So JRM and Boris are both on manoeuvres for the Tory Brexiteer crown.
Whilst the Secretaries of State at Defence and Health are getting stuck into sorting out the problems within their Departments - and more worthy of being future leaders.
There's a genuine debate to be had about whether we go for a Brexit that is pointless but limits the damage or a Brexit that is destructive but meaningful. That's a more useful discussion at this stage than attempts at second referendums or denial about the choices to be made.
Mr. Sandpit, quite. Reminds me of a hospital last year that refused funds raised charitably by men dressing up as female nurses.
Great. You held onto your moral high ground. Less money for life-saving medical treatment, but at least some pretentious prick feels good about themselves.
One advantage of an NHS is that one government department should be able to talk to the other and clear these things quickly and simply. Mrs Rudd’s department is looking increasingly disfunctional and tail-chasing.
Surely this is a feature, not a bug?
If net immigration target for Non-EU migrants is to be met, then surely it is a good thing, particularly if it forces up salaries for indiginous British staff. If it is good for plasterers, then surely it is good for psychiatrists too?
Now I know you’re trolling. Any sensible immigration system allows for those with key shortage skills to be fast tracked. I’m sure you’d agree that healthcare professionals at any salary come into this category!
Actually according to the quote they don't. Certain specialities of medics do but these specific ones don't.
Which is why the Home Office need a kick up the arse! If the NHS need staff then immigration rules need to reflect that, not the other way around.
85% of the world is outside of the EU but are discriminated against on immigration by the UK when compared with EU countries.
There's a genuine debate to be had about whether we go for a Brexit that is pointless but limits the damage or a Brexit that is destructive but meaningful. That's a more useful discussion at this stage than attempts at second referendums or denial about the choices to be made.
Those are not the only twp alternatives no matter how desperately you wish it to be so.
Mr. Sandpit, quite. Reminds me of a hospital last year that refused funds raised charitably by men dressing up as female nurses.
Great. You held onto your moral high ground. Less money for life-saving medical treatment, but at least some pretentious prick feels good about themselves.
If a wunch of bankers want to behave like idiots for the night but end up with a massive cheque for a worthwhile charity, let them bloody get on with it and say thank you for the donation. SJW Twittermob wins again.
Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.
Fucking morons.
Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.
Well quite. And in any case there's no point accepting a donation if its value is outweighed by donations that are forgone as a result of a subsequent donors' strike.
Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.
Fucking morons.
Strangely I think Great Ormond Street hospital will get more donations following the publicity of returning this money than they would have got from the original donations. Happiness is when moral imperative aligns with self interest
Looks like the Tory Brexit extremists have finally twigged what's going on.
Yes, we know what is going on. A betrayal of the democratic vote to leave the EU. An agreement to pay 40bn in return for nothing. An agreement that we must have our trade rules set by the EU in return for a substandard trade agreement.
Looks like the Tory Brexit extremists have finally twigged what's going on.
Yes, we know what is going on. A betrayal of the democratic vote to leave the EU. An agreement to pay 40bn in return for nothing. An agreement that we must have our trade rules set by the EU in return for a substandard trade agreement.
May will not be PM by October.
The EU will be setting the trade rules for Australia?
There's a genuine debate to be had about whether we go for a Brexit that is pointless but limits the damage or a Brexit that is destructive but meaningful. That's a more useful discussion at this stage than attempts at second referendums or denial about the choices to be made.
Those are not the only twp alternatives no matter how desperately you wish it to be so.
I don't particularly wish it to be so. I do recognise Brexiteers won't put the fundamental choice in quite those terms. The problem is that they are not collectively prepared to make any choices with consequences. To be fair neither are Remainers.
Looks like the Tory Brexit extremists have finally twigged what's going on.
Yes, we know what is going on. A betrayal of the democratic vote to leave the EU. An agreement to pay 40bn in return for nothing. An agreement that we must have our trade rules set by the EU in return for a substandard trade agreement.
There's a genuine debate to be had about whether we go for a Brexit that is pointless but limits the damage or a Brexit that is destructive but meaningful. That's a more useful discussion at this stage than attempts at second referendums or denial about the choices to be made.
Those are not the only twp alternatives no matter how desperately you wish it to be so.
I don't particularly wish it to be so. I do recognise Brexiteers won't put the fundamental choice in quite those terms. The problem is that they are not collectively prepared to make any choices with consequences. To be fair neither are Remainers.
Making choices is the whole point of sovereignty.
Indeed. But the choices you are trying to use to constrain are options are not grounded in reality. As such your comment was based on a false dichotomy.
There's a genuine debate to be had about whether we go for a Brexit that is pointless but limits the damage or a Brexit that is destructive but meaningful. That's a more useful discussion at this stage than attempts at second referendums or denial about the choices to be made.
Those are not the only twp alternatives no matter how desperately you wish it to be so.
I don't particularly wish it to be so. I do recognise Brexiteers won't put the fundamental choice in quite those terms. The problem is that they are not collectively prepared to make any choices with consequences. To be fair neither are Remainers.
Making choices is the whole point of sovereignty.
Indeed. But the choices you are trying to use to constrain are options are not grounded in reality. As such your comment was based on a false dichotomy.
No, they are very much founded in reality. Of the two choices, you favour a pointless Brexit. The only point of contention is that you don't believe it is pointless, but in all other respects you accept the basic premise.
Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.
Fucking morons.
Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.
The fact that some people behaved oafishly at a fund-raising dinner should not mean that one returns money raised at that dinner.
Serious question. If a group of paedophiles got together and donated money should GOS accept it? I'm testing the limits of your consequentialism here.
It would depend whether the purpose of the event in question was to promote acceptance of sex between adults and children. I would imagine that would conflict with the charitable objects of the hospital.
If it was simply a group of paedophiles making a donation to the charity, (eg as a way of atoning for their past actions) then I would see no problem.
Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.
Fucking morons.
Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.
Well quite. And in any case there's no point accepting a donation if its value is outweighed by donations that are forgone as a result of a subsequent donors' strike.
That's the odd thing. I can see why they want to return this year's donation (for exactly that reason). But why previous years?
Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.
Fucking morons.
Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.
The fact that some people behaved oafishly at a fund-raising dinner should not mean that one returns money raised at that dinner.
Serious question. If a group of paedophiles got together and donated money should GOS accept it? I'm testing the limits of your consequentialism here.
It would depend whether the purpose of the event in question was to promote acceptance of sex between adults and children. I would imagine that would conflict with the charitable objects of the hospital.
If it was simply a group of paedophiles making a donation to the charity, (eg as a way of atoning for their past actions) then I would see no problem.
Except those allegedly acting abusively (not oafishly) and illegally at the dinner weren't trying to atone for past behaviour they were actively still abusing people.
Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.
Fucking morons.
Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.
The fact that some people behaved oafishly at a fund-raising dinner should not mean that one returns money raised at that dinner.
Serious question. If a group of paedophiles got together and donated money should GOS accept it? I'm testing the limits of your consequentialism here.
