, but rather in the miasma around them, at conference hotels, or at social functions.
It is perfectly reasonable to adopt such a policy of only having such meetings when others are present.
I work in a largely female department where I have a certain amount of authority over women a decade or more younger than me. If we need to discuss issues then I either meet in my office, which has a see through window in the door, and with me seated at the far end of the room,and their chair nearer the door that opens to the rest of the offices.
A social event is different, and I do like to dad dance at our Christmas party, which can be well lubricated, but that is out in the open and in full view of other members of the team. I wouldn't meet them for drinks on my own. That would be overstepping my red line.
The basis of good manners is making other people feel comfortable. That works both ways.
This approach seems like common sense to me. I don't think it is puritanism.
I also had younger women assisting me on projects, on each occasion I always arranged our meetings in a similar way.
Pretty much everything, in my view (I'm very socially liberal). I'm not a fan of the because 'I put up with it in my generation so should you' attitude, for example that social conservatives that I know have been telling me over the last week in light of these recent allegations in Westminster.
Yet it is peopl.
There is a sort s.
Remind me about the number of prosecutions and convictions for FGM in this country.
There is a sort of 'progressive' leftist who tried to shut down any mention of inconvenient issues.
As a matter of fact there have been trials, and indeed one has just started.
Prosecution is not the entirety of how an anti FGM campaign should be conducted. The real change to make it an anachronism is via social and health education amongst appropriate communities.
There have been two trials including the one which has just started and no convictions in the 32 years since the law was passed.
And while prosecution is not the entirety of how an anti-FGM campaign should be conducted it is a necessary part.
Just as, for example, prosecutions for drink-driving are a necessary part but not the entirety of an anti-drink and drive campaign.
Instead the lack of criminal prosecutions have been an encouragement for the continuation of FGM in this country. In fact being an FGM practiioner might well be the job with the least risk of prosecution - 'No income tax, no VAT, no health and safety, no guarantee', I could almost see some 'Citizen Khan' type comedy as an FGM practioner practices his trade in South London outwitting the social services.
"Discussion of FGM in Britain rests on just how many girls are “at risk”. In 2016, the Health and Social Care Information Centre reported 5,700 recorded cases of FGM in the previous 12 months: 5,657 of those women were born outside the UK. The cases of the 43 born here are extremely worrying, as are the reported 18 cases where the FGM actually took place in this country; however, around 10 of those UK cases were genital piercings, presumably freely chosen, which are now recorded as FGM type 4."
The majority of those here with FGM are those born and mutilated abroad, usually from the Sahel or Horn of Africa regions, presenting later in life here
Also lack of space between Gentle and Mens' as it is obviously not aimed at gentlemen
I am no gentleman, I was state school educated. But I have to say in my quite limited experience of such people I think your suggested typo is a tad optimistic!
It is notable that most of the events that come to light are not directly at political business meetings, but rather in the miasma around them, at conference hotels, or at social functions.
It is perfectly reasonable to adopt such a policy of only having such meetings when others are present.
I work in a largely female department where I have a certain amount of authority over women a decade or more younger than me. If we need to discuss issues then I either meet in my office, which has a see through window in the door, and with me seated at the far end of the room,and their chair nearer the door that opens to the rest of the offices.
A social event is different, and I do like to dad dance at our Christmas party, which can be well lubricated, but that is out in the open and in full view of other members of the team. I wouldn't meet them for drinks on my own. That would be overstepping my red line.
The basis of good manners is making other people feel comfortable. That works both ways.
This approach seems like common sense to me. I don't think it is puritanism.
I also had younger women assisting me on projects, on each occasion I always arranged our meetings in a similar way.
It never occurred to me to do so, but it would have been sensible.
Princes, former ministers, billionaires. Looks very significant.
I know very little about Saudi Arabia. What are the implications you are all hinting at? Is this a possible purge of the old guard before some much-needed reform?
Also lack of space between Gentle and Mens' as it is obviously not aimed at gentlemen
I am no gentleman, I was state school educated. But I have to say in my quite limited experience of such people I think your suggested typo is a tad optimistic!
