...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.
No. Over 2/3 of Synod voted for women Bishops over a decade ago but Synod is split 50-50 between Catholics and Evangelicals.
Most of the Catholic wing now are relatively liberal and even relative conservatives like Marcus Walker are now pro women priests, the Forward in Faith anti women priests and bishops wing largely left for the RC church after female ordination and bishops were approved by Synod.
The trends are clear, more women bishops than ever are getting appointed. Snow has been merging Parishes en masse in Leicester, the Catholic wing of the C of E largely despise him as does Save the Parish which is increasingly influential on that wing of the C of E and in Prudence Daily has a vocal member of the CNC nominations commission
...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 was wondering, given the age of the Archbishop of York and the fact Durham is in vacancy, who would become Acting Archbishop in the event of both York and Canterbury being vacant.
Sarah Mulally would presumably be the logical choice, as Bishop of London. But I wondered whether they might recall a retired bishop or archbishop in that situation? I don't think it's arisen since the time of Cromwell so it's hard to be sure.
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????
How old are you? 61?!
Google AI is ageless.
Last time I looked at Khao San Road - not stayed in, just looked - was probably ten years back. It has turned into a horrible tacky backpacker theme park, a kind of industrialized Gap Year. Tragic. It is not the place where I lived the wild life in the 1980s, scoring heroin on room service and dodging the police
I can’t imagine it has got better. I am told it is even worse
I stay in the lower sois of the Sukhumvit Road, which have a tackiness of their own, but they also have world class restaurants, bars, hotels, fun. It is where everyone stays
Speaking of which, did anyone else see episode 5 of White Lotus and the conversation in the bar of the Mandarin Oriental, Bangkok, between Rick and his friend? The “Achilles Heel” soliloquy must be one of the funniest things I have ever seen on TV. Delivered superbly
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
My concerns remain. The EU is an essentially undemocratic institution. It now contains undemocratic members such as Hungary. The Euro was way ahead of its time. The economies of Europe were not nearly integrated enough to share the same currency, interest rates and monetary policies. The consequences for many have been disastrous. Their share of world GDP has fallen sharply as a result. Their bureaucracy makes it difficult to compete internationally. Even Vance is right sometimes.
OTOH the world has got a lot more uncertain than it was at the time of the vote. America is no longer a reliable friend or ally. There is much to be said for being part of a bigger club. Brexit has added to the paperwork of trade. It has had adverse effects on our freedom of movement throughout Europe and the ability to work there. We have not used our new freedoms well.
It’s still a balancing act. I think I would probably come to the same conclusion but I can see circumstances where I wouldn’t.
On topic: Yesterday, a local TV station (KOMO 4) ran a story on local firefighters who had volunteered to go over to Ukraine to train Ukrainian counterparts. As one explained, the rescue techniques used are about the same, regardless of how a building was knocked down.
...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 was wondering, given the age of the Archbishop of York and the fact Durham is in vacancy, who would become Acting Archbishop in the event of both York and Canterbury being vacant.
Sarah Mulally would presumably be the logical choice, as Bishop of London. But I wondered whether they might recall a retired bishop or archbishop in that situation? I don't think it's arisen since the time of Cromwell so it's hard to be sure.
Winchester?
In terms of retired Archbishops, it would have to be his Rowanness, and he's suffered enough, hasn't he?
...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 was wondering, given the age of the Archbishop of York and the fact Durham is in vacancy, who would become Acting Archbishop in the event of both York and Canterbury being vacant.
Sarah Mulally would presumably be the logical choice, as Bishop of London. But I wondered whether they might recall a retired bishop or archbishop in that situation? I don't think it's arisen since the time of Cromwell so it's hard to be sure.
Winchester?
In terms of retired Archbishops, it would have to be his Rowanness, and he's suffered enough, hasn't he?
Winchester was only enthroned a few months ago, and has his hands full with his diocese.
On the discussion of wood versus brick homes: In earthquake areas (for example, where I live) wood is, in general, much safer than bricks. I still see bricks on new buildings, but they appear to be decorative. (Or, for my tastes, failed attempts at being decorative.)
There are brick buildings in the oldest part of Seattle, Pioneer Square. Some years ago I saw a prediction from a geologist that -- in a really big earthquake -- bricks would be "raining down" there.
Even stronger than wooden buildings are steel-frame wooden buildings; they are common in commercial buildings and becoming more common in homes.
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
That, almost word for word, was me as well. Though actually the downside I perceived in 2016 was greater than what actually happened and the EU has proved itself a less attractive club to be a part of in the years since than I had thought - so I am rather more likely to vote Leave a second time than I was a first time.
...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?
The position in the CofE is that female bishops were approved in around 2015, and the system - with fudgy edges * - was made that there would be an aim to prefer female diocesan bishops to the positions in the Lords first. The normal process is the top 5 (Canterbury, York, London, Durham, Winchester) are in anyway, and then it is length of service.
I make female Bishops in the Lords as 8 from 26 at present. In Diocesan Bishops iirc that is 8 from 42. There are 6 vacancies at present, and 2 of the 6 Acting Bishops are women, who are both little Bishops. I'd suggest women amongst the Lords Spiritual will be 11 or 12 when these vacancies are filled.
A third of little Bishops are now women (23), so there's a pipeline in place for future Diocesans. 23 is about 1/3 of the total.
Like @HYUFD I still don't see a woman as ABC this time, not least because "worldwide church" representation in the process has been increased. But I think there is a decent probability I could be mistaken.
