At what point, do the Germans finally realise the importance of defeating Putin in the war?
Mate you have explained why you are abroad and I totally respect that.
But don't start playing fast and loose on behalf of a sovereign state saying that they should as a matter of course make their population suffer.
From the outset it was obvious that Germany would have to think long and hard about their energy situation and that any penal action taken against Russia would also impact the German people.
So what you're saying is the Germans should sell their souls for cheaper gas supplies?
I'm saying that it is not a trivial decision for the Germans to make to enforce hardship upon their population. It is not what they, or any government is voted in to do. Why doesn't our government enforce a one-off tax of 50% to fund a weapons buying programme for Ukraine if it's really down to souls.
As for Starmer, he should have been fined. I get that there were 350 parties/meetings at Downing Street but the ones we have seen pictures of were likewise reasonable work events or whatever the term was.
For those events they should either have fined both of them or neither.
Once Starmer said he'd resign I think that made it very difficult for the police to fine him.
Good point. Perhaps he knew that all along, the cunning fox.
Yeah it was so partisan, idiots not realising the rules were different in April 2021 to most of 2020.
Well, on the night Starmer was having a curry and a beer indoors, I was getting told off for talking to a friend in a pub car park.
In County Durham or elsewhere?
In England. Last time I looked, the laws of England apply to the whole country.
We don't have a national police force - so just because you are in an area where the police are being told something that is wrong doesn't make it an issue for the rest of us.
I actually like Durham Police, as they are awfully pragmatic and have the sanity to actually apply modern systems to various items (see the multiple apps they and Cumbria use for easy of reporting and the centralised custody centre that the Tories tried to stop). They also refuse to touch Cleveland Police with a bargepole no matter how many times they've been asked to merge.
So what you're saying is the Met are a ****ing disgrace for fining politicians for things that, quite frankly, should be let go?
No what I'm saying is that we don't have a national police force.
Which means that when you complain about a police force doing XYZ when they shouldn't be that is very much a local issue.
Here the police did issue FPN when appropriate - but the SKS case wasn't one of them at the time and it wasn't one when the police were forced to re-open the case for politically motivated reasons.
To repeat, I was told off by a member of staff not the police. The pub - the local that I was supporting - was seriously worried about anyone breaching the utterly ludicrous rules that were in place in April 2021.
The politicians - Starmer included - created that situation.
Ultimately, a virus created the situation. But, yes, politicians including Starmer voted through some laws. The implementation of those laws is down to central Government (so not on Starmer), local government, the local police force (I presume you get to vote for your local Police and Crime Commissioner) and the pub staff. Starmer had a role, but let’s not exaggerate it.
There were times when the rules were over-zealously applied. Advice from SAGE was for lighter policing and clearer explanation of what the rules were and what was safe (conversations in outdoor car parks generally being at the safer end of things). Public health measures are generally better delivered through consent and education than through enforcement mechanisms. However, it was sometimes difficult getting that message through to Government.
@OnlyLivingBoy - You've got me googling now. The Woke people at the Indy also reviewed this "Millions of Women" book. I apologise for the chunk of quotation, but their review is worth reading at length, so we can all grasp the true depravity of this man "@SeanT":
"On the cover of my proof copy of Sean Thomas's non-fiction account of his adventures on the internet-dating scene, Millions of Women Are Waiting to Meet You, there is a jokey warning that "this book reveals how men really think." This isn't true. Sean Thomas may believe himself to be a normal man, but in the course of this book he decides a woman named "Bongowoman" is an appealing person to go on a date with; describes how his first sexual experience (at 12 years old) involved him flashing at his parents' cleaning woman; reveals that he can only go out with women who are shorter than him (he describes such women as "sit-on-my-lap girls"); fakes suicide to impress a girl who's broken up with him; suffers from several bouts of serious impotence; catches crabs from an Australian woman; boasts about the TV celebrity he used to date, a relationship which began when he shoved his hand up her skirt; gets so addicted to internet porn (particularly "Bernie's Spanking Pages" and "extremely convoluted scenarios where submissive Danish actresses are intimately shaved by their dominant female doctors in the shower") that he masturbates himself into the hospital, where he ends up on a saline drip; goes into a 15-page explanation of why he doesn't want to sodomise a woman who's begged him to do so, before deciding that he will do it after all; explains how when he was 30 he made his 17-year old schoolgirl lover have an abortion; gets a blow-job from his best friend's girlfriend on Bayswater Road in full view of the public; performs oral sex on a woman moments after she has finished having sex with his friend in the other room; goes to a strip club in Thailand so often over a three-month period that one of the strippers writes messages to him with a pen clenched in her vagina; has an abortive threesome in Russia which ends with him prematurely ejaculating over the carpet, and in one of the book's most flabbergasting chapters, mistakenly believes he's impregnated a prostitute and considers throwing everything in and starting a family with her.
Now, Sean, that ain't normal. It is, however, hilarious. I can't remember reading a book that's made me laugh out loud as much as this one. Thomas must be extraordinarily brave...."
The Tories are making a mistake by allowing very little time for the parliamentary contest. In such an open field, how are they to ensure they pick the right candidates?
No wonder Truss cut her G20 visit short, although with rich irony it’s possible she’s trashed her leadership bid before it even starts.
You are absolutely right Gardenwalker. Leadership elections should be about due diligence to get it right - especially when the winner will be PM not LOTO so exposed in no time if not up to it leading to electoral disaster.
Yet all we are hearing from Tory MPs is “it must be quick as possible”. Why?
We are not daft are we. MPs want a coronation “in the national interest” and to shaft the membership yet again.
UK food inflation has hit 8.6% – but closer to Russia it is over 20%
Food inflation in Lithuania, Bulgaria and Hungary is running at over 20%, while Baltic neighbours Latvia and Estonia are not far behind at 18.8% and 17.4% respectively.
I blame Leon, swanning around these Eastern European parts, throwing his money around and causing shortages.
Meanwhile farmers across the eurozone are being told to slash food production because the climate, innit.
There were clashes between farmers and police in the Netherlands earlier in the week.
At some point, leaders will work out that your Net Zero targets are not compatible with a major war in Europe. Everyone needs to get fracking and growing more stuff - starting yesterday.
It was obvious from day one that the campaign against Keir’s curry was dreamed up inside Number 10 and egged on by rabid tabloids and various useful idiots.
I see Big G is pretending he has nothing to do with it.
It was dreamed up inside Number 10 because the stupid fucking rules of lockdown were formulated in Number 10.
But Starmer, beer in hand, the curry I didn't see, was easily as "guilty" as Boris with his cake or even those No.10 staff outside at Downing Street with glasses of wine in front of them.
You are overstating the case. Johnson didn't need to trim very much to survive and thrive.
A bit softer on net zero, a bit more attention to truth and the rules, a bit more aggressive on the culture wars, some definitive action on tax cuts, commitments to no more lockdowns etc.
But no. He would not trim one iota. He felt himself above it all and he would not compromise at all. That's why he is going.
Johnson is going only because of three mistakes.
1. He insisted that his MPs break the existing system of due process in a doomed attempt to save his mate Paterson from deserved censure. 2. He lied about breaking coronavirus rules instead of coming clean about it. 3. He lied about what he knew about Pincher's track record.
Some of the policy stuff didn't make MPs exactly delighted, but the end of Johnson was not motivated by a desire for a change of policy, but for a change of character. It's not just that he was a liar, but he was a really bad liar who made other people look ridiculous for being caught out lying on his behalf.
Of course a new leader is an opportunity for policy changes in all sorts of areas depending on what particularly axe a backbencher or party member wishes to grind. But policy didn't doom* Johnson and it wouldn't have saved him. This was 100% character failings.
* Note to Rejoiners, this also means Brexit had nothing to do with his end too, and there's no particular reason to expect a softening over a gardening as a result.
The crapness of his lies is a peculiar aspect. Because they often got him into more and deeper trouble
Was it sheer laziness? Was it arrogance ("they will believe any old shit")? Was it a simple inability to lie well, perhaps because it troubles him subconsciously?