The waitresses or whatever you call them were responding to an advertisement requiring them to be tall, thin and pretty and wear black underwear. Until we hear that anything happened which caused anyone to go to the police I am comfortable with the assumption that they knew what they were letting themselves in for, and don't need their decisions second guessed by a lot of patronizing elderly white men.
One advantage of an NHS is that one government department should be able to talk to the other and clear these things quickly and simply. Mrs Rudd’s department is looking increasingly disfunctional and tail-chasing.
Surely this is a feature, not a bug?
If net immigration target for Non-EU migrants is to be met, then surely it is a good thing, particularly if it forces up salaries for indiginous British staff. If it is good for plasterers, then surely it is good for psychiatrists too?
Now I know you’re trolling. Any sensible immigration system allows for those with key shortage skills to be fast tracked. I’m sure you’d agree that healthcare professionals at any salary come into this category!
Actually according to the quote they don't. Certain specialities of medics do but these specific ones don't.
Which is why the Home Office need a kick up the arse! If the NHS need staff then immigration rules need to reflect that, not the other way around.
If immigration targets are to be met, then tough choices need to be met.
Improving the pay and conditions to reduce dependence on migrant recruitment is surely as true for psychiatrists and intensivists as it is for builders and fruit pickers.
One of Brexits silver linings is that demand for the services of sturdy British yeomen like myself should drive up my terms of service.
There's a genuine debate to be had about whether we go for a Brexit that is pointless but limits the damage or a Brexit that is destructive but meaningful. That's a more useful discussion at this stage than attempts at second referendums or denial about the choices to be made.
Those are not the only twp alternatives no matter how desperately you wish it to be so.
I don't particularly wish it to be so. I do recognise Brexiteers won't put the fundamental choice in quite those terms. The problem is that they are not collectively prepared to make any choices with consequences. To be fair neither are Remainers.
Making choices is the whole point of sovereignty.
Indeed. But the choices you are trying to use to constrain are options are not grounded in reality. As such your comment was based on a false dichotomy.
A bit like this one ?
Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.
Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.
Fucking morons.
Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.
The fact that some people behaved oafishly at a fund-raising dinner should not mean that one returns money raised at that dinner.
Serious question. If a group of paedophiles got together and donated money should GOS accept it? I'm testing the limits of your consequentialism here.
The waitresses or whatever you call them were responding to an advertisement requiring them to be tall, thin and pretty and wear black underwear. Until we hear that anything happened which caused anyone to go to the police I am comfortable with the assumption that they knew what they were letting themselves in for, and don't need their decisions second guessed by a lot of patronizing elderly white men.
Ah, the groped ask for us argument. It's amazing how in the 21st century so many still side with the abusers.
Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.
Fucking morons.
Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.
The fact that some people behaved oafishly at a fund-raising dinner should not mean that one returns money raised at that dinner.
It's not just about that dinner, it's about rejecting the misogynist culture it typifies.Quite right too. If nobody ever takes a stand nothing ever changes.
The waitresses or whatever you call them were responding to an advertisement requiring them to be tall, thin and pretty and wear black underwear. Until we hear that anything happened which caused anyone to go to the police I am comfortable with the assumption that they knew what they were letting themselves in for, and don't need their decisions second guessed by a lot of patronizing elderly white men.
Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.
Fucking morons.
Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.
The fact that some people behaved oafishly at a fund-raising dinner should not mean that one returns money raised at that dinner.
Serious question. If a group of paedophiles got together and donated money should GOS accept it? I'm testing the limits of your consequentialism here.
The waitresses or whatever you call them were responding to an advertisement requiring them to be tall, thin and pretty and wear black underwear. Until we hear that anything happened which caused anyone to go to the police I am comfortable with the assumption that they knew what they were letting themselves in for, and don't need their decisions second guessed by a lot of patronizing elderly white men.
'they knew what they were letting themselves in for'.
Victim blaming at its most magnificent. Let's be clear: the people in the wrong here are not the women paid to be there, but with the men who felt the women were objects to be felt up, and the organisers who seem to have encouraged it.
The waitresses or whatever you call them were responding to an advertisement requiring them to be tall, thin and pretty and wear black underwear. Until we hear that anything happened which caused anyone to go to the police I am comfortable with the assumption that they knew what they were letting themselves in for, and don't need their decisions second guessed by a lot of patronizing elderly white men.
Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.
Fucking morons.
Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.
Well quite. And in any case there's no point accepting a donation if its value is outweighed by donations that are forgone as a result of a subsequent donors' strike.
Indeed. But that's a slightly different argument. GOH would be making a calculation that they would be financially worse off if they kept the money. They would not be making a primarily moral argument.
Still, if one refuses money which is somehow "morally" tainted, how far will this principle extend? JM Barrie, for instance, might not have passed muster in today's censorious world.
Will Oxford colleges receiving money from Saudi Arabia return this and refuse to receive any more in future? That country's abuse of women is many times worse than anything alleged to have happened at this event, for instance.
I have not followed the FT story. Have there been actual allegations of abuse? How reliable are they?
And - sorry for being boringly legalistic here - might we want to remember that an allegation is simply that. People accused of abuse are innocent until proven guilty. Elsewhere in the papers there are stories of men accused of pretty vile abuse - rape - who turned out to be innocent and who have had their lives and reputations ruined. We might want to bear that in mind before running to condemn on the basis of a story in a newspaper. GOH might also want to remember that before making an irrevocable decision.
Or we can just decide everything on the basis of who manages to whip up the most publicity - and to hell with facts and due process.
Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.
Fucking morons.
Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.
The fact that some people behaved oafishly at a fund-raising dinner should not mean that one returns money raised at that dinner.
Serious question. If a group of paedophiles got together and donated money should GOS accept it? I'm testing the limits of your consequentialism here.
The waitresses or whatever you call them were responding to an advertisement requiring them to be tall, thin and pretty and wear black underwear. Until we hear that anything happened which caused anyone to go to the police I am comfortable with the assumption that they knew what they were letting themselves in for, and don't need their decisions second guessed by a lot of patronizing elderly white men.
Ah, the groped ask for us argument. It's amazing how in the 21st century so many still side with the abusers.
The ”groped ask for us argument” is not something I have come across, never mind advanced. I am afraid that in these ridiculously PC days we have to allow members of the weaker* sex to make their own decisions.
"It's not just about that dinner, it's about rejecting the misogynist culture it typifies. Quite right too. If nobody ever takes a stand nothing ever changes."
if you have such concerns, kindly send all such money to me. I'm sure it's still legal tender. I'll do my best to sleep afterwards.
One advantage of an NHS is that one government department should be able to talk to the other and clear these things quickly and simply. Mrs Rudd’s department is looking increasingly disfunctional and tail-chasing.
Surely this is a feature, not a bug?
If net immigration target for Non-EU migrants is to be met, then surely it is a good thing, particularly if it forces up salaries for indiginous British staff. If it is good for plasterers, then surely it is good for psychiatrists too?
Now I know you’re trolling. Any sensible immigration system allows for those with key shortage skills to be fast tracked. I’m sure you’d agree that healthcare professionals at any salary come into this category!
Actually according to the quote they don't. Certain specialities of medics do but these specific ones don't.
Which is why the Home Office need a kick up the arse! If the NHS need staff then immigration rules need to reflect that, not the other way around.
85% of the world is outside of the EU but are discriminated against on immigration by the UK when compared with EU countries.
Miss Cyclefree, I forget the actor's name (again) but he was in a BBC drama pencilled in for Christmas before being accused of sexual misconduct (I don't think he's been charged). The programme was postponed, now they're re-shooting with a new actor in the role. Guilt not required to be proven, an accusation is enough.
Accusations should be taken very seriously, but an allegation is not proof of guilt, and a complainant is only a victim [in legal terms] if that's proven in court.
Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.
Fucking morons.
Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.
Well quite. And in any case there's no point accepting a donation if its value is outweighed by donations that are forgone as a result of a subsequent donors' strike.
Indeed. But that's a slightly different argument. GOH would be making a calculation that they would be financially worse off if they kept the money. They would not be making a primarily moral argument.
Still, if one refuses money which is somehow "morally" tainted, how far will this principle extend? JM Barrie, for instance, might not have passed muster in today's censorious world.
Will Oxford colleges receiving money from Saudi Arabia return this and refuse to receive any more in future? That country's abuse of women is many times worse than anything alleged to have happened at this event, for instance.
I have not followed the FT story. Have there been actual allegations of abuse? How reliable are they?
And - sorry for being boringly legalistic here - might we want to remember that an allegation is simply that. People accused of abuse are innocent until proven guilty. Elsewhere in the papers there are stories of men accused of pretty vile abuse - rape - who turned out to be innocent and who have had their lives and reputations ruined. We might want to bear that in mind before running to condemn on the basis of a story in a newspaper. GOH might also want to remember that before making an irrevocable decision.
Or we can just decide everything on the basis of who manages to whip up the most publicity - and to hell with facts and due process.
Looks like the Tory Brexit extremists have finally twigged what's going on.
Yes, we know what is going on. A betrayal of the democratic vote to leave the EU. An agreement to pay 40bn in return for nothing. An agreement that we must have our trade rules set by the EU in return for a substandard trade agreement.
May will not be PM by October.
Chill.
We're leaving the EU - it's what you wanted and voted for, right?
Did I miss the appendix on the back of the ballot paper?
Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.
Fucking morons.
Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.
Well quite. And in any case there's no point accepting a donation if its value is outweighed by donations that are forgone as a result of a subsequent donors' strike.
Indeed. But that's a slightly different argument. GOH would be making a calculation that they would be financially worse off if they kept the money. They would not be making a primarily moral argument.
Still, if one refuses money which is somehow "morally" tainted, how far will this principle extend? JM Barrie, for instance, might not have passed muster in today's censorious world.
Will Oxford colleges receiving money from Saudi Arabia return this and refuse to receive any more in future? That country's abuse of women is many times worse than anything alleged to have happened at this event, for instance.
I have not followed the FT story. Have there been actual allegations of abuse? How reliable are they?
And - sorry for being boringly legalistic here - might we want to remember that an allegation is simply that. People accused of abuse are innocent until proven guilty. Elsewhere in the papers there are stories of men accused of pretty vile abuse - rape - who turned out to be innocent and who have had their lives and reputations ruined. We might want to bear that in mind before running to condemn on the basis of a story in a newspaper. GOH might also want to remember that before making an irrevocable decision.
Or we can just decide everything on the basis of who manages to whip up the most publicity - and to hell with facts and due process.
It sounds like the kind of events that Deutsche put on in the 1990s and early 2000s. Very unpleasant. I went to one & never again.
One advantage of an NHS is that one government department should be able to talk to the other and clear these things quickly and simply. Mrs Rudd’s department is looking increasingly disfunctional and tail-chasing.
Surely this is a feature, not a bug?
If net immigration target for Non-EU migrants is to be met, then surely it is a good thing, particularly if it forces up salaries for indiginous British staff. If it is good for plasterers, then surely it is good for psychiatrists too?
Now I know you’re trolling. Any sensible immigration system allows for those with key shortage skills to be fast tracked. I’m sure you’d agree that healthcare professionals at any salary come into this category!
Actually according to the quote they don't. Certain specialities of medics do but these specific ones don't.
Which is why the Home Office need a kick up the arse! If the NHS need staff then immigration rules need to reflect that, not the other way around.
85% of the world is outside of the EU but are discriminated against on immigration by the UK when compared with EU countries.
Actually it's 93%
And how much of the world is outside Lincolnshire?
Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.
Fucking morons.
Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.
The fact that some people behaved oafishly at a fund-raising dinner should not mean that one returns money raised at that dinner.
Serious question. If a group of paedophiles got together and donated money should GOS accept it? I'm testing the limits of your consequentialism here.
The waitresses or whatever you call them were responding to an advertisement requiring them to be tall, thin and pretty and wear black underwear. Until we hear that anything happened which caused anyone to go to the police I am comfortable with the assumption that they knew what they were letting themselves in for, and don't need their decisions second guessed by a lot of patronizing elderly white men.
Ah, the groped ask for us argument. It's amazing how in the 21st century so many still side with the abusers.
Thing about @Ishmael_Z is that he would start an argument with himself in an empty room. And lose.
Looks like the Tory Brexit extremists have finally twigged what's going on.
Yes, we know what is going on. A betrayal of the democratic vote to leave the EU. An agreement to pay 40bn in return for nothing. An agreement that we must have our trade rules set by the EU in return for a substandard trade agreement.
May will not be PM by October.
Yes she will (on the balance of probabilities).
1. Any leadership election is inherently unpredictable - there is no guarantee for Brexit Ultras that the MPs wouldn't put Rudd vs Hunt to the membership. Brexit is only a determining factor for a small number of MPs; certainly not enough to ensure that the final two contains at least one Leaver (FWIW, I think it probably would, but is not assured).
2. No new PM will face different circumstances in terms of the EU position. The factors that have propelled towards a soft Brexit would have to be faced by anyone else.
3. Taking two months out of negotiations for a leadership election will look ridiculous in both the country and Europe, and would undoubtedly be used by critics as a reason as to why Britain ended up with a bad deal (or no deal).
4. A leadership election now would split the Conservatives down the middle in an unprecedentledly bitter way. The reason there isn't that division is because the issue hasn't been forced and probably won't be. With no Conservative majority in parliament, there's no guarantee that the DUP would stick by the new PM - or at least, not without a new deal.
5. She will almost certainly be gone by 2022; probably next year, in my opinion. Many MPs will agree with the critique of May but will also buy the not-now argument. They will not want a VoNC at all, as no outcome is helpful (if May loses, it's the arguments above; if she wins comfortably, it makes it harder to remove her before 2022; if she wins narrowly, she is exposed as a lame duck).
Other polls now have over 70% of Tory voters backing Leave.
Plus under FPTP in most seats at parliamentary level the battle is Tory v Labour so the LDs get squeezed which is why they still want PR
You are the one make ridiculous assertions. If you want to make a declaration on what a group of voters think on PB you need to source it. All your posts sound like wishful thinking
I have sourced it, as Philip Thompson said 66% minimum Tories backing Leave is pretty overwhelming and as I pointed out almost 10% higher than June 2016
Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.
Fucking morons.
Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.
The fact that some people behaved oafishly at a fund-raising dinner should not mean that one returns money raised at that dinner.
Serious question. If a group of paedophiles got together and donated money should GOS accept it? I'm testing the limits of your consequentialism here.
The waitresses or whatever you call them were responding to an advertisement requiring them to be tall, thin and pretty and wear black underwear. Until we hear that anything happened which caused anyone to go to the police I am comfortable with the assumption that they knew what they were letting themselves in for, and don't need their decisions second guessed by a lot of patronizing elderly white men.
Ah, the groped ask for us argument. It's amazing how in the 21st century so many still side with the abusers.
Thing about @Ishmael_Z is that he would start an argument with himself in an empty room. And lose.
All i'm seeing is the FT whipping up circulation by getting one set of elderly white men thoroughly overexcited about the very slightly eeeuw activities of another. I will change my mind when they start making arrests.
On topic: Hah ! Off topic: Sad to see Tessa Jowell battling against the big C, but she will put her energy, enthusiasm and intellect toward getting a better outcome for fellow brain cancer sufferers, which can only be a positive. Not to write her off prematurely, but she will definitely will be a big loss to politics.
Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.
Fucking morons.
Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.
The fact that some people behaved oafishly at a fund-raising dinner should not mean that one returns money raised at that dinner.
Serious question. If a group of paedophiles got together and donated money should GOS accept it? I'm testing the limits of your consequentialism here.
The waitresses or whatever you call them were responding to an advertisement requiring them to be tall, thin and pretty and wear black underwear. Until we hear that anything happened which caused anyone to go to the police I am comfortable with the assumption that they knew what they were letting themselves in for, and don't need their decisions second guessed by a lot of patronizing elderly white men.
Ah, the groped ask for us argument. It's amazing how in the 21st century so many still side with the abusers.
Thing about @Ishmael_Z is that he would start an argument with himself in an empty room. And lose.
He's locked in a bitter struggle with Assange to see who can be the world's oldest edgelord.
Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.
Fucking morons.
Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.
The fact that some people behaved oafishly at a fund-raising dinner should not mean that one returns money raised at that dinner.
It's not just about that dinner, it's about rejecting the misogynist culture it typifies.Quite right too. If nobody ever takes a stand nothing ever changes.
So - no money will be accepted from individuals and organisations coming from a misogynist culture. No money from any individual/organisation associated with Saudi Arabia or, indeed, anywhere in the Islamic world. No money from China for instance - look at their attitude to female babies: utterly horrific. What about India - and the well attested stories of rape and harassment of women in public?
How about closer to home? Italy, for instance: look at Italian TV and the culture it fosters.
Just to be clear: telling applicants for a job what underwear they should wear is gross and an indication that the "job" is a pretty sleazy one. I would not want my daughter doing such a job and I would not want my sons going to an event advertised in such a way. Boorishness is wrong. Abuse even more so.
I am amazed, though, that this organisation even thought it acceptable to behave in such a way. It is so reminiscent of old-style behaviour which was much more common in the past. Did no-one see the obvious problems with what they were proposing?
One advantage of an NHS is that one government department should be able to talk to the other and clear these things quickly and simply. Mrs Rudd’s department is looking increasingly disfunctional and tail-chasing.
Surely this is a feature, not a bug?
If net immigration target for Non-EU migrants is to be met, then surely it is a good thing, particularly if it forces up salaries for indiginous British staff. If it is good for plasterers, then surely it is good for psychiatrists too?
Now I know you’re trolling. Any sensible immigration system allows for those with key shortage skills to be fast tracked. I’m sure you’d agree that healthcare professionals at any salary come into this category!
Actually according to the quote they don't. Certain specialities of medics do but these specific ones don't.
Which is why the Home Office need a kick up the arse! If the NHS need staff then immigration rules need to reflect that, not the other way around.
85% of the world is outside of the EU but are discriminated against on immigration by the UK when compared with EU countries.
Actually it's 93%
And how much of the world is outside Lincolnshire?
All of it worth seeing.
With the exception of the Library, Lincoln Cathedral - "the most beautiful room in England".
Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.
Fucking morons.
Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.
Well quite. And in any case there's no point accepting a donation if its value is outweighed by donations that are forgone as a result of a subsequent donors' strike.
Indeed. But that's a slightly different argument. GOH would be making a calculation that they would be financially worse off if they kept the money. They would not be making a primarily moral argument.
Still, if one refuses money which is somehow "morally" tainted, how far will this principle extend? JM Barrie, for instance, might not have passed muster in today's censorious world.
Will Oxford colleges receiving money from Saudi Arabia return this and refuse to receive any more in future? That country's abuse of women is many times worse than anything alleged to have happened at this event, for instance.
I have not followed the FT story. Have there been actual allegations of abuse? How reliable are they?
And - sorry for being boringly legalistic here - might we want to remember that an allegation is simply that. People accused of abuse are innocent until proven guilty. Elsewhere in the papers there are stories of men accused of pretty vile abuse - rape - who turned out to be innocent and who have had their lives and reputations ruined. We might want to bear that in mind before running to condemn on the basis of a story in a newspaper. GOH might also want to remember that before making an irrevocable decision.
Or we can just decide everything on the basis of who manages to whip up the most publicity - and to hell with facts and due process.
Come to think of it, quite a lot of Exeter University wouldn't have got built, without donations from various Gulf States.
The waitresses or whatever you call them were responding to an advertisement requiring them to be tall, thin and pretty and wear black underwear. Until we hear that anything happened which caused anyone to go to the police I am comfortable with the assumption that they knew what they were letting themselves in for, and don't need their decisions second guessed by a lot of patronizing elderly white men.
Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.
Fucking morons.
Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.
Well quite. And in any case there's no point accepting a donation if its value is outweighed by donations that are forgone as a result of a subsequent donors' strike.
Indeed. But that's a slightly different argument. GOH would be making a calculation that they would be financially worse off if they kept the money. They would not be making a primarily moral argument.
Still, if one refuses money which is somehow "morally" tainted, how far will this principle extend? JM Barrie, for instance, might not have passed muster in today's censorious world.
Will Oxford colleges receiving money from Saudi Arabia return this and refuse to receive any more in future? That country's abuse of women is many times worse than anything alleged to have happened at this event, for instance.
I have not followed the FT story. Have there been actual allegations of abuse? How reliable are they?
And - sorry for being boringly legalistic here - might we want to remember that an allegation is simply that. People accused of abuse are innocent until proven guilty. Elsewhere in the papers there are stories of men accused of pretty vile abuse - rape - who turned out to be innocent and who have had their lives and reputations ruined. We might want to bear that in mind before running to condemn on the basis of a story in a newspaper. GOH might also want to remember that before making an irrevocable decision.