* The makeup of the Crown Nomination Commission for a bishopric is such that, whilst blocking minorities don't exist aiui, in practice a near of blocking minority is possible due to the makeup of the commission, and the vote works on a supermajority of 10 from 17. I have heard a few moans about it.
One really wouldn't guess what this judgment says from headlines like "UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex".
Apparently the person who wrote that didn't even get as far as the second paragraph of the judgment: "It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010" https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Yes it's specifically about the EA.
But whither the GRA now?
The judgment explicitly deals with reconciling the two. In very brief summary, having a gender recognition certificate gives you protections in relation to your acquired gender as set out in the GRA, but it does not make you a woman as the term is used in the Equality Act (which does, let's not forget, make gender reassignment a protected characteristic).
Implying there are rights and protections a transgender person with a GRC has that those without do not. What would be an example of that iyo?
Um, if IIRC it explicitly says not.
"...Para 265, (xii) Gender reassignment and sex are separate bases for discrimination and inequality. The interpretation favoured by the EHRC and the Scottish Ministers would create two sub-groups within those who share the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, giving trans persons who possess a GRC greater rights than those who do not. Those seeking to perform their obligations under the Act would have no obvious means of distinguishing between the two sub-groups to whom different duties were owed, particularly since they could not ask persons whether they had obtained a GRC..."
and
"...Para 265, (xvii) The interpretation of the EA 2010 (ie the biological sex reading), which we conclude is the only correct one, does not cause disadvantage to trans people, with or without a GRC. In the light of case law interpreting the relevant provisions, they would be able to invoke the provisions on direct discrimination and harassment, and indirect discrimination. A certificated sex reading is not required to give them those protections..."
Given that the Court rejected the EHRC and the Scottish Ministers interpretation, it appears that a certificated sex (possession of a GRC) does not create rights.
As I keep saying (and only HYUFD has answered) "If the rights of a person before a GRC are the same as a person after a GRC, then what is its function?"
Yes, I'm seeing it like you. The price of clarifying the EA is the GRA losing utility. It needs to be looked at again in the light of this ruling.
The Gender Recognition Act predated the Equality Act by 6 years. It still has whatever utility it had when it was passed.
The fact that Kemi Badenoch has adopted the tabloid headline interpretation of what the judgment means doesn't mean everyone else has to.
Comments
Or Maybe NOT!
NEW THREAD
Most of the Catholic wing now are relatively liberal and even relative conservatives like Marcus Walker are now pro women priests, the Forward in Faith anti women priests and bishops wing largely left for the RC church after female ordination and bishops were approved by Synod.
The trends are clear, more women bishops than ever are getting appointed. Snow has been merging Parishes en masse in Leicester, the Catholic wing of the C of E largely despise him as does Save the Parish which is increasingly influential on that wing of the C of E and in Prudence Daily has a vocal member of the CNC nominations commission
Sarah Mulally would presumably be the logical choice, as Bishop of London. But I wondered whether they might recall a retired bishop or archbishop in that situation? I don't think it's arisen since the time of Cromwell so it's hard to be sure.
I can’t imagine it has got better. I am told it is even worse
I stay in the lower sois of the Sukhumvit Road, which have a tackiness of their own, but they also have world class restaurants, bars, hotels, fun. It is where everyone stays
Speaking of which, did anyone else see episode 5 of White Lotus and the conversation in the bar of the Mandarin Oriental, Bangkok, between Rick and his friend? The “Achilles Heel” soliloquy must be one of the funniest things I have ever seen on TV. Delivered superbly
OTOH the world has got a lot more uncertain than it was at the time of the vote. America is no longer a reliable friend or ally. There is much to be said for being part of a bigger club. Brexit has added to the paperwork of trade. It has had adverse effects on our freedom of movement throughout Europe and the ability to work there. We have not used our new freedoms well.
It’s still a balancing act. I think I would probably come to the same conclusion but I can see circumstances where I wouldn’t.
(Here's the story on another channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df6syRYlJ90 )
In terms of retired Archbishops, it would have to be his Rowanness, and he's suffered enough, hasn't he?
Josh Barro, NYT opinion writer.
There are brick buildings in the oldest part of Seattle, Pioneer Square. Some years ago I saw a prediction from a geologist that -- in a really big earthquake -- bricks would be "raining down" there.
Even stronger than wooden buildings are steel-frame wooden buildings; they are common in commercial buildings and becoming more common in homes.
I make female Bishops in the Lords as 8 from 26 at present. In Diocesan Bishops iirc that is 8 from 42. There are 6 vacancies at present, and 2 of the 6 Acting Bishops are women, who are both little Bishops. I'd suggest women amongst the Lords Spiritual will be 11 or 12 when these vacancies are filled.
A third of little Bishops are now women (23), so there's a pipeline in place for future Diocesans. 23 is about 1/3 of the total.
Like @HYUFD I still don't see a woman as ABC this time, not least because "worldwide church" representation in the process has been increased. But I think there is a decent probability I could be mistaken.
* The makeup of the Crown Nomination Commission for a bishopric is such that, whilst blocking minorities don't exist aiui, in practice a near of blocking minority is possible due to the makeup of the commission, and the vote works on a supermajority of 10 from 17. I have heard a few moans about it.
The fact that Kemi Badenoch has adopted the tabloid headline interpretation of what the judgment means doesn't mean everyone else has to.