Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Le Pen is not mightier than the sword of truth – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,391
edited March 31 in General
Le Pen is not mightier than the sword of truth – politicalbetting.com

Today’s events have upended expectations for France’s 2027 presidential election but I wonder if the value might be with Le Pen if the appellate process works in her favour.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,676
    edited March 31
    First?

    On topic, I don’t think the alternative far right parties benefit from this. If there’s a backlash then RN itself should benefit. Possibly with Bardella as the candidate.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,430
    The keyboard is mightier than the pen or the sword...

    First
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,858
    edited March 31
    La Plume, surely ?

    Erreur d'écolière.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,933
    Of course if this had been a left wing politician given this sentence the right wing media would be applauding it.

  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,676
    edited March 31
    It’ll be interesting to see if the French electorate follow the US precedent and decide this is “lawfare”, or if they are that much more inured to presidents and candidates being brought down by the beaks that this won’t register much.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,676

    The keyboard is mightier than the pen or the sword...

    First

    But not faster than the TimS keyboard.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,794
    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,858
    Prepare to get royally shafted all over again.

    Thames Water names US private equity group KKR as preferred bidder
    KKR expected to acquire stake worth £4bn as UK’s biggest water supplier tries to stave off nationalisation
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/mar/31/thames-water-names-us-private-equity-group-kkr-as-preferred-partner
  • CJohnCJohn Posts: 76
    Nigelb said:

    La Plume, surely ?

    Erreur d'écolière.

    You have schoolboy French?

    "La plume" is dated. "Le stylo" is more common.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,858
    CJohn said:

    Nigelb said:

    La Plume, surely ?

    Erreur d'écolière.

    You have schoolboy French?

    "La plume" is dated.
    So is Marine.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,111
    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,144

    The keyboard is mightier than the pen or the sword...

    First

    Either way, the writing is on the wall for Le Pen.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,265
    CJohn said:

    Nigelb said:

    La Plume, surely ?

    Erreur d'écolière.

    You have schoolboy French?

    "La plume" is dated. "Le stylo" is more common.
    la plume est plus forte que l'épée
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,430
    TimS said:

    The keyboard is mightier than the pen or the sword...

    First

    But not faster than the TimS keyboard.
    I typed too fast and needed to correct mistakes...
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,794

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 59,024
    I confess, I am ignorant of the details of the case.

    Is this an example - like the Trump Hush Money one - where most people will say "that's a ridiculous case that should never have gone to court"? Or is this one where there is a very evidence of wrongdoing?

    Because I think the Trump Hush Money case helped him: many voters thought he was being persecuted for something that wasn't really a crime. (And, of course, this was made all the worse because to the average voter, it looked like the more serious cases weren't real, because otherwise they'd make it to court, right?)

    So: what's the story here?
  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,265
    kamski said:

    CJohn said:

    Nigelb said:

    La Plume, surely ?

    Erreur d'écolière.

    You have schoolboy French?

    "La plume" is dated. "Le stylo" is more common.
    la plume est plus forte que l'épée
    But écolière is schoolgirl, surely
  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,676
    CJohn said:

    Nigelb said:

    La Plume, surely ?

    Erreur d'écolière.

    You have schoolboy French?

    "La plume" is dated. "Le stylo" is more common.
    Just like English. “Stylus” is much more up to date and down with the kids than “quill”.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,111
    edited March 31
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
    Did they "basically copy" the case? How many other similar cases are there? And where there are differences (aside from race), what were the influences of those differences?

    It's almost as though you have an agenda. Only simpletons would believe otherwise... ;)
  • boulayboulay Posts: 6,047
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
    The creators have specifically said that they chose a white boy and a “non problematic” Everyman family specifically to get the message across that this could be anyone’s child - it’s not just young black boys and boys from broken homes with absent fathers.

    Haven’t watched it so I don’t know if that works or not but it was a fair point by them to try and have maximum effect - they are unapologetic about the series having an agenda - stopping young boys being radicalised/marginalised and turning to violence.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,794
    rcs1000 said:

    I confess, I am ignorant of the details of the case.

    Is this an example - like the Trump Hush Money one - where most people will say "that's a ridiculous case that should never have gone to court"? Or is this one where there is a very evidence of wrongdoing?

    Because I think the Trump Hush Money case helped him: many voters thought he was being persecuted for something that wasn't really a crime. (And, of course, this was made all the worse because to the average voter, it looked like the more serious cases weren't real, because otherwise they'd make it to court, right?)

    So: what's the story here?

    My read of it is that Le Pen probably did do the crime but it's probably also true of 99% of politicians in Europe so it looks like the state is targeting her with lawfare because it can't beat her at the ballot box.

    Her failure seems to have been taking the money directly rather than doing what is usually expected in Europe which is to funnel it via dodgy contacts to friends and associates. While it's clearly stupid and illegal, it's not particularly different to the rest of them who are just a bit smarter about their theft.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 9,585
    I’m a little uncomfortable with the punishment being applied while there is an outstanding appeal. That smacks of her being blocked by l’establishment.

    Although it probably works in her favour in that I’m assuming the appeal would be finalised this year, so the clock just starts earlier
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,794

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
    Did they "basically copy" the case? How many other similar cases are there? And where there are differences (aside from race), what were the influences of those differences?

    It's almost as though you have an agenda. Only simpletons would believe otherwise... ;)
    As in they literally lifted big chunks of this case into the show because of how awful it was and how far down the rabbit hole the murderer ended up.

    I'm happy that this subject is being covered, I have a daughter and a son after all. I just want the truth to be unvarnished so that people can make their minds up for themselves, not have a bunch of Netflix writers do it for them.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,264
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
    What difference does it make to the story or the message?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 59,024
    edited March 31
    Totally off topic:

    Tomorrow has three very significant elections in the US. The most important one is probably the Wisconsin State Supreme Court, where Elon Musk has been paying $100 to voters to sign a petition (that basically agrees to vote for a candidate), *plus* he's giving away $1m to people who turn up to rallies. (Like one person a rally. He's given away $3m on this so far.)

    He's also popping up in rallies across the state, and complaining that George Soros is interfering in the election. (Elon Musk will have spent $30-40m on the election. George Soros's PAC about $5m.)

    The question to me is: will this work, or will it backfire?

    Elon is not as popular as Trump, and the administration has lost popularity since the election. The Democrats also won the Wisconsin Senatorial election even as they lost the Presidential last year.

    So, my gut is that the more liberal candidate will win this one: probably by 5+%.

    And then there are the two Florida Special Elections to replace House members elevated to the Trump Cabinet. Apparently, polling for both of these is what caused the Republicans to pill Elise Stefanik's nomination for UN Ambassador. Neither seat is particularly competitive; I suspect that the Republicans will hold both, but by substantially reduced margins (say net 7% moves in both.)
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,435
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I confess, I am ignorant of the details of the case.

    Is this an example - like the Trump Hush Money one - where most people will say "that's a ridiculous case that should never have gone to court"? Or is this one where there is a very evidence of wrongdoing?

    Because I think the Trump Hush Money case helped him: many voters thought he was being persecuted for something that wasn't really a crime. (And, of course, this was made all the worse because to the average voter, it looked like the more serious cases weren't real, because otherwise they'd make it to court, right?)

    So: what's the story here?

    My read of it is that Le Pen probably did do the crime but it's probably also true of 99% of politicians in Europe so it looks like the state is targeting her with lawfare because it can't beat her at the ballot box.

    Her failure seems to have been taking the money directly rather than doing what is usually expected in Europe which is to funnel it via dodgy contacts to friends and associates. While it's clearly stupid and illegal, it's not particularly different to the rest of them who are just a bit smarter about their theft.
    She didn't really take it directly (it was acknowledged that she did not benefit financially), she took money intended for parliamentary aides and spent it on Party aides. It's an issue of naming.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,676
    boulay said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
    The creators have specifically said that they chose a white boy and a “non problematic” Everyman family specifically to get the message across that this could be anyone’s child - it’s not just young black boys and boys from broken homes with absent fathers.

    Haven’t watched it so I don’t know if that works or not but it was a fair point by them to try and have maximum effect - they are unapologetic about the series having an agenda - stopping young boys being radicalised/marginalised and turning to violence.
    I’ve watched it and, rightly or wrongly, it does have that effect. But there’s also a fairly obvious personal angle: this series was the brainchild of Stephen Graham who played one of the central roles, as the father of the murderer.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,111
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
    Did they "basically copy" the case? How many other similar cases are there? And where there are differences (aside from race), what were the influences of those differences?

    It's almost as though you have an agenda. Only simpletons would believe otherwise... ;)
    As in they literally lifted big chunks of this case into the show because of how awful it was and how far down the rabbit hole the murderer ended up.

    I'm happy that this subject is being covered, I have a daughter and a son after all. I just want the truth to be unvarnished so that people can make their minds up for themselves, not have a bunch of Netflix writers do it for them.
    The 'truth' isn't being unvarnished.

    AIUI it was not a documentary, nor was it meant to be one, or sold as one. These sorts of crimes are sadly committed by people from all sorts of backgrounds. Including yours, and from (what you refer to as) your 'community'.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 9,585

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I confess, I am ignorant of the details of the case.

    Is this an example - like the Trump Hush Money one - where most people will say "that's a ridiculous case that should never have gone to court"? Or is this one where there is a very evidence of wrongdoing?

    Because I think the Trump Hush Money case helped him: many voters thought he was being persecuted for something that wasn't really a crime. (And, of course, this was made all the worse because to the average voter, it looked like the more serious cases weren't real, because otherwise they'd make it to court, right?)

    So: what's the story here?

    My read of it is that Le Pen probably did do the crime but it's probably also true of 99% of politicians in Europe so it looks like the state is targeting her with lawfare because it can't beat her at the ballot box.

    Her failure seems to have been taking the money directly rather than doing what is usually expected in Europe which is to funnel it via dodgy contacts to friends and associates. While it's clearly stupid and illegal, it's not particularly different to the rest of them who are just a bit smarter about their theft.
    She didn't really take it directly (it was acknowledged that she did not benefit financially), she took money intended for parliamentary aides and spent it on Party aides. It's an issue of naming.
    No, it’s an issue of theft.

    The EU allocated money for X

    The FN took the money and spent it on Y.

    It’s the equivalent of spending your expense budget on dinner with your mates.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,444

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I confess, I am ignorant of the details of the case.

    Is this an example - like the Trump Hush Money one - where most people will say "that's a ridiculous case that should never have gone to court"? Or is this one where there is a very evidence of wrongdoing?

    Because I think the Trump Hush Money case helped him: many voters thought he was being persecuted for something that wasn't really a crime. (And, of course, this was made all the worse because to the average voter, it looked like the more serious cases weren't real, because otherwise they'd make it to court, right?)

    So: what's the story here?

    My read of it is that Le Pen probably did do the crime but it's probably also true of 99% of politicians in Europe so it looks like the state is targeting her with lawfare because it can't beat her at the ballot box.

    Her failure seems to have been taking the money directly rather than doing what is usually expected in Europe which is to funnel it via dodgy contacts to friends and associates. While it's clearly stupid and illegal, it's not particularly different to the rest of them who are just a bit smarter about their theft.
    She didn't really take it directly (it was acknowledged that she did not benefit financially), she took money intended for parliamentary aides and spent it on Party aides. It's an issue of naming.
    Which is an inherently political distinction anyway. It seems like an overreach to ban someone from standing for that.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,111
    rcs1000 said:

    Totally off topic:

    Tomorrow has three very significant elections in the US. The most important one is probably the Wisconsin State Supreme Court, where Elon Musk has been paying $100 to voters to sign a petition (that basically agrees to vote for a candidate), *plus* he's giving away $1m to people who turn up to rallies. (Like one person a rally. He's given away $3m on this so far.)

    He's also popping up in rallies across the state, and complaining that George Soros is interfering in the election. (Elon Musk will have spent $30-40m on the election. George Soros's PAC about $5m.)

    The question to me is: will this work, or will it backfire?

    Elon is not as popular as Trump, and the administration has lost popularity since the election. The Democrats also won the Wisconsin Senatorial election even as they lost the Presidential last year.

    So, my gut is that the more liberal candidate will win this one: probably by 5+%.

    And then there are the two Florida Special Elections to replace House members elevated to the Trump Cabinet. Apparently, polling for both of these is what caused the Republicans to pill Elise Stefanik's nomination for UN Ambassador. Neither seat is particularly competitive; I suspect that the Republicans will hold both, but by substantially reduced margins (say net 7% moves in both.)

    *If* the reps lose in Winconsin, it'll be interesting to see if Musk et al accept that, or if they start playing silly beggars and making accusations of electoral interference. Which would be a bit rich...
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 29,842
    boulay said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
    The creators have specifically said that they chose a white boy and a “non problematic” Everyman family specifically to get the message across that this could be anyone’s child - it’s not just young black boys and boys from broken homes with absent fathers.

    Haven’t watched it so I don’t know if that works or not but it was a fair point by them to try and have maximum effect - they are unapologetic about the series having an agenda - stopping young boys being radicalised/marginalised and turning to violence.
    Perhaps a larger issue with Adolescence is that most teenage stabbists are inspired by gang life rather than incel culture.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,537

    I’m a little uncomfortable with the punishment being applied while there is an outstanding appeal. That smacks of her being blocked by l’establishment.

    Although it probably works in her favour in that I’m assuming the appeal would be finalised this year, so the clock just starts earlier

    Isn't that what usually happens? You are found guilty and sentenced, and then you appeal and if you are found not guilty, the sentence is rescinded.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,868

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I confess, I am ignorant of the details of the case.