A mix?
He is a genuinely fascinating character. because he has so many talents alongside so many flaws; for this reason - and others - his book will SELL. People want to know, even some of the haters
As I keep on saying, IMV the character flaws that brought him down were all visible in the Garden Bridge fiasco, if you read the report. Not following due process in order to help mates. Lying about what was going on. Not cooperating with the inquiry. Blustering when he had no answers.
The Tories are making a mistake by allowing very little time for the parliamentary contest. In such an open field, how are they to ensure they pick the right candidates?
No wonder Truss cut her G20 visit short, although with rich irony it’s possible she’s trashed her leadership bid before it even starts.
Come on, everyone knows every Tory leadership contest starts on the day the prior leader is coronated. July 21st is plenty of time to whittle it down to two.
The Tories are making a mistake by allowing very little time for the parliamentary contest. In such an open field, how are they to ensure they pick the right candidates?
No wonder Truss cut her G20 visit short, although with rich irony it’s possible she’s trashed her leadership bid before it even starts.
You are absolutely right Gardenwalker. Leadership elections should be about due diligence to get it right - especially when the winner will be PM not LOTO so exposed in no time if not up to it leading to electoral disaster.
Yet all we are hearing from Tory MPs is “it must be quick as possible”. Why?
We are not daft are we. MPs want a coronation “in the national interest” and to shaft the membership yet again.
The membership should always be shafted until it is removed from the process altogether.
Why - it has been fully investigated and he has been cleared
You're being very brave at this difficult time
Silly comment
Johnson has gone and Starmer fighting the next election v a new conservative pm is excellent news for the conservatives
Agreed. I can already see a 1992 style win for the Conservatives coming down the line. Best Labour can hope for now is to force a hung parliament (with the Conservatives as the largest party), and that's the absolute best they can hope for.
Now whether the Conservatives should win in 2024(?) is a different question. 1992 led to 1997 and a 13 year exile. A smallish win in 2024, a change of Labour leader and 2029 could be the start of a decade of Labour government.
Yeah it was so partisan, idiots not realising the rules were different in April 2021 to most of 2020.
Well, on the night Starmer was having a curry and a beer indoors, I was getting told off for talking to a friend in a pub car park.
In County Durham or elsewhere?
In England. Last time I looked, the laws of England apply to the whole country.
We don't have a national police force - so just because you are in an area where the police are being told something that is wrong doesn't make it an issue for the rest of us.
I actually like Durham Police, as they are awfully pragmatic and have the sanity to actually apply modern systems to various items (see the multiple apps they and Cumbria use for easy of reporting and the centralised custody centre that the Tories tried to stop). They also refuse to touch Cleveland Police with a bargepole no matter how many times they've been asked to merge.
So what you're saying is the Met are a ****ing disgrace for fining politicians for things that, quite frankly, should be let go?
No what I'm saying is that we don't have a national police force.
Which means that when you complain about a police force doing XYZ when they shouldn't be that is very much a local issue.
Here the police did issue FPN when appropriate - but the SKS case wasn't one of them at the time and it wasn't one when the police were forced to re-open the case for politically motivated reasons.
To repeat, I was told off by a member of staff not the police. The pub - the local that I was supporting - was seriously worried about anyone breaching the utterly ludicrous rules that were in place in April 2021.
The politicians - Starmer included - created that situation.
Ultimately, a virus created the situation. But, yes, politicians including Starmer voted through some laws. The implementation of those laws is down to central Government (so not on Starmer), local government, the local police force (I presume you get to vote for your local Police and Crime Commissioner) and the pub staff. Starmer had a role, but let’s not exaggerate it.
There were times when the rules were over-zealously applied. Advice from SAGE was for lighter policing and clearer explanation of what the rules were and what was safe (conversations in outdoor car parks generally being at the safer end of things). Public health measures are generally better delivered through consent and education than through enforcement mechanisms. However, it was sometimes difficult getting that message through to Government.
SKS cheerled for damaging and unnecessary restrictions. With an opposition sceptical to them the government would never have got away with so much for so long.
Please acknowledge my email, or I will be forced to wave the ban hammer.
Who is/was MickTrain?
Another Russian troll from a couple of weeks ago (or, apparently, the same one).
You know: Russian trolls would last a lot longer on here if they actually used genuine email addresses.
Why does it matter, they are only as good as their arguments. We don't need trolls in here to get us fighting like rats in a sack (the original meaning of "troll") because we do that unprompted anyway.
It was obvious from day one that the campaign against Keir’s curry was dreamed up inside Number 10 and egged on by rabid tabloids and various useful idiots.
I see Big G is pretending he has nothing to do with it.
It really was not. The campaign was one to stop the police investigating properly - especially when it turned out Labour had not been truthful about who had been there (and yes, that matters). And remember, even SKS could not say he had not broken the law.
Following the emergence of significant new information, an investigation was launched by Durham Constabulary into a gathering at the Miners’ Hall, in Redhills, Durham on 30th April 2021. That investigation has now concluded. A substantial amount of documentary and witness evidence was obtained which identified the 17 participants and their activities during that gathering. Following the application of the evidential Full Code Test, it has been concluded that there is no case to answer for a contravention of the regulations, due to the application of an exception, namely reasonably necessary work. Accordingly, Durham Constabulary will not be issuing any fixed penalty notices in respect of the gathering and no further action will be taken. The investigation has been thorough, detailed and proportionate. The final evidence supplied by participants from the local constituency was returned to Durham Police on 5th July and analysed by investigators against all the evidence before the investigation was concluded on 8th July 2022. In line with established national policing guidelines, we will not name or otherwise identify any of those present at the gathering, all of whom have been informed of the investigation outcome by their legal representatives.
So there you go.
Which was obvious from the start. And from their original investigation. No case to answer, was a campaign event.
You have been clear with that all along. I was convinced Jo Farrell needed a conviction.
You are overstating the case. Johnson didn't need to trim very much to survive and thrive.
A bit softer on net zero, a bit more attention to truth and the rules, a bit more aggressive on the culture wars, some definitive action on tax cuts, commitments to no more lockdowns etc.
But no. He would not trim one iota. He felt himself above it all and he would not compromise at all. That's why he is going.
Johnson is going only because of three mistakes.
1. He insisted that his MPs break the existing system of due process in a doomed attempt to save his mate Paterson from deserved censure. 2. He lied about breaking coronavirus rules instead of coming clean about it. 3. He lied about what he knew about Pincher's track record.
Some of the policy stuff didn't make MPs exactly delighted, but the end of Johnson was not motivated by a desire for a change of policy, but for a change of character. It's not just that he was a liar, but he was a really bad liar who made other people look ridiculous for being caught out lying on his behalf.
Of course a new leader is an opportunity for policy changes in all sorts of areas depending on what particularly axe a backbencher or party member wishes to grind. But policy didn't doom* Johnson and it wouldn't have saved him. This was 100% character failings.
* Note to Rejoiners, this also means Brexit had nothing to do with his end too, and there's no particular reason to expect a softening over a gardening as a result.
The crapness of his lies is a peculiar aspect. Because they often got him into more and deeper trouble
Was it sheer laziness? Was it arrogance ("they will believe any old shit")? Was it a simple inability to lie well, perhaps because it troubles him subconsciously?
A mix?
He is a genuinely fascinating character. because he has so many talents alongside so many flaws; for this reason - and others - his book will SELL. People want to know, even some of the haters
What's the point of reading a book by someone who just makes stuff up?
But Boris does not have to make stuff up or get too jokey in his memoir (and I sincerely hope he doesn't). He's a good writer, if not immortally so, he's got an amazing wealth of material, he was there at the heart of some of the most pivotal moments of the 21st century so far - Brexit, Covid, Ukraine - this book is actually IMPORTANT. He just needs to say what happened, and say it clearly, from his perspective. He now has the time and the incentive
BORIS, DON'T FUCK IT UP
But Leon, when reading the political autobiographies of the likes of Blair, Cameron, and Obama, you may at times thing they are occasionally gilding the lily somewhat, being economical with the truth, and skirting round the awkward bits, but you take it for granted that they do not tell bare-faced lies and mostly one is right to assume so.
