The Americans got this wrong as well, although they haven't admitted it yet.
There are quite a few Americans who think the doses should be spread out, but Dr Fauci is opposed, which is why it is not happening. As I understand his reasoning it's that there is a balance of risks between extending the coverage to as many people as quickly as possible, against clobbering potential mutations with the full vaccination, and you can reasonably go either way on that. The clincher for him is on the public health messaging. He thinks people won't bother getting their second dose if you leave it to months later.
It's also possible that he might feel differently if the Americans had supply constraint issues. But that's one problem they don't have to wrestle with.
In about 30 US states, vaccinations are now available for all adults. By the end of next week, it will be more than 40 states.
Eastern Ukraine was part of Russia for centuries. Prediction: Russia will within the next few years take it and the rest of the world has no plan, and will have no plan to intervene.
It is noteworthy that not a word from the west has made any promises to Ukraine of actual help.
Turkey might fancy a proxy contest. Otherwise it’s going to be test of what lot and training the west has supplied in the last 5 years and whether it’s any good.
Turkey, via Azerbaijan, whipped Russia (posing as Armenina) in the most recent bout. Turkey might give the Bear a singed, er, bear-pelt
Actually Russia was kind of backing both Armenia and Azerbaijan. Weird, I know.
It’s shocking that when there is a nationalistic angle on vaccines, being able to play it straight goes out the window.
The truth is we have already long passed the point of sharing, the nationalism has ensured this mistake, because the longer it’s out there in the rest of the world mutating the bigger the threat it is to us and what we are doing.
The nationalistic angle on vaccines is that we have a national interest in reaching herd immunity so that we can get our economy functioning again without people dying.
Your second point is logically wrong. Sharing an insignificant number of vaccines does nothing to reduce the risk of mutations elsewhere.
Firstly, you are definitely wrong if you feel our sharing of vaccine with ROI two weeks ago would have been inconsequential, it would have been consequential and in terms more than just fighting covid on shared land border.
If you think UK is going to rush and embrace new normal with open arms, and economy just isn’t going to suffer from inevitable hesitancy and cageyness from so many, then you are also blisteringly wrong. Can’t you see getting back on it is is more (and far more difficult) than a vaccination programme?
Someone who is definitely right is Leon, who deserved more support today from PBers for saying Oxozenica is the core component of COVAX, what damage have UK politicians and media achieved in the last two days to COVAX and take up of this vaccine throughout a world, especially where that world is young and not given alternative vaccine option others in this world fortunate to have?
Covid doesn’t recognise human nation states, it’s fight is daft to be so nationalistic because No ones safe till everyone’s safe. Nor should any covid fighting knowledge be protected by IPR law preventing manufacture, that’s just murdering people.
Yet again you fall foul of the PB Restaurant Paradox.
You say getting it back on is going to be difficult because of “hesitancy”.
Have you tried booking a table in a good London restaurant recently?
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
Flirtation is not something that is possible to eliminate, even if someone wanted to do so. I see enough married people working together, relatively young, that it clearly still happens. But someone in a position of authority might want to consider if making clumsy passes at someone in a subordinate position in that way is sensible. If it was something no strings attached he was after anyway he could probably look elsewhere.
Eastern Ukraine was part of Russia for centuries. Prediction: Russia will within the next few years take it and the rest of the world has no plan, and will have no plan to intervene.
It is noteworthy that not a word from the west has made any promises to Ukraine of actual help.
Russia has been putting a huge amount of investment into the Black Sea area around Sochi to turn it into a tourist destination. I'm sure in the long term they want to extend their control over the whole north coast.
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
Baby out with the bathwater - a hell of a lot of people meet there partner at work. This would mean its forbidden 50% of the time.
Dating by app (where I met my missus) would almost be the only allowable way for a man to approach a woman.
Once again, the debate on Scotland is clouded by the fundamental misconception Nicola Sturgeon wants a second referendum.
She doesn't - her supporters might, the SNP might advocate it as a policy position but they don't want it.
The current stand off works well for Sturgeon - she gets to be First Minister of Scotland ad infinitum now she has seen off Salmond. She can talk about a referendum safe in the knowledge she'll never have to do anything about it because of her and the SNP's greatest ally, not Keir Starmer but Boris Johnson.
The Prime MInister's refusal to countenance a second vote, and we see this echoed by a "Senior Official" from the Department of the Bleedin' Obvious, is a double edged win-win strategy. It gives Sturgeon a let out for never having a second referendum and allows her to paint Boris Johnson as the source of all Scotland's problems thus strengthening her and the SNP's position.
At the same time, Boris Johnson gets to look "firm" which does him no harm in England (which is what matters) and within the Conservative Party. Thus, the current stand off works well for Johnson as well.
The last thing either Johnson or Sturgeon want or need is a disruption to the status quo. In essence, they've already achieved a de facto division - Johnson and the Conservatives have England, Sturgeon and the SNP have Scotland.
The problem for both with a Second Referendum isn't what happens if they lose but what happens if they win. There's far too much for risk for both to countenance a second vote so it won't happen and the dance will carry on.
That Nicola Sturgeon does not want to achieve the goal of her political life - Scottish Independence - through getting and winning a legal referendum is a wholly evidence free assertion. It relies on mind reading and projecting onto her a sterile "man of the world" cynicism that is in itself a form of naivety.
It is in other words, Stodge, complete and utter drivel.
But nicely written as always. ☺
I think Stodge is about right here. One can't make windows into souls of course but if you take it that the Referendum was lost and Westminster isn't going to have another until well after NS's day, coupled with the apparent impossibility of getting the sort of c60% polling you would need to try to force and win a Ref2, NS's position of steady as she goes would make perfect sense.
My only disagreement - tentative - with Stodge is that NS would be deeply fearful of losing a Ref2, as it would finish her, whereas the possibility being always there but not now will keep the troops going. I also think that politicians being what they are, in another world in which she could hold Ref2 and win, she would.
@kinabalu is right. People are overanalysing. You vote for the SNP. join the party, or lead it, because you want Scotland to be independent, and that single aim is more important to you than any other political goal.
When Nicola Sturgeon's party convincingly wins the election and Johnson says flat No to a referendum, she will think about her next steps, which she will have strong mandate to pursue.
England’s Euro 2020 group matches at Wembley will have 22,500 fans, the Football Association has guaranteed Uefa, with the hope this figure will double to 45,000 for the semi-finals and final.
The numbers – which represent 25% and 50% of Wembley’s capacity – were discussed at a meeting on Thursday of the 12 host Euro 2020 cities.
Fans will be expected to have lateral flow tests, or to show proof of a vaccination, to attend.
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
Ideally, anyone not in your immediate work area, including a chain of command which goes down all the way to the bottom (ie the most junior employees) and up to middle management. Anyone who's roughly equal to you in another department is fine. Basically the rule is whether you could conceivably wreck their career out of spite if they say no, and therefore whether they are likely to feel any inducement to say yes against their better judgment.
Flirting: not during work hours. Pub after work is easier. Lunch and breaks are a grey area.
It's actually not that complicated and mostly just common sense in terms of understanding what advances are and are not likely to be appreciated. There was a transition period where these questions were real, but almost everyone under 40 now has never worked in an office environment where this wasn't problematic. And those over 40 should axiomatically not be indulging in moonshots at interns.
Eastern Ukraine was part of Russia for centuries. Prediction: Russia will within the next few years take it and the rest of the world has no plan, and will have no plan to intervene.
It is noteworthy that not a word from the west has made any promises to Ukraine of actual help.
Russia has been putting a huge amount of investment into the Black Sea area around Sochi to turn it into a tourist destination. I'm sure in the long term they want to extend their control over the whole north coast.
The possibility certainly shouldn't be discounted. In crude terms, the linguistic map of Ukraine is northern half Ukrainian speaking, southern half Russian speaking. This divide has also been clearly reflected in Ukrainian elections in the past.
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
Under such rules, I wouldn’t have been happily married for two decades. I met my wife at work and started dating her there.
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
Baby out with the bathwater - a hell of a lot of people meet there partner at work. This would mean its forbidden 50% of the time.
Dating by app (where I met my missus) would almost be the only allowable way for a man to approach a woman.
And, as we know, dating by app means 10% of very good looking guys get 80% of the women, which leads to the calamitous situation today, whereby 30% of young men are getting no sex at all
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
I'm not normally one to complain about societal imbalances and the like - but I do think this is a bit icky. I wouldn't use the word 'disgusting', but it certainly leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. I wouldn't like workplace flirting to be outlawed, but where one party is a direct report to another it strikes me as definitely best avoided.
That said, it occurs to me now that my Mum and Dad met when he startes work as her shift leader. And they're still together 48 years later.
Probably no-one's relationship beginnings would look too squeaky clean if viewed through a media lens.
For those following the Greensill affair - a murky business - the main characters in the frame have been Cameron, an ex-PM, and the late Jeremy Heywood, Cabinet Secretary.
All very interesting but a bit niche relating to long ago and people no longer active in politics.
And now we find emails being disgorged at record speed following an FoI request which suggest that Sunak may have pushed officials to consider Greensill's requests for Covid-related loans, which the doomed company did in fact get.
Dear me. Would it be impertinent to ask who might benefit from the Chancellor being dragged into this mess?
That Nicola Sturgeon does not want to achieve the goal of her political life - Scottish Independence - through getting and winning a legal referendum is a wholly evidence free assertion. It relies on mind reading and projecting onto her a sterile "man of the world" cynicism that is in itself a form of naivety.
It is in other words, Stodge, complete and utter drivel.
But nicely written as always. ☺
Thank you for the kind word but sometimes politics is more about the journey than the destination.
I'd also venture she is fully aware of the issues an independent Scotland would face in terms of trying to negotiate an amicable divorce from a potentially hostile England quite apart from having to negotiate to join the EU, NATO, UN and all the rest.
Her only route to independence would be to trade the Second Referendum for supporting a Labour minority Government. That gets her a vote which she then has to win. Let's assume that happens - she would have to negotiate the divorce before the next Westminster election because she might then have to deal with a hostile Conservative Government.
The Conservatives would accept the vote to leave - they have quite a good track record (unlike some other parties) in accepting the results of referenda which go against them - but would then use the vote as a stick with which to beat Labour and win an RUK election.
So, for Labour, Scottish independence becomes a political dead-end as well.
The problem (which I'm sure Sturgeon understands because she's in politics) is the journey is fine but the destination is out of reach because it's not in the interests of those whose help she needs to get to the destination to show her the way. Labour won't help her until they become competitive in England and Wales again and it would need a complete volte face from the Conservatives (not inconceivable, they've done it before).
The other elephant in the room is what happens to the SNP once Scotland is independent? I have no assumption Nicola Sturgeon would be the first Prime Minister (or whatever) of an independent Scotland.
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
Ideally, anyone not in your immediate work area, including a chain of command which goes down all the way to the bottom (ie the most junior employees) and up to middle management. Anyone who's roughly equal to you in another department is fine. Basically the rule is whether you could conceivably wreck their career out of spite if they say no, and therefore whether they are likely to feel any inducement to say yes against their better judgment.
Flirting: not during work hours. Pub after work is easier. Lunch and breaks are a grey area.
It's actually not that complicated and mostly just common sense in terms of understanding what advances are and are not likely to be appreciated. There was a transition period where these questions were real, but almost everyone under 40 now has never worked in an office environment where this wasn't problematic. And those over 40 should axiomatically not be indulging in moonshots at interns.
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
Baby out with the bathwater - a hell of a lot of people meet there partner at work. This would mean its forbidden 50% of the time.
Dating by app (where I met my missus) would almost be the only allowable way for a man to approach a woman.
And, as we know, dating by app means 10% of very good looking guys get 80% of the women, which leads to the calamitous situation today, whereby 30% of young men are getting no sex at all
England’s Euro 2020 group matches at Wembley will have 22,500 fans, the Football Association has guaranteed Uefa, with the hope this figure will double to 45,000 for the semi-finals and final.
The numbers – which represent 25% and 50% of Wembley’s capacity – were discussed at a meeting on Thursday of the 12 host Euro 2020 cities.
Fans will be expected to have lateral flow tests, or to show proof of a vaccination, to attend.
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
I'm not normally one to complain about societal imbalances and the like - but I do think this is a bit icky. I wouldn't use the word 'disgusting', but it certainly leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. I wouldn't like workplace flirting to be outlawed, but where one party is a direct report to another it strikes me as definitely best avoided.
That said, it occurs to me now that my Mum and Dad met when he startes work as her shift leader. And they're still together 48 years later.
Probably no-one's relationship beginnings would look too squeaky clean if viewed through a media lens.
I think the problem is people treating these things like hard rules, when there's enough examples of very happy relationships arising from a boss-employee situation, or other scenarios that raise flags with people because they can be abused, that it shouldn't be seen as in itself problematic, the specifics matter.
It does make me wonder if in the UK Macron's marriage would have attracted more comment, albeit he was the younger figure in the relationship (which I believe they say started after he left school).
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
Ideally, anyone not in your immediate work area, including a chain of command which goes down all the way to the bottom (ie the most junior employees) and up to middle management. Anyone who's roughly equal to you in another department is fine. Basically the rule is whether you could conceivably wreck their career out of spite if they say no, and therefore whether they are likely to feel any inducement to say yes against their better judgment.
Flirting: not during work hours. Pub after work is easier. Lunch and breaks are a grey area.
It's actually not that complicated and mostly just common sense in terms of understanding what advances are and are not likely to be appreciated. There was a transition period where these questions were real, but almost everyone under 40 now has never worked in an office environment where this wasn't problematic. And those over 40 should axiomatically not be indulging in moonshots at interns.
It's that same generation gap that comes up in every other culture war.
Below a certain age, this stuff is obvious; if you are in a position of authority over someone, don't flirt with them because it's icky. And that's not a problem- there will still be millions of women who are waiting to meet you.
But the Whips have a problem here. Suspend one MP for being inappropriately randy, and you might have to suspend any others who have done the same.
