The SNP’s siding with Corbyn and the ERG to torpedo Theresa May’s softish Brexit, which would have produced a much more frictionless border than Boris Johnson is aiming at, looks short-sighted.
Up there with voting down the Callaghan administration.
Most PBers under 60 won't get that reference. It was the SNP that paved the way for Maggie in 1979
I thought it was that Irish MP who eventally abstained that did for Callaghan, but I do not recall the SNP part in this.. I will investigate....
It was many factors. The SDLP and a Republican abstained. Sir Alfred Broughton was dying and Callaghan ordered him not to attend (he had offered to come in even if it killed him, which given how sick he was it would have done). Bernard Wetherill offered to abstain in his place but Walter Harrison thought that was asking too much of Wetherill. The SNP tabled a motion of their own and then voted for Thatcher’s motion. As did the Liberals, for that matter.
It’s simplistic to say one thing or person doomed the Callaghan government. The real issue was of course that it had no majority and following the IMF bailout and the Winter of Discontent had lost public support.
That's quite right; the evidence was indeed that it had lost some of the support it had had, but the economic situation was improving, and had Callaghan been able to hold out until after the holiday season a hung Parliament would have been a possibility.
One thing to think about in relation to any future vote on Scottish independence - who would lead the campaign for No? The list of popular and credible unionists is not exactly long and I imagine Boris Johnson would feature heavily in the pro-independence campaign literature.
Ruth has said she would come back for that and she will be sufficiently non party by then to do so.
Interesting article from Jonathan Portes on immigration.
"So there are grounds for at least cautious optimism. Contrary to the hopes and fears of many, Brexit looks less like it will make a decisive turn towards restricting immigration. Instead, consistent with the more benign aspects of our history, it may signal a different form of openness."
If there’s one thing that Brexit has shown us its that identity trumps economics. With the current government determined to treat Scotland like a colony, the wind is at the back of those seeking independence.
If @Gallowgate needs a new angle for his or her thesis, perhaps the number of law firms in the new Stonewall list of gay-friendly employers is of note, as enlightened companies scoop up gay talent. Number 4 is the home of pb's @AlastairMeeks, of course.
Politics-wise, some government departments and a handful of local authorities feature; the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Government are at numbers 8 and 9.
We have found that our longstanding recognition by Stonewall makes us a very attractive employer to all kinds of potential recruits, not just gay talent. I was interviewing candidates for a junior position in Birmingham last year. Both external candidates mentioned this unprompted as something that really attracted them to the firm. I didn’t ask, obviously, but so far as I could tell both are straight (the successful candidate, who was one of them, is in a longterm heterosexual relationship).
Its an excellent and unfortunately rare example of a firm's values being genuinely important and influencing the sort of place that people want to work.
One thing to think about in relation to any future vote on Scottish independence - who would lead the campaign for No? The list of popular and credible unionists is not exactly long and I imagine Boris Johnson would feature heavily in the pro-independence campaign literature.
It’s a good point. I imagine it’d default to someone like Ruth Davidson, but I agree there’s not an obvious stream of likely candidates.
One thing to think about in relation to any future vote on Scottish independence - who would lead the campaign for No? The list of popular and credible unionists is not exactly long and I imagine Boris Johnson would feature heavily in the pro-independence campaign literature.
Nicola Sturgeon? As soon as independence happens the reasons for voting SNP vanish.
That’s why people who oppose the SNP for partisan reasons should support independence.
I do feel sad for Scottish Conservative unionists. They don’t seem yet to realise just how dispensable they are to Boris Johnson and he’s a man with a long history of dispensing with those for whom he has no further use.
Bastani, under his old name of Peters, has also previously voiced support for IDS. But in fairness, neither IDS nor Farage have criminal records, so the comparison isn’t wholly valid.
Anyway, I am being interviewed for my own job today, as part of a reorganisation. I’m almost hoping I don’t get it so I can claim redundancy and walk away. But we will see. So I need to be offski.
My constant badgering of my NHS doctors via email to pull their fingers out has payed off and I’m starting some new treatment today. Fingers crossed it works.
If @Gallowgate needs a new angle for his or her thesis, perhaps the number of law firms in the new Stonewall list of gay-friendly employers is of note, as enlightened companies scoop up gay talent. Number 4 is the home of pb's @AlastairMeeks, of course.
Politics-wise, some government departments and a handful of local authorities feature; the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Government are at numbers 8 and 9.
We have found that our longstanding recognition by Stonewall makes us a very attractive employer to all kinds of potential recruits, not just gay talent. I was interviewing candidates for a junior position in Birmingham last year. Both external candidates mentioned this unprompted as something that really attracted them to the firm. I didn’t ask, obviously, but so far as I could tell both are straight (the successful candidate, who was one of them, is in a longterm heterosexual relationship).
In an important sense, recruitment of gay talent builds on recruitment of lady talent and indeed immigrant talent in widening the talent pool. The next step here is to follow the American tech firms who crunched the numbers and found their best talent was not coming mainly from Ivy League schools. British firms would do well to look beyond Oxbridge and beyond the Russell Group. Increasingly, neurodiversity is also recognised, including by Dominic Cummings, though I am not sure weirdos and misfits is the term of art.
If @Gallowgate needs a new angle for his or her thesis, perhaps the number of law firms in the new Stonewall list of gay-friendly employers is of note, as enlightened companies scoop up gay talent. Number 4 is the home of pb's @AlastairMeeks, of course.
Politics-wise, some government departments and a handful of local authorities feature; the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Government are at numbers 8 and 9.
We have found that our longstanding recognition by Stonewall makes us a very attractive employer to all kinds of potential recruits, not just gay talent. I was interviewing candidates for a junior position in Birmingham last year. Both external candidates mentioned this unprompted as something that really attracted them to the firm. I didn’t ask, obviously, but so far as I could tell both are straight (the successful candidate, who was one of them, is in a longterm heterosexual relationship).
I'm struggling on what all this means. Surely all that matters is that an employer is not bigoted and doesn't tolerate bigotry in its staff. What matters is who you are not what you are.
So what am I missing? How does one employer become more LGBT friendly than another if they don't tolerate bigotry?
Anyway, I am being interviewed for my own job today, as part of a reorganisation. I’m almost hoping I don’t get it so I can claim redundancy and walk away. But we will see. So I need to be offski.
Have a good day.
Yes good luck for whichever outcome you actually want!
If @Gallowgate needs a new angle for his or her thesis, perhaps the number of law firms in the new Stonewall list of gay-friendly employers is of note, as enlightened companies scoop up gay talent. Number 4 is the home of pb's @AlastairMeeks, of course.
Politics-wise, some government departments and a handful of local authorities feature; the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Government are at numbers 8 and 9.
We have found that our longstanding recognition by Stonewall makes us a very attractive employer to all kinds of potential recruits, not just gay talent. I was interviewing candidates for a junior position in Birmingham last year. Both external candidates mentioned this unprompted as something that really attracted them to the firm. I didn’t ask, obviously, but so far as I could tell both are straight (the successful candidate, who was one of them, is in a longterm heterosexual relationship).
I'm struggling on what all this means. Surely all that matters is that an employer is not bigoted and doesn't tolerate bigotry in its staff. What matters is who you are not what you are.
So what am I missing? How does one employer become more LGBT friendly than another if they don't tolerate bigotry?
I don’t know, but Pride does seem to be becoming a year-round event now.
TfL seemed to be very reluctant to take the flags down last year, and now the majority of staff wear a rainbow lanyard.
Of course, it’s impossible to question because anyone who did so would be terrified of being labelled a closet bigot, so it isn’t; steadily, it just becomes “the norm”, and therefore not particularly meaningful.
Anyway, I am being interviewed for my own job today, as part of a reorganisation. I’m almost hoping I don’t get it so I can claim redundancy and walk away. But we will see. So I need to be offski.
Have a good day.
I imagine a number of us can make some excellent suggestions on how to fail the interview.
Did we ever find out if it was the Shakespeare quote that appears to have ended Alastair Stewart's career?
Not in isolation.
It was that in combination with a modern illiberalism, blind hatred of free speech, zero tolerance and refusing to think whether there was any malign intent behind the comments.
Anyway, I am being interviewed for my own job today, as part of a reorganisation. I’m almost hoping I don’t get it so I can claim redundancy and walk away. But we will see. So I need to be offski.
If @Gallowgate needs a new angle for his or her thesis, perhaps the number of law firms in the new Stonewall list of gay-friendly employers is of note, as enlightened companies scoop up gay talent. Number 4 is the home of pb's @AlastairMeeks, of course.
Politics-wise, some government departments and a handful of local authorities feature; the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Government are at numbers 8 and 9.
We have found that our longstanding recognition by Stonewall makes us a very attractive employer to all kinds of potential recruits, not just gay talent. I was interviewing candidates for a junior position in Birmingham last year. Both external candidates mentioned this unprompted as something that really attracted them to the firm. I didn’t ask, obviously, but so far as I could tell both are straight (the successful candidate, who was one of them, is in a longterm heterosexual relationship).
