...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I think I've seen two male employees/trainees at my daughter's nursery all the time she's been there, both very temporary staff/trainees.
Yes, very few men in nursery schools. I'm guessing because they don't apply?
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I guess what William is getting at us that in certain, perhaps many instances non-white people are vastly overrepresented vs the population proportion in the (this) country.
They certainly are in ads for washing powder and fabric conditioner.
That'll be gone in a decade anyway. All the major ads will be procedurally generated off a template in a selection of ethnicities/sexes/classes/accents and the ad brokers will feed you the one their profile suggests will most positively influence you.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I guess what William is getting at us that in certain, perhaps many instances non-white people are vastly overrepresented vs the population proportion in the (this) country.
They certainly are in ads for washing powder and fabric conditioner.
And also that the average person doesn't go around with a statistical model of the ethnic makeup of the entire country in their head, so what counts as underrepresentation is entirely subjective.
BREAKING: Supreme Court rules the term sex refers to 'biological women' published at 10:02 10:02 Breaking UK Supreme Court judge Lord Hodge announces that the Equality Act’s definition of a woman is based on biological sex.
He counsels not to see this as a triumph for one side over another and stresses the law still gives trans people protection against discrimination.
(some hope on the last point)
I don't see how a verdict on a case with two opposing factions can be anything but a triumph for one side over another.
Indeed and, to be serious, this DOES feel like a tremor in the vibequake
I predict within 5-10 years huge swathes of Woke legislation - from the equality act to asylum rights to hate speech laws and much else - will have been repealed and reversed. It’s coming
That's not a logical extrapolation of this ruling. This was about a conflict between the EA and the GRA. The integrity of the EA was deemed the more important. The GRA must now take a look at itself and decide where it goes from here.
I’m extrapolating. It’s my thing
A crucial feature of cultural shifts is that each individual movement can be justified in and of itself, and means nothing. Like an individual starling flying to the left
But then you step back and you see the murmuration. A million glorious starlings flying to the horizon where woke goes to die
It’s happening so you might as well thrill to the spectacle
Extrapolation is fine but it's most effective when there's some logic in there too. This judgement isn't driven by anti-woke it's about resolving a conflict between two progressive minded pieces of legislation, the equality act and the gender recognition act. They'd almost certainly have ruled the same if Trump had lost on November 5th.
This is not to deny there is in general a vibe shift towards less enlightened attitudes. Clearly there is. It's just that this is not a good example of it. This was about logic, consistency and coherence in statute.
I’d argue that
There is a vibe shift towards a reduction in militant right seeking. But that’s not the same as a reduction in enlightenment.
The fundamental principle of enlightenment is tolerance and respect for others. Too many militant activists lack that and are entirely focused on their own desires regardless of the cost for others
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I guess what William is getting at us that in certain, perhaps many instances non-white people are vastly overrepresented vs the population proportion in the (this) country.
They certainly are in ads for washing powder and fabric conditioner.
Yep, PoC have made great strides in that area. Been a long time coming but change has come there.
Ooh I don't know about that. If Kemi plays Clegg to Farage's Cameron the Tories could see a LibDem 2015 result in 2032/3.
They wouldn't as most 2024 Conservatives on a forced choice would prefer Farage as PM than Starmer, so they would only get a LD 2015 result if Kemi formed a coalition government with Starmer and snubbed Farage. Clegg's problem in 2015 equally was most 2010 LD voters would have preferred a Brown Labour government to a Cameron Tory government on a forced choice.
I know some Tories who wouldn't be happy propping up a fash government, even to keep Labour out.
BREAKING: Supreme Court rules the term sex refers to 'biological women' published at 10:02 10:02 Breaking UK Supreme Court judge Lord Hodge announces that the Equality Act’s definition of a woman is based on biological sex.
He counsels not to see this as a triumph for one side over another and stresses the law still gives trans people protection against discrimination.
(some hope on the last point)
I don't see how a verdict on a case with two opposing factions can be anything but a triumph for one side over another.
Indeed and, to be serious, this DOES feel like a tremor in the vibequake
I predict within 5-10 years huge swathes of Woke legislation - from the equality act to asylum rights to hate speech laws and much else - will have been repealed and reversed. It’s coming
That's not a logical extrapolation of this ruling. This was about a conflict between the EA and the GRA. The integrity of the EA was deemed the more important. The GRA must now take a look at itself and decide where it goes from here.
I’m extrapolating. It’s my thing
A crucial feature of cultural shifts is that each individual movement can be justified in and of itself, and means nothing. Like an individual starling flying to the left
But then you step back and you see the murmuration. A million glorious starlings flying to the horizon where woke goes to die
It’s happening so you might as well thrill to the spectacle
Extrapolation is fine but it's most effective when there's some logic in there too. This judgement isn't driven by anti-woke it's about resolving a conflict between two progressive minded pieces of legislation, the equality act and the gender recognition act. They'd almost certainly have ruled the same if Trump had lost on November 5th.
This is not to deny there is in general a vibe shift towards less enlightened attitudes. Clearly there is. It's just that this is not a good example of it. This was about logic, consistency and coherence in statute.
I’d argue that
There is a vibe shift towards a reduction in militant right seeking. But that’s not the same as a reduction in enlightenment.
The fundamental principle of enlightenment is tolerance and respect for others. Too many militant activists lack that and are entirely focused on their own desires regardless of the cost for others
By "militant activists", do you mean "members of the US Republican Party"? If so, yes, agreed.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I guess what William is getting at us that in certain, perhaps many instances non-white people are vastly overrepresented vs the population proportion in the (this) country.
They certainly are in ads for washing powder and fabric conditioner.
True, but they want to sell washing powder so they need to get each demographic in, with a limited number of actors. Having said that it will alienate the anti woke brigade so will turn them off buying the product. For the rest of us it just looks a bit odd.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I think I've seen two male employees/trainees at my daughter's nursery all the time she's been there, both very temporary staff/trainees.
Yes, very few men in nursery schools. I'm guessing because they don't apply?
Sadly, I have to carers nowadays to help me/my wife with some of my personal care. I have had male ones but the vast majority are female, and in discussion I've been told that while men don't mind whether their carer is male or female, some female 'carers' refuse male carers. Whether a woman is 'allowed', legally to refuse a male carer in, for example, hospital I don't know. And the majority of male carers I've come across are non-white, tending to be of African heritage.
Ooh I don't know about that. If Kemi plays Clegg to Farage's Cameron the Tories could see a LibDem 2015 result in 2032/3.
They wouldn't as most 2024 Conservatives on a forced choice would prefer Farage as PM than Starmer, so they would only get a LD 2015 result if Kemi formed a coalition government with Starmer and snubbed Farage. Clegg's problem in 2015 equally was most 2010 LD voters would have preferred a Brown Labour government to a Cameron Tory government on a forced choice.
I know some Tories who wouldn't be happy propping up a fash government, even to keep Labour out.
A few might go LD but even more would go Reform if Kemi propped up Labour to keep Reform out of government
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I think I've seen two male employees/trainees at my daughter's nursery all the time she's been there, both very temporary staff/trainees.
Yes, very few men in nursery schools. I'm guessing because they don't apply?
Sadly, I have to carers nowadays to help me/my wife with some of my personal care. I have had male ones but the vast majority are female, and in discussion I've been told that while men don't mind whether their carer is male or female, some female 'carers' refuse male carers. Whether a woman is 'allowed', legally to refuse a male carer in, for example, hospital I don't know. And the majority of male carers I've come across are non-white, tending to be of African heritage.
I think the basic principle is that a patient/someone being cared for can refuse anyone they want, without having to give grounds.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
Is it a problem that the UK misrepresents global demographics and should we see immigration as a necessary corrective?
What we need is a great big melting pot ... you mean?
As a superlong term, utopian aspiration, an end to any correlation between ethnicity and nation states, yes I'll sign up for that.
But in the meantime, let's just be as fair and inclusive as we can. Is that a deal?
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I guess what William is getting at us that in certain, perhaps many instances non-white people are vastly overrepresented vs the population proportion in the (this) country.
They certainly are in ads for washing powder and fabric conditioner.
And for medicine, but the converse is true in hospital management.
I think the recent publicity was a plan to encourage British Asian applications to management roles in Birmingham hospitals.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I guess what William is getting at us that in certain, perhaps many instances non-white people are vastly overrepresented vs the population proportion in the (this) country.
They certainly are in ads for washing powder and fabric conditioner.
No, I think William is trolling.
I don't happen to think that overrepresentation of minorities is a particular problem as it normalises the presence of minorities in the UK. But I'm guessing that if you did the math, then you would see that in many instances they are indeed vastly overrepresented.
And edit to add: such overrepresentation could fuel resentment and appeal to the Reform demographic.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
The division here seems to be that certain members of pb think there is a bias in favour of minorities every time they see some sort of action taken which is specifically designed to eliminate bias against minorities.
The balance is never going to be perfect, but does it not cross their minds why these so called 'woke' actions are taken in the first place (regardless of whether they are worded or done badly or not).
BREAKING: Supreme Court rules the term sex refers to 'biological women' published at 10:02 10:02 Breaking UK Supreme Court judge Lord Hodge announces that the Equality Act’s definition of a woman is based on biological sex.
He counsels not to see this as a triumph for one side over another and stresses the law still gives trans people protection against discrimination.
(some hope on the last point)
I don't see how a verdict on a case with two opposing factions can be anything but a triumph for one side over another.
Indeed and, to be serious, this DOES feel like a tremor in the vibequake
I predict within 5-10 years huge swathes of Woke legislation - from the equality act to asylum rights to hate speech laws and much else - will have been repealed and reversed. It’s coming
That's not a logical extrapolation of this ruling. This was about a conflict between the EA and the GRA. The integrity of the EA was deemed the more important. The GRA must now take a look at itself and decide where it goes from here.
I’m extrapolating. It’s my thing
A crucial feature of cultural shifts is that each individual movement can be justified in and of itself, and means nothing. Like an individual starling flying to the left
But then you step back and you see the murmuration. A million glorious starlings flying to the horizon where woke goes to die
It’s happening so you might as well thrill to the spectacle
Extrapolation is fine but it's most effective when there's some logic in there too. This judgement isn't driven by anti-woke it's about resolving a conflict between two progressive minded pieces of legislation, the equality act and the gender recognition act. They'd almost certainly have ruled the same if Trump had lost on November 5th.
This is not to deny there is in general a vibe shift towards less enlightened attitudes. Clearly there is. It's just that this is not a good example of it. This was about logic, consistency and coherence in statute.
I’d argue that
There is a vibe shift towards a reduction in militant right seeking. But that’s not the same as a reduction in enlightenment.
The fundamental principle of enlightenment is tolerance and respect for others. Too many militant activists lack that and are entirely focused on their own desires regardless of the cost for others
You don't think bigotry and bigots have got a boost from 5/11? C'mon.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I think I've seen two male employees/trainees at my daughter's nursery all the time she's been there, both very temporary staff/trainees.
Yes, very few men in nursery schools. I'm guessing because they don't apply?
Few men in primary schools too and even most secondary school teachers are now female.
Probably because most male graduates can earn more in the private sector (even compared to private schools) but also unfortunately cases of sexual abuse or being accused of using excessive force on pupils related to mainly male teachers put some off
Ooh I don't know about that. If Kemi plays Clegg to Farage's Cameron the Tories could see a LibDem 2015 result in 2032/3.
They wouldn't as most 2024 Conservatives on a forced choice would prefer Farage as PM than Starmer, so they would only get a LD 2015 result if Kemi formed a coalition government with Starmer and snubbed Farage. Clegg's problem in 2015 equally was most 2010 LD voters would have preferred a Brown Labour government to a Cameron Tory government on a forced choice.
I know some Tories who wouldn't be happy propping up a fash government, even to keep Labour out.
A few might go LD but even more would go Reform if Kemi propped up Labour to keep Reform out of government
Are you sure you are not just channeling HYUFD? Even a few remaining Tory loyalists on here would rather sell copies of the Morning Star than support Trump adjacent fash.
I can, however, report that that National Museum of Kazakhstan is…. to my surprise TBH… absolutely outstanding
I seem to recall being told by an informed source that the Kazakstan authorities are very interested in preserving their heritage.
Honestly. It’s superb
If anyone has a spare afternoon this Easter weekend then just pop into the National Museum of Kazakhstan in Astana Nur Sultan. It’s by the Norman Foster Pyramid
You start with the gold of the nomads. The Kungar, Scythians. Sarmatians, the Taysak priestesses. So impressive, noble, chic, strange, glamorous. Fur coats lined with gold leaf. 6th century BC!!
Then come the stone sculptures of the steppes: eerie, ominous, noomy. 7th century AD. Why are they like Gobekli Tepe??
And then it skates through the Mongols and Islam…. And it slams into the horrors of the 20th century and communism and the USSR. The dead Aral Sea. The nuclear tests. Total famine killing a third of all people. Vast gulags. Deformed babies. “Zones of ecological disaster.”
Then at last, independence
It’s the Homeric epic of an entire nation in one building. Plus they do falconry IN THE LOBBY
Friend of mine, in a short-story writing group to which we both belong, has written a piece which makes reference to Merv, a town in that region about which I knew nothing. So, Wikipedia. And I was amazed at what I read. I really, really wish that I had travelled that area; fascinating. I know colleagues here sometimes knock Leon but I certainly find his travelogues, especially the current one enthralling and I, metaphorically, weep buckets over the fact that all I will ever be able to do is read about Central Asia.
Maybe somebody will trail-blaze tourism to Astana rather than Athens, Tashkent rather than Thailand.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I guess what William is getting at us that in certain, perhaps many instances non-white people are vastly overrepresented vs the population proportion in the (this) country.
They certainly are in ads for washing powder and fabric conditioner.
And for medicine, but the converse is true in hospital management.
I think the recent publicity was a plan to encourage British Asian applications to management roles in Birmingham hospitals.
Presumably matched with plans to encourage more Black British and white working class background British to apply to be surgeons and consultants and GPs?
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I guess what William is getting at us that in certain, perhaps many instances non-white people are vastly overrepresented vs the population proportion in the (this) country.
They certainly are in ads for washing powder and fabric conditioner.