Perhaps, the waitresses serve the food naked, a practice that Tiberius supposedly enjoyed.
I'd never heard of them either but a quick Google revealed that Alwaleed Bin Talal is a... Global Investor, Leader, Family Man “I believe in working hard and being successful, because success breeds success and that drives me." Oh, and being a member of the Saudi royal family helps too, no doubt!
Perhaps when Williamson does speak from the front bench, if he is any good, Tory MPs will warm to him as a future leader. One thing is for sure, none of the "Old Gang" will win the Tories a majority, and Corbyn alone will keep the Tories in power after the next election.
You appear to be quite obsessed with Corbyn and rather in denial of psephological evidence which gives Labour a good prospect of emerging with circa 310 seats at the next election.
Corbyn has a reasonable prospect of being PM of a minority government propped up by the SNP, rather less favourable prospects of winning an overall majority after the next general election.
Also lack of space between Gentle and Mens' as it is obviously not aimed at gentlemen
I am no gentleman, I was state school educated. But I have to say in my quite limited experience of such people I think your suggested typo is a tad optimistic!
Perhaps, the waitresses serve the food naked, a practice that Tiberius supposedly enjoyed.
Also lack of space between Gentle and Mens' as it is obviously not aimed at gentlemen
I am no gentleman, I was state school educated. But I have to say in my quite limited experience of such people I think your suggested typo is a tad optimistic!
Perhaps, the waitresses serve the food naked, a practice that Tiberius supposedly enjoyed.
We are of course presupposing here that they are female strippers. It doesn't actually say that.
Whatever it is, and jokes about grammar aside, it is clearly not the sort of event that any halfway responsible political organisation should be staging.
Remind me about the number of prosecutions and convictions for FGM in this country.
There is a sort of 'progressive' leftist who tried to shut down any mention of inconvenient issues.
As a matter of fact there have been trials, and indeed one has just started.
Prosecution is not the entirety of how an anti FGM campaign should be conducted. The real change to make it an anachronism is via social and health education amongst appropriate communities.
There have been two trials including the one which has just started and no convictions in the 32 years since the law was passed.
And while prosecution is not the entirety of how an anti-FGM campaign should be conducted it is a necessary part.
Just as, for example, prosecutions for drink-driving are a necessary part but not the entirety of an anti-drink and drive campaign.
Instead the lack of criminal prosecutions have been an encouragement for the continuation of FGM in this country. In fact being an FGM practiioner might well be the job with the least risk of prosecution - 'No income tax, no VAT, no health and safety, no guarantee', I could almost see some 'Citizen Khan' type comedy as an FGM practioner practices his trade in South London outwitting the social services.
"Discussion of FGM in Britain rests on just how many girls are “at risk”. In 2016, the Health and Social Care Information Centre reported 5,700 recorded cases of FGM in the previous 12 months: 5,657 of those women were born outside the UK. The cases of the 43 born here are extremely worrying, as are the reported 18 cases where the FGM actually took place in this country; however, around 10 of those UK cases were genital piercings, presumably freely chosen, which are now recorded as FGM type 4."
The majority of those here with FGM are those born and mutilated abroad, usually from the Sahel or Horn of Africa regions, presenting later in life here
' Girls are being taken to female genital mutilation (FGM) "parties" in cities across England, a charity has warned.
The Black Health Initiative in Leeds says midwives from Africa are being flown into the country to carry out the illegal practice.
"What we're finding now is that where once girls were taken abroad to be cut, specialist midwives are now flown over and several girls are cut at the same time, which then leads to a celebration." '
Also lack of space between Gentle and Mens' as it is obviously not aimed at gentlemen
I am no gentleman, I was state school educated. But I have to say in my quite limited experience of such people I think your suggested typo is a tad optimistic!
Perhaps, the waitresses serve the food naked, a practice that Tiberius supposedly enjoyed.
Tiberius enjoyed serving food naked?
Chickens taste much better without their feathers, apparently.