In an important sense, recruitment of gay talent builds on recruitment of lady talent and indeed immigrant talent in widening the talent pool. The next step here is to follow the American tech firms who crunched the numbers and found their best talent was not coming mainly from Ivy League schools. British firms would do well to look beyond Oxbridge and beyond the Russell Group. Increasingly, neurodiversity is also recognised, including by Dominic Cummings, though I am not sure weirdos and misfits is the term of art.
btw if @Gallowgate is still after extremely cynical essay-writing advice, predictions that competition for talent will lead firms to look beyond Oxbridge might be well-received and highly marked at other universities.
Is there any evidence that Brexit was the deciding factor, or even a contributing cause?
I’ve read the article. I couldn’t see Brexit mentioned once. The company couldn’t pay a tax bill HMRC were pursuing it for, and had had cashflow problems for almost two years.
Unless this is one of those correlation equals causation things..
(1) Try and fracture the nationalist ‘45%’ voting coalition, by going heavily on the record of Holyrood and the economy. This is probably a tough ask, and I sense that group is firmer than it looks; the SNP response will obviously be to blame any failings on “Westminster austerity” so they’ll instead need to cite direct examples of administrative incompetence and policy decisions made in Holyrood. Those won’t always work but they will distract the SNP and put it on the defensive.
(2) Work on soft unionists from last time who may be tempted to jump the other way this time. For those, the economic arguments redux vis a vis the EU and the UK look like they could be pretty powerful, as Richard states in his article.
I could see a range of results if an indyref2 were to be called (say late 2021 or 2022, for arguments sake) with 40% for independence probably being the absolute floor to 52-53% in favour if everything goes right.
There is quite a strong age effect too, with old folk being Unionist and youngsters Nats.
I will regret Scotland leaving, both for sentimental reasons and the pragmatic one that England will be subject to absolute Tory control for a generation. I don't blame them though.
If @Gallowgate needs a new angle for his or her thesis, perhaps the number of law firms in the new Stonewall list of gay-friendly employers is of note, as enlightened companies scoop up gay talent. Number 4 is the home of pb's @AlastairMeeks, of course.
Politics-wise, some government departments and a handful of local authorities feature; the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Government are at numbers 8 and 9.
We have found that our longstanding recognition by Stonewall makes us a very attractive employer to all kinds of potential recruits, not just gay talent. I was interviewing candidates for a junior position in Birmingham last year. Both external candidates mentioned this unprompted as something that really attracted them to the firm. I didn’t ask, obviously, but so far as I could tell both are straight (the successful candidate, who was one of them, is in a longterm heterosexual relationship).
In an important sense, recruitment of gay talent builds on recruitment of lady talent and indeed immigrant talent in widening the talent pool. The next step here is to follow the American tech firms who crunched the numbers and found their best talent was not coming mainly from Ivy League schools. British firms would do well to look beyond Oxbridge and beyond the Russell Group. Increasingly, neurodiversity is also recognised, including by Dominic Cummings, though I am not sure weirdos and misfits is the term of art.
btw if @Gallowgate is still after extremely cynical essay-writing advice, predictions that competition for talent will lead firms to look beyond Oxbridge might be well-received and highly marked at other universities.
Said essay was actually an application for a training contract at a law firm that does indeed look beyond Oxbridge, although this is not in the City obviously.
This is going to be one of the problems when arguing over whether it was Brexit that 'done it'. Nearly* all those that are going to go bust because of Brexit are going to be those closest to it in the first place, so leavers will say they were in trouble anyway and it has nothing to do with Brexit. They may or may not be right. The vast majority will survive with diminished profits and of course others will thrive, possibly because of Brexit.
It will end up being a futile argument.
*There will of course be those successful companies that thrive on high volume turnover with small margins who could be wiped out, particularly if there are tariffs.
This is meant for a UK audience, not an EU one. It’s good that we are being prepared for how things will be. This is what will end uncertainty and help businesses to make decisions.
Garner tried to copy the success of Triumph in Leicestershire, by buying up the Norton name and symbols and introducing retrostyled bikes, and exporting them to the world.
His business methods have more than a whiff of Ponzi about them, as many have paid upfront for machines that they will never get. I think he had a part to play in finishing off Spondon the Derby based frame manufacturer too.
I don't think Brexit was as much to blame as a dodgy business culture.
One thing to think about in relation to any future vote on Scottish independence - who would lead the campaign for No? The list of popular and credible unionists is not exactly long and I imagine Boris Johnson would feature heavily in the pro-independence campaign literature.
Ruth has said she would come back for that and she will be sufficiently non party by then to do so.
Ruth Davidson of the Ruth Davidson No To A Second Referendum Party will be sufficiently non-party?
It's a view I suppose.
Her very participation in a referendum campaign would be a glaring admission of total failure.
The SNP’s siding with Corbyn and the ERG to torpedo Theresa May’s softish Brexit, which would have produced a much more frictionless border than Boris Johnson is aiming at, looks short-sighted.
Up there with voting down the Callaghan administration.
Most PBers under 60 won't get that reference. It was the SNP that paved the way for Maggie in 1979
The SNP don't like being reminded of their past.
They tend to get a bit.. uppity about it.
It was a long long time ago, it doesnt exactly have much bearing on today's SNP.
It doesn’t matter how many complications there might be after the transition period Leavers have an answer for everything !
I still think some of the public are unaware that FOM ending isn’t just for EU nationals coming to the UK. Some are going to be in for a big shock when they realize that .
Brits are now second class citizens on their own continent with less rights than 27 other European countries . That wonderful freedom to just live, work or retire to 27 other countries will now involve a host of bureaucracy and hurdles to overcome with no guarantee of success . But of course Leavers will just peddle the “ people moved to other European countries before the EU “ line .
People only really appreciate what they had when it’s gone .
I really don’t have a problem with Leavers flushing their freedoms down the toilet , if it was a case of they themselves choosing that for themselves then fine . The reason the country will never unite is they’ve also flushed away the freedoms and rights of others who wanted to keep those .
Thankfully I’m one of the lucky ones with parents who have given me something I treasure, my EU passport . Just so sad that many other Brits who wanted to Remain won’t have that available to them.
...High skilled immigration and travel to and from the EU is unlikely to be much affected, you already need a passport to go to an EU country anyway as we never joined Schengen...
You're eliding "travel to" and "right to live in". On January 1st 2021 you lose the right to live in another EU country (except for Ireland and possibly Cyprus? and Malta?). You may still have the option, but you no longer have the right.
The vast majority of the population will never live in an EU country anyway, even those who retire to Spain tend to be of above average wealth, the average pensioner is more likely to retire to Bognor, Eastbourne or Skegness.
The difference will be it’s based on national interest (provided it complies with EU law) rather than an EU right.
I think Spain will do some sort of deal as they depend a lot on British expats for their economy, and probably France too - they’ve certainly started making moves in that direction.
Perhaps it might be harder in places like Italy and Greece, where British ex-pat communities are relatively smaller, but they may take a different view too.
The EU27 have already ruled out individual deals. As has the UK, of course.
If @Gallowgate needs a new angle for his or her thesis, perhaps the number of law firms in the new Stonewall list of gay-friendly employers is of note, as enlightened companies scoop up gay talent. Number 4 is the home of pb's @AlastairMeeks, of course.
Politics-wise, some government departments and a handful of local authorities feature; the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Government are at numbers 8 and 9.
We have found that our longstanding recognition by Stonewall makes us a very attractive employer to all kinds of potential recruits, not just gay talent. I was interviewing candidates for a junior position in Birmingham last year. Both external candidates mentioned this unprompted as something that really attracted them to the firm. I didn’t ask, obviously, but so far as I could tell both are straight (the successful candidate, who was one of them, is in a longterm heterosexual relationship).
I'm struggling on what all this means. Surely all that matters is that an employer is not bigoted and doesn't tolerate bigotry in its staff. What matters is who you are not what you are.
So what am I missing? How does one employer become more LGBT friendly than another if they don't tolerate bigotry?
I don’t know, but Pride does seem to be becoming a year-round event now.
TfL seemed to be very reluctant to take the flags down last year, and now the majority of staff wear a rainbow lanyard.
Of course, it’s impossible to question because anyone who did so would be terrified of being labelled a closet bigot, so it isn’t; steadily, it just becomes “the norm”, and therefore not particularly meaningful.
Oh no, gay people being treated as normal. The horror.
Brexit is pretty pointless if we can't set our own rules. Doing so is precisely what Johnson has argued for, for nearly 4 years now, so it shouldn't be a shock.
If @Gallowgate needs a new angle for his or her thesis, perhaps the number of law firms in the new Stonewall list of gay-friendly employers is of note, as enlightened companies scoop up gay talent. Number 4 is the home of pb's @AlastairMeeks, of course.
Politics-wise, some government departments and a handful of local authorities feature; the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Government are at numbers 8 and 9.
We have found that our longstanding recognition by Stonewall makes us a very attractive employer to all kinds of potential recruits, not just gay talent. I was interviewing candidates for a junior position in Birmingham last year. Both external candidates mentioned this unprompted as something that really attracted them to the firm. I didn’t ask, obviously, but so far as I could tell both are straight (the successful candidate, who was one of them, is in a longterm heterosexual relationship).