    Is this an example - like the Trump Hush Money one - where most people will say "that's a ridiculous case that should never have gone to court"? Or is this one where there is a very evidence of wrongdoing?

    Because I think the Trump Hush Money case helped him: many voters thought he was being persecuted for something that wasn't really a crime. (And, of course, this was made all the worse because to the average voter, it looked like the more serious cases weren't real, because otherwise they'd make it to court, right?)

    So: what's the story here?

    My read of it is that Le Pen probably did do the crime but it's probably also true of 99% of politicians in Europe so it looks like the state is targeting her with lawfare because it can't beat her at the ballot box.

    Her failure seems to have been taking the money directly rather than doing what is usually expected in Europe which is to funnel it via dodgy contacts to friends and associates. While it's clearly stupid and illegal, it's not particularly different to the rest of them who are just a bit smarter about their theft.
    She didn't really take it directly (it was acknowledged that she did not benefit financially), she took money intended for parliamentary aides and spent it on Party aides. It's an issue of naming.
    I wonder how many Tories think that benefit fraud is just "just an issue of naming".
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,220
    rcs1000 said:

    Totally off topic:

    Tomorrow has three very significant elections in the US. The most important one is probably the Wisconsin State Supreme Court, where Elon Musk has been paying $100 to voters to sign a petition (that basically agrees to vote for a candidate), *plus* he's giving away $1m to people who turn up to rallies. (Like one person a rally. He's given away $3m on this so far.)

    He's also popping up in rallies across the state, and complaining that George Soros is interfering in the election. (Elon Musk will have spent $30-40m on the election. George Soros's PAC about $5m.)

    The question to me is: will this work, or will it backfire?

    Elon is not as popular as Trump, and the administration has lost popularity since the election. The Democrats also won the Wisconsin Senatorial election even as they lost the Presidential last year.

    So, my gut is that the more liberal candidate will win this one: probably by 5+%.

    And then there are the two Florida Special Elections to replace House members elevated to the Trump Cabinet. Apparently, polling for both of these is what caused the Republicans to pill Elise Stefanik's nomination for UN Ambassador. Neither seat is particularly competitive; I suspect that the Republicans will hold both, but by substantially reduced margins (say net 7% moves in both.)

    Florida 6 was Trump +30 in November. Republican +9 in early voting. BUT that is by designation on record. If there are registered Republicans voting Dem - who knows how close it might be...
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,357
    CJohn said:

    Nigelb said:

    La Plume, surely ?

    Erreur d'écolière.

    You have schoolboy French?

    "La plume" is dated. "Le stylo" is more common.
    I'm glad PB pedantry is going multilingual.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 34,122
    "Loud buskers playing songs on loop across Leicester Square is 'psychological torture', says judge
    Westminster City Council has failed to tackle noise nuisance from buskers in Leicester Square"

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/busking-leicester-square-judge-torture-global-westminster-council-court-b1219805.html
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,794
    Roger said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
    What difference does it make to the story or the message?
    I don't know, it's just the truth of what actually happened. I guess I'm a stickler for it, unlike your friends in those writing rooms.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,444

    boulay said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
    The creators have specifically said that they chose a white boy and a “non problematic” Everyman family specifically to get the message across that this could be anyone’s child - it’s not just young black boys and boys from broken homes with absent fathers.

    Haven’t watched it so I don’t know if that works or not but it was a fair point by them to try and have maximum effect - they are unapologetic about the series having an agenda - stopping young boys being radicalised/marginalised and turning to violence.
    Perhaps a larger issue with Adolescence is that most teenage stabbists are inspired by gang life rather than incel culture.
    Making it about "incel culture" also sexualises children in quite a strange way. A 13-year-old virgin is not an "incel".
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,111
    MaxPB said:

    boulay said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
    The creators have specifically said that they chose a white boy and a “non problematic” Everyman family specifically to get the message across that this could be anyone’s child - it’s not just young black boys and boys from broken homes with absent fathers.

    Haven’t watched it so I don’t know if that works or not but it was a fair point by them to try and have maximum effect - they are unapologetic about the series having an agenda - stopping young boys being radicalised/marginalised and turning to violence.
    But if you look at the actual crime metrics it is boys from problem families and single parent families that are responsible for a huge part of this kind of crime and hatred.

    Society has rapidly gone from telling boys that they're great and can achieve anything to telling them that they're usless, that girls are better, that they're all hyperactive and need to be medicated. It's no surprise that internet personalities that tell them that they're not any of those things and that being masculine isn't bad are all getting lots of airtime with young boys and teenagers. We have feminised society to such an extend that boys are rebelling against that, even girls are beginning to do so (see Gen Z women coming out for Trump).

    Maybe what we need to ask ourselves is why boys are finding solace in these parts of the internet and what we, as a society, have done to drive them into the arms of men who clearly hate women? I guess that's too much work and instead we'll try and ban Andrew Tate and play whack-a-mole with all of the people who pop up to replace him.

    I look at my industry as an example, we have about a dozen "women in tech" programmes that I've been to which is great for women but there's loads of men who graduate and have relevant skills that are struggling too. Women now achieve higher levels of education, have higher employment in their early 20s and have higher overall wages in the early years of their careers. We've done well to help women into the workplace but at the same time we're still pushing on that accelerator despite all of the evidence that women have now caught up and over taken men in the workplace for the younger generations. We're creating a new issue and it's going to have horrible consequences 10 years from now.
    Which company do you work for? If not wanting to give a name, give a sector.

    At your level/grade, what percentage of women are there? Have they 'caught up', or are they still behind in terms of numbers?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 29,842
    Andy_JS said:

    "Loud buskers playing songs on loop across Leicester Square is 'psychological torture', says judge
    Westminster City Council has failed to tackle noise nuisance from buskers in Leicester Square"

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/busking-leicester-square-judge-torture-global-westminster-council-court-b1219805.html

    tbh I cannot remember the last time I saw an unamplified busker in London, even on the tube, although I am sure they must exist.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,393
    Nigelb said:

    Prepare to get royally shafted all over again.

    Thames Water names US private equity group KKR as preferred bidder
    KKR expected to acquire stake worth £4bn as UK’s biggest water supplier tries to stave off nationalisation
    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/mar/31/thames-water-names-us-private-equity-group-kkr-as-preferred-partner

    25% tariff as well as increased charges?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,357
    rcs1000 said:

    I confess, I am ignorant of the details of the case.

    Is this an example - like the Trump Hush Money one - where most people will say "that's a ridiculous case that should never have gone to court"? Or is this one where there is a very evidence of wrongdoing?

    Because I think the Trump Hush Money case helped him: many voters thought he was being persecuted for something that wasn't really a crime. (And, of course, this was made all the worse because to the average voter, it looked like the more serious cases weren't real, because otherwise they'd make it to court, right?)

    So: what's the story here?

    She and others in the party claimed money to pay European Parliament assistants, but the people so employed didn't do any European Parliament work and were just doing party work instead. I think that's fraud to most people. The people existed and they were working for Le Pen et al., but they weren't doing what they were meant to.

    But then I think Trump's hush money case wasn't ridiculous. It was a much lesser case than the others he faced, but he broke the law to hide his wrongdoing.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,357

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
    Did they "basically copy" the case? How many other similar cases are there? And where there are differences (aside from race), what were the influences of those differences?

    It's almost as though you have an agenda. Only simpletons would believe otherwise... ;)
    This is what the people who made the show have said to the claim that it's a race-swapped real case, as Musk has repeated: https://variety.com/2025/tv/global/adolescence-writer-rejects-race-swap-theory-elon-musk-1236352337/
  • eekeek Posts: 29,491

    rcs1000 said:

    Totally off topic:

    Tomorrow has three very significant elections in the US. The most important one is probably the Wisconsin State Supreme Court, where Elon Musk has been paying $100 to voters to sign a petition (that basically agrees to vote for a candidate), *plus* he's giving away $1m to people who turn up to rallies. (Like one person a rally. He's given away $3m on this so far.)

    He's also popping up in rallies across the state, and complaining that George Soros is interfering in the election. (Elon Musk will have spent $30-40m on the election. George Soros's PAC about $5m.)

    The question to me is: will this work, or will it backfire?

    Elon is not as popular as Trump, and the administration has lost popularity since the election. The Democrats also won the Wisconsin Senatorial election even as they lost the Presidential last year.

    So, my gut is that the more liberal candidate will win this one: probably by 5+%.

    And then there are the two Florida Special Elections to replace House members elevated to the Trump Cabinet. Apparently, polling for both of these is what caused the Republicans to pill Elise Stefanik's nomination for UN Ambassador. Neither seat is particularly competitive; I suspect that the Republicans will hold both, but by substantially reduced margins (say net 7% moves in both.)

    *If* the reps lose in Winconsin, it'll be interesting to see if Musk et al accept that, or if they start playing silly beggars and making accusations of electoral interference. Which would be a bit rich...
    If $30m doesn’t buy you an election what else can it be except electoral interference
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,111
    One thing I utterly agree with @MaxPB on (and have put this into a separate comment from where I disagree with him...) is that single parent, and problem, families are a massive, well, problem.

    The problem is also multi-factorial and multi-generational. But IMV one of those major factors is absent fathers, and that is pretty much a male problem. Too many men sleep around, pretending they are studs, and abandon their kids once the relationship with the mothers gets too problematic. And then, naturally enough, blame the mothers. Marriage is not necessarily a 'solution' either, as marriages where two people who no longer love each other are forced to stay together are often utterly toxic for the kids.

    Amazingly enough, David Lammy actually talked a lot of sense about this in the black community. I just don't see enough focus on it now Labour are in government.

    I guess it's another problem that's put on the 'too difficult' pile.

    (Incidentally, I was a fan of the 'Troubled Families' program (now 'Supporting Families'), which was somewhat controversial, but (to me at least) seemed to be targeting the right groups: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Families )
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,933
    I see all the usual suspects from across Europe have started the beatification of Marine Le Pen .

    This is where we’re told this will be great for the RN and it should be left to voters . This of course worked so well in the USA !

    This brings up a question as to what line a politician can’t cross before voters shouldn’t have them as a choice . Say a politician killed someone and was found guilty . If they’re barred from running is this an affront to democracy ?

  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,435

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I confess, I am ignorant of the details of the case.

    Is this an example - like the Trump Hush Money one - where most people will say "that's a ridiculous case that should never have gone to court"? Or is this one where there is a very evidence of wrongdoing?

    Because I think the Trump Hush Money case helped him: many voters thought he was being persecuted for something that wasn't really a crime. (And, of course, this was made all the worse because to the average voter, it looked like the more serious cases weren't real, because otherwise they'd make it to court, right?)

    So: what's the story here?

    My read of it is that Le Pen probably did do the crime but it's probably also true of 99% of politicians in Europe so it looks like the state is targeting her with lawfare because it can't beat her at the ballot box.

    Her failure seems to have been taking the money directly rather than doing what is usually expected in Europe which is to funnel it via dodgy contacts to friends and associates. While it's clearly stupid and illegal, it's not particularly different to the rest of them who are just a bit smarter about their theft.
    She didn't really take it directly (it was acknowledged that she did not benefit financially), she took money intended for parliamentary aides and spent it on Party aides. It's an issue of naming.
    No, it’s an issue of theft.

    The EU allocated money for X

    The FN took the money and spent it on Y.

    It’s the equivalent of spending your expense budget on dinner with your mates.
    Bollocks. Had those people been given parliamentary job titles they could have done as much party work as they liked. In expense terms it's the equivalent of using your T&E card instead of your P card.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,444
    nico67 said:

    I see all the usual suspects from across Europe have started the beatification of Marine Le Pen .

    This is where we’re told this will be great for the RN and it should be left to voters . This of course worked so well in the USA !

    This brings up a question as to what line a politician can’t cross before voters shouldn’t have them as a choice . Say a politician killed someone and was found guilty . If they’re barred from running is this an affront to democracy ?

    This isn't an original problem. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,794

    MaxPB said:

    boulay said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
    The creators have specifically said that they chose a white boy and a “non problematic” Everyman family specifically to get the message across that this could be anyone’s child - it’s not just young black boys and boys from broken homes with absent fathers.

    Haven’t watched it so I don’t know if that works or not but it was a fair point by them to try and have maximum effect - they are unapologetic about the series having an agenda - stopping young boys being radicalised/marginalised and turning to violence.
    But if you look at the actual crime metrics it is boys from problem families and single parent families that are responsible for a huge part of this kind of crime and hatred.

    Society has rapidly gone from telling boys that they're great and can achieve anything to telling them that they're usless, that girls are better, that they're all hyperactive and need to be medicated. It's no surprise that internet personalities that tell them that they're not any of those things and that being masculine isn't bad are all getting lots of airtime with young boys and teenagers. We have feminised society to such an extend that boys are rebelling against that, even girls are beginning to do so (see Gen Z women coming out for Trump).

    Maybe what we need to ask ourselves is why boys are finding solace in these parts of the internet and what we, as a society, have done to drive them into the arms of men who clearly hate women? I guess that's too much work and instead we'll try and ban Andrew Tate and play whack-a-mole with all of the people who pop up to replace him.

    I look at my industry as an example, we have about a dozen "women in tech" programmes that I've been to which is great for women but there's loads of men who graduate and have relevant skills that are struggling too. Women now achieve higher levels of education, have higher employment in their early 20s and have higher overall wages in the early years of their careers. We've done well to help women into the workplace but at the same time we're still pushing on that accelerator despite all of the evidence that women have now caught up and over taken men in the workplace for the younger generations. We're creating a new issue and it's going to have horrible consequences 10 years from now.
    Which company do you work for? If not wanting to give a name, give a sector.