Or we can just decide everything on the basis of who manages to whip up the most publicity - and to hell with facts and due process.
It sounds like the kind of events that Deutsche put on in the 1990s and early 2000s. Very unpleasant. I went to one & never again.
I have some rather more recent stories from which are equally - if not more - gross. One for drinks rather than this forum.
I'm amazed that anyone at this club thought this even remotely a good idea. Morons.
Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.
Fucking morons.
Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.
Well quite. And in any case there's no point accepting a donation if its value is outweighed by donations that are forgone as a result of a subsequent donors' strike.
Indeed.... And - sorry for being boringly legalistic here - might we want to remember that an allegation is simply that. People accused of abuse are innocent until proven guilty. Elsewhere in the papers there are stories of men accused of pretty vile abuse - rape - who turned out to be innocent and who have had their lives and reputations ruined. We might want to bear that in mind before running to condemn on the basis of a story in a newspaper. GOH might also want to remember that before making an irrevocable decision.
Or we can just decide everything on the basis of who manages to whip up the most publicity - and to hell with facts and due process.
Were any individuals actually named and accused of anything illegal ? (Clearly some of the behaviour alleged was potentially criminal, but that is not quite the same thing.)
In any event, I think this case is more akin to the recent Aziz Ansari affair in the US, which occasioned similar arguments. The Atlantic's James Fallows made some good points discussing it: https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/01/this-is-not-a-sex-panic/550547/ …The element that remains intolerable is nonconsensual sex, which—if sex is today defined by consent—means that these stories of famous men and coercive behavior are not really about policing sex. When a person is reporting feeling coerced, and other people say the story shouldn’t have been told—or that people who personally relate to it are overreacting by saying as much—that’s a more disquieting type of policing.
Telling these stories will not lead to less sex—to men being afraid to hit on people because they’re afraid of being inappropriate. It will lead to men being less creepy and domineering, and more communicative and confident in the rightness of how to go about things, and more decent and capable. This is not an anti-sex movement gone off the rails. It is a pro-sex movement just laying the tracks…
There is an enormous gaping gap in the centre and centre-left for someone to fill. When Labour last went wildly leftwards, the Alliance had heavyweight hitters to the extent that they briefly polled 50% and maintained 20%+ through most of the 1980s. It's a measure of their fall that in similar (not identical, I grant), circumstances, they can't even reach double-figures. ......................................
It is sort of the right assessment but from the wrong angle (in my occasionally incorrect opinion), the shift this time is politically in the opposite direction. The Conservatives are going right just as the country is beginning to go left, surely the opportunity lies more on the centre and centre right with the Blairites and Cameroons, who I think actually make up a far smaller percentage of the voting population than they are given credit for, they certainly have a large media presence.
On thinks like renationalising public utilities and more money for the NHS and taxing the rich the public is moving left, on raising their own taxes, immigration (as the Leave vote showed) and stopping crime the public is still pretty right
You mean they fancied a story on sexual harassment because it brings in readers. "I know, let's send a pretty reporter dressed in sheer underwear to that dinner. Someone's bound to have a leer."
Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.
Fucking morons.
Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.
Well quite. And in any case there's no point accepting a donation if its value is outweighed by donations that are forgone as a result of a subsequent donors' strike.
Indeed. But that's a slightly different argument. GOH would be making a calculation that they would be financially worse off if they kept the money. They would not be making a primarily moral argument.
Still, if one refuses money which is somehow "morally" tainted, how far will this principle extend? JM Barrie, for instance, might not have passed muster in today's censorious world.
Will Oxford colleges receiving money from Saudi Arabia return this and refuse to receive any more in future? That country's abuse of women is many times worse than anything alleged to have happened at this event, for instance.
I have not followed the FT story. Have there been actual allegations of abuse? How reliable are they?
And - sorry for being boringly legalistic here - might we want to remember that an allegation is simply that. People accused of abuse are innocent until proven guilty. Elsewhere in the papers there are stories of men accused of pretty vile abuse - rape - who turned out to be innocent and who have had their lives and reputations ruined. We might want to bear that in mind before running to condemn on the basis of a story in a newspaper. GOH might also want to remember that before making an irrevocable decision.
Or we can just decide everything on the basis of who manages to whip up the most publicity - and to hell with facts and due process.
Come to think of it, quite a lot of Exeter University wouldn't have got built, without donations from various Gulf States.
Thanks. I wasn't there. Allegations are allegations. They are not proven facts.
In my experience of other stories (quite unlike this one, I hasten to add) the newspaper reporters have always been incorrect. Always. So I view all newspaper reports with a certain amount of scepticism.
Still, as said down thread, why anyone thought it a good idea to advertise for "hostesses" in the terms they did is astounding.
Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.
Fucking morons.
Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.
Well quite. And in any case there's no point accepting a donation if its value is outweighed by donations that are forgone as a result of a subsequent donors' strike.
Indeed. But that's a slightly different argument. GOH would be making a calculation that they would be financially worse off if they kept the money. They would not be making a primarily moral argument.
Still, if one refuses money which is somehow "morally" tainted, how far will this principle extend? JM Barrie, for instance, might not have passed muster in today's censorious world.
Will Oxford colleges receiving money from Saudi Arabia return this and refuse to receive any more in future? That country's abuse of women is many times worse than anything alleged to have happened at this event, for instance.
I have not followed the FT story. Have there been actual allegations of abuse? How reliable are they?
And - sorry for being boringly legalistic here - might we want to remember that an allegation is simply that. People accused of abuse are innocent until proven guilty. Elsewhere in the papers there are stories of men accused of pretty vile abuse - rape - who turned out to be innocent and who have had their lives and reputations ruined. We might want to bear that in mind before running to condemn on the basis of a story in a newspaper. GOH might also want to remember that before making an irrevocable decision.
Or we can just decide everything on the basis of who manages to whip up the most publicity - and to hell with facts and due process.
You mean they fancied a story on sexual harassment because it brings in readers. "I know, let's send a pretty reporter dressed in sheer underwear to that dinner. Someone's bound to have a leer."
Job done.
"What about the money raised?"
"Who cares."
Although that logic was one of the main reasons Savile never got done in his lifetime, wasn't it? 'You can't make a complaint about him - look at how much money he raises'.
On topic: Hah ! Off topic: Sad to see Tessa Jowell battling against the big C, but she will put her energy, enthusiasm and intellect toward getting a better outcome for fellow brain cancer sufferers, which can only be a positive. Not to write her off prematurely, but she will definitely will be a big loss to politics.
There is an enormous gaping gap in the centre and centre-left for someone to fill. When Labour last went wildly leftwards, the Alliance had heavyweight hitters to the extent that they briefly polled 50% and maintained 20%+ through most of the 1980s. It's a measure of their fall that in similar (not identical, I grant), circumstances, they can't even reach double-figures. ......................................