Despite the errors in data and such that they have made, I cannot escape the conclusion that the endgame being that no similar company is going to seek to be as generous with its terms as AZ were ever again, cannot be a good thing for the world.
It's not worth it without a fat profit to go along with it.
Remainers voted against a brexit where Britain is knee deep in apparently vital vaccines?
Yeah right.
We would have been even without Brexit. Our pharma sector is huge. Participation in the EU procurement program would almost certainly been dodged by a UK government. The only "victory for Brexit" is, like Brexit itself, a simplistic load of bollox
genuinely funny
I would hazard a guess that my knowledge of the pharma industry gives me a reasonable perspective. You are not quite in the same ludicrous fantasy world of Philip Thompson, but I think based on your unintentionally funny pronouncement on most matters, this is not an area of expertise for you! Your nom de plume is a give away for your ludicrous and sad perspective on life. Keep taking the tablets.
Nobody does bile like Remainers. World class
Au contraire, I think most "Remainers" are quite polite and reserved. I choose not to fit into either category when calling out bollox by people that believe in the fairy tales that were spun by lying little toads like Boris Johnson.
There is a certain irony in you calling yourself a "contrarian" when you are clearly unable to see the ridiculousness of the Brexit cause, and find ways to argue against it. All your posts suggest you are a brainwashed Brexit conformist without the slightest ability to think for yourself.
Brexiteers only have the successful vaccine roll out to cling to. This is why whenever anyone challengies brexiteers to mention any benefits they immediately go back onto the vaccine issue. Our economy is on the way to hell in a handcart, but nobody discusses it, not the BBC, Sky or any newspapers. We have effectively lost our fisheries industry. Our farming industry is in a mess because we don't have the woekforce now to pick the crops. Our exports to the EU are miniscule now. Our so-called new export agreements are just extentions of the old eu agreements but on a worse footing. We have a massive virus bill to pay, yet we can't pay it unless we start TRADING again.
We can now elect and throw out all the important people who have power over us. The poor EU citizenry are stuck with Ursula von der L, even tho she has probably killed 50,000 of them with her vaccine blunders
That is the greatest Brexit bonus of all, and probably the only one that really matters, and it entirely outweighs any downside. We are free
I've got a feeling we will see an extraordinary spurt in growth in the UK when we come out of this. I am surprised at just how vindictively 'non tariff barriers' were used to kill off trade. But it is done now, the pausing of the economy through covid has hidden just how bad it is. But it is what it is. We will almost certainly reciprocate and head of trade from the continent. Sadly as it makes us both poorer.
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
I'm not normally one to complain about societal imbalances and the like - but I do think this is a bit icky. I wouldn't use the word 'disgusting', but it certainly leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. I wouldn't like workplace flirting to be outlawed, but where one party is a direct report to another it strikes me as definitely best avoided.
That said, it occurs to me now that my Mum and Dad met when he startes work as her shift leader. And they're still together 48 years later.
Probably no-one's relationship beginnings would look too squeaky clean if viewed through a media lens.
I see where Leon is coming from, but there's a clear difference between a consenting relationship between two adults who met at work, and sleezy texts being sent by a MP to an intern. The power and age differential is obvious. My parents met at work, so it's not like I have a problem with the idea... but those texts... ewh.
It is an enormous tragedy. It makes me so sad. The one vaccine made not-for-profit, the one given away as IP for free, the one India can pump out by the billion. This is the one that has been smeared by moron EU politicians and now consigned to the bin by overreacting fools in the UK. And all the time, no doubt, it has been undermined by rival pharma companies, who make a big fat fucking profit from THEIR jabs
AZ has made mistakes, but it did its best to be generous to the world. This is a pointless human disaster unfolding
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
Ideally, anyone not in your immediate work area, including a chain of command which goes down all the way to the bottom (ie the most junior employees) and up to middle management. Anyone who's roughly equal to you in another department is fine. Basically the rule is whether you could conceivably wreck their career out of spite if they say no, and therefore whether they are likely to feel any inducement to say yes against their better judgment.
Flirting: not during work hours. Pub after work is easier. Lunch and breaks are a grey area.
It's actually not that complicated and mostly just common sense in terms of understanding what advances are and are not likely to be appreciated. There was a transition period where these questions were real, but almost everyone under 40 now has never worked in an office environment where this wasn't problematic. And those over 40 should axiomatically not be indulging in moonshots at interns.
*axiomatically*
The furious certainty is unnerving
If you say so. I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances, other than she's worried about the consequences of saying no. And either way she has the option of suing the company for failing to prevent him doing so, and the resulting tribunal would very likely side with the junior. It's abuse of power, and a liability for your employer.
I think Stodge is about right here. One can't make windows into souls of course but if you take it that the Referendum was lost and Westminster isn't going to have another until well after NS's day, coupled with the apparent impossibility of getting the sort of c60% polling you would need to try to force and win a Ref2, NS's position of steady as she goes would make perfect sense.
My only disagreement - tentative - with Stodge is that NS would be deeply fearful of losing a Ref2, as it would finish her, whereas the possibility being always there but not now will keep the troops going. I also think that politicians being what they are, in another world in which she could hold Ref2 and win, she would.
@kinabalu is right. People are overanalysing. You vote for the SNP. join the party, or lead it, because you want Scotland to be independent, and that single aim is more important to you than any other political goal.
When Nicola Sturgeon's party convincingly wins the election and Johnson says flat No to a referendum, she will think about her next steps, which she will have strong mandate to pursue.
No, she won't. She'll settle down for five more years as the dominant political figure in Scotland and her next issue will be how to finesse the relationship with UK Labour in 2024. If a Johnson majority looks likely she'll not bother but if there's a chance she could be dealing with Starmer after the next GE, she'll have to start thinking about how to play any influence she might have in the next Commons.
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
Ideally, anyone not in your immediate work area, including a chain of command which goes down all the way to the bottom (ie the most junior employees) and up to middle management. Anyone who's roughly equal to you in another department is fine. Basically the rule is whether you could conceivably wreck their career out of spite if they say no, and therefore whether they are likely to feel any inducement to say yes against their better judgment.
Flirting: not during work hours. Pub after work is easier. Lunch and breaks are a grey area.
It's actually not that complicated and mostly just common sense in terms of understanding what advances are and are not likely to be appreciated. There was a transition period where these questions were real, but almost everyone under 40 now has never worked in an office environment where this wasn't problematic. And those over 40 should axiomatically not be indulging in moonshots at interns.
*axiomatically*
The furious certainty is unnerving
If you say so. I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances, other than she's worried about the consequences of saying no. And either way she has the option of suing the company for failing to prevent him doing so, and the resulting tribunal would very likely side with the junior. It's abuse of power, and a liability for your employer.
You think it is impossible for a younger man to fancy an older woman? OK, fair enough
Eastern Ukraine was part of Russia for centuries. Prediction: Russia will within the next few years take it and the rest of the world has no plan, and will have no plan to intervene.
It is noteworthy that not a word from the west has made any promises to Ukraine of actual help.
Russia has been putting a huge amount of investment into the Black Sea area around Sochi to turn it into a tourist destination. I'm sure in the long term they want to extend their control over the whole north coast.
The possibility certainly shouldn't be discounted. In crude terms, the linguistic map of Ukraine is northern half Ukrainian speaking, southern half Russian speaking. This divide has also been clearly reflected in Ukrainian elections in the past.
I'm not sure manyl Russian-speaking Ukrainians see themselves as Russians though.
The Conservatives would accept the vote to leave - they have quite a good track record (unlike some other parties) in accepting the results of referenda which go against them - but would then use the vote as a stick with which to beat Labour and win an RUK election.
.
This the party that voted for wrecking amendments on the Welsh and Scottish devolution bills or is that some other Conservative party?
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
I'm not normally one to complain about societal imbalances and the like - but I do think this is a bit icky. I wouldn't use the word 'disgusting', but it certainly leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. I wouldn't like workplace flirting to be outlawed, but where one party is a direct report to another it strikes me as definitely best avoided.
That said, it occurs to me now that my Mum and Dad met when he startes work as her shift leader. And they're still together 48 years later.
Probably no-one's relationship beginnings would look too squeaky clean if viewed through a media lens.
I see where Leon is coming from, but there's a clear difference between a consenting relationship between two adults who met at work, and sleezy texts being sent by a MP to an intern. The power and age differential is obvious. My parents met at work, so it's not like I have a problem with the idea... but those texts... ewh.
Where I think Leon (and iSam) has a point is that this will likely reduce the number of couples meeting through work over time. My impression already is this is somewhat less common than it used to be, and as they've said, the replacement methods are not necessarily ideal.
Still, the chances of corporate policy being rolled back in the short to medium term to make this easier, but increasing the chances for harassment, are approximately zero. I'm happy enough with the trade-off, albeit I'm married (and we didn't meet through work).
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
Ideally, anyone not in your immediate work area, including a chain of command which goes down all the way to the bottom (ie the most junior employees) and up to middle management. Anyone who's roughly equal to you in another department is fine. Basically the rule is whether you could conceivably wreck their career out of spite if they say no, and therefore whether they are likely to feel any inducement to say yes against their better judgment.
Flirting: not during work hours. Pub after work is easier. Lunch and breaks are a grey area.
It's actually not that complicated and mostly just common sense in terms of understanding what advances are and are not likely to be appreciated. There was a transition period where these questions were real, but almost everyone under 40 now has never worked in an office environment where this wasn't problematic. And those over 40 should axiomatically not be indulging in moonshots at interns.
*axiomatically*
The furious certainty is unnerving
If you say so. I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances, other than she's worried about the consequences of saying no. And either way she has the option of suing the company for failing to prevent him doing so, and the resulting tribunal would very likely side with the junior. It's abuse of power, and a liability for your employer.
You think it is impossible for a younger man to fancy an older woman? OK, fair enough
No, but the reverse case is much more common (jncluding the one that triggered this debate).
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
I'm not normally one to complain about societal imbalances and the like - but I do think this is a bit icky. I wouldn't use the word 'disgusting', but it certainly leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. I wouldn't like workplace flirting to be outlawed, but where one party is a direct report to another it strikes me as definitely best avoided.
That said, it occurs to me now that my Mum and Dad met when he startes work as her shift leader. And they're still together 48 years later.
Probably no-one's relationship beginnings would look too squeaky clean if viewed through a media lens.
I see where Leon is coming from, but there's a clear difference between a consenting relationship between two adults who met at work, and sleezy texts being sent by a MP to an intern. The power and age differential is obvious. My parents met at work, so it's not like I have a problem with the idea... but those texts... ewh.
Where I think Leon (and iSam) has a point is that this will likely reduce the number of couples meeting through work over time. My impression already is this is somewhat less common than it used to be, and as they've said, the replacement methods are not necessarily ideal.
Still, the chances of corporate policy being rolled back in the short to medium term to make this easier, but increasing the chances for harassment, are approximately zero. I'm happy enough with the trade-off, albeit I'm married (and we didn't meet through work).
Rubbish. Plenty of people still meet partners at work. They just don't meet partners who are their managers, they meet partners who are their equals.
Any grad scheme at a big company has young employees shagging each other like it's nobody's business.
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
Ideally, anyone not in your immediate work area, including a chain of command which goes down all the way to the bottom (ie the most junior employees) and up to middle management. Anyone who's roughly equal to you in another department is fine. Basically the rule is whether you could conceivably wreck their career out of spite if they say no, and therefore whether they are likely to feel any inducement to say yes against their better judgment.
Flirting: not during work hours. Pub after work is easier. Lunch and breaks are a grey area.
It's actually not that complicated and mostly just common sense in terms of understanding what advances are and are not likely to be appreciated. There was a transition period where these questions were real, but almost everyone under 40 now has never worked in an office environment where this wasn't problematic. And those over 40 should axiomatically not be indulging in moonshots at interns.
*axiomatically*
The furious certainty is unnerving
If you say so. I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances, other than she's worried about the consequences of saying no. And either way she has the option of suing the company for failing to prevent him doing so, and the resulting tribunal would very likely side with the junior. It's abuse of power, and a liability for your employer.
While the liability point and the likelihood any receptiveness might be because of worry about consequences is certainly something employers would rightly be concerned about, and has definitely happened, relationships do happen with big age gaps sometimes, so the idea you cannot see 'any reason' someone might be receptive for a reason other than worry about consequences is a bit harsh. I don't doubt it is more common with older man and younger woman, but it can happen the other way around as well, and age/seniority being quite distinct from one another is not, in itself, suggestive that there is a problem, even though it would raise the potential of a problem.
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
Ideally, anyone not in your immediate work area, including a chain of command which goes down all the way to the bottom (ie the most junior employees) and up to middle management. Anyone who's roughly equal to you in another department is fine. Basically the rule is whether you could conceivably wreck their career out of spite if they say no, and therefore whether they are likely to feel any inducement to say yes against their better judgment.
Flirting: not during work hours. Pub after work is easier. Lunch and breaks are a grey area.
It's actually not that complicated and mostly just common sense in terms of understanding what advances are and are not likely to be appreciated. There was a transition period where these questions were real, but almost everyone under 40 now has never worked in an office environment where this wasn't problematic. And those over 40 should axiomatically not be indulging in moonshots at interns.
*axiomatically*
The furious certainty is unnerving
If you say so. I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances, other than she's worried about the consequences of saying no. And either way she has the option of suing the company for failing to prevent him doing so, and the resulting tribunal would very likely side with the junior. It's abuse of power, and a liability for your employer.
You think it is impossible for a younger man to fancy an older woman? OK, fair enough
No, but the reverse case is much more common (jncluding the one that triggered this debate).
So it IS possible then? And it is presumably possible for younger women to fancy older men, unless you have truly bizarre beliefs about gender differences.
Ergo, this statement of yours is false: "I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances"
I think Stodge is about right here. One can't make windows into souls of course but if you take it that the Referendum was lost and Westminster isn't going to have another until well after NS's day, coupled with the apparent impossibility of getting the sort of c60% polling you would need to try to force and win a Ref2, NS's position of steady as she goes would make perfect sense.