Not so with Boris. If he writes 'it was raining when we arrived at Chequers' you'd have to check the weather reports to know if that's true. You simply cannot take anything he says on trust. His credibility is zero.
So what's the point in reading it?
I like reading political autobios but I won't be wasting time or money on his.
The commissioners are an explicitly anti-Vance PAC so no idea if there was any priming or anything like that.
538 has OH 83% for the GOP, 17% Dems in the context of an overall 53% chance of GOP Senate majority.
Betfair's implied chance is ~70% for the GOP Senate majority so it's one to lay.
Everyone and their dog knows about the King/Sanders rules nix for Dem Maj but not sure if you get Murkowski onside for the GOP lay..
Murkowski is a Republican.
The really interesting one is Evan McMullin. He's a typical Mormon conservative Republican, who dislikes Trump with a passion. He's standing as an Independent against Mike Lee, the incumbent Senator who only has a 57% approval rating with Republicans, and 42% overall.
Polls have it as 41% Lee to 35% McMullin with a massive chunk of undecideds. *If* Democrats (who have decided not to run a Senate candidate themselves) come out and vote for McMullin, he could be in with a real shot.
If he wins, it would be extremely difficult for the Republicans to get to 51 seats.
It was obvious from day one that the campaign against Keir’s curry was dreamed up inside Number 10 and egged on by rabid tabloids and various useful idiots.
I see Big G is pretending he has nothing to do with it.
It was dreamed up inside Number 10 because the stupid fucking rules of lockdown were formulated in Number 10.
But Starmer, beer in hand, the curry I didn't see, was easily as "guilty" as Boris with his cake or even those No.10 staff outside at Downing Street with glasses of wine in front of them.
Utter nonsense.
It was a campaign event; the rules were much more relaxed by April 21 than you remember.
Move on. You were fooled by the Zinoviev Curry, but you were not the only one on here.
You can't just ban people for having vigorous debate rcs
But he can ban people for not following his rules, including responding to emails from the admins when requested.
He can ban them for whatever reason he wants, obvs, but it's a bit circular to say he's a troll, then email him asking him to confirm he's a troll and then banning him for not confirming it.
It was obvious from day one that the campaign against Keir’s curry was dreamed up inside Number 10 and egged on by rabid tabloids and various useful idiots.
I see Big G is pretending he has nothing to do with it.
It was dreamed up inside Number 10 because the stupid fucking rules of lockdown were formulated in Number 10.
But Starmer, beer in hand, the curry I didn't see, was easily as "guilty" as Boris with his cake or even those No.10 staff outside at Downing Street with glasses of wine in front of them.
Utter nonsense.
It was a campaign event; the rules were much more relaxed by April 21 than you remember.
Move on. You were fooled by the Zinoviev Curry, but you were not the only one on here.
"The rules were relaxed by April 21" wasn't the attitude when the story came out about people having a few drinks, like Starmer did, the night before Prince Philip's funeral. Which was *checks notes* also April 21.
The hypocrisy has always been the most amusing element of this story. On all sides.
Some of my Labour friends are quite disappointed at this - and they are not Corbynites. They want him to move over for a candidate who they feel would appeal more to the electorate.
One potential downside of Starmer and Rayner not getting fined... it leaves Rayner free to run for the Labour leadership in the future, which potentially gives the Corbynite wing of a party another chance at taking over the party. No other candidate to the left of Nandy could make the ballot.
Ignorant question: how is it a gain from Labour when the Conservatives had more votes last time?
Three member ward, which had the Tories first and second and a Labour candidate coming third. He hadn’t expected to win and didn’t take up his position, thus by-election. The ward has mostly been Conservative in the past, but has previously elected a LibDem, who was the candidate in this by-election. The LibDems hadn’t targeted the ward in May, focusing instead on the next door Belsize Park, which was won from the Tories.
You can't just ban people for having vigorous debate rcs
But he can ban people for not following his rules, including responding to emails from the admins when requested.
He can ban them for whatever reason he wants, obvs, but it's a bit circular to say he's a troll, then email him asking him to confirm he's a troll and then banning him for not confirming it.
Its not circular. He can confirm the email, thus there's an option.
The Tories are making a mistake by allowing very little time for the parliamentary contest. In such an open field, how are they to ensure they pick the right candidates?
No wonder Truss cut her G20 visit short, although with rich irony it’s possible she’s trashed her leadership bid before it even starts.
You are absolutely right Gardenwalker. Leadership elections should be about due diligence to get it right - especially when the winner will be PM not LOTO so exposed in no time if not up to it leading to electoral disaster.
Yet all we are hearing from Tory MPs is “it must be quick as possible”. Why?
We are not daft are we. MPs want a coronation “in the national interest” and to shaft the membership yet again.
I approve of shafting the membership. They are fruitcakes, to a man (or sometimes, woman).
The issue is that we have an open field and Tory MPs need more than a week or two to figure out who should be PM. Sir Graham Brady has buggered this; they should have ousted Boris, put in May as caretaker, and run the contest proper after recess.
At what point, do the Germans finally realise the importance of defeating Putin in the war?
Mate you have explained why you are abroad and I totally respect that.
But don't start playing fast and loose on behalf of a sovereign state saying that they should as a matter of course make their population suffer.
From the outset it was obvious that Germany would have to think long and hard about their energy situation and that any penal action taken against Russia would also impact the German people.
So what you're saying is the Germans should sell their souls for cheaper gas supplies?
I'm saying that it is not a trivial decision for the Germans to make to enforce hardship upon their population. It is not what they, or any government is voted in to do. Why doesn't our government enforce a one-off tax of 50% to fund a weapons buying programme for Ukraine if it's really down to souls.
Our government should be spending whatever it needs to provide weapons to win this war, yes. And the Germans should be sanctioning Russia.
Winning wars, ensuring security, is the number one responsibility of the state.
At what point, do the Germans finally realise the importance of defeating Putin in the war?
Mate you have explained why you are abroad and I totally respect that.
But don't start playing fast and loose on behalf of a sovereign state saying that they should as a matter of course make their population suffer.
From the outset it was obvious that Germany would have to think long and hard about their energy situation and that any penal action taken against Russia would also impact the German people.
So what you're saying is the Germans should sell their souls for cheaper gas supplies?
I'm saying that it is not a trivial decision for the Germans to make to enforce hardship upon their population. It is not what they, or any government is voted in to do. Why doesn't our government enforce a one-off tax of 50% to fund a weapons buying programme for Ukraine if it's really down to souls.
Our government should be spending whatever it needs to provide weapons to win this war, yes. And the Germans should be sanctioning Russia.
Winning wars, ensuring security, is the number one responsibility of the state.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
So long as the university students are over 18 and consenting, yes of course I do.
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
Not if its abusive. And abuse of power is an abuse.
If it's abusive it should be a matter for the Police.
If it's consenting, it should not be.
Either way, it's up to the adults involved.
Oh lordy, you're missing the point. What does 'consenting' mean if a boss promises an employee an advantage? Is that fair towards other employees? If such a promise is later made, how does the company work out if it is true? What happens if it is 'sleep with me or you won't get promotion'? How do you prove that? Disprove it?
And there are many other potential conflicts as well.
When there are power disparities, it's best all round if relationships are avoided. And if they cannot, they have to be open and visible, not hidden. Which is difficult if one or both of the parties are married...
And how are you going to promote openly visible relationships when you puritanically try to drive relationships underground by prohibiting them? Your own logic is self-contradictory.
If you want to encourage honesty and openness, then being puritanical or promoting a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude won't get it.
It really isn't self-contradictory. And it's about preventing and reducing the abuses that the approach you seem to prefer has caused so many times.
Abusers need to be punished and abuse taken seriously not brushed under the rug.
