phart Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Basically it's been shown quotas only benefit a few of the group that have been "protected" while the rest fall further behind. It's been replicated loads across loads of cultures and classes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Was asked to vote for my local South Edinburgh M.P. candidate.List of seven.Did not really notice if they were male or female,but i voted for a female .Joanna Cherry QC.The reason i voted for her was the word QC.Around 80% of Westminster mp's have a legal background and having worked in a legal environment,It makes sense that i want a the best litigator to be able to take them on.The other candidates i have no doubt can bring a lot to the region but in the specific environment that she will be working in she is the best candidate for the job.No quota just the right fit.If Joanna had been a male QC he would have been chosen by me. Others had a similar view .Here's to our new candidate.Give these English B@rristers hell Joanna ! How do you know her loyalty to the bar isn't greater than her loyalty to the people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maq Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Why do they want it just in Govt? If they're going to be serious about it, why not extend it to everything... 51% women, 49% men: Teachers Polis Army Accountants Lorry drivers Taxidermists Pilots Secretary's Load o' pish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wine bibber Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 How do you know her loyalty to the bar isn't greater than her loyalty to the people? QC's in Scotland are not under the instruction of the bar council as in England ,where i think they are a specific form of barrister ? Eric Joyce she is most certainly not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 I can't believe how easily some folk seem to be offended. Is it something that gets taught in school these days, or is it just down to namby pamby parenting. if what has been posted on this thread is an example of what some find offensive these days, then they clearly need to be subjected to some more "offensive" material in order to help them grow a thicker skin. If folk really do get offended when the get called dishonest or stupid it might be safer if they never left the hoose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) According to Sowell , any affirmative action/ positive discrimination (bet Orwell would like that one!!) is more likely to further empower the subsection of the demograph already well suited, while the rest of the demograph who need the intervention most fall behind. So again according to Sowell, it will empower Sturgeon et al, already at the sharp end or close to it, while de-powering the rest of the demograph. So technically the people calling for the action will benefit to the detriment of the rest of the folk it;s meant to help. Edited March 24, 2015 by phart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 QC's in Scotland are not under the instruction of the bar council as in England ,where i think they are a specific form of barrister ? Eric Joyce she is most certainly not I asked how do you know? i was going to say profession instead of bar, but bar looked better, so imagine i never said bar, then answer the question if you can be arsed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killiefaetheferry Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Then you sir are as thick as shit in the neck end of a bottle, and a liar to boot. While I was out dropping the kids at Nursery it dawned on me that I'd chipped a beauty of a cross over for you to nod in at the back post, and to be fair, you duly obliged in a big Dieter kind of a way. Well played I do, however, think there is a difference between the words you have used - abusive, and the words Stuart Campbell used in your example - saying that he would have more time for people if they were more honest/less stupid - not abusive. If you don't think there is a difference then that is your prerogative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlfieMoon Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Wings is a useful and invaluable resource for the indy cause and as such will come under scrutiny and criticism from many quarters. With it essentially being a one-man band, he is susceptible to being discredited by opponents (far more so than a daily newspaper or the BBC for example IMO) and as such would have to manage this dynamic accordingly. When he engages in tit-for-tat abuse on social media, is overly or unnecessarily cutting, or goes off on football rantings and antagonistic criticism of the old firm (for example), he damages his overall cause and devalues the professionalism which he is clearly capable of judging by his excellent journalism and investigative skills. Furthermore, I don't think it's helpful for people to jump to an instant defence of anything pro-indy as a default without considering the situation and everyone should be open to constructive criticism as should Wings. As for quotas - I think it is a very flawed concept and as others have said - where does it start and where does it stop? I think people need to be judged fairly, based on their ability. Women need to be given the opportunity to get back into the work place based on supportive maternity terms and childcare support to allow things to progress as naturally as possible. However, the simple fact of the matter is that overall - a large women will naturally take time out of their career and change focus as a result of having a family - that's no bad thing and is just the reality of life! If you start to artificially orchestrate a situation simply to force through some false level of equality then I think that's likely to create a number of problem scenarios where we're not getting the best candidates for the roles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wine bibber Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 I think she is more loyal to the people.She will be challenging from the inside her opposite numbers in a similar profession in a corrupt environment with a