It would be great to see Oxfam collapse into the heap of shit it has become.
Well, I fundamentally disagree that Oxfam is a 'heap of shit'. And I'm not a fan of theirs.
This may, however, give charities that venture too much into politics pause for thought: if you make enemies they won't help you when you most need it.
Indeed if you look at other organisations such as the British Army Training Unit in Kenya we see a similar pattern of investigatory conclusion.
There must be hundreds of similar scandals out there involving the armed forces for anyone who cared to investigate. The Oxfam antics were fuckin gnothing compared to what goes on in the name of Queen and country on foreign shores.
The ladies of the night in any port city know their best days are when a navy ship docks for a while, doesn’t matter which country's navy.
That’s different to charity working spending donations on hookers in disaster zones, a fair number of whom probably only went into that line of work following the disaster.
The Prostitutes' Party took place in a villa that Oxfam hired for their Head of Operations.
I am pretty sure that if the Army discovered that prostitutes had been entertained on Army property, then the outcome would be disciplinary proceedings.
The double standards in British political life are truly jaw-dropping.
When Damien Green was alleged to have used House of Commons computers to view pornography (allegedly), we had numerous posts saying that any other employee would have been sacked, if working for a Council, or a private company..
We now get a story about prostitutes invited onto an employer's property for a party, and the same people suddenly find this is an absolutely common-place occurrence, hardly worthy of reprimand else the "good work is undone".
Politics is a funny old business and as much about perceptions than reality. Why have the Conservatives regained a small poll lead when it seems we have been confronted daily with reports of internal divisions, feuds, gaffes and the resignations of barely-recognised Cabinet Ministers ?
Is it because no one is interested in politics apart from us ? Possibly.
Is it because people have figured out Jeremy Corbyn is a hapless old Marxist who will ruin the country if allowed anywhere near power and legions of pensioners are already queuing at polling stations to save us from the nightmare ? Maybe.
I'd contend it's because nothing has happened and little appears to be happening. Stodge's Fourth Law of Politics states "the most successful Governments are those which appear to be doing nothing at all". For all the wailing and gnashing of teeth that a vote to leave the EU would plunge us into eternal darkness, that hasn't happened yet.
Indeed, nothing seems to have happened at all since 23/6/16. We can May's tenure as Prime Minister from the Hubristic Era (July 2016 to June 2017) to the Realistic Era (since the GE). Yet she governs as though she won the 150 seat majority so many on here clearly wanted her to obtain. Why? One reason is the lack of internal and external Opposition. Internally, May has no serious rival - she has a number of small comedic opponents - comparable to Heseltine's threat to Thatcher.
Externally, the Labour Party is ineffective because it doesn't have the numbers in Parliament and because on the leading issue of the day (apparently), it has no clear policy.
Well, that makes two of you, then. The reason Labour has no policy is the Conservatives don't have one either. It's hard to oppose when you don't know what you are opposing. We are told by those who live to the NE of London that it's obvious - FTA with the EU . Er, yes, but the Devil is in the detail of that one and perhaps while we want an FTA that may not be what the EU wants.
The absence of policy creates a vacuum of passivity and calm. Life goes on. No one needs to think very hard - indeed, the whole message of the May period has been "Don't worry, Trust Theresa." The Conservatives are now the "don't worry, everything will be all right" Party.
Nothing lasts forever. As time and circumstances and the negotiating process force choices to be made and options to be closed down, so it will become harder to keep everyone on board and the realisation of what life outside the EU "back in control" (workers' rights ?) may be like will start to make the political waters choppier.
I reckon the public see the primary task of politicians as not to get in the way of them just plodding on with their lives. They are wary of anyone who has a political agenda. All the more so for anyone who gets an -ism after their name. So Mayism isn't a thing. Yay! Corbinism is a thing. Boo.....
It would be great to see Oxfam collapse into the heap of shit it has become.
Well, I fundamentally disagree that Oxfam is a 'heap of shit'. And I'm not a fan of theirs.
This may, however, give charities that venture too much into politics pause for thought: if you make enemies they won't help you when you most need it.
Indeed. Hopefully the government withdraw all funding, it's time to get the charities sector back in order, no more political posturing.
Well it’s probably in the interest of the kids who now won’t be abused by sicko Oxfam employees.
Probably because they won’t be able to fund their paedo jaunts on taxpayer money anymore.
Come on, Oxfam had 2000 helpers there, of whom 7 behaved badly (with zero evidence of the child sex to which you hint). You're a Conservative, I'm Labour. Are either of us confident that if we sent 2000 party members abroad to help with somthing, 7 of them wouldn't behave badly? The storm is partly being generated by people who are disillusioned with charities in general and foreign aid charities in particular.
It is though an interesting contrast with the Presidents Club.
The Presidents Club is now so beyond the pale that all donations received must be returned whereas with Oxfam its apparently a few rogue people and taxpayers money must continue to be donated.
There is a big difference. The Presidents Club's sin was not that abuse happened; it was that it seems almost set up to aid abuse by making the people working there second-class.
If Oxfam required the people it was helping to wear black panties, you might have a point ...
Wait a moment.
What has been alleged is very different. At the President's Club, the allegation is that some harassment took place. At Oxfam, the allegation is that some of the prostitutes were underage.
I understand we are dealing with allegations here, but it is pretty clear what the more serious allegation is.
For avoidance of doubt, all such allegations need investigating to establish their veracity.
Well it’s probably in the interest of the kids who now won’t be abused by sicko Oxfam employees.
Probably because they won’t be able to fund their paedo jaunts on taxpayer money anymore.
Come on, Oxfam had 2000 helpers there, of whom 7 behaved badly (with zero evidence of the child sex to which you hint). You're a Conservative, I'm Labour. Are either of us confident that if we sent 2000 party members abroad to help with somthing, 7 of them wouldn't behave badly? The storm is partly being generated by people who are disillusioned with charities in general and foreign aid charities in particular.
It is though an interesting contrast with the Presidents Club.
The Presidents Club is now so beyond the pale that all donations received must be returned whereas with Oxfam its apparently a few rogue people and taxpayers money must continue to be donated.
There is a big difference. The Presidents Club's sin was not that abuse happened; it was that it seems almost set up to aid abuse by making the people working there second-class.
If Oxfam required the people it was helping to wear black panties, you might have a point ...
Did anything criminal happen at the Presidents Club ? Did anything criminal happen at Oxfam ?
These are the relevant questions.
And according to the reports the Oxfam victims were required to wear Oxfam tops and nothing else ie no panties, black or otherwise.
So again rather more serious than the Presidents Club.
Well it’s probably in the interest of the kids who now won’t be abused by sicko Oxfam employees.
Probably because they won’t be able to fund their paedo jaunts on taxpayer money anymore.
Come on, Oxfam had 2000 helpers there, of whom 7 behaved badly (with zero evidence of the child sex to which you hint). You're a Conservative, I'm Labour. Are either of us confident that if we sent 2000 party members abroad to help with somthing, 7 of them wouldn't behave badly? The storm is partly being generated by people who are disillusioned with charities in general and foreign aid charities in particular.
It is though an interesting contrast with the Presidents Club.
The Presidents Club is now so beyond the pale that all donations received must be returned whereas with Oxfam its apparently a few rogue people and taxpayers money must continue to be donated.
There is a big difference. The Presidents Club's sin was not that abuse happened; it was that it seems almost set up to aid abuse by making the people working there second-class.
If Oxfam required the people it was helping to wear black panties, you might have a point ...
They did though, they required the sex "workers" to dress up in Oxfam t-shirts.
It would be great to see Oxfam collapse into the heap of shit it has become.
Great for who?
Great for those who donate to charities with the expectation that their money goes to help the needy, rather than on lavish parties with hookers for the charity’s executives.
Well it’s probably in the interest of the kids who now won’t be abused by sicko Oxfam employees.
Probably because they won’t be able to fund their paedo jaunts on taxpayer money anymore.
Come on, Oxfam had 2000 helpers there, of whom 7 behaved badly (with zero evidence of the child sex to which you hint). You're a Conservative, I'm Labour. Are either of us confident that if we sent 2000 party members abroad to help with somthing, 7 of them wouldn't behave badly? The storm is partly being generated by people who are disillusioned with charities in general and foreign aid charities in particular.