No, I think William is trolling.
I don't happen to think that overrepresentation of minorities is a particular problem as it normalises the presence of minorities in the UK. But I'm guessing that if you did the math, then you would see that in many instances they are indeed vastly overrepresented.
And edit to add: such overrepresentation could fuel resentment and appeal to the Reform demographic.
It's one of those things people weren't aware they were angry about before the Daily Mail put them right
I can, however, report that that National Museum of Kazakhstan is…. to my surprise TBH… absolutely outstanding
I seem to recall being told by an informed source that the Kazakstan authorities are very interested in preserving their heritage.
Honestly. It’s superb
If anyone has a spare afternoon this Easter weekend then just pop into the National Museum of Kazakhstan in Astana Nur Sultan. It’s by the Norman Foster Pyramid
You start with the gold of the nomads. The Kungar, Scythians. Sarmatians, the Taysak priestesses. So impressive, noble, chic, strange, glamorous. Fur coats lined with gold leaf. 6th century BC!!
Then come the stone sculptures of the steppes: eerie, ominous, noomy. 7th century AD. Why are they like Gobekli Tepe??
And then it skates through the Mongols and Islam…. And it slams into the horrors of the 20th century and communism and the USSR. The dead Aral Sea. The nuclear tests. Total famine killing a third of all people. Vast gulags. Deformed babies. “Zones of ecological disaster.”
Then at last, independence
It’s the Homeric epic of an entire nation in one building. Plus they do falconry IN THE LOBBY
I watched The Eagle Huntress a few years back: a documentary about a 13 year old girl taking on the male world of Kazakh hunters. With her golden eagle.
It’s really good, though hard to believe quite how they managed to marry a perfectly filmed drama to a documentary. Sometimes you just have to suspend your cynicism.
The ultimate example of a right place, right time documentary maker is Icarus:
Ooh I don't know about that. If Kemi plays Clegg to Farage's Cameron the Tories could see a LibDem 2015 result in 2032/3.
They wouldn't as most 2024 Conservatives on a forced choice would prefer Farage as PM than Starmer, so they would only get a LD 2015 result if Kemi formed a coalition government with Starmer and snubbed Farage. Clegg's problem in 2015 equally was most 2010 LD voters would have preferred a Brown Labour government to a Cameron Tory government on a forced choice.
I know some Tories who wouldn't be happy propping up a fash government, even to keep Labour out.
A few might go LD but even more would go Reform if Kemi propped up Labour to keep Reform out of government
Are you sure you are not just channeling HYUFD? Even a few remaining Tory loyalists on here would rather sell copies of the Morning Star than support Trump adjacent fash.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I guess what William is getting at us that in certain, perhaps many instances non-white people are vastly overrepresented vs the population proportion in the (this) country.
They certainly are in ads for washing powder and fabric conditioner.
Yep, PoC have made great strides in that area. Been a long time coming but change has come there.
Yes and no. See above for my views on this overrepresentation. I'm in favour.
But if we are talking about matching representation to population incidence (and we don't particularly have to be but it would appeal to many as as good a model as any) then your "long time coming" comment is, to use the vernacular, woke bollocks.
In 1991 (wiki) 1.63% of the UK's population was (or identified as) black. It is now under 4%. This is not a proportion that, if used in many instances to represent black people, you for example would find acceptable.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I guess what William is getting at us that in certain, perhaps many instances non-white people are vastly overrepresented vs the population proportion in the (this) country.
They certainly are in ads for washing powder and fabric conditioner.
And for medicine, but the converse is true in hospital management.
I think the recent publicity was a plan to encourage British Asian applications to management roles in Birmingham hospitals.
Presumably matched with plans to encourage more Black British and white working class background British to apply to be surgeons and consultants and GPs?
I don't think many needed such encouragement; 'my son's a doctor' has a ring to it in many aspirant circles.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I think I've seen two male employees/trainees at my daughter's nursery all the time she's been there, both very temporary staff/trainees.
Yes, very few men in nursery schools. I'm guessing because they don't apply?
Sadly, I have to carers nowadays to help me/my wife with some of my personal care. I have had male ones but the vast majority are female, and in discussion I've been told that while men don't mind whether their carer is male or female, some female 'carers' refuse male carers. Whether a woman is 'allowed', legally to refuse a male carer in, for example, hospital I don't know. And the majority of male carers I've come across are non-white, tending to be of African heritage.
Care is low status, sadly. I'm trying to think of high status occupations that are dominated by women. Nothing springs to mind. Charity CEOs maybe?
I can, however, report that that National Museum of Kazakhstan is…. to my surprise TBH… absolutely outstanding
I seem to recall being told by an informed source that the Kazakstan authorities are very interested in preserving their heritage.
Honestly. It’s superb
If anyone has a spare afternoon this Easter weekend then just pop into the National Museum of Kazakhstan in Astana Nur Sultan. It’s by the Norman Foster Pyramid
You start with the gold of the nomads. The Kungar, Scythians. Sarmatians, the Taysak priestesses. So impressive, noble, chic, strange, glamorous. Fur coats lined with gold leaf. 6th century BC!!
Then come the stone sculptures of the steppes: eerie, ominous, noomy. 7th century AD. Why are they like Gobekli Tepe??
And then it skates through the Mongols and Islam…. And it slams into the horrors of the 20th century and communism and the USSR. The dead Aral Sea. The nuclear tests. Total famine killing a third of all people. Vast gulags. Deformed babies. “Zones of ecological disaster.”
Then at last, independence
It’s the Homeric epic of an entire nation in one building. Plus they do falconry IN THE LOBBY
Friend of mine, in a short-story writing group to which we both belong, has written a piece which makes reference to Merv, a town in that region about which I knew nothing. So, Wikipedia. And I was amazed at what I read. I really, really wish that I had travelled that area; fascinating. I know colleagues here sometimes knock Leon but I certainly find his travelogues, especially the current one enthralling and I, metaphorically, weep buckets over the fact that all I will ever be able to do is read about Central Asia.
That’s extremely kind of you, old PB pal
And I am more than happy to provide diversion that you enjoy, even if only vicariously
Central Asia is astonishingly overlooked given how accessible it is and how cheap (once you get here)
It is the cradle of so much. Horses to apples
It makes one wonder, when one considers that the earliest humans in that area were probably Homo sapiens as we understand it infused with Denisovian genes, whether it was the latter which made the difference, and enabled our current species to dominate the world.
It’s one of the great unanswered question. Which makes the unwarranted destruction of ancient hominid remains, on the grounds of non-existent “indigenous rights” so utterly appalling
These bones might have helped explain human origins, the origins of us all. These bones belong to ALL OF US. They are our ancestors. But Australia has destroyed them to appease SOME aboriginal groups even as other aboriginal groups fiercely complain
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I think I've seen two male employees/trainees at my daughter's nursery all the time she's been there, both very temporary staff/trainees.
Yes, very few men in nursery schools. I'm guessing because they don't apply?
Sadly, I have to carers nowadays to help me/my wife with some of my personal care. I have had male ones but the vast majority are female, and in discussion I've been told that while men don't mind whether their carer is male or female, some female 'carers' refuse male carers. Whether a woman is 'allowed', legally to refuse a male carer in, for example, hospital I don't know. And the majority of male carers I've come across are non-white, tending to be of African heritage.
Care is low status, sadly. I'm trying to think of high status occupations that are dominated by women. Nothing springs to mind. Charity CEOs maybe?
Increasingly CofE Bishops and headteachers and GPs too and fashion designers and human rights and family and criminal defence lawyers and Education and International Development Secretaries in the Cabinet and quango heads
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I guess what William is getting at us that in certain, perhaps many instances non-white people are vastly overrepresented vs the population proportion in the (this) country.
They certainly are in ads for washing powder and fabric conditioner.
Yep, PoC have made great strides in that area. Been a long time coming but change has come there.
Yes and no. See above for my views on this overrepresentation. I'm in favour.
But if we are talking about matching representation to population incidence (and we don't particularly have to be but it would appeal to many as as good a model as any) then your "long time coming" comment is, to use the vernacular, woke bollocks.
In 1991 (wiki) 1.63% of the UK's population was (or identified as) black. It is now under 4%. This is not a proportion that, if used in many instances to represent black people, you for example would find acceptable.
Struggling to find any disagreement with you. Nice.
Ooh I don't know about that. If Kemi plays Clegg to Farage's Cameron the Tories could see a LibDem 2015 result in 2032/3.
They wouldn't as most 2024 Conservatives on a forced choice would prefer Farage as PM than Starmer, so they would only get a LD 2015 result if Kemi formed a coalition government with Starmer and snubbed Farage. Clegg's problem in 2015 equally was most 2010 LD voters would have preferred a Brown Labour government to a Cameron Tory government on a forced choice.
I know some Tories who wouldn't be happy propping up a fash government, even to keep Labour out.
A few might go LD but even more would go Reform if Kemi propped up Labour to keep Reform out of government
Are you sure you are not just channeling HYUFD? Even a few remaining Tory loyalists on here would rather sell copies of the Morning Star than support Trump adjacent fash.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I think I've seen two male employees/trainees at my daughter's nursery all the time she's been there, both very temporary staff/trainees.
Yes, very few men in nursery schools. I'm guessing because they don't apply?
Sadly, I have to carers nowadays to help me/my wife with some of my personal care. I have had male ones but the vast majority are female, and in discussion I've been told that while men don't mind whether their carer is male or female, some female 'carers' refuse male carers. Whether a woman is 'allowed', legally to refuse a male carer in, for example, hospital I don't know. And the majority of male carers I've come across are non-white, tending to be of African heritage.
Care is low status, sadly. I'm trying to think of high status occupations that are dominated by women. Nothing springs to mind. Charity CEOs maybe?
Increasingly CofE Bishops
31 out of 104 is hardly 'dominated', increasingly or otherwise.
GPs have been trending female for the past 15 years, I think its nearly 60% now. It is one factor in the shortage of appointments despite being on paper that there being more GPs than ever, that more work part-time / around childcare commitments.
Women are now (by a small margin) the majority of all doctors. Ethnic minorities are now the majority of doctors in the UK.
I can, however, report that that National Museum of Kazakhstan is…. to my surprise TBH… absolutely outstanding
I seem to recall being told by an informed source that the Kazakstan authorities are very interested in preserving their heritage.
Honestly. It’s superb
If anyone has a spare afternoon this Easter weekend then just pop into the National Museum of Kazakhstan in Astana Nur Sultan. It’s by the Norman Foster Pyramid
You start with the gold of the nomads. The Kungar, Scythians. Sarmatians, the Taysak priestesses. So impressive, noble, chic, strange, glamorous. Fur coats lined with gold leaf. 6th century BC!!
Then come the stone sculptures of the steppes: eerie, ominous, noomy. 7th century AD. Why are they like Gobekli Tepe??
And then it skates through the Mongols and Islam…. And it slams into the horrors of the 20th century and communism and the USSR. The dead Aral Sea. The nuclear tests. Total famine killing a third of all people. Vast gulags. Deformed babies. “Zones of ecological disaster.”
Then at last, independence
It’s the Homeric epic of an entire nation in one building. Plus they do falconry IN THE LOBBY
Friend of mine, in a short-story writing group to which we both belong, has written a piece which makes reference to Merv, a town in that region about which I knew nothing. So, Wikipedia. And I was amazed at what I read. I really, really wish that I had travelled that area; fascinating. I know colleagues here sometimes knock Leon but I certainly find his travelogues, especially the current one enthralling and I, metaphorically, weep buckets over the fact that all I will ever be able to do is read about Central Asia.
That’s extremely kind of you, old PB pal
And I am more than happy to provide diversion that you enjoy, even if only vicariously
Central Asia is astonishingly overlooked given how accessible it is and how cheap (once you get here)
It is the cradle of so much. Horses to apples
It makes one wonder, when one considers that the earliest humans in that area were probably Homo sapiens as we understand it infused with Denisovian genes, whether it was the latter which made the difference, and enabled our current species to dominate the world.
It’s one of the great unanswered question. Which makes the unwarranted destruction of ancient hominid remains, on the grounds of non-existent “indigenous rights” so utterly appalling
These bones might have helped explain human origins, the origins of us all. These bones belong to ALL OF US. They are our ancestors. But Australia has destroyed them to appease SOME aboriginal groups even as other aboriginal groups fiercely complain
I can, however, report that that National Museum of Kazakhstan is…. to my surprise TBH… absolutely outstanding
I seem to recall being told by an informed source that the Kazakstan authorities are very interested in preserving their heritage.
Honestly. It’s superb
If anyone has a spare afternoon this Easter weekend then just pop into the National Museum of Kazakhstan in Astana Nur Sultan. It’s by the Norman Foster Pyramid
You start with the gold of the nomads. The Kungar, Scythians. Sarmatians, the Taysak priestesses. So impressive, noble, chic, strange, glamorous. Fur coats lined with gold leaf. 6th century BC!!
Then come the stone sculptures of the steppes: eerie, ominous, noomy. 7th century AD. Why are they like Gobekli Tepe??
And then it skates through the Mongols and Islam…. And it slams into the horrors of the 20th century and communism and the USSR. The dead Aral Sea. The nuclear tests. Total famine killing a third of all people. Vast gulags. Deformed babies. “Zones of ecological disaster.”
Then at last, independence
It’s the Homeric epic of an entire nation in one building. Plus they do falconry IN THE LOBBY
Friend of mine, in a short-story writing group to which we both belong, has written a piece which makes reference to Merv, a town in that region about which I knew nothing. So, Wikipedia. And I was amazed at what I read. I really, really wish that I had travelled that area; fascinating. I know colleagues here sometimes knock Leon but I certainly find his travelogues, especially the current one enthralling and I, metaphorically, weep buckets over the fact that all I will ever be able to do is read about Central Asia.
That’s extremely kind of you, old PB pal
And I am more than happy to provide diversion that you enjoy, even if only vicariously
Central Asia is astonishingly overlooked given how accessible it is and how cheap (once you get here)
It is the cradle of so much. Horses to apples
It makes one wonder, when one considers that the earliest humans in that area were probably Homo sapiens as we understand it infused with Denisovian genes, whether it was the latter which made the difference, and enabled our current species to dominate the world.