It is sort of the right assessment but from the wrong angle (in my occasionally incorrect opinion), the shift this time is politically in the opposite direction. The Conservatives are going right just as the country is beginning to go left, surely the opportunity lies more on the centre and centre right with the Blairites and Cameroons, who I think actually make up a far smaller percentage of the voting population than they are given credit for, they certainly have a large media presence.
On thinks like renationalising public utilities and more money for the NHS and taxing the rich the public is moving left, on raising their own taxes, immigration (as the Leave vote showed) and stopping crime the public is still pretty right
I think that the public in general were to the left economically, and to the right socially, of the political consensus that prevailed from the early nineties, until 2016.
Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.
Fucking morons.
Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.
The fact that some people behaved oafishly at a fund-raising dinner should not mean that one returns money raised at that dinner.
Serious question. If a group of paedophiles got together and donated money should GOS accept it? I'm testing the limits of your consequentialism here.
The waitresses or whatever you call them were responding to an advertisement requiring them to be tall, thin and pretty and wear black underwear. Until we hear that anything happened which caused anyone to go to the police I am comfortable with the assumption that they knew what they were letting themselves in for, and don't need their decisions second guessed by a lot of patronizing elderly white men.
Ah, the groped ask for us argument. It's amazing how in the 21st century so many still side with the abusers.
Thing about @Ishmael_Z is that he would start an argument with himself in an empty room. And lose.
All i'm seeing is the FT whipping up circulation by getting one set of elderly white men thoroughly overexcited about the very slightly eeeuw activities of another. I will change my mind when they start making arrests.
I think you and I are very similar in that we instinctively look for the contrarian view, especially when social media/twatter is involved, but sometimes that means that we forget to step back and look at the context and the bigger picture.
This is one of those occasions where one must, IMO, step back.
I was at a conference a couple of years ago and the "entertainment" was a bunch of very (very) scantily-clad South American dancers doing their thing. 90% of the audience was male, and 99% of those just felt uncomfortable, embarrassed, and that the whole thing was inappropriate. Most left almost immediately. And that was just a "native" dance troupe, not some girls who had been briefed to dress sexily.
Thanks. I wasn't there. Allegations are allegations. They are not proven facts.
In my experience of other stories (quite unlike this one, I hasten to add) the newspaper reporters have always been incorrect. Always. So I view all newspaper reports with a certain amount of scepticism.
Still, as said down thread, why anyone thought it a good idea to advertise for "hostesses" in the terms they did is astounding.
At large events people see different things. 31 years ago, I went to the Bracton Law Society Dinner, at Exeter University. There were about 400 people there and the guest was Sir Robin Day. It ended up on the World at One, due to the allegedly disgraceful behaviour of the students and other guests, mooning, flashing, pelting people with food and drink, abusing waiters etc. But, I saw none of it, and nor did Sir Robin Day, when he was interviewed.
Likewise, was everyone behaving badly at this event, most of them, or a relatively small number?
You mean they fancied a story on sexual harassment because it brings in readers. "I know, let's send a pretty reporter dressed in sheer underwear to that dinner. Someone's bound to have a leer."
Job done.
"What about the money raised?"
"Who cares."
Although that logic was one of the main reasons Savile never got done in his lifetime, wasn't it? 'You can't make a complaint about him - look at how much money he raises'.
The reason Savile never got done was because of the libel laws and because the approach to child witnesses and sexual abuse crimes was very different to today. There were a number of investigations into him but the authorities backed off.
He was certainly someone who used the charity card to throw people off the scent.
What is shocking about the President's Club shindig is that after the past year of all the allegations and cases of sexual harassment and inappropriate behaviour, male members of the financial and political elite still think it's ok for themselves to behave in such a manner.
I suspect that the reason why outlandish figures figure in the Liberal leader stakes, is because there are not enough Liberal MPs to fill the gaps.
It will be decades before the LDS even begin to recover electorally after the disaster of the Coalition -just as the Liberals took decades to recover after they sold out to the Tories 1918-22. Indeed, they may never recover.
After Labour is defeated in 2022, there may be an opening for a new moderate centre left party. That is when the LDS may combine with a new electoral force. If such a new party emerged, it wouldnt be old dinosaurs like Blair or Miliband who led it, but a Macron type young dynamic figure.
What is shocking about the President's Club shindig is that after the past year of all the allegations and cases of sexual harassment and inappropriate behaviour, male members of the financial and political elite still think it's ok for themselves to behave in such a manner.
You mean they fancied a story on sexual harassment because it brings in readers. "I know, let's send a pretty reporter dressed in sheer underwear to that dinner. Someone's bound to have a leer."
Job done.
"What about the money raised?"
"Who cares."
Although that logic was one of the main reasons Savile never got done in his lifetime, wasn't it? 'You can't make a complaint about him - look at how much money he raises'.
The reason Savile never got done was because of the libel laws and because the approach to child witnesses and sexual abuse crimes was very different to today. There were a number of investigations into him but the authorities backed off.
He was certainly someone who used the charity card to throw people off the scent.
There were various reasons he got away with it in his lifetime. I agree that the general attitude of authorities to complainants was certainly one. However, his charity work provided a booster to that, giving him blind-eye protection (not to mention opening other doors that actively gave him opportunities to abuse).
"We asked seven people at random in our office and our research has uncovered a shocking fact - The Pope shits in the woods. The Vatican has refused our demands for an answer."
Great. Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.
Fucking morons.
Un-PC? Sounds to me like its members were engaging in abuse.
Well quite. And in any case there's no point accepting a donation if its value is outweighed by donations that are forgone as a result of a subsequent donors' strike.
Indeed. But that's a slightly different argument. GOH would be making a calculation that they would be financially worse off if they kept the money. They would not be making a primarily moral argument.
Still, if one refuses money which is somehow "morally" tainted, how far will this principle extend? JM Barrie, for instance, might not have passed muster in today's censorious world.
Will Oxford colleges receiving money from Saudi Arabia return this and refuse to receive any more in future? That country's abuse of women is many times worse than anything alleged to have happened at this event, for instance.
I have not followed the FT story. Have there been actual allegations of abuse? How reliable are they?
And - sorry for being boringly legalistic here - might we want to remember that an allegation is simply that. People accused of abuse are innocent until proven guilty. Elsewhere in the papers there are stories of men accused of pretty vile abuse - rape - who turned out to be innocent and who have had their lives and reputations ruined. We might want to bear that in mind before running to condemn on the basis of a story in a newspaper. GOH might also want to remember that before making an irrevocable decision.
Or we can just decide everything on the basis of who manages to whip up the most publicity - and to hell with facts and due process.
Come to think of it, quite a lot of Exeter University wouldn't have got built, without donations from various Gulf States.
Not to mention the LSE/Gaddafi affair...
Or these universities which have accepted money from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait: SOAS, Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, UCL, Exeter, Dundee and City University.
Misognynist cultures all. I await the Twitter storm.
"Although that logic was one of the main reasons Savile never got done in his lifetime, wasn't it?" QTWAIN.