It is though an interesting contrast with the Presidents Club.
The Presidents Club is now so beyond the pale that all donations received must be returned whereas with Oxfam its apparently a few rogue people and taxpayers money must continue to be donated.
There is a big difference. The Presidents Club's sin was not that abuse happened; it was that it seems almost set up to aid abuse by making the people working there second-class.
If Oxfam required the people it was helping to wear black panties, you might have a point ...
Did anything criminal happen at the Presidents Club ? Did anything criminal happen at Oxfam ?
These are the relevant questions.
And according to the reports the Oxfam victims were required to wear Oxfam tops and nothing else ie no panties, black or otherwise.
So again rather more serious than the Presidents Club.
I reckon the public see the primary task of politicians as not to get in the way of them just plodding on with their lives. They are wary of anyone who has a political agenda. All the more so for anyone who gets an -ism after their name. So Mayism isn't a thing. Yay! Corbinism is a thing. Boo.....
Blair and Thatcher had it, more positive signs for Labour going forward.
Well it’s probably in the interest of the kids who now won’t be abused by sicko Oxfam employees.
Probably because they won’t be able to fund their paedo jaunts on taxpayer money anymore.
Come on, Oxfam had 2000 helpers there, of whom 7 behaved badly (with zero evidence of the child sex to which you hint). You're a Conservative, I'm Labour. Are either of us confident that if we sent 2000 party members abroad to help with somthing, 7 of them wouldn't behave badly? The storm is partly being generated by people who are disillusioned with charities in general and foreign aid charities in particular.
It is though an interesting contrast with the Presidents Club.
The Presidents Club is now so beyond the pale that all donations received must be returned whereas with Oxfam its apparently a few rogue people and taxpayers money must continue to be donated.
There is a big difference. The Presidents Club's sin was not that abuse happened; it was that it seems almost set up to aid abuse by making the people working there second-class.
If Oxfam required the people it was helping to wear black panties, you might have a point ...
Wait a moment.
What has been alleged is very different. At the President's Club, the allegation is that some harassment took place. At Oxfam, the allegation is that some of the prostitutes were underage.
I understand we are dealing with allegations here, but it is pretty clear what the more serious allegation is.
For avoidance of doubt, all such allegations need investigating to establish their veracity.
I don't disagree; I was just pointing out where the Presidents Club got it utterly wrong.
Workers in Germany win a 28 hour week.Great news as this is the way forward to a more contented nation who can now focus on education,home and play as much as grafting for a living.A future of automated labour and a universal,basic income,and a 28 hr maximum working week,reduced to 24 in time,could offer huge opportunities to everybody. It is a morning full of optimism.
Well it’s probably in the interest of the kids who now won’t be abused by sicko Oxfam employees.
Probably because they won’t be able to fund their paedo jaunts on taxpayer money anymore.
Come on, Oxfam had 2000 helpers there, of whom 7 behaved badly (with zero evidence of the child sex to which you hint). You're a Conservative, I'm Labour. Are either of us confident that if we sent 2000 party members abroad to help with somthing, 7 of them wouldn't behave badly? The storm is partly being generated by people who are disillusioned with charities in general and foreign aid charities in particular.
It is though an interesting contrast with the Presidents Club.
The Presidents Club is now so beyond the pale that all donations received must be returned whereas with Oxfam its apparently a few rogue people and taxpayers money must continue to be donated.
There is a big difference. The Presidents Club's sin was not that abuse happened; it was that it seems almost set up to aid abuse by making the people working there second-class.
If Oxfam required the people it was helping to wear black panties, you might have a point ...
Don't be so utterly ridiculous. The headline incidents at the Presidents thing (that is, the two highlighted when interviewed on WATO by the ft reporter) were 1. that one bloke got his knob out to show to a waitress, 2. that a bloke said to a waitress "why don't you drink this glass of champagne and then dance on the table for us". In Haiti we are dealing with, reports suggest, full-on sexual intercourse with third world prostitutes in a disaster zone for whom it is likely that sums of money trivial to the payer, are lifer or death to the recipient. But being multiply fucked under financial duress by a lot of strange foreigners is to you morally level pegging with running an odds against chance of having an involuntary view of a stockbroker's todger, so we have to go to the black panties tiebreak? Are you sure?
Well it’s probably in the interest of the kids who now won’t be abused by sicko Oxfam employees.
Probably because they won’t be able to fund their paedo jaunts on taxpayer money anymore.
Come on, Oxfam had 2000 helpers there, of whom 7 behaved badly (with zero evidence of the child sex to which you hint). You're a Conservative, I'm Labour. Are either of us confident that if we sent 2000 party members abroad to help with somthing, 7 of them wouldn't behave badly? The storm is partly being generated by people who are disillusioned with charities in general and foreign aid charities in particular.
It is though an interesting contrast with the Presidents Club.
The Presidents Club is now so beyond the pale that all donations received must be returned whereas with Oxfam its apparently a few rogue people and taxpayers money must continue to be donated.
There is a big difference. The Presidents Club's sin was not that abuse happened; it was that it seems almost set up to aid abuse by making the people working there second-class.
If Oxfam required the people it was helping to wear black panties, you might have a point ...
Did anything criminal happen at the Presidents Club ? Did anything criminal happen at Oxfam ?
These are the relevant questions.
And according to the reports the Oxfam victims were required to wear Oxfam tops and nothing else ie no panties, black or otherwise.
So again rather more serious than the Presidents Club.
I haven't read that. Ouch.
Well I think that's what I read - I've had the horrible realisation that my source might be Rod Liddle so I might have jumped to lurid conclusions.
But the Oxfam event does seem to have been fundamentally exploitative.
It would be great to see Oxfam collapse into the heap of shit it has become.
Well, I fundamentally disagree that Oxfam is a 'heap of shit'. And I'm not a fan of theirs.
This may, however, give charities that venture too much into politics pause for thought: if you make enemies they won't help you when you most need it.
Indeed. Hopefully the government withdraw all funding, it's time to get the charities sector back in order, no more political posturing.
The problem is that politics is at the core of the work of many charities. For instance, Shelter is a charity I have a lot of time for (although they are open to criticism as well). It would be impossible to campaign on housing and homelessness without occasionally getting involved in the politics of the complex issues that underlie them.
I think the problem occurs when a charity takes in ex-politicians as head (usually Labour), and either go outside the remit of their charity, or go lax on their 'own' side whilst criticising the other.
Well it’s probably in the interest of the kids who now won’t be abused by sicko Oxfam employees.
Probably because they won’t be able to fund their paedo jaunts on taxpayer money anymore.
Come on, Oxfam had 2000 helpers there, of whom 7 behaved badly (with zero evidence of the child sex to which you hint). You're a Conservative, I'm Labour. Are either of us confident that if we sent 2000 party members abroad to help with somthing, 7 of them wouldn't behave badly? The storm is partly being generated by people who are disillusioned with charities in general and foreign aid charities in particular.
It is though an interesting contrast with the Presidents Club.
The Presidents Club is now so beyond the pale that all donations received must be returned whereas with Oxfam its apparently a few rogue people and taxpayers money must continue to be donated.
There is a big difference. The Presidents Club's sin was not that abuse happened; it was that it seems almost set up to aid abuse by making the people working there second-class.
If Oxfam required the people it was helping to wear black panties, you might have a point ...
Don't be so utterly ridiculous. The headline incidents at the Presidents thing (that is, the two highlighted when interviewed on WATO by the ft reporter) were 1. that one bloke got his knob out to show to a waitress, 2. that a bloke said to a waitress "why don't you drink this glass of champagne and then dance on the table for us". In Haiti we are dealing with, reports suggest, full-on sexual intercourse with third world prostitutes in a disaster zone for whom it is likely that sums of money trivial to the payer, are lifer or death to the recipient. But being multiply fucked under financial duress by a lot of strange foreigners is to you morally level pegging with running an odds against chance of having an involuntary view of a stockbroker's todger, so we have to go to the black panties tiebreak? Are you sure?
I am not making that equivalence, and I am not being ridiculous.
But both are wrong. It doesn't matter that one is 'less' wrong than another, and both need to be dealt with accordingly.
The defenders of the Presidents Club on here should send their daughters to waitress at similar events, and risk them being groped and treated as lesser by a bunch of exploitative rich men ...