It’s one of the great unanswered question. Which makes the unwarranted destruction of ancient hominid remains, on the grounds of non-existent “indigenous rights” so utterly appalling
These bones might have helped explain human origins, the origins of us all. These bones belong to ALL OF US. They are our ancestors. But Australia has destroyed them to appease SOME aboriginal groups even as other aboriginal groups fiercely complain
I read recently something which suggested Native Australians were genetically closer to African 'genuine' Homo sapiens than Europeans, with their Neanderthal element.
I'm always conflicted about the question of ancient graves. Sure, there's scientific curiosity, but equally it's very often obvious that these ancient folk were laid to rest with loving care, by grieving relatives. What right have we to desecrate those graves?
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I think I've seen two male employees/trainees at my daughter's nursery all the time she's been there, both very temporary staff/trainees.
Yes, very few men in nursery schools. I'm guessing because they don't apply?
Few men in primary schools too and even most secondary school teachers are now female.
Probably because most male graduates can earn more in the private sector (even compared to private schools) but also unfortunately cases of sexual abuse or being accused of using excessive force on pupils related to mainly male teachers put some off
Yes, men and small children are not generally viewed as a good fit in the workplace.
Latest MIC leadership polling. Amongst 2024 Tory voters barely a third think Badenoch best PM. Farage next most popular, but surprising support for Starmer too.
I suspect if the Tories replaced Badenoch with Honest Bobby J. we would see an exponential change between Ref and Con.
I doubt it. The Conservatives' fundamental problems are:-
they have hardly any MPs left (about 120; they lost 250 MPs last July)
Boris purged a lot of the experienced ones
almost every criticism of Labour at PMQs can be knocked back by Starmer saying the Tories started it (whatever "it" is)
None of that changes under Jenrick.
Although what is the point of Farage when the Tories have Honest Bob (although the opposite is equally applicable)?
Farage offers NOTA. The old parties have failed, try my new panacea (see also Brexit). Jenrick personifies that history of failure – for Farage, for voters, and for Keir Starmer at PMQs.
Jenrick's latest pronouncements are against Islamist gangs running prisons, which, as Starmer will remind everyone, started under the Conservatives, along with prison overcrowding, access to boiling oil and so on and so forth.
Most damning of all, Jenrick is a Cambridge-educated lawyer.
Jenrick would solve some problems for the Conservatives. He is undoubtedly less lazy than Badenoch, and has a surer finger on the pulse of what Conservative-inclined voters care about.
Set against that, there's the whole Tawdry Bob thing.
But the big issues would remain. He was part of the 2019-24 government, and that failed utterly. Farage wasn't. Furthermore, Nigel has started quality in a way that is in a different league.
The problem is that the star quality that Farage has is eerily similar to that of Jeffrey Archer. He has charisma, but he also has no real anchor, neither personal, political, nor-lets face it- moral.
This is a guy who has taken the money to front the Russian state propaganda channel, who has burned through several political parties and eventually fallen out with all his colleagues. He lacks gravitas as much as he lacks anything except the most facile solutions to the mostly fake problems that he identifies, so he is a media creation, not a statesman.
After Trump, I think the danger of these media creations is now far more evident, so although I can certainly see a scenario where Farage does well in the short term, this is more to do with the ongoing death rattle of the Tories than any particular virtues, or lack of them, that Farage has.
In short, am unconvinced that Farage can control his own destiny, and at 61, time is against him.
What preposterous bollox
Farage is nothing like Jeffrey fecking Archer
Farage - like it or not - is a deeply skilled politician who changed British history - by securing Brexit - and now threatens to do it again by taking a new party to second or even first place in a general election
Jeffrey Archer became chairman of the Tory party, wrote some books, went to jail
Farage very nearly crashed the Brexit vote with his illl-judged poster campaign that was all about Me! Me! Me! Frage trying to wrest attention away from the person who REALLY delivered Brexit. Which was Boris Johnson.
A Brexit fronted by Farage would have failed.
But Brexit only happened because Farage took UKIP to the top in euro elex, terrifying Tories into a vote
But all that work would ultimately ave amounted to nothing because...Farage.
He would have locked us into ever greater union. No escape.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I guess what William is getting at us that in certain, perhaps many instances non-white people are vastly overrepresented vs the population proportion in the (this) country.
They certainly are in ads for washing powder and fabric conditioner.
And for medicine, but the converse is true in hospital management.
I think the recent publicity was a plan to encourage British Asian applications to management roles in Birmingham hospitals.
Presumably matched with plans to encourage more Black British and white working class background British to apply to be surgeons and consultants and GPs?
Certainly in Leicester we have encouraged applications from such groups, though everyone gets the same interview.
And yet, none of their opponents can break through either.
Good afternoon
It is rather surprising there is little evidence Reform are losing favour especially with Farage connections with Trump but maybe cynicism with all politicians prevails and certainly there is little enthusiasm for anyone
I understand Reeves has plunged to -48 in today's poll and there can be no doubt she has been a disaster for labour
I can, however, report that that National Museum of Kazakhstan is…. to my surprise TBH… absolutely outstanding
I seem to recall being told by an informed source that the Kazakstan authorities are very interested in preserving their heritage.
Honestly. It’s superb
If anyone has a spare afternoon this Easter weekend then just pop into the National Museum of Kazakhstan in Astana Nur Sultan. It’s by the Norman Foster Pyramid
You start with the gold of the nomads. The Kungar, Scythians. Sarmatians, the Taysak priestesses. So impressive, noble, chic, strange, glamorous. Fur coats lined with gold leaf. 6th century BC!!
Then come the stone sculptures of the steppes: eerie, ominous, noomy. 7th century AD. Why are they like Gobekli Tepe??
And then it skates through the Mongols and Islam…. And it slams into the horrors of the 20th century and communism and the USSR. The dead Aral Sea. The nuclear tests. Total famine killing a third of all people. Vast gulags. Deformed babies. “Zones of ecological disaster.”
Then at last, independence
It’s the Homeric epic of an entire nation in one building. Plus they do falconry IN THE LOBBY
Friend of mine, in a short-story writing group to which we both belong, has written a piece which makes reference to Merv, a town in that region about which I knew nothing. So, Wikipedia. And I was amazed at what I read. I really, really wish that I had travelled that area; fascinating. I know colleagues here sometimes knock Leon but I certainly find his travelogues, especially the current one enthralling and I, metaphorically, weep buckets over the fact that all I will ever be able to do is read about Central Asia.
That’s extremely kind of you, old PB pal
And I am more than happy to provide diversion that you enjoy, even if only vicariously
Central Asia is astonishingly overlooked given how accessible it is and how cheap (once you get here)
It is the cradle of so much. Horses to apples
It makes one wonder, when one considers that the earliest humans in that area were probably Homo sapiens as we understand it infused with Denisovian genes, whether it was the latter which made the difference, and enabled our current species to dominate the world.
It’s one of the great unanswered question. Which makes the unwarranted destruction of ancient hominid remains, on the grounds of non-existent “indigenous rights” so utterly appalling
These bones might have helped explain human origins, the origins of us all. These bones belong to ALL OF US. They are our ancestors. But Australia has destroyed them to appease SOME aboriginal groups even as other aboriginal groups fiercely complain
I read recently something which suggested Native Australians were genetically closer to African 'genuine' Homo sapiens than Europeans, with their Neanderthal element.
I'm always conflicted about the question of ancient graves. Sure, there's scientific curiosity, but equally it's very often obvious that these ancient folk were laid to rest with loving care, by grieving relatives. What right have we to desecrate those graves?
Because DNA shows that the remains at Willandra have nothing to do, genetically, with the aboriginal Australians who now live in this region of Oz. Which is what you would expect given that they are 45,000 years old and people move around a lot
So who are they? Who are the mysterious Mungo Man and Lady? And the Garnpung Giant? Why do they have such strange genetics? Are they evidence of unknown hominid sub species or even species?
We probably won’t ever know now because the Australian government has permitted their destruction to succour some ludicrous ahistorical perception of “human rights”
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I think I've seen two male employees/trainees at my daughter's nursery all the time she's been there, both very temporary staff/trainees.
Yes, very few men in nursery schools. I'm guessing because they don't apply?
Sadly, I have to carers nowadays to help me/my wife with some of my personal care. I have had male ones but the vast majority are female, and in discussion I've been told that while men don't mind whether their carer is male or female, some female 'carers' refuse male carers. Whether a woman is 'allowed', legally to refuse a male carer in, for example, hospital I don't know. And the majority of male carers I've come across are non-white, tending to be of African heritage.
Care is low status, sadly. I'm trying to think of high status occupations that are dominated by women. Nothing springs to mind. Charity CEOs maybe?
Increasingly CofE Bishops and headteachers and GPs too and fashion designers and human rights and family and criminal defence lawyers and Education and International Development Secretaries in the Cabinet and quango heads
International Development Secretary - that's like the Care Worker in the cabinet, isn't it? Hence goes to a woman usually.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I think I've seen two male employees/trainees at my daughter's nursery all the time she's been there, both very temporary staff/trainees.
Yes, very few men in nursery schools. I'm guessing because they don't apply?
Sadly, I have to carers nowadays to help me/my wife with some of my personal care. I have had male ones but the vast majority are female, and in discussion I've been told that while men don't mind whether their carer is male or female, some female 'carers' refuse male carers. Whether a woman is 'allowed', legally to refuse a male carer in, for example, hospital I don't know. And the majority of male carers I've come across are non-white, tending to be of African heritage.
Care is low status, sadly. I'm trying to think of high status occupations that are dominated by women. Nothing springs to mind. Charity CEOs maybe?
Increasingly CofE Bishops and headteachers and GPs too and fashion designers and human rights and family and criminal defence lawyers and Education and International Development Secretaries in the Cabinet and quango heads
International Development Secretary - that's like the Care Worker in the cabinet, isn't it? Hence goes to a woman usually.
Latest MIC leadership polling. Amongst 2024 Tory voters barely a third think Badenoch best PM. Farage next most popular, but surprising support for Starmer too.
I suspect if the Tories replaced Badenoch with Honest Bobby J. we would see an exponential change between Ref and Con.
I doubt it. The Conservatives' fundamental problems are:-
they have hardly any MPs left (about 120; they lost 250 MPs last July)
Boris purged a lot of the experienced ones
almost every criticism of Labour at PMQs can be knocked back by Starmer saying the Tories started it (whatever "it" is)
None of that changes under Jenrick.
Although what is the point of Farage when the Tories have Honest Bob (although the opposite is equally applicable)?
Farage offers NOTA. The old parties have failed, try my new panacea (see also Brexit). Jenrick personifies that history of failure – for Farage, for voters, and for Keir Starmer at PMQs.
Jenrick's latest pronouncements are against Islamist gangs running prisons, which, as Starmer will remind everyone, started under the Conservatives, along with prison overcrowding, access to boiling oil and so on and so forth.
Most damning of all, Jenrick is a Cambridge-educated lawyer.
Jenrick would solve some problems for the Conservatives. He is undoubtedly less lazy than Badenoch, and has a surer finger on the pulse of what Conservative-inclined voters care about.
Set against that, there's the whole Tawdry Bob thing.
But the big issues would remain. He was part of the 2019-24 government, and that failed utterly. Farage wasn't. Furthermore, Nigel has started quality in a way that is in a different league.
The problem is that the star quality that Farage has is eerily similar to that of Jeffrey Archer. He has charisma, but he also has no real anchor, neither personal, political, nor-lets face it- moral.
This is a guy who has taken the money to front the Russian state propaganda channel, who has burned through several political parties and eventually fallen out with all his colleagues. He lacks gravitas as much as he lacks anything except the most facile solutions to the mostly fake problems that he identifies, so he is a media creation, not a statesman.
After Trump, I think the danger of these media creations is now far more evident, so although I can certainly see a scenario where Farage does well in the short term, this is more to do with the ongoing death rattle of the Tories than any particular virtues, or lack of them, that Farage has.
In short, am unconvinced that Farage can control his own destiny, and at 61, time is against him.
What preposterous bollox
Farage is nothing like Jeffrey fecking Archer
Farage - like it or not - is a deeply skilled politician who changed British history - by securing Brexit - and now threatens to do it again by taking a new party to second or even first place in a general election
Jeffrey Archer became chairman of the Tory party, wrote some books, went to jail
Farage very nearly crashed the Brexit vote with his illl-judged poster campaign that was all about Me! Me! Me! Frage trying to wrest attention away from the person who REALLY delivered Brexit. Which was Boris Johnson.
A Brexit fronted by Farage would have failed.
But Brexit only happened because Farage took UKIP to the top in euro elex, terrifying Tories into a vote
But all that work would ultimately ave amounted to nothing because...Farage.
He would have locked us into ever greater union. No escape.
I can, however, report that that National Museum of Kazakhstan is…. to my surprise TBH… absolutely outstanding
I seem to recall being told by an informed source that the Kazakstan authorities are very interested in preserving their heritage.
Honestly. It’s superb
If anyone has a spare afternoon this Easter weekend then just pop into the National Museum of Kazakhstan in Astana Nur Sultan. It’s by the Norman Foster Pyramid
You start with the gold of the nomads. The Kungar, Scythians. Sarmatians, the Taysak priestesses. So impressive, noble, chic, strange, glamorous. Fur coats lined with gold leaf. 6th century BC!!
Then come the stone sculptures of the steppes: eerie, ominous, noomy. 7th century AD. Why are they like Gobekli Tepe??
And then it skates through the Mongols and Islam…. And it slams into the horrors of the 20th century and communism and the USSR. The dead Aral Sea. The nuclear tests. Total famine killing a third of all people. Vast gulags. Deformed babies. “Zones of ecological disaster.”
Then at last, independence
It’s the Homeric epic of an entire nation in one building. Plus they do falconry IN THE LOBBY
Friend of mine, in a short-story writing group to which we both belong, has written a piece which makes reference to Merv, a town in that region about which I knew nothing. So, Wikipedia. And I was amazed at what I read. I really, really wish that I had travelled that area; fascinating. I know colleagues here sometimes knock Leon but I certainly find his travelogues, especially the current one enthralling and I, metaphorically, weep buckets over the fact that all I will ever be able to do is read about Central Asia.