Taking away everyone else's liberties isn't a way to do that. Driving relationships underground as you've frowned upon them and made them socially unacceptable just plays into the abusers hands, as abusers have more opportunities for abuse when everything is underground.
Openness and honesty is the polar opposite of prohibition, not its friend. Your puritanical prohibitionism won't stop adults screwing each other, it will just make them do so in secret more, which will make the abusers job easier. 🤦♂️
Prohibition does not work.
You're forgetting two basic principles.
1. It's a huge problem for any employer. If they tell you, in induction, not to do it, then you can't complain when you do it in secret or openly, and they get you for it.
2. You just don't do things that conflict with your employer's interests (except in permitted areas such as TUS work). I work for Widgets PLC, I'm not allowed to post on here saying they are crap and Thingummies Ltd's products are superior. I'm not allowed to put laxative in the shop-floor manager's tea. And I'm not allowed to jump the manager's spouse, certainly if we're in the same line of management, because that tends to lead to equally messy results in the workplace.
Re the libertarian thing - if one doesn't like it, then one can piss off the moment the no-conflict rule comes up at induction. Even if one does not have the common sense to realise it a priori.
I am not forgetting either.
Companies can have policies, even bad policies, I agree with that. Doesn't make those policies universal, or correct.
However Josias is acting as if the bad policies he knows are universal and appropriate. They're not universal. They're not the law. Many, many employers do not have such policies as has already been confirmed by many here.
Just because other companies have bad policies, doesn't mean Musk or anyone else needs to adopt such bad policies in their own business.
If there is no conflict there is no issue. Two of my friends at work got married. No problem.
As has been indicated below, it's also about the company protecting itself from claims in the future. Or even the bad atmosphere that can occur if a relationship goes sour.
It's also about the 'potential' for conflict, not just whether conflict occurs. If someone at my grade is promoted ahead of me, and they've been having an affair with the CEO, it would be fair for me to wonder if there was a connection between the promotion and the affair. And it would be the devil's job to prove there was no connection.
Bart's way has been tried for centuries, and it has led to lots of problems and abuse of power. I'm not talking about new laws (I don't think I've mentioned the law at all); just that institutions need to protect themselves and their employees.
Musk's behaviour will be noted by others further down the organisational chain. If the boss can do it, so can they. And his companies are not exactly free from strife atm...
Men and women haven't only had sex for centuries, they've had sex for as long as humanity has existed.
You might want to try to regulate away people's sex drives, but you're as puritanical and as doomed to failure as those who wish to pray away the gay.
Absolutely Musk's employees can have sex and get pregnant. That's kind of how humanity propagates itself you know?
"Men and women haven't only had sex for centuries, they've had sex for as long as humanity has existed."
Wow. I never knew that. Thanks for enlightening me! (/sarcasm)
I don't want to regulate away people's sex drives. Far from. And neither am I being puritanical, however many times you say it.
But if we're going to take such a tone: you're shouting for sexual and other abuses. Because the system you're promoting has been done, and abuse has occurred because of it. And you evidently don't care.
Abuse has always happened and will always happen. I evidently do care, but I care to tackle the abusers and systems that push abuse under the carpet - not people who consensually have sex with each other. 🤦♂️
(Snip)
If you do care, given abusive relationships between adults have happened for years in organisations, how do you stop it?
Your approach appears to be one of: "nothing to see here, move on..."
And that is to push abuse under the carpet (that's really not good imagery), and I don't think you've got any other solution to the problem.
To take an extreme example: say you run a company. A senior manager has had an affair with a staff member two ranks lower than him, and she got a promotion. The relationship has broken down, and she is now claiming he forced her to have sex on occasion, and later an abortion, and she got the promotion in return for keeping quiet.
It is a mess. As the boss, how can you tell how much the relationship was consensual? Is he lying? Is she lying? Is the truth somewhere in between? Was her promotion truly deserved, or was she promoted because of the affair? Do you protect him, as he's a darned good manager? Do you protect her? Do you sling both of them out?
These sorts of things happen (anecdotally something similar happened at a company here in Cambridge, which I won't name - and it's not one we've worked for).
This is the sort of absolute mess that organisations need to protect themselves from.
And worse, if workers lower down the organisation's hierarchy see the bosses shagging their juniors, they'll be more likely to do it as well. The fish rotting from the head. In the same way if they see a boss being racist or sexist, they'll be more likely to think that sort of behaviour is acceptable.
I'm not calling for a law on this. Just that if I was the boss of that company, I'd want that senior manager to be out on his ear: it's a clear-cut case to me (and hopefully the company's regs would back me up).
But many other cases are much less clear-cut.
Considering all we have here is that someone got pregnant and had twins, yes there is nothing to see here.
You stop it by investigating allegations of abuse on a case-by-case basis and treating them with the seriousness they deserve.
In your hypothetical, I would ask for evidence. If there were evidence that was forthcoming, eg a text message that put what you said in writing, then that could be gross misconduct. If there was no evidence, then innocent until proven guilty.
People shagging each other isn't anything "rotting" from the head, genitals or anywhere else, it is human nature and entirely acceptable behaviour.
But a woman having twins is not abuse. You didn't object to abuse, you objected to a new mother and father having twins.
"Ask for evidence."
Oh Jesus. You just don't get it, do you? The lady might be able to provide evidence of an abortion (and that's bit yucky). But it's perfectly possible that there is no evidence, either because it is very hard to prove, or the lady is lying, or the boss was very careful with what he did. Or because he has friends in the company.
*Your* attitude is exactly the sort of one that allowed this sort of thing to go on for so long, in all sorts of attitudes.
"People shagging each other isn't anything "rotting" from the head, genitals or anywhere else, it is human nature and entirely acceptable behaviour."
It is if it is abusive. And as we see with rape, it can be very hard to prove abuse. Organisations need to protect themselves, their staff, and in some cases their customers. That means strict (but fair) processes and openness.
The Tories are making a mistake by allowing very little time for the parliamentary contest. In such an open field, how are they to ensure they pick the right candidates?
No wonder Truss cut her G20 visit short, although with rich irony it’s possible she’s trashed her leadership bid before it even starts.
You are absolutely right Gardenwalker. Leadership elections should be about due diligence to get it right - especially when the winner will be PM not LOTO so exposed in no time if not up to it leading to electoral disaster.
Yet all we are hearing from Tory MPs is “it must be quick as possible”. Why?
We are not daft are we. MPs want a coronation “in the national interest” and to shaft the membership yet again.
I approve of shafting the membership. They are fruitcakes, to a man (or sometimes, woman).
The issue is that we have an open field and Tory MPs need more than a week or two to figure out who should be PM. Sir Graham Brady has buggered this; they should have ousted Boris, put in May as caretaker, and run the contest proper after recess.
If they didn't start the contest proper until after recess then there wouldn't be guaranteed to be time to get the new leader by party conference.
Plus, in your scenario, Boris would have been eligible for the ensuing contest...
Please acknowledge my email, or I will be forced to wave the ban hammer.
Who is/was MickTrain?
Another Russian troll from a couple of weeks ago (or, apparently, the same one).
Why are we so scared of "Russian Trolls"? He made some good points yesterday about there being ongoing support for Boris. Because there is.
Yes. And I, for one, was in total agreement with his detailed points on that. It didn't fit with the consensus view. But doesn't make it untrue, whether he's a Russian troll or not.
Some of my Labour friends are quite disappointed at this - and they are not Corbynites. They want him to move over for a candidate who they feel would appeal more to the electorate.
One potential downside of Starmer and Rayner not getting fined... it leaves Rayner free to run for the Labour leadership in the future, which potentially gives the Corbynite wing of a party another chance at taking over the party. No other candidate to the left of Nandy could make the ballot.
It was obvious from day one that the campaign against Keir’s curry was dreamed up inside Number 10 and egged on by rabid tabloids and various useful idiots.
I see Big G is pretending he has nothing to do with it.
It was dreamed up inside Number 10 because the stupid fucking rules of lockdown were formulated in Number 10.
But Starmer, beer in hand, the curry I didn't see, was easily as "guilty" as Boris with his cake or even those No.10 staff outside at Downing Street with glasses of wine in front of them.