My only disagreement - tentative - with Stodge is that NS would be deeply fearful of losing a Ref2, as it would finish her, whereas the possibility being always there but not now will keep the troops going. I also think that politicians being what they are, in another world in which she could hold Ref2 and win, she would.
@kinabalu is right. People are overanalysing. You vote for the SNP. join the party, or lead it, because you want Scotland to be independent, and that single aim is more important to you than any other political goal.
When Nicola Sturgeon's party convincingly wins the election and Johnson says flat No to a referendum, she will think about her next steps, which she will have strong mandate to pursue.
No, she won't. She'll settle down for five more years as the dominant political figure in Scotland and her next issue will be how to finesse the relationship with UK Labour in 2024. If a Johnson majority looks likely she'll not bother but if there's a chance she could be dealing with Starmer after the next GE, she'll have to start thinking about how to play any influence she might have in the next Commons.
If the SNP sweeps Scotland again at the next GE *and* it ends up holding the balance of power in the way you describe, then Starmer will have to concede the referendum. First reason: metropolitans are vastly more sympathetic to Scottish nationalism than the provincial English. Second reason: facing the SNP down and daring them to put the Tories back into bat won't work. It would be perfectly possible for a party in the position to swing every Parliamentary vote to wreck a Labour Government without voting it out and putting a Conservative one in.
I think Stodge is about right here. One can't make windows into souls of course but if you take it that the Referendum was lost and Westminster isn't going to have another until well after NS's day, coupled with the apparent impossibility of getting the sort of c60% polling you would need to try to force and win a Ref2, NS's position of steady as she goes would make perfect sense.
My only disagreement - tentative - with Stodge is that NS would be deeply fearful of losing a Ref2, as it would finish her, whereas the possibility being always there but not now will keep the troops going. I also think that politicians being what they are, in another world in which she could hold Ref2 and win, she would.
@kinabalu is right. People are overanalysing. You vote for the SNP. join the party, or lead it, because you want Scotland to be independent, and that single aim is more important to you than any other political goal.
When Nicola Sturgeon's party convincingly wins the election and Johnson says flat No to a referendum, she will think about her next steps, which she will have strong mandate to pursue.
No, she won't. She'll settle down for five more years as the dominant political figure in Scotland and her next issue will be how to finesse the relationship with UK Labour in 2024. If a Johnson majority looks likely she'll not bother but if there's a chance she could be dealing with Starmer after the next GE, she'll have to start thinking about how to play any influence she might have in the next Commons.
If the SNP sweeps Scotland again at the next GE *and* it ends up holding the balance of power in the way you describe, then Starmer will have to concede the referendum. First reason: metropolitans are vastly more sympathetic to Scottish nationalism than the provincial English. Second reason: facing the SNP down and daring them to put the Tories back into bat won't work. It would be perfectly possible for a party in the position to swing every Parliamentary vote to wreck a Labour Government without voting it out and putting a Conservative one in.
Starmer could push it back to the late 2020s and adjust the question offered to 'Do you believe Scotland should remain part of the UK?'
I think Stodge is about right here. One can't make windows into souls of course but if you take it that the Referendum was lost and Westminster isn't going to have another until well after NS's day, coupled with the apparent impossibility of getting the sort of c60% polling you would need to try to force and win a Ref2, NS's position of steady as she goes would make perfect sense.
My only disagreement - tentative - with Stodge is that NS would be deeply fearful of losing a Ref2, as it would finish her, whereas the possibility being always there but not now will keep the troops going. I also think that politicians being what they are, in another world in which she could hold Ref2 and win, she would.
@kinabalu is right. People are overanalysing. You vote for the SNP. join the party, or lead it, because you want Scotland to be independent, and that single aim is more important to you than any other political goal.
When Nicola Sturgeon's party convincingly wins the election and Johnson says flat No to a referendum, she will think about her next steps, which she will have strong mandate to pursue.
No, she won't. She'll settle down for five more years as the dominant political figure in Scotland and her next issue will be how to finesse the relationship with UK Labour in 2024. If a Johnson majority looks likely she'll not bother but if there's a chance she could be dealing with Starmer after the next GE, she'll have to start thinking about how to play any influence she might have in the next Commons.
If the SNP sweeps Scotland again at the next GE *and* it ends up holding the balance of power in the way you describe, then Starmer will have to concede the referendum. First reason: metropolitans are vastly more sympathetic to Scottish nationalism than the provincial English. Second reason: facing the SNP down and daring them to put the Tories back into bat won't work. It would be perfectly possible for a party in the position to swing every Parliamentary vote to wreck a Labour Government without voting it out and putting a Conservative one in.
On the Roberts thing, I think he's faced other accusations before as well, which may well play into whether this incident's conclusion is seen as reasonable or not.
That Nicola Sturgeon does not want to achieve the goal of her political life - Scottish Independence - through getting and winning a legal referendum is a wholly evidence free assertion. It relies on mind reading and projecting onto her a sterile "man of the world" cynicism that is in itself a form of naivety.
It is in other words, Stodge, complete and utter drivel.
But nicely written as always. ☺
Thank you for the kind word but sometimes politics is more about the journey than the destination.
I'd also venture she is fully aware of the issues an independent Scotland would face in terms of trying to negotiate an amicable divorce from a potentially hostile England quite apart from having to negotiate to join the EU, NATO, UN and all the rest.
Her only route to independence would be to trade the Second Referendum for supporting a Labour minority Government. That gets her a vote which she then has to win. Let's assume that happens - she would have to negotiate the divorce before the next Westminster election because she might then have to deal with a hostile Conservative Government.
The Conservatives would accept the vote to leave - they have quite a good track record (unlike some other parties) in accepting the results of referenda which go against them - but would then use the vote as a stick with which to beat Labour and win an RUK election.
So, for Labour, Scottish independence becomes a political dead-end as well.
The problem (which I'm sure Sturgeon understands because she's in politics) is the journey is fine but the destination is out of reach because it's not in the interests of those whose help she needs to get to the destination to show her the way. Labour won't help her until they become competitive in England and Wales again and it would need a complete volte face from the Conservatives (not inconceivable, they've done it before).
The other elephant in the room is what happens to the SNP once Scotland is independent? I have no assumption Nicola Sturgeon would be the first Prime Minister (or whatever) of an independent Scotland.
You normally make journeys to go somewhere. Maybe you get lost along the way but you have a destination in mind.
This is the best thing I have read on the Salmond business from someone who is partisan, but I think fair. Also interesting to note her conclusion
After nearly fourteen years in power, the [SNP] is exhausted. But, with or without Sturgeon at the helm, there is no effective opposition (the Tories’ Scottish leader isn’t even in the Scottish Parliament, and Scottish Labour’s leader, Anas Sarwar, its sixth in the last decade, has only just been elected). The polls were predicting that on 6 May the SNP would regain the majority it won in 2011 (despite a PR system that was supposed to prevent absolute majorities) and lost in 2016, but now a hung parliament is being forecast (and a drop to 49 per cent support for independence). I find it hard to imagine that the spirit of 2014 will ever be rekindled. Defeat back then was strangely energising. Were the SNP to secure another referendum, could a truce be called in the party’s civil war? What shared idea of Scotland would Yes supporters unite behind now?
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
Ideally, anyone not in your immediate work area, including a chain of command which goes down all the way to the bottom (ie the most junior employees) and up to middle management. Anyone who's roughly equal to you in another department is fine. Basically the rule is whether you could conceivably wreck their career out of spite if they say no, and therefore whether they are likely to feel any inducement to say yes against their better judgment.
Flirting: not during work hours. Pub after work is easier. Lunch and breaks are a grey area.
It's actually not that complicated and mostly just common sense in terms of understanding what advances are and are not likely to be appreciated. There was a transition period where these questions were real, but almost everyone under 40 now has never worked in an office environment where this wasn't problematic. And those over 40 should axiomatically not be indulging in moonshots at interns.
*axiomatically*
The furious certainty is unnerving
If you say so. I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances, other than she's worried about the consequences of saying no. And either way she has the option of suing the company for failing to prevent him doing so, and the resulting tribunal would very likely side with the junior. It's abuse of power, and a liability for your employer.
You think it is impossible for a younger man to fancy an older woman? OK, fair enough
No, but the reverse case is much more common (jncluding the one that triggered this debate).
So it IS possible then? And it is presumably possible for younger women to fancy older men, unless you have truly bizarre beliefs about gender differences.
Ergo, this statement of yours is false: "I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances"
Go on then, put some numbers on it:
- 40 year old manager in a large organisation, either sex - 22 year old graduate, not directly reporting into the manager but within the same broad segment, the opposite sex to the manager - Essentially no prior social contact between the two, and limited direct professional contact
Manager sends some texts like the one the member for Delyn tried, only better worded. What are the chances that:
a) Graduate says yes, and is happy about it b) Graduate says no, and thinks no more of it c) Graduate says yes, but only because they are worried about consequences of saying no d) Graduate says no, and worries they've irrevocably ruined their career already
Probability of A is (I reckon) less than 1%. B is a neutral outcome, and maybe 40% chance. C and D are bad outcomes and collectively I reckon the remaining 59.x% Recommendation: do not proceed.
Ok, this has been an issue before, but these are definitely rioters, not protestors, right? Having an instigating general grievance, if that is what would be argued, is surely not the same as being a protestor.
Only England’s first two group games should be affected by any restrictions.
One of those games is against Scotland, of all teams, just three days before restrictions end.
So I’m calling utter bullshit on this story.
More likely, the England vs Scotland game will be a ‘test event’ at full capacity.
Unless there’s reluctance to stick to the roadmap.........?
Maybe these are minimum numbers guaranteed for uefa? I note Dublin may be losing matches on this basis.
Indeed. My central expectation is for us to pick up the games scheduled for Lansdowne Road, albeit at a different venue. White Hart Lane would be the obvious choice but I don’t think they will want fan congestion in London, so I expect the Dublin games to be switched to Eastlands, Old Trafford, or possibly Anfield.
It is an enormous tragedy. It makes me so sad. The one vaccine made not-for-profit, the one given away as IP for free, the one India can pump out by the billion. This is the one that has been smeared by moron EU politicians and now consigned to the bin by overreacting fools in the UK. And all the time, no doubt, it has been undermined by rival pharma companies, who make a big fat fucking profit from THEIR jabs
AZ has made mistakes, but it did its best to be generous to the world. This is a pointless human disaster unfolding
The UK regulator appears, insofar as I understand it, to have acted correctly. What other people's governments or regulators do is up to them. It's clearly profoundly stupid to reject AZ if the alternative is to leave your population exposed to the virus while you wait months for an alternative to become available but, alas, human beings are often irrational.
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
I'm not normally one to complain about societal imbalances and the like - but I do think this is a bit icky. I wouldn't use the word 'disgusting', but it certainly leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. I wouldn't like workplace flirting to be outlawed, but where one party is a direct report to another it strikes me as definitely best avoided.
That said, it occurs to me now that my Mum and Dad met when he startes work as her shift leader. And they're still together 48 years later.
Probably no-one's relationship beginnings would look too squeaky clean if viewed through a media lens.
I see where Leon is coming from, but there's a clear difference between a consenting relationship between two adults who met at work, and sleezy texts being sent by a MP to an intern. The power and age differential is obvious. My parents met at work, so it's not like I have a problem with the idea... but those texts... ewh.
Where I think Leon (and iSam) has a point is that this will likely reduce the number of couples meeting through work over time. My impression already is this is somewhat less common than it used to be, and as they've said, the replacement methods are not necessarily ideal.
Still, the chances of corporate policy being rolled back in the short to medium term to make this easier, but increasing the chances for harassment, are approximately zero. I'm happy enough with the trade-off, albeit I'm married (and we didn't meet through work).
Rubbish. Plenty of people still meet partners at work. They just don't meet partners who are their managers, they meet partners who are their equals.
Any grad scheme at a big company has young employees shagging each other like it's nobody's business.
It is nobody's business. That's fine, but they often don't stay together - in part because the relationship dies when one of them moves job, as generally happens within a few years. Anyway, the point is that if you're restricted to people on your level then by definition the overall rate must reduce, to some degree.
England’s Euro 2020 group matches at Wembley will have 22,500 fans, the Football Association has guaranteed Uefa, with the hope this figure will double to 45,000 for the semi-finals and final.
The numbers – which represent 25% and 50% of Wembley’s capacity – were discussed at a meeting on Thursday of the 12 host Euro 2020 cities.
Fans will be expected to have lateral flow tests, or to show proof of a vaccination, to attend.
I think Stodge is about right here. One can't make windows into souls of course but if you take it that the Referendum was lost and Westminster isn't going to have another until well after NS's day, coupled with the apparent impossibility of getting the sort of c60% polling you would need to try to force and win a Ref2, NS's position of steady as she goes would make perfect sense.
My only disagreement - tentative - with Stodge is that NS would be deeply fearful of losing a Ref2, as it would finish her, whereas the possibility being always there but not now will keep the troops going. I also think that politicians being what they are, in another world in which she could hold Ref2 and win, she would.
@kinabalu is right. People are overanalysing. You vote for the SNP. join the party, or lead it, because you want Scotland to be independent, and that single aim is more important to you than any other political goal.
When Nicola Sturgeon's party convincingly wins the election and Johnson says flat No to a referendum, she will think about her next steps, which she will have strong mandate to pursue.
No, she won't. She'll settle down for five more years as the dominant political figure in Scotland and her next issue will be how to finesse the relationship with UK Labour in 2024. If a Johnson majority looks likely she'll not bother but if there's a chance she could be dealing with Starmer after the next GE, she'll have to start thinking about how to play any influence she might have in the next Commons.