    At your level/grade, what percentage of women are there? Have they 'caught up', or are they still behind in terms of numbers?
    Ah I'm currently unemployed, but I work in the tech sector, specifically within data science.

    It's not my grade that matters for men in the late teens and early 20s, no one is becoming a VP of Data or CDO at that age. I'm talking about all of the graduate programmes and job fairs that specifically help women into the workplace, they've been hugely successful. I literally opened a programme for it at one of my previous workplaces when I was in investment management so we could increase the number of female grads in our intake we went from 90/10 to around 70/30 by the time I left. Though as I did so I recommended that the company freeze or close the programme because any further than that and they really would be taking substandard female candidates over vastly better qualified male ones. Even at 70/30 there was a lot of favouritism towards the women in the process, they got to skip a panel interview and got a 1 on 1 interview instead, they got a much lower pressure home task rather than the live case study the male candidates had to do and we had a lower entry bar on the aptitude test all candidates had to sit to enter into the process.

    I've literally been there and done it, I've walked the walk on helping women into male dominated work places. I'm suggesting that it's probably time to take stock and look at where we are and maybe not push down on the accelerator for it. I don't see how it's controversial.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,357

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I confess, I am ignorant of the details of the case.

    Is this an example - like the Trump Hush Money one - where most people will say "that's a ridiculous case that should never have gone to court"? Or is this one where there is a very evidence of wrongdoing?

    Because I think the Trump Hush Money case helped him: many voters thought he was being persecuted for something that wasn't really a crime. (And, of course, this was made all the worse because to the average voter, it looked like the more serious cases weren't real, because otherwise they'd make it to court, right?)

    So: what's the story here?

    My read of it is that Le Pen probably did do the crime but it's probably also true of 99% of politicians in Europe so it looks like the state is targeting her with lawfare because it can't beat her at the ballot box.

    Her failure seems to have been taking the money directly rather than doing what is usually expected in Europe which is to funnel it via dodgy contacts to friends and associates. While it's clearly stupid and illegal, it's not particularly different to the rest of them who are just a bit smarter about their theft.
    She didn't really take it directly (it was acknowledged that she did not benefit financially), she took money intended for parliamentary aides and spent it on Party aides. It's an issue of naming.
    It's not an "issue of naming". It's an issue of the money being provided to do the former and not the latter. We had several MPs prosecuted for doing roughly similar things with their expenses in the UK a decade and a half ago.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,111
    MaxPB said:

    Roger said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
    What difference does it make to the story or the message?
    I don't know, it's just the truth of what actually happened. I guess I'm a stickler for it, unlike your friends in those writing rooms.
    You don't know the 'truth'. You are taking the word of a 'good friend' of yours in the industry who, unless he was actually intimately involved in the production, has no better idea of what went on than a bloke on the street.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,265
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I confess, I am ignorant of the details of the case.

    Is this an example - like the Trump Hush Money one - where most people will say "that's a ridiculous case that should never have gone to court"? Or is this one where there is a very evidence of wrongdoing?

    Because I think the Trump Hush Money case helped him: many voters thought he was being persecuted for something that wasn't really a crime. (And, of course, this was made all the worse because to the average voter, it looked like the more serious cases weren't real, because otherwise they'd make it to court, right?)

    So: what's the story here?

    My read of it is that Le Pen probably did do the crime but it's probably also true of 99% of politicians in Europe so it looks like the state is targeting her with lawfare because it can't beat her at the ballot box.

    Her failure seems to have been taking the money directly rather than doing what is usually expected in Europe which is to funnel it via dodgy contacts to friends and associates. While it's clearly stupid and illegal, it's not particularly different to the rest of them who are just a bit smarter about their theft.
    so she did exactly the same as everyone else, except stupidly and illegally?
  • boulayboulay Posts: 6,047
    MaxPB said:

    boulay said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
    The creators have specifically said that they chose a white boy and a “non problematic” Everyman family specifically to get the message across that this could be anyone’s child - it’s not just young black boys and boys from broken homes with absent fathers.

    Haven’t watched it so I don’t know if that works or not but it was a fair point by them to try and have maximum effect - they are unapologetic about the series having an agenda - stopping young boys being radicalised/marginalised and turning to violence.
    But if you look at the actual crime metrics it is boys from problem families and single parent families that are responsible for a huge part of this kind of crime and hatred.

    Society has rapidly gone from telling boys that they're great and can achieve anything to telling them that they're usless, that girls are better, that they're all hyperactive and need to be medicated. It's no surprise that internet personalities that tell them that they're not any of those things and that being masculine isn't bad are all getting lots of airtime with young boys and teenagers. We have feminised society to such an extend that boys are rebelling against that, even girls are beginning to do so (see Gen Z women coming out for Trump).

    Maybe what we need to ask ourselves is why boys are finding solace in these parts of the internet and what we, as a society, have done to drive them into the arms of men who clearly hate women? I guess that's too much work and instead we'll try and ban Andrew Tate and play whack-a-mole with all of the people who pop up to replace him.

    I look at my industry as an example, we have about a dozen "women in tech" programmes that I've been to which is great for women but there's loads of men who graduate and have relevant skills that are struggling too. Women now achieve higher levels of education, have higher employment in their early 20s and have higher overall wages in the early years of their careers. We've done well to help women into the workplace but at the same time we're still pushing on that accelerator despite all of the evidence that women have now caught up and over taken men in the workplace for the younger generations. We're creating a new issue and it's going to have horrible consequences 10 years from now.
    Agreed (I wasn’t disagreeing with your points btw just giving some background I had read).

    The other big issue for men/women in the workplace and women overtaking men is maternity leave.

    I’ve mentioned on here before how senior doctor friends, male and female, are very concerned about there being more female medics but a good chunk will be lost each year to maternity leave and many won’t go back after.

    It’s not something my friends feel they can mention where it really matters but question whether medical schools need to try and re-weight in favour of men.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,444
    kamski said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I confess, I am ignorant of the details of the case.

    Is this an example - like the Trump Hush Money one - where most people will say "that's a ridiculous case that should never have gone to court"? Or is this one where there is a very evidence of wrongdoing?

    Because I think the Trump Hush Money case helped him: many voters thought he was being persecuted for something that wasn't really a crime. (And, of course, this was made all the worse because to the average voter, it looked like the more serious cases weren't real, because otherwise they'd make it to court, right?)

    So: what's the story here?

    My read of it is that Le Pen probably did do the crime but it's probably also true of 99% of politicians in Europe so it looks like the state is targeting her with lawfare because it can't beat her at the ballot box.

    Her failure seems to have been taking the money directly rather than doing what is usually expected in Europe which is to funnel it via dodgy contacts to friends and associates. While it's clearly stupid and illegal, it's not particularly different to the rest of them who are just a bit smarter about their theft.
    so she did exactly the same as everyone else, except stupidly and illegally?
    If French voters think it's legitimate to use EU staff funds to further the domestic political agenda of their preferred party, why shouldn't they have the right to vote for Le Pen despite the conviction?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,357

    MaxPB said:

    boulay said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
    The creators have specifically said that they chose a white boy and a “non problematic” Everyman family specifically to get the message across that this could be anyone’s child - it’s not just young black boys and boys from broken homes with absent fathers.

    Haven’t watched it so I don’t know if that works or not but it was a fair point by them to try and have maximum effect - they are unapologetic about the series having an agenda - stopping young boys being radicalised/marginalised and turning to violence.
    But if you look at the actual crime metrics it is boys from problem families and single parent families that are responsible for a huge part of this kind of crime and hatred.

    Society has rapidly gone from telling boys that they're great and can achieve anything to telling them that they're usless, that girls are better, that they're all hyperactive and need to be medicated. It's no surprise that internet personalities that tell them that they're not any of those things and that being masculine isn't bad are all getting lots of airtime with young boys and teenagers. We have feminised society to such an extend that boys are rebelling against that, even girls are beginning to do so (see Gen Z women coming out for Trump).

    Maybe what we need to ask ourselves is why boys are finding solace in these parts of the internet and what we, as a society, have done to drive them into the arms of men who clearly hate women? I guess that's too much work and instead we'll try and ban Andrew Tate and play whack-a-mole with all of the people who pop up to replace him.

    I look at my industry as an example, we have about a dozen "women in tech" programmes that I've been to which is great for women but there's loads of men who graduate and have relevant skills that are struggling too. Women now achieve higher levels of education, have higher employment in their early 20s and have higher overall wages in the early years of their careers. We've done well to help women into the workplace but at the same time we're still pushing on that accelerator despite all of the evidence that women have now caught up and over taken men in the workplace for the younger generations. We're creating a new issue and it's going to have horrible consequences 10 years from now.
    Which company do you work for? If not wanting to give a name, give a sector.

    At your level/grade, what percentage of women are there? Have they 'caught up', or are they still behind in terms of numbers?
    He mentions the tech sector. Let's look at computer science then. This is from the BCS last year:

    "Computing at Higher Education is increasingly seen as a good choice by students - particularly by women - according to data from university admissions service, UCAS released today. This year, 2,940 UK-domiciled 18-year-old women have accepted a place to study the subject, up 8% from 2023/24 (out of 15,530 18-year-old UK-domiciled acceptances for Computing).

    "The male to female ratio in this area is also continuing to close slowly - with an ongoing trend towards increased participation by female students (below 4:1). However, the difference remains wide and there is still a long way to go in terms of closing the gender gap - according to BCS analysis.

    "Overall entries at A level are up 12% with 29% growth in the number of females in England taking Computer Science at A level and a 9% increase in the number of males studying the subject. The gender ratio continues to move in right direction (now below 5:1) in this area too - BCS added. Meanwhile, females are outperforming males at all grades for A levels - this is similar across all nations."

    In other words, women are still massively underrepresented in computer science.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 20,264
    MaxPB said:

    Roger said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
    What difference does it make to the story or the message?
    I don't know, it's just the truth of what actually happened. I guess I'm a stickler for it, unlike your friends in those writing rooms.
    It worked dramatically which is the reason it's been so well received. It was necessary for the boy to look like someone who butter wouldn't melt in their mouth and for that the casting was perfect. They could have given him an ethnicity but that might have given the story a bias. As they could have made him tall or fat but the same would apply. He needed to be 'anyboy'

    A true story might have given the writer his inspiration but there's no way he set out to tell it as a real happening..
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,444

    MaxPB said:

    boulay said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
    The creators have specifically said that they chose a white boy and a “non problematic” Everyman family specifically to get the message across that this could be anyone’s child - it’s not just young black boys and boys from broken homes with absent fathers.

    Haven’t watched it so I don’t know if that works or not but it was a fair point by them to try and have maximum effect - they are unapologetic about the series having an agenda - stopping young boys being radicalised/marginalised and turning to violence.
    But if you look at the actual crime metrics it is boys from problem families and single parent families that are responsible for a huge part of this kind of crime and hatred.

    Society has rapidly gone from telling boys that they're great and can achieve anything to telling them that they're usless, that girls are better, that they're all hyperactive and need to be medicated. It's no surprise that internet personalities that tell them that they're not any of those things and that being masculine isn't bad are all getting lots of airtime with young boys and teenagers. We have feminised society to such an extend that boys are rebelling against that, even girls are beginning to do so (see Gen Z women coming out for Trump).

    Maybe what we need to ask ourselves is why boys are finding solace in these parts of the internet and what we, as a society, have done to drive them into the arms of men who clearly hate women? I guess that's too much work and instead we'll try and ban Andrew Tate and play whack-a-mole with all of the people who pop up to replace him.

    I look at my industry as an example, we have about a dozen "women in tech" programmes that I've been to which is great for women but there's loads of men who graduate and have relevant skills that are struggling too. Women now achieve higher levels of education, have higher employment in their early 20s and have higher overall wages in the early years of their careers. We've done well to help women into the workplace but at the same time we're still pushing on that accelerator despite all of the evidence that women have now caught up and over taken men in the workplace for the younger generations. We're creating a new issue and it's going to have horrible consequences 10 years from now.
    Which company do you work for? If not wanting to give a name, give a sector.

    At your level/grade, what percentage of women are there? Have they 'caught up', or are they still behind in terms of numbers?
    He mentions the tech sector. Let's look at computer science then. This is from the BCS last year:

    "Computing at Higher Education is increasingly seen as a good choice by students - particularly by women - according to data from university admissions service, UCAS released today. This year, 2,940 UK-domiciled 18-year-old women have accepted a place to study the subject, up 8% from 2023/24 (out of 15,530 18-year-old UK-domiciled acceptances for Computing).

    "The male to female ratio in this area is also continuing to close slowly - with an ongoing trend towards increased participation by female students (below 4:1). However, the difference remains wide and there is still a long way to go in terms of closing the gender gap - according to BCS analysis.

    "Overall entries at A level are up 12% with 29% growth in the number of females in England taking Computer Science at A level and a 9% increase in the number of males studying the subject. The gender ratio continues to move in right direction (now below 5:1) in this area too - BCS added. Meanwhile, females are outperforming males at all grades for A levels - this is similar across all nations."

    In other words, women are still massively underrepresented in computer science.
    What's the correct level of representation?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,794
    boulay said:

    MaxPB said:

    boulay said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
    The creators have specifically said that they chose a white boy and a “non problematic” Everyman family specifically to get the message across that this could be anyone’s child - it’s not just young black boys and boys from broken homes with absent fathers.

    Haven’t watched it so I don’t know if that works or not but it was a fair point by them to try and have maximum effect - they are unapologetic about the series having an agenda - stopping young boys being radicalised/marginalised and turning to violence.
    But if you look at the actual crime metrics it is boys from problem families and single parent families that are responsible for a huge part of this kind of crime and hatred.

