While I'm banging the lefty drum, I saw this status posted on Facebook:
Mandela will die soon. Today, tomorrow, this week, next week. It wont be long. Remember this, he out-lived Thatcher. When Cameron latches on the Mandela bandwagon this week remember that in 1985 he was a top member of the Federation of Conservative Students, who produced the "hang Mandela" posters. In 1989 Cameron worked in the Tory Policy Unit at Central Office and went on a anti-sanctions fact finding mission to South Africa with pro-apartheid Lobby Firm that was sponsored by Botha. Remember this when he tells the world he was inspired by Madiba.
When I woke up this morning, if you told me I would have an even lower opinion of David Cameron by lunch time, I would have told you it wasn't possible.
I would have been wrong.
I too was surprised. It just goes to show, I suppose.
Although it does raise the rather nerve-wracking question of where he's going to go from here. Maybe it'll come out in Iain Banks' will that The Wasp Factory was actually a biography of Cameron?
Don't get me wrong, I obviously knew my moral compass was pointing in different directions to Daves but even I didn't have a low enough opinion of him to assume he was pro-apartheid. I'm absolutely appalled this was something the Tory party was doing in the 80's. They've managed to bury it really well because I had no idea.
That is some straight up fascist bullshit and I hope at least someone in the media manages to shine the worlds brightest spotlight on it.
It wasn't so much that they were pro-apartheid, though you wouldn't have to search hard to find evidence of 80's Tories being just as racist as many middle aged conservatives of the era. Thatcher resisted sanctions but publically called for PK Botha to end Apartheid, but she also routinely catergorised the ANC as a terrorist organisation.
If questioned about it Cameron would, I'm sure, simply say he had nothing to do with the t-shirts and anyway it was a long time ago and he was young and foolish.
Well I'm sure they weren't so much pro-Apartheid as much as they were anti-losing-money-by-having-sanctions-on-South-Africa-who-the-fuck-cares-about-human-rights.
It's a shame there's wasn't facebook around in those times, I'm pretty sure that whilst they wouldn't describe themselves as pro-apartheid, I don't expect it was voiced as purely a business decision behind closed doors.
Well I'm sure they weren't so much pro-Apartheid as much as they were anti-losing-money-by-having-sanctions-on-South-Africa-who-the-fuck-cares-about-human-rights.
Right, in the queue for this citizenship ceremony. Next stop, affirming, pledging and a song. Or it has all been a horrible practical joke and I'm to be deported.
In any event, see you on the other side
Freedom for the Northern Isles!
+5
Options
BobCescaIs a girlBirmingham, UKRegistered Userregular
I'm unsure what you're trying to say, equal pay for women in communism?
Same pay for drastically different jobs.
It's same pay for same scale jobs. Basically, if a guy is a teaching assistant he will be hired on a different scale than his female colleagues because the council have different policies regarding the pay and benefits of men and women. Which is illegal.
This has happened in lots of UK councils recently. It basically says that if you hire people in pay-band B then everyone should have the same pay and benefits regardless of their gender. Which has not been the case for a lot of people employed by Councils.
I'm unsure what you're trying to say, equal pay for women in communism?
Same pay for drastically different jobs.
Where are you getting that from? It says that terms under which someone is employed differ between men and women, with men getting favourable conditions that women don't.
I'm unsure what you're trying to say, equal pay for women in communism?
Same pay for drastically different jobs.
It's same pay for same scale jobs. Basically, if a guy is a teaching assistant he will be hired on a different scale than his female colleagues because the council have different policies regarding the pay and benefits of men and women. Which is illegal.
This has happened in lots of UK councils recently. It basically says that if you hire people in pay-band B then everyone should have the same pay and benefits regardless of their gender. Which has not been the case for a lot of people employed by Councils.
The article is confusing regarding the job divide (manual and teaching) and the male/female divide.
Either way, it looks like it's more about guidelines on bonus payments and supplements rather than just the amount that they get paid, so instead of being out of luck because of arbitrary division it'll be to each according to their need oh shit it is communism aaah
35. In the fourth place, it is not the function of the “same employment” test to
establish comparability between the jobs done. That comparability is established
by the “like work”, “work rated as equivalent” and “work of equal value” tests.