That’s extremely kind of you, old PB pal
And I am more than happy to provide diversion that you enjoy, even if only vicariously
Central Asia is astonishingly overlooked given how accessible it is and how cheap (once you get here)
It is the cradle of so much. Horses to apples
It makes one wonder, when one considers that the earliest humans in that area were probably Homo sapiens as we understand it infused with Denisovian genes, whether it was the latter which made the difference, and enabled our current species to dominate the world.
It’s one of the great unanswered question. Which makes the unwarranted destruction of ancient hominid remains, on the grounds of non-existent “indigenous rights” so utterly appalling
These bones might have helped explain human origins, the origins of us all. These bones belong to ALL OF US. They are our ancestors. But Australia has destroyed them to appease SOME aboriginal groups even as other aboriginal groups fiercely complain
Ancient coastlines, dude. Ancient coastlines surely hold the key. The total amount of land lost at end of the Ice Age due to sea level rise was roughly 25 MILLION sq.km. (10 MILLION sq. miles). How much archaeology has been undertaken on Doggerland, the floor of the Persian Gulf, the lost Sunda Shelf bounded by Malaysia and Indonesia, or the former land bridge between New Guinea and Oz?
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I think I've seen two male employees/trainees at my daughter's nursery all the time she's been there, both very temporary staff/trainees.
Yes, very few men in nursery schools. I'm guessing because they don't apply?
Few men in primary schools too and even most secondary school teachers are now female.
Probably because most male graduates can earn more in the private sector (even compared to private schools) but also unfortunately cases of sexual abuse or being accused of using excessive force on pupils related to mainly male teachers put some off
Yes, men and small children are not generally viewed as a good fit in the workplace.
Sadly that is public perception though there are some excellent male primary school teachers, Scout leaders, youth football coaches, childrens' nurses, boys choirmasters etc
What's the betting when the UK government agree the swap deal with France they won't count towards the figures...
They will try that, but I do not believe it will work, because the visuals will continue; indeed it might make it worse and more will fill the gap as they see an added incentive - family reunification once you hit the UK?
There is only one answer. Rwanda, or something like it. HMG just needs the cullions to see it through
I can, however, report that that National Museum of Kazakhstan is…. to my surprise TBH… absolutely outstanding
I seem to recall being told by an informed source that the Kazakstan authorities are very interested in preserving their heritage.
Honestly. It’s superb
If anyone has a spare afternoon this Easter weekend then just pop into the National Museum of Kazakhstan in Astana Nur Sultan. It’s by the Norman Foster Pyramid
You start with the gold of the nomads. The Kungar, Scythians. Sarmatians, the Taysak priestesses. So impressive, noble, chic, strange, glamorous. Fur coats lined with gold leaf. 6th century BC!!
Then come the stone sculptures of the steppes: eerie, ominous, noomy. 7th century AD. Why are they like Gobekli Tepe??
And then it skates through the Mongols and Islam…. And it slams into the horrors of the 20th century and communism and the USSR. The dead Aral Sea. The nuclear tests. Total famine killing a third of all people. Vast gulags. Deformed babies. “Zones of ecological disaster.”
Then at last, independence
It’s the Homeric epic of an entire nation in one building. Plus they do falconry IN THE LOBBY
Friend of mine, in a short-story writing group to which we both belong, has written a piece which makes reference to Merv, a town in that region about which I knew nothing. So, Wikipedia. And I was amazed at what I read. I really, really wish that I had travelled that area; fascinating. I know colleagues here sometimes knock Leon but I certainly find his travelogues, especially the current one enthralling and I, metaphorically, weep buckets over the fact that all I will ever be able to do is read about Central Asia.
That’s extremely kind of you, old PB pal
And I am more than happy to provide diversion that you enjoy, even if only vicariously
Central Asia is astonishingly overlooked given how accessible it is and how cheap (once you get here)
It is the cradle of so much. Horses to apples
It makes one wonder, when one considers that the earliest humans in that area were probably Homo sapiens as we understand it infused with Denisovian genes, whether it was the latter which made the difference, and enabled our current species to dominate the world.
It’s one of the great unanswered question. Which makes the unwarranted destruction of ancient hominid remains, on the grounds of non-existent “indigenous rights” so utterly appalling
These bones might have helped explain human origins, the origins of us all. These bones belong to ALL OF US. They are our ancestors. But Australia has destroyed them to appease SOME aboriginal groups even as other aboriginal groups fiercely complain
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I think I've seen two male employees/trainees at my daughter's nursery all the time she's been there, both very temporary staff/trainees.
Yes, very few men in nursery schools. I'm guessing because they don't apply?
Few men in primary schools too and even most secondary school teachers are now female.
Probably because most male graduates can earn more in the private sector (even compared to private schools) but also unfortunately cases of sexual abuse or being accused of using excessive force on pupils related to mainly male teachers put some off
Yes, men and small children are not generally viewed as a good fit in the workplace.
Sadly that is public perception though there are some excellent male primary school teachers, Scout leaders, youth football coaches, childrens' nurses, boys choirmasters etc
It is a shame, yes. The vast majority of men can be trusted around children.
We have just emerged from 3 days trundling along the Ardnamurchan peninsula.
Spectacular spectacularly fails to describe the spectacle.
When you next find yourself in a bar serving Ardnamurchan single cask, please order yourself a double dram and forward me the bill.
I was drinking to your health on the beach last night at Glenuig:
Hah
I’m so pleased!
Isn’t it amazing? Surely one of the most beautiful drives/hikes/adventures in the world, and with all that spiritual Hebridean loveliness, and then THAT view at the end, of all the Small Isles
And looks like you had good weather? Tho it is equally beautiful, in moody swirling mist…
I can, however, report that that National Museum of Kazakhstan is…. to my surprise TBH… absolutely outstanding
I seem to recall being told by an informed source that the Kazakstan authorities are very interested in preserving their heritage.
Honestly. It’s superb
If anyone has a spare afternoon this Easter weekend then just pop into the National Museum of Kazakhstan in Astana Nur Sultan. It’s by the Norman Foster Pyramid
You start with the gold of the nomads. The Kungar, Scythians. Sarmatians, the Taysak priestesses. So impressive, noble, chic, strange, glamorous. Fur coats lined with gold leaf. 6th century BC!!
Then come the stone sculptures of the steppes: eerie, ominous, noomy. 7th century AD. Why are they like Gobekli Tepe??
And then it skates through the Mongols and Islam…. And it slams into the horrors of the 20th century and communism and the USSR. The dead Aral Sea. The nuclear tests. Total famine killing a third of all people. Vast gulags. Deformed babies. “Zones of ecological disaster.”
Then at last, independence
It’s the Homeric epic of an entire nation in one building. Plus they do falconry IN THE LOBBY
Friend of mine, in a short-story writing group to which we both belong, has written a piece which makes reference to Merv, a town in that region about which I knew nothing. So, Wikipedia. And I was amazed at what I read. I really, really wish that I had travelled that area; fascinating. I know colleagues here sometimes knock Leon but I certainly find his travelogues, especially the current one enthralling and I, metaphorically, weep buckets over the fact that all I will ever be able to do is read about Central Asia.
That’s extremely kind of you, old PB pal
And I am more than happy to provide diversion that you enjoy, even if only vicariously
Central Asia is astonishingly overlooked given how accessible it is and how cheap (once you get here)
It is the cradle of so much. Horses to apples
It makes one wonder, when one considers that the earliest humans in that area were probably Homo sapiens as we understand it infused with Denisovian genes, whether it was the latter which made the difference, and enabled our current species to dominate the world.
It’s one of the great unanswered question. Which makes the unwarranted destruction of ancient hominid remains, on the grounds of non-existent “indigenous rights” so utterly appalling
These bones might have helped explain human origins, the origins of us all. These bones belong to ALL OF US. They are our ancestors. But Australia has destroyed them to appease SOME aboriginal groups even as other aboriginal groups fiercely complain
I read recently something which suggested Native Australians were genetically closer to African 'genuine' Homo sapiens than Europeans, with their Neanderthal element.
I'm always conflicted about the question of ancient graves. Sure, there's scientific curiosity, but equally it's very often obvious that these ancient folk were laid to rest with loving care, by grieving relatives. What right have we to desecrate those graves?
The people who laid those bones are well past caring.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I think I've seen two male employees/trainees at my daughter's nursery all the time she's been there, both very temporary staff/trainees.
Yes, very few men in nursery schools. I'm guessing because they don't apply?
Few men in primary schools too and even most secondary school teachers are now female.
Probably because most male graduates can earn more in the private sector (even compared to private schools) but also unfortunately cases of sexual abuse or being accused of using excessive force on pupils related to mainly male teachers put some off
Yes, men and small children are not generally viewed as a good fit in the workplace.
Sadly that is public perception though there are some excellent male primary school teachers, Scout leaders, youth football coaches, childrens' nurses, boys choirmasters etc
One of my grandsons is a primary school teacher. Well regarded by his employers, apparently.
I can, however, report that that National Museum of Kazakhstan is…. to my surprise TBH… absolutely outstanding
I seem to recall being told by an informed source that the Kazakstan authorities are very interested in preserving their heritage.
Honestly. It’s superb
If anyone has a spare afternoon this Easter weekend then just pop into the National Museum of Kazakhstan in Astana Nur Sultan. It’s by the Norman Foster Pyramid
You start with the gold of the nomads. The Kungar, Scythians. Sarmatians, the Taysak priestesses. So impressive, noble, chic, strange, glamorous. Fur coats lined with gold leaf. 6th century BC!!
Then come the stone sculptures of the steppes: eerie, ominous, noomy. 7th century AD. Why are they like Gobekli Tepe??
And then it skates through the Mongols and Islam…. And it slams into the horrors of the 20th century and communism and the USSR. The dead Aral Sea. The nuclear tests. Total famine killing a third of all people. Vast gulags. Deformed babies. “Zones of ecological disaster.”
Then at last, independence
It’s the Homeric epic of an entire nation in one building. Plus they do falconry IN THE LOBBY
Friend of mine, in a short-story writing group to which we both belong, has written a piece which makes reference to Merv, a town in that region about which I knew nothing. So, Wikipedia. And I was amazed at what I read. I really, really wish that I had travelled that area; fascinating. I know colleagues here sometimes knock Leon but I certainly find his travelogues, especially the current one enthralling and I, metaphorically, weep buckets over the fact that all I will ever be able to do is read about Central Asia.
That’s extremely kind of you, old PB pal
And I am more than happy to provide diversion that you enjoy, even if only vicariously
Central Asia is astonishingly overlooked given how accessible it is and how cheap (once you get here)
It is the cradle of so much. Horses to apples
It makes one wonder, when one considers that the earliest humans in that area were probably Homo sapiens as we understand it infused with Denisovian genes, whether it was the latter which made the difference, and enabled our current species to dominate the world.
It’s one of the great unanswered question. Which makes the unwarranted destruction of ancient hominid remains, on the grounds of non-existent “indigenous rights” so utterly appalling
These bones might have helped explain human origins, the origins of us all. These bones belong to ALL OF US. They are our ancestors. But Australia has destroyed them to appease SOME aboriginal groups even as other aboriginal groups fiercely complain
Ancient coastlines, dude. Ancient coastlines surely hold the key. The total amount of land lost at end of the Ice Age due to sea level rise was roughly 25 MILLION sq.km. (10 MILLION sq. miles). How much archaeology has been undertaken on Doggerland, the floor of the Persian Gulf, the lost Sunda Shelf bounded by Malaysia and Indonesia, or the former land bridge between New Guinea and Oz?
On this we agree
As I walked around the Kaz Nash Mooz today - marvelling at the extraordinary echoes of Gobekli Tepe statuary (10,000BC in Turkey) with the Kazakh “balbal” statues of the Turkic steppes - of 700AD - it struck me we still have so much to learn about human history, who knows maybe Graham Hancock is on to something
Perhaps Gobekli Tepe came at the END of a vast civilization, which was wiped out by the Ice Age. We simply do not know
I can, however, report that that National Museum of Kazakhstan is…. to my surprise TBH… absolutely outstanding
I seem to recall being told by an informed source that the Kazakstan authorities are very interested in preserving their heritage.
Honestly. It’s superb
If anyone has a spare afternoon this Easter weekend then just pop into the National Museum of Kazakhstan in Astana Nur Sultan. It’s by the Norman Foster Pyramid
You start with the gold of the nomads. The Kungar, Scythians. Sarmatians, the Taysak priestesses. So impressive, noble, chic, strange, glamorous. Fur coats lined with gold leaf. 6th century BC!!
Then come the stone sculptures of the steppes: eerie, ominous, noomy. 7th century AD. Why are they like Gobekli Tepe??
And then it skates through the Mongols and Islam…. And it slams into the horrors of the 20th century and communism and the USSR. The dead Aral Sea. The nuclear tests. Total famine killing a third of all people. Vast gulags. Deformed babies. “Zones of ecological disaster.”
Then at last, independence
It’s the Homeric epic of an entire nation in one building. Plus they do falconry IN THE LOBBY
Friend of mine, in a short-story writing group to which we both belong, has written a piece which makes reference to Merv, a town in that region about which I knew nothing. So, Wikipedia. And I was amazed at what I read. I really, really wish that I had travelled that area; fascinating. I know colleagues here sometimes knock Leon but I certainly find his travelogues, especially the current one enthralling and I, metaphorically, weep buckets over the fact that all I will ever be able to do is read about Central Asia.
That’s extremely kind of you, old PB pal
And I am more than happy to provide diversion that you enjoy, even if only vicariously
Central Asia is astonishingly overlooked given how accessible it is and how cheap (once you get here)
It is the cradle of so much. Horses to apples
It makes one wonder, when one considers that the earliest humans in that area were probably Homo sapiens as we understand it infused with Denisovian genes, whether it was the latter which made the difference, and enabled our current species to dominate the world.
It’s one of the great unanswered question. Which makes the unwarranted destruction of ancient hominid remains, on the grounds of non-existent “indigenous rights” so utterly appalling
These bones might have helped explain human origins, the origins of us all. These bones belong to ALL OF US. They are our ancestors. But Australia has destroyed them to appease SOME aboriginal groups even as other aboriginal groups fiercely complain
I read recently something which suggested Native Australians were genetically closer to African 'genuine' Homo sapiens than Europeans, with their Neanderthal element.
