|
A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 20:49:29 +0100, The Iron Jelloid
wrote: Once upon a time, 1506 wrote: In my professional life I have observed less qualified women promoted, rather than better qualified men. That particular form of "affirmative action" has been fashionable for a while. Not in the UK it wasn't, ISTR the equality acts ban any form of discrimination, negative or positive. There are a number of exceptions, mainly where there is a need to employ someone fully able to serve the needs in regard to welfare, training and education of particular groups. This does not necessarily exclude somebody from another relevant group. Religious employers are also allowed to discriminate. I know things were different in the US, one of the Dirty Harry films partly based on that premise, where a female cop with no beat experience is promoted to detective in order to fulfil a mayor's quota. Agree that's a bad way to do it - better to make discrimination illegal, and then make sure the rule is enforced by hammering any company that flouts it with large fines. |
A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
"The Iron Jelloid" wrote in message ... Once upon a time, 1506 wrote: In my professional life I have observed less qualified women promoted, rather than better qualified men. That particular form of "affirmative action" has been fashionable for a while. Not in the UK it wasn't, ISTR the equality acts ban any form of discrimination, negative or positive. Banning something doesn't necessarily stop it happening! I know things were different in the US, one of the Dirty Harry films partly based on that premise, where a female cop with no beat experience is promoted to detective in order to fulfil a mayor's quota. Agree that's a bad way to do it - better to make discrimination illegal, and then make sure the rule is enforced by hammering any company that flouts it with large fines. -- - The Iron Jelloid Envo |
A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
On Aug 27, 5:27*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 17:03:47 +0100 Basil Jet wrote: On 2011\08\26 20:51, Arthur Figgis wrote: I suspect most of the Mail and Guardian journalists could switch papers and re-slant their stories to suit the different audience with ease. Melanie Phillips did just such a switch, although switching from left to right with increasing age is probably normal, as Churchill suggested. Not surprising really. The older you get the more you see how the world really works and gain a better understanding of human nature and peoples real motivations. Idealism rarely survives a long term encounter with life. B2003 I have to say, I find that profoundly depressing. If anything, one would expect that encounters with hard times in adult life, when it's your responsibility - not anyone else's - to pay the bills, and if you can't, life becomes difficult - would swing people leftwards. A little over 20 years into adult life and I still have no inclination whatsoever to vote Conservative or become either a social or an economic conservative, or both - and I doubt I will even in my fifties and beyond. In any case, generally western society's morals have- generally, with some exceptions, improved with time, (one has only got to go back to the Victorian era, or the feudal system to see that that is so) though in my lifetime it appears to have flatlined rather - so I think there is a general tendency in the human race to want to improve things. Nick |
A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
On 27/08/11 20:02, The Iron Jelloid wrote:
o I'm afraid you'll have to accept that "gay" stopped having "bright and cheerful" as its primary meaning almost half a century ago. It is depressing but predictable that those who moan about the new meaning of "gay" rarely if ever complain that "faggot" should still mean "bundle of wood" and that "queer" should still mean "odd". Ian |
A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
On 27/08/11 21:55, Arthur Figgis wrote:
You've not noticed the absence of some previously regular posters, then? You think Detective Sergeant Hansen might be tied up in someone's basement rather than just reassigned to a different case? Ian |
A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
On 27/08/11 20:22, The Iron Jelloid wrote:
I've no problem with those who can afford it lounging around doing nothing 24/7, after all it's in the hope of being able to do it myself that I play the lottery! I remember a young American right winger explaining to me at great length why welfare was ethically wrong and that unearned income caused inevitable moral decay. He seemed to see no correlation with the family trusts which supported him: he had never done, and never intended to do, a day's paid work in his life. Ian |
A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
|
A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
On 27/08/11 17:03, Basil Jet wrote:
Melanie Phillips did just such a switch, although switching from left to right with increasing age is probably normal, as Churchill suggested. Melanie Philips was a right-wing authoritarian even in her Observer days. Ian |
A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
