I really don’t understand how a second referendum on the deal would be possible. If it deal or no deal we risk leaving with no deal. If it becomes a second vote on whether we should leave that is no longer just up to us. We would want at least what we have at the moment and we would be offered less.
That's probably true but the EU would be playing a blinder if it said, as an alternative to this new deal we'll let you retain the current one.
The EU doesn't make that decision. The ECJ does. The EU have already said that.
The ECJ is only relevant if the member states don't unanimously agree. At a minimum they can just indefinitely extend the exit date, then clean it up next time there's a treaty.
A new, different settlement (whether more or less favourable) would be more complicated, which is another reason why nobody is going to be saying "you can stay, but you have to join schengen, nah" or whatever.
Not so. The ECJ is not there to sort out disagreements between states. It is there to ensure all citizens are treated correctly under the terms of the treaties. It doesnt matter whether the indibidual states agree or not. The ECJ will decide whether or not the UK can reverse Article 50. The EU already stated this several weeks ago.
An extension to some far-off futute date wouldn't be a reversal.
No but it would be very easily challenged by the ECJ as running counter to the treaties.
On the big issue of the week - just 17% want single sex events banned against 74% opposed. While the outrage bus fills up with hacks and twitterati the public just ain't bovvered.
But that's not really the point is it? I don't think single sex events should be banned as there are plenty of occasions where it might be appropriate and it's a pretty authoritarian measure. I don't think businessman and politicians should be supporting an event that's a glorified meat market which tacitly seems designed to allow them to be dreadful.
Have you noticed the correlation between those less concerned about the behaviour of President Club guests and backing for Brexit?
There's also an apparent correlation between those who repeatedly decry the abuse of young girls in Rotherham, and who are oddly unconcerned about the abuse of young women in the President's Club.
I get the impression that some people are less concerned about the welfare of girls and women, and more concerned about the identity of the abusers.
It's a different angle on 'identity politics', I suppose ...
I think it's the other way round. I think those who decry, not just the abuse, but the whole concept of scantily dressed young girls being paid to attend an event like that, go out of their way to defend Muslims. Jess Phillips being a prime example.
(Snip)
But that's not what we saw on here. I find it odd that people can decry one form of abuse, and yet feel so complacent about another, albeit more minor, one.
Remember people getting wound up (rightly) about the abuse of women on the streets of Cologne a couple of years ago? It's incredible to decry that and yet be so blase about this.
Jess Phillips is an idiot. That does not mean people who are the polar opposite of her are not idiots as well.
If we ban immigration from certain countries because of 'cultural issues', then it's clear we should also ban immigration by bankers and those in finance. The culture in those industries is obviously diseased, and they have caused massive harm in this country for their own gain.
Theresa May has abandoned preparations for a third high-profile speech on Brexit for fear of widening cabinet splits over Britain’s future relationship with the EU.
The prime minister had planned to provide more detail of the so-called “end state” in an address next month on the same scale as those given at Lancaster House and in Florence.
Downing Street has called a halt to the preparations, however, fuelling fears that differences in her cabinet are irreconcilable.
I was surprised by David Davis’ speech yesterday in that he expected the transition/implementation deal to be in place by March. That would indeed be significant progress and remove a lot of the uncertainty for the foreseeable future. I hope that he is right.
The stalemate is because the realistic alternatives to EU membership are highly unpalatable: a decade long haggle leading to at best a mediocre result (Canada), doing what we're told (Norway) or outright chaos (WTO).
Overturning a democratically arrived at decision to reject objectively the best option (membership of the EU) is also unpalatable.
No wonder Theresa May doesn't want to talk about it.
Have you noticed the correlation between those less concerned about the behaviour of President Club guests and backing for Brexit?
There's also an apparent correlation between those who repeatedly decry the abuse of young girls in Rotherham, and who are oddly unconcerned about the abuse of young women in the President's Club.
I get the impression that some people are less concerned about the welfare of girls and women, and more concerned about the identity of the abusers.
It's a different angle on 'identity politics', I suppose ...