Oxfam does great work. But it does also pursue a political agenda, which means there are those who are going to look for reasons to take a pop at them. (For the record, I'm not one of those people.) Oxfam should have understood that they had to set standards that would immunise themselves from such attacks. But in this situation, they would be open to attack from a far wider cross-section than just those with a grudge.
They do not appear to have managed this situation well in this case - and should therefore expect to take a significant repuatational hit. But it should not be used as a pretext for those with an itchy trigger finger and our 0.7% gross national income aid budget in their sights.
On topic, I think whoever leads the Conservatives into the next election needs a story. May's could a good one. Especially if she does a Blair and takes on the Brexit extremists in her own party. We wake up one morning to a dramatic reshuffle that leaves the phobes out of the picture. From now on it is going to be done May's way. If they don't like it they can challenge her.
I've resolved never to risk voting Tory again, but that could win me over.
There is a clear path from a "long knives" reshuffle to a leadership challenge, and from there to Theresa May leaving Downing Street. Boris can't challenge now because he cannot be sure he'd win -- if she sacked him, he'd have no choice. Rinse and repeat for the other big beasts.
I don't think they'd stay big beasts for long once they'd been sacked.
On topic, I think whoever leads the Conservatives into the next election needs a story. May's could a good one. Especially if she does a Blair and takes on the Brexit extremists in her own party. We wake up one morning to a dramatic reshuffle that leaves the phobes out of the picture. From now on it is going to be done May's way. If they don't like it they can challenge her.
I've resolved never to risk voting Tory again, but that could win me over.
There is a clear path from a "long knives" reshuffle to a leadership challenge, and from there to Theresa May leaving Downing Street. Boris can't challenge now because he cannot be sure he'd win -- if she sacked him, he'd have no choice. Rinse and repeat for the other big beasts.
I don't think they'd stay big beasts for long once they'd been sacked.
The one who became prime minister a few days later would
I reckon the public see the primary task of politicians as not to get in the way of them just plodding on with their lives. They are wary of anyone who has a political agenda. All the more so for anyone who gets an -ism after their name. So Mayism isn't a thing. Yay! Corbinism is a thing. Boo.....
Blair and Thatcher had it, more positive signs for Labour going forward.
I'm thinking Momentum aren't going to take great heart at that!
"Guys, good news and bad news. The good news is we can have an -ism....."
Well it’s probably in the interest of the kids who now won’t be abused by sicko Oxfam employees.
Probably because they won’t be able to fund their paedo jaunts on taxpayer money anymore.
Come on, Oxfam had 2000 helpers there, of whom 7 behaved badly (with zero evidence of the child sex to which you hint). You're a Conservative, I'm Labour. Are either of us confident that if we sent 2000 party members abroad to help with somthing, 7 of them wouldn't behave badly? The storm is partly being generated by people who are disillusioned with charities in general and foreign aid charities in particular.
It is though an interesting contrast with the Presidents Club.
The Presidents Club is now so beyond the pale that all donations received must be returned whereas with Oxfam its apparently a few rogue people and taxpayers money must continue to be donated.
There is a big difference. The Presidents Club's sin was not that abuse happened; it was that it seems almost set up to aid abuse by making the people working there second-class.
If Oxfam required the people it was helping to wear black panties, you might have a point ...
Don't be so utterly ridiculous. The headline incidents at the Presidents thing (that is, the two highlighted when interviewed on WATO by the ft reporter) were 1. that one bloke got his knob out to show to a waitress, 2. that a bloke said to a waitress "why don't you drink this glass of champagne and then dance on the table for us". In Haiti we are dealing with, reports suggest, full-on sexual intercourse with third world prostitutes in a disaster zone for whom it is likely that sums of money trivial to the payer, are lifer or death to the recipient. But being multiply fucked under financial duress by a lot of strange foreigners is to you morally level pegging with running an odds against chance of having an involuntary view of a stockbroker's todger, so we have to go to the black panties tiebreak? Are you sure?
I am not making that equivalence, and I am not being ridiculous.
But both are wrong. It doesn't matter that one is 'less' wrong than another, and both need to be dealt with accordingly.
The defenders of the Presidents Club on here should send their daughters to waitress at similar events, and risk them being groped and treated as lesser by a bunch of exploitative rich men ...
And when they are, be sure to tell them that it's not as bad as what happened at Oxfam.
It would be great to see Oxfam collapse into the heap of shit it has become.
Well, I fundamentally disagree that Oxfam is a 'heap of shit'. And I'm not a fan of theirs.
This may, however, give charities that venture too much into politics pause for thought: if you make enemies they won't help you when you most need it.
Indeed. Hopefully the government withdraw all funding, it's time to get the charities sector back in order, no more political posturing.
The problem is that politics is at the core of the work of many charities. For instance, Shelter is a charity I have a lot of time for (although they are open to criticism as well). It would be impossible to campaign on housing and homelessness without occasionally getting involved in the politics of the complex issues that underlie them.
I think the problem occurs when a charity takes in ex-politicians as head (usually Labour), and either go outside the remit of their charity, or go lax on their 'own' side whilst criticising the other.
Shelter is one of the worst charities out there. They provide shelter to precisely no-one, use paid chuggers to crowd out smaller charities and spend their money on political lobbyists and their own executive rather than on homeless people. They shouldn’t meet the definition of a charity.
Well it’s probably in the interest of the kids who now won’t be abused by sicko Oxfam employees.
Probably because they won’t be able to fund their paedo jaunts on taxpayer money anymore.
Come on, Oxfam had 2000 helpers there, of whom 7 behaved badly (with zero evidence of the child sex to which you hint). You're a Conservative, I'm Labour. Are either of us confident that if we sent 2000 party members abroad to help with somthing, 7 of them wouldn't behave badly? The storm is partly being generated by people who are disillusioned with charities in general and foreign aid charities in particular.
It is though an interesting contrast with the Presidents Club.
The Presidents Club is now so beyond the pale that all donations received must be returned whereas with Oxfam its apparently a few rogue people and taxpayers money must continue to be donated.
There is a big difference. The Presidents Club's sin was not that abuse happened; it was that it seems almost set up to aid abuse by making the people working there second-class.
If Oxfam required the people it was helping to wear black panties, you might have a point ...
Don't be so utterly ridiculous. The headline incidents at the Presidents thing (that is, the two highlighted when interviewed on WATO by the ft reporter) were 1. that one bloke got his knob out to show to a waitress, 2. that a bloke said to a waitress "why don't you drink this glass of champagne and then dance on the table for us". In Haiti we are dealing with, reports suggest, full-on sexual intercourse with third world prostitutes in a disaster zone for whom it is likely that sums of money trivial to the payer, are lifer or death to the recipient. But being multiply fucked under financial duress by a lot of strange foreigners is to you morally level pegging with running an odds against chance of having an involuntary view of a stockbroker's todger, so we have to go to the black panties tiebreak? Are you sure?
I am not making that equivalence, and I am not being ridiculous.
But both are wrong. It doesn't matter that one is 'less' wrong than another, and both need to be dealt with accordingly.
The defenders of the Presidents Club on here should send their daughters to waitress at similar events, and risk them being groped and treated as lesser by a bunch of exploitative rich men ...
How many of the women at the Presidents Club were 'sent' there ?
Well it’s probably in the interest of the kids who now won’t be abused by sicko Oxfam employees.
Probably because they won’t be able to fund their paedo jaunts on taxpayer money anymore.
Come on, Oxfam had 2000 helpers there, of whom 7 behaved badly (with zero evidence of the child sex to which you hint). You're a Conservative, I'm Labour. Are either of us confident that if we sent 2000 party members abroad to help with somthing, 7 of them wouldn't behave badly? The storm is partly being generated by people who are disillusioned with charities in general and foreign aid charities in particular.
It is though an interesting contrast with the Presidents Club.
The Presidents Club is now so beyond the pale that all donations received must be returned whereas with Oxfam its apparently a few rogue people and taxpayers money must continue to be donated.
There is a big difference. The Presidents Club's sin was not that abuse happened; it was that it seems almost set up to aid abuse by making the people working there second-class.
If Oxfam required the people it was helping to wear black panties, you might have a point ...