Much as you might have wished for that verdict, it turns out that he was anything but guilty. Get over it.
And also you need to get over the fact that Keir Starmer did himself no end of good by putting his future on the line, committing to resign if the verdict had been the one you craved. In a country where integrity and principle is in short supply amongst the governing, that matters.
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
So long as the university students are over 18 and consenting, yes of course I do.
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
Not if its abusive. And abuse of power is an abuse.
If it's abusive it should be a matter for the Police.
If it's consenting, it should not be.
Either way, it's up to the adults involved.
Oh lordy, you're missing the point. What does 'consenting' mean if a boss promises an employee an advantage? Is that fair towards other employees? If such a promise is later made, how does the company work out if it is true? What happens if it is 'sleep with me or you won't get promotion'? How do you prove that? Disprove it?
And there are many other potential conflicts as well.
When there are power disparities, it's best all round if relationships are avoided. And if they cannot, they have to be open and visible, not hidden. Which is difficult if one or both of the parties are married...
And how are you going to promote openly visible relationships when you puritanically try to drive relationships underground by prohibiting them? Your own logic is self-contradictory.
If you want to encourage honesty and openness, then being puritanical or promoting a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude won't get it.
It really isn't self-contradictory. And it's about preventing and reducing the abuses that the approach you seem to prefer has caused so many times.
Abusers need to be punished and abuse taken seriously not brushed under the rug.
Taking away everyone else's liberties isn't a way to do that. Driving relationships underground as you've frowned upon them and made them socially unacceptable just plays into the abusers hands, as abusers have more opportunities for abuse when everything is underground.
Openness and honesty is the polar opposite of prohibition, not its friend. Your puritanical prohibitionism won't stop adults screwing each other, it will just make them do so in secret more, which will make the abusers job easier. 🤦♂️
Prohibition does not work.
You're forgetting two basic principles.
1. It's a huge problem for any employer. If they tell you, in induction, not to do it, then you can't complain when you do it in secret or openly, and they get you for it.
2. You just don't do things that conflict with your employer's interests (except in permitted areas such as TUS work). I work for Widgets PLC, I'm not allowed to post on here saying they are crap and Thingummies Ltd's products are superior. I'm not allowed to put laxative in the shop-floor manager's tea. And I'm not allowed to jump the manager's spouse, certainly if we're in the same line of management, because that tends to lead to equally messy results in the workplace.
Re the libertarian thing - if one doesn't like it, then one can piss off the moment the no-conflict rule comes up at induction. Even if one does not have the common sense to realise it a priori.
I am not forgetting either.
Companies can have policies, even bad policies, I agree with that. Doesn't make those policies universal, or correct.
However Josias is acting as if the bad policies he knows are universal and appropriate. They're not universal. They're not the law. Many, many employers do not have such policies as has already been confirmed by many here.
Just because other companies have bad policies, doesn't mean Musk or anyone else needs to adopt such bad policies in their own business.
If there is no conflict there is no issue. Two of my friends at work got married. No problem.
As has been indicated below, it's also about the company protecting itself from claims in the future. Or even the bad atmosphere that can occur if a relationship goes sour.
It's also about the 'potential' for conflict, not just whether conflict occurs. If someone at my grade is promoted ahead of me, and they've been having an affair with the CEO, it would be fair for me to wonder if there was a connection between the promotion and the affair. And it would be the devil's job to prove there was no connection.
Bart's way has been tried for centuries, and it has led to lots of problems and abuse of power. I'm not talking about new laws (I don't think I've mentioned the law at all); just that institutions need to protect themselves and their employees.
Musk's behaviour will be noted by others further down the organisational chain. If the boss can do it, so can they. And his companies are not exactly free from strife atm...
Men and women haven't only had sex for centuries, they've had sex for as long as humanity has existed.
You might want to try to regulate away people's sex drives, but you're as puritanical and as doomed to failure as those who wish to pray away the gay.
Absolutely Musk's employees can have sex and get pregnant. That's kind of how humanity propagates itself you know?
"Men and women haven't only had sex for centuries, they've had sex for as long as humanity has existed."
Wow. I never knew that. Thanks for enlightening me! (/sarcasm)
I don't want to regulate away people's sex drives. Far from. And neither am I being puritanical, however many times you say it.
But if we're going to take such a tone: you're shouting for sexual and other abuses. Because the system you're promoting has been done, and abuse has occurred because of it. And you evidently don't care.
Abuse has always happened and will always happen. I evidently do care, but I care to tackle the abusers and systems that push abuse under the carpet - not people who consensually have sex with each other. 🤦♂️
(Snip)
If you do care, given abusive relationships between adults have happened for years in organisations, how do you stop it?
Your approach appears to be one of: "nothing to see here, move on..."
And that is to push abuse under the carpet (that's really not good imagery), and I don't think you've got any other solution to the problem.
To take an extreme example: say you run a company. A senior manager has had an affair with a staff member two ranks lower than him, and she got a promotion. The relationship has broken down, and she is now claiming he forced her to have sex on occasion, and later an abortion, and she got the promotion in return for keeping quiet.
It is a mess. As the boss, how can you tell how much the relationship was consensual? Is he lying? Is she lying? Is the truth somewhere in between? Was her promotion truly deserved, or was she promoted because of the affair? Do you protect him, as he's a darned good manager? Do you protect her? Do you sling both of them out?
These sorts of things happen (anecdotally something similar happened at a company here in Cambridge, which I won't name - and it's not one we've worked for).
This is the sort of absolute mess that organisations need to protect themselves from.
And worse, if workers lower down the organisation's hierarchy see the bosses shagging their juniors, they'll be more likely to do it as well. The fish rotting from the head. In the same way if they see a boss being racist or sexist, they'll be more likely to think that sort of behaviour is acceptable.
I'm not calling for a law on this. Just that if I was the boss of that company, I'd want that senior manager to be out on his ear: it's a clear-cut case to me (and hopefully the company's regs would back me up).
But many other cases are much less clear-cut.
Considering all we have here is that someone got pregnant and had twins, yes there is nothing to see here.
You stop it by investigating allegations of abuse on a case-by-case basis and treating them with the seriousness they deserve.
In your hypothetical, I would ask for evidence. If there were evidence that was forthcoming, eg a text message that put what you said in writing, then that could be gross misconduct. If there was no evidence, then innocent until proven guilty.
People shagging each other isn't anything "rotting" from the head, genitals or anywhere else, it is human nature and entirely acceptable behaviour.
But a woman having twins is not abuse. You didn't object to abuse, you objected to a new mother and father having twins.
"Ask for evidence."
Oh Jesus. You just don't get it, do you? The lady might be able to provide evidence of an abortion (and that's bit yucky). But it's perfectly possible that there is no evidence, either because it is very hard to prove, or the lady is lying, or the boss was very careful with what he did. Or because he has friends in the company.
*Your* attitude is exactly the sort of one that allowed this sort of thing to go on for so long, in all sorts of attitudes.
"People shagging each other isn't anything "rotting" from the head, genitals or anywhere else, it is human nature and entirely acceptable behaviour."
It is if it is abusive. And as we see with rape, it can be very hard to prove abuse. Organisations need to protect themselves, their staff, and in some cases their customers. That means strict (but fair) processes and openness.
If there's no evidence, then innocent until proven guilty applies.
So you're saying you are prepared to sack someone, with absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing?
That to me is disgusting. The fact that something is hard to prove, doesn't mean you can do away with due process. It means you take investigations and allegations seriously instead.
Please acknowledge my email, or I will be forced to wave the ban hammer.
Who is/was MickTrain?
Another Russian troll from a couple of weeks ago (or, apparently, the same one).
Why are we so scared of "Russian Trolls"? He made some good points yesterday about there being ongoing support for Boris. Because there is.
They are a bit like Russian dolls.....each time you get past the one you see, another similar one magically appears, and then you find out they are a bit hollow in the end.
