Oh look. Powerful important influential people hate the idea of consequences for their actions.
A bloo bloo bloo they said something stupid on Twitter and now people are making fun of them and their feelings are hurt.
And their genius idea is to limit the speech and actions of people who disagree with them. What a fucking paradox.
That's an odd reading of the letter. My understanding is that they are arguing that people should be able to express themselves reasonably freely without instantly being fired if they ever slip up.
A recent example is Starkey. He's undoubtedly talented but he's made remarks which seem to be racist. I'm absolutely in favour of condeming the remarks. Do I think his publishers should no longer publish his books, even if they don't contain racist remarks? I'm not sure that I do, even though I rarely agree with him on anything. Otherwise it's not obvious that we are different, except in degree, from China banning certain types of statement.
I agree it's difficult to know where to draw the line. But their concerns seem reasonable.
Publishers should be completely free to publish racist books (that are not committing a crime). But they should also be completely free to make a decision that publishing racist books is either not commercial or just something they dont want to involved in. Racist authors might find they need to find niche publishers for their books.
Racist academics in a university sector still heavily funded by govt? No thanks.
Before I retired as a teacher I used to drive to work every day and I never had to pay for parking at any school I was at. I'm sure MPs don't pay, and I would suspect very few if any of the PB community pay at work. Why should we force Doctors and Nurses to pay?
Free meals are different. When I taught in a state school I paid for all my meals, yet never did in Independent schools. I suspect very few PBers pay for their own lunches either.
I get free parking at one of the (public sector) offices I work at, at the other we use a free Council car park. I do have to get my own lunch though. However I don't see why free parking shouldn't be part of a reasonable reward package for hospital staff though. There seems to be an attitude that the only thing of value that public sector staff should receive is salary, and pension. And while I rather suspect Dr Foxy can easily afford parking charges, it's a bit different for a healthcare assistant.
There is also the question of Holidays. I don't know what the average is now in the Country, but my wife a nurse of 18 years gets 11 weeks paid holiday. Other than teachers I don't know any other profession that has such a generous holiday allowance as part of their reward package.
I get just over 6 weeks (I'm a Civil Servant) but the public sector seems to compensate by offering things not obviously "of value" such as holidays, flexitime and being fairly free with flexible working. In fact it can now be difficult for new parents to get part time hours where I work because their older colleagues are still on them, having discovered they don't like working full time and don't need to now their (mostly) husbands are older and earning more. Given that I am hoping to retire in less than 5 years I am fairly content with my lot - the pension, flexible working and holidays are actually what I want but we have a huge problem keeping younger staff who need money.
Hey, according HMRC, the ports, the logistics industry what they're trying to do in 6 months isn't just impossible its insane. I assume that when the French side of the border is fully up and running (the EU already having a functioning borders system) and ours isn't that the government will try and blame the EU?
A mix of that and claiming ours that achieves 10% of its initial objectives is superior to the French one which achieves 90% of its objectives and is delivered closer to time.
You go to a restraunt. The waiter is consisterly rude and makes racist statements at you.
You go to complain to the manager. The other diners raise an uproar decrying you for embracing "Cancel Culture". You go to leave - newspaper articles are written about your shameful boycott.
Before I retired as a teacher I used to drive to work every day and I never had to pay for parking at any school I was at. I'm sure MPs don't pay, and I would suspect very few if any of the PB community pay at work. Why should we force Doctors and Nurses to pay?
Free meals are different. When I taught in a state school I paid for all my meals, yet never did in Independent schools. I suspect very few PBers pay for their own lunches either.
I get free parking at one of the (public sector) offices I work at, at the other we use a free Council car park. I do have to get my own lunch though. However I don't see why free parking shouldn't be part of a reasonable reward package for hospital staff though. There seems to be an attitude that the only thing of value that public sector staff should receive is salary, and pension. And while I rather suspect Dr Foxy can easily afford parking charges, it's a bit different for a healthcare assistant.
There is also the question of Holidays. I don't know what the average is now in the Country, but my wife a nurse of 18 years gets 11 weeks paid holiday. Other than teachers I don't know any other profession that has such a generous holiday allowance as part of their reward package.
That seems very odd. Under AFC terms and conditions a Nurse with 10 years senority gets 33 days annual leave plus 8 Bank Holidays, so 41 days max.
There's a serious risk of a Chinese attempt to fully annexe Taiwan within the next decade. Which would not be good news for them - or for us, given how much of the world's high end chip production is located there.
Imagine all this were happening during a Labour or LD government, the media would be apoplectic with rage.
But in Boris we trust.
Why? Why would there be rage at the PM's top advisor having security clearance?
How else is the PM supposed to get top advice if his advisors only have half the information?
Because he is unelected. You would rightly be enraged if you had got wind of Mandelson, Campbell or Jonathan Powell attending Sage with menace or hassling the military.
Good morning everyone. Cricket is about to start, at last, and the forecast for Southampton, where the first Test is being played, is rain.
Only to be expected, of course!
Rained off cricket in July, thank goodness for a return to normality indeed.
A sensibly run sport might realise there are no spectators, and it would be trivial to start tomorrow and significantly increase the chance of a result.
My issue with cancel culture is it feels like all sins are equal and there can be no forgiveness. A mistake or clumsy language is treated as being as reprehensible as being a Klansman, apologies (sincere or not) cannot make up for it and everyone is expected to instantly cut ties.
Its disproportionate. Someone who repeatedly does offensive things, sure. But consequences for words and actions doesnt need to mean instant consequences in every case.
I think the breadth of those warning about this culture going too far is quite telling.
Imagine all this were happening during a Labour or LD government, the media would be apoplectic with rage.
But in Boris we trust.
Why? Why would there be rage at the PM's top advisor having security clearance?
How else is the PM supposed to get top advice if his advisors only have half the information?
Because he is unelected. You would rightly be enraged if you had got wind of Mandelson, Campbell or Jonathan Powell attending Sage with menace or hassling the military.
No I wouldn't. He serves at the PM's pleasure and the PM is elected. The buck stops with the PM.
Campbell did wield power and he did harrass people - all done for the PM and when the PM decided Campbell should go he was gone. There is literally no difference here.
Oh look. Powerful important influential people hate the idea of consequences for their actions.
A bloo bloo bloo they said something stupid on Twitter and now people are making fun of them and their feelings are hurt.
And their genius idea is to limit the speech and actions of people who disagree with them. What a fucking paradox.
That's an odd reading of the letter. My understanding is that they are arguing that people should be able to express themselves reasonably freely without instantly being fired if they ever slip up.
A recent example is Starkey. He's undoubtedly talented but he's made remarks which seem to be racist. I'm absolutely in favour of condeming the remarks. Do I think his publishers should no longer publish his books, even if they don't contain racist remarks? I'm not sure that I do, even though I rarely agree with him on anything. Otherwise it's not obvious that we are different, except in degree, from China banning certain types of statement.
I agree it's difficult to know where to draw the line. But their concerns seem reasonable.
There's a serious risk of a Chinese attempt to fully annexe Taiwan within the next decade. Which would not be good news for them - or for us, given how much of the world's high end chip production is located there.
Given the way they’ve behaved over Hong Kong that risk has greatly increased - it’s clear Xi reckons the price the international community is willing to extract for malfeasance is no deterrent. Although I suspect the South China Sea will be the next flashpoint.
Good on him. Defence procurement has been a very expensive shambles for decades, whilst being a very cosy revolving door gig in industry for former civil servants and brass hats.
Should be very high on the list for a turning upside-down by the government.
By far the bigger problem is governments of all complexions using defence procurement as corporate welfare. This government is about to give the (much delayed) Fleet Solid Support ship contract to a yard with 130 employees that hasn't built a military ship for 40 years. Because iT's BrItIsH. How do you think that project is going to go? Spoiler: it's going to be a fuck up.
Having said that, Carter is an absolute twat who deserves a shoeing even it is from The Inflatable Reservist.
You go to a restraunt. The waiter is consisterly rude and makes racist statements at you.
You go to complain to the manager. The other diners raise an uproar decrying you for embracing "Cancel Culture". You go to leave - newspaper articles are written about your shameful boycott.
My issue with cancel culture is it feels like all sins are equal and there can be no forgiveness. A mistake or clumsy language is treated as being as reprehensible as being a Klansman, apologies (sincere or not) cannot make up for it and everyone is expected to instantly cut ties.
Its disproportionate. Someone who repeatedly does offensive things, sure. But consequences for words and actions doesnt need to mean instant consequences in every case.
I think the breadth of those warning about this culture going too far is quite telling.
Hasn't social ostracisation been omnipresent throughout human history for those who express deviant views? All that has changed is the means of technology that we do so. Heretics have always been suppressed.
There's a serious risk of a Chinese attempt to fully annexe Taiwan within the next decade. Which would not be good news for them - or for us, given how much of the world's high end chip production is located there.
Not least as Trump has committed to militarily defend Taiwan from Chinese invasion
Good morning everyone. Cricket is about to start, at last, and the forecast for Southampton, where the first Test is being played, is rain.
Only to be expected, of course!
Rained off cricket in July, thank goodness for a return to normality indeed.
A sensibly run sport might realise there are no spectators, and it would be trivial to start tomorrow and significantly increase the chance of a result.
The schedule of Test matches is quite intense. Losing another rest day in between matches would be tough - though I am in favour of cricket making use of weather forecasts.
I also think neither side is good enough at batting to make a draw all that likely. The final three days will be enough.
Imagine all this were happening during a Labour or LD government, the media would be apoplectic with rage.
But in Boris we trust.
Why? Why would there be rage at the PM's top advisor having security clearance?
How else is the PM supposed to get top advice if his advisors only have half the information?
Because he is unelected. You would rightly be enraged if you had got wind of Mandelson, Campbell or Jonathan Powell attending Sage with menace or hassling the military.
No I wouldn't. He serves at the PM's pleasure and the PM is elected. The buck stops with the PM.
Campbell did wield power and he did harrass people - all done for the PM and when the PM decided Campbell should go he was gone. There is literally no difference here.
The buck stops with Johnson. No more, no less.
The flaw in your argument is the last statement. It would appear after Durham that the buck doesn't stop with Johnson, but with Cummings.
I know you are going to disagree, so let's agree to disagree.
My issue with cancel culture is it feels like all sins are equal and there can be no forgiveness. A mistake or clumsy language is treated as being as reprehensible as being a Klansman, apologies (sincere or not) cannot make up for it and everyone is expected to instantly cut ties.
Its disproportionate. Someone who repeatedly does offensive things, sure. But consequences for words and actions doesnt need to mean instant consequences in every case.
I think the breadth of those warning about this culture going too far is quite telling.
Hasn't social ostracisation been omnipresent throughout human history for those who express deviant views? All that has changed is the means of technology that we do so. Heretics have always been suppressed.
I'm sure that is true, but we like to think we are a more enlightened age. Let's try and prove it rather than just say it. We really dont want to be in a place where people dont feel able to say things which cause offence. I'd like to know if people think such things .
My issue with cancel culture is it feels like all sins are equal and there can be no forgiveness. A mistake or clumsy language is treated as being as reprehensible as being a Klansman, apologies (sincere or not) cannot make up for it and everyone is expected to instantly cut ties.
Its disproportionate. Someone who repeatedly does offensive things, sure. But consequences for words and actions doesnt need to mean instant consequences in every case.
I think the breadth of those warning about this culture going too far is quite telling.
It is extreme and disproportionate at times. I dont see how that applies to Starkey. Academics and teachers do need to held to higher standards because of their influence on shaping the future, and that they tend to be funded by taxpayers including those they are racist to.
Good on him. Defence procurement has been a very expensive shambles for decades, whilst being a very cosy revolving door gig in industry for former civil servants and brass hats.
Should be very high on the list for a turning upside-down by the government.
I've read the Cummings blog post on the military and military procurment.
It is absolute drivel.
Military procurement is a shit show but nothing Cummings has said or done suggest he has any clue what the problems are and how they need to be solved.
The alternate theory is that he's Putin's agent of influence, and knows exactly how he intends to mess it up worse than it is now...,
There's a serious risk of a Chinese attempt to fully annexe Taiwan within the next decade. Which would not be good news for them - or for us, given how much of the world's high end chip production is located there.
Not least as Trump has committed to militarily defend Taiwan from Chinese invasion
You have written that with an air of casual complacency.
A military adventure might curry favour with the US electorate, but Trump picking a fight with one of the big dogs is not smart.
My issue with cancel culture is it feels like all sins are equal and there can be no forgiveness. A mistake or clumsy language is treated as being as reprehensible as being a Klansman, apologies (sincere or not) cannot make up for it and everyone is expected to instantly cut ties.
Its disproportionate. Someone who repeatedly does offensive things, sure. But consequences for words and actions doesnt need to mean instant consequences in every case.
I think the breadth of those warning about this culture going too far is quite telling.
It is extreme and disproportionate at times. I dont see how that applies to Starkey. Academics and teachers do need to held to higher standards because of their influence on shaping the future, and that they tend to be funded by taxpayers including those they are racist to.
I did not comment on Starkey. I dont think taking a stand on cancel culture generally going too far would prevent a reaction against someone in his situation. It's the cultural context that needs to be more cautious, not the declaring that anything goes.
Before I retired as a teacher I used to drive to work every day and I never had to pay for parking at any school I was at. I'm sure MPs don't pay, and I would suspect very few if any of the PB community pay at work. Why should we force Doctors and Nurses to pay?
Free meals are different. When I taught in a state school I paid for all my meals, yet never did in Independent schools. I suspect very few PBers pay for their own lunches either.
I'd guess that almost all PB'ers pay for their lunch.
Thirty five years ago, when lunchtime drinking was the norm, it was The Guinea on Bruton Place. These days it's a branch of Greggs.
I used to work round there, but we used to drink in Shepherd's Market.
Those were the days! I would only have a pint because I drove into town, people I was with would have three or four. They scheduled meetings and worked like fury in the morning but nothing would get done in the afternoon.
When I worked for the NHS I could have to have to go to several sites during the course of a day; glad I didn't have to pay at each one!
Good morning everyone. Cricket is about to start, at last, and the forecast for Southampton, where the first Test is being played, is rain.
Only to be expected, of course!
Rained off cricket in July, thank goodness for a return to normality indeed.
A sensibly run sport might realise there are no spectators, and it would be trivial to start tomorrow and significantly increase the chance of a result.
The schedule of Test matches is quite intense. Losing another rest day in between matches would be tough - though I am in favour of cricket making use of weather forecasts.
I also think neither side is good enough at batting to make a draw all that likely. The final three days will be enough.
You might have missed something called coronavirus! The 2nd and 3rd Tests also have no spectators so can be moved back a day or three.