Furthermore, the effect of the deemed equality clause is to modify the relevant
term of the woman’s contract so as not to be less favourable than a term of a
similar kind in the contract under which the man is employed or to include a
beneficial term in her contract if she has none (section 1(2)(a), (b) or (c) as the
case may be). That modification is clearly capable of taking account of differences
in the working hours or holiday entitlement in calculating what would be equally
favourable treatment for them both. Moreover, the equality clause does not operate
if a difference in treatment is genuinely due to a material factor other than sex
(section 1(3)). The “same employment” test should not be used as a proxy for
those tests or as a way of avoiding the often difficult and complex issues which
they raise (tempting though this may be for large employers faced with multiple
claims such as these). Its function is to establish the terms and conditions with
which the comparison is to be made. The object is simply to weed out those cases
in which geography plays a significant part in determining what those terms and
conditions are.
I'm unsure what you're trying to say, equal pay for women in communism?
Same pay for drastically different jobs.
It's same pay for same scale jobs. Basically, if a guy is a teaching assistant he will be hired on a different scale than his female colleagues because the council have different policies regarding the pay and benefits of men and women. Which is illegal.
This has happened in lots of UK councils recently. It basically says that if you hire people in pay-band B then everyone should have the same pay and benefits regardless of their gender. Which has not been the case for a lot of people employed by Councils.
The article is confusing regarding the job divide (manual and teaching) and the male/female divide.
Either way, it looks like it's more about guidelines on bonus payments and supplements rather than just the amount that they get paid, so instead of being out of luck because of arbitrary division it'll be to each according to their need oh shit it is communism aaah
Upon re-reading it a couple times it's not so much "equal pay" as "equal job conditions" from one type of job (ie- education assistant, nurse) vs. another (garbage collector, groundsmen). The only reason it's a male/female divide thing is because most of the education assistant/nurse roles are made up of women, and most of the manual labour roles are made up of men.
I think the genders of the people with jobs may be being used to give it an extra push, as women's rights are in high regard right now, but it seems a bit silly to compare the two types of jobs.
To be fair all of the listed occupations do involve workers dealing with someone else's (literal and/or figurative) shit for a living, so why not have such a comparison to make sure the parameters are treated equally?
Interesting experience, 56 of us did it today. 39 by oath, 17 by affirmation. Most of the affirmers were Anglos from the Antipodies or the US but there were some Pakistanis and Brazilians who affirmed too. Maybe 12% were from SA (whites and coloured) and the US was about the same
Interesting experience, 56 of us did it today. 39 by oath, 17 by affirmation. Most of the affirmers were Anglos from the Antipodies or the US but there were some Pakistanis and Brazilians who affirmed too. Maybe 12% were from SA (whites and coloured) and the US was about the same
What's the difference between affirmation and oath?
And does that mean the majority of the new citizens were 'white'?
Interesting experience, 56 of us did it today. 39 by oath, 17 by affirmation. Most of the affirmers were Anglos from the Antipodies or the US but there were some Pakistanis and Brazilians who affirmed too. Maybe 12% were from SA (whites and coloured) and the US was about the same
What's the difference between affirmation and oath?
And does that mean the majority of the new citizens were 'white'?
Ok, before I sleep
1. An Oath is to a higher power, the Almighty God, an affirmation is a secular version of that. I've been in the situation of oath giving a bit now given what I do and I absolutely refuse to consider an oath. It is kind of a deal breaker to me to be honest.
2. Nope. Most of the new citizens were not "white" by classic definitions. I'd say the median was sub continent - Indian or Pakistani. Lots more Americans than I would have thought too. More Latinos too. One Kazakhstani who looked East Asian until she spoke, then she sounded as Russian as one could be.
Here are the options. I have to say, I would have dearly loved to have affirmed in Welsh/Cymraeg if it were possible in London:
Chose on or the other
Oath of allegiance
I (name) swear by Almighty God that on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her Heirs and Successors, according to law.
Affirmation of allegiance
I (name) do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her Heirs and Successors, according to law.
Then all must do:
Pledge
I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen.
Ceremonies in Wales If you are attending a ceremony in Wales you may, if you wish, make the oath or affirmation, and the pledge, in Welsh. The Welsh version of the oath, affirmation and pledge are below.
Llw teyrngarwch
Yr wyf i, (enw), yn tyngu i Dduw Hollalluog y byddaf i, ar ôl dod yn ddinesydd Prydeinig, yn ffyddlon ac yn wir deyrngar i'w Mawrhydi y Frenhines Elisabeth yr Ail, ei Hetifeddion a'i Holynwyr, yn unol âr gyfraith.
Cadarnhau teyrngarwch
Yr wyf i, (enw), yn datgan ac yn cadarnhau yn ddifrifol, yn ddiffuant ac yn gywir y byddaf i, ar ôl dod yn ddinesydd Prydeinig, yn ffyddlon ac yn wir deyrngar i'w Mawrhydi y Frenhines Elisabeth yr Ail, ei Hetifeddion a'i Holynwyr, yn Unol âr gyfraith.