If the SNP sweeps Scotland again at the next GE *and* it ends up holding the balance of power in the way you describe, then Starmer will have to concede the referendum. First reason: metropolitans are vastly more sympathetic to Scottish nationalism than the provincial English. Second reason: facing the SNP down and daring them to put the Tories back into bat won't work. It would be perfectly possible for a party in the position to swing every Parliamentary vote to wreck a Labour Government without voting it out and putting a Conservative one in.
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
Ideally, anyone not in your immediate work area, including a chain of command which goes down all the way to the bottom (ie the most junior employees) and up to middle management. Anyone who's roughly equal to you in another department is fine. Basically the rule is whether you could conceivably wreck their career out of spite if they say no, and therefore whether they are likely to feel any inducement to say yes against their better judgment.
Flirting: not during work hours. Pub after work is easier. Lunch and breaks are a grey area.
It's actually not that complicated and mostly just common sense in terms of understanding what advances are and are not likely to be appreciated. There was a transition period where these questions were real, but almost everyone under 40 now has never worked in an office environment where this wasn't problematic. And those over 40 should axiomatically not be indulging in moonshots at interns.
*axiomatically*
The furious certainty is unnerving
If you say so. I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances, other than she's worried about the consequences of saying no. And either way she has the option of suing the company for failing to prevent him doing so, and the resulting tribunal would very likely side with the junior. It's abuse of power, and a liability for your employer.
You think it is impossible for a younger man to fancy an older woman? OK, fair enough
No, but the reverse case is much more common (jncluding the one that triggered this debate).
So it IS possible then? And it is presumably possible for younger women to fancy older men, unless you have truly bizarre beliefs about gender differences.
Ergo, this statement of yours is false: "I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances"
Go on then, put some numbers on it:
- 40 year old manager in a large organisation, either sex - 22 year old graduate, not directly reporting into the manager but within the same broad segment, the opposite sex to the manager - Essentially no prior social contact between the two, and limited direct professional contact
Manager sends some texts like the one the member for Delyn tried, only better worded. What are the chances that:
a) Graduate says yes, and is happy about it b) Graduate says no, and thinks no more of it c) Graduate says yes, but only because they are worried about consequences of saying no d) Graduate says no, and worries they've irrevocably ruined their career already
Probability of A is (I reckon) less than 1%. B is a neutral outcome, and maybe 40% chance. C and D are bad outcomes and collectively I reckon the remaining 59.x% Recommendation: do not proceed.
Jesus Christ. I'm not going to put percentages on it. I only wanted to make the point that Love is where it Falls, and all kinds of humans fancy all kinds of unexpected other humans, even to the extent of - shudder - younger people fancying older people
But let's just cancel messy romantic seductions and do it all by politically correct online questionnaire, so we can ensure a growing percentage of young people are so timid, scared and confused they end up miserable and alone and having no sex at all, as is actually happening, right now
Italy has today overtaken the UK in covid deaths per population after a further 487 deaths recorded in the past 24 hours. The UK sits 13th in Europe, though we of course have the highest European death toll in actual terms.
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
Ideally, anyone not in your immediate work area, including a chain of command which goes down all the way to the bottom (ie the most junior employees) and up to middle management. Anyone who's roughly equal to you in another department is fine. Basically the rule is whether you could conceivably wreck their career out of spite if they say no, and therefore whether they are likely to feel any inducement to say yes against their better judgment.
Flirting: not during work hours. Pub after work is easier. Lunch and breaks are a grey area.
It's actually not that complicated and mostly just common sense in terms of understanding what advances are and are not likely to be appreciated. There was a transition period where these questions were real, but almost everyone under 40 now has never worked in an office environment where this wasn't problematic. And those over 40 should axiomatically not be indulging in moonshots at interns.
*axiomatically*
The furious certainty is unnerving
If you say so. I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances, other than she's worried about the consequences of saying no. And either way she has the option of suing the company for failing to prevent him doing so, and the resulting tribunal would very likely side with the junior. It's abuse of power, and a liability for your employer.
You think it is impossible for a younger man to fancy an older woman? OK, fair enough
No, but the reverse case is much more common (jncluding the one that triggered this debate).
So it IS possible then? And it is presumably possible for younger women to fancy older men, unless you have truly bizarre beliefs about gender differences.
Ergo, this statement of yours is false: "I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances"
Go on then, put some numbers on it:
- 40 year old manager in a large organisation, either sex - 22 year old graduate, not directly reporting into the manager but within the same broad segment, the opposite sex to the manager - Essentially no prior social contact between the two, and limited direct professional contact
Manager sends some texts like the one the member for Delyn tried, only better worded. What are the chances that:
a) Graduate says yes, and is happy about it b) Graduate says no, and thinks no more of it c) Graduate says yes, but only because they are worried about consequences of saying no d) Graduate says no, and worries they've irrevocably ruined their career already
Probability of A is (I reckon) less than 1%. B is a neutral outcome, and maybe 40% chance. C and D are bad outcomes and collectively I reckon the remaining 59.x% Recommendation: do not proceed.
Jesus Christ. I'm not going to put percentages on it. I only wanted to make the point that Love is where it Falls, and all kinds of humans fancy all kinds of unexpected other humans, even to the extent of - shudder - younger people fancying older people
But let's just cancel messy romantic seductions and do it all by politically correct online questionnaire, so we can ensure a growing percentage of young people are so timid, scared and confused they end up miserable and alone and having no sex at all, as is actually happening, right now
There is, believe it or not, a happy middle ground, where people are considerate of other people's possible reactions to their behaviour.
Admittedly Scott that video looks like a picnic. The trouble tonight which is at the same interface as last night is largely on the nationalist side. You had about 60 youngsters gathering at their side of the security gate separating republican from loyalist areas then setting barriers across the main road. Community workers (read blokes who used to be or are involved) came out but the kids haven't dispersed. If I read right where the below video is, its more likely to be republican youth but the gap between the two communities at that location is measured at about 50 yards.
Notably now loyalists (what loyalists do not know) have started to gather at the same gates area in response to where they were slugging out last night.
Social media magnates, it might be worth scanning how much messaging has been going on between the yoof from side A & Side B.
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
Ideally, anyone not in your immediate work area, including a chain of command which goes down all the way to the bottom (ie the most junior employees) and up to middle management. Anyone who's roughly equal to you in another department is fine. Basically the rule is whether you could conceivably wreck their career out of spite if they say no, and therefore whether they are likely to feel any inducement to say yes against their better judgment.
Flirting: not during work hours. Pub after work is easier. Lunch and breaks are a grey area.
It's actually not that complicated and mostly just common sense in terms of understanding what advances are and are not likely to be appreciated. There was a transition period where these questions were real, but almost everyone under 40 now has never worked in an office environment where this wasn't problematic. And those over 40 should axiomatically not be indulging in moonshots at interns.
*axiomatically*
The furious certainty is unnerving
If you say so. I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances, other than she's worried about the consequences of saying no. And either way she has the option of suing the company for failing to prevent him doing so, and the resulting tribunal would very likely side with the junior. It's abuse of power, and a liability for your employer.
You think it is impossible for a younger man to fancy an older woman? OK, fair enough
No, but the reverse case is much more common (jncluding the one that triggered this debate).
So it IS possible then? And it is presumably possible for younger women to fancy older men, unless you have truly bizarre beliefs about gender differences.
Ergo, this statement of yours is false: "I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances"
Go on then, put some numbers on it:
- 40 year old manager in a large organisation, either sex - 22 year old graduate, not directly reporting into the manager but within the same broad segment, the opposite sex to the manager - Essentially no prior social contact between the two, and limited direct professional contact
Manager sends some texts like the one the member for Delyn tried, only better worded. What are the chances that:
a) Graduate says yes, and is happy about it b) Graduate says no, and thinks no more of it c) Graduate says yes, but only because they are worried about consequences of saying no d) Graduate says no, and worries they've irrevocably ruined their career already
Probability of A is (I reckon) less than 1%. B is a neutral outcome, and maybe 40% chance. C and D are bad outcomes and collectively I reckon the remaining 59.x% Recommendation: do not proceed.
Jesus Christ. I'm not going to put percentages on it. I only wanted to make the point that Love is where it Falls, and all kinds of humans fancy all kinds of unexpected other humans, even to the extent of - shudder - younger people fancying older people
But let's just cancel messy romantic seductions and do it all by politically correct online questionnaire, so we can ensure a growing percentage of young people are so timid, scared and confused they end up miserable and alone and having no sex at all, as is actually happening, right now
There is, believe it or not, a happy middle ground, where people are considerate of other people's possible reactions to their behaviour.
Your formulation does not seem to have proposed such a middle ground, however, so I'm not sure what the point of pulling percentages out of thin air was about.
A streaker ran through our local church on Sunday.
The police chased him around the pews a bit, before they caught him by the organ
Ouch.
Ah, I mentioned "1066 and All That" earlier where I think that joke may have originated: "Whereupon the Knights pursued Belloc and murdered him in the organ at Canterbury Cathedral. Belloc was therefore made a Saint and the Knights came to be called the Canterbury Pilgrims."
Suspect the joke was invented the day after some one invented the (musical) organ. OR imported one to an English-speaking country.
I used to drink a VERY reasonably priced whisky called High Commissioner. Seems to have disappeared from supermarket shelves now though. Nothing to do with the pandemic, it had already been withdrawn before that. Maybe the company went under. Not sure. Was never quite interested enough to investigate.
But no probs. Red wine only these days. Always Chilean.
I used to drink a VERY reasonably priced whisky called High Commissioner. Seems to have disappeared from supermarket shelves now though. Nothing to do with the pandemic, it had already been withdrawn before that. Maybe the company went under. Not sure. Was never quite interested enough to investigate.
But no probs. Red wine only these days. Always Chilean.
I think Stodge is about right here. One can't make windows into souls of course but if you take it that the Referendum was lost and Westminster isn't going to have another until well after NS's day, coupled with the apparent impossibility of getting the sort of c60% polling you would need to try to force and win a Ref2, NS's position of steady as she goes would make perfect sense.
My only disagreement - tentative - with Stodge is that NS would be deeply fearful of losing a Ref2, as it would finish her, whereas the possibility being always there but not now will keep the troops going. I also think that politicians being what they are, in another world in which she could hold Ref2 and win, she would.
@kinabalu is right. People are overanalysing. You vote for the SNP. join the party, or lead it, because you want Scotland to be independent, and that single aim is more important to you than any other political goal.
When Nicola Sturgeon's party convincingly wins the election and Johnson says flat No to a referendum, she will think about her next steps, which she will have strong mandate to pursue.
No, she won't. She'll settle down for five more years as the dominant political figure in Scotland and her next issue will be how to finesse the relationship with UK Labour in 2024. If a Johnson majority looks likely she'll not bother but if there's a chance she could be dealing with Starmer after the next GE, she'll have to start thinking about how to play any influence she might have in the next Commons.
If the SNP sweeps Scotland again at the next GE *and* it ends up holding the balance of power in the way you describe, then Starmer will have to concede the referendum. First reason: metropolitans are vastly more sympathetic to Scottish nationalism than the provincial English. Second reason: facing the SNP down and daring them to put the Tories back into bat won't work. It would be perfectly possible for a party in the position to swing every Parliamentary vote to wreck a Labour Government without voting it out and putting a Conservative one in.
Starmer could push it back to the late 2020s and adjust the question offered to 'Do you believe Scotland should remain part of the UK?'
Yes. I think he could reasonably get away with stalling by deploying a reasonable excuse (e.g. undertaking a constitutional review, and putting some form of DevoMax to Scots as the alternative to separation,) and demand a different wording for the question - so long as the essential substance of the matter were to be encapsulated in legislation.
That Nicola Sturgeon does not want to achieve the goal of her political life - Scottish Independence - through getting and winning a legal referendum is a wholly evidence free assertion. It relies on mind reading and projecting onto her a sterile "man of the world" cynicism that is in itself a form of naivety.
It is in other words, Stodge, complete and utter drivel.
But nicely written as always. ☺
Thank you for the kind word but sometimes politics is more about the journey than the destination.
I'd also venture she is fully aware of the issues an independent Scotland would face in terms of trying to negotiate an amicable divorce from a potentially hostile England quite apart from having to negotiate to join the EU, NATO, UN and all the rest.
Her only route to independence would be to trade the Second Referendum for supporting a Labour minority Government. That gets her a vote which she then has to win. Let's assume that happens - she would have to negotiate the divorce before the next Westminster election because she might then have to deal with a hostile Conservative Government.
The Conservatives would accept the vote to leave - they have quite a good track record (unlike some other parties) in accepting the results of referenda which go against them - but would then use the vote as a stick with which to beat Labour and win an RUK election.
So, for Labour, Scottish independence becomes a political dead-end as well.
The problem (which I'm sure Sturgeon understands because she's in politics) is the journey is fine but the destination is out of reach because it's not in the interests of those whose help she needs to get to the destination to show her the way. Labour won't help her until they become competitive in England and Wales again and it would need a complete volte face from the Conservatives (not inconceivable, they've done it before).
The other elephant in the room is what happens to the SNP once Scotland is independent? I have no assumption Nicola Sturgeon would be the first Prime Minister (or whatever) of an independent Scotland.
You normally make journeys to go somewhere. Maybe you get lost along the way but you have a destination in mind.
This is the best thing I have read on the Salmond business from someone who is partisan, but I think fair. Also interesting to note her conclusion
After nearly fourteen years in power, the [SNP] is exhausted. But, with or without Sturgeon at the helm, there is no effective opposition (the Tories’ Scottish leader isn’t even in the Scottish Parliament, and Scottish Labour’s leader, Anas Sarwar, its sixth in the last decade, has only just been elected). The polls were predicting that on 6 May the SNP would regain the majority it won in 2011 (despite a PR system that was supposed to prevent absolute majorities) and lost in 2016, but now a hung parliament is being forecast (and a drop to 49 per cent support for independence). I find it hard to imagine that the spirit of 2014 will ever be rekindled. Defeat back then was strangely energising. Were the SNP to secure another referendum, could a truce be called in the party’s civil war? What shared idea of Scotland would Yes supporters unite behind now?