I'm struggling on what all this means. Surely all that matters is that an employer is not bigoted and doesn't tolerate bigotry in its staff. What matters is who you are not what you are.
So what am I missing? How does one employer become more LGBT friendly than another if they don't tolerate bigotry?
I don’t know, but Pride does seem to be becoming a year-round event now.
TfL seemed to be very reluctant to take the flags down last year, and now the majority of staff wear a rainbow lanyard.
Of course, it’s impossible to question because anyone who did so would be terrified of being labelled a closet bigot, so it isn’t; steadily, it just becomes “the norm”, and therefore not particularly meaningful.
Oh no, gay people being treated as normal. The horror.
The way to treat gay people as normal is for their sexuality not to be relevant to their job or to define them as people. For them to be able to be themselves, to talk about their lives [in the same way as others can] and for it to not be exceptional.
Rainbows, highlighting everything etc is not "normal". Its not wrong, but its not normal.
Brexit is pretty pointless if we can't set our own rules. Doing so is precisely what Johnson has argued for, for nearly 4 years now, so it shouldn't be a shock.
Yep, I agree. It’s silly to pretend we can have frictionless trade, get round rules of origin and have just in time supply chains. We need to accept there will be more barriers and plan accordingly.
If @Gallowgate needs a new angle for his or her thesis, perhaps the number of law firms in the new Stonewall list of gay-friendly employers is of note, as enlightened companies scoop up gay talent. Number 4 is the home of pb's @AlastairMeeks, of course.
Politics-wise, some government departments and a handful of local authorities feature; the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Government are at numbers 8 and 9.
We have found that our longstanding recognition by Stonewall makes us a very attractive employer to all kinds of potential recruits, not just gay talent. I was interviewing candidates for a junior position in Birmingham last year. Both external candidates mentioned this unprompted as something that really attracted them to the firm. I didn’t ask, obviously, but so far as I could tell both are straight (the successful candidate, who was one of them, is in a longterm heterosexual relationship).
I'm struggling on what all this means. Surely all that matters is that an employer is not bigoted and doesn't tolerate bigotry in its staff. What matters is who you are not what you are.
So what am I missing? How does one employer become more LGBT friendly than another if they don't tolerate bigotry?
I don’t know, but Pride does seem to be becoming a year-round event now.
TfL seemed to be very reluctant to take the flags down last year, and now the majority of staff wear a rainbow lanyard.
Of course, it’s impossible to question because anyone who did so would be terrified of being labelled a closet bigot, so it isn’t; steadily, it just becomes “the norm”, and therefore not particularly meaningful.
Brexit is pretty pointless if we can't set our own rules. Doing so is precisely what Johnson has argued for, for nearly 4 years now, so it shouldn't be a shock.
Yep, I agree. It’s silly to pretend we can have frictionless trade, get round rules of origin and have just in time supply chains. We need to accept there will be more barriers and plan accordingly.
I agree except for the "just in time" element. Companies trade even on WTO terms and still have just in time supply chains, they just plan accordingly for it to be just in time using however long it takes to arrive including customs etc
The significance of Brexit for Scottish independence does not exclusively relate to the pros and cons of a land border on the Tweed. Unless England and Scotland are both in the EU, that customs border is priced into the Scottish Independence issue.
The real significance is the divergence of political opinion in Scotland from England, of which Brexit is just one of many obvious issues. If Scots are going to be ignored then they will want and have their Independence, and I don't blame them at all. The divergence between rUK and Scottish opinion is now too much to be possible in one country for long.
The biggest divergence between Scotland and England is the divergence in performance of public services.
If @Gallowgate needs a new angle for his or her thesis, perhaps the number of law firms in the new Stonewall list of gay-friendly employers is of note, as enlightened companies scoop up gay talent. Number 4 is the home of pb's @AlastairMeeks, of course.
Politics-wise, some government departments and a handful of local authorities feature; the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Government are at numbers 8 and 9.
We have found that our longstanding recognition by Stonewall makes us a very attractive employer to all kinds of potential recruits, not just gay talent. I was interviewing candidates for a junior position in Birmingham last year. Both external candidates mentioned this unprompted as something that really attracted them to the firm. I didn’t ask, obviously, but so far as I could tell both are straight (the successful candidate, who was one of them, is in a longterm heterosexual relationship).
I'm struggling on what all this means. Surely all that matters is that an employer is not bigoted and doesn't tolerate bigotry in its staff. What matters is who you are not what you are.
So what am I missing? How does one employer become more LGBT friendly than another if they don't tolerate bigotry?
I don’t know, but Pride does seem to be becoming a year-round event now.
TfL seemed to be very reluctant to take the flags down last year, and now the majority of staff wear a rainbow lanyard.
Of course, it’s impossible to question because anyone who did so would be terrified of being labelled a closet bigot, so it isn’t; steadily, it just becomes “the norm”, and therefore not particularly meaningful.
That is surely the point, though ?
The point should surely to be to reach a point where rainbows are redundant? Where people can be themselves and not their sexuality. Where being gay or being straight does not define you and is viewed no more seriously than whether you have brown or blue or another colour eyes.
Brexit is pretty pointless if we can't set our own rules. Doing so is precisely what Johnson has argued for, for nearly 4 years now, so it shouldn't be a shock.
Yep, I agree. It’s silly to pretend we can have frictionless trade, get round rules of origin and have just in time supply chains. We need to accept there will be more barriers and plan accordingly.
I agree except for the "just in time" element. Companies trade even on WTO terms and still have just in time supply chains, they just plan accordingly for it to be just in time using however long it takes to arrive including customs etc
Fair point. Companies can decide whether it’s worth it or not if their principle markets are inside the EU27.
Well if you've got a pre-existing health condition, not very well.
Sounds like they'll have to get insurance to cover the cost of any hospital stays while abroad?
You do realize that getting health insurance for pre-existing conditions is actually quite difficult?
The travel insurance that comes with the Nationwide packaged current account is worth looking at. You phone them up and go through your conditions; if you've had an operation or treatment for a condition within the last twelve months, they tell you how much extra you have to pay. If you haven't, then you don't.
If @Gallowgate needs a new angle for his or her thesis, perhaps the number of law firms in the new Stonewall list of gay-friendly employers is of note, as enlightened companies scoop up gay talent. Number 4 is the home of pb's @AlastairMeeks, of course.
Politics-wise, some government departments and a handful of local authorities feature; the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Government are at numbers 8 and 9.
We have found that our longstanding recognition by Stonewall makes us a very attractive employer to all kinds of potential recruits, not just gay talent. I was interviewing candidates for a junior position in Birmingham last year. Both external candidates mentioned this unprompted as something that really attracted them to the firm. I didn’t ask, obviously, but so far as I could tell both are straight (the successful candidate, who was one of them, is in a longterm heterosexual relationship).
I'm struggling on what all this means. Surely all that matters is that an employer is not bigoted and doesn't tolerate bigotry in its staff. What matters is who you are not what you are.
So what am I missing? How does one employer become more LGBT friendly than another if they don't tolerate bigotry?
I don’t know, but Pride does seem to be becoming a year-round event now.
TfL seemed to be very reluctant to take the flags down last year, and now the majority of staff wear a rainbow lanyard.
Of course, it’s impossible to question because anyone who did so would be terrified of being labelled a closet bigot, so it isn’t; steadily, it just becomes “the norm”, and therefore not particularly meaningful.
That is surely the point, though ?
The point should surely to be to reach a point where rainbows are redundant? Where people can be themselves and not their sexuality. Where being gay or being straight does not define you and is viewed no more seriously than whether you have brown or blue or another colour eyes.
No, it should be more than that. Being blind to an important part of someone's identity is better than being bigoted against it, but not as good as valuing them as a complete person including that strand of identity.
If @Gallowgate needs a new angle for his or her thesis, perhaps the number of law firms in the new Stonewall list of gay-friendly employers is of note, as enlightened companies scoop up gay talent. Number 4 is the home of pb's @AlastairMeeks, of course.
Politics-wise, some government departments and a handful of local authorities feature; the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Government are at numbers 8 and 9.
We have found that our longstanding recognition by Stonewall makes us a very attractive employer to all kinds of potential recruits, not just gay talent. I was interviewing candidates for a junior position in Birmingham last year. Both external candidates mentioned this unprompted as something that really attracted them to the firm. I didn’t ask, obviously, but so far as I could tell both are straight (the successful candidate, who was one of them, is in a longterm heterosexual relationship).
I'm struggling on what all this means. Surely all that matters is that an employer is not bigoted and doesn't tolerate bigotry in its staff. What matters is who you are not what you are.
So what am I missing? How does one employer become more LGBT friendly than another if they don't tolerate bigotry?
I don’t know, but Pride does seem to be becoming a year-round event now.
TfL seemed to be very reluctant to take the flags down last year, and now the majority of staff wear a rainbow lanyard.
Of course, it’s impossible to question because anyone who did so would be terrified of being labelled a closet bigot, so it isn’t; steadily, it just becomes “the norm”, and therefore not particularly meaningful.