Don't be so utterly ridiculous. The headline incidents at the Presidents thing (that is, the two highlighted when interviewed on WATO by the ft reporter) were 1. that one bloke got his knob out to show to a waitress, 2. that a bloke said to a waitress "why don't you drink this glass of champagne and then dance on the table for us". In Haiti we are dealing with, reports suggest, full-on sexual intercourse with third world prostitutes in a disaster zone for whom it is likely that sums of money trivial to the payer, are lifer or death to the recipient. But being multiply fucked under financial duress by a lot of strange foreigners is to you morally level pegging with running an odds against chance of having an involuntary view of a stockbroker's todger, so we have to go to the black panties tiebreak? Are you sure?
I am not making that equivalence, and I am not being ridiculous.
But both are wrong. It doesn't matter that one is 'less' wrong than another, and both need to be dealt with accordingly.
The defenders of the Presidents Club on here should send their daughters to waitress at similar events, and risk them being groped and treated as lesser by a bunch of exploitative rich men ...
It does matter whether one thing is worse than another, and your last sentence suggests that you haven't really got the hang of this feminism thing. Unmarried daughters are no longer chattels.
Indeed if you look at other organisations such as the British Army Training Unit in Kenya we see a similar pattern of investigatory conclusion.
There must be hundreds of similar scandals out there involving the armed forces for anyone who cared to investigate. The Oxfam antics were fuckin gnothing compared to what goes on in the name of Queen and country on foreign shores.
Well that's alright then. I don't remember lefties using this argument in defence of the President's Club.
I'm not using it to defend Oxfam; I'm just pointing out there is a rich vein of untapped scandal out there.
Throwing up chaff is a form of defence, and that's exactly what you're doing.
In terms of the respective power (im)balances, the Oxfam staff were in a more powerful position than the President's Club members.
Does anyone have a reliable briefing and summation of the Oxfam mess?
Oxfam had/have a few bad apples (not their fault)
Oxfam don't think normal rules apply to them as they are high in virtue. They think in it is in the greater good to cover this up in case in impacts their funding.
Oxfam have made a mistake in taking this approach.
Indeed if you look at other organisations such as the British Army Training Unit in Kenya we see a similar pattern of investigatory conclusion.
There must be hundreds of similar scandals out there involving the armed forces for anyone who cared to investigate. The Oxfam antics were fuckin gnothing compared to what goes on in the name of Queen and country on foreign shores.
Well that's alright then. I don't remember lefties using this argument in defence of the President's Club.
I'm not using it to defend Oxfam; I'm just pointing out there is a rich vein of untapped scandal out there.
Throwing up chaff is a form of defence, and that's exactly what you're doing.
In terms of the respective power (im)balances, the Oxfam staff were in a more powerful position than the President's Club members.
I never even brought up the armed forces, that was somebody else. Oxfam are heinous twats who deserve everything that's coming to them. The Presidents' Club was depravity LARPing, and as pathetic as it was inappropriate as a consequence, but Oxfam's bearded do gooders smashing brasses in a disaster zone was the genuine article.
None of the people mentioned in the poll are any good. Johnson has a higher profile but isnt popular.
I think if a similar poll had been held in 2005 (and one probably was) there would have been a similar result. I doubt if the vast majority had even heard of David Cameron. Parties often elect leaders and then they become well known rather than the other way round.
The Tories need to skip the "Big Beasts" when choosing their next leader.
Most people have almost certainly never heard of Dominic Raab. Yet he would be the perfect new leader for them.
On topic, I think whoever leads the Conservatives into the next election needs a story. May's could a good one. Especially if she does a Blair and takes on the Brexit extremists in her own party. We wake up one morning to a dramatic reshuffle that leaves the phobes out of the picture. From now on it is going to be done May's way. If they don't like it they can challenge her.
I've resolved never to risk voting Tory again, but that could win me over.
There is a clear path from a "long knives" reshuffle to a leadership challenge, and from there to Theresa May leaving Downing Street. Boris can't challenge now because he cannot be sure he'd win -- if she sacked him, he'd have no choice. Rinse and repeat for the other big beasts.
I don't think they'd stay big beasts for long once they'd been sacked.
On topic, I think whoever leads the Conservatives into the next election needs a story. May's could a good one. Especially if she does a Blair and takes on the Brexit extremists in her own party. We wake up one morning to a dramatic reshuffle that leaves the phobes out of the picture. From now on it is going to be done May's way. If they don't like it they can challenge her.
I've resolved never to risk voting Tory again, but that could win me over.
There is a clear path from a "long knives" reshuffle to a leadership challenge, and from there to Theresa May leaving Downing Street. Boris can't challenge now because he cannot be sure he'd win -- if she sacked him, he'd have no choice. Rinse and repeat for the other big beasts.
I don't think they'd stay big beasts for long once they'd been sacked.
The one who became prime minister a few days later would
I don't think anyone has the numbers to depose May, but if I'm wrong the new leader would have the story I am proposing is necessary.
None of the people mentioned in the poll are any good. Johnson has a higher profile but isnt popular.
I think if a similar poll had been held in 2005 (and one probably was) there would have been a similar result. I doubt if the vast majority had even heard of David Cameron. Parties often elect leaders and then they become well known rather than the other way round.
The Tories need to skip the "Big Beasts" when choosing their next leader.
Most people have almost certainly never heard of Dominic Raab. Yet he would be the perfect new leader for them.
This is all true, but just being new won't last for long. The new leader needs a narrative as well. Cameron's hoodie hugging and husky driving was very effective at the time.
There is a problem with charities that Foxy partly identified.
If you are an abuser, a charitable cloak is a wonderful thing. Look how it helped Saville. His aura of untouchability came from his "good works”.
Or take the Penn State Abuse Scandal. Jerry Sandusky set up a charity to help “disadvantaged youth”, and when the allegations came, he could point to his “charitable worK”.
There are men who do good that they may do evil with greater impunity.
This means that charities have to investigate such allegations especially carefully, thoroughly and openly.
It is though an interesting contrast with the Presidents Club.
The Presidents Club is now so beyond the pale that all donations received must be returned whereas with Oxfam its apparently a few rogue people and taxpayers money must continue to be donated.
There is a big difference. The Presidents Club's sin was not that abuse happened; it was that it seems almost set up to aid abuse by making the people working there second-class.
If Oxfam required the people it was helping to wear black panties, you might have a point ...
Don't be so utterly ridiculous. The headline incidents at the Presidents thing (that is, the two highlighted when interviewed on WATO by the ft reporter) were 1. that one bloke got his knob out to show to a waitress, 2. that a bloke said to a waitress "why don't you drink this glass of champagne and then dance on the table for us". In Haiti we are dealing with, reports suggest, full-on sexual intercourse with third world prostitutes in a disaster zone for whom it is likely that sums of money trivial to the payer, are lifer or death to the recipient. But being multiply fucked under financial duress by a lot of strange foreigners is to you morally level pegging with running an odds against chance of having an involuntary view of a stockbroker's todger, so we have to go to the black panties tiebreak? Are you sure?
I am not making that equivalence, and I am not being ridiculous.
But both are wrong. It doesn't matter that one is 'less' wrong than another, and both need to be dealt with accordingly.
The defenders of the Presidents Club on here should send their daughters to waitress at similar events, and risk them being groped and treated as lesser by a bunch of exploitative rich men ...
How many of the women at the Presidents Club were 'sent' there ?
Exactly. Apart from the journalist who got a job, most of them were professional “hostesses” (escorts) who knew exactly what they were doing and were probably happy to see their numbers in a few of the attendees’ phones at the end of the evening.
Personal anecdote. I got a call a few weeks ago from someone looking for people to demonstrate a computer product at a trade show. Once they asked me to send them portfolio photos I realised they were looking for models rather than IT guys and I told them the job probably wasn’t for me.
Well it’s probably in the interest of the kids who now won’t be abused by sicko Oxfam employees.
Probably because they won’t be able to fund their paedo jaunts on taxpayer money anymore.
Come on, Oxfam had 2000 helpers there, of whom 7 behaved badly (with zero evidence of the child sex to which you hint). You're a Conservative, I'm Labour. Are either of us confident that if we sent 2000 party members abroad to help with somthing, 7 of them wouldn't behave badly? The storm is partly being generated by people who are disillusioned with charities in general and foreign aid charities in particular.