Presumably the shared idea would be "get rid of Westminster, and worry about what to do next after that?"
I think Stodge is about right here. One can't make windows into souls of course but if you take it that the Referendum was lost and Westminster isn't going to have another until well after NS's day, coupled with the apparent impossibility of getting the sort of c60% polling you would need to try to force and win a Ref2, NS's position of steady as she goes would make perfect sense.
My only disagreement - tentative - with Stodge is that NS would be deeply fearful of losing a Ref2, as it would finish her, whereas the possibility being always there but not now will keep the troops going. I also think that politicians being what they are, in another world in which she could hold Ref2 and win, she would.
@kinabalu is right. People are overanalysing. You vote for the SNP. join the party, or lead it, because you want Scotland to be independent, and that single aim is more important to you than any other political goal.
When Nicola Sturgeon's party convincingly wins the election and Johnson says flat No to a referendum, she will think about her next steps, which she will have strong mandate to pursue.
No, she won't. She'll settle down for five more years as the dominant political figure in Scotland and her next issue will be how to finesse the relationship with UK Labour in 2024. If a Johnson majority looks likely she'll not bother but if there's a chance she could be dealing with Starmer after the next GE, she'll have to start thinking about how to play any influence she might have in the next Commons.
If the SNP sweeps Scotland again at the next GE *and* it ends up holding the balance of power in the way you describe, then Starmer will have to concede the referendum. First reason: metropolitans are vastly more sympathetic to Scottish nationalism than the provincial English. Second reason: facing the SNP down and daring them to put the Tories back into bat won't work. It would be perfectly possible for a party in the position to swing every Parliamentary vote to wreck a Labour Government without voting it out and putting a Conservative one in.
Only England’s first two group games should be affected by any restrictions.
One of those games is against Scotland, of all teams, just three days before restrictions end.
So I’m calling utter bullshit on this story.
More likely, the England vs Scotland game will be a ‘test event’ at full capacity.
Unless there’s reluctance to stick to the roadmap.........?
One reason why England vs Scotland may not be at full capacity is travel from and back to Scotland...
There are more than enough Scots living in London to fill their allocation!
UEFA are yet to make a decision on fanzones but you can bet your bottom dollar tens of thousands of Scots will travel to London anyway on planes and trains so it’s ridiculous to think that this game should be restricted to 22,500 fans due to fears of transmission.
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
Ideally, anyone not in your immediate work area, including a chain of command which goes down all the way to the bottom (ie the most junior employees) and up to middle management. Anyone who's roughly equal to you in another department is fine. Basically the rule is whether you could conceivably wreck their career out of spite if they say no, and therefore whether they are likely to feel any inducement to say yes against their better judgment.
Flirting: not during work hours. Pub after work is easier. Lunch and breaks are a grey area.
It's actually not that complicated and mostly just common sense in terms of understanding what advances are and are not likely to be appreciated. There was a transition period where these questions were real, but almost everyone under 40 now has never worked in an office environment where this wasn't problematic. And those over 40 should axiomatically not be indulging in moonshots at interns.
*axiomatically*
The furious certainty is unnerving
If you say so. I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances, other than she's worried about the consequences of saying no. And either way she has the option of suing the company for failing to prevent him doing so, and the resulting tribunal would very likely side with the junior. It's abuse of power, and a liability for your employer.
You think it is impossible for a younger man to fancy an older woman? OK, fair enough
No, but the reverse case is much more common (jncluding the one that triggered this debate).
So it IS possible then? And it is presumably possible for younger women to fancy older men, unless you have truly bizarre beliefs about gender differences.
Ergo, this statement of yours is false: "I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances"
Go on then, put some numbers on it:
- 40 year old manager in a large organisation, either sex - 22 year old graduate, not directly reporting into the manager but within the same broad segment, the opposite sex to the manager - Essentially no prior social contact between the two, and limited direct professional contact
Manager sends some texts like the one the member for Delyn tried, only better worded. What are the chances that:
a) Graduate says yes, and is happy about it b) Graduate says no, and thinks no more of it c) Graduate says yes, but only because they are worried about consequences of saying no d) Graduate says no, and worries they've irrevocably ruined their career already
Probability of A is (I reckon) less than 1%. B is a neutral outcome, and maybe 40% chance. C and D are bad outcomes and collectively I reckon the remaining 59.x% Recommendation: do not proceed.
Jesus Christ. I'm not going to put percentages on it. I only wanted to make the point that Love is where it Falls, and all kinds of humans fancy all kinds of unexpected other humans, even to the extent of - shudder - younger people fancying older people
But let's just cancel messy romantic seductions and do it all by politically correct online questionnaire, so we can ensure a growing percentage of young people are so timid, scared and confused they end up miserable and alone and having no sex at all, as is actually happening, right now
There is, believe it or not, a happy middle ground, where people are considerate of other people's possible reactions to their behaviour.
Your formulation does not seem to have proposed such a middle ground, however, so I'm not sure what the point of pulling percentages out of thin air was about.
People half your age and over whom you have power are off limits unless they make the first move. Is that really such a loss to society?
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
Ideally, anyone not in your immediate work area, including a chain of command which goes down all the way to the bottom (ie the most junior employees) and up to middle management. Anyone who's roughly equal to you in another department is fine. Basically the rule is whether you could conceivably wreck their career out of spite if they say no, and therefore whether they are likely to feel any inducement to say yes against their better judgment.
Flirting: not during work hours. Pub after work is easier. Lunch and breaks are a grey area.
It's actually not that complicated and mostly just common sense in terms of understanding what advances are and are not likely to be appreciated. There was a transition period where these questions were real, but almost everyone under 40 now has never worked in an office environment where this wasn't problematic. And those over 40 should axiomatically not be indulging in moonshots at interns.
*axiomatically*
The furious certainty is unnerving
If you say so. I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances, other than she's worried about the consequences of saying no. And either way she has the option of suing the company for failing to prevent him doing so, and the resulting tribunal would very likely side with the junior. It's abuse of power, and a liability for your employer.
You think it is impossible for a younger man to fancy an older woman? OK, fair enough
No, but the reverse case is much more common (jncluding the one that triggered this debate).
So it IS possible then? And it is presumably possible for younger women to fancy older men, unless you have truly bizarre beliefs about gender differences.
Ergo, this statement of yours is false: "I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances"
Go on then, put some numbers on it:
- 40 year old manager in a large organisation, either sex - 22 year old graduate, not directly reporting into the manager but within the same broad segment, the opposite sex to the manager - Essentially no prior social contact between the two, and limited direct professional contact
Manager sends some texts like the one the member for Delyn tried, only better worded. What are the chances that:
a) Graduate says yes, and is happy about it b) Graduate says no, and thinks no more of it c) Graduate says yes, but only because they are worried about consequences of saying no d) Graduate says no, and worries they've irrevocably ruined their career already
Probability of A is (I reckon) less than 1%. B is a neutral outcome, and maybe 40% chance. C and D are bad outcomes and collectively I reckon the remaining 59.x% Recommendation: do not proceed.
Jesus Christ. I'm not going to put percentages on it. I only wanted to make the point that Love is where it Falls, and all kinds of humans fancy all kinds of unexpected other humans, even to the extent of - shudder - younger people fancying older people
But let's just cancel messy romantic seductions and do it all by politically correct online questionnaire, so we can ensure a growing percentage of young people are so timid, scared and confused they end up miserable and alone and having no sex at all, as is actually happening, right now
Charisma, charm, & personality are dirty words now - unfair advantages/privileges. We are living in a spreadsheet world where the stinky, unattractive nerds demand equal access to the hot totty!
It is an enormous tragedy. It makes me so sad. The one vaccine made not-for-profit, the one given away as IP for free, the one India can pump out by the billion. This is the one that has been smeared by moron EU politicians and now consigned to the bin by overreacting fools in the UK. And all the time, no doubt, it has been undermined by rival pharma companies, who make a big fat fucking profit from THEIR jabs
AZ has made mistakes, but it did its best to be generous to the world. This is a pointless human disaster unfolding
The UK regulator appears, insofar as I understand it, to have acted correctly. What other people's governments or regulators do is up to them. It's clearly profoundly stupid to reject AZ if the alternative is to leave your population exposed to the virus while you wait months for an alternative to become available but, alas, human beings are often irrational.
The UK should have showed leadership. A lot of countries look to us as an exemplar in things like science and medicine. Oxford University! One of the best in the world!
Moreover, this is largely a British vaccine, so what the British say about it will carry more weight around the globe than, say, the EMA, let alone regulators in Canada, Oz etc
It was our job to stand up for the world's one and only not-for-profit, bung-it-in-the-fridge vaccine, not cave in to absurdly overblown fears of exceptionally rare side-effects. Instead, we made a dumb-as-feck decision, which, I believe, will lead quite directly to thousands of unnecessary deaths across the world
Ironically, the people who may now save the day, the only people who can save it, are the Americans. OxAZ has yet to receive the go ahead from the FDA. It is expected soon. No doubt lobbyists from Pfizer and Co are quietly "hoping" America says no, as their share prices surge.
I think Stodge is about right here. One can't make windows into souls of course but if you take it that the Referendum was lost and Westminster isn't going to have another until well after NS's day, coupled with the apparent impossibility of getting the sort of c60% polling you would need to try to force and win a Ref2, NS's position of steady as she goes would make perfect sense.
My only disagreement - tentative - with Stodge is that NS would be deeply fearful of losing a Ref2, as it would finish her, whereas the possibility being always there but not now will keep the troops going. I also think that politicians being what they are, in another world in which she could hold Ref2 and win, she would.
@kinabalu is right. People are overanalysing. You vote for the SNP. join the party, or lead it, because you want Scotland to be independent, and that single aim is more important to you than any other political goal.
When Nicola Sturgeon's party convincingly wins the election and Johnson says flat No to a referendum, she will think about her next steps, which she will have strong mandate to pursue.
No, she won't. She'll settle down for five more years as the dominant political figure in Scotland and her next issue will be how to finesse the relationship with UK Labour in 2024. If a Johnson majority looks likely she'll not bother but if there's a chance she could be dealing with Starmer after the next GE, she'll have to start thinking about how to play any influence she might have in the next Commons.
If the SNP sweeps Scotland again at the next GE *and* it ends up holding the balance of power in the way you describe, then Starmer will have to concede the referendum. First reason: metropolitans are vastly more sympathetic to Scottish nationalism than the provincial English. Second reason: facing the SNP down and daring them to put the Tories back into bat won't work. It would be perfectly possible for a party in the position to swing every Parliamentary vote to wreck a Labour Government without voting it out and putting a Conservative one in.
Only England’s first two group games should be affected by any restrictions.
One of those games is against Scotland, of all teams, just three days before restrictions end.
So I’m calling utter bullshit on this story.
More likely, the England vs Scotland game will be a ‘test event’ at full capacity.
Unless there’s reluctance to stick to the roadmap.........?
One reason why England vs Scotland may not be at full capacity is travel from and back to Scotland...
There are more than enough Scots living in London to fill their allocation!
UEFA are yet to make a decision on fanzones but you can bet your bottom dollar tens of thousands of Scots will travel to London anyway on planes and trains so it’s ridiculous to think that this game should be restricted to 22,500 fans due to fears of transmission.
Exactly. The Tartan Army will take over London as per come what may. Let them into Wembley FFS and let’s use this date to usher in the end of lockdown.
One thing I've never understood while encountering the Scott P style "Bozo is a loser, the UK is awful" parts of the internet is where this oft quoted "150,000 dead" figure comes from. Given our rather liberal reporting of covid deaths sits around the 126k mark are they privy to some statistics I'm not, are they predicting the future or do they just round up all numbers to the nearest 50,000?
Both figures are from the government stats.
The 128k figure is for deaths within 28 days of a positive test.
The 150k is deaths with Covid-19 listed as a cause on the death certificate.
Edit - IIRC it is top of the government's Covid-19 dashboard.
It seems that the 150k is very rarely used by any politicians, scientists or journalists across the globe. I haven't seen it used by the Beeb for example on the 10 o clock news.
So seems like just a case of 'I'll pick the higher number other people aren't using because the worst case scenario suits my argument".
Boris Johnson recently cited the higher figures in a press conference, as did the CMO, JVT in other press conferences.
Whitty, Vallance, and JVT have often used the higher figure to contextualise things.
One of the things that British officialdom can't reasonably be accused of, it would seem, is producing wildly inaccurate figures, whether by accident or design.
Compare, if you will, to Russia, where the official Covid death toll is about 100k but the excess death count for the pandemic period is closer to half-a-million (which, on a per capita basis, would be about twice as bad as the United States.)
It's why you've also heard more than once at the UK Government pressers that, in the long run, the best relative international measure of deaths in the pandemic is liable to come from the excess death statistics. They're the numbers least likely to be corrupted.
Spot on.
And you also need to look at excess deaths as % of regular deaths, rather than per million - otherwise you're just measuring how many old people there are in your country.
Slight issue there is in the definition of "regular deaths". Comparing with the average of pre-pandemic deaths over the previous ten years would be better than just the year before, but then you bring in fluctuating population numbers the more years you include.
Compromise on the average of the last three years deaths.
@rcs1000 if States gets Green Lit for international travel from 17 May and USA plays ball we may organise a last minute half term trip. Florida (Sarasota) and Arizona (Phoenix) are in the mix - which is best option given virus prevalence and vaccination uptake in those states would you say?
Do you like your heat dry or wet?
At this point I'm not fussy to be honest. I've been to both many times. Anna Maria Island near Sarasota is a favourite destination for us. I just can't wait to get off this island.
We were going to do the big US roadtrip about now but it's had to go on ice. Hope it still happens at some point. I particularly want to do the deep south. See what I make of it. See what they make of me.
"See what they make of me" - let's hope it's NOT gumbo!