Adduned
Rhoddaf fy nheyrngarwch i'r Deyrnas Unedig ac fe barchaf ei hawliau a'i rhyddidau. Arddelaf ei gwerthoedd democrataidd. Glynaf yn ffyddlon wrth ei chyfreithiau a chyflawnaf fy nyletswyddau a'm rhwymedigaethau fel dinesydd Prydeinig.
To be fair all of the listed occupations do involve workers dealing with someone else's (literal and/or figurative) shit for a living, so why not have such a comparison to make sure the parameters are treated equally?
So you're saying that, for example, office workers should have hazard pay so that they're equal to their factory-working, manual-labour counterparts?
To be fair all of the listed occupations do involve workers dealing with someone else's (literal and/or figurative) shit for a living, so why not have such a comparison to make sure the parameters are treated equally?
So you're saying that, for example, office workers should have hazard pay so that they're equal to their factory-working, manual-labour counterparts?
If they encounter conditions that would entitle them to it, then yes, of course.
One of the tests applied to the case is if, hypothetically, one of the people employed on green book terms would remain on those terms if they carried out their job in an environment where the rest of the staff are on blue book terms (e.g. a parks maintenance person becoming a school groundskeeper, for example). The courts decided that they would, regardless of what they were actually paid, so the distinction is a gender based one and therefore unlawful.
"It's alright everyone, our Tory overlords have revised away the recession! Apparently we're not all unemployed and we haven't had all our benefits stripped away!
To be fair all of the listed occupations do involve workers dealing with someone else's (literal and/or figurative) shit for a living, so why not have such a comparison to make sure the parameters are treated equally?
So you're saying that, for example, office workers should have hazard pay so that they're equal to their factory-working, manual-labour counterparts?
If they encounter conditions that would entitle them to it, then yes, of course.
One of the tests applied to the case is if, hypothetically, one of the people employed on green book terms would remain on those terms if they carried out their job in an environment where the rest of the staff are on blue book terms (e.g. a parks maintenance person becoming a school groundskeeper, for example). The courts decided that they would, regardless of what they were actually paid, so the distinction is a gender based one and therefore unlawful.
So the comparisons I see in the article, it's assuming/estimating that if a garbage collector suddenly became a child care worker, the garbage collector would remain on the original terms their garbage collector terms and conditions. Or is it the assumption that if a child care worker suddenly decided to be a garbage collector, they wouldn't receive the same terms/conditions because they started out as a child care worker?
Either way, what foolish things to assume... Unless there were documented instances of this that I'm just not seeing, this seems really silly.
Equal Pay is actually pretty complicated and not as intuitive as one would hope. Certainly my eyes glaze over when it comes up.
I'll have a look to see if there is a good explainer for the case when I get back to work
Another, better written, article I've read indicates that it was a bonus that the manual labour workers were getting that the other workers were not getting. I'd be interested to find out the reason for the bonus, if it was based on anything, or just a generic "here you go"-type bonus.
Equal Pay is actually pretty complicated and not as intuitive as one would hope. Certainly my eyes glaze over when it comes up.
I'll have a look to see if there is a good explainer for the case when I get back to work
Another, better written, article I've read indicates that it was a bonus that the manual labour workers were getting that the other workers were not getting. I'd be interested to find out the reason for the bonus, if it was based on anything, or just a generic "here you go"-type bonus.
I'll be happy so long as people are getting identical pay and rights doing the same jobs, regardless of gender, seems stupid if this wasn't the case, you know; in this day and age.
Bonuses are instituted for lots of different reasons that may no longer make sense years later. If they are poorly or not written, poorly defined, or in place for a long time they may become permanent and it may not be clear what the original reasons or purpose were.
Equal Pay is actually pretty complicated and not as intuitive as one would hope. Certainly my eyes glaze over when it comes up.
I'll have a look to see if there is a good explainer for the case when I get back to work
Another, better written, article I've read indicates that it was a bonus that the manual labour workers were getting that the other workers were not getting. I'd be interested to find out the reason for the bonus, if it was based on anything, or just a generic "here you go"-type bonus.
I'll be happy so long as people are getting identical pay and rights doing the same jobs, regardless of gender, seems stupid if this wasn't the case, you know; in this day and age.
Exactly. Which is why this instance doesn't seem right to me. They're essentially comparing apples to bananas to determine "equal pay".
0
Options
wiltingI had fun once and it was awfulRegistered Userregular
Perfect timing for US spying on EU revelations, what with the all important transatlantic free trade agreement on the table. We couldn't have one economic good news story. Thanks America.