My issue with cancel culture is it feels like all sins are equal and there can be no forgiveness. A mistake or clumsy language is treated as being as reprehensible as being a Klansman, apologies (sincere or not) cannot make up for it and everyone is expected to instantly cut ties.
Its disproportionate. Someone who repeatedly does offensive things, sure. But consequences for words and actions doesnt need to mean instant consequences in every case.
I think the breadth of those warning about this culture going too far is quite telling.
It is extreme and disproportionate at times. I dont see how that applies to Starkey. Academics and teachers do need to held to higher standards because of their influence on shaping the future, and that they tend to be funded by taxpayers including those they are racist to.
I did not comment on Starkey. I dont think taking a stand on cancel culture generally going too far would prevent a reaction against someone in his situation. It's the cultural context that needs to be more cautious, not the declaring that anything goes.
Sure, then like most things there are extremists who take a movement too far and on twitter they get amplified by the media and opponents of cancel culture. Id rather a movement with a few extremists than no movement at all though.
The right to free speech has never been a right to free speech without others having a right to make judgments about you based on what you say.
Oh look. Powerful important influential people hate the idea of consequences for their actions.
A bloo bloo bloo they said something stupid on Twitter and now people are making fun of them and their feelings are hurt.
And their genius idea is to limit the speech and actions of people who disagree with them. What a fucking paradox.
That's an odd reading of the letter. My understanding is that they are arguing that people should be able to express themselves reasonably freely without instantly being fired if they ever slip up.
A recent example is Starkey. He's undoubtedly talented but he's made remarks which seem to be racist. I'm absolutely in favour of condeming the remarks. Do I think his publishers should no longer publish his books, even if they don't contain racist remarks? I'm not sure that I do, even though I rarely agree with him on anything. Otherwise it's not obvious that we are different, except in degree, from China banning certain types of statement.
I agree it's difficult to know where to draw the line. But their concerns seem reasonable.
Do you believe people should have to face consequences for their actions? Yes or No?
The letter is saying there should never be any consequence for someone's actions.
Should book companies be forced to publish Starkey's books. Should TV stations be forced to have him on? Starkey has been free to say what he wants. He has faced no legal repurcussions of any sort. However other free people and companies have exercised their right of free speech and association to call him a fucknut and not have anything to do with him.
Of course not - and I don't think the article says that at all. Neither is it the attack on free speech you initially claimed it was.
...We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal....
How the Starkey affair fits into the above, I'll let you form your own view.
You go to a restraunt. The waiter is consisterly rude and makes racist statements at you.
You go to complain to the manager. The other diners raise an uproar decrying you for embracing "Cancel Culture". You go to leave - newspaper articles are written about your shameful boycott.
The word "consistently" is relevant there.
Starkey's recent comment was hardly out of keeping with the man.
Before I retired as a teacher I used to drive to work every day and I never had to pay for parking at any school I was at. I'm sure MPs don't pay, and I would suspect very few if any of the PB community pay at work. Why should we force Doctors and Nurses to pay?
Free meals are different. When I taught in a state school I paid for all my meals, yet never did in Independent schools. I suspect very few PBers pay for their own lunches either.
I get free parking at one of the (public sector) offices I work at, at the other we use a free Council car park. I do have to get my own lunch though. However I don't see why free parking shouldn't be part of a reasonable reward package for hospital staff though. There seems to be an attitude that the only thing of value that public sector staff should receive is salary, and pension. And while I rather suspect Dr Foxy can easily afford parking charges, it's a bit different for a healthcare assistant.
There is also the question of Holidays. I don't know what the average is now in the Country, but my wife a nurse of 18 years gets 11 weeks paid holiday. Other than teachers I don't know any other profession that has such a generous holiday allowance as part of their reward package.
That seems very odd. Under AFC terms and conditions a Nurse with 10 years senority gets 33 days annual leave plus 8 Bank Holidays, so 41 days max.
It's a few years ago now but as a pharmacist at Principal level I had similar. I could top it up with TOIL (Time off in Lieu) when I was on-call, if I was actually called out. Sometimes, if we had a really busy weekend that could amount to a two- or three more days.
There's a serious risk of a Chinese attempt to fully annexe Taiwan within the next decade. Which would not be good news for them - or for us, given how much of the world's high end chip production is located there.
Not least as Trump has committed to militarily defend Taiwan from Chinese invasion
You have written that with an air of casual complacency.
A military adventure might curry favour with the US electorate, but Trump picking a fight with one of the big dogs is not smart.
Given India has also just got into a spat with Beijing and Japan is also a US ally the US is not alone.
However if China invaded Taiwan it would at least be the equivalent of Hitler annexing Austria if not the invasion of Poland and the fault would lie solely with Beijing for escalating conflict
My issue with cancel culture is it feels like all sins are equal and there can be no forgiveness. A mistake or clumsy language is treated as being as reprehensible as being a Klansman, apologies (sincere or not) cannot make up for it and everyone is expected to instantly cut ties.
Its disproportionate. Someone who repeatedly does offensive things, sure. But consequences for words and actions doesnt need to mean instant consequences in every case.
I think the breadth of those warning about this culture going too far is quite telling.
That seems very much to be the argument of the Harpers article.
That some wish to claim he's not viable because he's a Brexiteer shows just how mad they are.
What is Liam Fox viable as. Specifically..
It was the choice of a known giant or a pigmy as our candidate. Johnson's dislike of those who don't 100% agree with him means he picked the pigmy who hasn't got a chance.
If Johnson had picked Mandelson he would have been the next president (EU would have voted for him as a former head responsible for Trade others would have fallen in line).
Plus the new job would mean Mandelson would no longer be subject to the EU pension rules as this job trumped that.
Instead the EU will pick another candidate and that person will win the vote.
If Johnson had picked Mandelson he would have been the next president (EU would have voted for him as a former head responsible for Trade others would have fallen in line).
Instead the EU will pick another candidate and that person will win the vote.
Before I retired as a teacher I used to drive to work every day and I never had to pay for parking at any school I was at. I'm sure MPs don't pay, and I would suspect very few if any of the PB community pay at work. Why should we force Doctors and Nurses to pay?
Free meals are different. When I taught in a state school I paid for all my meals, yet never did in Independent schools. I suspect very few PBers pay for their own lunches either.
I get free parking at one of the (public sector) offices I work at, at the other we use a free Council car park. I do have to get my own lunch though. However I don't see why free parking shouldn't be part of a reasonable reward package for hospital staff though. There seems to be an attitude that the only thing of value that public sector staff should receive is salary, and pension. And while I rather suspect Dr Foxy can easily afford parking charges, it's a bit different for a healthcare assistant.
There is also the question of Holidays. I don't know what the average is now in the Country, but my wife a nurse of 18 years gets 11 weeks paid holiday. Other than teachers I don't know any other profession that has such a generous holiday allowance as part of their reward package.
That seems very odd. Under AFC terms and conditions a Nurse with 10 years senority gets 33 days annual leave plus 8 Bank Holidays, so 41 days max.
This car parking story is so odd and can only surely be perceived negatively?
Why would they want to fight this kind of battle, it's just like the school meals one all over again, there is no upside.
Because a) they are out of touch, or b) the can, and they don't care.
A benefit of Corbyn donating an 80 seat majority.
Its both A and B. This particular flavour of "Tory" doesn't really have a clue how people live or what they do. What they do know is that things were Good before the Rona for them, and that tings should go back to where they were. Its not as if people weren't happy back then, they voted Tory so they must agree.