Seriously, the Southern US is great place to visit. Large & diverse, so if you find yourself somewhere not quite to your taste, just head down the road a bit to somewhere else.
Some of my favs are (in no particular order) > New Orleans & vicinity > Pensacola (great beaches) > Natchez Trace scenic highway (NO to Nashville) > Great Smokey Mountains > Skyline Drive
Never been to Memphis but hear it's great.
Keep the seasons & weather in mind, esp. in Deep South. As the locals say, it ain't the heat - it's the humidity!
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This will not harm Labour's prospects of taking back the seat next time. Back in 1986 I was runner up to David Hanson to be Labour PPC there.
Labour won't take that seat back next time ... because it won't exist.
If the Tories are lucky, when the game of musical chairs ends for the NE Walian seats next time, there isn't one for Rob Roberts.
More likely he’s fighting Mark Tami for a new ‘Deeside’ seat while James Davies and/or Robin Millar takes on the largeish chunk in the West.
Hopefully he will lose, but I don’t know. Alyn and Deeside was a bare save this time and it’s gradually trending blue anyway, even leaving aside the largeish Brexit Party vote. It’s one I think might fall in the assembly elections next month.
One thing I've never understood while encountering the Scott P style "Bozo is a loser, the UK is awful" parts of the internet is where this oft quoted "150,000 dead" figure comes from. Given our rather liberal reporting of covid deaths sits around the 126k mark are they privy to some statistics I'm not, are they predicting the future or do they just round up all numbers to the nearest 50,000?
Both figures are from the government stats.
The 128k figure is for deaths within 28 days of a positive test.
The 150k is deaths with Covid-19 listed as a cause on the death certificate.
Edit - IIRC it is top of the government's Covid-19 dashboard.
It seems that the 150k is very rarely used by any politicians, scientists or journalists across the globe. I haven't seen it used by the Beeb for example on the 10 o clock news.
So seems like just a case of 'I'll pick the higher number other people aren't using because the worst case scenario suits my argument".
Boris Johnson recently cited the higher figures in a press conference, as did the CMO, JVT in other press conferences.
Whitty, Vallance, and JVT have often used the higher figure to contextualise things.
One of the things that British officialdom can't reasonably be accused of, it would seem, is producing wildly inaccurate figures, whether by accident or design.
Compare, if you will, to Russia, where the official Covid death toll is about 100k but the excess death count for the pandemic period is closer to half-a-million (which, on a per capita basis, would be about twice as bad as the United States.)
It's why you've also heard more than once at the UK Government pressers that, in the long run, the best relative international measure of deaths in the pandemic is liable to come from the excess death statistics. They're the numbers least likely to be corrupted.
Spot on.
And you also need to look at excess deaths as % of regular deaths, rather than per million - otherwise you're just measuring how many old people there are in your country.
Slight issue there is in the definition of "regular deaths". Comparing with the average of pre-pandemic deaths over the previous ten years would be better than just the year before, but then you bring in fluctuating population numbers the more years you include.
Compromise on the average of the last three years deaths.
@rcs1000 if States gets Green Lit for international travel from 17 May and USA plays ball we may organise a last minute half term trip. Florida (Sarasota) and Arizona (Phoenix) are in the mix - which is best option given virus prevalence and vaccination uptake in those states would you say?
Right now, unless you are a citizen, permanent resident of the US, or are married to a citizen, then you cannot enter the US from the UK.
I don't know when the Biden administration will relax those rules: hopefully soon, not least because I would like to see my family. But it might well not be until the Summer.
You are allowed to travel to UK from USA though.
Yes... but I have work in the US, the kids have school and we have five too many pets that need looking after in our absence. So, I'm disinclined to travel to the UK unless I know I can get back.
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
Ideally, anyone not in your immediate work area, including a chain of command which goes down all the way to the bottom (ie the most junior employees) and up to middle management. Anyone who's roughly equal to you in another department is fine. Basically the rule is whether you could conceivably wreck their career out of spite if they say no, and therefore whether they are likely to feel any inducement to say yes against their better judgment.
Flirting: not during work hours. Pub after work is easier. Lunch and breaks are a grey area.
It's actually not that complicated and mostly just common sense in terms of understanding what advances are and are not likely to be appreciated. There was a transition period where these questions were real, but almost everyone under 40 now has never worked in an office environment where this wasn't problematic. And those over 40 should axiomatically not be indulging in moonshots at interns.
*axiomatically*
The furious certainty is unnerving
If you say so. I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances, other than she's worried about the consequences of saying no. And either way she has the option of suing the company for failing to prevent him doing so, and the resulting tribunal would very likely side with the junior. It's abuse of power, and a liability for your employer.
You think it is impossible for a younger man to fancy an older woman? OK, fair enough
No, but the reverse case is much more common (jncluding the one that triggered this debate).
So it IS possible then? And it is presumably possible for younger women to fancy older men, unless you have truly bizarre beliefs about gender differences.
Ergo, this statement of yours is false: "I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances"
Go on then, put some numbers on it:
- 40 year old manager in a large organisation, either sex - 22 year old graduate, not directly reporting into the manager but within the same broad segment, the opposite sex to the manager - Essentially no prior social contact between the two, and limited direct professional contact
Manager sends some texts like the one the member for Delyn tried, only better worded. What are the chances that:
a) Graduate says yes, and is happy about it b) Graduate says no, and thinks no more of it c) Graduate says yes, but only because they are worried about consequences of saying no d) Graduate says no, and worries they've irrevocably ruined their career already
Probability of A is (I reckon) less than 1%. B is a neutral outcome, and maybe 40% chance. C and D are bad outcomes and collectively I reckon the remaining 59.x% Recommendation: do not proceed.
Jesus Christ. I'm not going to put percentages on it. I only wanted to make the point that Love is where it Falls, and all kinds of humans fancy all kinds of unexpected other humans, even to the extent of - shudder - younger people fancying older people
But let's just cancel messy romantic seductions and do it all by politically correct online questionnaire, so we can ensure a growing percentage of young people are so timid, scared and confused they end up miserable and alone and having no sex at all, as is actually happening, right now
There is, believe it or not, a happy middle ground, where people are considerate of other people's possible reactions to their behaviour.
Your formulation does not seem to have proposed such a middle ground, however, so I'm not sure what the point of pulling percentages out of thin air was about.
People half your age and over whom you have power are off limits unless they make the first move. Is that really such a loss to society?
You're the one who eliminated middle grounds by saying you could not see any reason someone older might believe a younger person could be receptive to an advance (execept for a sinister reason), so I think your pretence of reasonableness is severely undercut by your own words.
Issues of age and power dynamics opening up reasonable concerns and people needing to be careful with their own behaviour as a result is what I've said all along. You decided to make a rather absurd blanket statement, then even more absurdly decided to attempt some pseudo-scientific analysis putting numbers on it.
If you wanted to make a point about it being sensible for those older and in positions of potential influence not making a move (and certainly not in the crass way Roberts did), maybe you should have done so rather than the point you did make. It's pretty easy, particularly since MPs should be held to a higher standard anyway.
As it is, given you've rolled back on that initial comment as well, you appear to be arguing against points no one is even making, and I cannot really see why.
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
Ideally, anyone not in your immediate work area, including a chain of command which goes down all the way to the bottom (ie the most junior employees) and up to middle management. Anyone who's roughly equal to you in another department is fine. Basically the rule is whether you could conceivably wreck their career out of spite if they say no, and therefore whether they are likely to feel any inducement to say yes against their better judgment.
Flirting: not during work hours. Pub after work is easier. Lunch and breaks are a grey area.
It's actually not that complicated and mostly just common sense in terms of understanding what advances are and are not likely to be appreciated. There was a transition period where these questions were real, but almost everyone under 40 now has never worked in an office environment where this wasn't problematic. And those over 40 should axiomatically not be indulging in moonshots at interns.
*axiomatically*
The furious certainty is unnerving
If you say so. I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances, other than she's worried about the consequences of saying no. And either way she has the option of suing the company for failing to prevent him doing so, and the resulting tribunal would very likely side with the junior. It's abuse of power, and a liability for your employer.
You think it is impossible for a younger man to fancy an older woman? OK, fair enough
No, but the reverse case is much more common (jncluding the one that triggered this debate).
So it IS possible then? And it is presumably possible for younger women to fancy older men, unless you have truly bizarre beliefs about gender differences.
Ergo, this statement of yours is false: "I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances"
Go on then, put some numbers on it:
- 40 year old manager in a large organisation, either sex - 22 year old graduate, not directly reporting into the manager but within the same broad segment, the opposite sex to the manager - Essentially no prior social contact between the two, and limited direct professional contact
Manager sends some texts like the one the member for Delyn tried, only better worded. What are the chances that:
a) Graduate says yes, and is happy about it b) Graduate says no, and thinks no more of it c) Graduate says yes, but only because they are worried about consequences of saying no d) Graduate says no, and worries they've irrevocably ruined their career already
Probability of A is (I reckon) less than 1%. B is a neutral outcome, and maybe 40% chance. C and D are bad outcomes and collectively I reckon the remaining 59.x% Recommendation: do not proceed.
Jesus Christ. I'm not going to put percentages on it. I only wanted to make the point that Love is where it Falls, and all kinds of humans fancy all kinds of unexpected other humans, even to the extent of - shudder - younger people fancying older people
But let's just cancel messy romantic seductions and do it all by politically correct online questionnaire, so we can ensure a growing percentage of young people are so timid, scared and confused they end up miserable and alone and having no sex at all, as is actually happening, right now
Charisma, charm, & personality are dirty words now - unfair advantages/privileges. We are living in a spreadsheet world where the stinky, unattractive nerds demand equal access to the hot totty!
Tho of course the poor nerds are the ones who are suffering most, as they are unable to win over partners with their quirky personalities at work, or wherever, because all this is now outlawed. So the visually sexy alphas get everything on Tinder. And you get incels shooting up shopping malls, echoing their sex starved Muslim brethren in suicide vests
On slightly more relevant matters, the weekly vaccination update shows only 68% of those over 50 in Newham have received a first vaccination leaving 28,000 people in the most vulnerable age range unprotected at this time.
Among those aged 70 or over, 14,103 out of 17,839 have received a first vaccination so that's a slight move up to 79% but that leaves 3,700 people over 70 in Newham without any protection.
The 68% in Newham compares with 91.5% in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly though that still represents 23,000 people over 50 in that area not having been vaccinated.
Unless the intern was specifically Rob Roberts' I don't see anything wrong here.
I've mentioned this on here before, but on my one visit to Portcullis House it was very obvious that being a good looking young woman was an advantage for getting employed.
It was very much like Oxford University in that respect.
Remainers voted against a brexit where Britain is knee deep in apparently vital vaccines?
Yeah right.
We would have been even without Brexit. Our pharma sector is huge. Participation in the EU procurement program would almost certainly been dodged by a UK government. The only "victory for Brexit" is, like Brexit itself, a simplistic load of bollox
genuinely funny
I would hazard a guess that my knowledge of the pharma industry gives me a reasonable perspective. You are not quite in the same ludicrous fantasy world of Philip Thompson, but I think based on your unintentionally funny pronouncement on most matters, this is not an area of expertise for you! Your nom de plume is a give away for your ludicrous and sad perspective on life. Keep taking the tablets.
Nobody does bile like Remainers. World class
Au contraire, I think most "Remainers" are quite polite and reserved. I choose not to fit into either category when calling out bollox by people that believe in the fairy tales that were spun by lying little toads like Boris Johnson.
There is a certain irony in you calling yourself a "contrarian" when you are clearly unable to see the ridiculousness of the Brexit cause, and find ways to argue against it. All your posts suggest you are a brainwashed Brexit conformist without the slightest ability to think for yourself.
Brexiteers only have the successful vaccine roll out to cling to. This is why whenever anyone challengies brexiteers to mention any benefits they immediately go back onto the vaccine issue. Our economy is on the way to hell in a handcart, but nobody discusses it, not the BBC, Sky or any newspapers. We have effectively lost our fisheries industry. Our farming industry is in a mess because we don't have the woekforce now to pick the crops. Our exports to the EU are miniscule now. Our so-called new export agreements are just extentions of the old eu agreements but on a worse footing. We have a massive virus bill to pay, yet we can't pay it unless we start TRADING again.
We can now elect and throw out all the important people who have power over us. The poor EU citizenry are stuck with Ursula von der L, even tho she has probably killed 50,000 of them with her vaccine blunders
That is the greatest Brexit bonus of all, and probably the only one that really matters, and it entirely outweighs any downside. We are free
You sound like an absolute d**khead.
There's no way I can throw out Johnson or any other Tory, that's the fallacy of it all. Most people in this country have not had any change to their power of "kicking out" any politicians.
You can, by winning an election. It's democracy and the last election was won by Johnson.
If you don't like it, don't lose the next one. Being a sore loser doesn't mean democracy doesn't work.
Philip you are not seeing the wood for the trees. Being in the EU was perfectly democratic for us and yes we could very very easily get rid of UvdL as we proved in 2016.
Without leaving the EU then how do we remove VDL at an election? Without leaving how would we have chosen her successor?
If you mean we could get rid of her solely by leaving the EU then great we've done that and presumably you think it was the only option?
Roberts is also alleged to have asked out a male Commons employee on several occasions and made repeated inappropriate comments, which led the man to change jobs.
When the allegations emerged, the MP acknowledged asking out a staffer had been “inappropriate” but said he had been under “a great deal of mental stress” at the time
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
Ideally, anyone not in your immediate work area, including a chain of command which goes down all the way to the bottom (ie the most junior employees) and up to middle management. Anyone who's roughly equal to you in another department is fine. Basically the rule is whether you could conceivably wreck their career out of spite if they say no, and therefore whether they are likely to feel any inducement to say yes against their better judgment.
Flirting: not during work hours. Pub after work is easier. Lunch and breaks are a grey area.