It is though an interesting contrast with the Presidents Club.
The Presidents Club is now so beyond the pale that all donations received must be returned whereas with Oxfam its apparently a few rogue people and taxpayers money must continue to be donated.
There is a big difference. The Presidents Club's sin was not that abuse happened; it was that it seems almost set up to aid abuse by making the people working there second-class.
If Oxfam required the people it was helping to wear black panties, you might have a point ...
Don't be so utterly ridiculous. The headline incidents at the Presidents thing (that is, the two highlighted when interviewed on WATO by the ft reporter) were 1. that one bloke got his knob out to show to a waitress, 2. that a bloke said to a waitress "why don't you drink this glass of champagne and then dance on the table for us". In Haiti we are dealing with, reports suggest, full-on sexual intercourse with third world prostitutes in a disaster zone for whom it is likely that sums of money trivial to the payer, are lifer or death to the recipient. But being multiply fucked under financial duress by a lot of strange foreigners is to you morally level pegging with running an odds against chance of having an involuntary view of a stockbroker's todger, so we have to go to the black panties tiebreak? Are you sure?
little difference and the same would have happened if the losers thought for a minute they could induce the waitresses to lower themselves to the same level as the rich drunken "I am a big shot" losers.
None of the people mentioned in the poll are any good. Johnson has a higher profile but isnt popular.
I think if a similar poll had been held in 2005 (and one probably was) there would have been a similar result. I doubt if the vast majority had even heard of David Cameron. Parties often elect leaders and then they become well known rather than the other way round.
The Tories need to skip the "Big Beasts" when choosing their next leader.
Most people have almost certainly never heard of Dominic Raab. Yet he would be the perfect new leader for them.
This is all true, but just being new won't last for long. The new leader needs a narrative as well. Cameron's hoodie hugging and husky driving was very effective at the time.
For brain dead morons maybe, people with more than a few brain cells knew he was just another Tory spiv spouting bullsh**
None of the people mentioned in the poll are any good. Johnson has a higher profile but isnt popular.
I think if a similar poll had been held in 2005 (and one probably was) there would have been a similar result. I doubt if the vast majority had even heard of David Cameron. Parties often elect leaders and then they become well known rather than the other way round.
The Tories need to skip the "Big Beasts" when choosing their next leader.
Most people have almost certainly never heard of Dominic Raab. Yet he would be the perfect new leader for them.
Yes another unknown talentless nobody, great idea.
It is though an interesting contrast with the Presidents Club.
The Presidents Club is now so beyond the pale that all donations received must be returned whereas with Oxfam its apparently a few rogue people and taxpayers money must continue to be donated.
There is a big difference. The Presidents Club's sin was not that abuse happened; it was that it seems almost set up to aid abuse by making the people working there second-class.
If Oxfam required the people it was helping to wear black panties, you might have a point ...
Don't be so utterly ridiculous. The headline incidents at the Presidents thing (that is, the two highlighted when interviewed on WATO by the ft reporter) were 1. that one bloke got his knob out to show to a waitress, 2. that a bloke said to a waitress "why don't you drink this glass of champagne and then dance on the table for us". In Haiti we are dealing with, reports suggest, full-on sexual intercourse with third world prostitutes in a disaster zone for whom it is likely that sums of money trivial to the payer, are lifer or death to the recipient. But being multiply fucked under financial duress by a lot of strange foreigners is to you morally level pegging with running an odds against chance of having an involuntary view of a stockbroker's todger, so we have to go to the black panties tiebreak? Are you sure?
I am not making that equivalence, and I am not being ridiculous.
But both are wrong. It doesn't matter that one is 'less' wrong than another, and both need to be dealt with accordingly.
The defenders of the Presidents Club on here should send their daughters to waitress at similar events, and risk them being groped and treated as lesser by a bunch of exploitative rich men ...
How many of the women at the Presidents Club were 'sent' there ?
Exactly. Apart from the journalist who got a job, most of them were professional “hostesses” (escorts) who knew exactly what they were doing and were probably happy to see their numbers in a few of the attendees’ phones at the end of the evening.
Personal anecdote. I got a call a few weeks ago from someone looking for people to demonstrate a computer product at a trade show. Once they asked me to send them portfolio photos I realised they were looking for models rather than IT guys and I told them the job probably wasn’t for me.
Is it not possible that there are some IT specialists who are also attractive? Not all IT women have beards.
She needs to wait until after Brexit to make her play. She is far too remainery to win at present.
LOL, she has been found wanting , only so many times you can be photographed on a buffalo or a tank, at some point you actually need to be able to last an interview.
She needs to wait until after Brexit to make her play. She is far too remainery to win at present.
LOL, she has been found wanting , only so many times you can be photographed on a buffalo or a tank, at some point you actually need to be able to last an interview.
I tend to agree - if I wanted to listen to a chippy Scottish woman berating this that and the other I would phone my mother more often.
On topic, I think whoever leads the Conservatives into the next election needs a story. May's could a good one. Especially if she does a Blair and takes on the Brexit extremists in her own party. We wake up one morning to a dramatic reshuffle that leaves the phobes out of the picture. From now on it is going to be done May's way. If they don't like it they can challenge her.
I've resolved never to risk voting Tory again, but that could win me over.
There is a clear path from a "long knives" reshuffle to a leadership challenge, and from there to Theresa May leaving Downing Street. Boris can't challenge now because he cannot be sure he'd win -- if she sacked him, he'd have no choice. Rinse and repeat for the other big beasts.
I don't think they'd stay big beasts for long once they'd been sacked.
Which is why they'd need to challenge May immediately. That's the point. It is an unstable equilibrium -- none of the major players, including the PM, can act without risking their own demise. All are safe provided no-one makes any sudden movement.
None of the people mentioned in the poll are any good. Johnson has a higher profile but isnt popular.
I think if a similar poll had been held in 2005 (and one probably was) there would have been a similar result. I doubt if the vast majority had even heard of David Cameron. Parties often elect leaders and then they become well known rather than the other way round.
The Tories need to skip the "Big Beasts" when choosing their next leader.
Most people have almost certainly never heard of Dominic Raab. Yet he would be the perfect new leader for them.
This is all true, but just being new won't last for long. The new leader needs a narrative as well. Cameron's hoodie hugging and husky driving was very effective at the time.
For brain dead morons maybe, people with more than a few brain cells knew he was just another Tory spiv spouting bullsh**
She needs to wait until after Brexit to make her play. She is far too remainery to win at present.
LOL, she has been found wanting , only so many times you can be photographed on a buffalo or a tank, at some point you actually need to be able to last an interview.
I tend to agree - if I wanted to listen to a chippy Scottish woman berating this that and the other I would phone my mother more often.
I bet your ,mother would do a better job than Ruthie. She has been in hiding for months apart from her weekly savaging at FM's questions. Meanwhile the even dumber halfwits they have as MP's and MSP's cause havoc with their racist and anti pleb comments. Tories really are in trouble.
Don't be so utterly ridiculous. The headline incidents at the Presidents thing (that is, the two highlighted when interviewed on WATO by the ft reporter) were 1. that one bloke got his knob out to show to a waitress, 2. that a bloke said to a waitress "why don't you drink this glass of champagne and then dance on the table for us". In Haiti we are dealing with, reports suggest, full-on sexual intercourse with third world prostitutes in a disaster zone for whom it is likely that sums of money trivial to the payer, are lifer or death to the recipient. But being multiply fucked under financial duress by a lot of strange foreigners is to you morally level pegging with running an odds against chance of having an involuntary view of a stockbroker's todger, so we have to go to the black panties tiebreak? Are you sure?
I am not making that equivalence, and I am not being ridiculous.
But both are wrong. It doesn't matter that one is 'less' wrong than another, and both need to be dealt with accordingly.
The defenders of the Presidents Club on here should send their daughters to waitress at similar events, and risk them being groped and treated as lesser by a bunch of exploitative rich men ...
How many of the women at the Presidents Club were 'sent' there ?
Exactly. Apart from the journalist who got a job, most of them were professional “hostesses” (escorts) who knew exactly what they were doing and were probably happy to see their numbers in a few of the attendees’ phones at the end of the evening.
