Cook has completely missed the point. Why on earth should an independent Scotland have, for example, access to GCHQ's SIGINT operation?
We'd doubtless be delighted to sign a second party agreement with them, as we have with several other nations, but while we share some elements of collection with Five Eyes nations, we don't even allow them unfettered access to our internal processing.
Sharing intelligence in pursuit of common goals - e.g. the fight against Salafist terrorism is a whole other thing. We'd continue to do that, Brexit or no - our gentleperson's agreement with the Europeans dates back to the Club de Berne in '71.
I misread that for a moment as 'the fight against Socialism.'
Sorry, Freudian slip, I did, of course, mean the fight against Socialism .
Lewis said that for the average graduate it's basically £900* a year for 30 years, and that most of them will never have to repay the full principal never mind the interest, so cutting rates is irrelevant for all but the top earners.
He basically said that cutting fees and interest rates will make people feel good, but would benefit only the wealthy, and that the poorest students might find there are fewer university places available.
We have a graduate tax in all but name today, nothing being proposed by the government is likely to improve it much.
This is all absolutely correct.
Thus, why not actually just implement a graduate tax? Much simpler to understand and administer, and less stressful for students.
I spend half my life explaining that to students at the start of the UCAS options process in Year 11 (because I'm the only member of staff at my school who has worked in HE as a lecturer). Indeed the real irony of the NUS protests was that the scheme they proposed instead was much less generous.
I didn't hear the interview however it's easy to see how tinkering at the edges could make things worse. That said, there are other problems in the sector anyway as I noted earlier of which fees are but a minor symptom and may not actually be relevant to any solutions needed.
Lewis said that for the average graduate it's basically £900* a year for 30 years, and that most of them will never have to repay the full principal never mind the interest, so cutting rates is irrelevant for all but the top earners.
He basically said that cutting fees and interest rates will make people feel good, but would benefit only the wealthy, and that the poorest students might find there are fewer university places available.
We have a graduate tax in all but name today, nothing being proposed by the government is likely to improve it much.
* Currently, as the point they start paying will rise quite sharply soon, and of course the amount is subject to inflation and income rises.
The other advantage of loans vs tax is that you can levy it on people who move abroad. (I know in practice the SLC led by the egregious Kevin O'Cockup have never have managed to get money out of expats, but he must be close to retirement after 26 years in post and if somebody of ability and drive replaced him that could change.)
It does however make you wonder a bit what will happen in 25 years when these loans start being written off.
Yes, plenty of expat graduates around the world now (not to mention all the EU students on the same scheme) who know that they’ll never repay their loans unless they become investment bankers or corporate lawyers.
I spend half my life explaining that to students at the start of the UCAS options process in Year 11 (because I'm the only member of staff at my school who has worked in HE as a lecturer). Indeed the real irony of the NUS protests was that the scheme they proposed instead was much less generous.
I didn't hear the interview however it's easy to see how tinkering at the edges could make things worse. That said, there are other problems in the sector anyway as I noted earlier of which fees are but a minor symptom and may not actually be relevant to any solutions needed.
Lewis said that for the average graduate it's basically £900* a year for 30 years, and that most of them will never have to repay the full principal never mind the interest, so cutting rates is irrelevant for all but the top earners.
He basically said that cutting fees and interest rates will make people feel good, but would benefit only the wealthy, and that the poorest students might find there are fewer university places available.
We have a graduate tax in all but name today, nothing being proposed by the government is likely to improve it much.
* Currently, as the point they start paying will rise quite sharply soon, and of course the amount is subject to inflation and income rises.
The other advantage of loans vs tax is that you can levy it on people who move abroad. (I know in practice the SLC led by the egregious Kevin O'Cockup have never have managed to get money out of expats, but he must be close to retirement after 26 years in post and if somebody of ability and drive replaced him that could change.)
It does however make you wonder a bit what will happen in 25 years when these loans start being written off.
Yes, plenty of expat graduates around the world now (not to mention all the EU students on the same scheme) who know that they’ll never repay their loans unless they become investment bankers or corporate lawyers.
Given that it is effectively a tax, I still prefer the language of a loan. A loan is an investment. A tax is either for "sin" or about the strength of your shoulders - but in that regard there should be no difference between someone earning £40k with or without a degree.
For those that missed it last night this is thoroughly entertaining and a lesson to those who "know": ttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zT0Rjc6jKCg
That’s very funny. John Oliver shouting at Trump to run stands out, as does Ann Coulter on Bill Maher’s show getting laughed at for even suggesting that Trump was the favourite a year before the election.
I spend half my life explaining that to students at the start of the UCAS options process in Year 11 (because I'm the only member of staff at my school who has worked in HE as a lecturer). Indeed the real irony of the NUS protests was that the scheme they proposed instead was much less generous.
I didn't hear the interview however it's easy to see how tinkering at the edges could make things worse. That said, there are other problems in the sector anyway as I noted earlier of which fees are but a minor symptom and may not actually be relevant to any solutions needed.
Lewis said that for the average graduate it's basically £900* a year for 30 years, and that most of them will never have to repay the full principal never mind the interest, so cutting rates is irrelevant for all but the top earners.
He basically said that cutting fees and interest rates will make people feel good, but would benefit only the wealthy, and that the poorest students might find there are fewer university places available.
We have a graduate tax in all but name today, nothing being proposed by the government is likely to improve it much.
* Currently, as the point they start paying will rise quite sharply soon, and of course the amount is subject to inflation and income rises.
The other advantage of loans vs tax is that you can levy it on people who move abroad. (I know in practice the SLC led by the egregious Kevin O'Cockup have never have managed to get money out of expats, but he must be close to retirement after 26 years in post and if somebody of ability and drive replaced him that could change.)
It does however make you wonder a bit what will happen in 25 years when these loans start being written off.
loans do perveresly subsidise the worst courses. Russell group grads or STEMS graduates repay, while basketweaving graduates from Anytown Uni never do.
Lewis said that for the average graduate it's basically £900* a year for 30 years, and that most of them will never have to repay the full principal never mind the interest, so cutting rates is irrelevant for all but the top earners.
He basically said that cutting fees and interest rates will make people feel good, but would benefit only the wealthy, and that the poorest students might find there are fewer university places available.
We have a graduate tax in all but name today, nothing being proposed by the government is likely to improve it much.
This is all absolutely correct.
Thus, why not actually just implement a graduate tax? Much simpler to understand and administer, and less stressful for students.
Because those who don’t pay UK income tax (maybe they emigrated, or were EU students who went back ‘home after graduation) would get a free education at the expense of everyone else.
"What The Actual Fuck! #Marr excuses Cox's behaviour because of what he went through"
That really is not correct Nick.
It would rate media coverage because it is in the sector which is the subject - courtesy of Oxfam - which is the subject of the narrative at present. And it is so because there have been a number of interviews with people who know what they are talking about who are saying that this is systemic, affects more than just Oxfam, has been going on for years and, despite being known about, nothing effective has been done.
Secondly, Mr Cox put himself in the public eye after his wife's death by making himself a bit of a spokesperson for moral behaviour, being against hate etc. So it is understandable that when issues about moral behaviour in a sector in which he works become the story people might look at him. If you're in glasshouses don't throw stones is a useful lesson for Brendan Cox, as it is for others.
Third, it is really disappointing that so many people from a party which makes a great play of being on the side of women, as a generality, find it so hard to condemn bad behaviour aimed at women when it is done by one of them. Or find it so hard to be unequivocal in condemning bad behaviour by Labour men or men on the left. It is as if women's rights only matter when it allows Labour to feel morally superior but that, on no account should it require anyone on the left to behave well to real life women. And if they behave badly well women shouldn't really complain about it because, well, we're Labour.
And that is really Not Good Enough. Not by a long way. Women are a bit sick of being patronised by the left on this. It's all "Women's Rights" on the one hand and "Shut up, I'll deal with this. You go and make the tea." on the other. We're not stupid. We can tell what you really think.
Brendan Cox behaved badly. He has withdrawn from the fray. For the moment he should be left alone. If he's genuinely sorry and learns from his mistakes he can recover. But all those trying to find excuses for him need to take a long hard look at themselves.