Was Saville had that dinner? You think the FT editor did it for the sake of exposing what was bleeding obvious? When is the court case?
Can I interest you in a Nigerian money-making possibility?
Hello squirrel.
As soon as you ask the question "but what about the money he/she/it raises", you give licence to people to behave badly - and if they raise enough money, to behave criminally badly - with virtual impugnity.
Thanks. I wasn't there. Allegations are allegations. They are not proven facts.
In my experience of other stories (quite unlike this one, I hasten to add) the newspaper reporters have always been incorrect. Always. So I view all newspaper reports with a certain amount of scepticism.
Still, as said down thread, why anyone thought it a good idea to advertise for "hostesses" in the terms they did is astounding.
At large events people see different things. 31 years ago, I went to the Bracton Law Society Dinner, at Exeter University. There were about 400 people there and the guest was Sir Robin Day. It ended up on the World at One, due to the allegedly disgraceful behaviour of the students and other guests, mooning, flashing, pelting people with food and drink, abusing waiters etc. But, I saw none of it, and nor did Sir Robin Day, when he was interviewed.
Likewise, was everyone behaving badly at this event, most of them, or a relatively small number?
Regardless of whether the bad behaviour was by a few people or not, I think that if you advertise for staff using "sexy underwear" in your ads, you are giving out a clear indication of the sort of event you are hosting. I am surprised - like @Twisted Fire Stopper - and appalled that anyone thought this a good idea.
There is an enormous gaping gap in the centre and centre-left for someone to fill. When Labour last went wildly leftwards, the Alliance had heavyweight hitters to the extent that they briefly polled 50% and maintained 20%+ through most of the 1980s. It's a measure of their fall that in similar (not identical, I grant), circumstances, they can't even reach double-figures. ......................................
It is sort of the right assessment but from the wrong angle (in my occasionally incorrect opinion), the shift this time is politically in the opposite direction. The Conservatives are going right just as the country is beginning to go left, surely the opportunity lies more on the centre and centre right with the Blairites and Cameroons, who I think actually make up a far smaller percentage of the voting population than they are given credit for, they certainly have a large media presence.
On thinks like renationalising public utilities and more money for the NHS and taxing the rich the public is moving left, on raising their own taxes, immigration (as the Leave vote showed) and stopping crime the public is still pretty right
I think that the public in general were to the left economically, and to the right socially, of the political consensus that prevailed from the early nineties, until 2016.
Thanks. I wasn't there. Allegations are allegations. They are not proven facts.
In my experience of other stories (quite unlike this one, I hasten to add) the newspaper reporters have always been incorrect. Always. So I view all newspaper reports with a certain amount of scepticism.
Still, as said down thread, why anyone thought it a good idea to advertise for "hostesses" in the terms they did is astounding.
At large events people see different things. 31 years ago, I went to the Bracton Law Society Dinner, at Exeter University. There were about 400 people there and the guest was Sir Robin Day. It ended up on the World at One, due to the allegedly disgraceful behaviour of the students and other guests, mooning, flashing, pelting people with food and drink, abusing waiters etc. But, I saw none of it, and nor did Sir Robin Day, when he was interviewed.
Likewise, was everyone behaving badly at this event, most of them, or a relatively small number?
Regardless of whether the bad behaviour was by a few people or not, I think that if you advertise for staff using "sexy underwear" in your ads, you are giving out a clear indication of the sort of event you are hosting. I am surprised - like @Twisted Fire Stopper - and appalled that anyone thought this a good idea.
Hmm - "Gentlemen's evenings" rules were look/don't touch last time I checked.. So although the whole dress code for the hostesses may have permitted the "looking" (Excluding mirrors on shoes and that sort of stuff) aspect, the "touching" aspect sends it over the line to the pale
I suspect that the reason why outlandish figures figure in the Liberal leader stakes, is because there are not enough Liberal MPs to fill the gaps.
It will be decades before the LDS even begin to recover electorally after the disaster of the Coalition -just as the Liberals took decades to recover after they sold out to the Tories 1918-22. Indeed, they may never recover.
Point of order - the Liberals didn't 'sell out' in 1918-22. The official Liberal Party had already split from Lloyd George and gone into opposition (from where it was routed in 1918 and then to a lesser extent in 1922). It was the split they never recovered from; the coalition with the Tories (which began in 1915), was a relatively minor detail and LG's Coupon Coalition was significant only in the opportunity it afforded Labour.
After Labour is defeated in 2022, there may be an opening for a new moderate centre left party. That is when the LDS may combine with a new electoral force. If such a new party emerged, it wouldnt be old dinosaurs like Blair or Miliband who led it, but a Macron type young dynamic figure.
Or these universities which have accepted money from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait: SOAS, Oxford, Cambridge, Durham, UCL, Exeter, Dundee and City University.
Misognynist cultures all. I await the Twitter storm.
This is the relative privation fallacy. Just because Oxford and Cambridge do it doesn't (a) make it all right or (b) instantly render null and void any other criticism of accepting funds from the morally dubious.
Osborne: architect of austerity, disser of the disabled. DMiliband: 'extraordinary rendition' TBlair: Iraq
Corbyn : Militant, Scargill, Venezuela, opposing even just wars like Kosovo, IRA, failing to campaign for Remain after voting against every EU treaty, "our friends in Hamas", presiding over huge growth in anti-semitism, ...................................
Comments
"Education Minister Nadhim Zahawi was present, but that he left early because he felt "it was a bizarre and uncomfortable event".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42801178
Was surprised by story last night, and even more surprised by the impact this morning.
Fucking morons.
Great. You held onto your moral high ground. Less money for life-saving medical treatment, but at least some pretentious prick feels good about themselves.
Have the Lib Dems paid back that dodgy money yet?
SJW Twittermob wins again.
I thought that would be the case if you are a taxi driver or a banker ...
May will not be PM by October.
SARAH VINE on how British society is in the grip of an out of control binge-drinking culture
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4080750/amp/Pictures-make-weep-today-s-young-women-SARAH-VINE-British-society-grip-binge-drinking-culture.html
Making choices is the whole point of sovereignty.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/956097734150447104
If it was simply a group of paedophiles making a donation to the charity, (eg as a way of atoning for their past actions) then I would see no problem.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/01/in-defence-of-extreme-moderation/
Improving the pay and conditions to reduce dependence on migrant recruitment is surely as true for psychiatrists and intensivists as it is for builders and fruit pickers.
One of Brexits silver linings is that demand for the services of sturdy British yeomen like myself should drive up my terms of service.
Rather let kids die than accept funds from an organisation that is seen to be un-PC.
Fucking morons....
Only a little more polite.
Victim blaming at its most magnificent. Let's be clear: the people in the wrong here are not the women paid to be there, but with the men who felt the women were objects to be felt up, and the organisers who seem to have encouraged it.
Indeed. But that's a slightly different argument. GOH would be making a calculation that they would be financially worse off if they kept the money. They would not be making a primarily moral argument.