Personal anecdote. I got a call a few weeks ago from someone looking for people to demonstrate a computer product at a trade show. Once they asked me to send them portfolio photos I realised they were looking for models rather than IT guys and I told them the job probably wasn’t for me.
Is it not possible that there are some IT specialists who are also attractive? Not all IT women have beards.
Indeed. I did once hire a lovely Ukrainian lady IT specialist, some of the men in the office occasionally used to pretend to have forgotten their passwords so they could call her up.
Not me though, I’m a normal looking IT guy - with slightly better than average social skills.
Oxfam does great work. But it does also pursue a political agenda, which means there are those who are going to look for reasons to take a pop at them. (For the record, I'm not one of those people.) Oxfam should have understood that they had to set standards that would immunise themselves from such attacks. But in this situation, they would be open to attack from a far wider cross-section than just those with a grudge.
They do not appear to have managed this situation well in this case - and should therefore expect to take a significant repuatational hit. But it should not be used as a pretext for those with an itchy trigger finger and our 0.7% gross national income aid budget in their sights.
Agree with all of this. Hopefully this will be a teachable moment for other organisations and Oxfam.
She needs to wait until after Brexit to make her play. She is far too remainery to win at present.
LOL, she has been found wanting , only so many times you can be photographed on a buffalo or a tank, at some point you actually need to be able to last an interview.
I tend to agree - if I wanted to listen to a chippy Scottish woman berating this that and the other I would phone my mother more often.
I bet your ,mother would do a better job than Ruthie. She has been in hiding for months apart from her weekly savaging at FM's questions. Meanwhile the even dumber halfwits they have as MP's and MSP's cause havoc with their racist and anti pleb comments. Tories really are in trouble.
Mum likes Ruth but she's not convinced she's not a bit wet. Perhaps you have to be a bit damp to appeal in Scotland.
Workers in Germany win a 28 hour week.Great news as this is the way forward to a more contented nation who can now focus on education,home and play as much as grafting for a living.A future of automated labour and a universal,basic income,and a 28 hr maximum working week,reduced to 24 in time,could offer huge opportunities to everybody. It is a morning full of optimism.
How would you feel about your Prime Minister, Ministers, MPs, doctors, surgeons, dentists, ambulance drivers, paramedics, firemen, prison officers and policemen working just 28 hours a week?
None of the people mentioned in the poll are any good. Johnson has a higher profile but isnt popular.
I think if a similar poll had been held in 2005 (and one probably was) there would have been a similar result. I doubt if the vast majority had even heard of David Cameron. Parties often elect leaders and then they become well known rather than the other way round.
The Tories need to skip the "Big Beasts" when choosing their next leader.
Most people have almost certainly never heard of Dominic Raab. Yet he would be the perfect new leader for them.
Yes another unknown talentless nobody, great idea.
Unknown and talentless politicians still succeed. Labour has a talentless politician who just lost a third election for his party and they had a knees up to celebrate.
The number of articles in the Murdoch press decrying the influence of a billionaire foreigner on UK politics is causing my head to spin
For a donation that's probably less than a day's earnings for him, George Soros has managed to raise his name recognition no end.
Just reading 'The square and the tower' by Niall Ferguson. Funnily enough, on about page 10, he notes the enduring belief in a decent wodge of US voters that Soros is a leading member of the Illuminati who control the world from behind the scenes. Around 20% in surveys.
Workers in Germany win a 28 hour week.Great news as this is the way forward to a more contented nation who can now focus on education,home and play as much as grafting for a living.A future of automated labour and a universal,basic income,and a 28 hr maximum working week,reduced to 24 in time,could offer huge opportunities to everybody. It is a morning full of optimism.
How would you feel about your Prime Minister, Ministers, MPs, doctors, surgeons, dentists, ambulance drivers, paramedics, firemen, prison officers and policemen working just 28 hours a week?
None of the people mentioned in the poll are any good. Johnson has a higher profile but isnt popular.
I think if a similar poll had been held in 2005 (and one probably was) there would have been a similar result. I doubt if the vast majority had even heard of David Cameron. Parties often elect leaders and then they become well known rather than the other way round.
The Tories need to skip the "Big Beasts" when choosing their next leader.
Most people have almost certainly never heard of Dominic Raab. Yet he would be the perfect new leader for them.
Raab is just another blank slate, like my own suggestion of Lidington after a single PMQs in which he looked better than both PM and LOTO. You could add James Cleverly or Rory Stewart or half a dozen others. Tom Tugendhat and David Gauke are two whose spelling I've had to check.
But unless May outlasts her Cabinet, the winner will come from there. Hammond is the grown-up option if it turns out he was right about Brexit. Hunt is the blank slate, grey man who can come through the middle. Boris is the charismatic, proven winner the party will turn to if Labour opens up a 20 point lead. Counter-intuitively, David Davis might now be the Michael Howard option on account of his age, since he can credibly promise to hand over the reins after a year or so of blooding the next generation.
The number of articles in the Murdoch press decrying the influence of a billionaire foreigner on UK politics is causing my head to spin
For a donation that's probably less than a day's earnings for him, George Soros has managed to raise his name recognition no end.
Just reading 'The square and the tower' by Niall Ferguson. Funnily enough, on about page 10, he notes the enduring belief in a decent wodge of US voters that Soros is a leading member of the Illuminati who control the world from behind the scenes. Around 20% in surveys.
If you go looking at some of the conspiracy theories circulating on the hard right about George Soros, you will be astonished and appalled.
It's against this background that the Telegraph's splash has to be understood. Of course it's fine to write about him and certainly his donation is newsworthy. But labelling it a "secret plot" when there was nothing secret about it and when George Soros is already subjected to highly unsavoury abuse was irresponsible at best.
Workers in Germany win a 28 hour week.Great news as this is the way forward to a more contented nation who can now focus on education,home and play as much as grafting for a living.A future of automated labour and a universal,basic income,and a 28 hr maximum working week,reduced to 24 in time,could offer huge opportunities to everybody. It is a morning full of optimism.
How would you feel about your Prime Minister, Ministers, MPs, doctors, surgeons, dentists, ambulance drivers, paramedics, firemen, prison officers and policemen working just 28 hours a week?
German industry routinely outshines ours and has done for decades, so they must be doing something right. This 28-hour week is a short-term thing but Germany has state investment and state holdings in industry, workers councils, a female head of government -- there must be something we can copy!
Don't be so utterly ridiculous. The headline incidents at the Presidents thing (that is, the two highlighted when interviewed on WATO by the ft reporter) were 1. that one bloke got his knob out to show to a waitress, 2. that a bloke said to a waitress "why don't you drink this glass of champagne and then dance on the table for us". In Haiti we are dealing with, reports suggest, full-on sexual intercourse with third world prostitutes in a disaster zone for whom it is likely that sums of money trivial to the payer, are lifer or death to the recipient. But being multiply fucked under financial duress by a lot of strange foreigners is to you morally level pegging with running an odds against chance of having an involuntary view of a stockbroker's todger, so we have to go to the black panties tiebreak? Are you sure?
I am not making that equivalence, and I am not being ridiculous.
But both are wrong. It doesn't matter that one is 'less' wrong than another, and both need to be dealt with accordingly.
The defenders of the Presidents Club on here should send their daughters to waitress at similar events, and risk them being groped and treated as lesser by a bunch of exploitative rich men ...
How many of the women at the Presidents Club were 'sent' there ?
Exactly. Apart from the journalist who got a job, most of them were professional “hostesses” (escorts) who knew exactly what they were doing and were probably happy to see their numbers in a few of the attendees’ phones at the end of the evening.
Personal anecdote. I got a call a few weeks ago from someone looking for people to demonstrate a computer product at a trade show. Once they asked me to send them portfolio photos I realised they were looking for models rather than IT guys and I told them the job probably wasn’t for me.
Is it not possible that there are some IT specialists who are also attractive? Not all IT women have beards.
Indeed. I did once hire a lovely Ukrainian lady IT specialist, some of the men in the office occasionally used to pretend to have forgotten their passwords so they could call her up.
Not me though, I’m a normal looking IT guy - with slightly better than average social skills.
She needs to wait until after Brexit to make her play. She is far too remainery to win at present.
LOL, she has been found wanting , only so many times you can be photographed on a buffalo or a tank, at some point you actually need to be able to last an interview.