It's actually not that complicated and mostly just common sense in terms of understanding what advances are and are not likely to be appreciated. There was a transition period where these questions were real, but almost everyone under 40 now has never worked in an office environment where this wasn't problematic. And those over 40 should axiomatically not be indulging in moonshots at interns.
*axiomatically*
The furious certainty is unnerving
If you say so. I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances, other than she's worried about the consequences of saying no. And either way she has the option of suing the company for failing to prevent him doing so, and the resulting tribunal would very likely side with the junior. It's abuse of power, and a liability for your employer.
You think it is impossible for a younger man to fancy an older woman? OK, fair enough
No, but the reverse case is much more common (jncluding the one that triggered this debate).
So it IS possible then? And it is presumably possible for younger women to fancy older men, unless you have truly bizarre beliefs about gender differences.
Ergo, this statement of yours is false: "I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances"
Go on then, put some numbers on it:
- 40 year old manager in a large organisation, either sex - 22 year old graduate, not directly reporting into the manager but within the same broad segment, the opposite sex to the manager - Essentially no prior social contact between the two, and limited direct professional contact
Manager sends some texts like the one the member for Delyn tried, only better worded. What are the chances that:
a) Graduate says yes, and is happy about it b) Graduate says no, and thinks no more of it c) Graduate says yes, but only because they are worried about consequences of saying no d) Graduate says no, and worries they've irrevocably ruined their career already
Probability of A is (I reckon) less than 1%. B is a neutral outcome, and maybe 40% chance. C and D are bad outcomes and collectively I reckon the remaining 59.x% Recommendation: do not proceed.
Jesus Christ. I'm not going to put percentages on it. I only wanted to make the point that Love is where it Falls, and all kinds of humans fancy all kinds of unexpected other humans, even to the extent of - shudder - younger people fancying older people
But let's just cancel messy romantic seductions and do it all by politically correct online questionnaire, so we can ensure a growing percentage of young people are so timid, scared and confused they end up miserable and alone and having no sex at all, as is actually happening, right now
Charisma, charm, & personality are dirty words now - unfair advantages/privileges. We are living in a spreadsheet world where the stinky, unattractive nerds demand equal access to the hot totty!
Tho of course the poor nerds are the ones who are suffering most, as they are unable to win over partners with their quirky personalities at work, or wherever, because all this is now outlawed. So the visually sexy alphas get everything on Tinder. And you get incels shooting up shopping malls, echoing their sex starved Muslim brethren in suicide vests
Incredible article in The Times today about Imran Khan and his conversion from international womaniser/ playboy to victim blaming fundamentalist
I think Stodge is about right here. One can't make windows into souls of course but if you take it that the Referendum was lost and Westminster isn't going to have another until well after NS's day, coupled with the apparent impossibility of getting the sort of c60% polling you would need to try to force and win a Ref2, NS's position of steady as she goes would make perfect sense.
My only disagreement - tentative - with Stodge is that NS would be deeply fearful of losing a Ref2, as it would finish her, whereas the possibility being always there but not now will keep the troops going. I also think that politicians being what they are, in another world in which she could hold Ref2 and win, she would.
@kinabalu is right. People are overanalysing. You vote for the SNP. join the party, or lead it, because you want Scotland to be independent, and that single aim is more important to you than any other political goal.
When Nicola Sturgeon's party convincingly wins the election and Johnson says flat No to a referendum, she will think about her next steps, which she will have strong mandate to pursue.
No, she won't. She'll settle down for five more years as the dominant political figure in Scotland and her next issue will be how to finesse the relationship with UK Labour in 2024. If a Johnson majority looks likely she'll not bother but if there's a chance she could be dealing with Starmer after the next GE, she'll have to start thinking about how to play any influence she might have in the next Commons.
If the SNP sweeps Scotland again at the next GE *and* it ends up holding the balance of power in the way you describe, then Starmer will have to concede the referendum. First reason: metropolitans are vastly more sympathetic to Scottish nationalism than the provincial English. Second reason: facing the SNP down and daring them to put the Tories back into bat won't work. It would be perfectly possible for a party in the position to swing every Parliamentary vote to wreck a Labour Government without voting it out and putting a Conservative one in.
Starmer could push it back to the late 2020s and adjust the question offered to 'Do you believe Scotland should remain part of the UK?'
Yes. I think he could reasonably get away with stalling by deploying a reasonable excuse (e.g. undertaking a constitutional review, and putting some form of DevoMax to Scots as the alternative to separation,) and demand a different wording for the question - so long as the essential substance of the matter were to be encapsulated in legislation.
That Nicola Sturgeon does not want to achieve the goal of her political life - Scottish Independence - through getting and winning a legal referendum is a wholly evidence free assertion. It relies on mind reading and projecting onto her a sterile "man of the world" cynicism that is in itself a form of naivety.
It is in other words, Stodge, complete and utter drivel.
But nicely written as always. ☺
Thank you for the kind word but sometimes politics is more about the journey than the destination.
I'd also venture she is fully aware of the issues an independent Scotland would face in terms of trying to negotiate an amicable divorce from a potentially hostile England quite apart from having to negotiate to join the EU, NATO, UN and all the rest.
Her only route to independence would be to trade the Second Referendum for supporting a Labour minority Government. That gets her a vote which she then has to win. Let's assume that happens - she would have to negotiate the divorce before the next Westminster election because she might then have to deal with a hostile Conservative Government.
The Conservatives would accept the vote to leave - they have quite a good track record (unlike some other parties) in accepting the results of referenda which go against them - but would then use the vote as a stick with which to beat Labour and win an RUK election.
So, for Labour, Scottish independence becomes a political dead-end as well.
The problem (which I'm sure Sturgeon understands because she's in politics) is the journey is fine but the destination is out of reach because it's not in the interests of those whose help she needs to get to the destination to show her the way. Labour won't help her until they become competitive in England and Wales again and it would need a complete volte face from the Conservatives (not inconceivable, they've done it before).
The other elephant in the room is what happens to the SNP once Scotland is independent? I have no assumption Nicola Sturgeon would be the first Prime Minister (or whatever) of an independent Scotland.
You normally make journeys to go somewhere. Maybe you get lost along the way but you have a destination in mind.
This is the best thing I have read on the Salmond business from someone who is partisan, but I think fair. Also interesting to note her conclusion
After nearly fourteen years in power, the [SNP] is exhausted. But, with or without Sturgeon at the helm, there is no effective opposition (the Tories’ Scottish leader isn’t even in the Scottish Parliament, and Scottish Labour’s leader, Anas Sarwar, its sixth in the last decade, has only just been elected). The polls were predicting that on 6 May the SNP would regain the majority it won in 2011 (despite a PR system that was supposed to prevent absolute majorities) and lost in 2016, but now a hung parliament is being forecast (and a drop to 49 per cent support for independence). I find it hard to imagine that the spirit of 2014 will ever be rekindled. Defeat back then was strangely energising. Were the SNP to secure another referendum, could a truce be called in the party’s civil war? What shared idea of Scotland would Yes supporters unite behind now?
Presumably the shared idea would be "get rid of Westminster, and worry about what to do next after that?"
While I am in support of an independence referendum there are far easier ways to make sure it doesn't happen than to refuse.
Say you are welcome to an independence referendum. In the event scotland votes yes all living north of the border are no longer uk citizens and will have to apply like all other people from third countries to live and work here. In the event people in scotland vote no then it will trigger a reciprocal referendum in the uk as to whether we want scotland
Roberts is also alleged to have asked out a male Commons employee on several occasions and made repeated inappropriate comments, which led the man to change jobs.
When the allegations emerged, the MP acknowledged asking out a staffer had been “inappropriate” but said he had been under “a great deal of mental stress” at the time
Roberts is also alleged to have asked out a male Commons employee on several occasions and made repeated inappropriate comments, which led the man to change jobs.
When the allegations emerged, the MP acknowledged asking out a staffer had been “inappropriate” but said he had been under “a great deal of mental stress” at the time
Anyone taking a look at the video Scott posted. On the right of the picture just behind the police lines is an elevated building, Its a primary school frequented by largely protestant children. The immediate 150-200 yards radius around it is largely republican then on one side its starts to back onto loyalist areas.
The police line is there for a reason, its to protect the school from being attacked.
I have just got a message from an old pal who lives about 300 yards away asking me what I was up to as they think some of the republican yoof might make a beeline to the right of where they are in the video across the dead ground and directly facing the loyalist area. In short, they are reportedly looking to gather just in case.
Eastern Ukraine was part of Russia for centuries. Prediction: Russia will within the next few years take it and the rest of the world has no plan, and will have no plan to intervene.
It is noteworthy that not a word from the west has made any promises to Ukraine of actual help.
Russia has been putting a huge amount of investment into the Black Sea area around Sochi to turn it into a tourist destination. I'm sure in the long term they want to extend their control over the whole north coast.
The possibility certainly shouldn't be discounted. In crude terms, the linguistic map of Ukraine is northern half Ukrainian speaking, southern half Russian speaking. This divide has also been clearly reflected in Ukrainian elections in the past.
I don't disbelieve you but I do find it bizarre that they want more landmass. Is Russia getting a bit pokey? Need a couple more bedrooms and a garden big enough for a climbing frame?
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
Ideally, anyone not in your immediate work area, including a chain of command which goes down all the way to the bottom (ie the most junior employees) and up to middle management. Anyone who's roughly equal to you in another department is fine. Basically the rule is whether you could conceivably wreck their career out of spite if they say no, and therefore whether they are likely to feel any inducement to say yes against their better judgment.
Flirting: not during work hours. Pub after work is easier. Lunch and breaks are a grey area.
It's actually not that complicated and mostly just common sense in terms of understanding what advances are and are not likely to be appreciated. There was a transition period where these questions were real, but almost everyone under 40 now has never worked in an office environment where this wasn't problematic. And those over 40 should axiomatically not be indulging in moonshots at interns.
*axiomatically*
The furious certainty is unnerving
If you say so. I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances, other than she's worried about the consequences of saying no. And either way she has the option of suing the company for failing to prevent him doing so, and the resulting tribunal would very likely side with the junior. It's abuse of power, and a liability for your employer.
You think it is impossible for a younger man to fancy an older woman? OK, fair enough
No, but the reverse case is much more common (jncluding the one that triggered this debate).
So it IS possible then? And it is presumably possible for younger women to fancy older men, unless you have truly bizarre beliefs about gender differences.
Ergo, this statement of yours is false: "I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances"
Go on then, put some numbers on it:
- 40 year old manager in a large organisation, either sex - 22 year old graduate, not directly reporting into the manager but within the same broad segment, the opposite sex to the manager - Essentially no prior social contact between the two, and limited direct professional contact
Manager sends some texts like the one the member for Delyn tried, only better worded. What are the chances that:
a) Graduate says yes, and is happy about it b) Graduate says no, and thinks no more of it c) Graduate says yes, but only because they are worried about consequences of saying no d) Graduate says no, and worries they've irrevocably ruined their career already
Probability of A is (I reckon) less than 1%. B is a neutral outcome, and maybe 40% chance. C and D are bad outcomes and collectively I reckon the remaining 59.x% Recommendation: do not proceed.
Jesus Christ. I'm not going to put percentages on it. I only wanted to make the point that Love is where it Falls, and all kinds of humans fancy all kinds of unexpected other humans, even to the extent of - shudder - younger people fancying older people
But let's just cancel messy romantic seductions and do it all by politically correct online questionnaire, so we can ensure a growing percentage of young people are so timid, scared and confused they end up miserable and alone and having no sex at all, as is actually happening, right now
Charisma, charm, & personality are dirty words now - unfair advantages/privileges. We are living in a spreadsheet world where the stinky, unattractive nerds demand equal access to the hot totty!
Eastern Ukraine was part of Russia for centuries. Prediction: Russia will within the next few years take it and the rest of the world has no plan, and will have no plan to intervene.
It is noteworthy that not a word from the west has made any promises to Ukraine of actual help.
Russia has been putting a huge amount of investment into the Black Sea area around Sochi to turn it into a tourist destination. I'm sure in the long term they want to extend their control over the whole north coast.
The possibility certainly shouldn't be discounted. In crude terms, the linguistic map of Ukraine is northern half Ukrainian speaking, southern half Russian speaking. This divide has also been clearly reflected in Ukrainian elections in the past.
I don't disbelieve you but I do find it bizarre that they want more landmass. Is Russia getting a bit pokey? Need a couple more bedrooms and a garden big enough for a climbing frame?
"Tsar Alexander made it all the way to Paris!" - Stalin after the capture of Berlin in 1945.
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This kind of nonsense is academic, theoretical, overtthinking, leftyness to a tee - everything has to be equal, the confident, charming, successful socialite (not Rob Roberts I suppose, but talking generally) cant have any advantage over the insecure nerd at home having a wank and a pot noodle; so the ability to chat up someone you fancy is being phased out
Don't agree. Junior staff members have the right to do their jobs and go home without feeling like their career progression is tied to their willingness to provide non-work-related favours to their superiors. He can use his status as an MP to chat up whoever the hell he wants as long as they don't work anywhere underneath him. So to speak.
So no one in any business or organisation or whatever, male or female, is allowed to flirt with anyone else in that business, organisation or whatever, however distant they might be in jobs, if they are in any way inferior in rank.
So.... You can only flirt with people superior to you? Or just exact equals?
Genuine questions. I did not realise the anti-sex league had conquered so much territory
Ideally, anyone not in your immediate work area, including a chain of command which goes down all the way to the bottom (ie the most junior employees) and up to middle management. Anyone who's roughly equal to you in another department is fine. Basically the rule is whether you could conceivably wreck their career out of spite if they say no, and therefore whether they are likely to feel any inducement to say yes against their better judgment.
Flirting: not during work hours. Pub after work is easier. Lunch and breaks are a grey area.
It's actually not that complicated and mostly just common sense in terms of understanding what advances are and are not likely to be appreciated. There was a transition period where these questions were real, but almost everyone under 40 now has never worked in an office environment where this wasn't problematic. And those over 40 should axiomatically not be indulging in moonshots at interns.