view to gaining democratic positives for the people of her country.She will have no loyalty to a separate legal system that does not favour the continental ethics that are similar to her legal beliefs in her country of Scotland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 I think she is more loyal to the people.She will be challenging from the inside her opposite numbers in a similar profession in a corrupt environment with a view to gaining democratic positives for the people of her country.She will have no loyalty to a separate legal system that does not favour the continental ethics that are similar to her legal beliefs in her country of Scotland. Fair enough, I have zero knowledge myself, but loyalties would be a big thing in how i would vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wine bibber Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 I asked how do you know? i was going to say profession instead of bar, but bar looked better, so imagine i never said bar, then answer the question if you can be arsed I think she is more loyal to the people.She will be challenging from the inside her opposite numbers in a similar profession in a corrupt environment with a view to gaining democratic positives for the people of her country.She will have no loyalty to a separate legal system that does not favour the continental ethics that are similar to her legal beliefs in her country of Scotland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Wings is a useful and invaluable resource for the indy cause and as such will come under scrutiny and criticism from many quarters. With it essentially being a one-man band, he is susceptible to being discredited by opponents (far more so than a daily newspaper or the BBC for example IMO) and as such would have to manage this dynamic accordingly. When he engages in tit-for-tat abuse on social media, is overly or unnecessarily cutting, or goes off on football rantings and antagonistic criticism of the old firm (for example), he damages his overall cause and devalues the professionalism which he is clearly capable of judging by his excellent journalism and investigative skills. Furthermore, I don't think it's helpful for people to jump to an instant defence of anything pro-indy as a default without considering the situation and everyone should be open to constructive criticism as should Wings. As for quotas - I think it is a very flawed concept and as others have said - where does it start and where does it stop? I think people need to be judged fairly, based on their ability. Women need to be given the opportunity to get back into the work place based on supportive maternity terms and childcare support to allow things to progress as naturally as possible. However, the simple fact of the matter is that overall - a large women will naturally take time out of their career and change focus as a result of having a family - that's no bad thing and is just the reality of life! If you start to artificially orchestrate a situation simply to force through some false level of equality then I think that's likely to create a number of problem scenarios where we're not getting the best candidates for the roles. Is that no jist a wee bit fatist? Some folk might take offence at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlfieMoon Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Is that no jist a wee bit fatist? Some folk might take offence at that. Haha!! I'm guessing I was about to word that sentence differently and got distracted! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Haha!! I'm guessing I was about to word that sentence differently and got distracted! Easy to say after the event. Too late though the damage is done. Loads of wifies will be complaining about offensive posts on the TAMB by big bad cybernats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacWalka Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Having targets for the make up of groups is all well and fine. But legislating to make it so is not the way to go about it. The way to go about it is to analyse and determine what the barriers to the target sector attaining membership of the groups are - and legislate for them. Legislate the enablers e.g. the provision of childcare, which is a barrier to many women returning to work, and the target will be achieved naturally. Setting targets is easy. Anyone can do it. Here's a SMART target - My friend wants to go to Peru by October next year. That was easy. It's Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Timebound The difficult part is putting the enablers in place. Time off work? Money for the fare? Availability of flights? Determine what is causing women to be not equally represented in government, councils, boardrooms or wherever and work on the enablers. That's what should be done - not setting participating targets. I agree with that. One thing that does seem to be overlooked is the will of women (and men) to get back into work after having a child though. I know quite a few women who were high-flyers in their job (recruitment manager, civil engineer and accountant) and then had children. Before having the children they were very career driven and following that they just don't have the same desire to go back. They would all prefer to be a mother than be in work all week. Two are now part-time and one has given up work completely. There are obviously other cases where there is the need for both parents to go back to work to make ends meet or in a single parent case. However, other than the need for the parents to go to work to pay the bills (rather than just to get more money for extravagances), I actually find it very selfish for children to be dumped into child care full-time. If you are able to afford for one parent to go part-time or come out of work altogether until the child(ren) are at school age then you should in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaid Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 As for quotas - I think it is a very flawed concept and as others have said - where does it start and where does it stop? I think people need to be judged fairly, based on their ability. Women