I tend to agree - if I wanted to listen to a chippy Scottish woman berating this that and the other I would phone my mother more often.
I bet your ,mother would do a better job than Ruthie. She has been in hiding for months apart from her weekly savaging at FM's questions. Meanwhile the even dumber halfwits they have as MP's and MSP's cause havoc with their racist and anti pleb comments. Tories really are in trouble.
Mum likes Ruth but she's not convinced she's not a bit wet. Perhaps you have to be a bit damp to appeal in Scotland.
She does pretend well that she cares for anybody other than herself. Like the rest of the UK, many if not majority of the public are easily taken in here by spivs and snake oil sellers
Workers in Germany win a 28 hour week.Great news as this is the way forward to a more contented nation who can now focus on education,home and play as much as grafting for a living.A future of automated labour and a universal,basic income,and a 28 hr maximum working week,reduced to 24 in time,could offer huge opportunities to everybody. It is a morning full of optimism.
How would you feel about your Prime Minister, Ministers, MPs, doctors, surgeons, dentists, ambulance drivers, paramedics, firemen, prison officers and policemen working just 28 hours a week?
For some of them it would be a big increase, ie the first 3.
Workers in Germany win a 28 hour week.Great news as this is the way forward to a more contented nation who can now focus on education,home and play as much as grafting for a living.A future of automated labour and a universal,basic income,and a 28 hr maximum working week,reduced to 24 in time,could offer huge opportunities to everybody. It is a morning full of optimism.
How would you feel about your Prime Minister, Ministers, MPs, doctors, surgeons, dentists, ambulance drivers, paramedics, firemen, prison officers and policemen working just 28 hours a week?
German industry routinely outshines ours and has done for decades, so they must be doing something right. This 28-hour week is a short-term thing but Germany has state investment and state holdings in industry, workers councils, a female head of government -- there must be something we can copy!
Our main competitor is a german engineering firm, and a 28 hr working week is pretty laughable in the glass industry so hopefully they'll be adversely affected
The Pritti quotes from the Sun article on Oxfam are great value
“Why was a government department not calling for prosecutions and taking money away from Oxfam”
“People need to go away and ask questions about why they didn’t do more at the time”
May be we should ask the former SoS?
Lol, she’s only mentioning it now the Times got the scoop. If she’s been brave she’d have run with it when she was in charge of the relevant department.
She says that her officials told her that she didn’t have sufficient evidence. (It was known that blue hats were doing it but not amid organisations)
So you don’t go public - but you ask the right questions of Oxfam
The Oxfam story is following exactly the same trajectory of all scandals and botched investigations in pretty much all fields, from banking to newspapers. They are memorably set out in my 10 Investigation Stages, from the initial stage - it is all down to 1 or 2 rotten apples - to the final stage when the organisation having, finally and painfully, cleaned up its act, finds that long after the events in question, its reputation is still adversely impacted by those events.
We are still at the beginning of this cycle.
Stage 11 of course is when all those with any knowledge and experience have left and the whole dismal cycle starts all over again when the newbies are in charge and think they have nothing to learn from the experience of their elders.
Anyway, my darlings, it is the most gloriously sunny - if frosty and cold - day here in North London. The crocuses are beginning to peak out of the ground, as are the iris reticulata, the Christmas box in the front garden is sending out clouds of the most intense and delightful vanilla scent and the flowering quince (sarcococca confusa and chaenomeles, respectively, for the keen gardeners amongst you) will be flowering soon.
I am in a good mood - if a touch apprehensive at whether this will work - because my website is now officially "live" so I will have to go out and market and sell and, with luck and hard work, make a success of my venture. Fingers crossed and all that....
Obviously I have not put this on the business cards but the essence of it is teaching bankers not to be fuckwits. Teaching aid workers and journalists and the CPS and captains of industry and MPs not to be fuckwits could be added to the list. All in good time, eh.....
On a more serious note, if anyone wants to know more please vm me.
The number of articles in the Murdoch press decrying the influence of a billionaire foreigner on UK politics is causing my head to spin
For a donation that's probably less than a day's earnings for him, George Soros has managed to raise his name recognition no end.
Just reading 'The square and the tower' by Niall Ferguson. Funnily enough, on about page 10, he notes the enduring belief in a decent wodge of US voters that Soros is a leading member of the Illuminati who control the world from behind the scenes. Around 20% in surveys.
Anyway, my darlings, it is the most gloriously sunny - if frosty and cold - day here in North London. The crocuses are beginning to peak out of the ground, as are the iris reticulata, the Christmas box in the front garden is sending out clouds of the most intense and delightful vanilla scent and the flowering quince (sarcococca confusa and chaenomeles, respectively, for the keen gardeners amongst you) will be flowering soon.
I am in a good mood - if a touch apprehensive at whether this will work - because my website is now officially "live" so I will have to go out and market and sell and, with luck and hard work, make a success of my venture. Fingers crossed and all that....
Obviously I have not put this on the business cards but the essence of it is teaching bankers not to be fuckwits. Teaching aid workers and journalists and the CPS and captains of industry and MPs not to be fuckwits could be added to the list. All in good time, eh.....
On a more serious note, if anyone wants to know more please vm me.
Good luck with the business, I’ll VM you later, am currently working with a few financial companies in the Middle East who may be interested.
The number of articles in the Murdoch press decrying the influence of a billionaire foreigner on UK politics is causing my head to spin
For a donation that's probably less than a day's earnings for him, George Soros has managed to raise his name recognition no end.
Just reading 'The square and the tower' by Niall Ferguson. Funnily enough, on about page 10, he notes the enduring belief in a decent wodge of US voters that Soros is a leading member of the Illuminati who control the world from behind the scenes. Around 20% in surveys.
Well it’s probably in the interest of the kids who now won’t be abused by sicko Oxfam employees.
Probably because they won’t be able to fund their paedo jaunts on taxpayer money anymore.
Come on, Oxfam had 2000 helpers there, of whom 7 behaved badly (with zero evidence of the child sex to which you hint). You're a Conservative, I'm Labour. Are either of us confident that if we sent 2000 party members abroad to help with somthing, 7 of them wouldn't behave badly? The storm is partly being generated by people who are disillusioned with charities in general and foreign aid charities in particular.
I don't think that last sentence is entirely fair, though there is some truth in what you write.
There have been issues in the past with other aid agencies, notably the UN - there was a whole book written about it - abusing their power to take advantage of the locals, including trading food/goodies for sex. So Oxfam are not the first to find themselves being attacked. Even if the misbehaviour is only carried out by a minority, the concern is that the investigations were not thorough and that miscreants were not properly punished - either by being allowed to move to other jobs or by their alleged crimes not being referred to the authorities in the countries concerned or elsewhere. Any such abuses of power, especially of desperate people, mainly women, is utterly wrong and appalling.
People give generously to charities and want to know that their money is being well spent on those who really need it. Such stories risk - very probably unfairly - the reputation of other charities who do very good work. So it is important to get to the bottom of what went wrong and make sure that all possible steps are taken to try and prevent a repetition, regardless of whether some who are digging up this story are doing so for ulterior motives.
And nothing ever changes! Why do people insist on this stupidity of asserting what you thought in the circumstances of 1985 is applicable to and the same as you think in the circumstances of 2018?
Maybe they don't have the intellectual capacity to think or the senses to see. Change is all around you.
This is applicable to the above dumb Anna comment and to many comments made about, for example, Jeremy Corbyn.
I suspect that there is a stronger possibility that Jeremy Corbyn has more static and entrenched views than Thatcher had, as she was a scientist and would, I assume, amend her views to changing evidence.
Anyway, my darlings, it is the most gloriously sunny - if frosty and cold - day here in North London. The crocuses are beginning to peak out of the ground, as are the iris reticulata, the Christmas box in the front garden is sending out clouds of the most intense and delightful vanilla scent and the flowering quince (sarcococca confusa and chaenomeles, respectively, for the keen gardeners amongst you) will be flowering soon.
I am in a good mood - if a touch apprehensive at whether this will work - because my website is now officially "live" so I will have to go out and market and sell and, with luck and hard work, make a success of my venture. Fingers crossed and all that....
Obviously I have not put this on the business cards but the essence of it is teaching bankers not to be fuckwits. Teaching aid workers and journalists and the CPS and captains of industry and MPs not to be fuckwits could be added to the list. All in good time, eh.....
