I read the news today oh boy! Page 834
That was a barnstorming column
Hail Mitchell the bastard child of Charlie Brooker and Stephen Fry
He makes sense of the complexity!
If I could be bothered to read beyond the second paragraph....
Why can't he just write simple English for simple people like me?
Quote: Chappers @ May 27 2012, 11:23 PM BSTIf I could be bothered to read beyond the second paragraph....
Why can't he just write simple English for simple people like me?
Mayhap he is paid by the word?
Viva cynical!
I am sure my 'virus' was the new compost one- beware guys, wear jonny gloves as causes 'projectile vomiting' and 'trots'
You heard it second here!!
Quote: Chappers @ May 27 2012, 11:23 PM BSTIf I could be bothered to read beyond the second paragraph....
Why can't he just write simple English for simple people like me?
BLOG FOR CHAPPERS
Naughty bad men in lock up no vote
Big smelly bum Europe say they vote
we say go f**k yourself Europe and naughty bad men.
Quote: chipolata @ May 18 2012, 9:29 PM BSTPlease, Marc, I don't want anybody filling Ellie while I'm away.
Hi Chip!
Quote: sootyj @ May 28 2012, 9:31 AM BSTBLOG FOR CHAPPERS
Naughty bad men in lock up no vote
Big smelly bum Europe say they vote
we say go f**k yourself Europe and naughty bad men.
Well why didn't he just say that? It's what every sane person in this country thinks anyway so nothing's new about it.
(I did guess that by the way but couldn't be arsed to read it all. I do have a life - almost!)
Looks like they're going to introduce quotas so that more women are hired as judges, company directors, top civil servants, etc.
I think it's about time that the best person for the job is viewed by their gender only and that skills, experience, talent, etc. are secondary and superfluous.
This is what feminism is all about - too crap to be at the top, don't worry girls, we'll pass laws that ensure that you are given everything for doing very little. Go sisters!
I hate this "quota" shite.
The best person (man/woman/gay/straight/whatever race) should be employed for the job.
I have to fill out forms stating how the company I work for are ticking boxes of employing people from different religions/races etc. It's bollocks. The person who is BEST for the job should be employed.
Quote: L.E. @ May 29 2012, 1:35 PM BSTThe person who is BEST for the job should be employed.
Tell that to David Cameron!
And while we are at it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5Z-9E5hVKU&list=UU_eHiwwC0qTTGfrwyI23HJw&index=7&feature=plcp
Quote: Renegade Carpark @ May 29 2012, 1:30 PM BSTLooks like they're going to introduce quotas so that more women are hired as judges, company directors, top civil servants, etc.
I think it's about time that the best person for the job is viewed by their gender only and that skills, experience, talent, etc. are secondary and superfluous.
This is what feminism is all about - too crap to be at the top, don't worry girls, we'll pass laws that ensure that you are given everything for doing very little. Go sisters!
Bleh. I have on occasion met people who assume that because they didn't get a promotion over man that it is just becuase they are female. Apparently it couldn't be because the male candidate had a different skill set or perhaps just interveiwed better or may fit in well with the team.
I bet they aren't going to introduce quotas for hiring male workers for jobs in early childhood teaching or nursing.
In an ideal world quotas definitely wouldn't exist. But there are some people who wouldn't employ a woman even if she WAS the best for the job, those are the people who are making these silly quotas happen.
So it's not always the PC brigade etc who are at fault (although it is sometimes/often, obviously). Make sure you are blaming the right people for the existence of quota filling.
Sometimes I think, although it goes against the grain, a short period of quota filling COULD be useful in some cases. As it would get people used to seeing women/men/whatever in a role they are rare in, will then get used to it, and when the quotas are got rid of, will then not be resistant to hiring them based purely on gender.
If that makes sense. (Can't seem to form proper sentences today.)
Anyway. I can see both sides.