Please acknowledge my email, or I will be forced to wave the ban hammer.
Who is/was MickTrain?
Another Russian troll from a couple of weeks ago (or, apparently, the same one).
Why are we so scared of "Russian Trolls"? He made some good points yesterday about there being ongoing support for Boris. Because there is.
Russian trolling is fine if you agree with them?
LOL good point. I did agree with it but it was a point borne out by facts and evidence. He was saying don't ignore the rump support that Boris has. And people do at their peril.
Please acknowledge my email, or I will be forced to wave the ban hammer.
Who is/was MickTrain?
Another Russian troll from a couple of weeks ago (or, apparently, the same one).
Why are we so scared of "Russian Trolls"? He made some good points yesterday about there being ongoing support for Boris. Because there is.
Russian trolling is fine if you agree with them?
LOL good point. I did agree with it but it was a point borne out by facts and evidence. He was saying don't ignore the rump support that Boris has. And people do at their peril.
Of course, but then Corbyn's 'rump support' was probably higher, but I don't recall your making that point at the time. At least having a troll has given you the prompt?
In other news, this week it was revealed that Elon Musk has had twins with a female executive at one of his companies.
Seeing the Musk fans try to spin this is quite hilarious.
Why do they have to spin it? He hasn’t done anything illegal. It might be a sackable offence in some companies (is it?) but then he’s not going to sack himself, he owns the company
That's the point. You don't shag around with the staff, even consensually: especially when you are the top boss.
It should be noted that Musk's companies are facing numerous race and sexual discrimination lawsuits.
A fish rots from its head.
What puritanical bullshit!
What consensual adults do in their own beds is between them and nobody else.
A significant proportion of the married people I know met their spouses through work, when you're spending all day at work and the only people you meet most of the time are at work, its entirely natural and normal for intimate relations to happen.
People need to grow up and stop puritanically staring at other people in judgement.
It isn't 'puritanical'; it's common sense. There have been too many cases of bosses abusing their positions in various ways. Just look at the movie industry for one example.
I met my wife through work, when I was project managing her. That was difficult enough, and I'd like to think we handled it well (and were both relatively junior).
But if you're one of the top bods, it really isn't rocket science to say that you don't shag the staff. And Musk has massive opportunities to meet people outside his various companies. Grimes, for example ...
You're right its not rocket science to say that, its puritanical bullshit to say it.
If Musk and the executive are attracted to each other and get intimate that's between them and there is nothing wrong with that any more than you and your then-future wife doing the same.
Abuse is wrong, consensual is not. So long as it is consensual, it is OK.
It really is not puritanical. It's safeguarding the company and its staff.
And there's a vast difference between our situation and theirs, in virtually every way. I can go into details if you want: but if you are one of the top guys or gals, you do not have a relationship with the staff. And if you must, make sure it's open, don't get them pregnant, and especially don't do it if you're having a surrogate child with your girlfriend at the same time.
Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.
Keeping your private life private is entirely appropriate, so long as its consensual.
Them having a child is between them, and his then-girlfriend perhaps, not anyone else or the firm.
What consensual adults do is between them. You're acting like people who object to gays having sex because men sleeping with men is immoral supposedly. So long as they're genuinely consenting, its between them, whether it be man with woman, man with man, or employer with employee.
It really is not bollocks. Look at the vast number of abuses that have turned up over the years in all areas.
And your comment about gays is wrong, laughable and crass.
The point is that the boss has massive power over the individual - in the same way a university lecturer has over an adult student (in fact, bosses often have more power). It's not about the relationship: it's about the potential for abuse of power.
(In our case, that did not really exist. We were essentially at the same level, and I was just project managing her on a couple of projects: she was just as likely to have pm'ed me if circs had been different. And as we told our bosses, and they ensured there could be no abuses.)
If power is abused, deal with the abuse.
If its consensual, there's no abuse, just puritanism.
Relationships end. All Musk's relationships have ended, some acrimoniously. When they end, often one party or both feel aggrieved, rightly or not. How the heck is a company to (fairly) work out if there has been abuse or not? Did the boss promise something? A promotion? Were company resources used during the relationship? etc, etc.
It's about power. The bigger the gap between the staff members, the greater the risk of abuse.
It was done your way for centuries, and lots of people were abused.
As I said, Musk has plenty of opportunities to dip his wick in people who do not work for his companies. Including his (apparently now-ex) gf.
Just because there's a potential for abuse doesn't mean that consensual adults can't consensually do what consensual adults want to do. 🤦♂️
Yes he has opportunities to "dip his wick" for people outside of his company. He also has opportunities to do so for people inside it to, if they consensually agree.
If sex isn't consensual, it should be for the Police to investigate more than the company.
You appear to be totally missing my point. Do you think university lecturers should be free to have relationships with students?
Anyway, I doubt we're going to agree on this...
So long as the university students are over 18 and consenting, yes of course I do.
I agree with what I believe the law is, that sex with children under 16 is not ok, and if you're in a position of authority over a 16 or 17 year old then that is not OK either.
I am completely liberal on matters of sex: What consenting adults do is up to them.
Not if its abusive. And abuse of power is an abuse.
If it's abusive it should be a matter for the Police.
If it's consenting, it should not be.
Either way, it's up to the adults involved.
Oh lordy, you're missing the point. What does 'consenting' mean if a boss promises an employee an advantage? Is that fair towards other employees? If such a promise is later made, how does the company work out if it is true? What happens if it is 'sleep with me or you won't get promotion'? How do you prove that? Disprove it?
And there are many other potential conflicts as well.
When there are power disparities, it's best all round if relationships are avoided. And if they cannot, they have to be open and visible, not hidden. Which is difficult if one or both of the parties are married...
And how are you going to promote openly visible relationships when you puritanically try to drive relationships underground by prohibiting them? Your own logic is self-contradictory.
If you want to encourage honesty and openness, then being puritanical or promoting a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude won't get it.
It really isn't self-contradictory. And it's about preventing and reducing the abuses that the approach you seem to prefer has caused so many times.
Abusers need to be punished and abuse taken seriously not brushed under the rug.
Taking away everyone else's liberties isn't a way to do that. Driving relationships underground as you've frowned upon them and made them socially unacceptable just plays into the abusers hands, as abusers have more opportunities for abuse when everything is underground.
Openness and honesty is the polar opposite of prohibition, not its friend. Your puritanical prohibitionism won't stop adults screwing each other, it will just make them do so in secret more, which will make the abusers job easier. 🤦♂️
Prohibition does not work.
You're forgetting two basic principles.
1. It's a huge problem for any employer. If they tell you, in induction, not to do it, then you can't complain when you do it in secret or openly, and they get you for it.
2. You just don't do things that conflict with your employer's interests (except in permitted areas such as TUS work). I work for Widgets PLC, I'm not allowed to post on here saying they are crap and Thingummies Ltd's products are superior. I'm not allowed to put laxative in the shop-floor manager's tea. And I'm not allowed to jump the manager's spouse, certainly if we're in the same line of management, because that tends to lead to equally messy results in the workplace.
Re the libertarian thing - if one doesn't like it, then one can piss off the moment the no-conflict rule comes up at induction. Even if one does not have the common sense to realise it a priori.
I am not forgetting either.
Companies can have policies, even bad policies, I agree with that. Doesn't make those policies universal, or correct.
However Josias is acting as if the bad policies he knows are universal and appropriate. They're not universal. They're not the law. Many, many employers do not have such policies as has already been confirmed by many here.
Just because other companies have bad policies, doesn't mean Musk or anyone else needs to adopt such bad policies in their own business.
If there is no conflict there is no issue. Two of my friends at work got married. No problem.
As has been indicated below, it's also about the company protecting itself from claims in the future. Or even the bad atmosphere that can occur if a relationship goes sour.
It's also about the 'potential' for conflict, not just whether conflict occurs. If someone at my grade is promoted ahead of me, and they've been having an affair with the CEO, it would be fair for me to wonder if there was a connection between the promotion and the affair. And it would be the devil's job to prove there was no connection.