I'm always conflicted about the question of ancient graves. Sure, there's scientific curiosity, but equally it's very often obvious that these ancient folk were laid to rest with loving care, by grieving relatives. What right have we to desecrate those graves?
The people who laid those bones are well past caring.
That is true, but for me, at any rate, the principle applies. I believe we should have the same regard for our remote ancestors remains as we have for our recent ones.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I think I've seen two male employees/trainees at my daughter's nursery all the time she's been there, both very temporary staff/trainees.
Yes, very few men in nursery schools. I'm guessing because they don't apply?
Sadly, I have to carers nowadays to help me/my wife with some of my personal care. I have had male ones but the vast majority are female, and in discussion I've been told that while men don't mind whether their carer is male or female, some female 'carers' refuse male carers. Whether a woman is 'allowed', legally to refuse a male carer in, for example, hospital I don't know. And the majority of male carers I've come across are non-white, tending to be of African heritage.
Care is low status, sadly. I'm trying to think of high status occupations that are dominated by women. Nothing springs to mind. Charity CEOs maybe?
Increasingly CofE Bishops
31 out of 104 is hardly 'dominated', increasingly or otherwise.
Of the C of E bishops appointed so far this year 3 out of 6 have been female and the bookies favourite to be next Archbishop of Canterbury is also a woman
We have just emerged from 3 days trundling along the Ardnamurchan peninsula.
Spectacular spectacularly fails to describe the spectacle.
When you next find yourself in a bar serving Ardnamurchan single cask, please order yourself a double dram and forward me the bill.
I was drinking to your health on the beach last night at Glenuig:
Hah
I’m so pleased!
Isn’t it amazing? Surely one of the most beautiful drives/hikes/adventures in the world, and with all that spiritual Hebridean loveliness, and then THAT view at the end, of all the Small Isles
And looks like you had good weather? Tho it is equally beautiful, in moody swirling mist…
Agreed.
It reminded me strongly of the Lofoten islands.
The winding wooded road along the loch had us entranced.
My wife celebrated her birthday on Sanna beach (typical Scottish weather - blazing sun one minute, hail the next, then back to sun), then we ended up with venison stew and mussels in Glenuig inn that evening.
The ferry from Tobermory was great for the kids (and made it a one way trip), as was the lighthouse and watching the seals.
We have just emerged from 3 days trundling along the Ardnamurchan peninsula.
Spectacular spectacularly fails to describe the spectacle.
When you next find yourself in a bar serving Ardnamurchan single cask, please order yourself a double dram and forward me the bill.
I was drinking to your health on the beach last night at Glenuig:
Hah
I’m so pleased!
Isn’t it amazing? Surely one of the most beautiful drives/hikes/adventures in the world, and with all that spiritual Hebridean loveliness, and then THAT view at the end, of all the Small Isles
And looks like you had good weather? Tho it is equally beautiful, in moody swirling mist…
Agreed.
It reminded me strongly of the Lofoten islands.
The winding wooded road along the loch had us entranced.
My wife celebrated her birthday on Sanna beach (typical Scottish weather - blazing sun one minute, hail the next, then back to sun), then we ended up with venison stew and mussels in Glenuig inn that evening.
The ferry from Tobermory was great for the kids (and made it a one way trip), as was the lighthouse and watching the seals.
Big thanks for the tip.
if the Inner Hebrides and that north West Scottish Coast are in a good mood - ie either sunny or interestingly changeable or dreamily misty - they are the right up there with the most exquisite places on earth, to my mind. Top ten, certainly
It’s a sad beauty, a cruel loveliness, there is something dark in there too, but that only adds to it. It’’s not a bog standard beautiful White Lotus tropical beach
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I think I've seen two male employees/trainees at my daughter's nursery all the time she's been there, both very temporary staff/trainees.
Yes, very few men in nursery schools. I'm guessing because they don't apply?
Sadly, I have to carers nowadays to help me/my wife with some of my personal care. I have had male ones but the vast majority are female, and in discussion I've been told that while men don't mind whether their carer is male or female, some female 'carers' refuse male carers. Whether a woman is 'allowed', legally to refuse a male carer in, for example, hospital I don't know. And the majority of male carers I've come across are non-white, tending to be of African heritage.
Care is low status, sadly. I'm trying to think of high status occupations that are dominated by women. Nothing springs to mind. Charity CEOs maybe?
Increasingly CofE Bishops
31 out of 104 is hardly 'dominated', increasingly or otherwise.
Of the C of E bishops appointed so far this year 3 out of 6 have been female and the bookies favourite to be next Archbishop of Canterbury is also a woman
Well she couldn't be worse than the previous male COfE archbishop of Canterbury
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I think I've seen two male employees/trainees at my daughter's nursery all the time she's been there, both very temporary staff/trainees.
Yes, very few men in nursery schools. I'm guessing because they don't apply?
Sadly, I have to carers nowadays to help me/my wife with some of my personal care. I have had male ones but the vast majority are female, and in discussion I've been told that while men don't mind whether their carer is male or female, some female 'carers' refuse male carers. Whether a woman is 'allowed', legally to refuse a male carer in, for example, hospital I don't know. And the majority of male carers I've come across are non-white, tending to be of African heritage.
Care is low status, sadly. I'm trying to think of high status occupations that are dominated by women. Nothing springs to mind. Charity CEOs maybe?
Increasingly CofE Bishops
31 out of 104 is hardly 'dominated', increasingly or otherwise.
Of the C of E bishops appointed so far this year 3 out of 6 have been female and the bookies favourite to be next Archbishop of Canterbury is also a woman
50% is not 'dominating.'
I mean, I know maths isn't your subject, but really...
And regardless of your fury whenever I mention it, Snow is the likely pick for Canterbury for all sorts of reasons - not least, ironically in light of this conversation, that he's male.
I can, however, report that that National Museum of Kazakhstan is…. to my surprise TBH… absolutely outstanding
I seem to recall being told by an informed source that the Kazakstan authorities are very interested in preserving their heritage.
Honestly. It’s superb
If anyone has a spare afternoon this Easter weekend then just pop into the National Museum of Kazakhstan in Astana Nur Sultan. It’s by the Norman Foster Pyramid
You start with the gold of the nomads. The Kungar, Scythians. Sarmatians, the Taysak priestesses. So impressive, noble, chic, strange, glamorous. Fur coats lined with gold leaf. 6th century BC!!
Then come the stone sculptures of the steppes: eerie, ominous, noomy. 7th century AD. Why are they like Gobekli Tepe??
And then it skates through the Mongols and Islam…. And it slams into the horrors of the 20th century and communism and the USSR. The dead Aral Sea. The nuclear tests. Total famine killing a third of all people. Vast gulags. Deformed babies. “Zones of ecological disaster.”
Then at last, independence
It’s the Homeric epic of an entire nation in one building. Plus they do falconry IN THE LOBBY
Friend of mine, in a short-story writing group to which we both belong, has written a piece which makes reference to Merv, a town in that region about which I knew nothing. So, Wikipedia. And I was amazed at what I read. I really, really wish that I had travelled that area; fascinating. I know colleagues here sometimes knock Leon but I certainly find his travelogues, especially the current one enthralling and I, metaphorically, weep buckets over the fact that all I will ever be able to do is read about Central Asia.
That’s extremely kind of you, old PB pal
And I am more than happy to provide diversion that you enjoy, even if only vicariously
Central Asia is astonishingly overlooked given how accessible it is and how cheap (once you get here)
It is the cradle of so much. Horses to apples
It makes one wonder, when one considers that the earliest humans in that area were probably Homo sapiens as we understand it infused with Denisovian genes, whether it was the latter which made the difference, and enabled our current species to dominate the world.
It’s one of the great unanswered question. Which makes the unwarranted destruction of ancient hominid remains, on the grounds of non-existent “indigenous rights” so utterly appalling
These bones might have helped explain human origins, the origins of us all. These bones belong to ALL OF US. They are our ancestors. But Australia has destroyed them to appease SOME aboriginal groups even as other aboriginal groups fiercely complain
I can, however, report that that National Museum of Kazakhstan is…. to my surprise TBH… absolutely outstanding
I seem to recall being told by an informed source that the Kazakstan authorities are very interested in preserving their heritage.
Honestly. It’s superb
If anyone has a spare afternoon this Easter weekend then just pop into the National Museum of Kazakhstan in Astana Nur Sultan. It’s by the Norman Foster Pyramid
You start with the gold of the nomads. The Kungar, Scythians. Sarmatians, the Taysak priestesses. So impressive, noble, chic, strange, glamorous. Fur coats lined with gold leaf. 6th century BC!!
Then come the stone sculptures of the steppes: eerie, ominous, noomy. 7th century AD. Why are they like Gobekli Tepe??
And then it skates through the Mongols and Islam…. And it slams into the horrors of the 20th century and communism and the USSR. The dead Aral Sea. The nuclear tests. Total famine killing a third of all people. Vast gulags. Deformed babies. “Zones of ecological disaster.”
Then at last, independence
It’s the Homeric epic of an entire nation in one building. Plus they do falconry IN THE LOBBY
Friend of mine, in a short-story writing group to which we both belong, has written a piece which makes reference to Merv, a town in that region about which I knew nothing. So, Wikipedia. And I was amazed at what I read. I really, really wish that I had travelled that area; fascinating. I know colleagues here sometimes knock Leon but I certainly find his travelogues, especially the current one enthralling and I, metaphorically, weep buckets over the fact that all I will ever be able to do is read about Central Asia.
That’s extremely kind of you, old PB pal
And I am more than happy to provide diversion that you enjoy, even if only vicariously
Central Asia is astonishingly overlooked given how accessible it is and how cheap (once you get here)
It is the cradle of so much. Horses to apples
It makes one wonder, when one considers that the earliest humans in that area were probably Homo sapiens as we understand it infused with Denisovian genes, whether it was the latter which made the difference, and enabled our current species to dominate the world.
It’s one of the great unanswered question. Which makes the unwarranted destruction of ancient hominid remains, on the grounds of non-existent “indigenous rights” so utterly appalling
These bones might have helped explain human origins, the origins of us all. These bones belong to ALL OF US. They are our ancestors. But Australia has destroyed them to appease SOME aboriginal groups even as other aboriginal groups fiercely complain
We do "blind" sifts at work and I must admit to a jolt of surprise at a particular candidate's characteristics at interview. Not what I expected at all from CV/application.
I'm 99% sure I would have selected the same individual given their fit for the role anyway, but the fact I was surprised does prove I have some inherent predispositions. Something to reflect on - I think there is a strong possibility such a bias would have had a material effect had the candidate been a 50:50.
I can, however, report that that National Museum of Kazakhstan is…. to my surprise TBH… absolutely outstanding
I seem to recall being told by an informed source that the Kazakstan authorities are very interested in preserving their heritage.
Honestly. It’s superb
If anyone has a spare afternoon this Easter weekend then just pop into the National Museum of Kazakhstan in Astana Nur Sultan. It’s by the Norman Foster Pyramid
You start with the gold of the nomads. The Kungar, Scythians. Sarmatians, the Taysak priestesses. So impressive, noble, chic, strange, glamorous. Fur coats lined with gold leaf. 6th century BC!!
Then come the stone sculptures of the steppes: eerie, ominous, noomy. 7th century AD. Why are they like Gobekli Tepe??
And then it skates through the Mongols and Islam…. And it slams into the horrors of the 20th century and communism and the USSR. The dead Aral Sea. The nuclear tests. Total famine killing a third of all people. Vast gulags. Deformed babies. “Zones of ecological disaster.”
Then at last, independence
It’s the Homeric epic of an entire nation in one building. Plus they do falconry IN THE LOBBY
Friend of mine, in a short-story writing group to which we both belong, has written a piece which makes reference to Merv, a town in that region about which I knew nothing. So, Wikipedia. And I was amazed at what I read. I really, really wish that I had travelled that area; fascinating. I know colleagues here sometimes knock Leon but I certainly find his travelogues, especially the current one enthralling and I, metaphorically, weep buckets over the fact that all I will ever be able to do is read about Central Asia.
That’s extremely kind of you, old PB pal
And I am more than happy to provide diversion that you enjoy, even if only vicariously
Central Asia is astonishingly overlooked given how accessible it is and how cheap (once you get here)
It is the cradle of so much. Horses to apples
It makes one wonder, when one considers that the earliest humans in that area were probably Homo sapiens as we understand it infused with Denisovian genes, whether it was the latter which made the difference, and enabled our current species to dominate the world.
It’s one of the great unanswered question. Which makes the unwarranted destruction of ancient hominid remains, on the grounds of non-existent “indigenous rights” so utterly appalling
These bones might have helped explain human origins, the origins of us all. These bones belong to ALL OF US. They are our ancestors. But Australia has destroyed them to appease SOME aboriginal groups even as other aboriginal groups fiercely complain
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I think I've seen two male employees/trainees at my daughter's nursery all the time she's been there, both very temporary staff/trainees.
Yes, very few men in nursery schools. I'm guessing because they don't apply?
Sadly, I have to carers nowadays to help me/my wife with some of my personal care. I have had male ones but the vast majority are female, and in discussion I've been told that while men don't mind whether their carer is male or female, some female 'carers' refuse male carers. Whether a woman is 'allowed', legally to refuse a male carer in, for example, hospital I don't know. And the majority of male carers I've come across are non-white, tending to be of African heritage.
Care is low status, sadly. I'm trying to think of high status occupations that are dominated by women. Nothing springs to mind. Charity CEOs maybe?
Increasingly CofE Bishops
31 out of 104 is hardly 'dominated', increasingly or otherwise.
Of the C of E bishops appointed so far this year 3 out of 6 have been female and the bookies favourite to be next Archbishop of Canterbury is also a woman
50% is not 'dominating.'
I mean, I know maths isn't your subject, but really...
And regardless of your fury whenever I mention it, Snow is the likely pick for Canterbury for all sorts of reasons - not least, ironically in light of this conversation, that he's male.