Perfect timing for US spying on EU revelations, what with the all important transatlantic free trade agreement on the table. We couldn't have one economic good news story. Thanks America Obama.
FTFY
0
Options
wiltingI had fun once and it was awfulRegistered Userregular
Perfect timing for US spying on EU revelations, what with the all important transatlantic free trade agreement on the table. We couldn't have one economic good news story. Thanks America.
I think I've said this before, but at that sort of level, where people are mucking about with the levers of the economy, I can't see this having much effect. If I had assumed the US was spying on us as a matter of course, I'm hopeful that the government assumed it also. I'd also like to think that every government factors in every other government spying on them, again, as a matter of course.
It's a nice bit of media coverage, I grant you, but I can't see it surprising, well, anyone really. The only impact I can see it having is in areas where public opinion is important, and honestly, I am assuming that byzantine free-trade agreements are more the sort of thing done with a handshake in a back alley smoke-filled club, in any case.
Now, I'm not saying "Why does it matter?", but "Why does it matter more now?"
wiltingI had fun once and it was awfulRegistered Userregular
edited June 2013
I don't know, Brussels, and Berlin, seem pretty incensed, what with the references made to the cold war. Its definitely going to negatively impact the data protection negotiations, which will feed into everything else. Not to mention a fear of an unfair (that's the world that's being thrown around) advantage hardening positions generally. Its easy to be cynical about everybody spying on everybody else when you have all the spies.
So the independant pay commission says backbenchers need a 10k payrise, Cameron says "no" and is swiftly told he can't say no.
What on earth is the ISPA smoking? If the MPs get a massive raise when everyone else is getting their pay cut or frozen there will be fucking riots.
Yes. Not figuratively, but actual enraged mobs.
Christ, if an idea is so bad that even David "The Privilege" Cameron isn't too out of touch to see it's dumb, then... I... well... OK similes fail me. That's the lowest possible bar there is for a politically inane idea.
Posts
I too was surprised. It just goes to show, I suppose.
That is some straight up fascist bullshit and I hope at least someone in the media manages to shine the worlds brightest spotlight on it.
If questioned about it Cameron would, I'm sure, simply say he had nothing to do with the t-shirts and anyway it was a long time ago and he was young and foolish.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Same difference.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-23045072
I'm unsure what you're trying to say, equal pay for women in communism?
Same pay for drastically different jobs.
In any event, see you on the other side
It's same pay for same scale jobs. Basically, if a guy is a teaching assistant he will be hired on a different scale than his female colleagues because the council have different policies regarding the pay and benefits of men and women. Which is illegal.
This has happened in lots of UK councils recently. It basically says that if you hire people in pay-band B then everyone should have the same pay and benefits regardless of their gender. Which has not been the case for a lot of people employed by Councils.
Where are you getting that from? It says that terms under which someone is employed differ between men and women, with men getting favourable conditions that women don't.
The article is confusing regarding the job divide (manual and teaching) and the male/female divide.
Either way, it looks like it's more about guidelines on bonus payments and supplements rather than just the amount that they get paid, so instead of being out of luck because of arbitrary division it'll be to each according to their need oh shit it is communism aaah
Upon re-reading it a couple times it's not so much "equal pay" as "equal job conditions" from one type of job (ie- education assistant, nurse) vs. another (garbage collector, groundsmen). The only reason it's a male/female divide thing is because most of the education assistant/nurse roles are made up of women, and most of the manual labour roles are made up of men.
I think the genders of the people with jobs may be being used to give it an extra push, as women's rights are in high regard right now, but it seems a bit silly to compare the two types of jobs.
Interesting experience, 56 of us did it today. 39 by oath, 17 by affirmation. Most of the affirmers were Anglos from the Antipodies or the US but there were some Pakistanis and Brazilians who affirmed too. Maybe 12% were from SA (whites and coloured) and the US was about the same
What's the difference between affirmation and oath?
And does that mean the majority of the new citizens were 'white'?
Ok, before I sleep
1. An Oath is to a higher power, the Almighty God, an affirmation is a secular version of that. I've been in the situation of oath giving a bit now given what I do and I absolutely refuse to consider an oath. It is kind of a deal breaker to me to be honest.
2. Nope. Most of the new citizens were not "white" by classic definitions. I'd say the median was sub continent - Indian or Pakistani. Lots more Americans than I would have thought too. More Latinos too. One Kazakhstani who looked East Asian until she spoke, then she sounded as Russian as one could be.
