buctootim

Ive got friends in the US, mainly Democrats. All are dismayed by how ineffective he's been. "An administrator but not a leader" is a phrase Ive heard many times. Many White Anglo Saxon Protestant Americans feel very threatened as the US gradually loses its global leadership to China and the ethnic balance changes rapidly with the Latinisation of the south. I think its why escape to the past tv programmes like Downton Abbey are so popular. Romney is a disingenous slimeball btw.

Jimmy Savile. Gary Glitter had rough hands.

You've missed the point somewhat. Most national journos are far from thick. The are very clever at getting attention for their publication / station because that leads to sales and advertising - and guess what... you're giving it lots of attention.

Made me smile too. It was a tour with the manager and a player followed Q&A. Except the manager wasnt there and and the player wouldnt take questions.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/2009103/article/10823-eng.htm#a1 http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/16/its-time-that-we-end-the-equal-pay-myth/ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-13/don-t-blame-discrimination-for-gender-wage-gap.html

But you havent demonstrated anything btf. In fact the only link you provided contradicted you. Your posts are about citing discrepancies in pay without actually looking at the issues why. City pay is distorted by a a relatively small number of people earning mega money for working very long hours under high pressure. I chose not to live like that. The majority of people who do choose that are men up to about 35 who enjoy that 'shafting people' culture. Not unsurprisingly bank tellers in your local branch earn a lot less- mostly women because the hours are good and the job is local. As I said - accurately compare job for job in the same industry with the same experience and you wont find a pay gap. The real argument is whether or not women who chose to stay at home looking after children (or men for that matter) should be given equal pay with those men and women who havent taken a career break and have built up more seniority or experience. Having children is a choice people make and youy make sacrifices to do it. I dont have the flash car, michelin restaurants and holidays I would have had without children. You make your choices and accept the results - you cant expect other people who have made different choices to subsudise those who want to take time out to raise kids.

Did you even read your own link? That says the pay gap is because of more women in part time work, doing unskilled jobs and taking career breaks for children.

=27

Interesting picture of Raidi on their website http://saints.aap3.com/

Why would anyone want somebody elses castoff clothes no matter how famous? espoecially stuff that has been thoroughly sweated into.

Im not saying they shouldnt stay at home, breastfeed etc - its the reality of biology that many women choose for good reasons to take time out of the workplace. Im simply pointing out that if you really delve into the 'gender pay gap' you'll find that in comparable jobs in comparable companies for people with comparable experience the pay gap doesnt exist. In fact for graduates and recent graduates - ie in general for people under 25 who havent yet had career breaks for children, women get paid more.

So not a sweeping generalisation at all then - in fact bang on the money even in your own family. Your daughters are currently staying at home for a year for one child whilst their partners continue to work, they MAY go back to work but time will tell (and many change their minds), and will likely take more time off for any future children.

Because most women dont want to go out to work to support them. The default expectation in society, and by extension in most couples, is that if one partner stays home it will be the woman and its only in cases where the woman doesnt want to stay home and she earns sufficent to make it possible that the man does instead - and that is rare.

I actually think much of society is biased in women's favour - pensions, child custody, finacial rights after divorce. Women who enter politics or work a full 40 plus years career will likely be promoted faster and higher than men because there is pressure to redress the gender imbalance caused by many women choosing to stay at home for part of their careers. Many men would like to make the same choice but fewer have the opportunity.

That should help everybody put the rest of their 'news' into proper context.

When he was appointed he often repeated that the team were too predictable and that he wanted us to learn a second way of playing, and then later a third - which is exactly what happened in the Championship. I find it hard to believe he would now unilaterally decide to stick to 433 regardless of the opposition.

ok ta.

Just because the review wasnt wrong doesnt mean the Government wont overturn the findings. They will likely will scrap the closures or delay them by kicking the ball down the road till after the next election. The review findings were based on what was clinically best for the patients. The Government will decide on what is electorally best for them.

What are your objections / reservations re Cortese?

Its not untenable. He will go or stay depending on whether Cortese and Reed, whether fairly or unfairly, hold him accountable for the failure to strengthen the defence sufficiently and whether the team still believe in him. Nothing else really matters. If they accept the defence is the problem and Adkins is not / only partly to blame then he will get till January plus 4 games - which effectively means the whole season because if the January signings dont turn things around it will be too late for any new manager to make any difference to the outcome so sacking him before the summer will be pointless.

Oh Lord McAlpine (he said without checking Saint in Paradise's link).

Michael Ashcroft?

No view on whether he is any good or not - but £7.5m for a Spurs reject says something about the PL.

Why did they use Americans then?

The last time this was done, in the mid 1980s the cost of the cull was 5 x the cost of compensation paid to farmers. So the cull costs taxpayers more, devastates badger populations and reduces farmers income.