Oh no, gay people being treated as normal. The horror.
The way to treat gay people as normal is for their sexuality not to be relevant to their job or to define them as people. For them to be able to be themselves, to talk about their lives [in the same way as others can] and for it to not be exceptional.
Rainbows, highlighting everything etc is not "normal". Its not wrong, but its not normal.
I agree.
I would be interested in hearing Alistair Meeks views on this because I am really struggling to know how one does distinguish between companies who simply do not tolerate bigotry in terms of them being LBGT friendly.
Well if you've got a pre-existing health condition, not very well.
Sounds like they'll have to get insurance to cover the cost of any hospital stays while abroad?
You do realize that getting health insurance for pre-existing conditions is actually quite difficult?
The travel insurance that comes with the Nationwide packaged current account is worth looking at. You phone them up and go through your conditions; if you've had an operation or treatment for a condition within the last twelve months, they tell you how much extra you have to pay. If you haven't, then you don't.
Thank you. That’s good to know. I will check it out.
If @Gallowgate needs a new angle for his or her thesis, perhaps the number of law firms in the new Stonewall list of gay-friendly employers is of note, as enlightened companies scoop up gay talent. Number 4 is the home of pb's @AlastairMeeks, of course.
Politics-wise, some government departments and a handful of local authorities feature; the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Government are at numbers 8 and 9.
We have found that our longstanding recognition by Stonewall makes us a very attractive employer to all kinds of potential recruits, not just gay talent. I was interviewing candidates for a junior position in Birmingham last year. Both external candidates mentioned this unprompted as something that really attracted them to the firm. I didn’t ask, obviously, but so far as I could tell both are straight (the successful candidate, who was one of them, is in a longterm heterosexual relationship).
The significance of Brexit for Scottish independence does not exclusively relate to the pros and cons of a land border on the Tweed. Unless England and Scotland are both in the EU, that customs border is priced into the Scottish Independence issue.
The real significance is the divergence of political opinion in Scotland from England, of which Brexit is just one of many obvious issues. If Scots are going to be ignored then they will want and have their Independence, and I don't blame them at all. The divergence between rUK and Scottish opinion is now too much to be possible in one country for long.
The biggest divergence between Scotland and England is the divergence in performance of public services.
After last year’s fall in the Higher pass rate Nicola Sturgeon said the decline was down to an “annual fluctuation” although levels of success have fallen every year since 2015 — when the old national curriculum was fully replaced by the new curriculum for excellence.
If @Gallowgate needs a new angle for his or her thesis, perhaps the number of law firms in the new Stonewall list of gay-friendly employers is of note, as enlightened companies scoop up gay talent. Number 4 is the home of pb's @AlastairMeeks, of course.
Politics-wise, some government departments and a handful of local authorities feature; the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Government are at numbers 8 and 9.
We have found that our longstanding recognition by Stonewall makes us a very attractive employer to all kinds of potential recruits, not just gay talent. I was interviewing candidates for a junior position in Birmingham last year. Both external candidates mentioned this unprompted as something that really attracted them to the firm. I didn’t ask, obviously, but so far as I could tell both are straight (the successful candidate, who was one of them, is in a longterm heterosexual relationship).
I'm struggling on what all this means. Surely all that matters is that an employer is not bigoted and doesn't tolerate bigotry in its staff. What matters is who you are not what you are.
So what am I missing? How does one employer become more LGBT friendly than another if they don't tolerate bigotry?
I don’t know, but Pride does seem to be becoming a year-round event now.
TfL seemed to be very reluctant to take the flags down last year, and now the majority of staff wear a rainbow lanyard.
Of course, it’s impossible to question because anyone who did so would be terrified of being labelled a closet bigot, so it isn’t; steadily, it just becomes “the norm”, and therefore not particularly meaningful.
That is surely the point, though ?
The point should surely to be to reach a point where rainbows are redundant? Where people can be themselves and not their sexuality. Where being gay or being straight does not define you and is viewed no more seriously than whether you have brown or blue or another colour eyes.
No, it should be more than that. Being blind to an important part of someone's identity is better than being bigoted against it, but not as good as valuing them as a complete person including that strand of identity.
They can sod off about their “stand of identity”. Come to work, do your job and go home again and bugger/roger whoever you want.
If @Gallowgate needs a new angle for his or her thesis, perhaps the number of law firms in the new Stonewall list of gay-friendly employers is of note, as enlightened companies scoop up gay talent. Number 4 is the home of pb's @AlastairMeeks, of course.
We have found that our longstanding recognition by Stonewall makes us a very attractive employer to all kinds of potential recruits, not just gay talent. I was interviewing candidates for a junior position in Birmingham last year. Both external candidates mentioned this unprompted as something that really attracted them to the firm. I didn’t ask, obviously, but so far as I could tell both are straight (the successful candidate, who was one of them, is in a longterm heterosexual relationship).
I'm struggling on what all this means. Surely all that matters is that an employer is not bigoted and doesn't tolerate bigotry in its staff. What matters is who you are not what you are.
So what am I missing? How does one employer become more LGBT friendly than another if they don't tolerate bigotry?
I don’t know, but Pride does seem to be becoming a year-round event now.
TfL seemed to be very reluctant to take the flags down last year, and now the majority of staff wear a rainbow lanyard.
Of course, it’s impossible to question because anyone who did so would be terrified of being labelled a closet bigot, so it isn’t; steadily, it just becomes “the norm”, and therefore not particularly meaningful.
That is surely the point, though ?
The point should surely to be to reach a point where rainbows are redundant? Where people can be themselves and not their sexuality. Where being gay or being straight does not define you and is viewed no more seriously than whether you have brown or blue or another colour eyes.
No, it should be more than that. Being blind to an important part of someone's identity is better than being bigoted against it, but not as good as valuing them as a complete person including that strand of identity.
Why? I certainly would object if a company I worked for had an interest in my heterosexuality. It is none of their business. As far as I am concerned my employers have had no idea what my sexuality was. It is equally none of their business if I were homosexual. It only become of interest to them if I am discriminated at work because of it.
If @Gallowgate needs a new angle for his or her thesis, perhaps the number of law firms in the new Stonewall list of gay-friendly employers is of note, as enlightened companies scoop up gay talent. Number 4 is the home of pb's @AlastairMeeks, of course.
Politics-wise, some government departments and a handful of local authorities feature; the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Government are at numbers 8 and 9.
We have found that our longstanding recognition by Stonewall makes us a very attractive employer to all kinds of potential recruits, not just gay talent. I was interviewing candidates for a junior position in Birmingham last year. Both external candidates mentioned this unprompted as something that really attracted them to the firm. I didn’t ask, obviously, but so far as I could tell both are straight (the successful candidate, who was one of them, is in a longterm heterosexual relationship).
I'm struggling on what all this means. Surely all that matters is that an employer is not bigoted and doesn't tolerate bigotry in its staff. What matters is who you are not what you are.
So what am I missing? How does one employer become more LGBT friendly than another if they don't tolerate bigotry?
I don’t know, but Pride does seem to be becoming a year-round event now.
TfL seemed to be very reluctant to take the flags down last year, and now the majority of staff wear a rainbow lanyard.
Of course, it’s impossible to question because anyone who did so would be terrified of being labelled a closet bigot, so it isn’t; steadily, it just becomes “the norm”, and therefore not particularly meaningful.
Oh no, gay people being treated as normal. The horror.
That wasn’t the point I was making, and well you know it.
I would say the conundrum is more for Johnson than Sturgeon right now. There is no consent for Brexit in Scotland, Johnson has no ideas on how to make Brexit work for Scotland and even less interest in coming up with a solution. His line is, I get to decide what happens for Scotland and that's all you Scots need to know.
Meanwhile all Sturgeon has to do is point her hand in the direction of London and tell her fellow country people, "See!"
I don't think those believing Johnson will agree a second referendum should independence parties win a majority in Hollyrood are reading this right. The parliament has just voted for a second referendum. Johnson will triple down.
Incidentally if Johnson were confident of the unionists winning, the time to hold the second referendum is now. Winning would shoot the nationalists' fox. I don't think Johnson is art all confident of winning.
Well if you've got a pre-existing health condition, not very well.
Sounds like they'll have to get insurance to cover the cost of any hospital stays while abroad?
You do realize that getting health insurance for pre-existing conditions is actually quite difficult?
The travel insurance that comes with the Nationwide packaged current account is worth looking at. You phone them up and go through your conditions; if you've had an operation or treatment for a condition within the last twelve months, they tell you how much extra you have to pay. If you haven't, then you don't.
Thank you. That’s good to know. I will check it out.
A word of warning (but this probably applies to all insurance). Many years ago I was going to rely on Nationwide Insurance and extend it for Skiing. The wording of the policy was rubbish with ambiguity, or just illogical clauses (obviously not written by someone who understands skiing). They eventually changed it, but it was such hard work I went elsewhere. There were other issues elsewhere in the T&Cs (kayaking was another). I do use it now for bog standard travel.
Well if you've got a pre-existing health condition, not very well.
Sounds like they'll have to get insurance to cover the cost of any hospital stays while abroad?