On a more serious note, if anyone wants to know more please vm me.
We have crocuses out here (the primroses have been out since before Christmas). Bright blue skies, a dusting of snow, melting in the warm sunshine. A pair of bullfinches on the hedge. God is in his Devon heaven.
Good luck with your venture. I may have interested parties in the captains of industry to be added phase. I will VM.
(I do like the idea of a business card that has on the reverse "Oi! Fuckwits!! NO!!!"....)
The Common Market, then the Single Market was fine. If they'd kept the project as a trading relationship between independent nation states it would be fine.
Unfortunately the Single Market/European Union is morphing into a United States Of Europe - Something the UK can't be a part of (and I don't think Mrs Thatcher would've wanted to be part of either)
And nothing ever changes! Why do people insist on this stupidity of asserting what you thought in the circumstances of 1985 is applicable to and the same as you think in the circumstances of 2018?
Maybe they don't have the intellectual capacity to think or the senses to see. Change is all around you.
This is applicable to the above dumb Anna comment and to many comments made about, for example, Jeremy Corbyn.
I suspect that there is a stronger possibility that Jeremy Corbyn has more static and entrenched views than Thatcher had, as she was a scientist and would, I assume, amend her views to changing evidence.
The speech linked to shows her reasoning: good for business in a nutshell. Migration isn't mentioned. So, yes, things have changed. FoM has killed the single market, at least for enough of the British voters to get to the point that they want out.
Comments
This may, however, give charities that venture too much into politics pause for thought: if you make enemies they won't help you when you most need it.
I am pretty sure that if the Army discovered that prostitutes had been entertained on Army property, then the outcome would be disciplinary proceedings.
The double standards in British political life are truly jaw-dropping.
When Damien Green was alleged to have used House of Commons computers to view pornography (allegedly), we had numerous posts saying that any other employee would have been sacked, if working for a Council, or a private company..
We now get a story about prostitutes invited onto an employer's property for a party, and the same people suddenly find this is an absolutely common-place occurrence, hardly worthy of reprimand else the "good work is undone".
What has been alleged is very different. At the President's Club, the allegation is that some harassment took place. At Oxfam, the allegation is that some of the prostitutes were underage.
I understand we are dealing with allegations here, but it is pretty clear what the more serious allegation is.
For avoidance of doubt, all such allegations need investigating to establish their veracity.
Did anything criminal happen at Oxfam ?
These are the relevant questions.
And according to the reports the Oxfam victims were required to wear Oxfam tops and nothing else ie no panties, black or otherwise.
So again rather more serious than the Presidents Club.
It is a morning full of optimism.
But the Oxfam event does seem to have been fundamentally exploitative.
I think the problem occurs when a charity takes in ex-politicians as head (usually Labour), and either go outside the remit of their charity, or go lax on their 'own' side whilst criticising the other.
But both are wrong. It doesn't matter that one is 'less' wrong than another, and both need to be dealt with accordingly.
The defenders of the Presidents Club on here should send their daughters to waitress at similar events, and risk them being groped and treated as lesser by a bunch of exploitative rich men ...
1. I've broken the zip on my coat
2. I have now realised that I have left my scarf behind on the train.
Never happened when we had a Labour government
They do not appear to have managed this situation well in this case - and should therefore expect to take a significant repuatational hit. But it should not be used as a pretext for those with an itchy trigger finger and our 0.7% gross national income aid budget in their sights.
You've never had it so good.
"Guys, good news and bad news. The good news is we can have an -ism....."
In terms of the respective power (im)balances, the Oxfam staff were in a more powerful position than the President's Club members.
Oxfam don't think normal rules apply to them as they are high in virtue. They think in it is in the greater good to cover this up in case in impacts their funding.
Oxfam have made a mistake in taking this approach.
I think if a similar poll had been held in 2005 (and one probably was) there would have been a similar result. I doubt if the vast majority had even heard of David Cameron. Parties often elect leaders and then they become well known rather than the other way round.
The Tories need to skip the "Big Beasts" when choosing their next leader.
Most people have almost certainly never heard of Dominic Raab. Yet he would be the perfect new leader for them.
https://www.thenational.ae/uae/emirates-firms-up-orders-for-36-a380s-worth-16-billion-1.703741
If you are an abuser, a charitable cloak is a wonderful thing. Look how it helped Saville. His aura of untouchability came from his "good works”.
Or take the Penn State Abuse Scandal. Jerry Sandusky set up a charity to help “disadvantaged youth”, and when the allegations came, he could point to his “charitable worK”.
There are men who do good that they may do evil with greater impunity.
This means that charities have to investigate such allegations especially carefully, thoroughly and openly.
Personal anecdote. I got a call a few weeks ago from someone looking for people to demonstrate a computer product at a trade show. Once they asked me to send them portfolio photos I realised they were looking for models rather than IT guys and I told them the job probably wasn’t for me.
No wonder most say none of the above.
Not me though, I’m a normal looking IT guy - with slightly better than average social skills.
Hopefully this will be a teachable moment for other organisations and Oxfam.
But unless May outlasts her Cabinet, the winner will come from there. Hammond is the grown-up option if it turns out he was right about Brexit. Hunt is the blank slate, grey man who can come through the middle. Boris is the charismatic, proven winner the party will turn to if Labour opens up a 20 point lead. Counter-intuitively, David Davis might now be the Michael Howard option on account of his age, since he can credibly promise to hand over the reins after a year or so of blooding the next generation.
It's against this background that the Telegraph's splash has to be understood. Of course it's fine to write about him and certainly his donation is newsworthy. But labelling it a "secret plot" when there was nothing secret about it and when George Soros is already subjected to highly unsavoury abuse was irresponsible at best.
https://twitter.com/fox_ldn/status/962740686951985156
https://twitter.com/spectator/status/963002927727169536
We are still at the beginning of this cycle.
Stage 11 of course is when all those with any knowledge and experience have left and the whole dismal cycle starts all over again when the newbies are in charge and think they have nothing to learn from the experience of their elders.
I am in a good mood - if a touch apprehensive at whether this will work - because my website is now officially "live" so I will have to go out and market and sell and, with luck and hard work, make a success of my venture. Fingers crossed and all that....
Obviously I have not put this on the business cards but the essence of it is teaching bankers not to be fuckwits. Teaching aid workers and journalists and the CPS and captains of industry and MPs not to be fuckwits could be added to the list. All in good time, eh.....
On a more serious note, if anyone wants to know more please vm me.
Brexit = Joel Schumacher.
There have been issues in the past with other aid agencies, notably the UN - there was a whole book written about it - abusing their power to take advantage of the locals, including trading food/goodies for sex. So Oxfam are not the first to find themselves being attacked. Even if the misbehaviour is only carried out by a minority, the concern is that the investigations were not thorough and that miscreants were not properly punished - either by being allowed to move to other jobs or by their alleged crimes not being referred to the authorities in the countries concerned or elsewhere. Any such abuses of power, especially of desperate people, mainly women, is utterly wrong and appalling.
People give generously to charities and want to know that their money is being well spent on those who really need it. Such stories risk - very probably unfairly - the reputation of other charities who do very good work. So it is important to get to the bottom of what went wrong and make sure that all possible steps are taken to try and prevent a repetition, regardless of whether some who are digging up this story are doing so for ulterior motives.
Why do people insist on this stupidity of asserting what you thought in the circumstances of 1985 is applicable to and the same as you think in the circumstances of 2018?
Maybe they don't have the intellectual capacity to think or the senses to see. Change is all around you.
This is applicable to the above dumb Anna comment and to many comments made about, for example, Jeremy Corbyn.
I suspect that there is a stronger possibility that Jeremy Corbyn has more static and entrenched views than Thatcher had, as she was a scientist and would, I assume, amend her views to changing evidence.
Good luck with your venture. I may have interested parties in the captains of industry to be added phase. I will VM.
(I do like the idea of a business card that has on the reverse "Oi! Fuckwits!! NO!!!"....)
Good luck.
I think the omission from your business cards is a shame, it would be punchy!
Your website address is?
Unfortunately the Single Market/European Union is morphing into a United States Of Europe - Something the UK can't be a part of (and I don't think Mrs Thatcher would've wanted to be part of either)