need to be given the opportunity to get back into the work place based on supportive maternity terms and childcare support to allow things to progress as naturally as possible. However, the simple fact of the matter is that overall - a large women will naturally take time out of their career and change focus as a result of having a family - that's no bad thing and is just the reality of life! If you start to artificially orchestrate a situation simply to force through some false level of equality then I think that's likely to create a number of problem scenarios where we're not getting the best candidates for the roles. The counter argument to that is that if your politicians do not generally reflect the demographics of society then - even subconsciously - they are less likely to legislate in favour of the wider society. I agree with Nicola Sturgeon when she says that if there was a level playing field then there would be no need for quotas but that's not the case. The problem though unless - as Flure says - unless you remove the barriers that stop women moving into politics all you are likely to do is to replace some of the white university educated male politicians with female counterparts. Which while being a start, kind of misses the point. I don't think it's a bad in Scotland as it is in England but where the upcoming generation of shiny MPs are indentikit public/grammar school educated PPE graduates who have never done anything outside of politics. Kind of like Jim Murphy with a degree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 I think you've been wooshed. Really, I thought Killie was right in that it was hardly 'abusive', mildly insulting perhaps. And certainly this did not merit Scunnered's more extreme reply which again is miles worse than the post they were debating. Was that not doing doing exactly what he is complaining about wings doing, losing patience and then abusing the other person? Just seemed a bit harsh but maybe I missed something, I just dipped my toe in quickly this morning and never read back much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Really, I thought Killie was right in that it was hardly 'abusive', mildly insulting perhaps. And certainly this did not merit Scunnered's more extreme reply which again is miles worse than the post they were debating. Was that not doing doing exactly what he is complaining about wings doing, losing patience and then abusing the other person? Just seemed a bit harsh but maybe I missed something, I just dipped my toe in quickly this morning and never read back much. thplinth he used the same insults that someone was saying weren't insults to insult them. So the person couldn't be offended because they had already stated that wasn't offensive. Now as to why Parkilife decided to say you were whooshed , have you two been arguing again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Now as to why Parkilife decided to say you were whooshed It was because he had been whooshed. Not everything has a deeper meaning, brother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 It was because he had been whooshed. Not everything has a deeper meaning, brother. Well to be fair he only has been whooshed if you put a moral equivalence on the differing words, and the point had already been made at least once prior to the 2nd attempt at asking the question. Fortunately as the sole understander of both points i can educate both yourself and thplinth in consequent posts. p.s. i'm stuck in a house waiting for a parcel for my brother which was meant to be here "this morning,early", getting hungry and have nothing to eat, so i might be "projecting" onto the board this afternoon. My displeasure level is rising quite a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Well to be fair he only has been whooshed if you put a moral equivalence on the differing words, and the point had already been made at least once prior to the 2nd attempt at asking the question. Fortunately as the sole understander of both points i can educate both yourself and thplinth in consequent posts. p.s. i'm stuck in a house waiting for a parcel for my brother which was meant to be here "this morning,early", getting hungry and have nothing to eat, so i might be "projecting" onto the board this afternoon. My displeasure level is rising quite a bit. I'm sure whatever you have posted is correct. You're right, i'm wrong, you're smart, i'm dumb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 (edited) You're right, i'm wrong, you're smart, i'm dumb You're making up arguments again, by my calculation at the current rate in 17.6 weeks you'll have turned into Larky. ps we're not serious everyone we just stage these to get our post counts up. Edited March 24, 2015 by phart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parklife Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 You're making up arguments again, by my calculation at the current rate in 17.6 weeks you'll have turned into Larky. ps we're not serious everyone we just stage these to get our post counts up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair Bob Posted March 24, 2015 Share Posted March 24, 2015 Was asked to vote for my local South Edinburgh M.P. candidate.List of seven.Did not really notice if they were male or female,but i voted for a female .Joanna Cherry QC.The reason i voted for her was the word QC.Around 80% of Westminster mp's have a legal background and having worked in a legal environment,It makes sense that i want a the best litigator to be able to take them on.The other candidates i have no doubt can bring a lot to the region but in the specific environment that she will be working in she is the best candidate for the job.No quota just the right fit.If Joanna had been a male QC he would have been chosen by me. Others had a similar view .Here's to our new candidate.Give these English B@rristers hell Joanna ! You chose a lawyer as the best fit for Westminster. Would you not have been better selecting the candidate who most looked like a paedophile? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.5eeaf0fbe501ba3c868c32fd77caef1f.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.