On 27 Aug 2011 18:39:49 GMT, "Michael R N Dolbear" wrote: Charles Ellson wrote a Union that has State Churches, to wit the Episcopalians in England and Northern Ireland, and the Presbyterians in Scotland. There is no state church in Scotland and the Church of Ireland was disestablished in 1869. What's your reasoning here ? The Church of Scotland is just as "by law established" as the Church of England if more independent inasmuch as they won't let parliament mess with their doctrine. The Church of Scotland was not created or "approved" by the law of any government of Scotland or the UK. The Church of Scotland always disclaimed a state connection and this was acknowledged by the government in the Church of Scotland Act 1921, see :- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/11-12/29 The independence from the state is declared in Articles V and VI in the Schedule to that Act and acknowledged in s.1. "This Church has the inherent right, free from interference by civil authority, but under the safeguards for deliberate action and legislation provided by the Church itself, to frame or adopt its subordinate standards, .........." [beginning of Article V.] Not only will the Kirk not tolerate state interference, the state itself acknowledges it has no business in its government. What a pity the English situation is different. It seems so bizarre that in a largely non-religious country that there is still a state religion, with bishops voting in parliament. And as a taxpayer I strongly disapprove of state money going into religious schools. I'm perfectly happy for religions to run schools if they choose to do so, but I don't want any of my taxes going into them. And it's even worse that parents have to feign faith so that their children can get into state-funded schools. |
A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
On Aug 28, 11:56*am, "Recliner" wrote: "Charles Ellson" wrote: [...] The Church of Scotland was not created or "approved" by the law of any government of Scotland or the UK. The Church of Scotland always disclaimed a state connection and this was acknowledged by the government in the Church of Scotland Act 1921, see :- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/11-12/29 [...] Not only will the Kirk not tolerate state interference, the state itself acknowledges it has no business in its government. What a pity the English situation is different. It seems so bizarre that in a largely non-religious country that there is still a state religion, with bishops voting in parliament. And as a taxpayer I strongly disapprove of state money going into religious schools. I'm perfectly happy for religions to run schools if they choose to do so, but I don't want any of my taxes going into them. And it's even worse that parents have to feign faith so that their children can get into state-funded schools. I think in practice the specific influence of the C of E is genuinely minimal in government affairs nowadays, at least in terms of influence derived from their being the 'established' church. I can't recall any specific controversies (at least not of late) where the Bishops in the Lords have been instrumental by voting in a particular way (and they do put forward the idea that they represent all 'people of faith', rather than just specifically Anglicans) - though it's high time that HoL reform happened - I'd have a fully elected Senate instead. (I can sort of appreciate argument in favour for the 80/20% elected/appointed outcome, in terms of having some 'experts' and wisened experience old statemen/women in there - but at the same time I'm slightly disappointed that I allow myself to countenance such undemocratic thoughts!) And just to clarify, that'd be a Senate without Bishops - but the way change is done here,I can see that not happening - if indeed proper HoL reform actually finally gets off the ground at all (about bloody time it did - been waiting a hundred years already...). |
A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
"Mizter T" wrote in message
On Aug 28, 11:56 am, "Recliner" wrote: "Charles Ellson" wrote: [...] The Church of Scotland was not created or "approved" by the law of any government of Scotland or the UK. The Church of Scotland always disclaimed a state connection and this was acknowledged by the government in the Church of Scotland Act 1921, see :- http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/11-12/29 [...] Not only will the Kirk not tolerate state interference, the state itself acknowledges it has no business in its government. What a pity the English situation is different. It seems so bizarre that in a largely non-religious country that there is still a state religion, with bishops voting in parliament. And as a taxpayer I strongly disapprove of state money going into religious schools. I'm perfectly happy for religions to run schools if they choose to do so, but I don't want any of my taxes going into them. And it's even worse that parents have to feign faith so that their children can get into state-funded schools. I think in practice the specific influence of the C of E is genuinely minimal in government affairs nowadays, at least in terms of influence derived from their being the 'established' church. I can't recall any specific controversies (at least not of late) where the