You do realize that getting health insurance for pre-existing conditions is actually quite difficult?
Depends on the severity of the pre-existing condition. And if you are so at risk of falling ill, it begs the question of whether traveling is wise or not regardless of whether insurance is required.
If @Gallowgate needs a new angle for his or her thesis, perhaps the number of law firms in the new Stonewall list of gay-friendly employers is of note, as enlightened companies scoop up gay talent. Number 4 is the home of pb's @AlastairMeeks, of course.
Politics-wise, some government departments and a handful of local authorities feature; the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Government are at numbers 8 and 9.
We have found that our longstanding recognition by Stonewall makes us a very attractive employer to all kinds of potential recruits, not just gay talent. I was interviewing candidates for a junior position in Birmingham last year. Both external candidates mentioned this unprompted as something that really attracted them to the firm. I didn’t ask, obviously, but so far as I could tell both are straight (the successful candidate, who was one of them, is in a longterm heterosexual relationship).
I'm struggling on what all this means. Surely all that matters is that an employer is not bigoted and doesn't tolerate bigotry in its staff. What matters is who you are not what you are.
So what am I missing? How does one employer become more LGBT friendly than another if they don't tolerate bigotry?
I don’t know, but Pride does seem to be becoming a year-round event now.
TfL seemed to be very reluctant to take the flags down last year, and now the majority of staff wear a rainbow lanyard.
Of course, it’s impossible to question because anyone who did so would be terrified of being labelled a closet bigot, so it isn’t; steadily, it just becomes “the norm”, and therefore not particularly meaningful.
That is surely the point, though ?
Having a rainbow flag up and rainbow lanyards on all year round is normal?
It certainly can be but then it ceases to mean very much. I’d argue that normal would but the complete irrelevance of sexuality or highlighting or celebrating it either which way.
If @Gallowgate needs a new angle for his or her thesis, perhaps the number of law firms in the new Stonewall list of gay-friendly employers is of note, as enlightened companies scoop up gay talent. Number 4 is the home of pb's @AlastairMeeks, of course.
Politics-wise, some government departments and a handful of local authorities feature; the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Government are at numbers 8 and 9.
We have found that our longstanding recognition by Stonewall makes us a very attractive employer to all kinds of potential recruits, not just gay talent. I was interviewing candidates for a junior position in Birmingham last year. Both external candidates mentioned this unprompted as something that really attracted them to the firm. I didn’t ask, obviously, but so far as I could tell both are straight (the successful candidate, who was one of them, is in a longterm heterosexual relationship).
Proof positive that diversity policies are as much about keeping away people who don’t philosophically agree with you as it is in attracting those that do.
As a white straight male I never fill out equality measuring information. Because it just plainly is not in my interest. It will never be in my interest and the scale is only the amount of damage it will do to my interests.
It doesn’t matter how many complications there might be after the transition period Leavers have an answer for everything !
I
People only really appreciate what they had when it’s gone .
I really don’t have a problem with Leavers flushing their freedoms down the toilet , if it was a case of they themselves choosing that for themselves then fine . The reason the country will never unite is they’ve also flushed away the freedoms and rights of others who wanted to keep those .
Thankfully I’m one of the lucky ones with parents who have given me something I treasure, my EU passport . Just so sad that many other Brits who wanted to Remain won’t have that available to them.
...High skilled immigration and travel to and from the EU is unlikely to be much affected, you already need a passport to go to an EU country anyway as we never joined Schengen...
You're eliding "travel to" and "right to live in". On January 1st 2021 you lose the right to live in another EU country (except for Ireland and possibly Cyprus? and Malta?). You may still have the option, but you no longer have the right.
The vast majority of the population will never live in an EU country anyway, even those who retire to Spain tend to be of above average wealth, the average pensioner is more likely to retire to Bognor, Eastbourne or Skegness.
The difference will be it’s based on national interest (provided it complies with EU law) rather than an EU right.
I think Spain will do some sort of deal as they depend a lot on British expats for their economy, and probably France too - they’ve certainly started making moves in that direction.
Perhaps it might be harder in places like Italy and Greece, where British ex-pat communities are relatively smaller, but they may take a different view too.
The EU27 have already ruled out individual deals. As has the UK, of course.
I think nation states set their own immigration rules for non EU/EEC citizens.
If @Gallowgate needs a new angle for his or her thesis, perhaps the number of law firms in the new Stonewall list of gay-friendly employers is of note, as enlightened companies scoop up gay talent. Number 4 is the home of pb's @AlastairMeeks, of course.
I'm struggling on what all this means. Surely all that matters is that an employer is not bigoted and doesn't tolerate bigotry in its staff. What matters is who you are not what you are.
So what am I missing? How does one employer become more LGBT friendly than another if they don't tolerate bigotry?
I don’t know, but Pride does seem to be becoming a year-round event now.
TfL seemed to be very reluctant to take the flags down last year, and now the majority of staff wear a rainbow lanyard.
Of course, it’s impossible to question because anyone who did so would be terrified of being labelled a closet bigot, so it isn’t; steadily, it just becomes “the norm”, and therefore not particularly meaningful.
That is surely the point, though ?
The point should surely to be to reach a point where rainbows are redundant? Where people can be themselves and not their sexuality. Where being gay or being straight does not define you and is viewed no more seriously than whether you have brown or blue or another colour eyes.
No, it should be
Why? I certainly would object if a company I worked for had an interest in my heterosexuality. It is none of their business. As far as I am concerned my employers have had no idea what my sexuality was. It is equally none of their business if I were homosexual. It only become of interest to them if I am discriminated at work because of it.
Apart from the practical issue of them being able to recognise homophobic discrimination if unaware, there are other issues. A culture of work that is welcoming to people from different backgrounds and interested in different perspectives is a more pleasant place to work for all.
This is particularly true of the increasing number of workplaces dealing in service industries to a diverse community, such as my own in the NHS. We serve our clientele better by having a greater understanding of it.
It doesn’t matter how many complications there might be after the transition period Leavers have an answer for everything !
I
People only really appreciate what they had when it’s gone .
I really don’t have a problem with Leavers flushing their freedoms down the toilet , if it was a case of they themselves choosing that for themselves then fine . The reason the country will never unite is they’ve also flushed away the freedoms and rights of others who wanted to keep those .
Thankfully I’m one of the lucky ones with parents who have given me something I treasure, my EU passport . Just so sad that many other Brits who wanted to Remain won’t have that available to them.
...High skilled immigration and travel to and from the EU is unlikely to be much affected, you already need a passport to go to an EU country anyway as we never joined Schengen...
You're eliding "travel to" and "right to live in". On January 1st 2021 you lose the right to live in another EU country (except for Ireland and possibly Cyprus? and Malta?). You may still have the option, but you no longer have the right.
The vast majority of the population will never live in an EU country anyway, even those who retire to Spain tend to be of above average wealth, the average pensioner is more likely to retire to Bognor, Eastbourne or Skegness.
The difference will be it’s based on national interest (provided it complies with EU law) rather than an EU right.
I think Spain will do some sort of deal as they depend a lot on British expats for their economy, and probably France too - they’ve certainly started making moves in that direction.
Perhaps it might be harder in places like Italy and Greece, where British ex-pat communities are relatively smaller, but they may take a different view too.
The EU27 have already ruled out individual deals. As has the UK, of course.
I think nation states set their own immigration rules for non EU/EEC citizens.
Residency of non EU nationals, yes. Travel is managed through a single Schengen Vida.
Morning all and oh it is delightful to see the SNP battering themselves off a brick wall while Boris just keeps telling them to fuck themselves!
The SNP has replaced the Scottish Labour Party as the party of choice of the left and those with a constant grievance. They have reached 45% which was around the maximum Scottish Labour ever achieved. The young and idealists might be impressed by all the saltire waving crap and the Fat Laird standing up and talking shite every Wednesday at 12 noon when he gets his 2 questions but more and more Scots are getting angrier that the SNP is only interested in IndyRef2 when Scotland's education system is rapidly going down the international pan and our health service is starting to fall apart.
Let's see how good a shape the SNP as a party is once the Alex Salmond trial has concluded and indeed whether Nicola Sturgeon is still First Minister! Separately I am delighted the SCons held their seat in the Dumfries and Galloway council by-election last Thursday.
If @Gallowgate needs a new angle for his or her thesis, perhaps the number of law firms in the new Stonewall list of gay-friendly employers is of note, as enlightened companies scoop up gay talent. Number 4 is the home of pb's @AlastairMeeks, of course.
Politics-wise, some government departments and a handful of local authorities feature; the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Government are at numbers 8 and 9.
We have found that our longstanding recognition by Stonewall makes us a very attractive employer to all kinds of potential recruits, not just gay talent. I was interviewing candidates for a junior position in Birmingham last year. Both external candidates mentioned this unprompted as something that really attracted them to the firm. I didn’t ask, obviously, but so far as I could tell both are straight (the successful candidate, who was one of them, is in a longterm heterosexual relationship).
Morning Alastair, what’s the process (broadly) insofar as winning recognition? It would be good for my company to do; instinctively my sense is that it would be beneficial to our recruitment generally (not just of LGBT)
Mr. B, your comparison is flawed. Nobody's accused Alastair Stewart of racism, excepting the one instance when he had the temerity to quote Shakespeare at length (and the accuser appears to regularly enjoy complaining about things white people do).
Mr. Powerhouse, my mother used to work in a school. She was there when they first started recording demographic data (ethnicity etc), and was assured that the data wouldn't actually be used for anything. Of course, it was, and now we have some schools criticised for not being diverse enough because they're in largely white areas and have largely white pupils.
The SNP’s siding with Corbyn and the ERG to torpedo Theresa May’s softish Brexit, which would have produced a much more frictionless border than Boris Johnson is aiming at, looks short-sighted.
Up there with voting down the Callaghan administration.
Most PBers under 60 won't get that reference. It was the SNP that paved the way for Maggie in 1979
I thought it was that Irish MP who eventally abstained that did for Callaghan, but I do not recall the SNP part in this.. I will investigate....
It was many factors. The SDLP and a Republican abstained. Sir Alfred Broughton was dying and Callaghan ordered him not to attend (he had offered to come in even if it killed him, which given how sick he was it would have done). Bernard Wetherill offered to abstain in his place but Walter Harrison thought that was asking too much of Wetherill. The SNP tabled a motion of their own and then voted for Thatcher’s motion. As did the Liberals, for that matter.
It’s simplistic to say one thing or person doomed the Callaghan government. The real issue was of course that it had no majority and following the IMF bailout and the Winter of Discontent had lost public support.
I have just watched the video of the 45 mins Tonight programme from the BBC when Callaghan's Govt was defeated, even now I feel as e motional as I did then, knowing that Mrs T was almost certainly going to become PM and deal with the Unions and their disgraceful behaviour of not burying bodies.(and leaving rubbish piled high in the streets...
If @Gallowgate needs a new angle for his or her thesis, perhaps the number of law firms in the new Stonewall list of gay-friendly employers is of note, as enlightened companies scoop up gay talent. Number 4 is the home of pb's @AlastairMeeks, of course.
Politics-wise, some government departments and a handful of local authorities feature; the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Government are at numbers 8 and 9.
We have found that our longstanding recognition by Stonewall makes us a very attractive employer to all kinds of potential recruits, not just gay talent. I was interviewing candidates for a junior position in Birmingham last year. Both external candidates mentioned this unprompted as something that really attracted them to the firm. I didn’t ask, obviously, but so far as I could tell both are straight (the successful candidate, who was one of them, is in a longterm heterosexual relationship).
Morning Alastair, what’s the process (broadly) insofar as winning recognition? It would be good for my company to do; instinctively my sense is that it would be beneficial to our recruitment generally (not just of LGBT)
Stonewall give a lot of help on what they expect, if you contact them. They want to see firms engage with this - they want it to be the norm, they don't want to be acting as bouncers gatekeeping their own list.
A quick plug: my own firm helps other organisations develop their diversity and inclusion policies as part of its service offering.
If @Gallowgate needs a new angle for his or her thesis, perhaps the number of law firms in the new Stonewall list of gay-friendly employers is of note, as enlightened companies scoop up gay talent. Number 4 is the home of pb's @AlastairMeeks, of course.
I'm struggling on what all this means. Surely all that matters is that an employer is not bigoted and doesn't tolerate bigotry in its staff. What matters is who you are not what you are.
So what am I missing? How does one employer become more LGBT friendly than another if they don't tolerate bigotry?
I don’t know, but Pride does seem to be becoming a year-round event now.
TfL seemed to be very reluctant to take the flags down last year, and now the majority of staff wear a rainbow lanyard.
Of course, it’s impossible to question because anyone who did so would be terrified of being labelled a closet bigot, so it isn’t; steadily, it just becomes “the norm”, and therefore not particularly meaningful.
That is surely the point, though ?
The point should surely to be to reach a point where rainbows are redundant? Where people can be themselves and not their sexuality. Where being gay or being straight does not define you and is viewed no more seriously than whether you have brown or blue or another colour eyes.
No, it should be
Why? I certainly would object if a company I worked for had an interest in my heterosexuality. It is none of their business. As far as I am concerned my employers have had no idea what my sexuality was. It is equally none of their business if I were homosexual. It only become of interest to them if I am discriminated at work because of it.
Apart from the practical issue of them being able to recognise homophobic discrimination if unaware, there are other issues. A culture of work that is welcoming to peopleed in different perspectives is a more pleasant place to work for all.
This is particularly true of the increasing number of workplaces dealing in service industries to a diverse community, such as my own in the NHS. We serve our clientele better by having a greater understanding of it.
No. You just ensure that you have lots of people who think like you do, but look different.
If @Gallowgate needs a new angle for his or her thesis, perhaps the number of law firms in the new Stonewall list of gay-friendly employers is of note, as enlightened companies scoop up gay talent. Number 4 is the home of pb's @AlastairMeeks, of course.
Politics-wise, some government departments and a handful of local authorities feature; the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Government are at numbers 8 and 9.
We have found that our longstanding recognition by Stonewall makes us a very attractive employer to all kinds of potential recruits, not just gay talent. I was interviewing candidates for a junior position in Birmingham last year. Both external candidates mentioned this unprompted as something that really attracted them to the firm. I didn’t ask, obviously, but so far as I could tell both are straight (the successful candidate, who was one of them, is in a longterm heterosexual relationship).
Morning Alastair, what’s the process (broadly) insofar as winning recognition? It would be good for my company to do; instinctively my sense is that it would be beneficial to our recruitment generally (not just of LGBT)
Stonewall give a lot of help on what they expect, if you contact them. They want to see firms engage with this - they want it to be the norm, they don't want to be acting as bouncers gatekeeping their own list.
A quick plug: my own firm helps other organisations develop their diversity and inclusion policies as part of its service offering.
You need to move with the times, ‘climate’ is the new diversity. It’s where the hustles and money shots are now.
Well if you've got a pre-existing health condition, not very well.
Sounds like they'll have to get insurance to cover the cost of any hospital stays while abroad?
You do realize that getting health insurance for pre-existing conditions is actually quite difficult?
Depends on the severity of the pre-existing condition. And if you are so at risk of falling ill, it begs the question of whether traveling is wise or not regardless of whether insurance is required.
Only from the PB Tories.
Only on PB.
People with medical conditions and not much money shouldn't even think of going to other European countries, apparently. It's unpatriotic; Hunstanton is good enough.
Well if you've got a pre-existing health condition, not very well.
Sounds like they'll have to get insurance to cover the cost of any hospital stays while abroad?
You do realize that getting health insurance for pre-existing conditions is actually quite difficult?
The travel insurance that comes with the Nationwide packaged current account is worth looking at. You phone them up and go through your conditions; if you've had an operation or treatment for a condition within the last twelve months, they tell you how much extra you have to pay. If you haven't, then you don't.
Probably the same company that deals with the Co-op's Smile package. Very efficient and helpful. Until one is 80, then they don't want to know. However the NFU Mutual is then more expensive, but very good.
If @Gallowgate needs a new angle for his or her thesis, perhaps the number of law firms in the new Stonewall list of gay-friendly employers is of note, as enlightened companies scoop up gay talent. Number 4 is the home of pb's @AlastairMeeks, of course.
Politics-wise, some government departments and a handful of local authorities feature; the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Government are at numbers 8 and 9.
We have found that our longstanding recognition by Stonewall makes us a very attractive employer to all kinds of potential recruits, not just gay talent. I was interviewing candidates for a junior position in Birmingham last year. Both external candidates mentioned this unprompted as something that really attracted them to the firm. I didn’t ask, obviously, but so far as I could tell both are straight (the successful candidate, who was one of them, is in a longterm heterosexual relationship).
Proof positive that diversity policies are as much about keeping away people who don’t philosophically agree with you as it is in attracting those that do.
As a white straight male I never fill out equality measuring information. Because it just plainly is not in my interest. It will never be in my interest and the scale is only the amount of damage it will do to my interests.
That's absolutely not the case. We (at least I) value diversity of all types. I have recruited a healthy number of older white straight men whose philosophical outlook is very different from my own. I'm not running a political party and I've bollocked juniors in the past who have assumed out loud that no one in their right mind could possibly have voted Leave. Being your whole self in the office is for everyone and everyone has to make enough space for everyone else to be their whole self.
If @Gallowgate needs a new angle for his or her thesis, perhaps the number of law firms in the new Stonewall list of gay-friendly employers is of note, as enlightened companies scoop up gay talent. Number 4 is the home of pb's @AlastairMeeks, of course.
Politics-wise, some government departments and a handful of local authorities feature; the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Government are at numbers 8 and 9.
We have found that our longstanding recognition by Stonewall makes us a very attractive employer to all kinds of potential recruits, not just gay talent. I was interviewing candidates for a junior position in Birmingham last year. Both external candidates mentioned this unprompted as something that really attracted them to the firm. I didn’t ask, obviously, but so far as I could tell both are straight (the successful candidate, who was one of them, is in a longterm heterosexual relationship).
Morning Alastair, what’s the process (broadly) insofar as winning recognition? It would be good for my company to do; instinctively my sense is that it would be beneficial to our recruitment generally (not just of LGBT)
Stonewall give a lot of help on what they expect, if you contact them. They want to see firms engage with this - they want it to be the norm, they don't want to be acting as bouncers gatekeeping their own list.
A quick plug: my own firm helps other organisations develop their diversity and inclusion policies as part of its service offering.
You need to move with the times, ‘climate’ is the new diversity. It’s where the hustles and money shots are now.
One of the great things about law firms is that we can do more than one thing at a time.
If @Gallowgate needs a new angle for his or her thesis, perhaps the number of law firms in the new Stonewall list of gay-friendly employers is of note, as enlightened companies scoop up gay talent. Number 4 is the home of pb's @AlastairMeeks, of course.
Politics-wise, some government departments and a handful of local authorities feature; the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Government are at numbers 8 and 9.
We have found that our longstanding recognition by Stonewall makes us a very attractive employer to all kinds of potential recruits, not just gay talent. I was interviewing candidates for a junior position in Birmingham last year. Both external candidates mentioned this unprompted as something that really attracted them to the firm. I didn’t ask, obviously, but so far as I could tell both are straight (the successful candidate, who was one of them, is in a longterm heterosexual relationship).
Proof positive that diversity policies are as much about keeping away people who don’t philosophically agree with you as it is in attracting those that do.
As a white straight male I never fill out equality measuring information. Because it just plainly is not in my interest. It will never be in my interest and the scale is only the amount of damage it will do to my interests.
Here you go.
The white person’s guide to pretending you're a victim of racism.
Well if you've got a pre-existing health condition, not very well.
Sounds like they'll have to get insurance to cover the cost of any hospital stays while abroad?
You do realize that getting health insurance for pre-existing conditions is actually quite difficult?
The travel insurance that comes with the Nationwide packaged current account is worth looking at. You phone them up and go through your conditions; if you've had an operation or treatment for a condition within the last twelve months, they tell you how much extra you have to pay. If you haven't, then you don't.
Probably the same company that deals with the Co-op's Smile package. Very efficient and helpful. Until one is 80, then they don't want to know. However the NFU Mutual is then more expensive, but very good.
Travel insurance as you age is complex and expensive. The cover for my wife and I for our 24 day transatlantic cruise was £950 and previously I have paid in excess of £1,200
I use 'Good to go Insurance' who are excellent and once you have declared all your conditions you only need to update it each time you want cover, rather than start a new. However, it is essential you declare absolutely everything and even after taking out cover, you have to update the insurer in any change to your declarations
Our two week trip to Canada in May costs £670 for both of us and of course the non medical cover for all older people is much less than normal
Mr. Eagles, the white kids in Rotherham, Manchester, and elsewhere weren't exactly brimming with so-called 'white privilege'.
Pretending white people can't be victims of racism is the sort of bigoted bullshit that led to the authorities deciding it was better to just let the child rape continue rather than risk being seen as not respecting 'cultural sensitivities'.
Mainstream politicians/parties need to get a grip on this. If they don't, a serious and justified grievance is either going to go unaddressed or the only people willing to talk about it will be on the far right.
Morning all. Interesting header. To me it seems that Brexit makes the case for Scottish independence stronger while making the practical challenges of an independent Scotland more daunting. Not sure how this will pan out but my hunch is Scotland indy by the end of the 20s.
Morning all. Interesting header. To me it seems that Brexit makes the case for Scottish independence stronger while making the practical challenges of an independent Scotland more daunting. Not sure how this will pan out but my hunch is Scotland indy by the end of the 20s.
No. Another referendum will be lost, Scotland will vote for the union
I'm struggling on what all this means. Surely all that matters is that an employer is not bigoted and doesn't tolerate bigotry in its staff. What matters is who you are not what you are.
So what am I missing? How does one employer become more LGBT friendly than another if they don't tolerate bigotry?
That is surely the point, though ?
The point should surely to be to reach a point where rainbows are redundant? Where people can be themselves and not their sexuality. Where being gay or being straight does not define you and is viewed no more seriously than whether you have brown or blue or another colour eyes.
No, it should be
Why? I certainly would object if a company I worked for had an interest in my heterosexuality. It is none of their business. As far as I am concerned my employers have had no idea what my sexuality was. It is equally none of their business if I were homosexual. It only become of interest to them if I am discriminated at work because of it.
Apart from the practical issue of them being able to recognise homophobic discrimination if unaware, there are other issues. A culture of work that is welcoming to people from different backgrounds and interested in different perspectives is a more pleasant place to work for all.
This is particularly true of the increasing number of workplaces dealing in service industries to a diverse community, such as my own in the NHS. We serve our clientele better by having a greater understanding of it.
But surely you don't ask people their sexuality at an interview? I assume it is illegal and even if not I am sure most people would run a mile if asked. I assume you don't ask them either after they have joined you. That would be rather odd for an employer to do and again would be very worrying. So you don't know if some is gay or not unless they tell you.
There may be attributes that lead to to think that, but you may well be wrong. I am guessing that most discrimination is driven by this.
So that removes the whole point of what you said. You can be no more aware than anybody else with decent observancy skills. Yes it is good to have a spread of backgrounds, but that is going to happen anyway by not being bigoted and you certainly can't select on the basis of sexuality by asking the question. That would be totally inappropriate.
Mr. Eagles, the white kids in Rotherham, Manchester, and elsewhere weren't exactly brimming with so-called 'white privilege'.
Pretending white people can't be victims of racism is the sort of bigoted bullshit that led to the authorities deciding it was better to just let the child rape continue rather than risk being seen as not respecting 'cultural sensitivities'.
Mainstream politicians/parties need to get a grip on this. If they don't, a serious and justified grievance is either going to go unaddressed or the only people willing to talk about it will be on the far right.
Just a question. How many times have you focussed on say the Catholic child abuse scandals or the footballing child abuse scandals?
Too late now, but I like the idea of the Government, and important government buildings, of a union being housed in one of the smaller components. When I was considering running for parliament myself, one of my ideas was to make the comprehensive in the poorest part of each constituency a Grammar school so as to push up house prices in those areas, which I feel would have equalised some of the lops sidedness in society.
Mr. Eagles, the white kids in Rotherham, Manchester, and elsewhere weren't exactly brimming with so-called 'white privilege'.
Pretending white people can't be victims of racism is the sort of bigoted bullshit that led to the authorities deciding it was better to just let the child rape continue rather than risk being seen as not respecting 'cultural sensitivities'.
Mainstream politicians/parties need to get a grip on this. If they don't, a serious and justified grievance is either going to go unaddressed or the only people willing to talk about it will be on the far right.
Just a question. How many times have you focussed on say the Catholic child abuse scandals or the footballing child abuse scandals?
If @Gallowgate needs a new angle for his or her thesis, perhaps the number of law firms in the new Stonewall list of gay-friendly employers is of note, as enlightened companies scoop up gay talent. Number 4 is the home of pb's @AlastairMeeks, of course.
Politics-wise, some government departments and a handful of local authorities feature; the Welsh Assembly and Welsh Government are at numbers 8 and 9.
We have found that our longstanding recognition by Stonewall makes us a very attractive employer to all kinds of potential recruits, not just gay talent. I was interviewing candidates for a junior position in Birmingham last year. Both external candidates mentioned this unprompted as something that really attracted them to the firm. I didn’t ask, obviously, but so far as I could tell both are straight (the successful candidate, who was one of them, is in a longterm heterosexual relationship).
Morning Alastair, what’s the process (broadly) insofar as winning recognition? It would be good for my company to do; instinctively my sense is that it would be beneficial to our recruitment generally (not just of LGBT)
Stonewall give a lot of help on what they expect, if you contact them. They want to see firms engage with this - they want it to be the norm, they don't want to be acting as bouncers gatekeeping their own list.
A quick plug: my own firm helps other organisations develop their diversity and inclusion policies as part of its service offering.
Alistair, but what do you actually do other than treat people equally?
How are you better than another company that simply just doesn't tolerate bigotry?
So here's a thought. Starmer - who pretty much seems a cert to be the next Labour leader at the moment - suggests there'd be a mandate for indyref 2 if there's a pro-indy majority in the 2021 Holyrood elections, but what on earth would Labour policy be at the 2024 GE on the matter if Boris refused one? Would they automatically enter into negotiations with the SNP if they won the election, on the grounds they had already achieved their mandate for indyref 2, or would they now insist - that given the time passed - there'd now have to be a pro-indy majority at the 2026 Holyrood elections? I get the feeling that Labour policy on indyref 2 is going to end up being just as much a fudge, if not more so, than it's previous Brexit position was.
The point should surely to be to reach a point where rainbows are redundant? Where people can be themselves and not their sexuality. Where being gay or being straight does not define you and is viewed no more seriously than whether you have brown or blue or another colour eyes.
No, it should be more than that. Being blind to an important part of someone's identity is better than being bigoted against it, but not as good as valuing them as a complete person including that strand of identity.
