Odyssey

I find the circumstances which have led to the bridging of the gender gap in Lesotho very interesting. See this.

> and there was > certainly no complaint from these stong-willed > women that there was a gender gap in pay. Ah...

NOT from the Daily Mail: higher proportion of children in Wales quoted as living "in severe poverty compared to the rest of the UK". The percentage of children living like this rises to 20% in Blaenau Gwent (South Wales).

Saw this today.

To those of you who have not seen I'm All Right Jack, I'd thoroughly recommend that you do so because it depicts (albeit exaggerated) what management and the trade unions get up to. It is extremely entertaining as well as informative.

I think we have moved on from the days of "I'm Alright Jack". Margaret Thatcher more of less killed off the unions in the 80s. Nowadays there are much more balanced and equitable employment laws. More on the film.

Add to my list: builders engineers designers developers these are the skills and talents that Britain needs and not an overbubbled, oversized, puffed up and glorified financial sector.

> It's not the individuals you will lose, it is the > institutions themselves. If they move elsewhere > bang goes the UK banking sector, no matter how > many qualified traders you have. > > Also, I don't agree with this "they got all the > money and the little guy is now paying it all > back", you hear a lot, either. The UK rode the > boom on the back of the financial sector. All the > improvements of the past years have been funded by > that. Now that the boom is gone the money is no > longer there. No one is 'paying' for the crash - > just that the money that was there is now not > there and cutbacks have to be made. I think that the banks should be split up: into the traditional banks (i.e. those that do loans and savings); this is the useful part of banking and such banks should not be allowed to trade. The financial trading arm of banks should be totally separate and not part of the traditional banking system. As mentioned above, this lot are overvalued, overpaid, and, quite frankly, produce relatively little for society. To say that no one is paying for the crash is wrong. We are all paying heavily for bailing out the banks. As was put very well: it's a case of privatising the profits and making the debts public. So we are all paying for the mistakes of the banks and we will be paying for a very long time. And as for the traders escaping the shores of Britain, I think we should all wave them goodbye. It's about time that Britain moves back to producing something of tangible value as opposed to shuffling money around. If we could retrain these traders into widget manufacturers, plumbers, electricians, designers, inventors and other such people that Britain really needs, we would have a far more balanced economy.

Huguenot, clearly you are speaking as someone who has just had his first shave. Let those of us who were around at the time to appreciate the marvellous skills of, without doubt, one of the world's finest players. In my opinion, George Best ranks as one of the true greats; almost as good as the great Pele.

Hear Hear KillaQueen! They sold off their true values (assuming they had any in the first place). All Clegg was interested in was power and I am very glad that they didn't form a pact with the Labour Party. They sold out to the Conservative Party for 20 pieces of silver.

All well and good but the VAT increase still hits those that can least afford it much more. Those that should have been hit till their eyeballs bulged out of their sockets are bankers, financial traders, stockbrokers, fund managers, hedge fund traders etc. This lot should have been hit the heaviest. They are the cause of this misery. If it was left to me I would have a specific tax for these leeches. This lot produce relatively little for the good of society and are overvalued. Let them escape to different countries if they want to. Good riddance.

Absolutely correct LadyMuck. Legal aid helped the poor to access the legal system. But what i think is more unfair to the poor is the increase in VAT which will have much more of a negative effect on them than the wealthy. What the government should have done is increase income taxes.

RosieH, there is nothing to win or lose here as far as I am concerned. Regarding the knock-out punch, this was just friendly banter. Arrogance is in the mirror of those who look for it.

Huguenot, Being a former Systems' Administrator, part of keeping the user base content and informed was that I would explain the nature of any outage and the reasons why. This was perfectly normal and kept people informed of precisely what was going on. Admin. are very right, most people don't give a damn, but what I used to find was that there were always the few who wanted to know more. Anyhow, it's always nice to have a new sparring partner on here. I hope that you don't mind if every now and again I raise my head to deliver that occasional knock-out punch.;-)

Admin, thanks for your enlightening response because this is of interest to some of us. It's good to see that the Linux box is up and working. Thanks for your response.

Huguenot, some of us take great interest in the forum be it quietly in the background and raising our heads every now and again. This is just to complete the circle and because I am a nosy git. As for admin. being open - why not? And it's good to see that /etc/rc.d/init.d/network restart fixed the problem. Once again, sharing knowledge - nice to know.

Normally, from my past experience with servers and work being done, the Administrator explains the precise nature of the outage i.e. system being unavailable due to increasing memory to improve performance. So please could you inform us of the precise nature of the outage as, you are probably aware, there are many addicts of the forum who would probably like to know why and in the nature of being open as well. GLASNOST.

It won't last.

I think the choice is pretty obvious really. Those who can go to university should go, because it makes their chances of employment a lot higher.

I have been following this and the lesbians threads throughout the day and what I can't understand is what the fuss is all about. The threads are neither offensive nor rude and the only thing that I can put it down to is some small petty-minded people trying to get their own way. As the old cliche goes: live and let live. Get off your petty stand and just let the forum flourish.

Hopefully, if he's a well-balanced person, he should understand. If not, you could try approaching the subject when you have your "one-to-one" with him.

katie1997 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > so just throwing this out here...what would you do > (ladies) if you discovered that your new boss was > a 'starer' even when the top is not low cut? Is > the solution to wear a really low-cut top as they > might try better to avoid looking? > > or maybe not? Dear Katie 1997, I am sure that the feminists on this thread will start throwing bricks at me. I am not a female as you may have guessed. But, if I were you, I would try an experiment. I would first wear tops that reveal nothing at all (i.e. no cleavage at all showing) and see whether he stops staring. If he does stop staring, I would approach him and ask him if your dress code makes him feel uncomfortable because you notice that he tends to stare when you wear tops that are slightly lower cut. This I would do at maybe a social event where everyone is a bit more relaxed. If he is what I call an "eye-dropper", it may be that he is gawping without even thinking about it. Best of luck.

Just popping in as I've been really busy. But come on now. Being at home in your best frock with your high heels and make-up on does sound as though you are waiting for the postman to knock!;-):)):):)-D

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You forget Odyseey that women are also contending > with underwired bras and so on so it's a different > level of discomfort to wearing jeans/ > trousers...... > > I am one woman who prefers a low cut top to a > poorly fitting blouse (something women with > cleavage often find) and I am certainly not > wearing that top to attract anyone and nor do most > of the men I know have any problem with women > dressing as such in the workplace as long as they > are smart. Half the population are female I think > men have no right to tell any woman what they > should and shouldn't wear anyway, simply because > some men can't control the way they look at > women! > > That's my view. We'll have to agree to disagree. > I'm certainly not about to offer 'advice' on > something I see as men dictating to women. This > is not Saudi Arabia.... This is not about men dictating to women what they should wear. Indeed, I have had women come up to me and pointing out another woman's inappropriate dress. We should get away from this sexism argument which a few women bring up as their first line of defence. It is like someone saying: it is because I am black, it is because I am Jewish, it because I'm a Muslim, it's because I'm gay etc. etc. If a woman wants to go down the pub flashing her tits I have no objection to that at all. It is merely in the office environment, where I think people (both men and women) should dress appropriately. Why are you bringing up an extreme as an argument? No-one is saying that this is Saudi Arabia. Yes I do think we will have to agree to disagree.

giggirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well that was unhelpful. You say this woman is > inappropriate. I ask you to describe her. And > that would be a no. I am not saying a particular woman is inappropriate, I am saying it is the dress which is inappropriate. I am not talking about a particular woman - this is something which has occurred many times in the past. It is not only me which finds this inappropriate but other men (and women) in the office do so too.