Princes, former ministers, billionaires. Looks very significant.
I know very little about Saudi Arabia. What are the implications you are all hinting at? Is this a possible purge of the old guard before some much-needed reform?
Yes that's what it looks like. Certainly a big power struggle.
Pretty much everything, in my view (I'm very socially liberal). I'm not a fan of the because 'I put up with it in my generation so should you' attitude, for example that social conservatives that I know have been telling me over the last week in light of these recent allegations in Westminster.
Yet it is peopl.
There is a sort s.
Remind me about the number of prosecutions and convictions for FGM in this country.
There is a sort of 'progressive' leftist who tried to shut down any mention of inconvenient issues.
Prosecution is not the entirety of how an anti FGM campaign should be conducted. The real change to make it an anachronism is via social and health education amongst appropriate communities.
There have been two trials including the one which has just started and no convictions in the 32 years since the law was passed.
And while prosecution is not the entirety of how an anti-FGM campaign should be conducted it is a necessary part.
Just as, for example, prosecutions for drink-driving are a necessary part but not the entirety of an anti-drink and drive campaign.
Instead the lack of criminal prosecutions have been an encouragement for the continuation of FGM in this country. In fact being an FGM practiioner might well be the job with the least risk of prosecution - 'No income tax, no VAT, no health and safety, no guarantee', I could almost see some 'Citizen Khan' type comedy as an FGM practioner practices his trade in South London outwitting the social services.
"Discussion of FGM in Britain rests on just how many girls are “at risk”. In 2016, the Health and Social Care Information Centre reported 5,700 recorded cases of FGM in the previous 12 months: 5,657 of those women were born outside the UK. The cases of the 43 born here are extremely worrying, as are the reported 18 cases where the FGM actually took place in this country; however, around 10 of those UK cases were genital piercings, presumably freely chosen, which are now recorded as FGM type 4."
The majority of those here with FGM are those born and mutilated abroad, usually from the Sahel or Horn of Africa regions, presenting later in life here
Not according to SeanT. To him, this is a Muslim problem. I don't think anyone in Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, India or Pakistan had ever heard of FGM.
Thumbs down to all the main leadership candidates says it all.
The next leader will not be any of the old guard
Unless another candidate starts to get the majority of that support for an 'other' candidate though the next Tory leader will almost certainly be Boris, Rees-Mogg or Davis.
Princes, former ministers, billionaires. Looks very significant.
I know very little about Saudi Arabia. What are the implications you are all hinting at? Is this a possible purge of the old guard before some much-needed reform?
Yes that's what it looks like. Certainly a big power struggle.
I don't think many tears will be shed if Saudi Arabia drags itself five hundred years forward into the modern age. However, there might be significant economic implications if it destabilises the country.
I'd never heard of them either but a quick Google revealed that Alwaleed Bin Talal is a... Global Investor, Leader, Family Man “I believe in working hard and being successful, because success breeds success and that drives me." Oh, and being a member of the Saudi royal family helps too, no doubt!
He sounds like one of the wannabes on the Apprentice.
Also lack of space between Gentle and Mens' as it is obviously not aimed at gentlemen
I am no gentleman, I was state school educated. But I have to say in my quite limited experience of such people I think your suggested typo is a tad optimistic!
Perhaps, the waitresses serve the food naked, a practice that Tiberius supposedly enjoyed.
Tiberius enjoyed serving food naked?
He probably enjoyed dining naked, attended by his Minnows.
It is notable that most of the events that come to light are not directly at political business meetings, but rather in the miasma around them, at conference hotels, or at social functions.
It is perfectly reasonable to adopt such a policy of only having such meetings when others are present....
"nor attend events where alcohol is served unless his wife is present...." sounds a little unnuanced to me, but if it's his own personal rule rather than an expectation of what constitutes acceptable behaviour, fair enough. That he chooses to be Trump's VP suggests a motivation rather weirder than personal morality.
Also lack of space between Gentle and Mens' as it is obviously not aimed at gentlemen
I am no gentleman, I was state school educated. But I have to say in my quite limited experience of such people I think your suggested typo is a tad optimistic!