Bart's way has been tried for centuries, and it has led to lots of problems and abuse of power. I'm not talking about new laws (I don't think I've mentioned the law at all); just that institutions need to protect themselves and their employees.
Musk's behaviour will be noted by others further down the organisational chain. If the boss can do it, so can they. And his companies are not exactly free from strife atm...
Men and women haven't only had sex for centuries, they've had sex for as long as humanity has existed.
You might want to try to regulate away people's sex drives, but you're as puritanical and as doomed to failure as those who wish to pray away the gay.
Absolutely Musk's employees can have sex and get pregnant. That's kind of how humanity propagates itself you know?
"Men and women haven't only had sex for centuries, they've had sex for as long as humanity has existed."
Wow. I never knew that. Thanks for enlightening me! (/sarcasm)
I don't want to regulate away people's sex drives. Far from. And neither am I being puritanical, however many times you say it.
But if we're going to take such a tone: you're shouting for sexual and other abuses. Because the system you're promoting has been done, and abuse has occurred because of it. And you evidently don't care.
Abuse has always happened and will always happen. I evidently do care, but I care to tackle the abusers and systems that push abuse under the carpet - not people who consensually have sex with each other. 🤦♂️
(Snip)
If you do care, given abusive relationships between adults have happened for years in organisations, how do you stop it?
Your approach appears to be one of: "nothing to see here, move on..."
And that is to push abuse under the carpet (that's really not good imagery), and I don't think you've got any other solution to the problem.
To take an extreme example: say you run a company. A senior manager has had an affair with a staff member two ranks lower than him, and she got a promotion. The relationship has broken down, and she is now claiming he forced her to have sex on occasion, and later an abortion, and she got the promotion in return for keeping quiet.
It is a mess. As the boss, how can you tell how much the relationship was consensual? Is he lying? Is she lying? Is the truth somewhere in between? Was her promotion truly deserved, or was she promoted because of the affair? Do you protect him, as he's a darned good manager? Do you protect her? Do you sling both of them out?
These sorts of things happen (anecdotally something similar happened at a company here in Cambridge, which I won't name - and it's not one we've worked for).
This is the sort of absolute mess that organisations need to protect themselves from.
And worse, if workers lower down the organisation's hierarchy see the bosses shagging their juniors, they'll be more likely to do it as well. The fish rotting from the head. In the same way if they see a boss being racist or sexist, they'll be more likely to think that sort of behaviour is acceptable.
I'm not calling for a law on this. Just that if I was the boss of that company, I'd want that senior manager to be out on his ear: it's a clear-cut case to me (and hopefully the company's regs would back me up).
But many other cases are much less clear-cut.
Considering all we have here is that someone got pregnant and had twins, yes there is nothing to see here.
You stop it by investigating allegations of abuse on a case-by-case basis and treating them with the seriousness they deserve.
In your hypothetical, I would ask for evidence. If there were evidence that was forthcoming, eg a text message that put what you said in writing, then that could be gross misconduct. If there was no evidence, then innocent until proven guilty.
People shagging each other isn't anything "rotting" from the head, genitals or anywhere else, it is human nature and entirely acceptable behaviour.
But a woman having twins is not abuse. You didn't object to abuse, you objected to a new mother and father having twins.
"Ask for evidence."
Oh Jesus. You just don't get it, do you? The lady might be able to provide evidence of an abortion (and that's bit yucky). But it's perfectly possible that there is no evidence, either because it is very hard to prove, or the lady is lying, or the boss was very careful with what he did. Or because he has friends in the company.
*Your* attitude is exactly the sort of one that allowed this sort of thing to go on for so long, in all sorts of attitudes.
"People shagging each other isn't anything "rotting" from the head, genitals or anywhere else, it is human nature and entirely acceptable behaviour."
It is if it is abusive. And as we see with rape, it can be very hard to prove abuse. Organisations need to protect themselves, their staff, and in some cases their customers. That means strict (but fair) processes and openness.
If there's no evidence, then innocent until proven guilty applies.
So you're saying you are prepared to sack someone, with absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing?
That to me is disgusting. The fact that something is hard to prove, doesn't mean you can do away with due process. It means you take investigations and allegations seriously instead.
What you're talking about is a carte blanche for bosses to abuse underlings - as has happened throughout history.
That has to change.
And yes, the relationship has caused disruption to the company, taken up valuable management time, and could potentially be open to lawsuits. For how can the company prove that the lady was given a promotion fairly, and not because of the affair? It's difficult. At best, he's been blooming stupid.
That's why I'm saying companies need proper processes for such things, and the greater the disparity between the parties - and the greater the potential for abuse - the stronger those processes need to be.
Those processes might be moving one or other party to other divisions (if possible). It may be changing lines of reporting. It may be something else. But all parties need to know that not following the processes might have serious consequences for their future in the organisation.
The Tories are making a mistake by allowing very little time for the parliamentary contest. In such an open field, how are they to ensure they pick the right candidates?
No wonder Truss cut her G20 visit short, although with rich irony it’s possible she’s trashed her leadership bid before it even starts.
You are absolutely right Gardenwalker. Leadership elections should be about due diligence to get it right - especially when the winner will be PM not LOTO so exposed in no time if not up to it leading to electoral disaster.
Yet all we are hearing from Tory MPs is “it must be quick as possible”. Why?
We are not daft are we. MPs want a coronation “in the national interest” and to shaft the membership yet again.
The membership should always be shafted until it is removed from the process altogether.
The membership elected Cameron, IDS and Johnson. The MPs elected Major, Hague, Howard and May. The membership are often right and entitled to a view
Be interesting to see if Starmer sets out more of a Labour picture over the next few months, conference was supposed to be it but we will see.
Low point for the Cons? Too many ups and downs to say -
Ups: New leader will get a bounce, the saner the bigger
Unknowns: How new leader is held responsible for and manages to distance themselves from Boris's legacy. Starmer been effective at this with Corbyn, but there were ready made policy and faction demons to slay. Bring clean and dealing well with miscreancy can be a mission (back to basics, anyone?) but is much more a hostage to events as well.
Downs: Limited scope for a honeymoon GE given where any bounce starts from Cost of living is a cumulative crisis still in its infancy, and will dominate between now and GE
The Tories are making a mistake by allowing very little time for the parliamentary contest. In such an open field, how are they to ensure they pick the right candidates?
No wonder Truss cut her G20 visit short, although with rich irony it’s possible she’s trashed her leadership bid before it even starts.
You are absolutely right Gardenwalker. Leadership elections should be about due diligence to get it right - especially when the winner will be PM not LOTO so exposed in no time if not up to it leading to electoral disaster.
Yet all we are hearing from Tory MPs is “it must be quick as possible”. Why?
We are not daft are we. MPs want a coronation “in the national interest” and to shaft the membership yet again.
I approve of shafting the membership. They are fruitcakes, to a man (or sometimes, woman).
The issue is that we have an open field and Tory MPs need more than a week or two to figure out who should be PM. Sir Graham Brady has buggered this; they should have ousted Boris, put in May as caretaker, and run the contest proper after recess.
If they didn't start the contest proper until after recess then there wouldn't be guaranteed to be time to get the new leader by party conference.
Plus, in your scenario, Boris would have been eligible for the ensuing contest...
The 1922 have announced the final two will be put to the membership by the 21st July so less than 2 weeks
The Tories are making a mistake by allowing very little time for the parliamentary contest. In such an open field, how are they to ensure they pick the right candidates?
No wonder Truss cut her G20 visit short, although with rich irony it’s possible she’s trashed her leadership bid before it even starts.
You are absolutely right Gardenwalker. Leadership elections should be about due diligence to get it right - especially when the winner will be PM not LOTO so exposed in no time if not up to it leading to electoral disaster.
Yet all we are hearing from Tory MPs is “it must be quick as possible”. Why?
We are not daft are we. MPs want a coronation “in the national interest” and to shaft the membership yet again.
I approve of shafting the membership. They are fruitcakes, to a man (or sometimes, woman).