Bishops in the Lords have been instrumental by voting in a particular way (and they do put forward the idea that they represent all 'people of faith', rather than just specifically Anglicans) - though it's high time that HoL reform happened - I'd have a fully elected Senate instead. (I can sort of appreciate argument in favour for the 80/20% elected/appointed outcome, in terms of having some 'experts' and wisened experience old statemen/women in there - but at the same time I'm slightly disappointed that I allow myself to countenance such undemocratic thoughts!) And just to clarify, that'd be a Senate without Bishops - but the way change is done here,I can see that not happening - if indeed proper HoL reform actually finally gets off the ground at all (about bloody time it did - been waiting a hundred years already...). Yes, I'd go along with your prescription for reform, including probably the 80:20 split, but to be fair, there has been some HoL reform already (ie, reduced powers to overturn key Commons decisions, and the near-elimination of hereditary peers). And it's not quite as easy as it used to be to pack the Lords with the PM's pals, even though some pretty dubious types (like the recently ejected Commons speaker and London police commissioner) still end up there. |
A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
On Aug 28, 1:20*pm, "Recliner" wrote: [snip] Yes, I'd go along with your prescription for reform, including probably the 80:20 split, but to be fair, there has been some HoL reform already (ie, reduced powers to overturn key Commons decisions, and the near-elimination of hereditary peers). And it's not quite as easy as it used to be to pack the Lords with the PM's pals, even though some pretty dubious types (like the recently ejected Commons speaker and London police commissioner) still end up there. Though the removal of (most of) the hereditaries was only ever the first stage, as we were so earnestly promised at the time (by people who I'm sure believed that as well). (And I'm also tempted to say that Ian Blair might well have some useful stuff to contribute - he was a more thoughtful top-plod than many have been, albeit a flawed one of course. But I digress!) |
A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
On Aug 26, 12:38*pm, The Real Doctor
wrote: On 26/08/11 11:28, 1506 wrote: It is nonsense. *Until now, in civilized countries, we have tried people for actions not thoughts and speech. "The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind be also guilty"." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea Ian The standard example would be manslaughter vs murder, where the mens rea is the only difference. And I'm not sure which "civilised country" is being propounded, because English Law (and by extension most common law countries) has had a long history of crimes like sedition, incitement, scandalum magnatum, criminal libel, conspiracy (which in English, as opposed to US, law doesn't require an overt act) and so on which precisely criminalise speech. And it's not as though the huge pile of legislation repealed by the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 was dusty and unenforced, was it? ian |
A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
On 28/08/11 11:56, Recliner wrote:
What a pity the English situation is different. It seems so bizarre that in a largely non-religious country that there is still a state religion, with bishops voting in parliament. It's just as bad in Bonny Scotland where old Joe Devine and his left-footed Army of the Night attempt - with some success - to order political parties about. What's more, they have the nerve to claim a moral basis for their actions, though if the RCC really believed in morals, atonement and so on they'd be keeping their collective heads down for, ooh, a thousand years of repentance would do well. For a start. Not that the prods are much better. See Soutar's attempts to buy religious influence. A bit of ob.railway in there, too. Ian |
A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
In uk.railway Mizter T twisted the electrons to say:
though it's high time that HoL reform happened - I'd have a fully elected Senate instead. Why not just go for a unicameral system? If the upper house is directly elected then it will likely reflect the composition of the lower house anyway, so let's save a bit of cash and only have one lot of corrupt politicans rather than two? Though I'd rather go for a "Federal UK", with the upper house indirectly elected like the Austrian & German Bundesraete and the US Senate (prior to the 17th Amendment). We'd also need IMHO to do something with the Parliament Acts 1911 & 1949 at that point to prevent the lower house from being able to overrule the upper ... -- These opinions might not even be mine ... Let alone connected with my employer ... |
A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