Perhaps, the waitresses serve the food naked, a practice that Tiberius supposedly enjoyed.
I just wonder if the waitresses (no doubt on minimum wage) are aware that they a forming part of the entertainment. At least the strippers know what they are in for.
The Horwich Conservative Club website is a wonder to behold. Under the club rules they list:
"THE NO's No Birthday Parties between the ages of 17 and 20 (21st are allowed) Disabled Access Air Conditioning No cellotape [sic] on walls in the function room"
Perhaps when Williamson does speak from the front bench, if he is any good, Tory MPs will warm to him as a future leader. One thing is for sure, none of the "Old Gang" will win the Tories a majority, and Corbyn alone will keep the Tories in power after the next election.
You appear to be quite obsessed with Corbyn and rather in denial of psephological evidence which gives Labour a good prospect of emerging with circa 310 seats at the next election.
Corbyn has a reasonable prospect of being PM of a minority government propped up by the SNP, rather less favourable prospects of winning an overall majority after the next general election.
I am not predicting a majority at this very early stage in the Parliament , but if Labour gets close to 310 seats a minority Government would be possible without the SNP. Plaid -the Green plus 12 - 15 LibDems would be enough.
I have to say I was really shocked by the #metoo campaign on Facebook where basically all of my female friends have been harassed/worse - as well as a much smaller number of male friends.
It feels to me as if that campaign has been very successful at provoking a discussion as well as claiming a few scalps.
It is language like 'claiming a few scalps' that I find worrying. We should be aiming for justice - and that is not about victories/defeats or 'scalps'. I think everyone should be working towards securing justice for victims and fair hearings for the accused. At the moment, I worry that we aren't getting that.
I don’t know whether Weinstein or Spacey can or ever will be prosecuted. Perhaps scalps was a bit glib but it is important that people know powerful people can’t automatically get away with it. When you look at Trump, B. Clinton, Saville and others you can’t blame people for wondering...
In the long run I think this current media focus will be helpful to ensure that victims feel more confident to come forward.
Radio today was saying NYPD had a "credible case" against Weinstein for rape
You can tell this by the way they have forgotten the apostrophe in 'Gentlemen's'...
Also lack of space between Gentle and Mens' as it is obviously not aimed at gentlemen
I believe Conservative Clubs in places like Horwich are often little more than standard WMCs.
Conservative Clubs often have barely anything to do with the Party nowadays.
I even know of Labour voters who go to them because they serve cheap beer and food, have a pool table and offer entertainments.
Hopefully most of them do not offer entertainment of this sort though!
Many of them host swingers' parties.
I haven't even the heart to make a pun about capital punishment. That's how depressing this whole thing is. How can grown men not think, even for a nanosecond, about how to treat women with respect as fellow human beings?
I shall go to sleep and hopefully wake up feeling a bit calmer.
Also lack of space between Gentle and Mens' as it is obviously not aimed at gentlemen
I am no gentleman, I was state school educated. But I have to say in my quite limited experience of such people I think your suggested typo is a tad optimistic!
Perhaps, the waitresses serve the food naked, a practice that Tiberius supposedly enjoyed.
Also lack of space between Gentle and Mens' as it is obviously not aimed at gentlemen
I am no gentleman, I was state school educated. But I have to say in my quite limited experience of such people I think your suggested typo is a tad optimistic!
Perhaps, the waitresses serve the food naked, a practice that Tiberius supposedly enjoyed.
According to the local Bolton paper, they had a no touching rule... sleazy, but not quite Tiberian excess.
Comments
Puritanism is about self control, and sublimating base urges away from the sins of the flesh and towards making the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. Plenty of hypocrisy and priggishness about it at times of course, but at its heart is a sound doctrine.
VP Pence has a policy of only meeting female colleagues when a third party is present. That looks like a rule that others could usefully follow.
Once investigations have been carried out and a clear picture has emerged, there will be serious questions to be asked of a whole range of people.