Absolutely correct. There should be zero tolerance of such behaviour. I am no great fan of the Permissive Society, and would never knowingly vote for an adulterer - nor a fornicator.
loans do perveresly subsidise the worst courses. Russell group grads or STEMS graduates repay, while basketweaving graduates from Anytown Uni never do.
That's a fair point, but any politician who advocated say cutting funding for non-STEM subjects would face a barrage of criticism. Saying that courses aren't equal in value is a courgaeous thing to come out with in 2018.
Lewis said that for the average graduate it's basically £900* a year for 30 years, and that most of them will never have to repay the full principal never mind the interest, so cutting rates is irrelevant for all but the top earners.
He basically said that cutting fees and interest rates will make people feel good, but would benefit only the wealthy, and that the poorest students might find there are fewer university places available.
We have a graduate tax in all but name today, nothing being proposed by the government is likely to improve it much.
This is all absolutely correct.
Thus, why not actually just implement a graduate tax? Much simpler to understand and administer, and less stressful for students.
A number of objections spring to mind:
1) what about foreign graduates in the U.K.? Do they pay it? If so that would definitely curb immigration but also screw the tech sector NHS etc.
2) a tax would have no ceiling and so might see people pay far more than needed;
3) it couldn't be levied on expats. Loans should be repaid by them although because the SLC is useless in practice they don't.
Absolutely correct. There should be zero tolerance of such behaviour. I am no great fan of the Permissive Society, and would never knowingly vote for an adulterer - nor a fornicator.
loans do perveresly subsidise the worst courses. Russell group grads or STEMS graduates repay, while basketweaving graduates from Anytown Uni never do.
That's a fair point, but any politician who advocated say cutting funding for non-STEM subjects would face a barrage of criticism. Saying that courses aren't equal in value is a courgaeous thing to come out with in 2018.
The problem is as noted above that the money from such courses is used to subsidise STEM. So ironically cutting places on them or funding for them would only move the shortage, not resolve it.
Absolutely correct. There should be zero tolerance of such behaviour. I am no great fan of the Permissive Society, and would never knowingly vote for an adulterer - nor a fornicator.
I thought you voted for Clegg?
I most certainly did not! I voted LibDem in 2001 and 2005 when Charles Kennedy was leader.
"What The Actual Fuck! #Marr excuses Cox's behaviour because of what he went through"
That really is not correct Nick.
It would rate media coverage because it is in the sector which is the subject - courtesy of Oxfam - which is the subject of the narrative at present. And it is so because there have been a number of interviews with people who know what they are talking about who are saying that this is systemic, affects more than just Oxfam, has been going on for years and, despite being known about, nothing effective has been done.
Secondly, Mr Cox put himself in the public eye after his wife's death by making himself a bit of a spokesperson for moral behaviour, being against hate etc. So it is understandable that when issues about moral behaviour in a sector in which he works become the story people might look at him. If you're in glasshouses don't throw stones is a useful lesson for Brendan Cox, as it is for others.
Third, it is really disappointing that so many people from a party which makes a great play of being on the side of women, as a generality, find it so hard to condemn bad behaviour aimed at women when it is done by one of them. Or find it so hard to be unequivocal in condemning bad behaviour by Labour men or men on the left. It is as if women's rights only matter when it allows Labour to feel morally superior but that, on no account should it require anyone on the left to behave well to real life women. And if they behave badly well women shouldn't really complain about it because, well, we're Labour.
And that is really Not Good Enough. Not by a long way. Women are a bit sick of being patronised by the left on this. It's all "Women's Rights" on the one hand and "Shut up, I'll deal with this. You go and make the tea." on the other. We're not stupid. We can tell what you really think.
Brendan Cox behaved badly. He has withdrawn from the fray. For the moment he should be left alone. If he's genuinely sorry and learns from his mistakes he can recover. But all those trying to find excuses for him need to take a long hard look at themselves.
Absolutely correct. There should be zero tolerance of such behaviour. I am no great fan of the Permissive Society, and would never knowingly vote for an adulterer - nor a fornicator.
Thanks for sharing that - My favourite moment was the woman who said Trump was favourite and being drowned out in a huge tsunami of laughter.
I think the best thing about it is that it shows that the talking heads and "experts" really know a lot less than they think about what the public really thinks. In particular those who pass themselves off as comedians in Saturday night shows speaking to their own little bubbles really don't have a clue.
We saw the same phenomenon here in the Brexit vote and, to a lesser extent with the 2017 election where the "inevitable" triumph of May turned into nothing but. I think the sensible conclusion for betting purposes is not relying on the spin of the committed and thinking carefully about the alternative viewpoint.
Third, it is really disappointing that so many people from a party which makes a great play of being on the side of women, as a generality, find it so hard to condemn bad behaviour aimed at women when it is done by one of them. Or find it so hard to be unequivocal in condemning bad behaviour by Labour men or men on the left. It is as if women's rights only matter when it allows Labour to feel morally superior but that, on no account should it require anyone on the left to behave well to real life women. And if they behave badly well women shouldn't really complain about it because, well, we're Labour.
We'll have to disagree on this. Brendan Cox has never made a party political comment that I've seen and I have no idea how he votes, apart from a general supposition that spouses often support their partners. He's made some generalised comments about being opposed to hate speech etc. which seem to me uncontroversial in the context that he came to public attention, but if he's said anything about sexual harassment I've not seen it, and if he did I doubt if he made them in a partisan way.
I don't see him as a left-wing figure but as someone who has agreed to some minor charitable roles related to his wife's death. So although he's obviously behaved badly, I don't think his behaviour at work should be front page material, and rather than *primarily* an example of pervasive sexual harassment I think it's primarily an example of how the press seize on anyone in the public eye to drag them down.
I was lucky not to get that treatment as an MP apart from a minor flurry, but I think it's a major disincentive for people of all parties to get into frontline politics at all.
Absolutely correct. There should be zero tolerance of such behaviour. I am no great fan of the Permissive Society, and would never knowingly vote for an adulterer - nor a fornicator.
I thought you voted for Clegg?
I most certainly did not! I voted LibDem in 2001 and 2005 when Charles Kennedy was leader.
Apologies. My mistake.
As George Brown so famously said, all politicians have one of two vices - drink or sex. His marriage was irreproachable.
(Asquith combined the two of course but that's another story.)
"What The Actual Fuck! #Marr excuses Cox's behaviour because of what he went through"
That really is not correct Nick.
It would rate media coverage because it is in the sector which is the subject - courtesy of Oxfam - which is the subject of the narrative at present. And it is so because there have been a number of interviews with people who know what they are talking about who are saying that this is systemic, affects more than just Oxfam, has been going on for years and, despite being known about, nothing effective has been done.
Secondly, Mr Cox put himself in the public eye after his wife's death by making himself a bit of a spokesperson for moral behaviour, being against hate etc. So it is understandable that when issues about moral behaviour in a sector in which he works become the story people might look at him. If you're in glasshouses don't throw stones is a useful lesson for Brendan Cox, as it is for others.
Third, it is really disappointing that so many people from a party which makes a great play of being on the side of women, as a generality, find it so hard to condemn bad behaviour aimed at women when it is done by one of them. Or find it so hard to be unequivocal in condemning bad behaviour by Labour men or men on the left. It is as if women's rights only matter when it allows Labour to feel morally superior but that, on no account should it require anyone on the left to behave well to real life women. And if they behave badly well women shouldn't really complain about it because, well, we're Labour.
And that is really Not Good Enough. Not by a long way. Women are a bit sick of being patronised by the left on this. It's all "Women's Rights" on the one hand and "Shut up, I'll deal with this. You go and make the tea." on the other. We're not stupid. We can tell what you really think.
Brendan Cox behaved badly. He has withdrawn from the fray. For the moment he should be left alone. If he's genuinely sorry and learns from his mistakes he can recover. But all those trying to find excuses for him need to take a long hard look at themselves.
Absolutely correct. There should be zero tolerance of such behaviour. I am no great fan of the Permissive Society, and would never knowingly vote for an adulterer - nor a fornicator.
Or bastards. Don't forget the bastards.
I have no problem at all in voting for bastards - but would not support their parents.
Absolutely correct. There should be zero tolerance of such behaviour. I am no great fan of the Permissive Society, and would never knowingly vote for an adulterer - nor a fornicator.
I thought you voted for Clegg?
I most certainly did not! I voted LibDem in 2001 and 2005 when Charles Kennedy was leader.
Apologies. My mistake.
As George Brown so famously said, all politicians have one of two vices - drink or sex. His marriage was irreproachable.
(Asquith combined the two of course but that's another story.)
George Brown did ,of course, desert his wife - Sophie - for another woman!
Because those who don’t pay UK income tax (maybe they emigrated, or were EU students who went back ‘home after graduation) would get a free education at the expense of everyone else.
That's going to happen regardless :-) Once they're beyond our borders, not much can be done.
Absolutely correct. There should be zero tolerance of such behaviour. I am no great fan of the Permissive Society, and would never knowingly vote for an adulterer - nor a fornicator.
I thought you voted for Clegg?
I most certainly did not! I voted LibDem in 2001 and 2005 when Charles Kennedy was leader.
Apologies. My mistake.
As George Brown so famously said, all politicians have one of two vices - drink or sex. His marriage was irreproachable.
(Asquith combined the two of course but that's another story.)
George Brown did ,of course, desert his wife - Sophie - for another woman!
Ah, I didn't know that. I know very little about him after he crawled off into his alcoholic haze.
Something of a tragedy. He could have been a significant political figure but is now remembered mostly as the butt of many jokes about his boozy behaviour including the one about the Bishop of Lima.
Third, it is really disappointing that so many people from a party which makes a great play of being on the side of women, as a generality, find it so hard to condemn bad behaviour aimed at women when it is done by one of them. Or find it so hard to be unequivocal in condemning bad behaviour by Labour men or men on the left. It is as if women's rights only matter when it allows Labour to feel morally superior but that, on no account should it require anyone on the left to behave well to real life women. And if they behave badly well women shouldn't really complain about it because, well, we're Labour.
We'll have to disagree on this. Brendan Cox has never made a party political comment that I've seen and I have no idea how he votes, apart from a general supposition that spouses often support their partners. He's made some generalised comments about being opposed to hate speech etc. which seem to me uncontroversial in the context that he came to public attention, but if he's said anything about sexual harassment I've not seen it, and if he did I doubt if he made them in a partisan way.
I don't see him as a left-wing figure but as someone who has agreed to some minor charitable roles related to his wife's death. So although he's obviously behaved badly, I don't think his behaviour at work should be front page material, and rather than *primarily* an example of pervasive sexual harassment I think it's primarily an example of how the press seize on anyone in the public eye to drag them down.
I was lucky not to get that treatment as an MP apart from a minor flurry, but I think it's a major disincentive for people of all parties to get into frontline politics at all.
I'm really struggling to see your viewpoint here Nick. The point surely is that charities have tolerated disgusting and revolting behaviour in the name of the greater good and have been happy to sweep things under the carpet to avoid reputational damage. Oxfam are the most high profile of these at the moment but it is turning into open season on the sector as a whole. Cox has got swept up in this because he misbehaved whilst working in that sector every bit as much as because he is the widow of an MP.
Charities are about to have a reminder of what the last 40 years have been like for established religion. They are not going to enjoy it much but by the time it is over any pretentions they have for moral superiority are going to get met by hollow laughter.
We'll have to disagree on this. Brendan Cox has never made a party political comment that I've seen and I have no idea how he votes, apart from a general supposition that spouses often support their partners. He's made some generalised comments about being opposed to hate speech etc. which seem to me uncontroversial in the context that he came to public attention, but if he's said anything about sexual harassment I've not seen it, and if he did I doubt if he made them in a partisan way.
I don't see him as a left-wing figure but as someone who has agreed to some minor charitable roles related to his wife's death. So although he's obviously behaved badly, I don't think his behaviour at work should be front page material, and rather than *primarily* an example of pervasive sexual harassment I think it's primarily an example of how the press seize on anyone in the public eye to drag them down.
I was lucky not to get that treatment as an MP apart from a minor flurry, but I think it's a major disincentive for people of all parties to get into frontline politics at all.
Nick, your position on this seems odd.
Many moons ago you attended a private dinner with Ann Winterton. She made a crass joke - a joke, that's all, and you ran to the media and created a story that ended up with her losing the whip. Your words at the time ring hollow now.
Yet here we have someone who has admitted *acting* inappropriately towards women personally, and you automatically defend him.
Likewise, Oxfam.
Likewise, the Labour MP a while back who said something crass and whom you defended.
It does appear that the seriousness with which you take events varies according to whether it is 'your side' or not. Otherwise, your positions seem utterly contradictory.
What matters is that women (and sometimes men) are being abused to various degrees. It shouldn't matter if the accused is Labour, Conservative or anything else.
Absolutely correct. There should be zero tolerance of such behaviour. I am no great fan of the Permissive Society, and would never knowingly vote for an adulterer - nor a fornicator.
I thought you voted for Clegg?
I most certainly did not! I voted LibDem in 2001 and 2005 when Charles Kennedy was leader.
Apologies. My mistake.
As George Brown so famously said, all politicians have one of two vices - drink or sex. His marriage was irreproachable.
(Asquith combined the two of course but that's another story.)
George Brown did ,of course, desert his wife - Sophie - for another woman!
Ah, I didn't know that. I know very little about him after he crawled off into his alcoholic haze.
Something of a tragedy. He could have been a significant political figure but is now remembered mostly as the butt of many jokes about his boozy behaviour including the one about the Bishop of Lima.
Harold Wilson suggested that Brown's problem was not so much that he was a drunkard - but rather that he found it difficult to take much alcohol!
For those that missed it last night this is thoroughly entertaining and a lesson to those who "know": ttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zT0Rjc6jKCg
That’s very funny. John Oliver shouting at Trump to run stands out, as does Ann Coulter on Bill Maher’s show getting laughed at for even suggesting that Trump was the favourite a year before the election.
John Oliver is a very poor man's Jon Stewart. That was not his finest hour. As I said last night I hope Ann Coulter got some money on.
We'll have to disagree on this. Brendan Cox has never made a party political comment that I've seen and I have no idea how he votes, apart from a general supposition that spouses often support their partners. He's made some generalised comments about being opposed to hate speech etc. which seem to me uncontroversial in the context that he came to public attention, but if he's said anything about sexual harassment I've not seen it, and if he did I doubt if he made them in a partisan way.
I don't see him as a left-wing figure but as someone who has agreed to some minor charitable roles related to his wife's death. So although he's obviously behaved badly, I don't think his behaviour at work should be front page material, and rather than *primarily* an example of pervasive sexual harassment I think it's primarily an example of how the press seize on anyone in the public eye to drag them down.
I was lucky not to get that treatment as an MP apart from a minor flurry, but I think it's a major disincentive for people of all parties to get into frontline politics at all.
The issue here is not fundamentally Brendan Cox. He may be unfortunate in that he is being picked on because he more well known than other aid / charity workers who may well have behaved much more badly than him. I also disagree that he is an example of the press seizing on people.
You do give the impression (perhaps wrongly) of seeming a bit too concerned, as in the Oxfam case, with attacking the messenger rather than listening to the message. He is one example of what appears to be a culture of sexual bullying/exploitation within the aid/charity sector that seems very at odds with what most people expect of such bodies. I have certainly heard him speak out against what certain newspapers write. Everyone is entitled to do that of course but then they should not be that surprised if the newspapers ask questions about them. I think he should now be left alone, as a matter of human decency, because it cannot be easy for him or his young family. The CEOs of the aid charities are really the ones who should be in the firing line.
But the real issue is that too many on the left are rushing to defend his behaviour. Or that of others in the aid sector on the grounds that it might harm their reputation. Well....doh! It's not the criticism which harms the reputation. It's the wrongdoing.