This is the great failing of the 40 year era ending in 2019. People got superficially better off and materially worse off. We have had different flavours of Tory and Labour government and even a coalition yet not a lot of actual change has happened. So people decided to throw the dice and Brexit would be the way out. Then Tory majority government to secure the Brexit.
What the Tories haven't understood is that the red wall vote for them was a credit note. Unless positive change is delivered (and Brexit isn't change, just a means of change) then people are going to go ape shit. Which is why we're now seeing attacks on parents and care homes and now NHS staff. Back in your box, as you were, get on with it. I don't think it will work...
Oh look. Powerful important influential people hate the idea of consequences for their actions.
A bloo bloo bloo they said something stupid on Twitter and now people are making fun of them and their feelings are hurt.
And their genius idea is to limit the speech and actions of people who disagree with them. What a fucking paradox.
That's an odd reading of the letter. My understanding is that they are arguing that people should be able to express themselves reasonably freely without instantly being fired if they ever slip up.
A recent example is Starkey. He's undoubtedly talented but he's made remarks which seem to be racist. I'm absolutely in favour of condeming the remarks. Do I think his publishers should no longer publish his books, even if they don't contain racist remarks? I'm not sure that I do, even though I rarely agree with him on anything. Otherwise it's not obvious that we are different, except in degree, from China banning certain types of statement.
I agree it's difficult to know where to draw the line. But their concerns seem reasonable.
Do you believe people should have to face consequences for their actions? Yes or No?
The letter is saying there should never be any consequence for someone's actions.
Should book companies be forced to publish Starkey's books. Should TV stations be forced to have him on? Starkey has been free to say what he wants. He has faced no legal repurcussions of any sort. However other free people and companies have exercised their right of free speech and association to call him a fucknut and not have anything to do with him.
Of course not - and I don't think the article says that at all. Neither is it the attack on free speech you initially claimed it was.
...We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal....
How the Starkey affair fits into the above, I'll let you form your own view.
I think it telling that a general point about not wanting to go too far with cancel culture repeatedly is attempted to be undercut by pointing to Starkey, when it is a far broader point
Good morning everyone. Cricket is about to start, at last, and the forecast for Southampton, where the first Test is being played, is rain.
Only to be expected, of course!
Rained off cricket in July, thank goodness for a return to normality indeed.
A sensibly run sport might realise there are no spectators, and it would be trivial to start tomorrow and significantly increase the chance of a result.
Modern batting means a result is all but certain unless more than 2 days are totally rained off. Numbers of draws in test cricket dropped like a stone, around the same time that T20 became really popular, but I'd hate to suggest a link...
Oh look. Powerful important influential people hate the idea of consequences for their actions.
A bloo bloo bloo they said something stupid on Twitter and now people are making fun of them and their feelings are hurt.
And their genius idea is to limit the speech and actions of people who disagree with them. What a fucking paradox.
That's an odd reading of the letter. My understanding is that they are arguing that people should be able to express themselves reasonably freely without instantly being fired if they ever slip up.
A recent example is Starkey. He's undoubtedly talented but he's made remarks which seem to be racist. I'm absolutely in favour of condeming the remarks. Do I think his publishers should no longer publish his books, even if they don't contain racist remarks? I'm not sure that I do, even though I rarely agree with him on anything. Otherwise it's not obvious that we are different, except in degree, from China banning certain types of statement.
I agree it's difficult to know where to draw the line. But their concerns seem reasonable.
Do you believe people should have to face consequences for their actions? Yes or No?
The letter is saying there should never be any consequence for someone's actions.
Should book companies be forced to publish Starkey's books. Should TV stations be forced to have him on? Starkey has been free to say what he wants. He has faced no legal repurcussions of any sort. However other free people and companies have exercised their right of free speech and association to call him a fucknut and not have anything to do with him.
Of course not - and I don't think the article says that at all. Neither is it the attack on free speech you initially claimed it was.
...We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal....
How the Starkey affair fits into the above, I'll let you form your own view.
I think it telling that a general point about not wanting to go too far with cancel culture repeatedly is attempted to be undercut by pointing to Starkey, when it is a far broader point
Its the most recent headline case so in the news. Which prominent authors do you think have been unfairly and disproportionately treated. Ill certainly give you Rowling.
The coronavirus emergency boosted the standing of incumbents in most countries, but that “rallying to the flag” effect has been stronger and lasted longer in Scotland than in England. Even many of Sturgeon’s critics privately concede that she has had a good crisis, leavening executive authority with humility and sincerity – qualities the Tory leader has only read about.
Downing Street’s Plan A to dampen the clamour for independence was hosing Scotland with public money, but competition for that resource is getting more intense and areas with Conservative MPs are the priority. If there is no sign of a Tory revival north of the border, an even more cynical path might appeal: letting the flames of resentment roar in Scotland, igniting a Johnson-supporting English nationalist backlash. All the better if that sustains the toxic question of whether Labour needs SNP MPs to support a coalition come a general election. It would take an exceptionally irresponsible prime minister on a streak of constitutional pyromania to pursue such tactics. Johnson is qualified.
My issue with cancel culture is it feels like all sins are equal and there can be no forgiveness. A mistake or clumsy language is treated as being as reprehensible as being a Klansman, apologies (sincere or not) cannot make up for it and everyone is expected to instantly cut ties.
Its disproportionate. Someone who repeatedly does offensive things, sure. But consequences for words and actions doesnt need to mean instant consequences in every case.
I think the breadth of those warning about this culture going too far is quite telling.
It is extreme and disproportionate at times. I dont see how that applies to Starkey. Academics and teachers do need to held to higher standards because of their influence on shaping the future, and that they tend to be funded by taxpayers including those they are racist to.
I did not comment on Starkey. I dont think taking a stand on cancel culture generally going too far would prevent a reaction against someone in his situation. It's the cultural context that needs to be more cautious, not the declaring that anything goes.
Sure, then like most things there are extremists who take a movement too far and on twitter they get amplified by the media and opponents of cancel culture. Id rather a movement with a few extremists than no movement at all though.
The right to free speech has never been a right to free speech without others having a right to make judgments about you based on what you say.
Never said otherwise. Obviously some would like that, but the spread of those warning we can go too far in the other direction I think is persuasive that that is not what us being sought.
But we need to be careful. Societies can get worse through attempts to improve them. It doesnt mean stop trying or stop trying to change social norms, but there plenty of issues where the costs can outweigh positive benefits. I'd err on the side of letting some more reprehensible people not facing as much immediate consequence as some would like, it it means people in general are not stifled or face disproportionate consequence. It's a trade off.
If Johnson had picked Mandelson he would have been the next president (EU would have voted for him as a former head responsible for Trade others would have fallen in line).
Instead the EU will pick another candidate and that person will win the vote.
4D chess...
It really isn't that sophisticated. 4D tiddly winks maybe. Random rather than planned outcomes!
My issue with cancel culture is it feels like all sins are equal and there can be no forgiveness. A mistake or clumsy language is treated as being as reprehensible as being a Klansman, apologies (sincere or not) cannot make up for it and everyone is expected to instantly cut ties.
Its disproportionate. Someone who repeatedly does offensive things, sure. But consequences for words and actions doesnt need to mean instant consequences in every case.
I think the breadth of those warning about this culture going too far is quite telling.
It is extreme and disproportionate at times. I dont see how that applies to Starkey. Academics and teachers do need to held to higher standards because of their influence on shaping the future, and that they tend to be funded by taxpayers including those they are racist to.