I sincerely believe we have to be patient and allow due process to take place. That doesn't make for good headlines but we need to work with the rule of law, not Trial by Twitter.
That is absurd.
In reality nearly all the real campaigning against FGM is by socially liberal female health workers and social workers, not alt.right keyboard warriors.
I made no comment at all about the party of any of those at the centre of the allegations. If you genuinely believe that it only affects Conservative MPs, then you are clearly deluded. This is very clearly not a party political issue.
She gets pretty much a free pass from the press because
A ) she is mates with most of them due to her years at the BBC.
B ) SCons have been shit for so long in Scotland (including a couple of worst ever results under Ruth) that polling mid twenties is considered amazing.
We have to work with facts - and as things stand, there are far more MPs who are not facing questions about their behaviour than those that are.
If that changes, I will change my view. But I am not going to react to suppositions and speculation.
The centre-right, like a lot of these matters, tends to bring up FGM only as means of whataboutery in relation to incidents of sexism that they feel are 'lesser.'
If I could like this post a million times I would.
I expected her to say something more like: Which I didn't expect fox to say!
Personally, I disagree with both.
At the dance hall, in the club was different. Not that I ‘groped”. Not without encouragement, anyway!
But May explicitly ordered a new one this week to try and get a grip on the spiralling scandal, replacing a previous voluntary one. They have to promise not to bully or harass anyone and to try to rein in general naughtiness. It's embarrassing.
Mike Pence's policy is actually more nuanced. It is applied to events where alcohol is served.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-03/the-pences-prophylactic-approach-to-infidelity
It is notable that most of the events that come to light are not directly at political business meetings, but rather in the miasma around them, at conference hotels, or at social functions.
It is perfectly reasonable to adopt such a policy of only having such meetings when others are present.
I work in a largely female department where I have a certain amount of authority over women a decade or more younger than me. If we need to discuss issues then I either meet in my office, which has a see through window in the door, and with me seated at the far end of the room,and their chair nearer the door that opens to the rest of the offices.
A social event is different, and I do like to dad dance at our Christmas party, which can be well lubricated, but that is out in the open and in full view of other members of the team. I wouldn't meet them for drinks on my own. That would be overstepping my red line.
The basis of good manners is making other people feel comfortable. That works both ways.
There is a sort of 'progressive' leftist who tried to shut down any mention of inconvenient issues.
Doubtless that will get me accused of being anti-Jewish or anti-Muslim.
Prosecution is not the entirety of how an anti FGM campaign should be conducted. The real change to make it an anachronism is via social and health education amongst appropriate communities.
The centre-right mentions FGM far more than those of the Left do in my experience (all be it that's from my experience on PB and the like).
In fact I'd say some of those on the Left seem to have a Pavlovian reaction to attack people who mention it as they can't abide any criticism of 'multicultralism'. To be fair some of those who mention FGM might well be doing so to attack 'multicultralism' in general.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/04/boris-johnson-brexit-russia-trump
You can tell this by the way they have forgotten the apostrophe in 'Gentlemen's'...
And just as with sexual harassment, it is something that up until now has been tacitly tolerated, and should not be.
That it is serious crime, with irreparable consequences for the victims, and that there can be no argument about whether or not it occurred, is the only real contrast between the two things.
And while prosecution is not the entirety of how an anti-FGM campaign should be conducted it is a necessary part.
Just as, for example, prosecutions for drink-driving are a necessary part but not the entirety of an anti-drink and drive campaign.
Instead the lack of criminal prosecutions have been an encouragement for the continuation of FGM in this country. In fact being an FGM practiioner might well be the job with the least risk of prosecution - 'No income tax, no VAT, no health and safety, no guarantee', I could almost see some 'Citizen Khan' type comedy as an FGM practioner practices his trade in South London outwitting the social services.
Alastair - You are as I understand it a lawyer.
Are you not just a bit concerned about an environment where anyone can make an allegation about someone else's conduct which - whilst not illegal - then destroys their career and reputation, without any evidence being assessed, due process being followed, or even any sort of objective standard against which they are being judged?