    Society has rapidly gone from telling boys that they're great and can achieve anything to telling them that they're usless, that girls are better, that they're all hyperactive and need to be medicated. It's no surprise that internet personalities that tell them that they're not any of those things and that being masculine isn't bad are all getting lots of airtime with young boys and teenagers. We have feminised society to such an extend that boys are rebelling against that, even girls are beginning to do so (see Gen Z women coming out for Trump).

    Maybe what we need to ask ourselves is why boys are finding solace in these parts of the internet and what we, as a society, have done to drive them into the arms of men who clearly hate women? I guess that's too much work and instead we'll try and ban Andrew Tate and play whack-a-mole with all of the people who pop up to replace him.

    I look at my industry as an example, we have about a dozen "women in tech" programmes that I've been to which is great for women but there's loads of men who graduate and have relevant skills that are struggling too. Women now achieve higher levels of education, have higher employment in their early 20s and have higher overall wages in the early years of their careers. We've done well to help women into the workplace but at the same time we're still pushing on that accelerator despite all of the evidence that women have now caught up and over taken men in the workplace for the younger generations. We're creating a new issue and it's going to have horrible consequences 10 years from now.
    Agreed (I wasn’t disagreeing with your points btw just giving some background I had read).

    The other big issue for men/women in the workplace and women overtaking men is maternity leave.

    I’ve mentioned on here before how senior doctor friends, male and female, are very concerned about there being more female medics but a good chunk will be lost each year to maternity leave and many won’t go back after.

    It’s not something my friends feel they can mention where it really matters but question whether medical schools need to try and re-weight in favour of men.
    It's actually a huge problem for general medicine. Lots of GPs are women who come back on part time hours after having kids leaving a really big staffing gap which requires expensive locums to fill and the NHS gets torched in the process.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,825
    kamski said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I confess, I am ignorant of the details of the case.

    Is this an example - like the Trump Hush Money one - where most people will say "that's a ridiculous case that should never have gone to court"? Or is this one where there is a very evidence of wrongdoing?

    Because I think the Trump Hush Money case helped him: many voters thought he was being persecuted for something that wasn't really a crime. (And, of course, this was made all the worse because to the average voter, it looked like the more serious cases weren't real, because otherwise they'd make it to court, right?)

    So: what's the story here?

    My read of it is that Le Pen probably did do the crime but it's probably also true of 99% of politicians in Europe so it looks like the state is targeting her with lawfare because it can't beat her at the ballot box.

    Her failure seems to have been taking the money directly rather than doing what is usually expected in Europe which is to funnel it via dodgy contacts to friends and associates. While it's clearly stupid and illegal, it's not particularly different to the rest of them who are just a bit smarter about their theft.
    so she did exactly the same as everyone else, except stupidly and illegally?
    Bit like Trump not getting people to give him stock options at ludicrous strike prices. That would be legal.

    Instead he does stuff like TrumpCoin.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,496
    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Also age. Sentamu was 17 when he killed Elianne Andam. That's quite a big difference.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 45,111
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    boulay said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
    The creators have specifically said that they chose a white boy and a “non problematic” Everyman family specifically to get the message across that this could be anyone’s child - it’s not just young black boys and boys from broken homes with absent fathers.

    Haven’t watched it so I don’t know if that works or not but it was a fair point by them to try and have maximum effect - they are unapologetic about the series having an agenda - stopping young boys being radicalised/marginalised and turning to violence.
    But if you look at the actual crime metrics it is boys from problem families and single parent families that are responsible for a huge part of this kind of crime and hatred.

    Society has rapidly gone from telling boys that they're great and can achieve anything to telling them that they're usless, that girls are better, that they're all hyperactive and need to be medicated. It's no surprise that internet personalities that tell them that they're not any of those things and that being masculine isn't bad are all getting lots of airtime with young boys and teenagers. We have feminised society to such an extend that boys are rebelling against that, even girls are beginning to do so (see Gen Z women coming out for Trump).

    Maybe what we need to ask ourselves is why boys are finding solace in these parts of the internet and what we, as a society, have done to drive them into the arms of men who clearly hate women? I guess that's too much work and instead we'll try and ban Andrew Tate and play whack-a-mole with all of the people who pop up to replace him.

    I look at my industry as an example, we have about a dozen "women in tech" programmes that I've been to which is great for women but there's loads of men who graduate and have relevant skills that are struggling too. Women now achieve higher levels of education, have higher employment in their early 20s and have higher overall wages in the early years of their careers. We've done well to help women into the workplace but at the same time we're still pushing on that accelerator despite all of the evidence that women have now caught up and over taken men in the workplace for the younger generations. We're creating a new issue and it's going to have horrible consequences 10 years from now.
    Which company do you work for? If not wanting to give a name, give a sector.

    At your level/grade, what percentage of women are there? Have they 'caught up', or are they still behind in terms of numbers?
    Ah I'm currently unemployed, but I work in the tech sector, specifically within data science.

    It's not my grade that matters for men in the late teens and early 20s, no one is becoming a VP of Data or CDO at that age. I'm talking about all of the graduate programmes and job fairs that specifically help women into the workplace, they've been hugely successful. I literally opened a programme for it at one of my previous workplaces when I was in investment management so we could increase the number of female grads in our intake we went from 90/10 to around 70/30 by the time I left. Though as I did so I recommended that the company freeze or close the programme because any further than that and they really would be taking substandard female candidates over vastly better qualified male ones. Even at 70/30 there was a lot of favouritism towards the women in the process, they got to skip a panel interview and got a 1 on 1 interview instead, they got a much lower pressure home task rather than the live case study the male candidates had to do and we had a lower entry bar on the aptitude test all candidates had to sit to enter into the process.

    I've literally been there and done it, I've walked the walk on helping women into male dominated work places. I'm suggesting that it's probably time to take stock and look at where we are and maybe not push down on the accelerator for it. I don't see how it's controversial.
    That's not what I'm seeing in other tech companies, anecdotally. It's still massively male-dominated.

    Mrs J is involved with groups at Cambridge University helping women into engineering. Help is still needed: at Cambridge, female admissions into engineering courses are *well* below male:

    "In 2021, the most recent year for which data is available, there were 2143 applications from men and 616 from women, whereas in 2001 the numbers were 691 vs 179." (1).

    And the number of women in engineering and tech in the UK is actually decreasing:

    "The number of women working in engineering and tech has dropped by 38,000 – from 16.5% of the 2022 workforce to 15.7% of the 2023 workforce" (2)

    So unless you have better figures, your situation seems very unusual.

    (1); https://magazine.cues.org.uk/iwd-women-and-undergraduate-admissions/
    (2): https://www.engineeringuk.com/research-and-insights/our-research-reports/women-in-engineering-and-technology/
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,496

    rcs1000 said:

    I confess, I am ignorant of the details of the case.

    Is this an example - like the Trump Hush Money one - where most people will say "that's a ridiculous case that should never have gone to court"? Or is this one where there is a very evidence of wrongdoing?

    Because I think the Trump Hush Money case helped him: many voters thought he was being persecuted for something that wasn't really a crime. (And, of course, this was made all the worse because to the average voter, it looked like the more serious cases weren't real, because otherwise they'd make it to court, right?)

    So: what's the story here?

    She and others in the party claimed money to pay European Parliament assistants, but the people so employed didn't do any European Parliament work and were just doing party work instead. I think that's fraud to most people. The people existed and they were working for Le Pen et al., but they weren't doing what they were meant to.

    But then I think Trump's hush money case wasn't ridiculous. It was a much lesser case than the others he faced, but he broke the law to hide his wrongdoing.
    I'm sure no one else plays that game with EU money.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,357

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I confess, I am ignorant of the details of the case.

    Is this an example - like the Trump Hush Money one - where most people will say "that's a ridiculous case that should never have gone to court"? Or is this one where there is a very evidence of wrongdoing?

    Because I think the Trump Hush Money case helped him: many voters thought he was being persecuted for something that wasn't really a crime. (And, of course, this was made all the worse because to the average voter, it looked like the more serious cases weren't real, because otherwise they'd make it to court, right?)

    So: what's the story here?

    My read of it is that Le Pen probably did do the crime but it's probably also true of 99% of politicians in Europe so it looks like the state is targeting her with lawfare because it can't beat her at the ballot box.

    Her failure seems to have been taking the money directly rather than doing what is usually expected in Europe which is to funnel it via dodgy contacts to friends and associates. While it's clearly stupid and illegal, it's not particularly different to the rest of them who are just a bit smarter about their theft.
    She didn't really take it directly (it was acknowledged that she did not benefit financially), she took money intended for parliamentary aides and spent it on Party aides. It's an issue of naming.
    No, it’s an issue of theft.

    The EU allocated money for X

    The FN took the money and spent it on Y.

    It’s the equivalent of spending your expense budget on dinner with your mates.
    Bollocks. Had those people been given parliamentary job titles they could have done as much party work as they liked. In expense terms it's the equivalent of using your T&E card instead of your P card.
    I have a job. I have a job specification. While I have a lot of autonomy, I am meant to do what I am employed to do. If I did something different, that would be a problem.

    I have someone who reports to me. She has a job specification. She is meant to do what she is employed to do. If she did something different, that would be a problem. Her salary comes from an outside source. That source would be displeased and expect their money back if she did something different.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,357
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    boulay said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
    The creators have specifically said that they chose a white boy and a “non problematic” Everyman family specifically to get the message across that this could be anyone’s child - it’s not just young black boys and boys from broken homes with absent fathers.

    Haven’t watched it so I don’t know if that works or not but it was a fair point by them to try and have maximum effect - they are unapologetic about the series having an agenda - stopping young boys being radicalised/marginalised and turning to violence.
    But if you look at the actual crime metrics it is boys from problem families and single parent families that are responsible for a huge part of this kind of crime and hatred.

    Society has rapidly gone from telling boys that they're great and can achieve anything to telling them that they're usless, that girls are better, that they're all hyperactive and need to be medicated. It's no surprise that internet personalities that tell them that they're not any of those things and that being masculine isn't bad are all getting lots of airtime with young boys and teenagers. We have feminised society to such an extend that boys are rebelling against that, even girls are beginning to do so (see Gen Z women coming out for Trump).

    Maybe what we need to ask ourselves is why boys are finding solace in these parts of the internet and what we, as a society, have done to drive them into the arms of men who clearly hate women? I guess that's too much work and instead we'll try and ban Andrew Tate and play whack-a-mole with all of the people who pop up to replace him.

    I look at my industry as an example, we have about a dozen "women in tech" programmes that I've been to which is great for women but there's loads of men who graduate and have relevant skills that are struggling too. Women now achieve higher levels of education, have higher employment in their early 20s and have higher overall wages in the early years of their careers. We've done well to help women into the workplace but at the same time we're still pushing on that accelerator despite all of the evidence that women have now caught up and over taken men in the workplace for the younger generations. We're creating a new issue and it's going to have horrible consequences 10 years from now.
    Which company do you work for? If not wanting to give a name, give a sector.

    At your level/grade, what percentage of women are there? Have they 'caught up', or are they still behind in terms of numbers?
    Ah I'm currently unemployed, but I work in the tech sector, specifically within data science.

    It's not my grade that matters for men in the late teens and early 20s, no one is becoming a VP of Data or CDO at that age. I'm talking about all of the graduate programmes and job fairs that specifically help women into the workplace, they've been hugely successful. I literally opened a programme for it at one of my previous workplaces when I was in investment management so we could increase the number of female grads in our intake we went from 90/10 to around 70/30 by the time I left. Though as I did so I recommended that the company freeze or close the programme because any further than that and they really would be taking substandard female candidates over vastly better qualified male ones. Even at 70/30 there was a lot of favouritism towards the women in the process, they got to skip a panel interview and got a 1 on 1 interview instead, they got a much lower pressure home task rather than the live case study the male candidates had to do and we had a lower entry bar on the aptitude test all candidates had to sit to enter into the process.

    I've literally been there and done it, I've walked the walk on helping women into male dominated work places. I'm suggesting that it's probably time to take stock and look at where we are and maybe not push down on the accelerator for it. I don't see how it's controversial.
    The Alan Turing Institute says women make up 22% of AI and data professionals. So, I'd suggest a bit of a way to go...
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,994

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I confess, I am ignorant of the details of the case.

    Is this an example - like the Trump Hush Money one - where most people will say "that's a ridiculous case that should never have gone to court"? Or is this one where there is a very evidence of wrongdoing?

    Because I think the Trump Hush Money case helped him: many voters thought he was being persecuted for something that wasn't really a crime. (And, of course, this was made all the worse because to the average voter, it looked like the more serious cases weren't real, because otherwise they'd make it to court, right?)

    So: what's the story here?

    My read of it is that Le Pen probably did do the crime but it's probably also true of 99% of politicians in Europe so it looks like the state is targeting her with lawfare because it can't beat her at the ballot box.

    Her failure seems to have been taking the money directly rather than doing what is usually expected in Europe which is to funnel it via dodgy contacts to friends and associates. While it's clearly stupid and illegal, it's not particularly different to the rest of them who are just a bit smarter about their theft.
    She didn't really take it directly (it was acknowledged that she did not benefit financially), she took money intended for parliamentary aides and spent it on Party aides. It's an issue of naming.
    No, it’s an issue of theft.

    The EU allocated money for X

    The FN took the money and spent it on Y.

    It’s the equivalent of spending your expense budget on dinner with your mates.
    Bollocks. Had those people been given parliamentary job titles they could have done as much party work as they liked. In expense terms it's the equivalent of using your T&E card instead of your P card.
    Bit like if your granny had balls she would be your grandpa you are saying.
  • nico67nico67 Posts: 4,933
    UK is to order more F35s .