Yes, perhaps. I picked Starkey because I wanted to have an example of someone I almost always disagree with. I wouldn't dream of buying a book by him, but I don't want his career cvompletely wrecked because he has opinions I dislike. Academic life is strong enough to include some repellent views.
Note that I'm not especially libertarian in general. For example, in the virus crisis, I'm fine with governments telling us all to stay home, wear masks or whatever. But I think we need to be careful about closing down views altogether.
Good morning everyone. Cricket is about to start, at last, and the forecast for Southampton, where the first Test is being played, is rain.
Only to be expected, of course!
Rained off cricket in July, thank goodness for a return to normality indeed.
A sensibly run sport might realise there are no spectators, and it would be trivial to start tomorrow and significantly increase the chance of a result.
Modern batting means a result is all but certain unless more than 2 days are totally rained off. Numbers of draws in test cricket dropped like a stone, around the same time that T20 became really popular, but I'd hate to suggest a link...
It was undoubtedly a factor but there are others. Flexible playing hours mean that you really need seriously bad weather weather to lose two whole days.
I suspect the wider use of UDRS may also contribute but the evidence is difficult to assess. Batsmen benefit as well as bowlers but I think on balance it's the batters who were more likely to get away with stuff pre-DRS.
Before I retired as a teacher I used to drive to work every day and I never had to pay for parking at any school I was at. I'm sure MPs don't pay, and I would suspect very few if any of the PB community pay at work. Why should we force Doctors and Nurses to pay?
Free meals are different. When I taught in a state school I paid for all my meals, yet never did in Independent schools. I suspect very few PBers pay for their own lunches either.
I get free parking at one of the (public sector) offices I work at, at the other we use a free Council car park. I do have to get my own lunch though. However I don't see why free parking shouldn't be part of a reasonable reward package for hospital staff though. There seems to be an attitude that the only thing of value that public sector staff should receive is salary, and pension. And while I rather suspect Dr Foxy can easily afford parking charges, it's a bit different for a healthcare assistant.
There is also the question of Holidays. I don't know what the average is now in the Country, but my wife a nurse of 18 years gets 11 weeks paid holiday. Other than teachers I don't know any other profession that has such a generous holiday allowance as part of their reward package.
That seems very odd. Under AFC terms and conditions a Nurse with 10 years senority gets 33 days annual leave plus 8 Bank Holidays, so 41 days max.
She has 7 weeks booked and a further 120 hours to use, her contracted hours are 30 so that equates to 11 weeks. When she gets to 20 years service her holiday entilement will go up to 12 weeks.
In previous years she would do bank work for at least 5 of her weeks, but obviously now there is no bank work available.
This car parking story is so odd and can only surely be perceived negatively?
Why would they want to fight this kind of battle, it's just like the school meals one all over again, there is no upside.
Because a) they are out of touch, or b) the can, and they don't care.
A benefit of Corbyn donating an 80 seat majority.
Its both A and B. This particular flavour of "Tory" doesn't really have a clue how people live or what they do. What they do know is that things were Good before the Rona for them, and that tings should go back to where they were. Its not as if people weren't happy back then, they voted Tory so they must agree.
This is the great failing of the 40 year era ending in 2019. People got superficially better off and materially worse off. We have had different flavours of Tory and Labour government and even a coalition yet not a lot of actual change has happened. So people decided to throw the dice and Brexit would be the way out. Then Tory majority government to secure the Brexit.
What the Tories haven't understood is that the red wall vote for them was a credit note. Unless positive change is delivered (and Brexit isn't change, just a means of change) then people are going to go ape shit. Which is why we're now seeing attacks on parents and care homes and now NHS staff. Back in your box, as you were, get on with it. I don't think it will work...
That is true. My fear is Starmer and Co, won't be seen as the answer, but a suited, booted and eloquent Yaxley-Lennon figure. A sort of Farage on steroids character, might cut through. For a decade or so that gives us Johnson and chums, but after that...
My issue with cancel culture is it feels like all sins are equal and there can be no forgiveness. A mistake or clumsy language is treated as being as reprehensible as being a Klansman, apologies (sincere or not) cannot make up for it and everyone is expected to instantly cut ties.
Its disproportionate. Someone who repeatedly does offensive things, sure. But consequences for words and actions doesnt need to mean instant consequences in every case.
I think the breadth of those warning about this culture going too far is quite telling.
It is extreme and disproportionate at times. I dont see how that applies to Starkey. Academics and teachers do need to held to higher standards because of their influence on shaping the future, and that they tend to be funded by taxpayers including those they are racist to.
Yes, perhaps. I picked Starkey because I wanted to have an example of someone I almost always disagree with. I wouldn't dream of buying a book by him, but I don't want his career cvompletely wrecked because he has opinions I dislike. Academic life is strong enough to include some repellent views.
Note that I'm not especially libertarian in general. For example, in the virus crisis, I'm fine with governments telling us all to stay home, wear masks or whatever. But I think we need to be careful about closing down views altogether.
I agree care is needed and there are some cases where it goes too far, but then equally there are even more cases where not enough is being done to tackle racism.
State funded teaching whether in schools or universities is somewhere we shouldnt tolerate racism. It is not reasonable to demand minority taxpayers pay tax which goes to further racism in the next generation. If Starkey wants to teach privately Im sure he can sell out some theatre tours, publish books or youtube videos and get students to pay him directly for his time.
Good morning everyone. Cricket is about to start, at last, and the forecast for Southampton, where the first Test is being played, is rain.
Only to be expected, of course!
Rained off cricket in July, thank goodness for a return to normality indeed.
A sensibly run sport might realise there are no spectators, and it would be trivial to start tomorrow and significantly increase the chance of a result.
The schedule of Test matches is quite intense. Losing another rest day in between matches would be tough - though I am in favour of cricket making use of weather forecasts.
I also think neither side is good enough at batting to make a draw all that likely. The final three days will be enough.
You might have missed something called coronavirus! The 2nd and 3rd Tests also have no spectators so can be moved back a day or three.
I didn't miss it. It's why the schedule is so compressed. There is the series against Pakistan immediately following, and the weather towards the end of September potentially less favourable.
The Queen really has some degenerate sex obsessed sons.
His friends concede that Prince Andrew's pursuit of sex was unrelenting. And after his divorce, his troubles really began. “He has always chased a shag,” said one friend, who should know, because she once shagged him herself
Food standards were never a devolved matter though. If the Scots were OK with food standards being decided in Brussels then why not Westminster?
It would be different if they'd always opposed the EU and wanted to control their own standards all along.
Why would it be different? If the EU significantly lowered their food standards it’s likely the Scottish Parliament would have had a problem with that too.
That some wish to claim he's not viable because he's a Brexiteer shows just how mad they are.
What is Liam Fox viable as. Specifically..
If it comes to that, what exactly has Mandelson done to make him so amply qualified, other than always popping up in the vicinity of large sums of money, sniffing the air like a Bisto kid?
Food standards were never a devolved matter though. If the Scots were OK with food standards being decided in Brussels then why not Westminster?
It would be different if they'd always opposed the EU and wanted to control their own standards all along.
Why would it be different? If the EU significantly lowered their food standards it’s likely the Scottish Parliament would have had a problem with that too.
Nah, the SNP would have moved in lockstep with Brussels. Its the fact its London that makes it an issue.
The Scots should just vote for independence and be done with us.
The Queen really has some degenerate sex obsessed sons.
His friends concede that Prince Andrew's pursuit of sex was unrelenting. And after his divorce, his troubles really began. “He has always chased a shag,” said one friend, who should know, because she once shagged him herself
Productivity over the last three months for those companies who have traded, including CME's, has risen hugely due to innovation that has happened over this period and that would normally happen over three years
Innovation is key to the future across the whole economy
This car parking story is so odd and can only surely be perceived negatively?
Why would they want to fight this kind of battle, it's just like the school meals one all over again, there is no upside.
Because a) they are out of touch, or b) the can, and they don't care.
A benefit of Corbyn donating an 80 seat majority.
Its both A and B. This particular flavour of "Tory" doesn't really have a clue how people live or what they do. What they do know is that things were Good before the Rona for them, and that tings should go back to where they were. Its not as if people weren't happy back then, they voted Tory so they must agree.
This is the great failing of the 40 year era ending in 2019. People got superficially better off and materially worse off. We have had different flavours of Tory and Labour government and even a coalition yet not a lot of actual change has happened. So people decided to throw the dice and Brexit would be the way out. Then Tory majority government to secure the Brexit.
What the Tories haven't understood is that the red wall vote for them was a credit note. Unless positive change is delivered (and Brexit isn't change, just a means of change) then people are going to go ape shit. Which is why we're now seeing attacks on parents and care homes and now NHS staff. Back in your box, as you were, get on with it. I don't think it will work...
That is true. My fear is Starmer and Co, won't be seen as the answer, but a suited, booted and eloquent Yaxley-Lennon figure. A sort of Farage on steroids character, might cut through. For a decade or so that gives us Johnson and chums, but after that...
Yup. Which is why my medium term plan is to relocate to Scotland. Many will scoff, but I'd rather be an independent and sane Scotland than disappearing off down the rabbit hole led by neo-fascists England.
Before I retired as a teacher I used to drive to work every day and I never had to pay for parking at any school I was at. I'm sure MPs don't pay, and I would suspect very few if any of the PB community pay at work. Why should we force Doctors and Nurses to pay?
Free meals are different. When I taught in a state school I paid for all my meals, yet never did in Independent schools. I suspect very few PBers pay for their own lunches either.
I get free parking at one of the (public sector) offices I work at, at the other we use a free Council car park. I do have to get my own lunch though. However I don't see why free parking shouldn't be part of a reasonable reward package for hospital staff though. There seems to be an attitude that the only thing of value that public sector staff should receive is salary, and pension. And while I rather suspect Dr Foxy can easily afford parking charges, it's a bit different for a healthcare assistant.
There is also the question of Holidays. I don't know what the average is now in the Country, but my wife a nurse of 18 years gets 11 weeks paid holiday. Other than teachers I don't know any other profession that has such a generous holiday allowance as part of their reward package.
That seems very odd. Under AFC terms and conditions a Nurse with 10 years senority gets 33 days annual leave plus 8 Bank Holidays, so 41 days max.
That some wish to claim he's not viable because he's a Brexiteer shows just how mad they are.
What is Liam Fox viable as. Specifically..
If it comes to that, what exactly has Mandelson done to make him so amply qualified, other than always popping up in the vicinity of large sums of money, sniffing the air like a Bisto kid?
That’s a nasty comment that perpetuates antisemitic tropes.
Before I retired as a teacher I used to drive to work every day and I never had to pay for parking at any school I was at. I'm sure MPs don't pay, and I would suspect very few if any of the PB community pay at work. Why should we force Doctors and Nurses to pay?
Free meals are different. When I taught in a state school I paid for all my meals, yet never did in Independent schools. I suspect very few PBers pay for their own lunches either.
I get free parking at one of the (public sector) offices I work at, at the other we use a free Council car park. I do have to get my own lunch though. However I don't see why free parking shouldn't be part of a reasonable reward package for hospital staff though. There seems to be an attitude that the only thing of value that public sector staff should receive is salary, and pension. And while I rather suspect Dr Foxy can easily afford parking charges, it's a bit different for a healthcare assistant.
There is also the question of Holidays. I don't know what the average is now in the Country, but my wife a nurse of 18 years gets 11 weeks paid holiday. Other than teachers I don't know any other profession that has such a generous holiday allowance as part of their reward package.
That seems very odd. Under AFC terms and conditions a Nurse with 10 years senority gets 33 days annual leave plus 8 Bank Holidays, so 41 days max.
Cam someone explain to me why NHS staff were paying to park their cars in the first place?
It feels like a policy made by London based politicians where driving in doesn't make sense.
Hospitals do not have enough parking spaces, even outside of London.
In Newcastle I believe the council has been allowing NHS workers to park in council car parks for free during the pandemic. I’m unsure if this is also coming to an end.
Cam someone explain to me why NHS staff were paying to park their cars in the first place?
I'm going to guess to avoid having hundreds of staff unnecessarily park their cars in what is already an overly crowded and limited space? Pre-rona the hospital car parks were always full and had queues on the road to even wait for the barrier to lift to get into one for my local hospital so if the staff could be encouraged to get in to work via ride shares or public transport etc then that would be a good thing.
Before I retired as a teacher I used to drive to work every day and I never had to pay for parking at any school I was at. I'm sure MPs don't pay, and I would suspect very few if any of the PB community pay at work. Why should we force Doctors and Nurses to pay?
Free meals are different. When I taught in a state school I paid for all my meals, yet never did in Independent schools. I suspect very few PBers pay for their own lunches either.
I get free parking at one of the (public sector) offices I work at, at the other we use a free Council car park. I do have to get my own lunch though. However I don't see why free parking shouldn't be part of a reasonable reward package for hospital staff though. There seems to be an attitude that the only thing of value that public sector staff should receive is salary, and pension. And while I rather suspect Dr Foxy can easily afford parking charges, it's a bit different for a healthcare assistant.
There is also the question of Holidays. I don't know what the average is now in the Country, but my wife a nurse of 18 years gets 11 weeks paid holiday. Other than teachers I don't know any other profession that has such a generous holiday allowance as part of their reward package.
That seems very odd. Under AFC terms and conditions a Nurse with 10 years senority gets 33 days annual leave plus 8 Bank Holidays, so 41 days max.
Before I retired as a teacher I used to drive to work every day and I never had to pay for parking at any school I was at. I'm sure MPs don't pay, and I would suspect very few if any of the PB community pay at work. Why should we force Doctors and Nurses to pay?
Free meals are different. When I taught in a state school I paid for all my meals, yet never did in Independent schools. I suspect very few PBers pay for their own lunches either.
I get free parking at one of the (public sector) offices I work at, at the other we use a free Council car park. I do have to get my own lunch though. However I don't see why free parking shouldn't be part of a reasonable reward package for hospital staff though. There seems to be an attitude that the only thing of value that public sector staff should receive is salary, and pension. And while I rather suspect Dr Foxy can easily afford parking charges, it's a bit different for a healthcare assistant.
There is also the question of Holidays. I don't know what the average is now in the Country, but my wife a nurse of 18 years gets 11 weeks paid holiday. Other than teachers I don't know any other profession that has such a generous holiday allowance as part of their reward package.
That seems very odd. Under AFC terms and conditions a Nurse with 10 years senority gets 33 days annual leave plus 8 Bank Holidays, so 41 days max.
I was getting 28 days *INCLUDING* bank holidays in a previous job. The statutory minimum.
Outside the cushy public sector that's all most people get I suspect.
In my experience you get 25 days + bank holidays quite often.
However 20 days + bank holidays is not uncommon. People who work in the public sector do not seem to realise this...
25 days is probably the norm in any office based role now, I've been seeing unlimited leave make more of an appearance but personally I'd prefer a higher defined numbr of days. My sister, in the university sector, gets 37 days plus 8 bank holidays. I thought my 32 days was good until she started her job!
Cam someone explain to me why NHS staff were paying to park their cars in the first place?
It feels like a policy made by London based politicians where driving in doesn't make sense.
Hospitals do not have enough parking spaces, even outside of London.
In Newcastle I believe the council has been allowing NHS workers to park in council car parks for free during the pandemic. I’m unsure if this is also coming to an end.
To follow on from this, I don’t understand why hospitals don’t install those pre-fab-style car parks you see at train stations on the London periphery that basically give an easy extra level of parking. You immediately increase your parking capacity by 90% or so, for little expense (I assume).
Cam someone explain to me why NHS staff were paying to park their cars in the first place?
There seems to be no justification whatsoever for parking charges at hospitals. Labour should have abolished it before they left office.
Even Gallowgate can see the justification. If parking were made free it'd just make it even more impossible to get a space.
Though its ridiculous that the hospitals still operate primarily on a five-day basis. Even with parking charges getting a parking space Monday-Friday 9-5 at my local hospital could involve queueing for half an hour waiting on a 'one in, one out' basis for the automated barrier to lift - but go on the weekend and its a ghost town.
Hospitals should be running at the same capacity seven days a week. Its a total waste of infrastructure to only be using it 71% of the time.
The Queen really has some degenerate sex obsessed sons.
His friends concede that Prince Andrew's pursuit of sex was unrelenting. And after his divorce, his troubles really began. “He has always chased a shag,” said one friend, who should know, because she once shagged him herself
Before I retired as a teacher I used to drive to work every day and I never had to pay for parking at any school I was at. I'm sure MPs don't pay, and I would suspect very few if any of the PB community pay at work. Why should we force Doctors and Nurses to pay?
Free meals are different. When I taught in a state school I paid for all my meals, yet never did in Independent schools. I suspect very few PBers pay for their own lunches either.
I get free parking at one of the (public sector) offices I work at, at the other we use a free Council car park. I do have to get my own lunch though. However I don't see why free parking shouldn't be part of a reasonable reward package for hospital staff though. There seems to be an attitude that the only thing of value that public sector staff should receive is salary, and pension. And while I rather suspect Dr Foxy can easily afford parking charges, it's a bit different for a healthcare assistant.
There is also the question of Holidays. I don't know what the average is now in the Country, but my wife a nurse of 18 years gets 11 weeks paid holiday. Other than teachers I don't know any other profession that has such a generous holiday allowance as part of their reward package.
That seems very odd. Under AFC terms and conditions a Nurse with 10 years senority gets 33 days annual leave plus 8 Bank Holidays, so 41 days max.
Cam someone explain to me why NHS staff were paying to park their cars in the first place?
There seems to be no justification whatsoever for parking charges at hospitals. Labour should have abolished it before they left office.
Even Gallowgate can see the justification. If parking were made free it'd just make it even more impossible to get a space.
Though its ridiculous that the hospitals still operate primarily on a five-day basis. Even with parking charges getting a parking space Monday-Friday 9-5 at my local hospital could involve queueing for half an hour waiting on a 'one in, one out' basis for the automated barrier to lift - but go on the weekend and its a ghost town.
Hospitals should be running at the same capacity seven days a week. Its a total waste of infrastructure to only be using it 71% of the time.
Likewise there’s no justification for GPs to simply operate 9-5.
Before I retired as a teacher I used to drive to work every day and I never had to pay for parking at any school I was at. I'm sure MPs don't pay, and I would suspect very few if any of the PB community pay at work. Why should we force Doctors and Nurses to pay?
Free meals are different. When I taught in a state school I paid for all my meals, yet never did in Independent schools. I suspect very few PBers pay for their own lunches either.
I get free parking at one of the (public sector) offices I work at, at the other we use a free Council car park. I do have to get my own lunch though. However I don't see why free parking shouldn't be part of a reasonable reward package for hospital staff though. There seems to be an attitude that the only thing of value that public sector staff should receive is salary, and pension. And while I rather suspect Dr Foxy can easily afford parking charges, it's a bit different for a healthcare assistant.
There is also the question of Holidays. I don't know what the average is now in the Country, but my wife a nurse of 18 years gets 11 weeks paid holiday. Other than teachers I don't know any other profession that has such a generous holiday allowance as part of their reward package.
That seems very odd. Under AFC terms and conditions a Nurse with 10 years senority gets 33 days annual leave plus 8 Bank Holidays, so 41 days max.
I was getting 28 days *INCLUDING* bank holidays in a previous job. The statutory minimum.
Outside the cushy public sector that's all most people get I suspect.
In my experience you get 25 days + bank holidays quite often.
However 20 days + bank holidays is not uncommon. People who work in the public sector do not seem to realise this...
That's the legal minimum. Entitlement rising with service to 30 days + BH is still relatively common in larger companies and the public sector. Foxy's 33 days suggests the NHS still has the old public sector privilege days on top.
Cam someone explain to me why NHS staff were paying to park their cars in the first place?
There seems to be no justification whatsoever for parking charges at hospitals. Labour should have abolished it before they left office.
Even Gallowgate can see the justification. If parking were made free it'd just make it even more impossible to get a space.
Though its ridiculous that the hospitals still operate primarily on a five-day basis. Even with parking charges getting a parking space Monday-Friday 9-5 at my local hospital could involve queueing for half an hour waiting on a 'one in, one out' basis for the automated barrier to lift - but go on the weekend and its a ghost town.
Hospitals should be running at the same capacity seven days a week. Its a total waste of infrastructure to only be using it 71% of the time.
Does it have a multi-storey car park, that seems to be the solution. If Asda can have one then I don't see why the hospital can't.
The Queen really has some degenerate sex obsessed sons.
His friends concede that Prince Andrew's pursuit of sex was unrelenting. And after his divorce, his troubles really began. “He has always chased a shag,” said one friend, who should know, because she once shagged him herself
Cam someone explain to me why NHS staff were paying to park their cars in the first place?
There seems to be no justification whatsoever for parking charges at hospitals. Labour should have abolished it before they left office.
Even Gallowgate can see the justification. If parking were made free it'd just make it even more impossible to get a space.
Though its ridiculous that the hospitals still operate primarily on a five-day basis. Even with parking charges getting a parking space Monday-Friday 9-5 at my local hospital could involve queueing for half an hour waiting on a 'one in, one out' basis for the automated barrier to lift - but go on the weekend and its a ghost town.
Hospitals should be running at the same capacity seven days a week. Its a total waste of infrastructure to only be using it 71% of the time.
Likewise there’s no justification for GPs to simply operate 9-5.
Good morning everyone. Cricket is about to start, at last, and the forecast for Southampton, where the first Test is being played, is rain.
Only to be expected, of course!
Rained off cricket in July, thank goodness for a return to normality indeed.
A sensibly run sport might realise there are no spectators, and it would be trivial to start tomorrow and significantly increase the chance of a result.
Modern batting means a result is all but certain unless more than 2 days are totally rained off. Numbers of draws in test cricket dropped like a stone, around the same time that T20 became really popular, but I'd hate to suggest a link...
It was undoubtedly a factor but there are others. Flexible playing hours mean that you really need seriously bad weather weather to lose two whole days.
I suspect the wider use of UDRS may also contribute but the evidence is difficult to assess. Batsmen benefit as well as bowlers but I think on balance it's the batters who were more likely to get away with stuff pre-DRS.