*axiomatically*
The furious certainty is unnerving
If you say so. I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances, other than she's worried about the consequences of saying no. And either way she has the option of suing the company for failing to prevent him doing so, and the resulting tribunal would very likely side with the junior. It's abuse of power, and a liability for your employer.
You think it is impossible for a younger man to fancy an older woman? OK, fair enough
No, but the reverse case is much more common (jncluding the one that triggered this debate).
So it IS possible then? And it is presumably possible for younger women to fancy older men, unless you have truly bizarre beliefs about gender differences.
Ergo, this statement of yours is false: "I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances"
Go on then, put some numbers on it:
- 40 year old manager in a large organisation, either sex - 22 year old graduate, not directly reporting into the manager but within the same broad segment, the opposite sex to the manager - Essentially no prior social contact between the two, and limited direct professional contact
Manager sends some texts like the one the member for Delyn tried, only better worded. What are the chances that:
a) Graduate says yes, and is happy about it b) Graduate says no, and thinks no more of it c) Graduate says yes, but only because they are worried about consequences of saying no d) Graduate says no, and worries they've irrevocably ruined their career already
Probability of A is (I reckon) less than 1%. B is a neutral outcome, and maybe 40% chance. C and D are bad outcomes and collectively I reckon the remaining 59.x% Recommendation: do not proceed.
Jesus Christ. I'm not going to put percentages on it. I only wanted to make the point that Love is where it Falls, and all kinds of humans fancy all kinds of unexpected other humans, even to the extent of - shudder - younger people fancying older people
But let's just cancel messy romantic seductions and do it all by politically correct online questionnaire, so we can ensure a growing percentage of young people are so timid, scared and confused they end up miserable and alone and having no sex at all, as is actually happening, right now
Charisma, charm, & personality are dirty words now - unfair advantages/privileges. We are living in a spreadsheet world where the stinky, unattractive nerds demand equal access to the hot totty!
Who's unattractive???
If you are disabled, a person of colour, a particular gender or sexuality you can sue for discrimination as they are characteristics you can't change. Why shouldn't being ugly,stupid, or old or ginger haired be equally protected as they are also things you can't change
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
Texts sent to a 21-year-old intern by British Conservative MP Rob Roberts inviting her to “fool around” were “unacceptable,” the party has concluded — but Roberts will not face dismissal over his behavior.
Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) began an inquiry into the behavior of Roberts, the MP for Delyn in North Wales, in July 2020 after complaints that he had sexually harassed a young woman working in parliament.
The probe was prompted when the BBC reported he had sent WhatsApp messages to an intern asking her to “fool around with no strings” and commenting that she had “lovely legs.”
I know we are all meant to be outraged by everything, but he's an adult, she's an adult, he fancies her, maybe she fancies him (who knows) and he's trying his luck
If no man ever does this we will expire as a species
This will not harm Labour's prospects of taking back the seat next time. Back in 1986 I was runner up to David Hanson to be Labour PPC there.
Labour won't take that seat back next time ... because it won't exist.
If the Tories are lucky, when the game of musical chairs ends for the NE Walian seats next time, there isn't one for Rob Roberts.
More likely he’s fighting Mark Tami for a new ‘Deeside’ seat while James Davies and/or Robin Millar takes on the largeish chunk in the West.
Hopefully he will lose, but I don’t know. Alyn and Deeside was a bare save this time and it’s gradually trending blue anyway, even leaving aside the largeish Brexit Party vote. It’s one I think might fall in the assembly elections next month.
The predecessor seat - East Flint - nearly fell to the Tories in 1959. Eirenie White survived by just 75 votes.
Comments
You say getting it back on is going to be difficult because of “hesitancy”.
Have you tried booking a table in a good London restaurant recently?
Dating by app (where I met my missus) would almost be the only allowable way for a man to approach a woman.
When Nicola Sturgeon's party convincingly wins the election and Johnson says flat No to a referendum, she will think about her next steps, which she will have strong mandate to pursue.
The numbers – which represent 25% and 50% of Wembley’s capacity – were discussed at a meeting on Thursday of the 12 host Euro 2020 cities.
Fans will be expected to have lateral flow tests, or to show proof of a vaccination, to attend.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/apr/08/fa-wants-45000-fans-at-wembley-for-euro-2020-semi-finals-and-final
Flirting: not during work hours. Pub after work is easier. Lunch and breaks are a grey area.
It's actually not that complicated and mostly just common sense in terms of understanding what advances are and are not likely to be appreciated. There was a transition period where these questions were real, but almost everyone under 40 now has never worked in an office environment where this wasn't problematic. And those over 40 should axiomatically not be indulging in moonshots at interns.
She was my boss.
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/young-adults-especially-men-having-sex-less-frequently
By ruling out more and more places as potential arenas for hooking up, a lot of men are condemned to involuntary celibacy
We are storing up disaster
That said, it occurs to me now that my Mum and Dad met when he startes work as her shift leader. And they're still together 48 years later.
Probably no-one's relationship beginnings would look too squeaky clean if viewed through a media lens.
For those following the Greensill affair - a murky business - the main characters in the frame have been Cameron, an ex-PM, and the late Jeremy Heywood, Cabinet Secretary.
All very interesting but a bit niche relating to long ago and people no longer active in politics.
And now we find emails being disgorged at record speed following an FoI request which suggest that Sunak may have pushed officials to consider Greensill's requests for Covid-related loans, which the doomed company did in fact get.
Dear me. Would it be impertinent to ask who might benefit from the Chancellor being dragged into this mess?
I'd also venture she is fully aware of the issues an independent Scotland would face in terms of trying to negotiate an amicable divorce from a potentially hostile England quite apart from having to negotiate to join the EU, NATO, UN and all the rest.
Her only route to independence would be to trade the Second Referendum for supporting a Labour minority Government. That gets her a vote which she then has to win. Let's assume that happens - she would have to negotiate the divorce before the next Westminster election because she might then have to deal with a hostile Conservative Government.
The Conservatives would accept the vote to leave - they have quite a good track record (unlike some other parties) in accepting the results of referenda which go against them - but would then use the vote as a stick with which to beat Labour and win an RUK election.
So, for Labour, Scottish independence becomes a political dead-end as well.
The problem (which I'm sure Sturgeon understands because she's in politics) is the journey is fine but the destination is out of reach because it's not in the interests of those whose help she needs to get to the destination to show her the way. Labour won't help her until they become competitive in England and Wales again and it would need a complete volte face from the Conservatives (not inconceivable, they've done it before).
The other elephant in the room is what happens to the SNP once Scotland is independent? I have no assumption Nicola Sturgeon would be the first Prime Minister (or whatever) of an independent Scotland.
The furious certainty is unnerving
Although thats what people say about how much they earn.. so maybe I do!
Hmm.
It does make me wonder if in the UK Macron's marriage would have attracted more comment, albeit he was the younger figure in the relationship (which I believe they say started after he left school).
Below a certain age, this stuff is obvious; if you are in a position of authority over someone, don't flirt with them because it's icky. And that's not a problem- there will still be millions of women who are waiting to meet you.
But the Whips have a problem here. Suspend one MP for being inappropriately randy, and you might have to suspend any others who have done the same.
It's not worth it without a fat profit to go along with it.
It is an enormous tragedy. It makes me so sad. The one vaccine made not-for-profit, the one given away as IP for free, the one India can pump out by the billion. This is the one that has been smeared by moron EU politicians and now consigned to the bin by overreacting fools in the UK. And all the time, no doubt, it has been undermined by rival pharma companies, who make a big fat fucking profit from THEIR jabs
AZ has made mistakes, but it did its best to be generous to the world. This is a pointless human disaster unfolding
It's infuriating.
Only England’s first two group games should be affected by any restrictions.
One of those games is against Scotland, of all teams, just three days before restrictions end.
So I’m calling utter bullshit on this story.
More likely, the England vs Scotland game will be a ‘test event’ at full capacity.
Unless there’s reluctance to stick to the roadmap.........?
Still, the chances of corporate policy being rolled back in the short to medium term to make this easier, but increasing the chances for harassment, are approximately zero. I'm happy enough with the trade-off, albeit I'm married (and we didn't meet through work).
Any grad scheme at a big company has young employees shagging each other like it's nobody's business.
Ergo, this statement of yours is false: "I can't see any reason why a manager-level senior staff member should believe an entry-level graduate/school-leaver half his age would be receptive to his advances"
This is the best thing I have read on the Salmond business from someone who is partisan, but I think fair. Also interesting to note her conclusion
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v43/n07/dani-garavelli/diary
After nearly fourteen years in power, the [SNP] is exhausted. But, with or without Sturgeon at the helm, there is no effective opposition (the Tories’ Scottish leader isn’t even in the Scottish Parliament, and Scottish Labour’s leader, Anas Sarwar, its sixth in the last decade, has only just been elected). The polls were predicting that on 6 May the SNP would regain the majority it won in 2011 (despite a PR system that was supposed to prevent absolute majorities) and lost in 2016, but now a hung parliament is being forecast (and a drop to 49 per cent support for independence). I find it hard to imagine that the spirit of 2014 will ever be rekindled. Defeat back then was strangely energising. Were the SNP to secure another referendum, could a truce be called in the party’s civil war? What shared idea of Scotland would Yes supporters unite behind now?
Perhaps you are more the priest interceding with the heavens on our behalf.
- 40 year old manager in a large organisation, either sex
- 22 year old graduate, not directly reporting into the manager but within the same broad segment, the opposite sex to the manager
- Essentially no prior social contact between the two, and limited direct professional contact
Manager sends some texts like the one the member for Delyn tried, only better worded. What are the chances that:
a) Graduate says yes, and is happy about it
b) Graduate says no, and thinks no more of it
c) Graduate says yes, but only because they are worried about consequences of saying no
d) Graduate says no, and worries they've irrevocably ruined their career already
Probability of A is (I reckon) less than 1%. B is a neutral outcome, and maybe 40% chance. C and D are bad outcomes and collectively I reckon the remaining 59.x% Recommendation: do not proceed.
Mike is the omnipotent being that guides us all.
My power is limited to Sundays and the periods Mike goes on holiday.
But let's just cancel messy romantic seductions and do it all by politically correct online questionnaire, so we can ensure a growing percentage of young people are so timid, scared and confused they end up miserable and alone and having no sex at all, as is actually happening, right now
Though in this case I guess God the Father is greater than God the Son, so I think that means PB is officially Arian?
Notably now loyalists (what loyalists do not know) have started to gather at the same gates area in response to where they were slugging out last night.
Social media magnates, it might be worth scanning how much messaging has been going on between the yoof from side A & Side B.
If the Tories are lucky, when the game of musical chairs ends for the NE Walian seats next time, there isn't one for Rob Roberts.
Moreover, this is largely a British vaccine, so what the British say about it will carry more weight around the globe than, say, the EMA, let alone regulators in Canada, Oz etc
It was our job to stand up for the world's one and only not-for-profit, bung-it-in-the-fridge vaccine, not cave in to absurdly overblown fears of exceptionally rare side-effects. Instead, we made a dumb-as-feck decision, which, I believe, will lead quite directly to thousands of unnecessary deaths across the world
Ironically, the people who may now save the day, the only people who can save it, are the Americans. OxAZ has yet to receive the go ahead from the FDA. It is expected soon. No doubt lobbyists from Pfizer and Co are quietly "hoping" America says no, as their share prices surge.
Do the right thing, Uncle Sam
Nicola and Boris take note.
Seriously, the Southern US is great place to visit. Large & diverse, so if you find yourself somewhere not quite to your taste, just head down the road a bit to somewhere else.
Some of my favs are (in no particular order)
> New Orleans & vicinity
> Pensacola (great beaches)
> Natchez Trace scenic highway (NO to Nashville)
> Great Smokey Mountains
> Skyline Drive
Never been to Memphis but hear it's great.
Keep the seasons & weather in mind, esp. in Deep South. As the locals say, it ain't the heat - it's the humidity!
Hopefully he will lose, but I don’t know. Alyn and Deeside was a bare save this time and it’s gradually trending blue anyway, even leaving aside the largeish Brexit Party vote. It’s one I think might fall in the assembly elections next month.
Issues of age and power dynamics opening up reasonable concerns and people needing to be careful with their own behaviour as a result is what I've said all along. You decided to make a rather absurd blanket statement, then even more absurdly decided to attempt some pseudo-scientific analysis putting numbers on it.
If you wanted to make a point about it being sensible for those older and in positions of potential influence not making a move (and certainly not in the crass way Roberts did), maybe you should have done so rather than the point you did make. It's pretty easy, particularly since MPs should be held to a higher standard anyway.
As it is, given you've rolled back on that initial comment as well, you appear to be arguing against points no one is even making, and I cannot really see why.
Among those aged 70 or over, 14,103 out of 17,839 have received a first vaccination so that's a slight move up to 79% but that leaves 3,700 people over 70 in Newham without any protection.
The 68% in Newham compares with 91.5% in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly though that still represents 23,000 people over 50 in that area not having been vaccinated.
https://twitter.com/BBCRosAtkins/status/1380246452912422912?s=20
It was very much like Oxford University in that respect.
If you mean we could get rid of her solely by leaving the EU then great we've done that and presumably you think it was the only option?
When the allegations emerged, the MP acknowledged asking out a staffer had been “inappropriate” but said he had been under “a great deal of mental stress” at the time
Say you are welcome to an independence referendum. In the event scotland votes yes all living north of the border are no longer uk citizens and will have to apply like all other people from third countries to live and work here. In the event people in scotland vote no then it will trigger a reciprocal referendum in the uk as to whether we want scotland
The police line is there for a reason, its to protect the school from being attacked.
I have just got a message from an old pal who lives about 300 yards away asking me what I was up to as they think some of the republican yoof might make a beeline to the right of where they are in the video across the dead ground and directly facing the loyalist area. In short, they are reportedly looking to gather just in case.
You can see how this works.