And it risks giving the impression that odious behaviour against women only gets criticised if it is done by certain types of "bad" men and that other sorts of "good" men get a free pass.
Absolutely correct. There should be zero tolerance of such behaviour. I am no great fan of the Permissive Society, and would never knowingly vote for an adulterer - nor a fornicator.
I thought you voted for Clegg?
I most certainly did not! I voted LibDem in 2001 and 2005 when Charles Kennedy was leader.
Apologies. My mistake.
As George Brown so famously said, all politicians have one of two vices - drink or sex. His marriage was irreproachable.
(Asquith combined the two of course but that's another story.)
George Brown did ,of course, desert his wife - Sophie - for another woman!
Ah, I didn't know that. I know very little about him after he crawled off into his alcoholic haze.
Something of a tragedy. He could have been a significant political figure but is now remembered mostly as the butt of many jokes about his boozy behaviour including the one about the Bishop of Lima.
Harold Wilson suggested that Brown's problem was not so much that he was a drunkard - but rather that he found it difficult to take much alcohol!
That seems fair. William Pitt the Younger must have drunk twice as much as Brown ever did - but there is only one recorded occasion when his performance in office was affected by it. (Although he did die at 46.)
It is worth noting however that Wilson was the man Brown's sex and booze gibe was aimed at.
I'm really struggling to see your viewpoint here Nick. The point surely is that charities have tolerated disgusting and revolting behaviour in the name of the greater good and have been happy to sweep things under the carpet to avoid reputational damage. Oxfam are the most high profile of these at the moment but it is turning into open season on the sector as a whole. Cox has got swept up in this because he misbehaved whilst working in that sector every bit as much as because he is the widow of an MP.
Charities are about to have a reminder of what the last 40 years have been like for established religion. They are not going to enjoy it much but by the time it is over any pretentions they have for moral superiority are going to get met by hollow laughter.
The coverage i've seen has not been primarily about the problems of some charities (after all, the one he worked for did take action) but about him personally, specifically as the husband of the murdered MP - see e.g.
My reading of this sort of article is that he was seen as tiresomely persistent in criticising hate speech - what a do-gooder, eh? - and the Mail sees it as a good opporunity to take him down.
The issue here is not fundamentally Brendan Cox. He may be unfortunate in that he is being picked on because he more well known than other aid / charity workers who may well have behaved much more badly than him. I also disagree that he is an example of the press seizing on people.
You do give the impression (perhaps wrongly) of seeming a bit too concerned, as in the Oxfam case, with attacking the messenger rather than listening to the message. He is one example of what appears to be a culture of sexual bullying/exploitation within the aid/charity sector that seems very at odds with what most people expect of such bodies. I have certainly heard him speak out against what certain newspapers write. Everyone is entitled to do that of course but then they should not be that surprised if the newspapers ask questions about them. I think he should now be left alone, as a matter of human decency, because it cannot be easy for him or his young family. The CEOs of the aid charities are really the ones who should be in the firing line.
But the real issue is that too many on the left are rushing to defend his behaviour. Or that of others in the aid sector on the grounds that it might harm their reputation. Well....doh! It's not the criticism which harms the reputation. It's the wrongdoing.
And it risks giving the impression that odious behaviour against women only gets criticised if it is done by certain types of "bad" men and that other sorts of "good" men get a free pass.
How do you think that makes women feel, Nick?
Also should be noted as his wife was still alive at the time it doesn't exactly fit the devoted husband image.
That shouldn't be relevant - for all I know they may have had an avowedly open marriage like Balls and Cooper - but it will be for the press.
"Save the Children have said the complaints against Mr Cox were investigated in accordance with its procedures.
The charity confirmed that Brendan Cox was suspended and a disciplinary process begun but that he resigned before it was completed."
ISTR there was a problem in the past with police officers accused of wrongdoing resigning during investigations, and the investigations being stopped, allowing them to retain their full pension?
It seems that Cox resigned during the disciplinary investigation, and the process was stopped. He was then free to work for other charities and even (help?) set up a couple himself.
I'm unsure how this sort of thing can - or should - be dealt with, but it seems there might be a loophole with people under investigation leaving before that investigation is completed, and leaving without a blot on their record. That might be a difficult loophole to close in a manner that is fair to all parties.
(It should be noted that Brendan Cox was an adviser to Gordon Brown whilst the latter was PM.)
I'm really struggling to see your viewpoint here Nick. The point surely is that charities have tolerated disgusting and revolting behaviour in the name of the greater good and have been happy to sweep things under the carpet to avoid reputational damage. Oxfam are the most high profile of these at the moment but it is turning into open season on the sector as a whole. Cox has got swept up in this because he misbehaved whilst working in that sector every bit as much as because he is the widow of an MP.
Charities are about to have a reminder of what the last 40 years have been like for established religion. They are not going to enjoy it much but by the time it is over any pretentions they have for moral superiority are going to get met by hollow laughter.
The coverage i've seen has not been primarily about the problems of some charities (after all, the one he worked for did take action) ...
(snip)
It appears he resigned before the investigation was complete, and the investigation was stopped. He then went on to (help?) form other charities.
Now, he almost certainly isn't a serious abuser of others. But there might well be an issue that people who are, might manage to get on a merry-go-round between charities.
In this, it's much like some of the scandals in the churches, especially the Catholic Church.
Not that I'm sure how to fix it, especially in a way that is fair to all parties ...
I'm really struggling to see your viewpoint here Nick. The point surely is that charities have tolerated disgusting and revolting behaviour in the name of the greater good and have been happy to sweep things under the carpet to avoid reputational damage. Oxfam are the most high profile of these at the moment but it is turning into open season on the sector as a whole. Cox has got swept up in this because he misbehaved whilst working in that sector every bit as much as because he is the widow of an MP.
Charities are about to have a reminder of what the last 40 years have been like for established religion. They are not going to enjoy it much but by the time it is over any pretentions they have for moral superiority are going to get met by hollow laughter.
The coverage i've seen has not been primarily about the problems of some charities (after all, the one he worked for did take action) but about him personally, specifically as the husband of the murdered MP - see e.g.
My reading of this sort of article is that he was seen as tiresomely persistent in criticising hate speech - what a do-gooder, eh? - and the Mail sees it as a good opporunity to take him down.
Poor Brendan made a mistake, he's really sorry for it, it wasn't malicious, and can the nasty right wing press please leave him alone? Frankly, Nick, that's pathetic. This sort of selective deafness when it's one of the Left wing's darlings does you no favours- as it also tarnishes the female labour MPs rushing to defend him today. He's a wrong 'un, and should be treated as such.
I'm really struggling to see your viewpoint here Nick. The point surely is that charities have tolerated disgusting and revolting behaviour in the name of the greater good and have been happy to sweep things under the carpet to avoid reputational damage. Oxfam are the most high profile of these at the moment but it is turning into open season on the sector as a whole. Cox has got swept up in this because he misbehaved whilst working in that sector every bit as much as because he is the widow of an MP.
Charities are about to have a reminder of what the last 40 years have been like for established religion. They are not going to enjoy it much but by the time it is over any pretentions they have for moral superiority are going to get met by hollow laughter.
The coverage i've seen has not been primarily about the problems of some charities (after all, the one he worked for did take action) but about him personally, specifically as the husband of the murdered MP - see e.g.
My reading of this sort of article is that he was seen as tiresomely persistent in criticising hate speech - what a do-gooder, eh? - and the Mail sees it as a good opporunity to take him down.
You don't think this is in the news because of Oxfam? Seriously?
Absolutely correct. There should be zero tolerance of such behaviour. I am no great fan of the Permissive Society, and would never knowingly vote for an adulterer - nor a fornicator.
I thought you voted for Clegg?
I most certainly did not! I voted LibDem in 2001 and 2005 when Charles Kennedy was leader.
Apologies. My mistake.
As George Brown so famously said, all politicians have one of two vices - drink or sex. His marriage was irreproachable.
(Asquith combined the two of course but that's another story.)
George Brown did ,of course, desert his wife - Sophie - for another woman!