The issue is that we have an open field and Tory MPs need more than a week or two to figure out who should be PM. Sir Graham Brady has buggered this; they should have ousted Boris, put in May as caretaker, and run the contest proper after recess.
If they didn't start the contest proper until after recess then there wouldn't be guaranteed to be time to get the new leader by party conference.
Plus, in your scenario, Boris would have been eligible for the ensuing contest...
The 1922 have announced the final two will be put to the membership by the 21st July so less than 2 weeks
Absurd way to choose the PM. We will all be repenting at leisure.
The Tories are making a mistake by allowing very little time for the parliamentary contest. In such an open field, how are they to ensure they pick the right candidates?
No wonder Truss cut her G20 visit short, although with rich irony it’s possible she’s trashed her leadership bid before it even starts.
You are absolutely right Gardenwalker. Leadership elections should be about due diligence to get it right - especially when the winner will be PM not LOTO so exposed in no time if not up to it leading to electoral disaster.
Yet all we are hearing from Tory MPs is “it must be quick as possible”. Why?
We are not daft are we. MPs want a coronation “in the national interest” and to shaft the membership yet again.
I approve of shafting the membership. They are fruitcakes, to a man (or sometimes, woman).
The issue is that we have an open field and Tory MPs need more than a week or two to figure out who should be PM. Sir Graham Brady has buggered this; they should have ousted Boris, put in May as caretaker, and run the contest proper after recess.
If they didn't start the contest proper until after recess then there wouldn't be guaranteed to be time to get the new leader by party conference.
Plus, in your scenario, Boris would have been eligible for the ensuing contest...
The 1922 have announced the final two will be put to the membership by the 21st July so less than 2 weeks
Absurd way to choose the PM. We will all be repenting at leisure.
We may even have a new PM by the 21st July - unlikely but not impossible depending on conservative mps and the final 2 candidates
Comments
Betfair's implied chance is ~70% for the GOP Senate majority so it's one to lay.
Everyone and their dog knows about the King/Sanders rules nix for Dem Maj but not sure if you get Murkowski onside for the GOP lay..
There were times when the rules were over-zealously applied. Advice from SAGE was for lighter policing and clearer explanation of what the rules were and what was safe (conversations in outdoor car parks generally being at the safer end of things). Public health measures are generally better delivered through consent and education than through enforcement mechanisms. However, it was sometimes difficult getting that message through to Government.
Really should read my posts, I told you all this days ago.
My source's credibility is tip top, I hope I will be listened to in future.
Yet all we are hearing from Tory MPs is “it must be quick as possible”. Why?
We are not daft are we. MPs want a coronation “in the national interest” and to shaft the membership yet again.
At some point, leaders will work out that your Net Zero targets are not compatible with a major war in Europe. Everyone needs to get fracking and growing more stuff - starting yesterday.
But Starmer, beer in hand, the curry I didn't see, was easily as "guilty" as Boris with his cake or even those No.10 staff outside at Downing Street with glasses of wine in front of them.
It was obviously a Tory smear operation from day 1.
Who told me on Monday, Keir would be cleared. Right again.
That's three in a row.
Best Labour can hope for now is to force a hung parliament (with the Conservatives as the largest party), and that's the absolute best they can hope for.
Now whether the Conservatives should win in 2024(?) is a different question. 1992 led to 1997 and a 13 year exile. A smallish win in 2024, a change of Labour leader and 2029 could be the start of a decade of Labour government.
But they've been cleared, so cool.
But then, logically, if Boris and Sunak deserved their fines then Boris at least deserved several more.
Not so with Boris. If he writes 'it was raining when we arrived at Chequers' you'd have to check the weather reports to know if that's true. You simply cannot take anything he says on trust. His credibility is zero.
So what's the point in reading it?
I like reading political autobios but I won't be wasting time or money on his.
The really interesting one is Evan McMullin. He's a typical Mormon conservative Republican, who dislikes Trump with a passion. He's standing as an Independent against Mike Lee, the incumbent Senator who only has a 57% approval rating with Republicans, and 42% overall.
Polls have it as 41% Lee to 35% McMullin with a massive chunk of undecideds. *If* Democrats (who have decided not to run a Senate candidate themselves) come out and vote for McMullin, he could be in with a real shot.
If he wins, it would be extremely difficult for the Republicans to get to 51 seats.
It was a campaign event; the rules were much more relaxed by April 21 than you remember.
Move on. You were fooled by the Zinoviev Curry, but you were not the only one on here.
The hypocrisy has always been the most amusing element of this story. On all sides.
Three member ward, which had the Tories first and second and a Labour candidate coming third. He hadn’t expected to win and didn’t take up his position, thus by-election. The ward has mostly been Conservative in the past, but has previously elected a LibDem, who was the candidate in this by-election. The LibDems hadn’t targeted the ward in May, focusing instead on the next door Belsize Park, which was won from the Tories.
They are fruitcakes, to a man (or sometimes, woman).
The issue is that we have an open field and Tory MPs need more than a week or two to figure out who should be PM. Sir Graham Brady has buggered this; they should have ousted Boris, put in May as caretaker, and run the contest proper after recess.
Winning wars, ensuring security, is the number one responsibility of the state.
Oh Jesus. You just don't get it, do you? The lady might be able to provide evidence of an abortion (and that's bit yucky). But it's perfectly possible that there is no evidence, either because it is very hard to prove, or the lady is lying, or the boss was very careful with what he did. Or because he has friends in the company.
*Your* attitude is exactly the sort of one that allowed this sort of thing to go on for so long, in all sorts of attitudes.
"People shagging each other isn't anything "rotting" from the head, genitals or anywhere else, it is human nature and entirely acceptable behaviour."
It is if it is abusive. And as we see with rape, it can be very hard to prove abuse. Organisations need to protect themselves, their staff, and in some cases their customers. That means strict (but fair) processes and openness.
Plus, in your scenario, Boris would have been eligible for the ensuing contest...
And I, for one, was in total agreement with his detailed points on that.
It didn't fit with the consensus view. But doesn't make it untrue, whether he's a Russian troll or not.
And also you need to get over the fact that Keir Starmer did himself no end of good by putting his future on the line, committing to resign if the verdict had been the one you craved. In a country where integrity and principle is in short supply amongst the governing, that matters.
So you're saying you are prepared to sack someone, with absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing?
That to me is disgusting. The fact that something is hard to prove, doesn't mean you can do away with due process. It means you take investigations and allegations seriously instead.
That has to change.
And yes, the relationship has caused disruption to the company, taken up valuable management time, and could potentially be open to lawsuits. For how can the company prove that the lady was given a promotion fairly, and not because of the affair? It's difficult. At best, he's been blooming stupid.
That's why I'm saying companies need proper processes for such things, and the greater the disparity between the parties - and the greater the potential for abuse - the stronger those processes need to be.
Those processes might be moving one or other party to other divisions (if possible). It may be changing lines of reporting. It may be something else. But all parties need to know that not following the processes might have serious consequences for their future in the organisation.
Openness is key.
It's obvious that Boris is innocent and the corrupt Met fined him for merely having a slice of cake, having been got at by Campbell or Mandelson.
And it was Starmer who made the ridiculous Covid laws in the first place.
Am I getting the hang of the right-wing lines?
Low point for the Cons? Too many ups and downs to say -
Ups:
New leader will get a bounce, the saner the bigger
Unknowns:
How new leader is held responsible for and manages to distance themselves from Boris's legacy. Starmer been effective at this with Corbyn, but there were ready made policy and faction demons to slay. Bring clean and dealing well with miscreancy can be a mission (back to basics, anyone?) but is much more a hostage to events as well.
Downs:
Limited scope for a honeymoon GE given where any bounce starts from
Cost of living is a cumulative crisis still in its infancy, and will dominate between now and GE
Edit to avoid confusion I’m not talking about Carrie Johnson.
She is living her best life tonight! https://twitter.com/VinnyMcAv/status/1545160078784970753/video/1
We will all be repenting at leisure.
No - no - no - no to infinity