    More begging from Starmer for some scraps from the tariff buffet table .
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,496
    TimS said:

    I’m not sure if everyone debating Adolescence today has watched it, but if not I thoroughly recommend it.

    Above all it is a brilliant piece of TV drama. The single shot format works incredibly well and is a technical triumph, the acting is powerful - episodes 3 and 1 in particular - and it definitely does make you think.

    What it isn’t is a clunky polemic or a piece of worthy writing weighed down by its need to make a point. You don’t come away feeling you’ve been lectured to, or that there are any answers being offered. This isn’t bowling for columbine.

    As I said before, if Netflix do the decent thing and make it free to air, I'll watch it. But my Sky Sports, TNT and BBC subs are enough for me.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 9,585

    I’m a little uncomfortable with the punishment being applied while there is an outstanding appeal. That smacks of her being blocked by l’establishment.

    Although it probably works in her favour in that I’m assuming the appeal would be finalised this year, so the clock just starts earlier

    Isn't that what usually happens? You are found guilty and sentenced, and then you appeal and if you are found not guilty, the sentence is rescinded.
    In the case of jail sentences, for example, you are usually bailed pending an appeal.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,794

    MaxPB said:

    boulay said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
    The creators have specifically said that they chose a white boy and a “non problematic” Everyman family specifically to get the message across that this could be anyone’s child - it’s not just young black boys and boys from broken homes with absent fathers.

    Haven’t watched it so I don’t know if that works or not but it was a fair point by them to try and have maximum effect - they are unapologetic about the series having an agenda - stopping young boys being radicalised/marginalised and turning to violence.
    But if you look at the actual crime metrics it is boys from problem families and single parent families that are responsible for a huge part of this kind of crime and hatred.

    Society has rapidly gone from telling boys that they're great and can achieve anything to telling them that they're usless, that girls are better, that they're all hyperactive and need to be medicated. It's no surprise that internet personalities that tell them that they're not any of those things and that being masculine isn't bad are all getting lots of airtime with young boys and teenagers. We have feminised society to such an extend that boys are rebelling against that, even girls are beginning to do so (see Gen Z women coming out for Trump).

    Maybe what we need to ask ourselves is why boys are finding solace in these parts of the internet and what we, as a society, have done to drive them into the arms of men who clearly hate women? I guess that's too much work and instead we'll try and ban Andrew Tate and play whack-a-mole with all of the people who pop up to replace him.

    I look at my industry as an example, we have about a dozen "women in tech" programmes that I've been to which is great for women but there's loads of men who graduate and have relevant skills that are struggling too. Women now achieve higher levels of education, have higher employment in their early 20s and have higher overall wages in the early years of their careers. We've done well to help women into the workplace but at the same time we're still pushing on that accelerator despite all of the evidence that women have now caught up and over taken men in the workplace for the younger generations. We're creating a new issue and it's going to have horrible consequences 10 years from now.
    Which company do you work for? If not wanting to give a name, give a sector.

    At your level/grade, what percentage of women are there? Have they 'caught up', or are they still behind in terms of numbers?
    He mentions the tech sector. Let's look at computer science then. This is from the BCS last year:

    "Computing at Higher Education is increasingly seen as a good choice by students - particularly by women - according to data from university admissions service, UCAS released today. This year, 2,940 UK-domiciled 18-year-old women have accepted a place to study the subject, up 8% from 2023/24 (out of 15,530 18-year-old UK-domiciled acceptances for Computing).

    "The male to female ratio in this area is also continuing to close slowly - with an ongoing trend towards increased participation by female students (below 4:1). However, the difference remains wide and there is still a long way to go in terms of closing the gender gap - according to BCS analysis.

    "Overall entries at A level are up 12% with 29% growth in the number of females in England taking Computer Science at A level and a 9% increase in the number of males studying the subject. The gender ratio continues to move in right direction (now below 5:1) in this area too - BCS added. Meanwhile, females are outperforming males at all grades for A levels - this is similar across all nations."

    In other words, women are still massively underrepresented in computer science.
    You're a moron. You have literally no clue about any of this, I've been tackling this issue for at least 10 years and have made female specific pathways into both finance and tech. Fundamentally what it boils down to, especially in tech, is that boys are geeks and love to do things with computers - gaming, coding, taking them apart and rebuilding them - you name it a boy aged 14 has probably done it. Girls just don't have that interest, some do and they make up the 30% but computing/tech is simply never going to be an industry where it has 50/50 representation. Boys and girls brains aren't the same and never will be despite stupid people suggesting they are or can be.

    Representation shouldn't be about getting to some idiotic idea of 50/50 in a given industry, it should be about making sure that anyone who has the capability to do it isn't locked out of doing so because of their sex (or race etc...) which sadly has been the case in both finance and tech for a very long time, though it's nowhere near as bad as it was in the 00s when I started working in tech.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 54,444
    https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/1906717297089167398

    The challenges raised by Adolescence aren't something we can simply legislate for — if I could pull a lever to solve it, I would.

    It's only by listening and learning from the experiences of young people and charities that we can tackle this.

    That's what I've been doing today.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,794
    tlg86 said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Also age. Sentamu was 17 when he killed Elianne Andam. That's quite a big difference.
    It's also where the incel vibes in the show come from, a 17 year old is almost a man and will take rejection from girls quite differently to a 13 year old boy.

    Again, I'm not suggesting it's a bad show, it isn't, but if they'd used an actor who was a bit older and matched the case better it would have told a different (and equally valid) story, but maybe wouldn't have grabbed the nation's attention in the same way. Netflix made changes that helped the show gain an audience but it also doesn't tell a story that is necessarily true so it's quite cynical.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,357

    MaxPB said:

    boulay said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
    The creators have specifically said that they chose a white boy and a “non problematic” Everyman family specifically to get the message across that this could be anyone’s child - it’s not just young black boys and boys from broken homes with absent fathers.

    Haven’t watched it so I don’t know if that works or not but it was a fair point by them to try and have maximum effect - they are unapologetic about the series having an agenda - stopping young boys being radicalised/marginalised and turning to violence.
    But if you look at the actual crime metrics it is boys from problem families and single parent families that are responsible for a huge part of this kind of crime and hatred.

    Society has rapidly gone from telling boys that they're great and can achieve anything to telling them that they're usless, that girls are better, that they're all hyperactive and need to be medicated. It's no surprise that internet personalities that tell them that they're not any of those things and that being masculine isn't bad are all getting lots of airtime with young boys and teenagers. We have feminised society to such an extend that boys are rebelling against that, even girls are beginning to do so (see Gen Z women coming out for Trump).

    Maybe what we need to ask ourselves is why boys are finding solace in these parts of the internet and what we, as a society, have done to drive them into the arms of men who clearly hate women? I guess that's too much work and instead we'll try and ban Andrew Tate and play whack-a-mole with all of the people who pop up to replace him.

    I look at my industry as an example, we have about a dozen "women in tech" programmes that I've been to which is great for women but there's loads of men who graduate and have relevant skills that are struggling too. Women now achieve higher levels of education, have higher employment in their early 20s and have higher overall wages in the early years of their careers. We've done well to help women into the workplace but at the same time we're still pushing on that accelerator despite all of the evidence that women have now caught up and over taken men in the workplace for the younger generations. We're creating a new issue and it's going to have horrible consequences 10 years from now.
    Which company do you work for? If not wanting to give a name, give a sector.

    At your level/grade, what percentage of women are there? Have they 'caught up', or are they still behind in terms of numbers?
    He mentions the tech sector. Let's look at computer science then. This is from the BCS last year:

    "Computing at Higher Education is increasingly seen as a good choice by students - particularly by women - according to data from university admissions service, UCAS released today. This year, 2,940 UK-domiciled 18-year-old women have accepted a place to study the subject, up 8% from 2023/24 (out of 15,530 18-year-old UK-domiciled acceptances for Computing).

    "The male to female ratio in this area is also continuing to close slowly - with an ongoing trend towards increased participation by female students (below 4:1). However, the difference remains wide and there is still a long way to go in terms of closing the gender gap - according to BCS analysis.

    "Overall entries at A level are up 12% with 29% growth in the number of females in England taking Computer Science at A level and a 9% increase in the number of males studying the subject. The gender ratio continues to move in right direction (now below 5:1) in this area too - BCS added. Meanwhile, females are outperforming males at all grades for A levels - this is similar across all nations."

    In other words, women are still massively underrepresented in computer science.
    What's the correct level of representation?
    That the figures are very different to the overall population suggests the field is biased against women. I work adjacent to computer science and that accords with my experience. I want people to have the choice to go into the field of work they want to, and for employers to get the best people for their positions. That isn't happening if there's a bias against women.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,357
    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I confess, I am ignorant of the details of the case.

    Is this an example - like the Trump Hush Money one - where most people will say "that's a ridiculous case that should never have gone to court"? Or is this one where there is a very evidence of wrongdoing?

    Because I think the Trump Hush Money case helped him: many voters thought he was being persecuted for something that wasn't really a crime. (And, of course, this was made all the worse because to the average voter, it looked like the more serious cases weren't real, because otherwise they'd make it to court, right?)

    So: what's the story here?

    She and others in the party claimed money to pay European Parliament assistants, but the people so employed didn't do any European Parliament work and were just doing party work instead. I think that's fraud to most people. The people existed and they were working for Le Pen et al., but they weren't doing what they were meant to.

    But then I think Trump's hush money case wasn't ridiculous. It was a much lesser case than the others he faced, but he broke the law to hide his wrongdoing.
    I'm sure no one else plays that game with EU money.
    The existence of other crimes is not a reason to not prosecute the criminal you've caught.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,794

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    boulay said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
    The creators have specifically said that they chose a white boy and a “non problematic” Everyman family specifically to get the message across that this could be anyone’s child - it’s not just young black boys and boys from broken homes with absent fathers.

    Haven’t watched it so I don’t know if that works or not but it was a fair point by them to try and have maximum effect - they are unapologetic about the series having an agenda - stopping young boys being radicalised/marginalised and turning to violence.
    But if you look at the actual crime metrics it is boys from problem families and single parent families that are responsible for a huge part of this kind of crime and hatred.

    Society has rapidly gone from telling boys that they're great and can achieve anything to telling them that they're usless, that girls are better, that they're all hyperactive and need to be medicated. It's no surprise that internet personalities that tell them that they're not any of those things and that being masculine isn't bad are all getting lots of airtime with young boys and teenagers. We have feminised society to such an extend that boys are rebelling against that, even girls are beginning to do so (see Gen Z women coming out for Trump).

    Maybe what we need to ask ourselves is why boys are finding solace in these parts of the internet and what we, as a society, have done to drive them into the arms of men who clearly hate women? I guess that's too much work and instead we'll try and ban Andrew Tate and play whack-a-mole with all of the people who pop up to replace him.

    I look at my industry as an example, we have about a dozen "women in tech" programmes that I've been to which is great for women but there's loads of men who graduate and have relevant skills that are struggling too. Women now achieve higher levels of education, have higher employment in their early 20s and have higher overall wages in the early years of their careers. We've done well to help women into the workplace but at the same time we're still pushing on that accelerator despite all of the evidence that women have now caught up and over taken men in the workplace for the younger generations. We're creating a new issue and it's going to have horrible consequences 10 years from now.
    Which company do you work for? If not wanting to give a name, give a sector.

    At your level/grade, what percentage of women are there? Have they 'caught up', or are they still behind in terms of numbers?
    Ah I'm currently unemployed, but I work in the tech sector, specifically within data science.

    It's not my grade that matters for men in the late teens and early 20s, no one is becoming a VP of Data or CDO at that age. I'm talking about all of the graduate programmes and job fairs that specifically help women into the workplace, they've been hugely successful. I literally opened a programme for it at one of my previous workplaces when I was in investment management so we could increase the number of female grads in our intake we went from 90/10 to around 70/30 by the time I left. Though as I did so I recommended that the company freeze or close the programme because any further than that and they really would be taking substandard female candidates over vastly better qualified male ones. Even at 70/30 there was a lot of favouritism towards the women in the process, they got to skip a panel interview and got a 1 on 1 interview instead, they got a much lower pressure home task rather than the live case study the male candidates had to do and we had a lower entry bar on the aptitude test all candidates had to sit to enter into the process.

    I've literally been there and done it, I've walked the walk on helping women into male dominated work places. I'm suggesting that it's probably time to take stock and look at where we are and maybe not push down on the accelerator for it. I don't see how it's controversial.
    The Alan Turing Institute says women make up 22% of AI and data professionals. So, I'd suggest a bit of a way to go...
    You go an speak to 100 girls aged 13-16 and find me more than 22 who give any fucks about computing, maths or software engineering/coding. That's the issue, girls don't give any fucks about it and it's difficult to then recruit from a smaller pool without excluding better qualified male candidates.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 14,692

    MaxPB said:

    boulay said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
    The creators have specifically said that they chose a white boy and a “non problematic” Everyman family specifically to get the message across that this could be anyone’s child - it’s not just young black boys and boys from broken homes with absent fathers.

    Haven’t watched it so I don’t know if that works or not but it was a fair point by them to try and have maximum effect - they are unapologetic about the series having an agenda - stopping young boys being radicalised/marginalised and turning to violence.
    But if you look at the actual crime metrics it is boys from problem families and single parent families that are responsible for a huge part of this kind of crime and hatred.

    Society has rapidly gone from telling boys that they're great and can achieve anything to telling them that they're usless, that girls are better, that they're all hyperactive and need to be medicated. It's no surprise that internet personalities that tell them that they're not any of those things and that being masculine isn't bad are all getting lots of airtime with young boys and teenagers. We have feminised society to such an extend that boys are rebelling against that, even girls are beginning to do so (see Gen Z women coming out for Trump).