Still, if one refuses money which is somehow "morally" tainted, how far will this principle extend? JM Barrie, for instance, might not have passed muster in today's censorious world.
Will Oxford colleges receiving money from Saudi Arabia return this and refuse to receive any more in future? That country's abuse of women is many times worse than anything alleged to have happened at this event, for instance.
I have not followed the FT story. Have there been actual allegations of abuse? How reliable are they?
And - sorry for being boringly legalistic here - might we want to remember that an allegation is simply that. People accused of abuse are innocent until proven guilty. Elsewhere in the papers there are stories of men accused of pretty vile abuse - rape - who turned out to be innocent and who have had their lives and reputations ruined. We might want to bear that in mind before running to condemn on the basis of a story in a newspaper. GOH might also want to remember that before making an irrevocable decision.
Or we can just decide everything on the basis of who manages to whip up the most publicity - and to hell with facts and due process.
*But prettier, God bless 'em.
"It's not just about that dinner, it's about rejecting the misogynist culture it typifies. Quite right too. If nobody ever takes a stand nothing ever changes."
if you have such concerns, kindly send all such money to me. I'm sure it's still legal tender. I'll do my best to sleep afterwards.
At the same time, we have this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42795058
Accusations should be taken very seriously, but an allegation is not proof of guilt, and a complainant is only a victim [in legal terms] if that's proven in court.
We're leaving the EU - it's what you wanted and voted for, right?
Did I miss the appendix on the back of the ballot paper?
1. Any leadership election is inherently unpredictable - there is no guarantee for Brexit Ultras that the MPs wouldn't put Rudd vs Hunt to the membership. Brexit is only a determining factor for a small number of MPs; certainly not enough to ensure that the final two contains at least one Leaver (FWIW, I think it probably would, but is not assured).
2. No new PM will face different circumstances in terms of the EU position. The factors that have propelled towards a soft Brexit would have to be faced by anyone else.
3. Taking two months out of negotiations for a leadership election will look ridiculous in both the country and Europe, and would undoubtedly be used by critics as a reason as to why Britain ended up with a bad deal (or no deal).
4. A leadership election now would split the Conservatives down the middle in an unprecedentledly bitter way. The reason there isn't that division is because the issue hasn't been forced and probably won't be. With no Conservative majority in parliament, there's no guarantee that the DUP would stick by the new PM - or at least, not without a new deal.
5. She will almost certainly be gone by 2022; probably next year, in my opinion. Many MPs will agree with the critique of May but will also buy the not-now argument. They will not want a VoNC at all, as no outcome is helpful (if May loses, it's the arguments above; if she wins comfortably, it makes it harder to remove her before 2022; if she wins narrowly, she is exposed as a lame duck).
Patrons being Presidents Kennedy, Clinton and Trump?
Off topic: Sad to see Tessa Jowell battling against the big C, but she will put her energy, enthusiasm and intellect toward getting a better outcome for fellow brain cancer sufferers, which can only be a positive. Not to write her off prematurely, but she will definitely will be a big loss to politics.
How about closer to home? Italy, for instance: look at Italian TV and the culture it fosters.
Just to be clear: telling applicants for a job what underwear they should wear is gross and an indication that the "job" is a pretty sleazy one. I would not want my daughter doing such a job and I would not want my sons going to an event advertised in such a way. Boorishness is wrong. Abuse even more so.
I am amazed, though, that this organisation even thought it acceptable to behave in such a way. It is so reminiscent of old-style behaviour which was much more common in the past. Did no-one see the obvious problems with what they were proposing?
With the exception of the Library, Lincoln Cathedral - "the most beautiful room in England".
I'm amazed that anyone at this club thought this even remotely a good idea. Morons.
(Clearly some of the behaviour alleged was potentially criminal, but that is not quite the same thing.)
In any event, I think this case is more akin to the recent Aziz Ansari affair in the US, which occasioned similar arguments. The Atlantic's James Fallows made some good points discussing it:
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/01/this-is-not-a-sex-panic/550547/
…The element that remains intolerable is nonconsensual sex, which—if sex is today defined by consent—means that these stories of famous men and coercive behavior are not really about policing sex. When a person is reporting feeling coerced, and other people say the story shouldn’t have been told—or that people who personally relate to it are overreacting by saying as much—that’s a more disquieting type of policing.
Telling these stories will not lead to less sex—to men being afraid to hit on people because they’re afraid of being inappropriate. It will lead to men being less creepy and domineering, and more communicative and confident in the rightness of how to go about things, and more decent and capable. This is not an anti-sex movement gone off the rails. It is a pro-sex movement just laying the tracks…
You mean they fancied a story on sexual harassment because it brings in readers. "I know, let's send a pretty reporter dressed in sheer underwear to that dinner. Someone's bound to have a leer."
Job done.
"What about the money raised?"
"Who cares."
In my experience of other stories (quite unlike this one, I hasten to add) the newspaper reporters have always been incorrect. Always. So I view all newspaper reports with a certain amount of scepticism.
Still, as said down thread, why anyone thought it a good idea to advertise for "hostesses" in the terms they did is astounding.
It was a very moving interview.
This is one of those occasions where one must, IMO, step back.
I was at a conference a couple of years ago and the "entertainment" was a bunch of very (very) scantily-clad South American dancers doing their thing. 90% of the audience was male, and 99% of those just felt uncomfortable, embarrassed, and that the whole thing was inappropriate. Most left almost immediately. And that was just a "native" dance troupe, not some girls who had been briefed to dress sexily.
Likewise, was everyone behaving badly at this event, most of them, or a relatively small number?
He was certainly someone who used the charity card to throw people off the scent.
It will be decades before the LDS even begin to recover electorally after the disaster of the Coalition -just as the Liberals took decades to recover after they sold out to the Tories 1918-22. Indeed, they may never recover.
After Labour is defeated in 2022, there may be an opening for a new moderate centre left party. That is when the LDS may combine with a new electoral force. If such a new party emerged, it wouldnt be old dinosaurs like Blair or Miliband who led it, but a Macron type young dynamic figure.
"Although that logic was one of the main reasons Savile never got done in his lifetime, wasn't it?" QTWAIN.
Was Saville had that dinner? You think the FT editor did it for the sake of exposing what was bleeding obvious? When is the court case?
Can I interest you in a Nigerian money-making possibility?
"We asked seven people at random in our office and our research has uncovered a shocking fact - The Pope shits in the woods. The Vatican has refused our demands for an answer."
Misognynist cultures all. I await the Twitter storm.
Osborne: architect of austerity, disser of the disabled.
DMiliband: 'extraordinary rendition'
TBlair: Iraq
As soon as you ask the question "but what about the money he/she/it raises", you give licence to people to behave badly - and if they raise enough money, to behave criminally badly - with virtual impugnity.
So although the whole dress code for the hostesses may have permitted the "looking" (Excluding mirrors on shoes and that sort of stuff) aspect, the "touching" aspect sends it over the line to the pale
Well that is my view anyway.