Isn't this totally irrational and counter to the whole idea of the rule of law?
Thats what it seems like to me. I'm a layperson, but I rather like living in a democracy with protection of the rule of law. I don't want to abandon that in pursuit of some vaguely defined moral ideal universe.
Even if it is true that there is sexism and abuse going on in politics to the extent that is alleged, surely it is best to try and undertake some sort of evidence based analysis of it, to then create fairer rules for MP's that are properly enforced? Isn't that a better way forward, rather than jumping to conclusions based on a few stories and our gut instinct of what we think is going on?
Secondly, the allegations of rape and sexual assault are exactly that - allegations. Nothing has been proven in court. These type of allegations are hardly a new development in politics as in other areas of life. Surely you believe in the idea of innocent until proven guilty? Isn't that also an important part of the rule of law?
https://www.confused.com/on-the-road/driving-law/50-years-of-the-breathalyser
No one is doubting that FGM is more serious than a hand on knee. What I was criticising is a tendency to generally bring FGM up more as a means of 'whataboutery', and to dismiss the discussion of another offence. You can care about both low-level harassment and very serious matters such as FGM - it isn't an either or thing.
I have no issues with FGM actually being discussed as opposed to being used to deflect from a subject at hand. I certainly don't see discussing it as an attack on multiculturalism.
1) are these allegations to be relied upon uncritically? No.
2) are they important in establishing whether there is a problem of culture? Yes.
3) are individuals in public life entitled to a fair hearing? Yes.
4) if there are allegations of criminality, those should be judged on the criminal standard of proof, i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt.
5) for establishing whether they are fit for public office, the appropriate standard should be the civil standard, the balance of probabilities.
Right now I have seen no particular evidence that women are systematically weaponising false accusations of misconduct to bring down politicians. It's possible but not likely.
The reality is that neither you, nor her proponents, really know how she would turn out should she ever gain the leadership,
Also lack of space between Gentle and Mens' as it is obviously not aimed at gentlemen
I also had younger women assisting me on projects, on each occasion I always arranged our meetings in a similar way.
Though 'other' gets 23%.
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/11/our-survey-its-a-thumbs-down-from-party-members-to-all-the-main-leadership-candidates.html
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/sep/07/britain-clampdown-fgm-young-girls-false-accusations-families
The majority of those here with FGM are those born and mutilated abroad, usually from the Sahel or Horn of Africa regions, presenting later in life here
The next leader will not be any of the old guard
Global Investor, Leader, Family Man “I believe in working hard and being successful, because success breeds success and that drives me."
Oh, and being a member of the Saudi royal family helps too, no doubt!
Whatever it is, and jokes about grammar aside, it is clearly not the sort of event that any halfway responsible political organisation should be staging.
The Black Health Initiative in Leeds says midwives from Africa are being flown into the country to carry out the illegal practice.
"What we're finding now is that where once girls were taken abroad to be cut, specialist midwives are now flown over and several girls are cut at the same time, which then leads to a celebration." '
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-38290888
And don't get me started on crab in its shell...
I even know of Labour voters who go to them because they serve cheap beer and food, have a pool table and offer entertainments.
Interestingly Alwaleed bin Talal had a public spat with Trump in 2015 and called for him to withdraw his candidacy, to which Trump replied:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/675523728055410689
I don't think many tears will be shed if Saudi Arabia drags itself five hundred years forward into the modern age. However, there might be significant economic implications if it destabilises the country.
It is no different to what City workers will get from a night out at Stringfellows.
That he chooses to be Trump's VP suggests a motivation rather weirder than personal morality.
The Horwich Conservative Club website is a wonder to behold. Under the club rules they list:
"THE NO's
No Birthday Parties between the ages of 17 and 20 (21st are allowed)
Disabled Access
Air Conditioning
No cellotape [sic] on walls in the function room"
Nice!
http://www.boltonfunctionroom.co.uk/club-rules/
I shall go to sleep and hopefully wake up feeling a bit calmer.
Good night everyone.