    Maybe what we need to ask ourselves is why boys are finding solace in these parts of the internet and what we, as a society, have done to drive them into the arms of men who clearly hate women? I guess that's too much work and instead we'll try and ban Andrew Tate and play whack-a-mole with all of the people who pop up to replace him.

    I look at my industry as an example, we have about a dozen "women in tech" programmes that I've been to which is great for women but there's loads of men who graduate and have relevant skills that are struggling too. Women now achieve higher levels of education, have higher employment in their early 20s and have higher overall wages in the early years of their careers. We've done well to help women into the workplace but at the same time we're still pushing on that accelerator despite all of the evidence that women have now caught up and over taken men in the workplace for the younger generations. We're creating a new issue and it's going to have horrible consequences 10 years from now.
    Which company do you work for? If not wanting to give a name, give a sector.

    At your level/grade, what percentage of women are there? Have they 'caught up', or are they still behind in terms of numbers?
    He mentions the tech sector. Let's look at computer science then. This is from the BCS last year:

    "Computing at Higher Education is increasingly seen as a good choice by students - particularly by women - according to data from university admissions service, UCAS released today. This year, 2,940 UK-domiciled 18-year-old women have accepted a place to study the subject, up 8% from 2023/24 (out of 15,530 18-year-old UK-domiciled acceptances for Computing).

    "The male to female ratio in this area is also continuing to close slowly - with an ongoing trend towards increased participation by female students (below 4:1). However, the difference remains wide and there is still a long way to go in terms of closing the gender gap - according to BCS analysis.

    "Overall entries at A level are up 12% with 29% growth in the number of females in England taking Computer Science at A level and a 9% increase in the number of males studying the subject. The gender ratio continues to move in right direction (now below 5:1) in this area too - BCS added. Meanwhile, females are outperforming males at all grades for A levels - this is similar across all nations."

    In other words, women are still massively underrepresented in computer science.
    What's the correct level of representation?
    That the figures are very different to the overall population suggests the field is biased against women. I work adjacent to computer science and that accords with my experience. I want people to have the choice to go into the field of work they want to, and for employers to get the best people for their positions. That isn't happening if there's a bias against women.
    Only if you assume men and women have an equal tendency to want to go into IT.

    Primary school teachers are overwhelmingly women. Is this evidence of a bias against men? Or does it show differing preferences of men and women?

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,090
    Think I'm going to pump Vanguard in the next FY.

    Buying shares at a time of maximum pessimism can be a profitable strategy.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,090
    Think I'm going to pump Vanguard in the next FY.

    Buying shares at a time of maximum pessimism can be a profitable strategy.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,794
    Cookie said:

    MaxPB said:

    boulay said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
    The creators have specifically said that they chose a white boy and a “non problematic” Everyman family specifically to get the message across that this could be anyone’s child - it’s not just young black boys and boys from broken homes with absent fathers.

    Haven’t watched it so I don’t know if that works or not but it was a fair point by them to try and have maximum effect - they are unapologetic about the series having an agenda - stopping young boys being radicalised/marginalised and turning to violence.
    But if you look at the actual crime metrics it is boys from problem families and single parent families that are responsible for a huge part of this kind of crime and hatred.

    Society has rapidly gone from telling boys that they're great and can achieve anything to telling them that they're usless, that girls are better, that they're all hyperactive and need to be medicated. It's no surprise that internet personalities that tell them that they're not any of those things and that being masculine isn't bad are all getting lots of airtime with young boys and teenagers. We have feminised society to such an extend that boys are rebelling against that, even girls are beginning to do so (see Gen Z women coming out for Trump).

    Maybe what we need to ask ourselves is why boys are finding solace in these parts of the internet and what we, as a society, have done to drive them into the arms of men who clearly hate women? I guess that's too much work and instead we'll try and ban Andrew Tate and play whack-a-mole with all of the people who pop up to replace him.

    I look at my industry as an example, we have about a dozen "women in tech" programmes that I've been to which is great for women but there's loads of men who graduate and have relevant skills that are struggling too. Women now achieve higher levels of education, have higher employment in their early 20s and have higher overall wages in the early years of their careers. We've done well to help women into the workplace but at the same time we're still pushing on that accelerator despite all of the evidence that women have now caught up and over taken men in the workplace for the younger generations. We're creating a new issue and it's going to have horrible consequences 10 years from now.
    Which company do you work for? If not wanting to give a name, give a sector.

    At your level/grade, what percentage of women are there? Have they 'caught up', or are they still behind in terms of numbers?
    He mentions the tech sector. Let's look at computer science then. This is from the BCS last year:

    "Computing at Higher Education is increasingly seen as a good choice by students - particularly by women - according to data from university admissions service, UCAS released today. This year, 2,940 UK-domiciled 18-year-old women have accepted a place to study the subject, up 8% from 2023/24 (out of 15,530 18-year-old UK-domiciled acceptances for Computing).

    "The male to female ratio in this area is also continuing to close slowly - with an ongoing trend towards increased participation by female students (below 4:1). However, the difference remains wide and there is still a long way to go in terms of closing the gender gap - according to BCS analysis.

    "Overall entries at A level are up 12% with 29% growth in the number of females in England taking Computer Science at A level and a 9% increase in the number of males studying the subject. The gender ratio continues to move in right direction (now below 5:1) in this area too - BCS added. Meanwhile, females are outperforming males at all grades for A levels - this is similar across all nations."

    In other words, women are still massively underrepresented in computer science.
    What's the correct level of representation?
    That the figures are very different to the overall population suggests the field is biased against women. I work adjacent to computer science and that accords with my experience. I want people to have the choice to go into the field of work they want to, and for employers to get the best people for their positions. That isn't happening if there's a bias against women.
    Only if you assume men and women have an equal tendency to want to go into IT.

    Primary school teachers are overwhelmingly women. Is this evidence of a bias against men? Or does it show differing preferences of men and women?

    Or linguistics, do we need male only pathways and job fairs for men in languages or social sciences where women dominate the workplace?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,611
    MaxPB said:

    boulay said:

    MaxPB said:

    boulay said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
    The creators have specifically said that they chose a white boy and a “non problematic” Everyman family specifically to get the message across that this could be anyone’s child - it’s not just young black boys and boys from broken homes with absent fathers.

    Haven’t watched it so I don’t know if that works or not but it was a fair point by them to try and have maximum effect - they are unapologetic about the series having an agenda - stopping young boys being radicalised/marginalised and turning to violence.
    But if you look at the actual crime metrics it is boys from problem families and single parent families that are responsible for a huge part of this kind of crime and hatred.

    Society has rapidly gone from telling boys that they're great and can achieve anything to telling them that they're usless, that girls are better, that they're all hyperactive and need to be medicated. It's no surprise that internet personalities that tell them that they're not any of those things and that being masculine isn't bad are all getting lots of airtime with young boys and teenagers. We have feminised society to such an extend that boys are rebelling against that, even girls are beginning to do so (see Gen Z women coming out for Trump).

    Maybe what we need to ask ourselves is why boys are finding solace in these parts of the internet and what we, as a society, have done to drive them into the arms of men who clearly hate women? I guess that's too much work and instead we'll try and ban Andrew Tate and play whack-a-mole with all of the people who pop up to replace him.

    I look at my industry as an example, we have about a dozen "women in tech" programmes that I've been to which is great for women but there's loads of men who graduate and have relevant skills that are struggling too. Women now achieve higher levels of education, have higher employment in their early 20s and have higher overall wages in the early years of their careers. We've done well to help women into the workplace but at the same time we're still pushing on that accelerator despite all of the evidence that women have now caught up and over taken men in the workplace for the younger generations. We're creating a new issue and it's going to have horrible consequences 10 years from now.
    Agreed (I wasn’t disagreeing with your points btw just giving some background I had read).

    The other big issue for men/women in the workplace and women overtaking men is maternity leave.

    I’ve mentioned on here before how senior doctor friends, male and female, are very concerned about there being more female medics but a good chunk will be lost each year to maternity leave and many won’t go back after.

    It’s not something my friends feel they can mention where it really matters but question whether medical schools need to try and re-weight in favour of men.
    It's actually a huge problem for general medicine. Lots of GPs are women who come back on part time hours after having kids leaving a really big staffing gap which requires expensive locums to fill and the NHS gets torched in the process.
    None of the GPs at our surgery work full time. Neither men nor women. And remember that "full time" is only four days a week for GPs.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,676

    Think I'm going to pump Vanguard in the next FY.

    Buying shares at a time of maximum pessimism can be a profitable strategy.

    Depends whether we’re at max pessimism yet. I’m not sure.

    But the 2 or 3 times I’ve ever tried to time the market I lost money, so what do I know.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,430

    MaxPB said:

    boulay said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
    The creators have specifically said that they chose a white boy and a “non problematic” Everyman family specifically to get the message across that this could be anyone’s child - it’s not just young black boys and boys from broken homes with absent fathers.

    Haven’t watched it so I don’t know if that works or not but it was a fair point by them to try and have maximum effect - they are unapologetic about the series having an agenda - stopping young boys being radicalised/marginalised and turning to violence.
    But if you look at the actual crime metrics it is boys from problem families and single parent families that are responsible for a huge part of this kind of crime and hatred.

    Society has rapidly gone from telling boys that they're great and can achieve anything to telling them that they're usless, that girls are better, that they're all hyperactive and need to be medicated. It's no surprise that internet personalities that tell them that they're not any of those things and that being masculine isn't bad are all getting lots of airtime with young boys and teenagers. We have feminised society to such an extend that boys are rebelling against that, even girls are beginning to do so (see Gen Z women coming out for Trump).

    Maybe what we need to ask ourselves is why boys are finding solace in these parts of the internet and what we, as a society, have done to drive them into the arms of men who clearly hate women? I guess that's too much work and instead we'll try and ban Andrew Tate and play whack-a-mole with all of the people who pop up to replace him.

    I look at my industry as an example, we have about a dozen "women in tech" programmes that I've been to which is great for women but there's loads of men who graduate and have relevant skills that are struggling too. Women now achieve higher levels of education, have higher employment in their early 20s and have higher overall wages in the early years of their careers. We've done well to help women into the workplace but at the same time we're still pushing on that accelerator despite all of the evidence that women have now caught up and over taken men in the workplace for the younger generations. We're creating a new issue and it's going to have horrible consequences 10 years from now.
    Which company do you work for? If not wanting to give a name, give a sector.

    At your level/grade, what percentage of women are there? Have they 'caught up', or are they still behind in terms of numbers?
    He mentions the tech sector. Let's look at computer science then. This is from the BCS last year:

    "Computing at Higher Education is increasingly seen as a good choice by students - particularly by women - according to data from university admissions service, UCAS released today. This year, 2,940 UK-domiciled 18-year-old women have accepted a place to study the subject, up 8% from 2023/24 (out of 15,530 18-year-old UK-domiciled acceptances for Computing).

    "The male to female ratio in this area is also continuing to close slowly - with an ongoing trend towards increased participation by female students (below 4:1). However, the difference remains wide and there is still a long way to go in terms of closing the gender gap - according to BCS analysis.

    "Overall entries at A level are up 12% with 29% growth in the number of females in England taking Computer Science at A level and a 9% increase in the number of males studying the subject. The gender ratio continues to move in right direction (now below 5:1) in this area too - BCS added. Meanwhile, females are outperforming males at all grades for A levels - this is similar across all nations."

    In other words, women are still massively underrepresented in computer science.
    Is that a problem that needs addressing? I'd argue that there are many careers that are the other way around (primary teaching, nursery workers, carers etc). I think to an extent certain people are drawn to certain jobs.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,357
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    boulay said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
    The creators have specifically said that they chose a white boy and a “non problematic” Everyman family specifically to get the message across that this could be anyone’s child - it’s not just young black boys and boys from broken homes with absent fathers.

    Haven’t watched it so I don’t know if that works or not but it was a fair point by them to try and have maximum effect - they are unapologetic about the series having an agenda - stopping young boys being radicalised/marginalised and turning to violence.
    But if you look at the actual crime metrics it is boys from problem families and single parent families that are responsible for a huge part of this kind of crime and hatred.

    Society has rapidly gone from telling boys that they're great and can achieve anything to telling them that they're usless, that girls are better, that they're all hyperactive and need to be medicated. It's no surprise that internet personalities that tell them that they're not any of those things and that being masculine isn't bad are all getting lots of airtime with young boys and teenagers. We have feminised society to such an extend that boys are rebelling against that, even girls are beginning to do so (see Gen Z women coming out for Trump).

    Maybe what we need to ask ourselves is why boys are finding solace in these parts of the internet and what we, as a society, have done to drive them into the arms of men who clearly hate women? I guess that's too much work and instead we'll try and ban Andrew Tate and play whack-a-mole with all of the people who pop up to replace him.

    I look at my industry as an example, we have about a dozen "women in tech" programmes that I've been to which is great for women but there's loads of men who graduate and have relevant skills that are struggling too. Women now achieve higher levels of education, have higher employment in their early 20s and have higher overall wages in the early years of their careers. We've done well to help women into the workplace but at the same time we're still pushing on that accelerator despite all of the evidence that women have now caught up and over taken men in the workplace for the younger generations. We're creating a new issue and it's going to have horrible consequences 10 years from now.
    Which company do you work for? If not wanting to give a name, give a sector.

    At your level/grade, what percentage of women are there? Have they 'caught up', or are they still behind in terms of numbers?
    Ah I'm currently unemployed, but I work in the tech sector, specifically within data science.