Ah, I didn't know that. I know very little about him after he crawled off into his alcoholic haze.
Something of a tragedy. He could have been a significant political figure but is now remembered mostly as the butt of many jokes about his boozy behaviour including the one about the Bishop of Lima.
Harold Wilson suggested that Brown's problem was not so much that he was a drunkard - but rather that he found it difficult to take much alcohol!
That seems fair. William Pitt the Younger must have drunk twice as much as Brown ever did - but there is only one recorded occasion when his performance in office was affected by it. (Although he did die at 46.)
It is worth noting however that Wilson was the man Brown's sex and booze gibe was aimed at.
I believe Wilson had a strong marriage - his widow - Mary - is still alive at 102. Some evidence that he became partial to brandy in the 1970s,
Third, it is really disappointing that so many people from a party which makes a great play of being on the side of women, as a generality, find it so hard to condemn bad behaviour aimed at women when it is done by one of them. Or find it so hard to be unequivocal in condemning bad behaviour by Labour men or men on the left. It is as if women's rights only matter when it allows Labour to feel morally superior but that, on no account should it require anyone on the left to behave well to real life women. And if they behave badly well women shouldn't really complain about it because, well, we're Labour.
snip
I don't see him as a left-wing figure but as someone who has agreed to some minor charitable roles related to his wife's death. So although he's obviously behaved badly, I don't think his behaviour at work should be front page material, and rather than *primarily* an example of pervasive sexual harassment I think it's primarily an example of how the press seize on anyone in the public eye to drag them down.
I was lucky not to get that treatment as an MP apart from a minor flurry, but I think it's a major disincentive for people of all parties to get into frontline politics at all.
I'm really struggling to see your viewpoint here Nick. The point surely is that charities have tolerated disgusting and revolting behaviour in the name of the greater good and have been happy to sweep things under the carpet to avoid reputational damage. Oxfam are the most high profile of these at the moment but it is turning into open season on the sector as a whole. Cox has got swept up in this because he misbehaved whilst working in that sector every bit as much as because he is the widow of an MP.
Charities are about to have a reminder of what the last 40 years have been like for established religion. They are not going to enjoy it much but by the time it is over any pretentions they have for moral superiority are going to get met by hollow laughter.
Can I point this out about Oxfam:
"The irony, say experts, is that Oxfam had been doing better than other NGOs in confronting sexual abuse. Campaigners point out that Oxfam’s inquiry into Haiti prompted an overhaul of its reporting systems on abuse, including creation of a new safeguarding team. “Oxfam does have, according to our research, one of the best, if not the best, safeguarding units among international NGOs or in the UN,” said Dyan Mazurana, associate research professor at Tufts University in the US, who has studied how aid charities tackle sexual abuse between staff members."
I'm really struggling to see your viewpoint here Nick. The point surely is that charities have tolerated disgusting and revolting behaviour in the name of the greater good and have been happy to sweep things under the carpet to avoid reputational damage. Oxfam are the most high profile of these at the moment but it is turning into open season on the sector as a whole. Cox has got swept up in this because he misbehaved whilst working in that sector every bit as much as because he is the widow of an MP.
Charities are about to have a reminder of what the last 40 years have been like for established religion. They are not going to enjoy it much but by the time it is over any pretentions they have for moral superiority are going to get met by hollow laughter.
The coverage i've seen has not been primarily about the problems of some charities (after all, the one he worked for did take action) but about him personally, specifically as the husband of the murdered MP - see e.g.
My reading of this sort of article is that he was seen as tiresomely persistent in criticising hate speech - what a do-gooder, eh? - and the Mail sees it as a good opporunity to take him down.
Poor Brendan made a mistake, he's really sorry for it, it wasn't malicious, and can the nasty right wing press please leave him alone? Frankly, Nick, that's pathetic. This sort of selective deafness when it's one of the Left wing's darlings does you no favours- as it also tarnishes the female labour MPs rushing to defend him today. He's a wrong 'un, and should be treated as such.
I largely agree, and his attempted infidelity seems to have been before he became a widower.
I was chatting earlier with a minister, who spent some time on internal church incidents. It is very dispiriting when people whose values we share abuse that trust. I find that myself in my role investing incidents in the NHS. We have to remember that no one is free of the temptation to sins or to base motives.
Good internal governance matters especially in organisations taking the moral high ground.
I don't see him as a left-wing figure but as someone who has agreed to some minor charitable roles related to his wife's death. So although he's obviously behaved badly, I don't think his behaviour at work should be front page material, and rather than *primarily* an example of pervasive sexual harassment I think it's primarily an example of how the press seize on anyone in the public eye to drag them down.
I was lucky not to get that treatment as an MP apart from a minor flurry, but I think it's a major disincentive for people of all parties to get into frontline politics at all.
I'm really struggling to see your viewpoint here Nick. The point surely is that charities have tolerated disgusting and revolting behaviour in the name of the greater good and have been happy to sweep things under the carpet to avoid reputational damage. Oxfam are the most high profile of these at the moment but it is turning into open season on the sector as a whole. Cox has got swept up in this because he misbehaved whilst working in that sector every bit as much as because he is the widow of an MP.
Charities are about to have a reminder of what the last 40 years have been like for established religion. They are not going to enjoy it much but by the time it is over any pretentions they have for moral superiority are going to get met by hollow laughter.
Can I point this out about Oxfam:
"The irony, say experts, is that Oxfam had been doing better than other NGOs in confronting sexual abuse. Campaigners point out that Oxfam’s inquiry into Haiti prompted an overhaul of its reporting systems on abuse, including creation of a new safeguarding team. “Oxfam does have, according to our research, one of the best, if not the best, safeguarding units among international NGOs or in the UN,” said Dyan Mazurana, associate research professor at Tufts University in the US, who has studied how aid charities tackle sexual abuse between staff members."
People abusing the power they have over others in unpoliced, failed states with abject poverty is hardly a surprise. Such power is always attractive to the abuser and tempts those with evil intent. What I did find surprising was the allegations of abuse in their Charity shops.
I don't see him as a left-wing figure but as someone who has agreed to some minor charitable roles related to his wife's death. So although he's obviously behaved badly, I don't think his behaviour at work should be front page material, and rather than *primarily* an example of pervasive sexual harassment I think it's primarily an example of how the press seize on anyone in the public eye to drag them down.
I was lucky not to get that treatment as an MP apart from a minor flurry, but I think it's a major disincentive for people of all parties to get into frontline politics at all.
I'm really struggling to see your viewpoint here Nick. The point surely is that charities have tolerated disgusting and revolting behaviour in the name of the greater good and have been happy to sweep things under the carpet to avoid reputational damage. Oxfam are the most high profile of these at the moment but it is turning into open season on the sector as a whole. Cox has got swept up in this because he misbehaved whilst working in that sector every bit as much as because he is the widow of an MP.
Charities are about to have a reminder of what the last 40 years have been like for established religion. They are not going to enjoy it much but by the time it is over any pretentions they have for moral superiority are going to get met by hollow laughter.
Can I point this out about Oxfam:
"The irony, say experts, is that Oxfam had been doing better than other NGOs in confronting sexual abuse. Campaigners point out that Oxfam’s inquiry into Haiti prompted an overhaul of its reporting systems on abuse, including creation of a new safeguarding team. “Oxfam does have, according to our research, one of the best, if not the best, safeguarding units among international NGOs or in the UN,” said Dyan Mazurana, associate research professor at Tufts University in the US, who has studied how aid charities tackle sexual abuse between staff members."
People abusing the power they have over others in unpoliced, failed states with abject poverty is hardly a surprise. Such power is always attractive to the abuser and tempts those with evil intent. What I did find surprising was the allegations of abuse in their Charity shops.
Most of the incidents were from customers as I recall.
Absolutely correct. There should be zero tolerance of such behaviour. I am no great fan of the Permissive Society, and would never knowingly vote for an adulterer - nor a fornicator.
I thought you voted for Clegg?
I most certainly did not! I voted LibDem in 2001 and 2005 when Charles Kennedy was leader.
Apologies. My mistake.