On trends it certainly is, after the safeguarding issues in the C of E the trend is against male bishops.
Snow is not going to get it, his appointment would lead to civil war in the C of E as it would mean an evangelical following an evangelical and the Catholic members of the CNC nominations commission will block him for that reason
We have just emerged from 3 days trundling along the Ardnamurchan peninsula.
Spectacular spectacularly fails to describe the spectacle.
When you next find yourself in a bar serving Ardnamurchan single cask, please order yourself a double dram and forward me the bill.
I was drinking to your health on the beach last night at Glenuig:
Hah
I’m so pleased!
Isn’t it amazing? Surely one of the most beautiful drives/hikes/adventures in the world, and with all that spiritual Hebridean loveliness, and then THAT view at the end, of all the Small Isles
And looks like you had good weather? Tho it is equally beautiful, in moody swirling mist…
I thought you didn't like overcast foggy days over here and prefer to be in Khao San Road.
Latest MIC leadership polling. Amongst 2024 Tory voters barely a third think Badenoch best PM. Farage next most popular, but surprising support for Starmer too.
I suspect if the Tories replaced Badenoch with Honest Bobby J. we would see an exponential change between Ref and Con.
I doubt it. The Conservatives' fundamental problems are:-
they have hardly any MPs left (about 120; they lost 250 MPs last July)
Boris purged a lot of the experienced ones
almost every criticism of Labour at PMQs can be knocked back by Starmer saying the Tories started it (whatever "it" is)
None of that changes under Jenrick.
Although what is the point of Farage when the Tories have Honest Bob (although the opposite is equally applicable)?
Farage offers NOTA. The old parties have failed, try my new panacea (see also Brexit). Jenrick personifies that history of failure – for Farage, for voters, and for Keir Starmer at PMQs.
Jenrick's latest pronouncements are against Islamist gangs running prisons, which, as Starmer will remind everyone, started under the Conservatives, along with prison overcrowding, access to boiling oil and so on and so forth.
Most damning of all, Jenrick is a Cambridge-educated lawyer.
Jenrick would solve some problems for the Conservatives. He is undoubtedly less lazy than Badenoch, and has a surer finger on the pulse of what Conservative-inclined voters care about.
Set against that, there's the whole Tawdry Bob thing.
But the big issues would remain. He was part of the 2019-24 government, and that failed utterly. Farage wasn't. Furthermore, Nigel has started quality in a way that is in a different league.
The problem is that the star quality that Farage has is eerily similar to that of Jeffrey Archer. He has charisma, but he also has no real anchor, neither personal, political, nor-lets face it- moral.
This is a guy who has taken the money to front the Russian state propaganda channel, who has burned through several political parties and eventually fallen out with all his colleagues. He lacks gravitas as much as he lacks anything except the most facile solutions to the mostly fake problems that he identifies, so he is a media creation, not a statesman.
After Trump, I think the danger of these media creations is now far more evident, so although I can certainly see a scenario where Farage does well in the short term, this is more to do with the ongoing death rattle of the Tories than any particular virtues, or lack of them, that Farage has.
In short, am unconvinced that Farage can control his own destiny, and at 61, time is against him.
What preposterous bollox
Farage is nothing like Jeffrey fecking Archer
Farage - like it or not - is a deeply skilled politician who changed British history - by securing Brexit - and now threatens to do it again by taking a new party to second or even first place in a general election
Jeffrey Archer became chairman of the Tory party, wrote some books, went to jail
Farage very nearly crashed the Brexit vote with his illl-judged poster campaign that was all about Me! Me! Me! Frage trying to wrest attention away from the person who REALLY delivered Brexit. Which was Boris Johnson.
A Brexit fronted by Farage would have failed.
So you are confirming what I have always believed that the true architect of Brexit was the man who held two letters in his jacket pocket because he wasn't entirely sure whether he was a Leaver or a Remainer. Fantastic!
I get so exasperated with this story. On occasions, when time allows, I draft a speech for the opposing party. It is the best way to identify the weaknesses and strengths of your own position.
Frankly, anyone who thought Brexit was a simple question with an obvious solution is an idiot ( yes Nigel, that includes you). There were points to be made on both sides. Setting out both sides so he could recognise that and be prepared for the counter argument is one of the main reasons Boris won. If the remainers had done the same they might have had a chance.
We have just emerged from 3 days trundling along the Ardnamurchan peninsula.
Spectacular spectacularly fails to describe the spectacle.
When you next find yourself in a bar serving Ardnamurchan single cask, please order yourself a double dram and forward me the bill.
I was drinking to your health on the beach last night at Glenuig:
Hah
I’m so pleased!
Isn’t it amazing? Surely one of the most beautiful drives/hikes/adventures in the world, and with all that spiritual Hebridean loveliness, and then THAT view at the end, of all the Small Isles
And looks like you had good weather? Tho it is equally beautiful, in moody swirling mist…
I thought you didn't like overcast foggy days over here and prefer to be in Khao San Road.
I can, however, report that that National Museum of Kazakhstan is…. to my surprise TBH… absolutely outstanding
I seem to recall being told by an informed source that the Kazakstan authorities are very interested in preserving their heritage.
Honestly. It’s superb
If anyone has a spare afternoon this Easter weekend then just pop into the National Museum of Kazakhstan in Astana Nur Sultan. It’s by the Norman Foster Pyramid
You start with the gold of the nomads. The Kungar, Scythians. Sarmatians, the Taysak priestesses. So impressive, noble, chic, strange, glamorous. Fur coats lined with gold leaf. 6th century BC!!
Then come the stone sculptures of the steppes: eerie, ominous, noomy. 7th century AD. Why are they like Gobekli Tepe??
And then it skates through the Mongols and Islam…. And it slams into the horrors of the 20th century and communism and the USSR. The dead Aral Sea. The nuclear tests. Total famine killing a third of all people. Vast gulags. Deformed babies. “Zones of ecological disaster.”
Then at last, independence
It’s the Homeric epic of an entire nation in one building. Plus they do falconry IN THE LOBBY
Friend of mine, in a short-story writing group to which we both belong, has written a piece which makes reference to Merv, a town in that region about which I knew nothing. So, Wikipedia. And I was amazed at what I read. I really, really wish that I had travelled that area; fascinating. I know colleagues here sometimes knock Leon but I certainly find his travelogues, especially the current one enthralling and I, metaphorically, weep buckets over the fact that all I will ever be able to do is read about Central Asia.
That’s extremely kind of you, old PB pal
And I am more than happy to provide diversion that you enjoy, even if only vicariously
Central Asia is astonishingly overlooked given how accessible it is and how cheap (once you get here)
It is the cradle of so much. Horses to apples
It makes one wonder, when one considers that the earliest humans in that area were probably Homo sapiens as we understand it infused with Denisovian genes, whether it was the latter which made the difference, and enabled our current species to dominate the world.
It’s one of the great unanswered question. Which makes the unwarranted destruction of ancient hominid remains, on the grounds of non-existent “indigenous rights” so utterly appalling
These bones might have helped explain human origins, the origins of us all. These bones belong to ALL OF US. They are our ancestors. But Australia has destroyed them to appease SOME aboriginal groups even as other aboriginal groups fiercely complain
And yet, over the last 2 weeks, the polls have gone from a 50-50 tie to Labor ahead by 52% vs 48%.
This disproves your argument that there is a "vibeshift" against wokeness.
If anything, there is a reverse vibeshift against all things associated with Trumpism, including attacks on wokeness.
As if a poll showing 52:48 proves ANYTHING
Trump won by 49.8% vs 48.3%.
Why is a 1.5% victory by Trump somehow incredibly meaningful & indicative of a "vibeshift", while a 4% expected victory by woke Labor somehow totally meaningless ?
I can, however, report that that National Museum of Kazakhstan is…. to my surprise TBH… absolutely outstanding
I seem to recall being told by an informed source that the Kazakstan authorities are very interested in preserving their heritage.
Honestly. It’s superb
If anyone has a spare afternoon this Easter weekend then just pop into the National Museum of Kazakhstan in Astana Nur Sultan. It’s by the Norman Foster Pyramid
You start with the gold of the nomads. The Kungar, Scythians. Sarmatians, the Taysak priestesses. So impressive, noble, chic, strange, glamorous. Fur coats lined with gold leaf. 6th century BC!!
Then come the stone sculptures of the steppes: eerie, ominous, noomy. 7th century AD. Why are they like Gobekli Tepe??
And then it skates through the Mongols and Islam…. And it slams into the horrors of the 20th century and communism and the USSR. The dead Aral Sea. The nuclear tests. Total famine killing a third of all people. Vast gulags. Deformed babies. “Zones of ecological disaster.”
Then at last, independence
It’s the Homeric epic of an entire nation in one building. Plus they do falconry IN THE LOBBY
Friend of mine, in a short-story writing group to which we both belong, has written a piece which makes reference to Merv, a town in that region about which I knew nothing. So, Wikipedia. And I was amazed at what I read. I really, really wish that I had travelled that area; fascinating. I know colleagues here sometimes knock Leon but I certainly find his travelogues, especially the current one enthralling and I, metaphorically, weep buckets over the fact that all I will ever be able to do is read about Central Asia.
That’s extremely kind of you, old PB pal
And I am more than happy to provide diversion that you enjoy, even if only vicariously
Central Asia is astonishingly overlooked given how accessible it is and how cheap (once you get here)
It is the cradle of so much. Horses to apples
It makes one wonder, when one considers that the earliest humans in that area were probably Homo sapiens as we understand it infused with Denisovian genes, whether it was the latter which made the difference, and enabled our current species to dominate the world.
It’s one of the great unanswered question. Which makes the unwarranted destruction of ancient hominid remains, on the grounds of non-existent “indigenous rights” so utterly appalling
These bones might have helped explain human origins, the origins of us all. These bones belong to ALL OF US. They are our ancestors. But Australia has destroyed them to appease SOME aboriginal groups even as other aboriginal groups fiercely complain
And yet, over the last 2 weeks, the polls have gone from a 50-50 tie to Labor ahead by 52% vs 48%.
This disproves your argument that there is a "vibeshift" against wokeness.
If anything, there is a reverse vibeshift against all things associated with Trumpism, including attacks on wokeness.
As if a poll showing 52:48 proves ANYTHING
Trump won by 49.8% vs 48.3%.
Why is a 1.5% victory by Trump somehow incredibly meaningful & indicative of a "vibeshift", while a 4% expected victory by woke Labor somehow totally meaningless ?
I can, however, report that that National Museum of Kazakhstan is…. to my surprise TBH… absolutely outstanding
I seem to recall being told by an informed source that the Kazakstan authorities are very interested in preserving their heritage.
Honestly. It’s superb
If anyone has a spare afternoon this Easter weekend then just pop into the National Museum of Kazakhstan in Astana Nur Sultan. It’s by the Norman Foster Pyramid
You start with the gold of the nomads. The Kungar, Scythians. Sarmatians, the Taysak priestesses. So impressive, noble, chic, strange, glamorous. Fur coats lined with gold leaf. 6th century BC!!
Then come the stone sculptures of the steppes: eerie, ominous, noomy. 7th century AD. Why are they like Gobekli Tepe??
And then it skates through the Mongols and Islam…. And it slams into the horrors of the 20th century and communism and the USSR. The dead Aral Sea. The nuclear tests. Total famine killing a third of all people. Vast gulags. Deformed babies. “Zones of ecological disaster.”
Then at last, independence
It’s the Homeric epic of an entire nation in one building. Plus they do falconry IN THE LOBBY
Friend of mine, in a short-story writing group to which we both belong, has written a piece which makes reference to Merv, a town in that region about which I knew nothing. So, Wikipedia. And I was amazed at what I read. I really, really wish that I had travelled that area; fascinating. I know colleagues here sometimes knock Leon but I certainly find his travelogues, especially the current one enthralling and I, metaphorically, weep buckets over the fact that all I will ever be able to do is read about Central Asia.
That’s extremely kind of you, old PB pal
And I am more than happy to provide diversion that you enjoy, even if only vicariously
Central Asia is astonishingly overlooked given how accessible it is and how cheap (once you get here)
It is the cradle of so much. Horses to apples
It makes one wonder, when one considers that the earliest humans in that area were probably Homo sapiens as we understand it infused with Denisovian genes, whether it was the latter which made the difference, and enabled our current species to dominate the world.
It’s one of the great unanswered question. Which makes the unwarranted destruction of ancient hominid remains, on the grounds of non-existent “indigenous rights” so utterly appalling
These bones might have helped explain human origins, the origins of us all. These bones belong to ALL OF US. They are our ancestors. But Australia has destroyed them to appease SOME aboriginal groups even as other aboriginal groups fiercely complain
And yet, over the last 2 weeks, the polls have gone from a 50-50 tie to Labor ahead by 52% vs 48%.
This disproves your argument that there is a "vibeshift" against wokeness.
If anything, there is a reverse vibeshift against all things associated with Trumpism, including attacks on wokeness.
As if a poll showing 52:48 proves ANYTHING
Trump won by 49.8% vs 48.3%.
Why is a 1.5% victory by Trump somehow incredibly meaningful & indicative of a "vibeshift", while a 4% expected victory by woke Labor somehow totally meaningless ?
One had a sample size of more than a hundred million. The other did not.
We have just emerged from 3 days trundling along the Ardnamurchan peninsula.
Spectacular spectacularly fails to describe the spectacle.
When you next find yourself in a bar serving Ardnamurchan single cask, please order yourself a double dram and forward me the bill.
I was drinking to your health on the beach last night at Glenuig:
Hah
I’m so pleased!
Isn’t it amazing? Surely one of the most beautiful drives/hikes/adventures in the world, and with all that spiritual Hebridean loveliness, and then THAT view at the end, of all the Small Isles
And looks like you had good weather? Tho it is equally beautiful, in moody swirling mist…
I thought you didn't like overcast foggy days over here and prefer to be in Khao San Road.
Khao San Road. Now there I have been. Somewhat smoggy. Rural Thailand's much more pleasant, atmospherically speaking.
The fact that so many people can't see that "protected characteristics" is anti-equality is an eye-opener.
Not really because you haven’t explained your position. What do you mean by anti-equality? Do you think that people should be able to legally discriminate based on race, etc?
If not, do you think that it should be illegal to discriminate for any reason whatsoever?
If the answer to both of those questions is no, then you need ”protected characteristics”.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I think I've seen two male employees/trainees at my daughter's nursery all the time she's been there, both very temporary staff/trainees.
Yes, very few men in nursery schools. I'm guessing because they don't apply?
Sadly, I have to carers nowadays to help me/my wife with some of my personal care. I have had male ones but the vast majority are female, and in discussion I've been told that while men don't mind whether their carer is male or female, some female 'carers' refuse male carers. Whether a woman is 'allowed', legally to refuse a male carer in, for example, hospital I don't know. And the majority of male carers I've come across are non-white, tending to be of African heritage.
Care is low status, sadly. I'm trying to think of high status occupations that are dominated by women. Nothing springs to mind. Charity CEOs maybe?
Increasingly CofE Bishops
31 out of 104 is hardly 'dominated', increasingly or otherwise.
Of the C of E bishops appointed so far this year 3 out of 6 have been female and the bookies favourite to be next Archbishop of Canterbury is also a woman
50% is not 'dominating.'
I mean, I know maths isn't your subject, but really...
And regardless of your fury whenever I mention it, Snow is the likely pick for Canterbury for all sorts of reasons - not least, ironically in light of this conversation, that he's male.
On trends it certainly is, after the safeguarding issues in the C of E the trend is against male bishops.
Snow is not going to get it, his appointment would lead to civil war in the C of E as it would mean an evangelical following an evangelical and the Catholic members of the CNC nominations commission will block him for that reason
According to Yes Minister, the alternation is between those who believe in God, and those who don't.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I think I've seen two male employees/trainees at my daughter's nursery all the time she's been there, both very temporary staff/trainees.
Yes, very few men in nursery schools. I'm guessing because they don't apply?
Sadly, I have to carers nowadays to help me/my wife with some of my personal care. I have had male ones but the vast majority are female, and in discussion I've been told that while men don't mind whether their carer is male or female, some female 'carers' refuse male carers. Whether a woman is 'allowed', legally to refuse a male carer in, for example, hospital I don't know. And the majority of male carers I've come across are non-white, tending to be of African heritage.
Care is low status, sadly. I'm trying to think of high status occupations that are dominated by women. Nothing springs to mind. Charity CEOs maybe?
Increasingly CofE Bishops
31 out of 104 is hardly 'dominated', increasingly or otherwise.
Of the C of E bishops appointed so far this year 3 out of 6 have been female and the bookies favourite to be next Archbishop of Canterbury is also a woman
50% is not 'dominating.'
I mean, I know maths isn't your subject, but really...
And regardless of your fury whenever I mention it, Snow is the likely pick for Canterbury for all sorts of reasons - not least, ironically in light of this conversation, that he's male.
On trends it certainly is, after the safeguarding issues in the C of E the trend is against male bishops.
Snow is not going to get it, his appointment would lead to civil war in the C of E as it would mean an evangelical following an evangelical and the Catholic members of the CNC nominations commission will block him for that reason
The bookie's favourite has got a couple of challenges to overcome, though. One is quite a few provinces still don't have women bishops- are we going to have a flying... erm, flying even more than normal... Archbishop for them? York might be different, but a lady ABC is probably too much of a can of worms for now.
The other issue is the whole gay marriage thing. Whilst the majority of the CofE is broadly OK with it, the opponents still have something near a blocking minority. It remains to be seen whether that feeds through to the Canterbury CNC, but there have been a couple of stalemates in diocesan CNCs in the last year or so.
I wonder how long the Anglican Communion can go without an Archbishop of Canterbury?
I can, however, report that that National Museum of Kazakhstan is…. to my surprise TBH… absolutely outstanding
I seem to recall being told by an informed source that the Kazakstan authorities are very interested in preserving their heritage.
Honestly. It’s superb
If anyone has a spare afternoon this Easter weekend then just pop into the National Museum of Kazakhstan in Astana Nur Sultan. It’s by the Norman Foster Pyramid
You start with the gold of the nomads. The Kungar, Scythians. Sarmatians, the Taysak priestesses. So impressive, noble, chic, strange, glamorous. Fur coats lined with gold leaf. 6th century BC!!
Then come the stone sculptures of the steppes: eerie, ominous, noomy. 7th century AD. Why are they like Gobekli Tepe??
And then it skates through the Mongols and Islam…. And it slams into the horrors of the 20th century and communism and the USSR. The dead Aral Sea. The nuclear tests. Total famine killing a third of all people. Vast gulags. Deformed babies. “Zones of ecological disaster.”
Then at last, independence
It’s the Homeric epic of an entire nation in one building. Plus they do falconry IN THE LOBBY
Friend of mine, in a short-story writing group to which we both belong, has written a piece which makes reference to Merv, a town in that region about which I knew nothing. So, Wikipedia. And I was amazed at what I read. I really, really wish that I had travelled that area; fascinating. I know colleagues here sometimes knock Leon but I certainly find his travelogues, especially the current one enthralling and I, metaphorically, weep buckets over the fact that all I will ever be able to do is read about Central Asia.
That’s extremely kind of you, old PB pal
And I am more than happy to provide diversion that you enjoy, even if only vicariously
Central Asia is astonishingly overlooked given how accessible it is and how cheap (once you get here)
It is the cradle of so much. Horses to apples
It makes one wonder, when one considers that the earliest humans in that area were probably Homo sapiens as we understand it infused with Denisovian genes, whether it was the latter which made the difference, and enabled our current species to dominate the world.
It’s one of the great unanswered question. Which makes the unwarranted destruction of ancient hominid remains, on the grounds of non-existent “indigenous rights” so utterly appalling
These bones might have helped explain human origins, the origins of us all. These bones belong to ALL OF US. They are our ancestors. But Australia has destroyed them to appease SOME aboriginal groups even as other aboriginal groups fiercely complain
And yet, over the last 2 weeks, the polls have gone from a 50-50 tie to Labor ahead by 52% vs 48%.
This disproves your argument that there is a "vibeshift" against wokeness.
If anything, there is a reverse vibeshift against all things associated with Trumpism, including attacks on wokeness.
As if a poll showing 52:48 proves ANYTHING
Trump won by 49.8% vs 48.3%.
Why is a 1.5% victory by Trump somehow incredibly meaningful & indicative of a "vibeshift", while a 4% expected victory by woke Labor somehow totally meaningless ?
As it is a poll, plenty of US polls had Harris leading Trump until the results came in (and most Aussie polls normally slightly overestimate the Labor voteshare)
The rats are going to be the size of the horse ridden by the Genghis Khan as part of the statue in Mongolia....
Unite has offered to continue negotiations for the rest of the week and over the bank holiday weekend. However, the council has said talks will not resume until next Wednesday.
Latest MIC leadership polling. Amongst 2024 Tory voters barely a third think Badenoch best PM. Farage next most popular, but surprising support for Starmer too.
I suspect if the Tories replaced Badenoch with Honest Bobby J. we would see an exponential change between Ref and Con.
I doubt it. The Conservatives' fundamental problems are:-
they have hardly any MPs left (about 120; they lost 250 MPs last July)
Boris purged a lot of the experienced ones
almost every criticism of Labour at PMQs can be knocked back by Starmer saying the Tories started it (whatever "it" is)
None of that changes under Jenrick.
Although what is the point of Farage when the Tories have Honest Bob (although the opposite is equally applicable)?
Farage offers NOTA. The old parties have failed, try my new panacea (see also Brexit). Jenrick personifies that history of failure – for Farage, for voters, and for Keir Starmer at PMQs.
Jenrick's latest pronouncements are against Islamist gangs running prisons, which, as Starmer will remind everyone, started under the Conservatives, along with prison overcrowding, access to boiling oil and so on and so forth.
Most damning of all, Jenrick is a Cambridge-educated lawyer.
Jenrick would solve some problems for the Conservatives. He is undoubtedly less lazy than Badenoch, and has a surer finger on the pulse of what Conservative-inclined voters care about.
Set against that, there's the whole Tawdry Bob thing.
But the big issues would remain. He was part of the 2019-24 government, and that failed utterly. Farage wasn't. Furthermore, Nigel has started quality in a way that is in a different league.
The problem is that the star quality that Farage has is eerily similar to that of Jeffrey Archer. He has charisma, but he also has no real anchor, neither personal, political, nor-lets face it- moral.
This is a guy who has taken the money to front the Russian state propaganda channel, who has burned through several political parties and eventually fallen out with all his colleagues. He lacks gravitas as much as he lacks anything except the most facile solutions to the mostly fake problems that he identifies, so he is a media creation, not a statesman.
After Trump, I think the danger of these media creations is now far more evident, so although I can certainly see a scenario where Farage does well in the short term, this is more to do with the ongoing death rattle of the Tories than any particular virtues, or lack of them, that Farage has.
In short, am unconvinced that Farage can control his own destiny, and at 61, time is against him.
What preposterous bollox
Farage is nothing like Jeffrey fecking Archer
Farage - like it or not - is a deeply skilled politician who changed British history - by securing Brexit - and now threatens to do it again by taking a new party to second or even first place in a general election
Jeffrey Archer became chairman of the Tory party, wrote some books, went to jail
Farage very nearly crashed the Brexit vote with his illl-judged poster campaign that was all about Me! Me! Me! Frage trying to wrest attention away from the person who REALLY delivered Brexit. Which was Boris Johnson.
A Brexit fronted by Farage would have failed.
So you are confirming what I have always believed that the true architect of Brexit was the man who held two letters in his jacket pocket because he wasn't entirely sure whether he was a Leaver or a Remainer. Fantastic!
I get so exasperated with this story. On occasions, when time allows, I draft a speech for the opposing party. It is the best way to identify the weaknesses and strengths of your own position.
Frankly, anyone who thought Brexit was a simple question with an obvious solution is an idiot ( yes Nigel, that includes you). There were points to be made on both sides. Setting out both sides so he could recognise that and be prepared for the counter argument is one of the main reasons Boris won. If the remainers had done the same they might have had a chance.
Well said
I was exactly the same as Boris. Up until the day of the vote, maybe even the hour, I was not sure which way to go. It was knife edge, so I ran through both arguments in my head, several times
Even tho I was a lifelong eurosceptic I knew Brexit would cause tremendous turbulence and probably be bad for me personally - London property prices etc. Yet sovereignty and democracy demanded a Leave vote….
And yet I was ready to be persuaded by the European ideal, one magnificent European nation. Indeed I still could if it was sold properly
In the end it was probably Cameron’s dismal “deal” that tipped me to Leave. He came back with such pathetic offerings, and he lied about them - yet again a lie about the EU
If we had a re-run tomorrow I’d be divided again, but I’m pretty sure I’d vote Leave again
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I think I've seen two male employees/trainees at my daughter's nursery all the time she's been there, both very temporary staff/trainees.
Yes, very few men in nursery schools. I'm guessing because they don't apply?
Sadly, I have to carers nowadays to help me/my wife with some of my personal care. I have had male ones but the vast majority are female, and in discussion I've been told that while men don't mind whether their carer is male or female, some female 'carers' refuse male carers. Whether a woman is 'allowed', legally to refuse a male carer in, for example, hospital I don't know. And the majority of male carers I've come across are non-white, tending to be of African heritage.
Care is low status, sadly. I'm trying to think of high status occupations that are dominated by women. Nothing springs to mind. Charity CEOs maybe?
Increasingly CofE Bishops
31 out of 104 is hardly 'dominated', increasingly or otherwise.
Of the C of E bishops appointed so far this year 3 out of 6 have been female and the bookies favourite to be next Archbishop of Canterbury is also a woman
50% is not 'dominating.'
I mean, I know maths isn't your subject, but really...
And regardless of your fury whenever I mention it, Snow is the likely pick for Canterbury for all sorts of reasons - not least, ironically in light of this conversation, that he's male.
On trends it certainly is, after the safeguarding issues in the C of E the trend is against male bishops.
Snow is not going to get it, his appointment would lead to civil war in the C of E as it would mean an evangelical following an evangelical and the Catholic members of the CNC nominations commission will block him for that reason
According to Yes Minister, the alternation is between those who believe in God, and those who don't.
And whilst it would be tempting to let the Holy Ghost decide, nobody is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I think I've seen two male employees/trainees at my daughter's nursery all the time she's been there, both very temporary staff/trainees.
Yes, very few men in nursery schools. I'm guessing because they don't apply?
Sadly, I have to carers nowadays to help me/my wife with some of my personal care. I have had male ones but the vast majority are female, and in discussion I've been told that while men don't mind whether their carer is male or female, some female 'carers' refuse male carers. Whether a woman is 'allowed', legally to refuse a male carer in, for example, hospital I don't know. And the majority of male carers I've come across are non-white, tending to be of African heritage.
Care is low status, sadly. I'm trying to think of high status occupations that are dominated by women. Nothing springs to mind. Charity CEOs maybe?
Increasingly CofE Bishops
31 out of 104 is hardly 'dominated', increasingly or otherwise.
Of the C of E bishops appointed so far this year 3 out of 6 have been female and the bookies favourite to be next Archbishop of Canterbury is also a woman
50% is not 'dominating.'
I mean, I know maths isn't your subject, but really...
And regardless of your fury whenever I mention it, Snow is the likely pick for Canterbury for all sorts of reasons - not least, ironically in light of this conversation, that he's male.
On trends it certainly is, after the safeguarding issues in the C of E the trend is against male bishops.
Snow is not going to get it, his appointment would lead to civil war in the C of E as it would mean an evangelical following an evangelical and the Catholic members of the CNC nominations commission will block him for that reason
You think that a woman, as you seem to be hinting, would not be more of a problem?
I mean - really? You think the 'Catholic' wing, such as it is, would block him in favour of a female candidate?
You know, for somebody who claims to be a communicant member of the Church of England it's remarkable how little you understand it.*
As for 'on trends' even if that were true, which by the by it isn't on your own figures, that isn't relevant. You either have a group dominating, or you don't. Once they are dominant, they can become increasingly dominant, but they are not dominant and are unlikely to be in the near future.