    It's not my grade that matters for men in the late teens and early 20s, no one is becoming a VP of Data or CDO at that age. I'm talking about all of the graduate programmes and job fairs that specifically help women into the workplace, they've been hugely successful. I literally opened a programme for it at one of my previous workplaces when I was in investment management so we could increase the number of female grads in our intake we went from 90/10 to around 70/30 by the time I left. Though as I did so I recommended that the company freeze or close the programme because any further than that and they really would be taking substandard female candidates over vastly better qualified male ones. Even at 70/30 there was a lot of favouritism towards the women in the process, they got to skip a panel interview and got a 1 on 1 interview instead, they got a much lower pressure home task rather than the live case study the male candidates had to do and we had a lower entry bar on the aptitude test all candidates had to sit to enter into the process.

    I've literally been there and done it, I've walked the walk on helping women into male dominated work places. I'm suggesting that it's probably time to take stock and look at where we are and maybe not push down on the accelerator for it. I don't see how it's controversial.
    The Alan Turing Institute says women make up 22% of AI and data professionals. So, I'd suggest a bit of a way to go...
    You go an speak to 100 girls aged 13-16 and find me more than 22 who give any fucks about computing, maths or software engineering/coding. That's the issue, girls don't give any fucks about it and it's difficult to then recruit from a smaller pool without excluding better qualified male candidates.
    I work with a range of people in tech in universities and in the private sector, men and women. This year, I've talked to a bunch of women in femtech start-ups. I hear from plenty of women interested in computing and software engineering/coding. Their brains don't appear to work differently to those of the men in the field I meet. They do describe plenty of sexism in the field.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,430

    MaxPB said:

    boulay said:

    MaxPB said:

    boulay said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
    The creators have specifically said that they chose a white boy and a “non problematic” Everyman family specifically to get the message across that this could be anyone’s child - it’s not just young black boys and boys from broken homes with absent fathers.

    Haven’t watched it so I don’t know if that works or not but it was a fair point by them to try and have maximum effect - they are unapologetic about the series having an agenda - stopping young boys being radicalised/marginalised and turning to violence.
    But if you look at the actual crime metrics it is boys from problem families and single parent families that are responsible for a huge part of this kind of crime and hatred.

    Society has rapidly gone from telling boys that they're great and can achieve anything to telling them that they're usless, that girls are better, that they're all hyperactive and need to be medicated. It's no surprise that internet personalities that tell them that they're not any of those things and that being masculine isn't bad are all getting lots of airtime with young boys and teenagers. We have feminised society to such an extend that boys are rebelling against that, even girls are beginning to do so (see Gen Z women coming out for Trump).

    Maybe what we need to ask ourselves is why boys are finding solace in these parts of the internet and what we, as a society, have done to drive them into the arms of men who clearly hate women? I guess that's too much work and instead we'll try and ban Andrew Tate and play whack-a-mole with all of the people who pop up to replace him.

    I look at my industry as an example, we have about a dozen "women in tech" programmes that I've been to which is great for women but there's loads of men who graduate and have relevant skills that are struggling too. Women now achieve higher levels of education, have higher employment in their early 20s and have higher overall wages in the early years of their careers. We've done well to help women into the workplace but at the same time we're still pushing on that accelerator despite all of the evidence that women have now caught up and over taken men in the workplace for the younger generations. We're creating a new issue and it's going to have horrible consequences 10 years from now.
    Agreed (I wasn’t disagreeing with your points btw just giving some background I had read).

    The other big issue for men/women in the workplace and women overtaking men is maternity leave.

    I’ve mentioned on here before how senior doctor friends, male and female, are very concerned about there being more female medics but a good chunk will be lost each year to maternity leave and many won’t go back after.

    It’s not something my friends feel they can mention where it really matters but question whether medical schools need to try and re-weight in favour of men.
    It's actually a huge problem for general medicine. Lots of GPs are women who come back on part time hours after having kids leaving a really big staffing gap which requires expensive locums to fill and the NHS gets torched in the process.
    None of the GPs at our surgery work full time. Neither men nor women. And remember that "full time" is only four days a week for GPs.
    Although those four days may be 10-12 hours.
  • Think I'm going to pump Vanguard in the next FY.

    Buying shares at a time of maximum pessimism can be a profitable strategy.

    If you think this is a time of maximum pessimism, then you are too much of an optimist.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,430
    MaxPB said:

    Cookie said:

    MaxPB said:

    boulay said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
    The creators have specifically said that they chose a white boy and a “non problematic” Everyman family specifically to get the message across that this could be anyone’s child - it’s not just young black boys and boys from broken homes with absent fathers.

    Haven’t watched it so I don’t know if that works or not but it was a fair point by them to try and have maximum effect - they are unapologetic about the series having an agenda - stopping young boys being radicalised/marginalised and turning to violence.
    But if you look at the actual crime metrics it is boys from problem families and single parent families that are responsible for a huge part of this kind of crime and hatred.

    Society has rapidly gone from telling boys that they're great and can achieve anything to telling them that they're usless, that girls are better, that they're all hyperactive and need to be medicated. It's no surprise that internet personalities that tell them that they're not any of those things and that being masculine isn't bad are all getting lots of airtime with young boys and teenagers. We have feminised society to such an extend that boys are rebelling against that, even girls are beginning to do so (see Gen Z women coming out for Trump).

    Maybe what we need to ask ourselves is why boys are finding solace in these parts of the internet and what we, as a society, have done to drive them into the arms of men who clearly hate women? I guess that's too much work and instead we'll try and ban Andrew Tate and play whack-a-mole with all of the people who pop up to replace him.

    I look at my industry as an example, we have about a dozen "women in tech" programmes that I've been to which is great for women but there's loads of men who graduate and have relevant skills that are struggling too. Women now achieve higher levels of education, have higher employment in their early 20s and have higher overall wages in the early years of their careers. We've done well to help women into the workplace but at the same time we're still pushing on that accelerator despite all of the evidence that women have now caught up and over taken men in the workplace for the younger generations. We're creating a new issue and it's going to have horrible consequences 10 years from now.
    Which company do you work for? If not wanting to give a name, give a sector.

    At your level/grade, what percentage of women are there? Have they 'caught up', or are they still behind in terms of numbers?
    He mentions the tech sector. Let's look at computer science then. This is from the BCS last year:

    "Computing at Higher Education is increasingly seen as a good choice by students - particularly by women - according to data from university admissions service, UCAS released today. This year, 2,940 UK-domiciled 18-year-old women have accepted a place to study the subject, up 8% from 2023/24 (out of 15,530 18-year-old UK-domiciled acceptances for Computing).

    "The male to female ratio in this area is also continuing to close slowly - with an ongoing trend towards increased participation by female students (below 4:1). However, the difference remains wide and there is still a long way to go in terms of closing the gender gap - according to BCS analysis.

    "Overall entries at A level are up 12% with 29% growth in the number of females in England taking Computer Science at A level and a 9% increase in the number of males studying the subject. The gender ratio continues to move in right direction (now below 5:1) in this area too - BCS added. Meanwhile, females are outperforming males at all grades for A levels - this is similar across all nations."

    In other words, women are still massively underrepresented in computer science.
    What's the correct level of representation?
    That the figures are very different to the overall population suggests the field is biased against women. I work adjacent to computer science and that accords with my experience. I want people to have the choice to go into the field of work they want to, and for employers to get the best people for their positions. That isn't happening if there's a bias against women.
    Only if you assume men and women have an equal tendency to want to go into IT.

    Primary school teachers are overwhelmingly women. Is this evidence of a bias against men? Or does it show differing preferences of men and women?

    Or linguistics, do we need male only pathways and job fairs for men in languages or social sciences where women dominate the workplace?
    See my post above - nursery workers, primary school teachers is just scratching the surface.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,921
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I confess, I am ignorant of the details of the case.

    Is this an example - like the Trump Hush Money one - where most people will say "that's a ridiculous case that should never have gone to court"? Or is this one where there is a very evidence of wrongdoing?

    Because I think the Trump Hush Money case helped him: many voters thought he was being persecuted for something that wasn't really a crime. (And, of course, this was made all the worse because to the average voter, it looked like the more serious cases weren't real, because otherwise they'd make it to court, right?)

    So: what's the story here?

    My read of it is that Le Pen probably did do the crime but it's probably also true of 99% of politicians in Europe so it looks like the state is targeting her with lawfare because it can't beat her at the ballot box.

    Her failure seems to have been taking the money directly rather than doing what is usually expected in Europe which is to funnel it via dodgy contacts to friends and associates. While it's clearly stupid and illegal, it's not particularly different to the rest of them who are just a bit smarter about their theft.
    I thought that the whole point of the EU was to pump money towards politicians so that they get sucked into the system with too much to lose? It almost worked for UKIP after all. Calling this institutional dishonesty corruption on the recipient’s part is probably true but surely beside the point?
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,202
    edited March 31
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    boulay said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
    The creators have specifically said that they chose a white boy and a “non problematic” Everyman family specifically to get the message across that this could be anyone’s child - it’s not just young black boys and boys from broken homes with absent fathers.

    Haven’t watched it so I don’t know if that works or not but it was a fair point by them to try and have maximum effect - they are unapologetic about the series having an agenda - stopping young boys being radicalised/marginalised and turning to violence.
    But if you look at the actual crime metrics it is boys from problem families and single parent families that are responsible for a huge part of this kind of crime and hatred.

    Society has rapidly gone from telling boys that they're great and can achieve anything to telling them that they're usless, that girls are better, that they're all hyperactive and need to be medicated. It's no surprise that internet personalities that tell them that they're not any of those things and that being masculine isn't bad are all getting lots of airtime with young boys and teenagers. We have feminised society to such an extend that boys are rebelling against that, even girls are beginning to do so (see Gen Z women coming out for Trump).

    Maybe what we need to ask ourselves is why boys are finding solace in these parts of the internet and what we, as a society, have done to drive them into the arms of men who clearly hate women? I guess that's too much work and instead we'll try and ban Andrew Tate and play whack-a-mole with all of the people who pop up to replace him.

    I look at my industry as an example, we have about a dozen "women in tech" programmes that I've been to which is great for women but there's loads of men who graduate and have relevant skills that are struggling too. Women now achieve higher levels of education, have higher employment in their early 20s and have higher overall wages in the early years of their careers. We've done well to help women into the workplace but at the same time we're still pushing on that accelerator despite all of the evidence that women have now caught up and over taken men in the workplace for the younger generations. We're creating a new issue and it's going to have horrible consequences 10 years from now.
    Which company do you work for? If not wanting to give a name, give a sector.

    At your level/grade, what percentage of women are there? Have they 'caught up', or are they still behind in terms of numbers?
    Ah I'm currently unemployed, but I work in the tech sector, specifically within data science.

    It's not my grade that matters for men in the late teens and early 20s, no one is becoming a VP of Data or CDO at that age. I'm talking about all of the graduate programmes and job fairs that specifically help women into the workplace, they've been hugely successful. I literally opened a programme for it at one of my previous workplaces when I was in investment management so we could increase the number of female grads in our intake we went from 90/10 to around 70/30 by the time I left. Though as I did so I recommended that the company freeze or close the programme because any further than that and they really would be taking substandard female candidates over vastly better qualified male ones. Even at 70/30 there was a lot of favouritism towards the women in the process, they got to skip a panel interview and got a 1 on 1 interview instead, they got a much lower pressure home task rather than the live case study the male candidates had to do and we had a lower entry bar on the aptitude test all candidates had to sit to enter into the process.

    I've literally been there and done it, I've walked the walk on helping women into male dominated work places. I'm suggesting that it's probably time to take stock and look at where we are and maybe not push down on the accelerator for it. I don't see how it's controversial.
    The Alan Turing Institute says women make up 22% of AI and data professionals. So, I'd suggest a bit of a way to go...
    You go an speak to 100 girls aged 13-16 and find me more than 22 who give any fucks about computing, maths or software engineering/coding. That's the issue, girls don't give any fucks about it and it's difficult to then recruit from a smaller pool without excluding better qualified male candidates.
    I don't know the rights and wrongs of this, but a statement along those lines is not, in itself, strong evidence. Teenage girls see fewer techie geeks among their peers, among female role models, such as mothers, aunts etc. I'm not disputing that there are innate differences and it may be that 50-50 is not the correct ratio to aim for, but a lack of interest in a field in teenage years, while limiting recruits post-university, doesn't mean it always has to be so.

    It would have been fascinating to see any discussions around the lack of female doctors 80 years ago and whether there was a similar assumption that there were innate differences that explained and justified that.

    The lack of male primary teachers - as recently posted - is of course an interesting counter-example, particularly given the difference with secondary school. Possibly also largely cultural - as young kids we don't see many male teachers which probably has an effect - or maybe innate. Hard to tell definitively.

    ETA: There's also an important difference between barriers (based on sex/ethnic group/sexuality) etc to those who want to pursue a career and softer cultural barriers that reduce the number in particular groups that wish to pursue a particular career.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 37,451
    oh

    @carlquintanilla.bsky.social‬

    * CHINESE STATE MEDIA: CHINA, JAPAN, SOUTH KOREA REACH A CONSENSUS THAT THREE SIDES WILL JOINTLY RESPOND TO THE U.S. TARIFFS

    @reuters.com
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,430

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I confess, I am ignorant of the details of the case.

    Is this an example - like the Trump Hush Money one - where most people will say "that's a ridiculous case that should never have gone to court"? Or is this one where there is a very evidence of wrongdoing?