As George Brown so famously said, all politicians have one of two vices - drink or sex. His marriage was irreproachable.
(Asquith combined the two of course but that's another story.)
George Brown did ,of course, desert his wife - Sophie - for another woman!
Ah, I didn't know that. I know very little about him after he crawled off into his alcoholic haze.
Something of a tragedy. He could have been a significant political figure but is now remembered mostly as the butt of many jokes about his boozy behaviour including the one about the Bishop of Lima.
Harold Wilson suggested that Brown's problem was not so much that he was a drunkard - but rather that he found it difficult to take much alcohol!
That seems fair. William Pitt the Younger must have drunk twice as much as Brown ever did - but there is only one recorded occasion when his performance in office was affected by it. (Although he did die at 46.)
It is worth noting however that Wilson was the man Brown's sex and booze gibe was aimed at.
I believe Wilson had a strong marriage - his widow - Mary - is still alive at 102. Some evidence that he became partial to brandy in the 1970s,
You believe wrongly. He had a long-running affair with Marcia Falkender. It was not proved at the time but believe me, it was more than malicious gossip. That doesn't mean he didn't get on with his wife, but it did add bite to Brown's comment. Ironic, in view of later events.
I don't see him as a left-wing figure but as someone who has agreed to some minor charitable roles related to his wife's death. So although he's obviously behaved badly, I don't think his behaviour at work should be front page material, and rather than *primarily* an example of pervasive sexual harassment I think it's primarily an example of how the press seize on anyone in the public eye to drag them down.
I was lucky not to get that treatment as an MP apart from a minor flurry, but I think it's a major disincentive for people of all parties to get into frontline politics at all.
snip
Charities are about to have a reminder of what the last 40 years have been like for established religion. They are not going to enjoy it much but by the time it is over any pretentions they have for moral superiority are going to get met by hollow laughter.
Can I point this out about Oxfam:
"The irony, say experts, is that Oxfam had been doing better than other NGOs in confronting sexual abuse. Campaigners point out that Oxfam’s inquiry into Haiti prompted an overhaul of its reporting systems on abuse, including creation of a new safeguarding team. “Oxfam does have, according to our research, one of the best, if not the best, safeguarding units among international NGOs or in the UN,” said Dyan Mazurana, associate research professor at Tufts University in the US, who has studied how aid charities tackle sexual abuse between staff members."
People abusing the power they have over others in unpoliced, failed states with abject poverty is hardly a surprise. Such power is always attractive to the abuser and tempts those with evil intent. What I did find surprising was the allegations of abuse in their Charity shops.
Yes it's terrible and shouldn't be happening. But to add some perspective the shops are like any other work place. Abuse is taking place in all sorts of work places. There are 23,000 volunteers and the turn over is fairly high in my experience. Much more needs to be done and Oxfam is acting. But there is no way that this is simply an Oxfam thing.
But the real issue is that too many on the left are rushing to defend his behaviour. Or that of others in the aid sector on the grounds that it might harm their reputation. Well....doh! It's not the criticism which harms the reputation. It's the wrongdoing.
But neither I nor anyone else that I've seen is defending his behaviour. I'm criticising the glee with which the Mail and others who seem to see him as some sort of left-wing figure are seizing on it. You seem to feel this is political on my part, but I don't identify him as left-wing, and I feel the same about the way someone like Farage gets haunted to the point of reporters timing how long someone spend in his room.
We're talking about different things here - I condemn the sexual harassment as much as you, but I'm discussing the selective appetite of the press for pursuing people they don't like. And yes, I do feel that with the recent event that affected him and his family, a bit less coverage might be appropriate, rather than a lot more.
But I'll leave it there. You'll shortly have an article by me here and we can argue about that .
Absolutely correct. There should be zero tolerance of such behaviour. I am no great fan of the Permissive Society, and would never knowingly vote for an adulterer - nor a fornicator.
I thought you voted for Clegg?
I most certainly did not! I voted LibDem in 2001 and 2005 when Charles Kennedy was leader.
Apologies. My mistake.
As George Brown so famously said, all politicians have one of two vices - drink or sex. His marriage was irreproachable.
(Asquith combined the two of course but that's another story.)
George Brown did ,of course, desert his wife - Sophie - for another woman!
Ah, I didn't know that. I know very little about him after he crawled off into his alcoholic haze.
Something of a tragedy. He could have been a significant political figure but is now remembered mostly as the butt of many jokes about his boozy behaviour including the one about the Bishop of Lima.
Harold Wilson suggested that Brown's problem was not so much that he was a drunkard - but rather that he found it difficult to take much alcohol!
That seems fair. William Pitt the Younger must have drunk twice as much as Brown ever did - but there is only one recorded occasion when his performance in office was affected by it. (Although he did die at 46.)
It is worth noting however that Wilson was the man Brown's sex and booze gibe was aimed at.
I believe Wilson had a strong marriage - his widow - Mary - is still alive at 102. Some evidence that he became partial to brandy in the 1970s,
You believe wrongly. He had a long-running affair with Marcia Falkender. It was not proved at the time but believe me, it was more than malicious gossip. That doesn't mean he didn't get on with his wife, but it did add bite to Brown's comment. Ironic, in view of later events.
All the information that has come my way has been to the effect that any involvement with Marcia - if it happened at all - was in the mid-50s when she became his political secretary, and certainly did not not extend to the period when he was at the peak of his career as party leader and PM. Mary and Marcia are actually very good friends - though I accept that does not exclude the possibility of an earlier affair. There was much malicious gossip in the 1960s and early 70s implying that Wilson was the father of Marcia's twins. That has been proved to have been nonsense - in that the father was revealed to be political editor of the Daily Mail.
For those that missed it last night this is thoroughly entertaining and a lesson to those who "know": ttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zT0Rjc6jKCg
That’s very funny. John Oliver shouting at Trump to run stands out, as does Ann Coulter on Bill Maher’s show getting laughed at for even suggesting that Trump was the favourite a year before the election.
John Oliver is a very poor man's Jon Stewart. That was not his finest hour. As I said last night I hope Ann Coulter got some money on.
Jon Stewart is irreplaceable, a whole generation of people grew up on his original, comedic ‘fake news’. Oliver can be good, and his show (new series starts tonight BTW) often does some good investigations, but he’s not up to the same standard as his mentor.
I know JS has done a few interviews and appearances in the last couple of years, but I wonder if deep down he regrets stepping down when he did, given all that’s happened since?
All the information that has come my way has been to the effect that any involvement with Marcia - if it happened at all - was in the mid-50s when she became his political secretary, and certainly did not not extend to the period when he was at the peak of his career as party leader and PM. Mary and Marcia are actually very good friends - though I accept that does not exclude the possibility of an earlier affair. There was much malicious gossip in the 1960s and early 70s implying that Wilson was the father of Marcia's twins. That has been proved to have been nonsense - in that the father was revealed to be political editor of the Daily Mail.
OK. Well, it may help you to know that until three years ago when he died I had a friend called Nick Baker who was a private secretary at No. 10 in Wilson's first tenure and lived very close to Marcia Falkender. Two mornings a week while walking the dog he would greet the man coming out of her house with the words 'Good morning Prime Minister' and get a grunt in reply.
Now that is of course not conclusive. Maybe she did a mean full English or something. But it is suggestive.
I believe Nick was telling the truth by the way - he was a forthright individual and I never knew him dissemble or wish to feel important.
But the real issue is that too many on the left are rushing to defend his behaviour. Or that of others in the aid sector on the grounds that it might harm their reputation. Well....doh! It's not the criticism which harms the reputation. It's the wrongdoing.
But neither I nor anyone else that I've seen is defending his behaviour. I'm criticising the glee with which the Mail and others who seem to see him as some sort of left-wing figure are seizing on it. You seem to feel this is political on my part, but I don't identify him as left-wing, and I feel the same about the way someone like Farage gets haunted to the point of reporters timing how long someone spend in his room.
We're talking about different things here - I condemn the sexual harassment as much as you, but I'm discussing the selective appetite of the press for pursuing people they don't like. And yes, I do feel that with the recent event that affected him and his family, a bit less coverage might be appropriate, rather than a lot more.