*On that subject, best guess is the first appointment commission (which is a bad system) will be deadlocked. Snow has a considerable advantage under those circumstances on the grounds on the grounds he is likely to be acceptable as second choice to a wider range of voters than just about any other, especially since although he is an evangelical you appear to be unaware he has quite strong links to various Anglo-Catholic organisations.
We have just emerged from 3 days trundling along the Ardnamurchan peninsula.
Spectacular spectacularly fails to describe the spectacle.
When you next find yourself in a bar serving Ardnamurchan single cask, please order yourself a double dram and forward me the bill.
I was drinking to your health on the beach last night at Glenuig:
Hah
I’m so pleased!
Isn’t it amazing? Surely one of the most beautiful drives/hikes/adventures in the world, and with all that spiritual Hebridean loveliness, and then THAT view at the end, of all the Small Isles
And looks like you had good weather? Tho it is equally beautiful, in moody swirling mist…
I thought you didn't like overcast foggy days over here and prefer to be in Khao San Road.
...The protected characteristics apply to everybody. We all have some of them. Nobody has all of them.
There are nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation.
There are over 30 million biological women in the UK, and a large proportion of them will have been pregnant at some point. Some of them will have been disabled and married. At that point they all will have had eight protected characteristics: an age, a disability, a marriage, a pregnancy, a race, a religion (except the atheists), a sex, and a sexual orientation. If that disabled pregnant biological woman was a trans man, they would have had all nine.
No, that’s being normative! Everyone has all nine, because everyone has an answer to each of them. It is not legal to discriminate against you for not being pregnant, for being cisgendered, for not being disabled, etc.
Some on here the other night were entirely relaxed about the public sector discriminating against potential employees on the basis of their being white.
This depends on whether you consider making an effort to boost recruitment from underrepresented minorities is discriminating against white people.
How do you determine the correct level of representation?
You usually can't. Not precisely. But where there is clear and obvious underrepresentation for no valid reason you can seek to address it. It'd be a dereliction not to, wouldn't it.
I think I've seen two male employees/trainees at my daughter's nursery all the time she's been there, both very temporary staff/trainees.
Yes, very few men in nursery schools. I'm guessing because they don't apply?
Sadly, I have to carers nowadays to help me/my wife with some of my personal care. I have had male ones but the vast majority are female, and in discussion I've been told that while men don't mind whether their carer is male or female, some female 'carers' refuse male carers. Whether a woman is 'allowed', legally to refuse a male carer in, for example, hospital I don't know. And the majority of male carers I've come across are non-white, tending to be of African heritage.
Care is low status, sadly. I'm trying to think of high status occupations that are dominated by women. Nothing springs to mind. Charity CEOs maybe?
Increasingly CofE Bishops
31 out of 104 is hardly 'dominated', increasingly or otherwise.
Of the C of E bishops appointed so far this year 3 out of 6 have been female and the bookies favourite to be next Archbishop of Canterbury is also a woman
50% is not 'dominating.'
I mean, I know maths isn't your subject, but really...
And regardless of your fury whenever I mention it, Snow is the likely pick for Canterbury for all sorts of reasons - not least, ironically in light of this conversation, that he's male.
On trends it certainly is, after the safeguarding issues in the C of E the trend is against male bishops.
Snow is not going to get it, his appointment would lead to civil war in the C of E as it would mean an evangelical following an evangelical and the Catholic members of the CNC nominations commission will block him for that reason
The bookie's favourite has got a couple of challenges to overcome, though. One is quite a few provinces still don't have women bishops- are we going to have a flying... erm, flying even more than normal... Archbishop for them? York might be different, but a lady ABC is probably too much of a can of worms for now.
The other issue is the whole gay marriage thing. Whilst the majority of the CofE is broadly OK with it, the opponents still have something near a blocking minority. It remains to be seen whether that feeds through to the Canterbury CNC, but there have been a couple of stalemates in diocesan CNCs in the last year or so.
I wonder how long the Anglican Communion can go without an Archbishop of Canterbury?
Synod voted for female bishops by a 2/3 majority 10 years ago.
The Anglican Communion even now only has a handful of places on the CNC nominations commission and each province has its own Archbishop, the AofC is merely a symbolic primus inter pares now, he has nowhere near the powers of the Pope over the global Roman Catholic church and only leads the English church in terms of actual power to get things done. In any case it increasingly looks like the head of the Anglican Communion will be rotated amongst each province's lead Archbishop rather than just be the AofC.
The CofE still does not perfom gay marriage and that is a separate issue from women priests, even some women priests oppose going beyond PLF to same sex marriages in the C of E and there is certainly a blocking majority for a gay or lesbian AofC on the CNC even if they were celibate
Comments
There is a vibe shift towards a reduction in militant right seeking. But that’s not the same as a reduction in enlightenment.
The fundamental principle of enlightenment is tolerance and respect for others. Too many militant activists lack that and are entirely focused on their own desires regardless of the cost for others
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/52034-political-favourability-ratings-april-2025
Whether a woman is 'allowed', legally to refuse a male carer in, for example, hospital I don't know.
And the majority of male carers I've come across are non-white, tending to be of African heritage.
As a superlong term, utopian aspiration, an end to any correlation between ethnicity and nation states, yes I'll sign up for that.
But in the meantime, let's just be as fair and inclusive as we can. Is that a deal?
I think the recent publicity was a plan to encourage British Asian applications to management roles in Birmingham hospitals.
And edit to add: such overrepresentation could fuel resentment and appeal to the Reform demographic.
The balance is never going to be perfect, but does it not cross their minds why these so called 'woke' actions are taken in the first place (regardless of whether they are worded or done badly or not).
Probably because most male graduates can earn more in the private sector (even compared to private schools) but also unfortunately cases of sexual abuse or being accused of using excessive force on pupils related to mainly male teachers put some off
"Approval of Stamps
Theodore Dalrymple"
https://www.takimag.com/article/35626/
We need a Thomas Cook for our times. Volunteers?
Squid are some of the most alien looking creatures out there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXoRdSTrR-4
https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/Internal_Favourability_250414_w.pdf
But if we are talking about matching representation to population incidence (and we don't particularly have to be but it would appeal to many as as good a model as any) then your "long time coming" comment is, to use the vernacular, woke bollocks.
In 1991 (wiki) 1.63% of the UK's population was (or identified as) black. It is now under 4%. This is not a proportion that, if used in many instances to represent black people, you for example would find acceptable.
And it certainly wasn't necessary in pharmacy.
These bones might have helped explain human origins, the origins of us all. These bones belong to ALL OF US. They are our ancestors. But Australia has destroyed them to appease SOME aboriginal groups even as other aboriginal groups fiercely complain
Honestly, Woke is a disaster whatever it touches
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/australians-are-destroying-our-ancient-past/
However you have proved Tories are fash adjacent.
Women are now (by a small margin) the majority of all doctors. Ethnic minorities are now the majority of doctors in the UK.
* Looks like I missed out one of the Zs in wazzock.
I'm always conflicted about the question of ancient graves. Sure, there's scientific curiosity, but equally it's very often obvious that these ancient folk were laid to rest with loving care, by grieving relatives. What right have we to desecrate those graves?
He would have locked us into ever greater union. No escape.
It is rather surprising there is little evidence Reform are losing favour especially with Farage connections with Trump but maybe cynicism with all politicians prevails and certainly there is little enthusiasm for anyone
I understand Reeves has plunged to -48 in today's poll and there can be no doubt she has been a disaster for labour
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1912468420043342097?t=iL5LgHKljC7CwUVmkdWLhw&s=19
Because DNA shows that the remains at Willandra have nothing to do, genetically, with the aboriginal Australians who now live in this region of Oz. Which is what you would expect given that they are 45,000 years old and people move around a lot
So who are they? Who are the mysterious Mungo Man and Lady? And the Garnpung Giant? Why do they have such strange genetics? Are they evidence of unknown hominid sub species or even species?
We probably won’t ever know now because the Australian government has permitted their destruction to succour some ludicrous ahistorical perception of “human rights”
(and relax)
705 migrants arrived yesterday in 12 boats
A record number and questions for Yvette Cooper
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c99pg1men8po
This is going to KILL Labour
We have just emerged from 3 days trundling along the Ardnamurchan peninsula.
Spectacular spectacularly fails to describe the spectacle.
When you next find yourself in a bar serving Ardnamurchan single cask, please order yourself a double dram and forward me the bill.
I was drinking to your health on the beach last night at Glenuig:
There is only one answer. Rwanda, or something like it. HMG just needs the cullions to see it through
I’m so pleased!
Isn’t it amazing? Surely one of the most beautiful drives/hikes/adventures in the world, and with all that spiritual Hebridean loveliness, and then THAT view at the end, of all the Small Isles
And looks like you had good weather? Tho it is equally beautiful, in moody swirling mist…
As I walked around the Kaz Nash Mooz today - marvelling at the extraordinary echoes of Gobekli Tepe statuary (10,000BC in Turkey) with the Kazakh “balbal” statues of the Turkic steppes - of 700AD - it struck me we still have so much to learn about human history, who knows maybe Graham Hancock is on to something
Perhaps Gobekli Tepe came at the END of a vast civilization, which was wiped out by the Ice Age. We simply do not know
It reminded me strongly of the Lofoten islands.
The winding wooded road along the loch had us entranced.
My wife celebrated her birthday on Sanna beach (typical Scottish weather - blazing sun one minute, hail the next, then back to sun), then we ended up with venison stew and mussels in Glenuig inn that evening.
The ferry from Tobermory was great for the kids (and made it a one way trip), as was the lighthouse and watching the seals.
Big thanks for the tip.
It’s a sad beauty, a cruel loveliness, there is something dark in there too, but that only adds to it. It’’s not a bog standard beautiful White Lotus tropical beach
I mean, I know maths isn't your subject, but really...
And regardless of your fury whenever I mention it, Snow is the likely pick for Canterbury for all sorts of reasons - not least, ironically in light of this conversation, that he's male.
The Trumpy opposition leader's election slogan is that Labor is "Weak, Woke and Broke", and in January he was predicting an "antiwoke revolution for Australia" ( https://www.news.com.au/national/had-enough-peter-dutton-predicts-antiwoke-revolution-for-australia/news-story/f71438a3a3b328256a2acb6a061bcb07 ).
And yet, over the last 2 weeks, the polls have gone from a 50-50 tie to Labor ahead by 52% vs 48%.
This disproves your argument that there is a "vibeshift" against wokeness.
If anything, there is a reverse vibeshift against all things associated with Trumpism, including attacks on wokeness.
I'm 99% sure I would have selected the same individual given their fit for the role anyway, but the fact I was surprised does prove I have some inherent predispositions. Something to reflect on - I think there is a strong possibility such a bias would have had a material effect had the candidate been a 50:50.
Snow is not going to get it, his appointment would lead to civil war in the C of E as it would mean an evangelical following an evangelical and the Catholic members of the CNC nominations commission will block him for that reason
He pled guilty ... it's a clue.
@Mexicanpete I'm just calling Mr Vance for his consideration of this outrage...
There is a certain similarity if one views one of Yaxley's videos. Though JD is perhaps a bit more extreme in his views
Frankly, anyone who thought Brexit was a simple question with an obvious solution is an idiot ( yes Nigel, that includes you). There were points to be made on both sides. Setting out both sides so he could recognise that and be prepared for the counter argument is one of the main reasons Boris won. If the remainers had done the same they might have had a chance.
How old are you? 61?!
Why is a 1.5% victory by Trump somehow incredibly meaningful & indicative of a "vibeshift", while a 4% expected victory by woke Labor somehow totally meaningless ?
If not, do you think that it should be illegal to discriminate for any reason whatsoever?
If the answer to both of those questions is no, then you need ”protected characteristics”.
The other issue is the whole gay marriage thing. Whilst the majority of the CofE is broadly OK with it, the opponents still have something near a blocking minority. It remains to be seen whether that feeds through to the Canterbury CNC, but there have been a couple of stalemates in diocesan CNCs in the last year or so.
I wonder how long the Anglican Communion can go without an Archbishop of Canterbury?
Unite has offered to continue negotiations for the rest of the week and over the bank holiday weekend. However, the council has said talks will not resume until next Wednesday.
I was exactly the same as Boris. Up until the day of the vote, maybe even the hour, I was not sure which way to go. It was knife edge, so I ran through both arguments in my head, several times
Even tho I was a lifelong eurosceptic I knew Brexit would cause tremendous turbulence and probably be bad for me personally - London property prices etc. Yet sovereignty and democracy demanded a Leave vote….
And yet I was ready to be persuaded by the European ideal, one magnificent European nation. Indeed I still could if it was sold properly
In the end it was probably Cameron’s dismal “deal” that tipped me to Leave. He came back with such pathetic offerings, and he lied about them - yet again a lie about the EU
If we had a re-run tomorrow I’d be divided again, but I’m pretty sure I’d vote Leave again
I mean - really? You think the 'Catholic' wing, such as it is, would block him in favour of a female candidate?
You know, for somebody who claims to be a communicant member of the Church of England it's remarkable how little you understand it.*
As for 'on trends' even if that were true, which by the by it isn't on your own figures, that isn't relevant. You either have a group dominating, or you don't. Once they are dominant, they can become increasingly dominant, but they are not dominant and are unlikely to be in the near future.
*On that subject, best guess is the first appointment commission (which is a bad system) will be deadlocked. Snow has a considerable advantage under those circumstances on the grounds on the grounds he is likely to be acceptable as second choice to a wider range of voters than just about any other, especially since although he is an evangelical you appear to be unaware he has quite strong links to various Anglo-Catholic organisations.
The Anglican Communion even now only has a handful of places on the CNC nominations commission and each province has its own Archbishop, the AofC is merely a symbolic primus inter pares now, he has nowhere near the powers of the Pope over the global Roman Catholic church and only leads the English church in terms of actual power to get things done. In any case it increasingly looks like the head of the Anglican Communion will be rotated amongst each province's lead Archbishop rather than just be the AofC.
The CofE still does not perfom gay marriage and that is a separate issue from women priests, even some women priests oppose going beyond PLF to same sex marriages in the C of E and there is certainly a blocking majority for a gay or lesbian AofC on the CNC even if they were celibate