Here are the options. I have to say, I would have dearly loved to have affirmed in Welsh/Cymraeg if it were possible in London:
Chose on or the other
Oath of allegiance
I (name) swear by Almighty God that on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her Heirs and Successors, according to law.
Affirmation of allegiance
I (name) do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that on becoming a British citizen, I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her Heirs and Successors, according to law.
Then all must do:
Pledge
I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen.
Ceremonies in Wales
If you are attending a ceremony in Wales you may, if you wish, make the oath or affirmation, and the pledge, in Welsh. The Welsh version of the oath, affirmation and pledge are below.
Llw teyrngarwch
Yr wyf i, (enw), yn tyngu i Dduw Hollalluog y byddaf i, ar ôl dod yn ddinesydd Prydeinig, yn ffyddlon ac yn wir deyrngar i'w Mawrhydi y Frenhines Elisabeth yr Ail, ei Hetifeddion a'i Holynwyr, yn unol âr gyfraith.
Cadarnhau teyrngarwch
Yr wyf i, (enw), yn datgan ac yn cadarnhau yn ddifrifol, yn ddiffuant ac yn gywir y byddaf i, ar ôl dod yn ddinesydd Prydeinig, yn ffyddlon ac yn wir deyrngar i'w Mawrhydi y Frenhines Elisabeth yr Ail, ei Hetifeddion a'i Holynwyr, yn Unol âr gyfraith.
Adduned
Rhoddaf fy nheyrngarwch i'r Deyrnas Unedig ac fe barchaf ei hawliau a'i rhyddidau. Arddelaf ei gwerthoedd democrataidd. Glynaf yn ffyddlon wrth ei chyfreithiau a chyflawnaf fy nyletswyddau a'm rhwymedigaethau fel dinesydd Prydeinig.
So you're saying that, for example, office workers should have hazard pay so that they're equal to their factory-working, manual-labour counterparts?
If they encounter conditions that would entitle them to it, then yes, of course.
One of the tests applied to the case is if, hypothetically, one of the people employed on green book terms would remain on those terms if they carried out their job in an environment where the rest of the staff are on blue book terms (e.g. a parks maintenance person becoming a school groundskeeper, for example). The courts decided that they would, regardless of what they were actually paid, so the distinction is a gender based one and therefore unlawful.
"It's alright everyone, our Tory overlords have revised away the recession! Apparently we're not all unemployed and we haven't had all our benefits stripped away!
Wait..."
So the comparisons I see in the article, it's assuming/estimating that if a garbage collector suddenly became a child care worker, the garbage collector would remain on the original terms their garbage collector terms and conditions. Or is it the assumption that if a child care worker suddenly decided to be a garbage collector, they wouldn't receive the same terms/conditions because they started out as a child care worker?
Either way, what foolish things to assume... Unless there were documented instances of this that I'm just not seeing, this seems really silly.
I'll have a look to see if there is a good explainer for the case when I get back to work
Another, better written, article I've read indicates that it was a bonus that the manual labour workers were getting that the other workers were not getting. I'd be interested to find out the reason for the bonus, if it was based on anything, or just a generic "here you go"-type bonus.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I'll be happy so long as people are getting identical pay and rights doing the same jobs, regardless of gender, seems stupid if this wasn't the case, you know; in this day and age.
Exactly. Which is why this instance doesn't seem right to me. They're essentially comparing apples to bananas to determine "equal pay".
FTFY
I think I've said this before, but at that sort of level, where people are mucking about with the levers of the economy, I can't see this having much effect. If I had assumed the US was spying on us as a matter of course, I'm hopeful that the government assumed it also. I'd also like to think that every government factors in every other government spying on them, again, as a matter of course.
It's a nice bit of media coverage, I grant you, but I can't see it surprising, well, anyone really. The only impact I can see it having is in areas where public opinion is important, and honestly, I am assuming that byzantine free-trade agreements are more the sort of thing done with a handshake in a back alley smoke-filled club, in any case.
Now, I'm not saying "Why does it matter?", but "Why does it matter more now?"
Goodreads
SF&F Reviews blog
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23122628
So the independant pay commission says backbenchers need a 10k payrise, Cameron says "no" and is swiftly told he can't say no.
What on earth is the ISPA smoking? If the MPs get a massive raise when everyone else is getting their pay cut or frozen there will be fucking riots.
Yes. Not figuratively, but actual enraged mobs.
Christ, if an idea is so bad that even David "The Privilege" Cameron isn't too out of touch to see it's dumb, then... I... well... OK similes fail me. That's the lowest possible bar there is for a politically inane idea.