But I'll leave it there. You'll shortly have an article by me here and we can argue about that .
Nick, how would you compare the treatment of Brendan Cox by certain sections of the media today, against the treatment of Toby Young a few weeks ago by a different section of the media - for what was by comparison a trivial offence?
"The irony, say experts, is that Oxfam had been doing better than other NGOs in confronting sexual abuse. Campaigners point out that Oxfam’s inquiry into Haiti prompted an overhaul of its reporting systems on abuse, including creation of a new safeguarding team. “Oxfam does have, according to our research, one of the best, if not the best, safeguarding units among international NGOs or in the UN,” said Dyan Mazurana, associate research professor at Tufts University in the US, who has studied how aid charities tackle sexual abuse between staff members."
That's good to know, and possibly the procedures and unit post-dates the Haiti scandal?
It'd be interesting to know if there're any meetings or conferences for large NGOs and charities where best practice and issues are discussed. There must be a massive amount of commonality in the issues they face in running their organisations, and it would be easy for individual lessons in one organisation to be missed by others.
In particular, any organisation which deals with vulnerable people has to assume that those vulnerable people are, well, vulnerable to abuse from the people purporting to help them. It also works the other way: naive, well-meaning staff may prove vulnerable to malicious people they are trying to help. Safeguarding works both ways.
But the real issue is that too many on the left are rushing to defend his behaviour. Or that of others in the aid sector on the grounds that it might harm their reputation. Well....doh! It's not the criticism which harms the reputation. It's the wrongdoing.
But neither I nor anyone else that I've seen is defending his behaviour. I'm criticising the glee with which the Mail and others who seem to see him as some sort of left-wing figure are seizing on it. You seem to feel this is political on my part, but I don't identify him as left-wing, and I feel the same about the way someone like Farage gets haunted to the point of reporters timing how long someone spend in his room.
We're talking about different things here - I condemn the sexual harassment as much as you, but I'm discussing the selective appetite of the press for pursuing people they don't like. And yes, I do feel that with the recent event that affected him and his family, a bit less coverage might be appropriate, rather than a lot more.
But I'll leave it there. You'll shortly have an article by me here and we can argue about that .
People who put themselves in the public eye can hardly complain when the press pursues them. Cox is in the public eye because of the Oxfam story which has now spread to Save the Children, CAFOD, World Vision and others. He has, to a limited extent, made himself a public figure, beyond simply being the widower of a murdered MP. In retrospect that was unwise of him.
You are not really engaging with my key point, which is that condemnation of sexual harassment seems be quite as selective as press focus on particular individuals. With some it's "how appalling!". And with others, the woman is to blame or it should somehow be excused because of some other issue (the work they do or the difficulties they've suffered) or just because they're one of us. Not much consistency. And that speaks poorly of the moral judgment of those who condemn behaviour only on an ad hominem basis.
We women had better make sure that we're sexually harassed by the right sort of person (preferably some evil Tory capitalist who never gives money to charity) if we want to make sure that the harassment will be condemned by those shouting loudest about women' rights, eh!
@YBarddCwsc, @Sandpit, you make bloody good points here, but I don't know the solution.
Over the past five years my freelance jobs have taken a rather weird step regarding predictions and their measurement, and I have the scars on my back to tell you that models used to predict future events are rarely assessed by modellers for accuracy against the actual outcome[1], and that non-modelling-based predictions are discarded and forgotten as soon as the event occurs, with the predictor cherry-picking the correct ones to burnish his rep (Roger Bootle is a case in point, although he only stands out because Capital Economics made such an arse of predicting house prices in the Noughties: I think all predictors do this and it's not fair to single out him).
We only spot the weirdness because opinion-poll data is easily available. But in most other cases it is not. For example, tell me what Deutsche Bank predictions were in 2004 for the pound in 2005? Pantheon Macroeconomic's predictions for growth in 2014? Moody Analytics's predictions in December 2015 of the 2016 POTUS election? Ladbroke's odds on April 1st on a Conservative victory in March? This stuff is subscription only or listed on dynamic websites that change from moment-to-moment and is ('scuse my French) fucking difficult to capture.
Somebody on here (it might be @Philip_Thompson, but my memory is poor) insists that betting odds on Reagan and Bush the Elder being nominated as GOP Potus candidate were good predictors of the outcome. But I need sources to believe that and he does not provide them (he may be working from memory), which leaves me tearing my hair out in frustration.
We don't have widely available sources to predictions to measure their accuracy. If you (or others) were willing to pay me money for the subscriptions (and that's going to easily hit 5-10K) and were willing to sign off my CPD log then I'd happily build one for you. But until that time we'll have the same problem.
Rant over. You may now all return to slagging off Brexit or whatever this week's idee fixe is...
NOTE
[1] This needs explaining. Instead of the previous model being assessed, it's more a case of new models being built using up-to-date data: the previous model is effectively discarded. When you combine that with the tendency of modellers to use qualitative criteria (simplicity, plausibility, etc) to select models, and the tendency to use criteria that don't actually consider the dependent variable (smoothness of the weights thru the range, compatibility with the previous model, plausibility again), it becomes horribly apparent that accuracy is actually irrelevant.
We women had better make sure that we're sexually harassed by the right sort of person (preferably some evil Tory capitalist who never gives money to charity) if we want to make sure that the harassment will be condemned by those shouting loudest about women' rights, eh! .........................................................
Be careful that they are not too left wing either though, If Jess Phillips is anything to go by left wingers are considered worse!
Mr Cook is mistaken. There is a world of difference between sharing information and sharing organisations. At the time May was pointing out that Scotland would have to set up its own intelligence services - she isn’t suggesting today that other EU members should disband theirs.
Toom tabard , always desperate to jump in and belittle Scotland. You and harry are a right pair , what can have happened to make you so bitter towards Scotland.
Cook has completely missed the point. Why on earth should an independent Scotland have, for example, access to GCHQ's SIGINT operation?
We'd doubtless be delighted to sign a second party agreement with them, as we have with several other nations, but while we share some elements of collection with Five Eyes nations, we don't even allow them unfettered access to our internal processing.
Sharing intelligence in pursuit of common goals - e.g. the fight against Salafist terrorism is a whole other thing. We'd continue to do that, Brexit or no - our gentleperson's agreement with the Europeans dates back to the Club de Berne in '71.
Comments
Thus, why not actually just implement a graduate tax? Much simpler to understand and administer, and less stressful for students.
1) what about foreign graduates in the U.K.? Do they pay it? If so that would definitely curb immigration but also screw the tech sector NHS etc.
2) a tax would have no ceiling and so might see people pay far more than needed;
3) it couldn't be levied on expats. Loans should be repaid by them although because the SLC is useless in practice they don't.
We saw the same phenomenon here in the Brexit vote and, to a lesser extent with the 2017 election where the "inevitable" triumph of May turned into nothing but. I think the sensible conclusion for betting purposes is not relying on the spin of the committed and thinking carefully about the alternative viewpoint.
I don't see him as a left-wing figure but as someone who has agreed to some minor charitable roles related to his wife's death. So although he's obviously behaved badly, I don't think his behaviour at work should be front page material, and rather than *primarily* an example of pervasive sexual harassment I think it's primarily an example of how the press seize on anyone in the public eye to drag them down.
I was lucky not to get that treatment as an MP apart from a minor flurry, but I think it's a major disincentive for people of all parties to get into frontline politics at all.
As George Brown so famously said, all politicians have one of two vices - drink or sex. His marriage was irreproachable.
(Asquith combined the two of course but that's another story.)
Something of a tragedy. He could have been a significant political figure but is now remembered mostly as the butt of many jokes about his boozy behaviour including the one about the Bishop of Lima.
Charities are about to have a reminder of what the last 40 years have been like for established religion. They are not going to enjoy it much but by the time it is over any pretentions they have for moral superiority are going to get met by hollow laughter.
Many moons ago you attended a private dinner with Ann Winterton. She made a crass joke - a joke, that's all, and you ran to the media and created a story that ended up with her losing the whip. Your words at the time ring hollow now.