You seem to have misunderstood me. I was including valuing them as a complete person including that strand when I said that you have reached the point where rainbows are redundant. I specifically gave the example of people being free [as much as is normal for others] to talk about their lives.
I think a man feeling free to go to work and gossip about his boyfriend as much as anyone else gossips about their love lives and its considered perfectly normal is more normal than someone going to work wearing rainbows but not talking on a day to day basis about their love life while others do.
Mr. Eagles, I fully support the castigation of the Catholic Church for both the abuse and the cover-ups. It was utterly wretched. I was similarly appalled by the story a year or two ago about multiple cases of child abuse by football coaches, and the way some organisations reacted to try and keep it quiet.
The Manchester cover up came to light a week or two ago. You cited the Catholic Church/football abuses, but I don't recall you posting comedic takes on them a week later.
There's a serious problem we have to face up to. And if the mainstream don't then the far right will.
If gangs of white men had almost exclusively raped black children (both girls and boys) then the racism angle wouldn't be shied away from, and nor should it be when there are gangs of Pakistanis targeting white children. Pretending white people can't be victims of racism is part of the problem, in the same way the thankfully declining view that men can't be victims of domestic abuse can make it harder for men to come forward and get help for that.
Edited extra bit: anyway, I'm going to do something productive.
Comments
"So there are grounds for at least cautious optimism. Contrary to the hopes and fears of many, Brexit looks less like it will make a decisive turn towards restricting immigration. Instead, consistent with the more benign aspects of our history, it may signal a different form of openness."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/29/brexit-britain-hard-line-immigration-openness
https://twitter.com/AaronBastani/status/1222567042781450241?s=20
Have a good day.
Did we ever find out if it was the Shakespeare quote that appears to have ended Alastair Stewart's career?
So what am I missing? How does one employer become more LGBT friendly than another if they don't tolerate bigotry?
TfL seemed to be very reluctant to take the flags down last year, and now the majority of staff wear a rainbow lanyard.
Of course, it’s impossible to question because anyone who did so would be terrified of being labelled a closet bigot, so it isn’t; steadily, it just becomes “the norm”, and therefore not particularly meaningful.
It was that in combination with a modern illiberalism, blind hatred of free speech, zero tolerance and refusing to think whether there was any malign intent behind the comments.
https://twitter.com/BpsmithUk/status/1222608052827848706?s=20
I’ve read the article. I couldn’t see Brexit mentioned once. The company couldn’t pay a tax bill HMRC were pursuing it for, and had had cashflow problems for almost two years.
Unless this is one of those correlation equals causation things..
I will regret Scotland leaving, both for sentimental reasons and the pragmatic one that England will be subject to absolute Tory control for a generation. I don't blame them though.
https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1222791799921614849?s=20
It will end up being a futile argument.
*There will of course be those successful companies that thrive on high volume turnover with small margins who could be wiped out, particularly if there are tariffs.
His business methods have more than a whiff of Ponzi about them, as many have paid upfront for machines that they will never get. I think he had a part to play in finishing off Spondon the Derby based frame manufacturer too.
I don't think Brexit was as much to blame as a dodgy business culture.
It's a view I suppose.
Her very participation in a referendum campaign would be a glaring admission of total failure.
Brexit is pretty pointless if we can't set our own rules. Doing so is precisely what Johnson has argued for, for nearly 4 years now, so it shouldn't be a shock.
Rainbows, highlighting everything etc is not "normal". Its not wrong, but its not normal.
The voters will catch up soon.
https://twitter.com/magnusllewellin/status/1222774204388577281?s=21
And one wonders at the reaction had Corbyn quoted Merchant of Venice intemperately...
I would be interested in hearing Alistair Meeks views on this because I am really struggling to know how one does distinguish between companies who simply do not tolerate bigotry in terms of them being LBGT friendly.
They recently lost their German distributor and their V4RR model used a complete Aprilia drivetrain so it probably wasn't Brexit unrelated.
The Chinese will probably buy the brand which is still worth something and put it on crap scooters. Brexit Britain is open for business.
Meanwhile all Sturgeon has to do is point her hand in the direction of London and tell her fellow country people, "See!"
I don't think those believing Johnson will agree a second referendum should independence parties win a majority in Hollyrood are reading this right. The parliament has just voted for a second referendum. Johnson will triple down.
Incidentally if Johnson were confident of the unionists winning, the time to hold the second referendum is now. Winning would shoot the nationalists' fox. I don't think Johnson is art all confident of winning.
Better get those three-quidder memberships in quick eh chaps?
Only on PB.
It certainly can be but then it ceases to mean very much. I’d argue that normal would but the complete irrelevance of sexuality or highlighting or celebrating it either which way.
As a white straight male I never fill out equality measuring information. Because it just plainly is not in my interest. It will never be in my interest and the scale is only the amount of damage it will do to my interests.
This is particularly true of the increasing number of workplaces dealing in service industries to a diverse community, such as my own in the NHS. We serve our clientele better by having a greater understanding of it.
The SNP has replaced the Scottish Labour Party as the party of choice of the left and those with a constant grievance. They have reached 45% which was around the maximum Scottish Labour ever achieved. The young and idealists might be impressed by all the saltire waving crap and the Fat Laird standing up and talking shite every Wednesday at 12 noon when he gets his 2 questions but more and more Scots are getting angrier that the SNP is only interested in IndyRef2 when Scotland's education system is rapidly going down the international pan and our health service is starting to fall apart.
Let's see how good a shape the SNP as a party is once the Alex Salmond trial has concluded and indeed whether Nicola Sturgeon is still First Minister! Separately I am delighted the SCons held their seat in the Dumfries and Galloway council by-election last Thursday.
Mr. Powerhouse, my mother used to work in a school. She was there when they first started recording demographic data (ethnicity etc), and was assured that the data wouldn't actually be used for anything. Of course, it was, and now we have some schools criticised for not being diverse enough because they're in largely white areas and have largely white pupils.
Here is the video of those dramatic moments
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=callachhan+defeated+1979&&view=detail&mid=E51B8B5A582A69C8373EE51B8B5A582A69C8373E&&FORM=VRDGAR&ru=/videos/search?q=callachhan+defeated+1979&FORM=HDRSC3
And then I got given a grey one.
Such is the way with lanyards; they're simply not things I'd bother to keep in stock for special occasions.
A quick plug: my own firm helps other organisations develop their diversity and inclusion policies as part of its service offering.
Until one is 80, then they don't want to know.
However the NFU Mutual is then more expensive, but very good.
The white person’s guide to pretending you're a victim of racism.
https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/the-white-persons-guide-to-pretending-youre-a-victim-of-racism-20190215182510
I use 'Good to go Insurance' who are excellent and once you have declared all your conditions you only need to update it each time you want cover, rather than start a new. However, it is essential you declare absolutely everything and even after taking out cover, you have to update the insurer in any change to your declarations
Our two week trip to Canada in May costs £670 for both of us and of course the non medical cover for all older people is much less than normal
Is that Scottish nationalism killed stone dead?
Pretending white people can't be victims of racism is the sort of bigoted bullshit that led to the authorities deciding it was better to just let the child rape continue rather than risk being seen as not respecting 'cultural sensitivities'.
Mainstream politicians/parties need to get a grip on this. If they don't, a serious and justified grievance is either going to go unaddressed or the only people willing to talk about it will be on the far right.
Scots nationalism has gone on for decades and will always be there but of course losing a second referendum would end the debate for a generation
There may be attributes that lead to to think that, but you may well be wrong. I am guessing that most discrimination is driven by this.
So that removes the whole point of what you said. You can be no more aware than anybody else with decent observancy skills. Yes it is good to have a spread of backgrounds, but that is going to happen anyway by not being bigoted and you certainly can't select on the basis of sexuality by asking the question. That would be totally inappropriate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN36jVSp1x0#action=share
People must get behind this - at least the spirit of it - if they are serious about spreading wealth and opportunity in this country.
So have the HofC in Scotland, Wales or NI.
Tomorrow morning will probably be the last time I ever drive a car with a manual transmission.
How are you better than another company that simply just doesn't tolerate bigotry?
CVTs killed manuals in cheap cars and DCT/PDK (sub 200ms shift) killed them in fast cars.
I get the feeling that Labour policy on indyref 2 is going to end up being just as much a fudge, if not more so, than it's previous Brexit position was.
I think a man feeling free to go to work and gossip about his boyfriend as much as anyone else gossips about their love lives and its considered perfectly normal is more normal than someone going to work wearing rainbows but not talking on a day to day basis about their love life while others do.
The Manchester cover up came to light a week or two ago. You cited the Catholic Church/football abuses, but I don't recall you posting comedic takes on them a week later.
There's a serious problem we have to face up to. And if the mainstream don't then the far right will.
If gangs of white men had almost exclusively raped black children (both girls and boys) then the racism angle wouldn't be shied away from, and nor should it be when there are gangs of Pakistanis targeting white children. Pretending white people can't be victims of racism is part of the problem, in the same way the thankfully declining view that men can't be victims of domestic abuse can make it harder for men to come forward and get help for that.
Edited extra bit: anyway, I'm going to do something productive.