    Because I think the Trump Hush Money case helped him: many voters thought he was being persecuted for something that wasn't really a crime. (And, of course, this was made all the worse because to the average voter, it looked like the more serious cases weren't real, because otherwise they'd make it to court, right?)

    So: what's the story here?

    She and others in the party claimed money to pay European Parliament assistants, but the people so employed didn't do any European Parliament work and were just doing party work instead. I think that's fraud to most people. The people existed and they were working for Le Pen et al., but they weren't doing what they were meant to.

    But then I think Trump's hush money case wasn't ridiculous. It was a much lesser case than the others he faced, but he broke the law to hide his wrongdoing.
    I'm sure no one else plays that game with EU money.
    The existence of other crimes is not a reason to not prosecute the criminal you've caught.
    Essentially that was the argument of the plod who gave me a ticket for doing 90 on the A46 (three lanes, motorway-like section, at night with (almost)* no-one around). I argued I was only doing what hundreds of other drivers were doing, right now, on the nearby M5 and M6. I was correct, but I was also the one they had caught...

    *Me and obviously said plod
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,393
    edited March 31
    Cookie said:

    MaxPB said:

    boulay said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
    The creators have specifically said that they chose a white boy and a “non problematic” Everyman family specifically to get the message across that this could be anyone’s child - it’s not just young black boys and boys from broken homes with absent fathers.

    Haven’t watched it so I don’t know if that works or not but it was a fair point by them to try and have maximum effect - they are unapologetic about the series having an agenda - stopping young boys being radicalised/marginalised and turning to violence.
    But if you look at the actual crime metrics it is boys from problem families and single parent families that are responsible for a huge part of this kind of crime and hatred.

    Society has rapidly gone from telling boys that they're great and can achieve anything to telling them that they're usless, that girls are better, that they're all hyperactive and need to be medicated. It's no surprise that internet personalities that tell them that they're not any of those things and that being masculine isn't bad are all getting lots of airtime with young boys and teenagers. We have feminised society to such an extend that boys are rebelling against that, even girls are beginning to do so (see Gen Z women coming out for Trump).

    Maybe what we need to ask ourselves is why boys are finding solace in these parts of the internet and what we, as a society, have done to drive them into the arms of men who clearly hate women? I guess that's too much work and instead we'll try and ban Andrew Tate and play whack-a-mole with all of the people who pop up to replace him.

    I look at my industry as an example, we have about a dozen "women in tech" programmes that I've been to which is great for women but there's loads of men who graduate and have relevant skills that are struggling too. Women now achieve higher levels of education, have higher employment in their early 20s and have higher overall wages in the early years of their careers. We've done well to help women into the workplace but at the same time we're still pushing on that accelerator despite all of the evidence that women have now caught up and over taken men in the workplace for the younger generations. We're creating a new issue and it's going to have horrible consequences 10 years from now.
    Which company do you work for? If not wanting to give a name, give a sector.

    At your level/grade, what percentage of women are there? Have they 'caught up', or are they still behind in terms of numbers?
    He mentions the tech sector. Let's look at computer science then. This is from the BCS last year:

    "Computing at Higher Education is increasingly seen as a good choice by students - particularly by women - according to data from university admissions service, UCAS released today. This year, 2,940 UK-domiciled 18-year-old women have accepted a place to study the subject, up 8% from 2023/24 (out of 15,530 18-year-old UK-domiciled acceptances for Computing).

    "The male to female ratio in this area is also continuing to close slowly - with an ongoing trend towards increased participation by female students (below 4:1). However, the difference remains wide and there is still a long way to go in terms of closing the gender gap - according to BCS analysis.

    "Overall entries at A level are up 12% with 29% growth in the number of females in England taking Computer Science at A level and a 9% increase in the number of males studying the subject. The gender ratio continues to move in right direction (now below 5:1) in this area too - BCS added. Meanwhile, females are outperforming males at all grades for A levels - this is similar across all nations."

    In other words, women are still massively underrepresented in computer science.
    What's the correct level of representation?
    That the figures are very different to the overall population suggests the field is biased against women. I work adjacent to computer science and that accords with my experience. I want people to have the choice to go into the field of work they want to, and for employers to get the best people for their positions. That isn't happening if there's a bias against women.
    Only if you assume men and women have an equal tendency to want to go into IT.

    Primary school teachers are overwhelmingly women. Is this evidence of a bias against men? Or does it show differing preferences of men and women?

    Eldest grandson is a primary school teacher. Most of his colleagues are indeed women. There is a need for men in primary schools especially in disadvantaged areas, such as that where my grandson works as boys need a male in their lives and many of those he teaches haven't.
    Conversely, when my mother qualified as a pharmacist in the 1920's women represented about 10% of the profession. It's almost the other way round now.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,794

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    boulay said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
    The creators have specifically said that they chose a white boy and a “non problematic” Everyman family specifically to get the message across that this could be anyone’s child - it’s not just young black boys and boys from broken homes with absent fathers.

    Haven’t watched it so I don’t know if that works or not but it was a fair point by them to try and have maximum effect - they are unapologetic about the series having an agenda - stopping young boys being radicalised/marginalised and turning to violence.
    But if you look at the actual crime metrics it is boys from problem families and single parent families that are responsible for a huge part of this kind of crime and hatred.

    Society has rapidly gone from telling boys that they're great and can achieve anything to telling them that they're usless, that girls are better, that they're all hyperactive and need to be medicated. It's no surprise that internet personalities that tell them that they're not any of those things and that being masculine isn't bad are all getting lots of airtime with young boys and teenagers. We have feminised society to such an extend that boys are rebelling against that, even girls are beginning to do so (see Gen Z women coming out for Trump).

    Maybe what we need to ask ourselves is why boys are finding solace in these parts of the internet and what we, as a society, have done to drive them into the arms of men who clearly hate women? I guess that's too much work and instead we'll try and ban Andrew Tate and play whack-a-mole with all of the people who pop up to replace him.

    I look at my industry as an example, we have about a dozen "women in tech" programmes that I've been to which is great for women but there's loads of men who graduate and have relevant skills that are struggling too. Women now achieve higher levels of education, have higher employment in their early 20s and have higher overall wages in the early years of their careers. We've done well to help women into the workplace but at the same time we're still pushing on that accelerator despite all of the evidence that women have now caught up and over taken men in the workplace for the younger generations. We're creating a new issue and it's going to have horrible consequences 10 years from now.
    Which company do you work for? If not wanting to give a name, give a sector.

    At your level/grade, what percentage of women are there? Have they 'caught up', or are they still behind in terms of numbers?
    Ah I'm currently unemployed, but I work in the tech sector, specifically within data science.

    It's not my grade that matters for men in the late teens and early 20s, no one is becoming a VP of Data or CDO at that age. I'm talking about all of the graduate programmes and job fairs that specifically help women into the workplace, they've been hugely successful. I literally opened a programme for it at one of my previous workplaces when I was in investment management so we could increase the number of female grads in our intake we went from 90/10 to around 70/30 by the time I left. Though as I did so I recommended that the company freeze or close the programme because any further than that and they really would be taking substandard female candidates over vastly better qualified male ones. Even at 70/30 there was a lot of favouritism towards the women in the process, they got to skip a panel interview and got a 1 on 1 interview instead, they got a much lower pressure home task rather than the live case study the male candidates had to do and we had a lower entry bar on the aptitude test all candidates had to sit to enter into the process.

    I've literally been there and done it, I've walked the walk on helping women into male dominated work places. I'm suggesting that it's probably time to take stock and look at where we are and maybe not push down on the accelerator for it. I don't see how it's controversial.
    The Alan Turing Institute says women make up 22% of AI and data professionals. So, I'd suggest a bit of a way to go...
    You go an speak to 100 girls aged 13-16 and find me more than 22 who give any fucks about computing, maths or software engineering/coding. That's the issue, girls don't give any fucks about it and it's difficult to then recruit from a smaller pool without excluding better qualified male candidates.
    I work with a range of people in tech in universities and in the private sector, men and women. This year, I've talked to a bunch of women in femtech start-ups. I hear from plenty of women interested in computing and software engineering/coding. Their brains don't appear to work differently to those of the men in the field I meet. They do describe plenty of sexism in the field.
    Because they are in the 30%, are you actually dumb or just being obtuse? Do you not realise that women who already work in tech aren't exactly representative of the overall female population? Idiot. It's people like you that actually cause the problem setting completely unachievable goals like 50/50 representation that then means companies are hiring undercooked female candidates which then creates a lot of male resentment.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 59,024
    Scott_xP said:

    oh

    @carlquintanilla.bsky.social‬

    * CHINESE STATE MEDIA: CHINA, JAPAN, SOUTH KOREA REACH A CONSENSUS THAT THREE SIDES WILL JOINTLY RESPOND TO THE U.S. TARIFFS

    @reuters.com

    The ability of the US to unite former adversaries is quite remarkable.

    BTW - the Niall Ferguson piece on China and Trump should concern everyone (and will particularly concern @MaxPB) - https://niallferguson.substack.com/p/does-donald-trump-know-what-hes-doing
  • malcolmg said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I confess, I am ignorant of the details of the case.

    Is this an example - like the Trump Hush Money one - where most people will say "that's a ridiculous case that should never have gone to court"? Or is this one where there is a very evidence of wrongdoing?

    Because I think the Trump Hush Money case helped him: many voters thought he was being persecuted for something that wasn't really a crime. (And, of course, this was made all the worse because to the average voter, it looked like the more serious cases weren't real, because otherwise they'd make it to court, right?)

    So: what's the story here?

    My read of it is that Le Pen probably did do the crime but it's probably also true of 99% of politicians in Europe so it looks like the state is targeting her with lawfare because it can't beat her at the ballot box.

    Her failure seems to have been taking the money directly rather than doing what is usually expected in Europe which is to funnel it via dodgy contacts to friends and associates. While it's clearly stupid and illegal, it's not particularly different to the rest of them who are just a bit smarter about their theft.
    She didn't really take it directly (it was acknowledged that she did not benefit financially), she took money intended for parliamentary aides and spent it on Party aides. It's an issue of naming.
    No, it’s an issue of theft.

    The EU allocated money for X

    The FN took the money and spent it on Y.

    It’s the equivalent of spending your expense budget on dinner with your mates.
    Bollocks. Had those people been given parliamentary job titles they could have done as much party work as they liked. In expense terms it's the equivalent of using your T&E card instead of your P card.
    Bit like if your granny had balls she would be your grandpa you are saying.
    We are fortunate to live in a country where not a single parliamentary penny has ever been misdirected towards party activities ???

    Complete rubbish, when I was a councillor and someone emailed me about a political matter on my council email address I always transferred it over to my private one. This was seen as really odd, and the officers didn't like it because I didn't copy them into my response.

    Those on the hard left like Ed Davey who criticise Trump and wonder where he got his strange ideas should spend a little more time in front of a mirror.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 53,388
    edited March 31
    On topic

    Well, at least TSE credited me with the pun :lol:
    https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5164601/#Comment_5164601

    (Thanks, TSE!)
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,090
    MaxPB said:

    boulay said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    tlg86 said:

    A fictitious tv programme:

    https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1906697638306554207

    @Keir_Starmer
    As a father, watching Adolescence with my teenage son and daughter hit home hard.

    We all need to be having these conversations more.

    I've backed Netflix's plan to show the series for free in schools across the country, so as many young people as possible can see it.


    It is based on the true case of Hassan Sentamu who killed a girl under similar circumstances. The writers have since denied that but a very god friend of mine in the industry has said that it was the case they drew almost all of their inspiration from. Other than the race of the lead character, of course.
    Because white (or even Indian...) boys never kill anyone?
    Don't put words in my mouth. I just find it odd that they basically copied this particular case, all except the race and religion of the actual guilty party. It's almost as though the writers have an agenda. But I guess they can fall back on the "inspired by" and simpletons will believe them.
    The creators have specifically said that they chose a white boy and a “non problematic” Everyman family specifically to get the message across that this could be anyone’s child - it’s not just young black boys and boys from broken homes with absent fathers.

    Haven’t watched it so I don’t know if that works or not but it was a fair point by them to try and have maximum effect - they are unapologetic about the series having an agenda - stopping young boys being radicalised/marginalised and turning to violence.
    But if you look at the actual crime metrics it is boys from problem families and single parent families that are responsible for a huge part of this kind of crime and hatred.

    Society has rapidly gone from telling boys that they're great and can achieve anything to telling them that they're usless, that girls are better, that they're all hyperactive and need to be medicated. It's no surprise that internet personalities that tell them that they're not any of those things and that being masculine isn't bad are all getting lots of airtime with young boys and teenagers. We have feminised society to such an extend that boys are rebelling against that, even girls are beginning to do so (see Gen Z women coming out for Trump).

    Maybe what we need to ask ourselves is why boys are finding solace in these parts of the internet and what we, as a society, have done to drive them into the arms of men who clearly hate women? I guess that's too much work and instead we'll try and ban Andrew Tate and play whack-a-mole with all of the people who pop up to replace him.

    I look at my industry as an example, we have about a dozen "women in tech" programmes that I've been to which is great for women but there's loads of men who graduate and have relevant skills that are struggling too. Women now achieve higher levels of education, have higher employment in their early 20s and have higher overall wages in the early years of their careers. We've done well to help women into the workplace but at the same time we're still pushing on that accelerator despite all of the evidence that women have now caught up and over taken men in the workplace for the younger generations. We're creating a new issue and it's going to have horrible consequences 10 years from now.
    What's astounding is that not only do you rarely read or hear this perfectly common sense point of view in the media or in professional circles but that it even needs to be said.

    The typical reaction would be to call you a Tate sympathiser and to say this explains why we need even more allyship and action.
Sign In or Register to comment.