Yet here we have someone who has admitted *acting* inappropriately towards women personally, and you automatically defend him.
Likewise, Oxfam.
Likewise, the Labour MP a while back who said something crass and whom you defended.
It does appear that the seriousness with which you take events varies according to whether it is 'your side' or not. Otherwise, your positions seem utterly contradictory.
What matters is that women (and sometimes men) are being abused to various degrees. It shouldn't matter if the accused is Labour, Conservative or anything else.
You do give the impression (perhaps wrongly) of seeming a bit too concerned, as in the Oxfam case, with attacking the messenger rather than listening to the message. He is one example of what appears to be a culture of sexual bullying/exploitation within the aid/charity sector that seems very at odds with what most people expect of such bodies. I have certainly heard him speak out against what certain newspapers write. Everyone is entitled to do that of course but then they should not be that surprised if the newspapers ask questions about them. I think he should now be left alone, as a matter of human decency, because it cannot be easy for him or his young family. The CEOs of the aid charities are really the ones who should be in the firing line.
But the real issue is that too many on the left are rushing to defend his behaviour. Or that of others in the aid sector on the grounds that it might harm their reputation. Well....doh! It's not the criticism which harms the reputation. It's the wrongdoing.
And it risks giving the impression that odious behaviour against women only gets criticised if it is done by certain types of "bad" men and that other sorts of "good" men get a free pass.
How do you think that makes women feel, Nick?
It is worth noting however that Wilson was the man Brown's sex and booze gibe was aimed at.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5404241/Jo-Coxs-husband-admits-sex-pest-resigns.html
My reading of this sort of article is that he was seen as tiresomely persistent in criticising hate speech - what a do-gooder, eh? - and the Mail sees it as a good opporunity to take him down.
That shouldn't be relevant - for all I know they may have had an avowedly open marriage like Balls and Cooper - but it will be for the press.
"Save the Children have said the complaints against Mr Cox were investigated in accordance with its procedures.
The charity confirmed that Brendan Cox was suspended and a disciplinary process begun but that he resigned before it was completed."
ISTR there was a problem in the past with police officers accused of wrongdoing resigning during investigations, and the investigations being stopped, allowing them to retain their full pension?
It seems that Cox resigned during the disciplinary investigation, and the process was stopped. He was then free to work for other charities and even (help?) set up a couple himself.
I'm unsure how this sort of thing can - or should - be dealt with, but it seems there might be a loophole with people under investigation leaving before that investigation is completed, and leaving without a blot on their record. That might be a difficult loophole to close in a manner that is fair to all parties.
(It should be noted that Brendan Cox was an adviser to Gordon Brown whilst the latter was PM.)
Now, he almost certainly isn't a serious abuser of others. But there might well be an issue that people who are, might manage to get on a merry-go-round between charities.
In this, it's much like some of the scandals in the churches, especially the Catholic Church.
Not that I'm sure how to fix it, especially in a way that is fair to all parties ...
"The irony, say experts, is that Oxfam had been doing better than other NGOs in confronting sexual abuse. Campaigners point out that Oxfam’s inquiry into Haiti prompted an overhaul of its reporting systems on abuse, including creation of a new safeguarding team. “Oxfam does have, according to our research, one of the best, if not the best, safeguarding units among international NGOs or in the UN,” said Dyan Mazurana, associate research professor at Tufts University in the US, who has studied how aid charities tackle sexual abuse between staff members."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/18/oxfam-image-problem-can-it-repair-damage-haiti
Full disclosure: I am volunteer at the charity.
I was chatting earlier with a minister, who spent some time on internal church incidents. It is very dispiriting when people whose values we share abuse that trust. I find that myself in my role investing incidents in the NHS. We have to remember that no one is free of the temptation to sins or to base motives.
Good internal governance matters especially in organisations taking the moral high ground.
I saw Jess Phillips just wondering who else?
We're talking about different things here - I condemn the sexual harassment as much as you, but I'm discussing the selective appetite of the press for pursuing people they don't like. And yes, I do feel that with the recent event that affected him and his family, a bit less coverage might be appropriate, rather than a lot more.
But I'll leave it there. You'll shortly have an article by me here and we can argue about that
I know JS has done a few interviews and appearances in the last couple of years, but I wonder if deep down he regrets stepping down when he did, given all that’s happened since?
Now that is of course not conclusive. Maybe she did a mean full English or something. But it is suggestive.
I believe Nick was telling the truth by the way - he was a forthright individual and I never knew him dissemble or wish to feel important.
It'd be interesting to know if there're any meetings or conferences for large NGOs and charities where best practice and issues are discussed. There must be a massive amount of commonality in the issues they face in running their organisations, and it would be easy for individual lessons in one organisation to be missed by others.
In particular, any organisation which deals with vulnerable people has to assume that those vulnerable people are, well, vulnerable to abuse from the people purporting to help them. It also works the other way: naive, well-meaning staff may prove vulnerable to malicious people they are trying to help. Safeguarding works both ways.
new thread
You are not really engaging with my key point, which is that condemnation of sexual harassment seems be quite as selective as press focus on particular individuals. With some it's "how appalling!". And with others, the woman is to blame or it should somehow be excused because of some other issue (the work they do or the difficulties they've suffered) or just because they're one of us. Not much consistency. And that speaks poorly of the moral judgment of those who condemn behaviour only on an ad hominem basis.
We women had better make sure that we're sexually harassed by the right sort of person (preferably some evil Tory capitalist who never gives money to charity) if we want to make sure that the harassment will be condemned by those shouting loudest about women' rights, eh!
Anyway I look forward to your article.
@YBarddCwsc, @Sandpit, you make bloody good points here, but I don't know the solution.
Over the past five years my freelance jobs have taken a rather weird step regarding predictions and their measurement, and I have the scars on my back to tell you that models used to predict future events are rarely assessed by modellers for accuracy against the actual outcome[1], and that non-modelling-based predictions are discarded and forgotten as soon as the event occurs, with the predictor cherry-picking the correct ones to burnish his rep (Roger Bootle is a case in point, although he only stands out because Capital Economics made such an arse of predicting house prices in the Noughties: I think all predictors do this and it's not fair to single out him).
We only spot the weirdness because opinion-poll data is easily available. But in most other cases it is not. For example, tell me what Deutsche Bank predictions were in 2004 for the pound in 2005? Pantheon Macroeconomic's predictions for growth in 2014? Moody Analytics's predictions in December 2015 of the 2016 POTUS election? Ladbroke's odds on April 1st on a Conservative victory in March? This stuff is subscription only or listed on dynamic websites that change from moment-to-moment and is ('scuse my French) fucking difficult to capture.
Somebody on here (it might be @Philip_Thompson, but my memory is poor) insists that betting odds on Reagan and Bush the Elder being nominated as GOP Potus candidate were good predictors of the outcome. But I need sources to believe that and he does not provide them (he may be working from memory), which leaves me tearing my hair out in frustration.
We don't have widely available sources to predictions to measure their accuracy. If you (or others) were willing to pay me money for the subscriptions (and that's going to easily hit 5-10K) and were willing to sign off my CPD log then I'd happily build one for you. But until that time we'll have the same problem.
Rant over. You may now all return to slagging off Brexit or whatever this week's idee fixe is...
NOTE
[1] This needs explaining. Instead of the previous model being assessed, it's more a case of new models being built using up-to-date data: the previous model is effectively discarded. When you combine that with the tendency of modellers to use qualitative criteria (simplicity, plausibility, etc) to select models, and the tendency to use criteria that don't actually consider the dependent variable (smoothness of the weights thru the range, compatibility with the previous model, plausibility again), it becomes horribly apparent that accuracy is actually irrelevant.
.........................................................
Be careful that they are not too left wing either though, If Jess Phillips is anything to go by left wingers are considered worse!
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/left-wing-men-jess-phillips-actual-worst-sexist-labour-mp-socialists-a7893001.html
I think it is centrists who have a good morality and make mistakes, others are guided by their evil ideas....
Or at least in the mind of Jess Phillips...