"Alistair Gunn" wrote Why not just go for a unicameral system? If the upper house is directly elected then it will likely reflect the composition of the lower house anyway, so let's save a bit of cash and only have one lot of corrupt politicans rather than two? The House of Commons is too addicted to wasting its time on party politics to do legislation properly. The Upper Chamber is needed as a revising chamber to have half a chance of getting right, or at least workable, legislation. An appointed (or partly appointed) chamber needn't be a problem, as long as the appointing commission was, and was seen to be, above party politics, and with nominations for their consideration being open (to give proper time for press scrutiny). Peter |
A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
On Aug 28, 2:07*pm, ian batten wrote:
On Aug 26, 12:38*pm, The Real Doctor wrote: On 26/08/11 11:28, 1506 wrote: It is nonsense. *Until now, in civilized countries, we have tried people for actions not thoughts and speech. "The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind be also guilty"." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea Ian The standard example would be manslaughter vs murder, where the mens rea is the only difference. *And I'm not sure which "civilised country" is being propounded, because English Law (and by extension most common law countries) has had a long history of crimes like sedition, incitement, scandalum magnatum, criminal libel, conspiracy (which in English, as opposed to US, law doesn't require an overt act) and so on which precisely criminalise speech. *And it's not as though the huge pile of legislation repealed by the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 was dusty and unenforced, was it? ian So if you "conspire" to do something a bit mischevous but not illegal, like, I don't know, putting a whoopee cushion under someone's seat or something equally trivial, you're technically breaking the law? Bizarre. Nick |
A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
On Sun, 28 Aug 2011 13:49:32 -0700 (PDT), Nick
wrote: On Aug 28, 2:07*pm, ian batten wrote: On Aug 26, 12:38*pm, The Real Doctor wrote: On 26/08/11 11:28, 1506 wrote: It is nonsense. *Until now, in civilized countries, we have tried people for actions not thoughts and speech. "The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind be also guilty"." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea Ian The standard example would be manslaughter vs murder, where the mens rea is the only difference. *And I'm not sure which "civilised country" is being propounded, because English Law (and by extension most common law countries) has had a long history of crimes like sedition, incitement, scandalum magnatum, criminal libel, conspiracy (which in English, as opposed to US, law doesn't require an overt act) and so on which precisely criminalise speech. *And it's not as though the huge pile of legislation repealed by the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 was dusty and unenforced, was it? ian So if you "conspire" to do something a bit mischevous but not illegal, like, I don't know, putting a whoopee cushion under someone's seat or something equally trivial, you're technically breaking the law? Bizarre. If it outrages public decency there is nothing "technical" about it. For the conspiracy offences remaining under English Law it is not necessary for the intended act to be an offence or to be committed within the jurisdiction; IIRC before 1977 it was only necessary for the intended act to be against public policy, the potential scope for prosecution being the reason for the serious limitation imposed from then. |
A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 19:21:12 +0100
The Iron Jelloid wrote: So if they'd killed him because they didn't like say his blue shirt then they were threatening everyone who wore blue shirts? Do me a fscking favour. Not so long ago a young woman was savagely beaten to death by a mob in a park in Lancashire, entirely because of what she was wearing - she was a Goth. The SOPHIE campaign was the result. Attacks on people for their dress sense are not unknown, and an attack on someone who identifies themselves as belonging to any given group does put others of the same group in fear. Sure, people can get picked out because they look different. Doesn't necessarily mean the people who did it were on a mission to get everyone who dressed like that. Suppose a serial killer started to kill people, and it was eventually proven that the only common link between the murders was that all the victims had been active posters on uk.railway. Wouldn't you find that a little bit alarming, assuming you'd not yet been one of the victims and the killer was still at large? I certainly would. Sure. But other than on TV dramas when has something like that ever happened? B2003 |
A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
In article ,
The Real Doctor wrote: On 27/08/11 20:02, The Iron Jelloid wrote: o I'm afraid you'll have to accept that "gay" stopped having "bright and cheerful" as its primary meaning almost half a century ago. It is depressing but predictable that those who moan about the new meaning of "gay" rarely if ever complain that "faggot" should still mean "bundle of wood" ... Right. It should mean a spiced meatball. ... and that "queer" should still mean "odd". "Queer" doesn't seem to have had its former meaning quite so overtaken by the sexual revolution, or perhaps it's just become less popular than "gay". It doesn't sound entirely bizarre to heard something like "now that's very queer". Sam |