Swann has said that it made a huge difference in terms of the number of lbw decisions given for off-spinners. Umpires have become convinced by the technology that they can give more of those out, when they rarely did before.
That some wish to claim he's not viable because he's a Brexiteer shows just how mad they are.
While ignoring the fact the Mandelson is a holder of an EU pension, which carries with it certain obligations which would appear to be incompatible with the role.
And that he was fired from government three times. Why would it make any sense at all to put up someone who would likely frustrate the UK's foreign policy and trade objectives?
Cam someone explain to me why NHS staff were paying to park their cars in the first place?
There seems to be no justification whatsoever for parking charges at hospitals. Labour should have abolished it before they left office.
Even Gallowgate can see the justification. If parking were made free it'd just make it even more impossible to get a space.
Though its ridiculous that the hospitals still operate primarily on a five-day basis. Even with parking charges getting a parking space Monday-Friday 9-5 at my local hospital could involve queueing for half an hour waiting on a 'one in, one out' basis for the automated barrier to lift - but go on the weekend and its a ghost town.
Hospitals should be running at the same capacity seven days a week. Its a total waste of infrastructure to only be using it 71% of the time.
Likewise there’s no justification for GPs to simply operate 9-5.
Comments
Racist academics in a university sector still heavily funded by govt? No thanks.
How else is the PM supposed to get top advice if his advisors only have half the information?
You go to complain to the manager. The other diners raise an uproar decrying you for embracing "Cancel Culture". You go to leave - newspaper articles are written about your shameful boycott.
https://www.nhsemployers.org/tchandbook/part-3-terms-and-conditions-of-service/section-13-annual-leave-and-general-public-holidays
I expect we will see parity and overtake soon.
That some wish to claim he's not viable because he's a Brexiteer shows just how mad they are.
The only bit of the thread I'm a bit sceptical about is this:
https://twitter.com/flo2changz/status/1280017176569589761
There's a serious risk of a Chinese attempt to fully annexe Taiwan within the next decade. Which would not be good news for them - or for us, given how much of the world's high end chip production is located there.
Why would they want to fight this kind of battle, it's just like the school meals one all over again, there is no upside.
Its disproportionate. Someone who repeatedly does offensive things, sure. But consequences for words and actions doesnt need to mean instant consequences in every case.
I think the breadth of those warning about this culture going too far is quite telling.
Campbell did wield power and he did harrass people - all done for the PM and when the PM decided Campbell should go he was gone. There is literally no difference here.
The buck stops with Johnson. No more, no less.
A benefit of Corbyn donating an 80 seat majority.
*Applauds*
I also think neither side is good enough at batting to make a draw all that likely. The final three days will be enough.
I know you are going to disagree, so let's agree to disagree.
As perks go, eating from Pret or M&S every day leaves a lot to be desired. I much prefer to make my own sandwiches.
A military adventure might curry favour with the US electorate, but Trump picking a fight with one of the big dogs is not smart.
The right to free speech has never been a right to free speech without others having a right to make judgments about you based on what you say.
Neither is it the attack on free speech you initially claimed it was.
...We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it is now all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal....
How the Starkey affair fits into the above, I'll let you form your own view.
However if China invaded Taiwan it would at least be the equivalent of Hitler annexing Austria if not the invasion of Poland and the fault would lie solely with Beijing for escalating conflict
If Johnson had picked Mandelson he would have been the next president (EU would have voted for him as a former head responsible for Trade others would have fallen in line).
Plus the new job would mean Mandelson would no longer be subject to the EU pension rules as this job trumped that.
Instead the EU will pick another candidate and that person will win the vote.
This is the great failing of the 40 year era ending in 2019. People got superficially better off and materially worse off. We have had different flavours of Tory and Labour government and even a coalition yet not a lot of actual change has happened. So people decided to throw the dice and Brexit would be the way out. Then Tory majority government to secure the Brexit.
What the Tories haven't understood is that the red wall vote for them was a credit note. Unless positive change is delivered (and Brexit isn't change, just a means of change) then people are going to go ape shit. Which is why we're now seeing attacks on parents and care homes and now NHS staff. Back in your box, as you were, get on with it. I don't think it will work...
Downing Street’s Plan A to dampen the clamour for independence was hosing Scotland with public money, but competition for that resource is getting more intense and areas with Conservative MPs are the priority. If there is no sign of a Tory revival north of the border, an even more cynical path might appeal: letting the flames of resentment roar in Scotland, igniting a Johnson-supporting English nationalist backlash. All the better if that sustains the toxic question of whether Labour needs SNP MPs to support a coalition come a general election. It would take an exceptionally irresponsible prime minister on a streak of constitutional pyromania to pursue such tactics. Johnson is qualified.
https://twitter.com/rafaelbehr/status/1280762504734543872
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1280766673490976769?s=21
But we need to be careful. Societies can get worse through attempts to improve them. It doesnt mean stop trying or stop trying to change social norms, but there plenty of issues where the costs can outweigh positive benefits. I'd err on the side of letting some more reprehensible people not facing as much immediate consequence as some would like, it it means people in general are not stifled or face disproportionate consequence. It's a trade off.
Note that I'm not especially libertarian in general. For example, in the virus crisis, I'm fine with governments telling us all to stay home, wear masks or whatever. But I think we need to be careful about closing down views altogether.
I suspect the wider use of UDRS may also contribute but the evidence is difficult to assess. Batsmen benefit as well as bowlers but I think on balance it's the batters who were more likely to get away with stuff pre-DRS.
In previous years she would do bank work for at least 5 of her weeks, but obviously now there is no bank work available.
State funded teaching whether in schools or universities is somewhere we shouldnt tolerate racism. It is not reasonable to demand minority taxpayers pay tax which goes to further racism in the next generation. If Starkey wants to teach privately Im sure he can sell out some theatre tours, publish books or youtube videos and get students to pay him directly for his time.
Nothing else mattered or matters. Any collateral damage is of no consequence to him.
His friends concede that Prince Andrew's pursuit of sex was unrelenting. And after his divorce, his troubles really began. “He has always chased a shag,” said one friend, who should know, because she once shagged him herself
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-andrews-sexual-appetite-was-always-his-blind-spot-nlwxtfwlv
It would be different if they'd always opposed the EU and wanted to control their own standards all along.
The Scots should just vote for independence and be done with us.
Productivity over the last three months for those companies who have traded, including CME's, has risen hugely due to innovation that has happened over this period and that would normally happen over three years
Innovation is key to the future across the whole economy
It feels like a policy made by London based politicians where driving in doesn't make sense.
Shame on you.
However 20 days + bank holidays is not uncommon. People who work in the public sector do not seem to realise this...
In Newcastle I believe the council has been allowing NHS workers to park in council car parks for free during the pandemic. I’m unsure if this is also coming to an end.
Just a guess.
Though its ridiculous that the hospitals still operate primarily on a five-day basis. Even with parking charges getting a parking space Monday-Friday 9-5 at my local hospital could involve queueing for half an hour waiting on a 'one in, one out' basis for the automated barrier to lift - but go on the weekend and its a ghost town.
Hospitals should be running at the same capacity seven days a week. Its a total waste of infrastructure to only be using it 71% of the time.
And is that the mean or median average? As legally you can't get below 28 even if most get 28 the mean average would still be higher.
And that he was fired from government three times. Why would it make any sense at all to put up someone who would likely frustrate the UK's foreign policy and trade objectives?