I think it's the other way round. I think those who decry, not just the abuse, but the whole concept of scantily dressed young girls being paid to attend an event like that, go out of their way to defend Muslims. Jess Phillips being a prime example.
(Snip)
But that's not what we saw on here. I find it odd that people can decry one form of abuse, and yet feel so complacent about another, albeit more minor, one.
Remember people getting wound up (rightly) about the abuse of women on the streets of Cologne a couple of years ago? It's incredible to decry that and yet be so blase about this.
Jess Phillips is an idiot. That does not mean people who are the polar opposite of her are not idiots as well.
If we ban immigration from certain countries because of 'cultural issues', then it's clear we should also ban immigration by bankers and those in finance. The culture in those industries is obviously diseased, and they have caused massive harm in this country for their own gain.
I think that is the second manifesto pledge of @Cyclefree’s new business.
Mr. Jessop, jein. Some of the claims (trying to hold hands) are just daft, some are more serious. I've not heard anything on the scale or severity of the Cologne abuse, so it is legitimate to point out the likes of Phillips (I agree that she's an idiot) trying to excuse the more serious case and excoriating the more minor one is huge double standards.
Dr. Foxy, "Women were excluded as guests, recruited as hostesses to titillate the guests and required to comply with non disclosure agreements."
Using that rationale you'd also ban hen parties attended by male strippers.
On the incident(s) itself, we have some allegations. We do not have prosecutions, let alone convictions, and an accusation is not proof of guilt. At the very moment every single rape case is going to be urgently reviewed because of fears over trials not being fair we also have many people assuming the worst guilt possible in the case of The President's Club.
I was surprised by David Davis’ speech yesterday in that he expected the transition/implementation deal to be in place by March. That would indeed be significant progress and remove a lot of the uncertainty for the foreseeable future. I hope that he is right.
I have to admit I think I am passed being surprised by David Davis.
That said I will be exceedingly surprised if he is right about that date.
I was surprised by David Davis’ speech yesterday in that he expected the transition/implementation deal to be in place by March. That would indeed be significant progress and remove a lot of the uncertainty for the foreseeable future. I hope that he is right.
I have to admit I think I am passed being surprised by David Davis.
That said I will be exceedingly surprised if he is right about that date.
It’s interesting that the transition/implementation dichotomy has emerged, causing problems to all (Tory) sides.
On the president's club, It seems it was advertised as a chance for the posh sleazebags to indulge themselves with scantily-clad women. None of the girls went expecting anything else. That's why a tabloid like the FT organised a female journalist to go.
In the nature of tabloid journalism, the actuality is always worse. Unlike the usual tabloid journalism, the journalist did not make her excuses and leave, which she could have done.
Comparing this to Rotherham is the usual hyperbole.
The FT could have run a serious series on the nature of sexual exploitation, but chose to take the sensationalist route.
Mr. Jessop, jein. Some of the claims (trying to hold hands) are just daft, some are more serious. I've not heard anything on the scale or severity of the Cologne abuse, so it is legitimate to point out the likes of Phillips (I agree that she's an idiot) trying to excuse the more serious case and excoriating the more minor one is huge double standards.
Dr. Foxy, "Women were excluded as guests, recruited as hostesses to titillate the guests and required to comply with non disclosure agreements."
Using that rationale you'd also ban hen parties attended by male strippers.
On the incident(s) itself, we have some allegations. We do not have prosecutions, let alone convictions, and an accusation is not proof of guilt. At the very moment every single rape case is going to be urgently reviewed because of fears over trials not being fair we also have many people assuming the worst guilt possible in the case of The President's Club.
Isn't the problem with the President's club that rich people were buying themselves an opt out of proper respect for women, common social norms and possibly the law? There were no NDAs in the Full Monty.
Has anyone else noticed the consistent moral failings of people politically opposed to them?
I gave up trying to explain it to my opponents years ago and now just live as a virtuous example.
It may not be a reassuring example, but there was a German politician called Adolf Something-Or-Other who said something similar - at great length and many times.
If you ever want to read this and many other extended witterings of a not over-bright pub bore with a vast ego and a captive audience, then I can highly recommend Tischgespräche im Fuhrerhauptquartier (Table Talk in the Leader's Headquarters).
Alternatively the Labour and Conservative 2017 manifestoes might fit the bill
I was surprised by David Davis’ speech yesterday in that he expected the transition/implementation deal to be in place by March. That would indeed be significant progress and remove a lot of the uncertainty for the foreseeable future. I hope that he is right.
I have to admit I think I am passed being surprised by David Davis.
That said I will be exceedingly surprised if he is right about that date.
I know what you mean and agree. But presumably the discussions about the framework of that deal are quite advanced behind the scenes. It will be important for the EU as well and will very much set the context for the final deal. My suspicion from what he said yesterday is that this transition will upset some of the more rabid Brexiteers. It is possible the new pressure on May is closely linked to that scenario.
Mr. Jonathan, which rich people? Many attended. Leaving aside the stupid claims (some men tried to hold their waitress' hand!) and looking at the more serious ones (which appear to, essentially, be groping) we don't know who is accused of what.
The NDAs might be there for the reason you suggest, or it might be because rich people getting pissed and perhaps acting raucous didn't want that to make the papers [such behaviour can just be obnoxious, rather than the more serious things that were alleged].
I don't think we should be tarring everybody who ever attended such a dinner with the same brush when nothing has been proven. We should let justice take its course (assuming that's possible in the political atmosphere we now enjoy).
On the president's club, It seems it was advertised as a chance for the posh sleazebags to indulge themselves with scantily-clad women. None of the girls went expecting anything else. That's why a tabloid like the FT organised a female journalist to go.
In the nature of tabloid journalism, the actuality is always worse. Unlike the usual tabloid journalism, the journalist did not make her excuses and leave, which she could have done.
Comparing this to Rotherham is the usual hyperbole.
The FT could have run a serious series on the nature of sexual exploitation, but chose to take the sensationalist route.
No, it isn't hyperbole. Either we have respect for women (and everyone else), or not. As has been seen in the entertainment industry, some people 'felt' themselves above people they had some power over, allowing abuse of men and women over many years. People knew it was going on, but remained silent ("oh, it's just the casting couch").
The same thing is at the root of the abuse in Rotherham, Rochdale, etc: people who felt they had power over others (and often engineered themselves into the position), and used that power to abuse.
Here, some powerful men felt themselves 'above' the women at the event, and felt they could do what they wanted because they are powerful and the women were not.
Has anyone else noticed the consistent moral failings of people politically opposed to them?
I gave up trying to explain it to my opponents years ago and now just live as a virtuous example.
It may not be a reassuring example, but there was a German politician called Adolf Something-Or-Other who said something similar - at great length and many times.
If he had said it with some sense of self depreciating humour he might have been onto something....
And the Labour manifesto was a work of art to be enshrined for future generations to stare and marvel at.
(Okay so maybe I should start including smileys even for statements I think are obviously not serious...)
Mr. Jessop, jein. Some of the claims (trying to hold hands) are just daft, some are more serious. I've not heard anything on the scale or severity of the Cologne abuse, so it is legitimate to point out the likes of Phillips (I agree that she's an idiot) trying to excuse the more serious case and excoriating the more minor one is huge double standards.
(Snip)
On the incident(s) itself, we have some allegations. We do not have prosecutions, let alone convictions, and an accusation is not proof of guilt. At the very moment every single rape case is going to be urgently reviewed because of fears over trials not being fair we also have many people assuming the worst guilt possible in the case of The President's Club.
Mr Dancer, you are one of the people I was referring to.
I also laugh at your ' We do not have prosecutions, let alone convictions, and an accusation is not proof of guilt' comment, and look forward to quoting it at you next time you go on one of your hysterical 'not called Dave' moments over something you've read on your twitter feed ...
(For the record, Cologne had a range of abuses, including groping. If you include those in the Cologne figures, you should include this).
Indeed, it's about abuse of power. Hence the somewhat cynical view of many. Money always talks. In the entertainment industry, many women (and one or two men) complained that they couldn't speak out in the 1980s because no one would believe them. What planet did they live on?
Of course, we thought it was going on, the casting couch was assumed, and we assumed the more famous actors did get a hand up. "It's the rich wot get the pleasure ..."
My point remains that the FT journalist could have walked out, as did one or two of the women, but she suffered for the story to publicise the bleeding obvious (not to help the FT's circulation, obviously, and not earn herself a nice bonus from the editor). And of course, she wouldn't help things along if it went quiet
Yes, I'm a cynic. I expect rich powerful people to take advantage. Yes, I'm a cynic, I expect journalists to over-egg a story if it suits them. It's what people do.
Indeed, it's about abuse of power. Hence the somewhat cynical view of many. Money always talks. In the entertainment industry, many women (and one or two men) complained that they couldn't speak out in the 1980s because no one would believe them. What planet did they live on?
Of course, we thought it was going on, the casting couch was assumed, and we assumed the more famous actors did get a hand up. "It's the rich wot get the pleasure ..."
My point remains that the FT journalist could have walked out, as did one or two of the women, but she suffered for the story to publicise the bleeding obvious (not to help the FT's circulation, obviously, and not earn herself a nice bonus from the editor). And of course, she wouldn't help things along if it went quiet
Yes, I'm a cynic. I expect rich powerful people to take advantage. Yes, I'm a cynic, I expect journalists to over-egg a story if it suits them. It's what people do.
The basic question is whether this was acceptable behaviour on the part of the men. If it was acceptable, then the story has been blown out of proportion. If it was not acceptable behaviour, she was right to stay and not help sweep it under the carpet.
I'm on the side of it being unacceptable behaviour.
However, if you're on the side of it being acceptable behaviour, then you need to consider at what point it becomes unacceptable: and it should not be on the identity of the abuser.
Have you noticed the correlation between those less concerned about the behaviour of President Club guests and backing for Brexit?
No, but there’s a correlation between people who want to control every aspect of the proles lives with those who support EU membership
Is there?
Authoritarianism is found on both right and left, Leave and Remain.
Desire to protect workers from abuse, such as the Presidents Club Hostesses or other hospitality workers in less high profile settings, is only seen as oppressive by those in power, not those on the receiving end.
Thank you for the reasonable discussion. In this case it's about basic respect. With alcohol flowing and many with an inflated idea of their self-entitlement, respect was probably in short supply for a few. But the victims were adults and I doubt if they'll be too shocked by some of the behaviour.
It's a pity that journalists, with a few notable exceptions, decided that gangs grooming twelve and thirteen year old girls in Rotherham were not worthy of attention. And the problem of basic respect there didn't matter so much.
On topic, a third referendum seems like a futile exercise. We had one in 1975 voting to remain. We had one in 2016 voting to leave as the public mood had changed. I'd only back a third referendum if there was a clear and obvious view opinion had changed AND a clear objective question put to the public.
A referendum should be a stamp of approval on a specific proposal - the Americans are very good at these. Ours in 2016 was not, because "leave the European Union" doesn't properly define what we are leaving or what our relationship should be afterwards.
I expect we will have two, or perhaps three options. We will have the "negotiated" deal which I anticipate will satisfy absolutely no-one. We will have the "hurl ourselves onto the rocks" WHO option which loons on here and elsewhere will insist will be fine for dogmatic reasons whilst the combined powers of the city business industry etc will provide in great detail why the loons are indeed delusional loons.
We may have a third option. Barnier may offer "or forget the whole thing and carry on as you are*" with the *being the small print that the rebate is history. In any case the issue is too serious and complex to put to the people. You can't distill this down to a single question...
Thank you for the reasonable discussion. In this case it's about basic respect. With alcohol flowing and many with an inflated idea of their self-entitlement, respect was probably in short supply for a few. But the victims were adults and I doubt if they'll be too shocked by some of the behaviour.
It's a pity that journalists, with a few notable exceptions, decided that gangs grooming twelve and thirteen year old girls in Rotherham were not worthy of attention. And the problem of basic respect there didn't matter so much.
True enough. However, journalists would be equally wrong if they swept other, similar behaviour under the carpet.
We appear to have reached a turning point in attitudes towards such things. A couple of decades ago construction firms started a 'considerate contractor' program that banned wolf-whistling, as they realised it did the image of their industry no good. It appears to have worked. Perhaps banking and insurance should have similar rules, with similar rather draconian punishments.
Mr. Jessop, jein. Some of the claims (trying to hold hands) are just daft, some are more serious. I've not heard anything on the scale or severity of the Cologne abuse, so it is legitimate to point out the likes of Phillips (I agree that she's an idiot) trying to excuse the more serious case and excoriating the more minor one is huge double standards.
Dr. Foxy, "Women were excluded as guests, recruited as hostesses to titillate the guests and required to comply with non disclosure agreements."
Using that rationale you'd also ban hen parties attended by male strippers.
On the incident(s) itself, we have some allegations. We do not have prosecutions, let alone convictions, and an accusation is not proof of guilt. At the very moment every single rape case is going to be urgently reviewed because of fears over trials not being fair we also have many people assuming the worst guilt possible in the case of The President's Club.
Isn't the problem with the President's club that rich people were buying themselves an opt out of proper respect for women, common social norms and possibly the law? There were no NDAs in the Full Monty.
No. The problem is that a bunch of self-entitled jerks were behaving like absolute tossers, presumably egging each other on, and in an environment facilitated by the organisers.
It’s reprehensible but I dont think there is much of a read across to broader culture.
Have you noticed the correlation between those less concerned about the behaviour of President Club guests and backing for Brexit?
No, but there’s a correlation between people who want to control every aspect of the proles lives with those who support EU membership
Is there?
Authoritarianism is found on both right and left, Leave and Remain.
Desire to protect workers from abuse, such as the Presidents Club Hostesses or other hospitality workers in less high profile settings, is only seen as oppressive by those in power, not those on the receiving end.
There’s more of a tendency to want to ban pleasures of which they disapprove on the soft left, I believe. The authoritarian right (like the authoritarian left) is more about restricting freedom.
But the British people are smart. Hence today’s poll opposing banning of single sex events. Presidents Club was unacceptable - that doesn’t mean all single sex events should be banned
Thank you for the reasonable discussion. In this case it's about basic respect. With alcohol flowing and many with an inflated idea of their self-entitlement, respect was probably in short supply for a few. But the victims were adults and I doubt if they'll be too shocked by some of the behaviour.
It's a pity that journalists, with a few notable exceptions, decided that gangs grooming twelve and thirteen year old girls in Rotherham were not worthy of attention. And the problem of basic respect there didn't matter so much.
Setting aside your point about Rotherham which I agree with, the problem with your initial argument is that the world has moved on but some people do not want to recognise that.
We no longer accept casual violence against strangers (or anyone else for that matter)as being acceptable even if we still struggle sometimes to enforce rules against it. I would suggest that we are rightly now seeing the same attitude to casual unwanted sexual contact. Holding a large function which turns a blind eye to behaviour that in other circumstances would be considered criminal cannot be acceptable these days. Indeed I would suggest it has not been acceptable for several decades.
I am certainly not one of those who wants to get rid of things because they are seen to be old fashioned or anachronistic but I do think we should make a stand against the sorts of behaviour that we would rightly consider unacceptable or illegal in other settings.
Thank you for the reasonable discussion. In this case it's about basic respect. With alcohol flowing and many with an inflated idea of their self-entitlement, respect was probably in short supply for a few. But the victims were adults and I doubt if they'll be too shocked by some of the behaviour.
It's a pity that journalists, with a few notable exceptions, decided that gangs grooming twelve and thirteen year old girls in Rotherham were not worthy of attention. And the problem of basic respect there didn't matter so much.
Setting aside your point about Rotherham which I agree with, the problem with your initial argument is that the world has moved on but some people do not want to recognise that.
We no longer accept casual violence against strangers (or anyone else for that matter)as being acceptable even if we still struggle sometimes to enforce rules against it. I would suggest that we are rightly now seeing the same attitude to casual unwanted sexual contact. Holding a large function which turns a blind eye to behaviour that in other circumstances would be considered criminal cannot be acceptable these days. Indeed I would suggest it has not been acceptable for several decades.
I am certainly not one of those who wants to get rid of things because they are seen to be old fashioned or anachronistic but I do think we should make a stand against the sorts of behaviour that we would rightly consider unacceptable or illegal in other settings.
Mr Tyndall,
I read this morning about your health issue. I hope that everything goes well for you and you're better ASAP.
Comments
Remember people getting wound up (rightly) about the abuse of women on the streets of Cologne a couple of years ago? It's incredible to decry that and yet be so blase about this.
Jess Phillips is an idiot. That does not mean people who are the polar opposite of her are not idiots as well.
If we ban immigration from certain countries because of 'cultural issues', then it's clear we should also ban immigration by bankers and those in finance. The culture in those industries is obviously diseased, and they have caused massive harm in this country for their own gain.
Every time the Euroloons open their mouth her ratings improve a notch.
I was surprised by David Davis’ speech yesterday in that he expected the transition/implementation deal to be in place by March. That would indeed be significant progress and remove a lot of the uncertainty for the foreseeable future. I hope that he is right.
Overturning a democratically arrived at decision to reject objectively the best option (membership of the EU) is also unpalatable.
No wonder Theresa May doesn't want to talk about it.
Mr. Jessop, jein. Some of the claims (trying to hold hands) are just daft, some are more serious. I've not heard anything on the scale or severity of the Cologne abuse, so it is legitimate to point out the likes of Phillips (I agree that she's an idiot) trying to excuse the more serious case and excoriating the more minor one is huge double standards.
Dr. Foxy, "Women were excluded as guests, recruited as hostesses to titillate the guests and required to comply with non disclosure agreements."
Using that rationale you'd also ban hen parties attended by male strippers.
On the incident(s) itself, we have some allegations. We do not have prosecutions, let alone convictions, and an accusation is not proof of guilt. At the very moment every single rape case is going to be urgently reviewed because of fears over trials not being fair we also have many people assuming the worst guilt possible in the case of The President's Club.
That said I will be exceedingly surprised if he is right about that date.
I gave up trying to explain it to my opponents years ago and now just live as a virtuous example.
As it was always going to at some point.
In the nature of tabloid journalism, the actuality is always worse. Unlike the usual tabloid journalism, the journalist did not make her excuses and leave, which she could have done.
Comparing this to Rotherham is the usual hyperbole.
The FT could have run a serious series on the nature of sexual exploitation, but chose to take the sensationalist route.
If you ever want to read this and many other extended witterings of a not over-bright pub bore with a vast ego and a captive audience, then I can highly recommend Tischgespräche im Fuhrerhauptquartier (Table Talk in the Leader's Headquarters).
Alternatively the Labour and Conservative 2017 manifestoes might fit the bill
The NDAs might be there for the reason you suggest, or it might be because rich people getting pissed and perhaps acting raucous didn't want that to make the papers [such behaviour can just be obnoxious, rather than the more serious things that were alleged].
I don't think we should be tarring everybody who ever attended such a dinner with the same brush when nothing has been proven. We should let justice take its course (assuming that's possible in the political atmosphere we now enjoy).
The same thing is at the root of the abuse in Rotherham, Rochdale, etc: people who felt they had power over others (and often engineered themselves into the position), and used that power to abuse.
Here, some powerful men felt themselves 'above' the women at the event, and felt they could do what they wanted because they are powerful and the women were not.
It's about abuse of power.
And the Labour manifesto was a work of art to be enshrined for future generations to stare and marvel at.
(Okay so maybe I should start including smileys even for statements I think are obviously not serious...)
I also laugh at your ' We do not have prosecutions, let alone convictions, and an accusation is not proof of guilt' comment, and look forward to quoting it at you next time you go on one of your hysterical 'not called Dave' moments over something you've read on your twitter feed ...
(For the record, Cologne had a range of abuses, including groping. If you include those in the Cologne figures, you should include this).
Indeed, it's about abuse of power. Hence the somewhat cynical view of many. Money always talks. In the entertainment industry, many women (and one or two men) complained that they couldn't speak out in the 1980s because no one would believe them. What planet did they live on?
Of course, we thought it was going on, the casting couch was assumed, and we assumed the more famous actors did get a hand up. "It's the rich wot get the pleasure ..."
My point remains that the FT journalist could have walked out, as did one or two of the women, but she suffered for the story to publicise the bleeding obvious (not to help the FT's circulation, obviously, and not earn herself a nice bonus from the editor). And of course, she wouldn't help things along if it went quiet
Yes, I'm a cynic. I expect rich powerful people to take advantage. Yes, I'm a cynic, I expect journalists to over-egg a story if it suits them. It's what people do.
I'm on the side of it being unacceptable behaviour.
However, if you're on the side of it being acceptable behaviour, then you need to consider at what point it becomes unacceptable: and it should not be on the identity of the abuser.
Authoritarianism is found on both right and left, Leave and Remain.
Desire to protect workers from abuse, such as the Presidents Club Hostesses or other hospitality workers in less high profile settings, is only seen as oppressive by those in power, not those on the receiving end.
Thank you for the reasonable discussion. In this case it's about basic respect. With alcohol flowing and many with an inflated idea of their self-entitlement, respect was probably in short supply for a few. But the victims were adults and I doubt if they'll be too shocked by some of the behaviour.
It's a pity that journalists, with a few notable exceptions, decided that gangs grooming twelve and thirteen year old girls in Rotherham were not worthy of attention. And the problem of basic respect there didn't matter so much.
A referendum should be a stamp of approval on a specific proposal - the Americans are very good at these. Ours in 2016 was not, because "leave the European Union" doesn't properly define what we are leaving or what our relationship should be afterwards.
I expect we will have two, or perhaps three options. We will have the "negotiated" deal which I anticipate will satisfy absolutely no-one. We will have the "hurl ourselves onto the rocks" WHO option which loons on here and elsewhere will insist will be fine for dogmatic reasons whilst the combined powers of the city business industry etc will provide in great detail why the loons are indeed delusional loons.
We may have a third option. Barnier may offer "or forget the whole thing and carry on as you are*" with the *being the small print that the rebate is history. In any case the issue is too serious and complex to put to the people. You can't distill this down to a single question...
We appear to have reached a turning point in attitudes towards such things. A couple of decades ago construction firms started a 'considerate contractor' program that banned wolf-whistling, as they realised it did the image of their industry no good. It appears to have worked. Perhaps banking and insurance should have similar rules, with similar rather draconian punishments.
Edit: it's the considerate constructors scheme:
https://www.ccscheme.org.uk/scheme-applauds-wolf-whistling-ban/
Only about a week since that attack on the hotel there.
It’s reprehensible but I dont think there is much of a read across to broader culture.
But the British people are smart. Hence today’s poll opposing banning of single sex events. Presidents Club was unacceptable - that doesn’t mean all single sex events should be banned
We no longer accept casual violence against strangers (or anyone else for that matter)as being acceptable even if we still struggle sometimes to enforce rules against it. I would suggest that we are rightly now seeing the same attitude to casual unwanted sexual contact. Holding a large function which turns a blind eye to behaviour that in other circumstances would be considered criminal cannot be acceptable these days. Indeed I would suggest it has not been acceptable for several decades.
I am certainly not one of those who wants to get rid of things because they are seen to be old fashioned or anachronistic but I do think we should make a stand against the sorts of behaviour that we would rightly consider unacceptable or illegal in other settings.
I read this morning about your health issue. I hope that everything goes well for you and you're better ASAP.
https://twitter.com/AFP/status/956981568358305794