A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
In message
, Sam Wilson writes "Queer" doesn't seem to have had its former meaning quite so overtaken by the sexual revolution, or perhaps it's just become less popular than "gay". Fashions change. Those that know their E F Benson will recall that in the 1920s the expression was "quaint". (As in Quaint Irene, with her boyish face, Eton crop and alluring breeches). -- Paul Terry |
A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
In article ,
Paul Terry wrote: In message , Sam Wilson writes "Queer" doesn't seem to have had its former meaning quite so overtaken by the sexual revolution, or perhaps it's just become less popular than "gay". Fashions change. Those that know their E F Benson will recall that in the 1920s the expression was "quaint". (As in Quaint Irene, with her boyish face, Eton crop and alluring breeches). That's one I wasn't aware of - I'll read vintage literature with a new eye from now on. Sam |
A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
Once upon a time, Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 27/08/2011 19:21, The Iron Jelloid wrote: Suppose a serial killer started to kill people, and it was eventually proven that the only common link between the murders was that all the victims had been active posters on uk.railway. Wouldn't you find that a little bit alarming, assuming you'd not yet been one of the victims and the killer was still at large? I certainly would. You've not noticed the absence of some previously regular posters, then? Mwahahaha. fx: Hastily purchases one used secret bunker, with just one careful Libyan owner and a full service history. And it's own railway. -- - The Iron Jelloid |
A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
On 03/09/2011 02:46, The Iron Jelloid wrote:
Once upon a time, Arthur wrote: On 27/08/2011 19:21, The Iron Jelloid wrote: Suppose a serial killer started to kill people, and it was eventually proven that the only common link between the murders was that all the victims had been active posters on uk.railway. Wouldn't you find that a little bit alarming, assuming you'd not yet been one of the victims and the killer was still at large? I certainly would. You've not noticed the absence of some previously regular posters, then? Mwahahaha. fx: Hastily purchases one used secret bunker, with just one careful Libyan owner and a full service history. And it's own railway. From what I have read most of his now have good ventilation in the roof. |
A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 14:12:45 -0700 (PDT), 1506 wrote:
On Aug 25, 1:29*pm, "Clive D. W. Feather" wrote: In message , 1506 wrote: If I am mugged it is a crime. *If a homosexual is mugged it is a hate crime. False. If a homosexual is mugged *because* she is homosexual, it is a hate crime. If she is mugged because some low-life wants cash for his drug habit, it is not a hate crime, just a crime. When something happens to these people the usual assumptin is that it happened because they are homosexual. This is only the usual assumption among people who routinely regard others not as unique individuals entitled to equal consideration, but as undifferentiated members of a group which they can label (often with a label that has - in the eyes of the labeller - negative overtones). The act of giving someone such a group-label always reveals the prejudice of the person doing the labelling, and hardly ever adds any valid and useful information about the individual who is being labelled. See, e.g.: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14679657 |
A less pleasant aspect of 'railway photography'?
On Aug 28, 1:18*am, Nick wrote:
On Aug 27, 5:27*pm, wrote: On Sat, 27 Aug 2011 17:03:47 +0100 Basil Jet wrote: On 2011\08\26 20:51, Arthur Figgis wrote: I suspect most of the Mail and Guardian journalists could switch papers and re-slant their stories to suit the different audience with ease. Melanie Phillips did just such a switch, although switching from left to right with increasing age is probably normal, as Churchill suggested. Not surprising really. The older you get the more you see how the world really works and gain a better understanding of human nature and peoples real motivations. Idealism rarely survives a long term encounter with life. B2003 I have to say, I find that profoundly depressing. If anything, one would expect that encounters with hard times in adult life, when it's your responsibility - not anyone else's - to pay the bills, and if you can't, life becomes difficult - would swing people leftwards. A little over 20 years into adult life and I still have no inclination whatsoever to vote Conservative or become either a social or an economic conservative, or both - and I doubt I will even in my fifties and beyond. In any case, generally western society'smoralshave- generally, with some exceptions, improved with time, (one has only got to go back to the Victorian era, You are kidding, right? or the feudal system to see that that is so) though in my lifetime it appears to have flatlined rather - so I think there is a general tendency in the human race to want to improve things. Nick- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:49 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk