Wage gap sexism! Discrimination in the workplace!

[Incubus]

Apparently the nation's favourite GILF, Carol Vorderman, was paid three times
as much as her co-star, Richard Whiteley:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5817677/Carol-Vorderman-reveals-earned-THREE-times-late-Countdown-star-Richard-Whiteley.html

So much for equality although, as someone in the comments section pointed out,
she is three times more attractive than Richard Whiteley.

[Ophelia]

"Incubus" wrote in message news:pfdi6g$uhm$***@dont-email.me...

Apparently the nation's favourite GILF, Carol Vorderman, was paid three
times
as much as her co-star, Richard Whiteley:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5817677/Carol-Vorderman-reveals-earned-THREE-times-late-Countdown-star-Richard-Whiteley.html

So much for equality although, as someone in the comments section pointed
out,
she is three times more attractive than Richard Whiteley.

==

That would depend on whether you are male or female IFSWIM ;-)

Richard was certainly more attractive to me (although he isn't even my type)
!

[Incubus]

Post by Incubus
Apparently the nation's favourite GILF, Carol Vorderman, was paid three times
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5817677/Carol-Vorderman-reveals-earned-THREE-times-late-Countdown-star-Richard-Whiteley.html
So much for equality although, as someone in the comments section pointed
out, she is three times more attractive than Richard Whiteley.
==
That would depend on whether you are male or female IFSWIM ;-)
Richard was certainly more attractive to me (although he isn't even my type)
!

Perhaps, had he been paid more, he would have had all the money to spend on
cosmetic surgery that Carol Vorderman has spent and you might have found him
more attractive.

I think you should complain on the basis of equal rights for titillation.

[Ophelia]

Post by Incubus
Apparently the nation's favourite GILF, Carol Vorderman, was paid three times
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5817677/Carol-Vorderman-reveals-earned-THREE-times-late-Countdown-star-Richard-Whiteley.html
So much for equality although, as someone in the comments section pointed
out, she is three times more attractive than Richard Whiteley.
==
That would depend on whether you are male or female IFSWIM ;-)
Richard was certainly more attractive to me (although he isn't even my type)
!

Perhaps, had he been paid more, he would have had all the money to spend on
cosmetic surgery that Carol Vorderman has spent and you might have found him
more attractive.

I think you should complain on the basis of equal rights for titillation.
==

Why, do you think he wants some?

I am not sure they would suit him either ...

[JNugent]

Post by Incubus
Apparently the nation's favourite GILF, Carol Vorderman, was paid three times
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5817677/Carol-Vorderman-reveals-earned-THREE-times-late-Countdown-star-Richard-Whiteley.html
So much for equality although, as someone in the comments section pointed out,
she is three times more attractive than Richard Whiteley.

For RW, "Countdown" was an incremental addition to his other duties for
Yorkshire Television (mainly presenting the regional news magazine up to
five times a week).

For CV, it was a single-programme contract. She got the job via an
advertisement in the Mensa members' magazine. The producers advertised
there because they knew had to recruit where people with her rare
talents could be contacted.

RW was a personable and able television presenter, but they are easy to
find. People with Voderman's talents are not so easy to find.

[Incubus]

Post by JNugent

Post by Incubus
Apparently the nation's favourite GILF, Carol Vorderman, was paid three
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5817677/Carol-Vorderman-reveals-earned-THREE-times-late-Countdown-star-Richard-Whiteley.html
So much for equality although, as someone in the comments section pointed
out, she is three times more attractive than Richard Whiteley.

For RW, "Countdown" was an incremental addition to his other duties for
Yorkshire Television (mainly presenting the regional news magazine up to five
times a week).
For CV, it was a single-programme contract. She got the job via an
advertisement in the Mensa members' magazine. The producers advertised there
because they knew had to recruit where people with her rare talents could be
contacted.
RW was a personable and able television presenter, but they are easy to find.
People with Voderman's talents are not so easy to find.

Dare you to suggest that she was paid according to merit? This cannot be so
for countless Feminists have assured me that there is such an august body known
as the 'Patriarchy' that favours men over women where matters of remuneration
are concerned.

[JNugent]

Post by Incubus

Post by JNugent

Post by Incubus
Apparently the nation's favourite GILF, Carol Vorderman, was paid three
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5817677/Carol-Vorderman-reveals-earned-THREE-times-late-Countdown-star-Richard-Whiteley.html
So much for equality although, as someone in the comments section pointed
out, she is three times more attractive than Richard Whiteley.

For RW, "Countdown" was an incremental addition to his other duties for
Yorkshire Television (mainly presenting the regional news magazine up to five
times a week).
For CV, it was a single-programme contract. She got the job via an
advertisement in the Mensa members' magazine. The producers advertised there
because they knew had to recruit where people with her rare talents could be
contacted.
RW was a personable and able television presenter, but they are easy to find.
People with Voderman's talents are not so easy to find.

Dare you to suggest that she was paid according to merit?

Her particular (I hesitate to say unique) combination of merits, I'd
suggest.

She is a wiz with mental arithmetic (which is what the advert primarily
sought) and had the right combination of personal charms as well.

A relatively scarce set of attributes, I'd say.

Post by Incubus
This cannot be so
for countless Feminists have assured me that there is such an august body known
as the 'Patriarchy' that favours men over women where matters of remuneration
are concerned.

TV producers may not know much about cognitive abilities, intelligence
quotient (and its measurement) and numerical-visual-spatial reasoning,
but they know what they like.

[Yellow]

On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 11:01:55 -0000 (UTC), Incubus <incubus9536612

Post by Incubus

Post by JNugent

Post by Incubus
Apparently the nation's favourite GILF, Carol Vorderman, was paid three
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5817677/Carol-Vorderman-reveals-earned-THREE-times-late-Countdown-star-Richard-Whiteley.html
So much for equality although, as someone in the comments section pointed
out, she is three times more attractive than Richard Whiteley.

For RW, "Countdown" was an incremental addition to his other duties for
Yorkshire Television (mainly presenting the regional news magazine up to five
times a week).
For CV, it was a single-programme contract. She got the job via an
advertisement in the Mensa members' magazine. The producers advertised there
because they knew had to recruit where people with her rare talents could be
contacted.
RW was a personable and able television presenter, but they are easy to find.
People with Voderman's talents are not so easy to find.

Dare you to suggest that she was paid according to merit? This cannot be so
for countless Feminists have assured me that there is such an august body known
as the 'Patriarchy' that favours men over women where matters of remuneration
are concerned.

Actually you will find that those countless feminists who knock on your
door to discuss the issue actually say that women in general should be
employed and paid on their merits, which is demonstrably too often not
something that happens - but do not let the truth get in the way of your
misogyny.

[Incubus]

Post by Incubus

Post by JNugent

Post by Incubus
Apparently the nation's favourite GILF, Carol Vorderman, was paid three
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5817677/Carol-Vorderman-reveals-earned-THREE-times-late-Countdown-star-Richard-Whiteley.html
So much for equality although, as someone in the comments section pointed
out, she is three times more attractive than Richard Whiteley.

For RW, "Countdown" was an incremental addition to his other duties for
Yorkshire Television (mainly presenting the regional news magazine up to
five times a week).
For CV, it was a single-programme contract. She got the job via an
advertisement in the Mensa members' magazine. The producers advertised
there because they knew had to recruit where people with her rare talents
could be contacted.
RW was a personable and able television presenter, but they are easy to
find. People with Voderman's talents are not so easy to find.

Dare you to suggest that she was paid according to merit? This cannot be so
for countless Feminists have assured me that there is such an august body
known as the 'Patriarchy' that favours men over women where matters of
remuneration are concerned.

Actually you will find that those countless feminists who knock on your door
to discuss the issue actually say that women in general should be employed
and paid on their merits, which is demonstrably too often not something that
happens - but do not let the truth get in the way of your misogyny.

You make the mistake of equating anti-Feminist sentiment with misogyny. Women
should be paid the same if they are doing the same work but the 'Patriarchy' is
a set of insane ramblings.

[Yellow]

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:39:49 -0000 (UTC), Incubus <incubus9536612

Post by Incubus

Post by Incubus
Dare you to suggest that she was paid according to merit? This cannot be so
for countless Feminists have assured me that there is such an august body
known as the 'Patriarchy' that favours men over women where matters of
remuneration are concerned.

Actually you will find that those countless feminists who knock on your door
to discuss the issue actually say that women in general should be employed
and paid on their merits, which is demonstrably too often not something that
happens - but do not let the truth get in the way of your misogyny.

You make the mistake of equating anti-Feminist sentiment with misogyny. Women
should be paid the same if they are doing the same work but the 'Patriarchy' is
a set of insane ramblings.

You have that wrong. People should be paid the same for doing work of
equal value, not for "doing the same work".

The reason for that is that some work is traditionally under paid,
generally work that single women did while they were waiting to get
married so only needed to support themselves while still living in their
parents home, against what men needed to earn to support a family.

An example of this is that those who taught younger children,
traditionally women, were paid significantly less than those who taught
older children, traditionally men. Of course, in the UK, this is no
longer the case as we now consider their work to be of equal value.

There is currently a court case going through about whether those who
work inside the supermarket are doing work that is equal in value to
that of those who work in the warehouse - so that will be interesting.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Yellow
You have that wrong. People should be paid the same for doing work of
equal value, not for "doing the same work".

But how do you determine that? Are there objective criteria you can
apply, or is it all subjective? And if it's all subjective, how can
anyone say what the 'right' answer is?

Post by Yellow
The reason for that is that some work is traditionally under paid,
generally work that single women did while they were waiting to get
married so only needed to support themselves while still living in their
parents home, against what men needed to earn to support a family.
An example of this is that those who taught younger children,
traditionally women, were paid significantly less than those who taught
older children, traditionally men. Of course, in the UK, this is no
longer the case as we now consider their work to be of equal value.

But is it? How can you tell? How can you justify it?

Post by Yellow
There is currently a court case going through about whether those who
work inside the supermarket are doing work that is equal in value to
that of those who work in the warehouse - so that will be interesting.

I don't think you can have a court case every time you want to establish
a job's value though. So, how else can it realistically be done?

Some years ago, it was the market that decided by matching wages to the
skills possessed and required, and many would say that's the right way
to go about it. It got the job done for the lowest price that people
possessing the right skills were willing to do it for, and that put a
realistic value on it. The law of supply and demand ensured some sort
of balance.

If you had a willing workforce and no shortage of supply, as with
primary school teachers, why should those paying them, whether they be
an employer or the taxpayer, pay them more than they were willing to
work for?

Now everyone seems to have a sense of entitlement to be paid well
regardless of supply and demand. That acts as a disincentive to acquire
skills actually in demand and, I would say, overpays those fortunate to
have those low-skilled jobs.

[Yellow]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow
You have that wrong. People should be paid the same for doing work of
equal value, not for "doing the same work".

But how do you determine that? Are there objective criteria you can
apply, or is it all subjective? And if it's all subjective, how can
anyone say what the 'right' answer is?

How can anyone say for sure that a court has got the right answer 100%
of time? But it does its best, which I think is all we can ask.

The alternative is not to try.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow
The reason for that is that some work is traditionally under paid,
generally work that single women did while they were waiting to get
married so only needed to support themselves while still living in their
parents home, against what men needed to earn to support a family.
An example of this is that those who taught younger children,
traditionally women, were paid significantly less than those who taught
older children, traditionally men. Of course, in the UK, this is no
longer the case as we now consider their work to be of equal value.

But is it? How can you tell? How can you justify it?

You explain why teachers should be paid different amounts according to
the age of their pupils and we can take the discussion from there.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow
There is currently a court case going through about whether those who
work inside the supermarket are doing work that is equal in value to
that of those who work in the warehouse - so that will be interesting.

I don't think you can have a court case every time you want to establish
a job's value though. So, how else can it realistically be done?

There are only court cases when employers and employees fail to decide
among themselves.

Post by Norman Wells
Some years ago, it was the market that decided by matching wages to the
skills possessed and required, and many would say that's the right way
to go about it. It got the job done for the lowest price that people
possessing the right skills were willing to do it for, and that put a
realistic value on it. The law of supply and demand ensured some sort
of balance.
If you had a willing workforce and no shortage of supply, as with
primary school teachers, why should those paying them, whether they be
an employer or the taxpayer, pay them more than they were willing to
work for?
Now everyone seems to have a sense of entitlement to be paid well
regardless of supply and demand. That acts as a disincentive to acquire
skills actually in demand and, I would say, overpays those fortunate to
have those low-skilled jobs.

You are entitled to your world view but I prefer something a little less
right wing myself.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow
You have that wrong. People should be paid the same for doing work of
equal value, not for "doing the same work".

But how do you determine that? Are there objective criteria you can
apply, or is it all subjective? And if it's all subjective, how can
anyone say what the 'right' answer is?

How can anyone say for sure that a court has got the right answer 100%
of time? But it does its best, which I think is all we can ask.
The alternative is not to try.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow
The reason for that is that some work is traditionally under paid,
generally work that single women did while they were waiting to get
married so only needed to support themselves while still living in their
parents home, against what men needed to earn to support a family.
An example of this is that those who taught younger children,
traditionally women, were paid significantly less than those who taught
older children, traditionally men. Of course, in the UK, this is no
longer the case as we now consider their work to be of equal value.

But is it? How can you tell? How can you justify it?

You explain why teachers should be paid different amounts according to
the age of their pupils and we can take the discussion from there.

Supply and demand. It clearly takes less skill and knowledge to teach
5-year olds than it does A-level students. So, there are more people
able to teach the young ones. More people equals more supply. More
supply equals lower wages that need to be paid. The more specialised
you get, the higher wages you have to pay because supply is limited.

Anything apart from the market determining the going rate for a job is
artificial.

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow
There is currently a court case going through about whether those who
work inside the supermarket are doing work that is equal in value to
that of those who work in the warehouse - so that will be interesting.

I don't think you can have a court case every time you want to establish
a job's value though. So, how else can it realistically be done?

There are only court cases when employers and employees fail to decide
among themselves.

But it's just not practicable to do it in every case where a difference
of opinion occurs. There's no national list of what jobs are worth
what, and god presereve us from having one. The market is perfectly
capable of deciding for itself. If you can't get the staff to do
certain jobs you have to offer them more. If there's an oversupply for
certain jobs, I see no reason not to pay them less.

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells
Some years ago, it was the market that decided by matching wages to the
skills possessed and required, and many would say that's the right way
to go about it. It got the job done for the lowest price that people
possessing the right skills were willing to do it for, and that put a
realistic value on it. The law of supply and demand ensured some sort
of balance.
If you had a willing workforce and no shortage of supply, as with
primary school teachers, why should those paying them, whether they be
an employer or the taxpayer, pay them more than they were willing to
work for?
Now everyone seems to have a sense of entitlement to be paid well
regardless of supply and demand. That acts as a disincentive to acquire
skills actually in demand and, I would say, overpays those fortunate to
have those low-skilled jobs.

You are entitled to your world view but I prefer something a little less
right wing myself.

There is no practical alternative to the market.

[Dan S. MacAbre]

Post by Yellow

Post by Yellow
You have that wrong. People should be paid the same for doing work of
equal value, not for "doing the same work".

But how do you determine that?  Are there objective criteria you can
apply, or is it all subjective?  And if it's all subjective, how can
anyone say what the 'right' answer is?

How can anyone say for sure that a court has got the right answer 100%
of time? But it does its best, which I think is all we can ask.
The alternative is not to try.

Post by Yellow
The reason for that is that some work is traditionally under paid,
generally work that single women did while they were waiting to get
married so only needed to support themselves while still living in their
parents home, against what men needed to earn to support a family.
An example of this is that those who taught younger children,
traditionally women, were paid significantly less than those who taught
older children, traditionally men. Of course, in the UK, this is no
longer the case as we now consider their work to be of equal value.

But is it?  How can you tell?  How can you justify it?

You explain why teachers should be paid different amounts according to
the age of their pupils and we can take the discussion from there.

Supply and demand.  It clearly takes less skill and knowledge to teach
5-year olds than it does A-level students.

Our lad is in primary school. It seems to be more about indoctrination
than actual teaching. Maybe that requires a particular skill, too.

[Yellow]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow
You explain why teachers should be paid different amounts according to
the age of their pupils and we can take the discussion from there.

Supply and demand.

So we have more people wanting to teach younger pupils than older
pupils? Do you have a cite for that?

Post by Norman Wells
It clearly takes less skill and knowledge to teach
5-year olds than it does A-level students.

Where is your evidence to support that claim.

Post by Norman Wells
So, there are more people
able to teach the young ones. More people equals more supply. More
supply equals lower wages that need to be paid. The more specialised
you get, the higher wages you have to pay because supply is limited.

You are mixing up two things - the skill set required to teach each age
range and the number of people who are applying for teaching jobs in
each age range.

Where is your evidence that the older the pupil, the more (as against
different) skills are required? Where is your evidence that there are
more teachers, a surplus, applying to teach 12 year olds than 6 year
olds?

[Norman Wells]

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow
You explain why teachers should be paid different amounts according to
the age of their pupils and we can take the discussion from there.

Supply and demand.

So we have more people wanting to teach younger pupils than older
pupils? Do you have a cite for that?

More are *able* to. More can. That usually translates into 'more
wanting to'. Only if that's not the case is it necessary to pay them more.

It's all a question of supply and demand whereas you think it should be
writ immutably in tablets of stone.

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells
It clearly takes less skill and knowledge to teach
5-year olds than it does A-level students.

Where is your evidence to support that claim.

It's so obvious I'm not going to dignify it with a response.

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells
So, there are more people
able to teach the young ones. More people equals more supply. More
supply equals lower wages that need to be paid. The more specialised
you get, the higher wages you have to pay because supply is limited.

You are mixing up two things - the skill set required to teach each age
range and the number of people who are applying for teaching jobs in
each age range.
Where is your evidence that the older the pupil, the more (as against
different) skills are required? Where is your evidence that there are
more teachers, a surplus, applying to teach 12 year olds than 6 year
olds?

I never said there was. What I said was that the market should decide
based as ever on supply and demand.

[Yellow]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow
You explain why teachers should be paid different amounts according to
the age of their pupils and we can take the discussion from there.

Supply and demand.

So we have more people wanting to teach younger pupils than older
pupils? Do you have a cite for that?

More are *able* to. More can. That usually translates into 'more
wanting to'. Only if that's not the case is it necessary to pay them
more.

That is your opinion, based on your belittlement of what you consider to
be the skill set required to teach young children to, for example, read
and write, as against the skill set required to teach a single subject
to older children.

That is not evidence.

And in any case, the pay scale is the same.

Post by Norman Wells
It's all a question of supply and demand whereas you think it should be
writ immutably in tablets of stone.

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells
It clearly takes less skill and knowledge to teach
5-year olds than it does A-level students.

Where is your evidence to support that claim.

It's so obvious I'm not going to dignify it with a response.

Because you can't.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells
So, there are more people
able to teach the young ones. More people equals more supply. More
supply equals lower wages that need to be paid. The more specialised
you get, the higher wages you have to pay because supply is limited.

You are mixing up two things - the skill set required to teach each age
range and the number of people who are applying for teaching jobs in
each age range.
Where is your evidence that the older the pupil, the more (as against
different) skills are required? Where is your evidence that there are
more teachers, a surplus, applying to teach 12 year olds than 6 year
olds?

I never said there was. What I said was that the market should decide
based as ever on supply and demand.

Yes you did. You stated that more people wish to teach younger children
because they can and this translates in "Normanland" to the work being
of less worth and should therefore be paid less.

[Jimmy Wilkinson Knife]

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow
You explain why teachers should be paid different amounts according

to

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow
the age of their pupils and we can take the discussion from there.

Supply and demand.

So we have more people wanting to teach younger pupils than older
pupils? Do you have a cite for that?

More are *able* to. More can. That usually translates into 'more
wanting to'. Only if that's not the case is it necessary to pay them
more.

That is your opinion, based on your belittlement of what you consider to
be the skill set required to teach young children to, for example, read
and write, as against the skill set required to teach a single subject
to older children.
That is not evidence.
And in any case, the pay scale is the same.

As Norman has explained to you several times, if the job is easier, there
will be more applicants, so the wages will end up lower by supply and
demand. This is the ONLY fair way to decide pay levels.

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells
It's all a question of supply and demand whereas you think it should be
writ immutably in tablets of stone.

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells
It clearly takes less skill and knowledge to teach
5-year olds than it does A-level students.

Where is your evidence to support that claim.

It's so obvious I'm not going to dignify it with a response.

Because you can't.

He has done already, why are you putting your hands over your ears?

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells
So, there are more people
able to teach the young ones. More people equals more supply. More
supply equals lower wages that need to be paid. The more specialised
you get, the higher wages you have to pay because supply is limited.

You are mixing up two things - the skill set required to teach each

age

Post by Yellow
range and the number of people who are applying for teaching jobs in
each age range.
Where is your evidence that the older the pupil, the more (as against
different) skills are required? Where is your evidence that there are
more teachers, a surplus, applying to teach 12 year olds than 6 year
olds?

I never said there was. What I said was that the market should decide
based as ever on supply and demand.

Yes you did. You stated that more people wish to teach younger children
because they can and this translates in "Normanland" to the work being
of less worth and should therefore be paid less.

Of course it is. If a job requires you to be more intelligent, there will
be less of you applying, and you get paid more as a result. What on earth
is unfair about that?

[Yellow]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow
There is currently a court case going through about whether those who
work inside the supermarket are doing work that is equal in value to
that of those who work in the warehouse - so that will be interesting.

I don't think you can have a court case every time you want to establish
a job's value though. So, how else can it realistically be done?

There are only court cases when employers and employees fail to decide
among themselves.

But it's just not practicable to do it in every case where a difference
of opinion occurs.

Yet somehow, we do.

Post by Norman Wells
There's no national list of what jobs are worth
what, and god presereve us from having one.

Because having a list of jobs that are of equal worth would make it
harder to justify your world view that people who think everyone should
be paid at least enough to live on "are entitled"?

Post by Norman Wells
The market is perfectly
capable of deciding for itself. If you can't get the staff to do
certain jobs you have to offer them more. If there's an oversupply for
certain jobs, I see no reason not to pay them less.

How you must have wept in your beer when they brought in the minimum
wage.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow
There is currently a court case going through about whether those who
work inside the supermarket are doing work that is equal in value to
that of those who work in the warehouse - so that will be interesting.

I don't think you can have a court case every time you want to establish
a job's value though. So, how else can it realistically be done?

There are only court cases when employers and employees fail to decide
among themselves.

But it's just not practicable to do it in every case where a difference
of opinion occurs.

Yet somehow, we do.

Yes, generally the market decides. What you have to pay to attract,
retain and reward appropriate staff.

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells
There's no national list of what jobs are worth
what, and god presereve us from having one.

Because having a list of jobs that are of equal worth would make it
harder to justify your world view that people who think everyone should
be paid at least enough to live on "are entitled"?

It's just not possible. And what you're suggesting is totally
inflexible so it cannot respond to shortages of certain skills etc.

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells
The market is perfectly
capable of deciding for itself. If you can't get the staff to do
certain jobs you have to offer them more. If there's an oversupply for
certain jobs, I see no reason not to pay them less.

How you must have wept in your beer when they brought in the minimum
wage.

It's a distortion of the free market that I believe leads to fewer
people being taken on to do menial jobs, and greater numbers of the more
skilled being reduced to that level of pay when there would normally be
some differential.

If you overpay some, you have to underpay others.

[Yellow]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow
There is currently a court case going through about whether those who
work inside the supermarket are doing work that is equal in value to
that of those who work in the warehouse - so that will be interesting.

I don't think you can have a court case every time you want to establish
a job's value though. So, how else can it realistically be done?

There are only court cases when employers and employees fail to decide
among themselves.

But it's just not practicable to do it in every case where a difference
of opinion occurs.

Yet somehow, we do.

Yes, generally the market decides.

Your claim is supply and demand, let the market decide based on how many
people apply for the jobs regardless of the value of the work, yet now
you claim the market decides what work is of equal value.

Which is it?

Post by Norman Wells
What you have to pay to attract,
retain and reward appropriate staff.

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells
There's no national list of what jobs are worth
what, and god presereve us from having one.

Because having a list of jobs that are of equal worth would make it
harder to justify your world view that people who think everyone should
be paid at least enough to live on "are entitled"?

It's just not possible. And what you're suggesting is totally
inflexible so it cannot respond to shortages of certain skills etc.

I have not suggested anything Norman, you are the one who is claiming to
have all the answers.

In your universe you would pay well to attract staff and as soon as they
have moved moved from the lower paid work into the higher paid work, you
reduce this wage right down "because we do not want any of that
entitlement nonsense", and increase that of the now lower paid work that
everyone has just left to attract them all back.

Hilarious. :-)

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells
The market is perfectly
capable of deciding for itself. If you can't get the staff to do
certain jobs you have to offer them more. If there's an oversupply for
certain jobs, I see no reason not to pay them less.

How you must have wept in your beer when they brought in the minimum
wage.

It's a distortion of the free market that I believe leads to fewer
people being taken on to do menial jobs, and greater numbers of the more
skilled being reduced to that level of pay when there would normally be
some differential.
If you overpay some, you have to underpay others.

Your error is to think that people should be paid based solely on how
unpopular the work is.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow
There is currently a court case going through about whether those who
work inside the supermarket are doing work that is equal in value to
that of those who work in the warehouse - so that will be interesting.

I don't think you can have a court case every time you want to establish
a job's value though. So, how else can it realistically be done?

There are only court cases when employers and employees fail to decide
among themselves.

But it's just not practicable to do it in every case where a difference
of opinion occurs.

Yet somehow, we do.

Yes, generally the market decides.

Your claim is supply and demand, let the market decide based on how many
people apply for the jobs regardless of the value of the work, yet now
you claim the market decides what work is of equal value.
Which is it?

It is supply and demand. The value of the work, which can't be decided
by any sensible objective means, can only be determined by supply and
demand.

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells
What you have to pay to attract,
retain and reward appropriate staff.

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells
There's no national list of what jobs are worth
what, and god presereve us from having one.

Because having a list of jobs that are of equal worth would make it
harder to justify your world view that people who think everyone should
be paid at least enough to live on "are entitled"?

It's just not possible. And what you're suggesting is totally
inflexible so it cannot respond to shortages of certain skills etc.

I have not suggested anything Norman, you are the one who is claiming to
have all the answers.

You seemed to be supporting the idea of some sort of list.

How else do you determine what jobs are worth what?

Post by Yellow
In your universe you would pay well to attract staff and as soon as they
have moved moved from the lower paid work into the higher paid work, you
reduce this wage right down "because we do not want any of that
entitlement nonsense", and increase that of the now lower paid work that
everyone has just left to attract them all back.
Hilarious. :-)

I have no idea where you got that scenario from, nor why you feel you
have to attribute it to me when I have made no such suggestion at all.

You're just being absurd.

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells
The market is perfectly
capable of deciding for itself. If you can't get the staff to do
certain jobs you have to offer them more. If there's an oversupply for
certain jobs, I see no reason not to pay them less.

How you must have wept in your beer when they brought in the minimum
wage.

It's a distortion of the free market that I believe leads to fewer
people being taken on to do menial jobs, and greater numbers of the more
skilled being reduced to that level of pay when there would normally be
some differential.
If you overpay some, you have to underpay others.

Your error is to think that people should be paid based solely on how
unpopular the work is.

It's a self-regulating mechanism.

Of course you have to pay people more to do unpopular work. Otherwise
you can't recruit or retain the staff to do it. That's a universal
truth. Paying more attracts more applicants and people willing to do
it. If supply then exceeds demand, over time wages for doing that job
will come down until there's a match.

[pamela]

Post by Norman Wells

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:23:56 +0100, Norman Wells

Post by Norman Wells

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 16:25:41 +0100, Norman Wells

Post by Norman Wells

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 14:12:32 +0100, Norman Wells

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow
There is currently a court case going through about whether
those who work inside the supermarket are doing work that
is equal in value to that of those who work in the
warehouse - so that will be interesting.

I don't think you can have a court case every time you want
to establish a job's value though. So, how else can it
realistically be done?

There are only court cases when employers and employees fail
to decide among themselves.

But it's just not practicable to do it in every case where a
difference of opinion occurs.

Yet somehow, we do.

Yes, generally the market decides.

Your claim is supply and demand, let the market decide based on
how many people apply for the jobs regardless of the value of the
work, yet now you claim the market decides what work is of equal
value.
Which is it?

It is supply and demand. The value of the work, which can't be
decided by any sensible objective means, can only be determined by
supply and demand.

Post by Norman Wells
What you have to pay to attract,
retain and reward appropriate staff.

Post by Norman Wells
There's no national list of what jobs are worth
what, and god presereve us from having one.

Because having a list of jobs that are of equal worth would
make it harder to justify your world view that people who think
everyone should be paid at least enough to live on "are
entitled"?

It's just not possible. And what you're suggesting is totally
inflexible so it cannot respond to shortages of certain skills etc.

I have not suggested anything Norman, you are the one who is
claiming to have all the answers.

You seemed to be supporting the idea of some sort of list.
How else do you determine what jobs are worth what?

In your universe you would pay well to attract staff and as soon
as they have moved moved from the lower paid work into the higher
paid work, you reduce this wage right down "because we do not
want any of that entitlement nonsense", and increase that of the
now lower paid work that everyone has just left to attract them
all back.
Hilarious. :-)

I have no idea where you got that scenario from, nor why you feel
you have to attribute it to me when I have made no such suggestion
at all.
You're just being absurd.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Norman Wells
The market is perfectly
capable of deciding for itself. If you can't get the staff to
do certain jobs you have to offer them more. If there's an
oversupply for certain jobs, I see no reason not to pay them
less.

How you must have wept in your beer when they brought in the
minimum wage.

It's a distortion of the free market that I believe leads to
fewer people being taken on to do menial jobs, and greater
numbers of the more skilled being reduced to that level of pay
when there would normally be some differential.
If you overpay some, you have to underpay others.

Your error is to think that people should be paid based solely on
how unpopular the work is.

It's a self-regulating mechanism. Of course you have to pay people
more to do unpopular work. Otherwise you can't recruit or retain
the staff to do it. That's a universal truth.

Norman, you're not following this are you? Yellow wrote "solely".

It's pretty clear in the quoted text. How did you miss it? Are you
having concentration problems again? You don't seem to be able to
comprehend simple English.

Post by Norman Wells
Paying more attracts more applicants and people willing to do it.
If supply then exceeds demand, over time wages for doing that job
will come down until there's a match.

That's irrelevant because you missed "solely".

<==== woooooosh
your head

[tim...]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow
You have that wrong. People should be paid the same for doing work of
equal value, not for "doing the same work".

But how do you determine that? Are there objective criteria you can
apply, or is it all subjective? And if it's all subjective, how can
anyone say what the 'right' answer is?

How can anyone say for sure that a court has got the right answer 100%
of time? But it does its best, which I think is all we can ask.
The alternative is not to try.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow
The reason for that is that some work is traditionally under paid,
generally work that single women did while they were waiting to get
married so only needed to support themselves while still living in their
parents home, against what men needed to earn to support a family.
An example of this is that those who taught younger children,
traditionally women, were paid significantly less than those who taught
older children, traditionally men. Of course, in the UK, this is no
longer the case as we now consider their work to be of equal value.

But is it? How can you tell? How can you justify it?

You explain why teachers should be paid different amounts according to
the age of their pupils and we can take the discussion from there.

Supply and demand. It clearly takes less skill and knowledge to teach
5-year olds than it does A-level students.

Does it?

Extra knowledge ok, Skills, really?

As a graduate level student I think I would have no problem teaching a bunch
of A-level (and therefore motivated) students my subject.

However, even though I am equally skilled at reading as I am at my
specialist subject, I wouldn't have clue how to teach a class of 5 YOs to
read.

tim

[abelard]

Post by tim...

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow
You have that wrong. People should be paid the same for doing work of
equal value, not for "doing the same work".

But how do you determine that? Are there objective criteria you can
apply, or is it all subjective? And if it's all subjective, how can
anyone say what the 'right' answer is?

How can anyone say for sure that a court has got the right answer 100%
of time? But it does its best, which I think is all we can ask.
The alternative is not to try.

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Yellow
The reason for that is that some work is traditionally under paid,
generally work that single women did while they were waiting to get
married so only needed to support themselves while still living in their
parents home, against what men needed to earn to support a family.
An example of this is that those who taught younger children,
traditionally women, were paid significantly less than those who taught
older children, traditionally men. Of course, in the UK, this is no
longer the case as we now consider their work to be of equal value.

But is it? How can you tell? How can you justify it?

You explain why teachers should be paid different amounts according to
the age of their pupils and we can take the discussion from there.

Supply and demand. It clearly takes less skill and knowledge to teach
5-year olds than it does A-level students.

Does it?
Extra knowledge ok, Skills, really?
As a graduate level student I think I would have no problem teaching a bunch
of A-level (and therefore motivated) students my subject.
However, even though I am equally skilled at reading as I am at my
specialist subject, I wouldn't have clue how to teach a class of 5 YOs to
read.

stop posting sense...normal won't like it

however, you need danger money 'teaching the over 9s in
modern britain

[Yellow]

Post by tim...

Post by Norman Wells
Supply and demand. It clearly takes less skill and knowledge to teach
5-year olds than it does A-level students.

Does it?
Extra knowledge ok, Skills, really?
As a graduate level student I think I would have no problem teaching a bunch
of A-level (and therefore motivated) students my subject.
However, even though I am equally skilled at reading as I am at my
specialist subject, I wouldn't have clue how to teach a class of 5 YOs to
read.

I feel the same on that one. Reading and writing, would not know where
to start, where as I once taught a 6 week introduction to writing
software to group of adult Chinese through an interpreter without any
additional training on top of my regular skill set.

[Jimmy Wilkinson Knife]

Post by Yellow
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:39:49 -0000 (UTC), Incubus <incubus9536612

Post by Yellow
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 11:01:55 -0000 (UTC), Incubus <incubus9536612

@gmail.com>

Post by Yellow

Post by Incubus
Dare you to suggest that she was paid according to merit? This

cannot be so

Post by Yellow

Post by Incubus
for countless Feminists have assured me that there is such an august

body

Post by Yellow

Post by Incubus
known as the 'Patriarchy' that favours men over women where matters

of

Post by Yellow

Post by Incubus
remuneration are concerned.

Actually you will find that those countless feminists who knock on

your door

Post by Yellow
to discuss the issue actually say that women in general should be

employed

Post by Yellow
and paid on their merits, which is demonstrably too often not

something that

Post by Yellow
happens - but do not let the truth get in the way of your misogyny.

You make the mistake of equating anti-Feminist sentiment with
misogyny. Women
should be paid the same if they are doing the same work but the 'Patriarchy' is
a set of insane ramblings.

You have that wrong. People should be paid the same for doing work of
equal value, not for "doing the same work".
The reason for that is that some work is traditionally under paid,
generally work that single women did while they were waiting to get
married so only needed to support themselves while still living in their
parents home, against what men needed to earn to support a family.
An example of this is that those who taught younger children,
traditionally women, were paid significantly less than those who taught
older children, traditionally men. Of course, in the UK, this is no
longer the case as we now consider their work to be of equal value.
There is currently a court case going through about whether those who
work inside the supermarket are doing work that is equal in value to
that of those who work in the warehouse - so that will be interesting.

If you feel you're not being paid enough, apply for a job elsewhere.
You're not forced to work in one place.

[Yellow]

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Yellow
There is currently a court case going through about whether those who
work inside the supermarket are doing work that is equal in value to
that of those who work in the warehouse - so that will be interesting.

If you feel you're not being paid enough, apply for a job elsewhere.
You're not forced to work in one place.

Thankfully this is neither the USA nor the 17th century.

[Jimmy Wilkinson Knife]

Post by Yellow

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Yellow
There is currently a court case going through about whether those who
work inside the supermarket are doing work that is equal in value to
that of those who work in the warehouse - so that will be interesting.

If you feel you're not being paid enough, apply for a job elsewhere.
You're not forced to work in one place.

Thankfully this is neither the USA nor the 17th century.

State your reasoning why I'm wrong. You are worth only what people are
willing to pay you.

[Yellow]

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Yellow

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Yellow
There is currently a court case going through about whether those who
work inside the supermarket are doing work that is equal in value to
that of those who work in the warehouse - so that will be interesting.

If you feel you're not being paid enough, apply for a job elsewhere.
You're not forced to work in one place.

Thankfully this is neither the USA nor the 17th century.

State your reasoning why I'm wrong. You are worth only what people are
willing to pay you.

The law says that equal work should receive equal pay.

[Jimmy Wilkinson Knife]

Post by Yellow

Post by Yellow

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:22:11 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Yellow
There is currently a court case going through about whether those

who

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Yellow
work inside the supermarket are doing work that is equal in value

to

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Yellow
that of those who work in the warehouse - so that will be

interesting.

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
If you feel you're not being paid enough, apply for a job elsewhere.
You're not forced to work in one place.

Thankfully this is neither the USA nor the 17th century.

State your reasoning why I'm wrong. You are worth only what people are
willing to pay you.

The law says that equal work should receive equal pay.

Then the law is incorrect and illogical. If I want to pay you twice as
much as Mr Smith, I shouldn't have to say why and I should be allowed to
do so. It's my money.

[Yellow]

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Yellow

Post by Yellow

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:22:11 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Yellow
There is currently a court case going through about whether those

who

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Yellow
work inside the supermarket are doing work that is equal in value

to

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Yellow
that of those who work in the warehouse - so that will be

interesting.

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
If you feel you're not being paid enough, apply for a job elsewhere.
You're not forced to work in one place.

Thankfully this is neither the USA nor the 17th century.

State your reasoning why I'm wrong. You are worth only what people are
willing to pay you.

The law says that equal work should receive equal pay.

Then the law is incorrect and illogical. If I want to pay you twice as
much as Mr Smith, I shouldn't have to say why and I should be allowed to
do so. It's my money.

As would be the back pay and compensation you would be forced to pay Mr
Smith if he decided to take you to tribunal.

[The Peeler]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 00:47:50 +0100, Yellow, the notorious troll-feeding

Post by Yellow
As would be the back pay and compensation you would be forced to pay Mr
Smith if he decided to take you to tribunal.

Forever dangling from the stupid Scottish troll's hook, eh, you senile
cretin? <BG>

[abelard]

Post by Yellow

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Yellow

Post by Yellow

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:22:11 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Yellow
There is currently a court case going through about whether those

who

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Yellow
work inside the supermarket are doing work that is equal in value

to

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Yellow
that of those who work in the warehouse - so that will be

interesting.

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
If you feel you're not being paid enough, apply for a job elsewhere.
You're not forced to work in one place.

Thankfully this is neither the USA nor the 17th century.

State your reasoning why I'm wrong. You are worth only what people are
willing to pay you.

The law says that equal work should receive equal pay.

Then the law is incorrect and illogical. If I want to pay you twice as
much as Mr Smith, I shouldn't have to say why and I should be allowed to
do so. It's my money.

As would be the back pay and compensation you would be forced to pay Mr
Smith if he decided to take you to tribunal.

best to avoid employing mister smith in the first place

[Jimmy Wilkinson Knife]

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:43:24 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Yellow

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:22:11 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:39:14 +0100, Yellow

Post by Yellow
There is currently a court case going through about whether

those

Post by Yellow
who

Post by Yellow
work inside the supermarket are doing work that is equal in

value

Post by Yellow
to

Post by Yellow
that of those who work in the warehouse - so that will be

interesting.

If you feel you're not being paid enough, apply for a job

elsewhere.

Post by Yellow

You're not forced to work in one place.

Thankfully this is neither the USA nor the 17th century.

State your reasoning why I'm wrong. You are worth only what people

are

Post by Yellow
willing to pay you.

The law says that equal work should receive equal pay.

Then the law is incorrect and illogical. If I want to pay you twice as
much as Mr Smith, I shouldn't have to say why and I should be allowed to
do so. It's my money.

As would be the back pay and compensation you would be forced to pay Mr
Smith if he decided to take you to tribunal.

best to avoid employing mister smith in the first place

Indeed. Put in the application form "are you left wing?" and if so, don't
employ them.

[Yellow]

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:43:24 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Yellow

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:22:11 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:39:14 +0100, Yellow

Post by Yellow
There is currently a court case going through about whether

those

Post by Yellow
who

Post by Yellow
work inside the supermarket are doing work that is equal in

value

Post by Yellow
to

Post by Yellow
that of those who work in the warehouse - so that will be

interesting.

If you feel you're not being paid enough, apply for a job

elsewhere.

Post by Yellow

You're not forced to work in one place.

Thankfully this is neither the USA nor the 17th century.

State your reasoning why I'm wrong. You are worth only what people

are

Post by Yellow
willing to pay you.

The law says that equal work should receive equal pay.

Then the law is incorrect and illogical. If I want to pay you twice as
much as Mr Smith, I shouldn't have to say why and I should be allowed to
do so. It's my money.

As would be the back pay and compensation you would be forced to pay Mr
Smith if he decided to take you to tribunal.

best to avoid employing mister smith in the first place

Indeed. Put in the application form "are you left wing?" and if so, don't
employ them.

I would tick "no" as I am an old-fashioned liberal but would still take
you to tribunal if you broke the law.

[Jimmy Wilkinson Knife]

Post by Yellow

Post by JNugent

Post by abelard

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 20:17:47 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:43:24 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by The Peeler
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:35:41 +0100, Yellow

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:22:11 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:39:14 +0100, Yellow

Post by Yellow
There is currently a court case going through about whether

those

Post by The Peeler
who

Post by Yellow
work inside the supermarket are doing work that is equal in

value

Post by The Peeler
to

Post by Yellow
that of those who work in the warehouse - so that will be

interesting.

If you feel you're not being paid enough, apply for a job

elsewhere.

Post by The Peeler

You're not forced to work in one place.

Thankfully this is neither the USA nor the 17th century.

State your reasoning why I'm wrong. You are worth only what

people

Post by abelard

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
are

Post by The Peeler
willing to pay you.

The law says that equal work should receive equal pay.

Then the law is incorrect and illogical. If I want to pay you

twice as

Post by abelard

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
much as Mr Smith, I shouldn't have to say why and I should be

allowed

Post by abelard

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
to
do so. It's my money.

As would be the back pay and compensation you would be forced to pay

Mr

Post by abelard

Smith if he decided to take you to tribunal.

best to avoid employing mister smith in the first place

Indeed. Put in the application form "are you left wing?" and if so, don't
employ them.

I would tick "no" as I am an old-fashioned liberal but would still take
you to tribunal if you broke the law.

Because you're incapable of getting the job on your own merits?

[The Peeler]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 14:22:14 +0100, Yellow, the notorious troll-feeding

Post by Yellow

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
Indeed. Put in the application form "are you left wing?" and if so, don't
employ them.

I would tick "no" as I am an old-fashioned liberal but would still take
you to tribunal if you broke the law.

And he STILL keeps slinging you around on his hook, you demented senile
idiot! LOL

[Jimmy Wilkinson Knife]

Post by Yellow

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:43:24 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Yellow

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:22:11 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Yellow
There is currently a court case going through about whether

those

Post by Yellow
who

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Yellow
work inside the supermarket are doing work that is equal in

value

Post by Yellow
to

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Yellow
that of those who work in the warehouse - so that will be

interesting.

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
If you feel you're not being paid enough, apply for a job

elsewhere.

Post by Yellow

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
You're not forced to work in one place.

Thankfully this is neither the USA nor the 17th century.

State your reasoning why I'm wrong. You are worth only what people

are

Post by Yellow
willing to pay you.

The law says that equal work should receive equal pay.

Then the law is incorrect and illogical. If I want to pay you twice as
much as Mr Smith, I shouldn't have to say why and I should be allowed to
do so. It's my money.

As would be the back pay and compensation you would be forced to pay Mr
Smith if he decided to take you to tribunal.

I might prefer you over Mr Smith for some reason, and I shouldn't have to
explain why to anyone. It's MY money, I can employ whoever I like. What
if I employed a relative because they were a relative? Would you take me
to a tribunal for not employing you?

[Yellow]

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Yellow

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:43:24 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Yellow

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:22:11 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Yellow
There is currently a court case going through about whether

those

Post by Yellow
who

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Yellow
work inside the supermarket are doing work that is equal in

value

Post by Yellow
to

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Yellow
that of those who work in the warehouse - so that will be

interesting.

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
If you feel you're not being paid enough, apply for a job

elsewhere.

Post by Yellow

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
You're not forced to work in one place.

Thankfully this is neither the USA nor the 17th century.

State your reasoning why I'm wrong. You are worth only what people

are

Post by Yellow
willing to pay you.

The law says that equal work should receive equal pay.

Then the law is incorrect and illogical. If I want to pay you twice as
much as Mr Smith, I shouldn't have to say why and I should be allowed to
do so. It's my money.

As would be the back pay and compensation you would be forced to pay Mr
Smith if he decided to take you to tribunal.

I might prefer you over Mr Smith for some reason, and I shouldn't have to
explain why to anyone. It's MY money, I can employ whoever I like. What
if I employed a relative because they were a relative? Would you take me
to a tribunal for not employing you?

I would take you to tribunal if you broke the law.

[Jimmy Wilkinson Knife]

Post by Yellow

Post by JNugent

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 20:17:47 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:43:24 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Yellow

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:22:11 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:39:14 +0100, Yellow

Post by Yellow
There is currently a court case going through about whether

those

Post by Yellow
who

Post by Yellow
work inside the supermarket are doing work that is equal in

value

Post by Yellow
to

Post by Yellow
that of those who work in the warehouse - so that will be

interesting.

If you feel you're not being paid enough, apply for a job

elsewhere.

Post by Yellow

You're not forced to work in one place.

Thankfully this is neither the USA nor the 17th century.

State your reasoning why I'm wrong. You are worth only what

people

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
are

Post by Yellow
willing to pay you.

The law says that equal work should receive equal pay.

Then the law is incorrect and illogical. If I want to pay you twice

as

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
much as Mr Smith, I shouldn't have to say why and I should be

allowed to

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
do so. It's my money.

As would be the back pay and compensation you would be forced to pay

Mr

Smith if he decided to take you to tribunal.

I might prefer you over Mr Smith for some reason, and I shouldn't have to
explain why to anyone. It's MY money, I can employ whoever I like.
What
if I employed a relative because they were a relative? Would you take me
to a tribunal for not employing you?

I would take you to tribunal if you broke the law.

So you're saying that someone with money is not able to choose their own
employees? How fucked up is your mind?

[Yellow]

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Yellow

Post by JNugent

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 20:17:47 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:43:24 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Yellow

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:22:11 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:39:14 +0100, Yellow

Post by Yellow
There is currently a court case going through about whether

those

Post by Yellow
who

Post by Yellow
work inside the supermarket are doing work that is equal in

value

Post by Yellow
to

Post by Yellow
that of those who work in the warehouse - so that will be

interesting.

If you feel you're not being paid enough, apply for a job

elsewhere.

Post by Yellow

You're not forced to work in one place.

Thankfully this is neither the USA nor the 17th century.

State your reasoning why I'm wrong. You are worth only what

people

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
are

Post by Yellow
willing to pay you.

The law says that equal work should receive equal pay.

Then the law is incorrect and illogical. If I want to pay you twice

as

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
much as Mr Smith, I shouldn't have to say why and I should be

allowed to

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
do so. It's my money.

As would be the back pay and compensation you would be forced to pay

Mr

Smith if he decided to take you to tribunal.

I might prefer you over Mr Smith for some reason, and I shouldn't have to
explain why to anyone. It's MY money, I can employ whoever I like.
What
if I employed a relative because they were a relative? Would you take me
to a tribunal for not employing you?

I would take you to tribunal if you broke the law.

So you're saying that someone with money is not able to choose their own
employees? How fucked up is your mind?

Given your comprehension skills, I doubt there is much danger of you
ever running a business that would be looking to employ people.

[The Peeler]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 17:15:45 +0100, Yellow, an especially tarded notorious

Post by Yellow

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
So you're saying that someone with money is not able to choose their own
employees? How fucked up is your mind?

Given your comprehension skills, I doubt there is much danger of you
ever running a business that would be looking to employ people.

The little idiot keeps YOU running nevertheless, senile oaf! LOL

[Jimmy Wilkinson Knife]

Post by Yellow

Post by Ophelia

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 14:01:42 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by JNugent

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 20:17:47 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:43:24 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

Post by The Peeler
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:35:41 +0100, Yellow

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:22:11 +0100, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:39:14 +0100, Yellow

Post by Yellow
There is currently a court case going through about

whether

Post by JNugent

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
those

Post by The Peeler
who

Post by Yellow
work inside the supermarket are doing work that is equal

in

Post by JNugent

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
value

Post by The Peeler
to

Post by Yellow
that of those who work in the warehouse - so that will be

interesting.

If you feel you're not being paid enough, apply for a job

elsewhere.

Post by The Peeler

You're not forced to work in one place.

Thankfully this is neither the USA nor the 17th century.

State your reasoning why I'm wrong. You are worth only what

people

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
are

Post by The Peeler
willing to pay you.

The law says that equal work should receive equal pay.

Then the law is incorrect and illogical. If I want to pay you

twice

Post by JNugent
as

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
much as Mr Smith, I shouldn't have to say why and I should be

allowed to

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
do so. It's my money.

As would be the back pay and compensation you would be forced to

pay

Post by JNugent
Mr

Smith if he decided to take you to tribunal.

I might prefer you over Mr Smith for some reason, and I shouldn't

have

Post by JNugent
to
explain why to anyone. It's MY money, I can employ whoever I like.
What
if I employed a relative because they were a relative? Would you

take

Post by JNugent
me
to a tribunal for not employing you?

I would take you to tribunal if you broke the law.

So you're saying that someone with money is not able to choose their own
employees? How fucked up is your mind?

Given your comprehension skills, I doubt there is much danger of you
ever running a business that would be looking to employ people.

I see, so you stoop to childish remarks when you can't win your argument.

[The Peeler]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 14:20:34 +0100, Yellow, are really demented, notorious,

Post by Yellow
I would take you to tribunal if you broke the law.

Ah, come on, senile nutter, YOU would just continue mouthing off on Usenet
and be thankful that you got the opportunity to feed some retarded
attention-starved troll!

[The Peeler]

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 20:08:12 +0100, Yellow, an especially retarded,

Post by Yellow

Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
State your reasoning why I'm wrong. You are worth only what people are
willing to pay you.

The law says that equal work should receive equal pay.

Your posts show that you are a troll-feeding senile idiot!

[The Peeler]

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 19:35:41 +0100, Yellow, the notorious troll-feeding

Post by Yellow
Thankfully this is neither the USA nor the 17th century.

Nope, you poor idiot, the troll thanks YOU for taking his very latest
idiotic bait again! <tsk>

[tim...]

Post by Yellow
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:39:49 -0000 (UTC), Incubus <incubus9536612

Post by Incubus

Post by Incubus
Dare you to suggest that she was paid according to merit? This cannot be so
for countless Feminists have assured me that there is such an august body
known as the 'Patriarchy' that favours men over women where matters of
remuneration are concerned.

Actually you will find that those countless feminists who knock on your door
to discuss the issue actually say that women in general should be employed
and paid on their merits, which is demonstrably too often not something that
happens - but do not let the truth get in the way of your misogyny.

You make the mistake of equating anti-Feminist sentiment with misogyny.
Women
should be paid the same if they are doing the same work but the 'Patriarchy' is
a set of insane ramblings.

You have that wrong. People should be paid the same for doing work of
equal value, not for "doing the same work".

but it shouldn't just be equal value

it should also take into account:

whether a job strenuous or not
whether the job is dangerous or not
whether the job is under cover or outside

etc
etc
etc

IMHO it's perfectly reasonable to pay gardener more than a cleaner, because
being gardener requires you to work outside in the cold and rain. Whereas a
cleaner is inside in the warm all day.

But it would be difficult to argue that the garden has greater value that
the cleaner

Post by Yellow
The reason for that is that some work is traditionally under paid,
generally work that single women did while they were waiting to get
married so only needed to support themselves while still living in their
parents home, against what men needed to earn to support a family.
An example of this is that those who taught younger children,
traditionally women, were paid significantly less than those who taught
older children, traditionally men. Of course, in the UK, this is no
longer the case as we now consider their work to be of equal value.
There is currently a court case going through about whether those who
work inside the supermarket are doing work that is equal in value to
that of those who work in the warehouse - so that will be interesting.

Yes it will

I did a holiday job in a shop once

I worked on the shop floor most of the time. It was piss easy.

One week I was asked to cover in the warehouse. At the end of the week I
was absolutely fucking knackered.

The job's physically harder, so IMHO the guy (in fact the person that I
worked alongside that week was female) should be paid more

No argument

tim

[Yellow]

Post by tim...

Post by Yellow
You have that wrong. People should be paid the same for doing work of
equal value, not for "doing the same work".

but it shouldn't just be equal value
whether a job strenuous or not
whether the job is dangerous or not
whether the job is under cover or outside
etc
etc
etc
IMHO it's perfectly reasonable to pay gardener more than a cleaner, because
being gardener requires you to work outside in the cold and rain. Whereas a
cleaner is inside in the warm all day.
But it would be difficult to argue that the garden has greater value that
the cleaner

You are simply listing the things that to you, personally, are less
pleasant and stating that you therefore would wish to be paid more to do
them. :-)

But I cannot see any reason why the equal value criteria would not cover
work being dangerous against work that is not.

Working in weather as against not working in weather, not so sure. Just
because you do not like the idea, plenty would pick weeding in the rain
over cleaning a disgusting toilet in the dry. I know I would! Also
gardening tends to be a day time activity while cleaning hours are often
anti-social. And finally of course there is no guarantee that cleaner
will be working in heated conditions.

I am an engineer but have all too often had to work in freezing
conditions!

And a job being strenuous. Should someone really be paid more just
because the job includes lifting? First, they should be taught how to
lift and second they should only ever lift what they can comfortability
manage, aids being supplied to help. So if no one does more than they
can comfortably cope with, should that really be a reason for extra
cash? I guess it also depends on the other aspects of the work, whether
the lifting is the core of the work or not.

And this of course has come up with the ASDA case, the argument being
that warehouse work is more strenuous so it should pay more. To counter
that, the people in the store say they also have to lift goods and move
them around but they do not have the benefit of a forklift. Will be
interesting to read what the court rules.

Post by tim...

Post by Yellow
The reason for that is that some work is traditionally under paid,
generally work that single women did while they were waiting to get
married so only needed to support themselves while still living in their
parents home, against what men needed to earn to support a family.
An example of this is that those who taught younger children,
traditionally women, were paid significantly less than those who taught
older children, traditionally men. Of course, in the UK, this is no
longer the case as we now consider their work to be of equal value.
There is currently a court case going through about whether those who
work inside the supermarket are doing work that is equal in value to
that of those who work in the warehouse - so that will be interesting.

Yes it will
I did a holiday job in a shop once
I worked on the shop floor most of the time. It was piss easy.
One week I was asked to cover in the warehouse. At the end of the week I
was absolutely fucking knackered.
The job's physically harder, so IMHO the guy (in fact the person that I
worked alongside that week was female) should be paid more
No argument

In these more modern times it will be forklifts and pallet trucks vs
pallets, shelf filling, standing all day and dealing with customers.

It will be an interesting case.

[abelard]

On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 09:27:44 -0000 (UTC), Incubus

Post by Incubus
Apparently the nation's favourite GILF, Carol Vorderman, was paid three times
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5817677/Carol-Vorderman-reveals-earned-THREE-times-late-Countdown-star-Richard-Whiteley.html
So much for equality although, as someone in the comments section pointed out,
she is three times more attractive than Richard Whiteley.

she's the performing seal...he's the ring master...

[Incubus]

Post by abelard
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 09:27:44 -0000 (UTC), Incubus

Post by Incubus
Apparently the nation's favourite GILF, Carol Vorderman, was paid three times
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5817677/Carol-Vorderman-reveals-earned-THREE-times-late-Countdown-star-Richard-Whiteley.html
So much for equality although, as someone in the comments section pointed
out, she is three times more attractive than Richard Whiteley.

she's the performing seal...he's the ring master...

And now she looks like an arfarf'n'arf according to the language of our
ancestors, although that might be due to the deft hand of her surgeon
conferring upon her a certain ebullience of aspect.

[Ophelia]

Post by abelard
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 09:27:44 -0000 (UTC), Incubus

Post by Incubus
Apparently the nation's favourite GILF, Carol Vorderman, was paid three times
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5817677/Carol-Vorderman-reveals-earned-THREE-times-late-Countdown-star-Richard-Whiteley.html
So much for equality although, as someone in the comments section pointed
out, she is three times more attractive than Richard Whiteley.

she's the performing seal...he's the ring master...

And now she looks like an arfarf'n'arf according to the language of our
ancestors, although that might be due to the deft hand of her surgeon
conferring upon her a certain ebullience of aspect.

==

Extra titillation you mean?

[Incubus]

Post by Incubus

Post by abelard
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 09:27:44 -0000 (UTC), Incubus

Post by Incubus
Apparently the nation's favourite GILF, Carol Vorderman, was paid three
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5817677/Carol-Vorderman-reveals-earned-THREE-times-late-Countdown-star-Richard-Whiteley.html
So much for equality although, as someone in the comments section pointed
out, she is three times more attractive than Richard Whiteley.

she's the performing seal...he's the ring master...

And now she looks like an arfarf'n'arf according to the language of our
ancestors, although that might be due to the deft hand of her surgeon
conferring upon her a certain ebullience of aspect.
==
Extra titillation you mean?

It certainly appears to have increased her charm among a certain subset of the
population. One may as well acquire a robotic mannequin for the same purpose;
it will be composed of much the same materials and although it won't rate
nearly so highly in terms of IQ, it will arguably require far less maintenance.

[abelard]

On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 11:16:51 -0000 (UTC), Incubus

Post by Incubus

Post by Incubus

Post by abelard
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 09:27:44 -0000 (UTC), Incubus

Post by Incubus
Apparently the nation's favourite GILF, Carol Vorderman, was paid three
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5817677/Carol-Vorderman-reveals-earned-THREE-times-late-Countdown-star-Richard-Whiteley.html
So much for equality although, as someone in the comments section pointed
out, she is three times more attractive than Richard Whiteley.

she's the performing seal...he's the ring master...

And now she looks like an arfarf'n'arf according to the language of our
ancestors, although that might be due to the deft hand of her surgeon
conferring upon her a certain ebullience of aspect.
==
Extra titillation you mean?

It certainly appears to have increased her charm among a certain subset of the
population. One may as well acquire a robotic mannequin for the same purpose;
it will be composed of much the same materials and although it won't rate
nearly so highly in terms of IQ, it will arguably require far less maintenance.

a programme would easily outperform her...

soon we'll be able to replace footballers, gfs and 'singers'

[Ophelia]

Post by Incubus

Post by abelard
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 09:27:44 -0000 (UTC), Incubus

Post by Incubus
Apparently the nation's favourite GILF, Carol Vorderman, was paid three
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5817677/Carol-Vorderman-reveals-earned-THREE-times-late-Countdown-star-Richard-Whiteley.html
So much for equality although, as someone in the comments section pointed
out, she is three times more attractive than Richard Whiteley.

she's the performing seal...he's the ring master...

And now she looks like an arfarf'n'arf according to the language of our
ancestors, although that might be due to the deft hand of her surgeon
conferring upon her a certain ebullience of aspect.
==
Extra titillation you mean?

It certainly appears to have increased her charm among a certain subset of
the
population. One may as well acquire a robotic mannequin for the same
purpose;
it will be composed of much the same materials and although it won't rate
nearly so highly in terms of IQ, it will arguably require far less
maintenance.

==

Probably:)

[Yellow]

On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 09:27:44 -0000 (UTC), Incubus <incubus9536612

Post by Incubus
Apparently the nation's favourite GILF, Carol Vorderman, was paid three times
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5817677/Carol-Vorderman-reveals-earned-THREE-times-late-Countdown-star-Richard-Whiteley.html
So much for equality although, as someone in the comments section pointed out,
she is three times more attractive than Richard Whiteley.

This is a bit like the argument that gets wheeled out re-tennis -
because one women or one very small group of women are perceived to be
doing better than one man or a very small group of men all this quest
for equality stuff is nonsense because these particular poor, poor men
are being ill treated.

If only the outcry and drama was so loud for the millions of women
worldwide who are genuinely being ill-treated the problem may well have
been long resolved by now.

[JNugent]

Post by Yellow
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 09:27:44 -0000 (UTC), Incubus <incubus9536612

Post by Incubus
Apparently the nation's favourite GILF, Carol Vorderman, was paid three times
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5817677/Carol-Vorderman-reveals-earned-THREE-times-late-Countdown-star-Richard-Whiteley.html
So much for equality although, as someone in the comments section pointed out,
she is three times more attractive than Richard Whiteley.

This is a bit like the argument that gets wheeled out re-tennis -
because one women or one very small group of women are perceived to be
doing better than one man or a very small group of men all this quest
for equality stuff is nonsense because these particular poor, poor men
are being ill treated.
If only the outcry and drama was so loud for the millions of women
worldwide who are genuinely being ill-treated the problem may well have
been long resolved by now.

How is "women worldwide" (that is, non-UK citizens outside the UK or
places for which the UK government has responsibility) any of my business?

Alleged mistreatment is a matter for the authorities wherever those
women are, surely?

[Yellow]

Post by JNugent

Post by Yellow
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 09:27:44 -0000 (UTC), Incubus <incubus9536612

Post by Incubus
Apparently the nation's favourite GILF, Carol Vorderman, was paid three times
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5817677/Carol-Vorderman-reveals-earned-THREE-times-late-Countdown-star-Richard-Whiteley.html
So much for equality although, as someone in the comments section pointed out,
she is three times more attractive than Richard Whiteley.

This is a bit like the argument that gets wheeled out re-tennis -
because one women or one very small group of women are perceived to be
doing better than one man or a very small group of men all this quest
for equality stuff is nonsense because these particular poor, poor men
are being ill treated.
If only the outcry and drama was so loud for the millions of women
worldwide who are genuinely being ill-treated the problem may well have
been long resolved by now.

How is "women worldwide" (that is, non-UK citizens outside the UK or
places for which the UK government has responsibility) any of my business?

That question provides its own answer as does the one below but
meanwhile, what has the UK government got to do with the price of fish,
my post or the post I replied to?

Post by JNugent
Alleged mistreatment is a matter for the authorities wherever those
women are, surely?

[Incubus]

Post by Incubus
Apparently the nation's favourite GILF, Carol Vorderman, was paid three
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5817677/Carol-Vorderman-reveals-earned-THREE-times-late-Countdown-star-Richard-Whiteley.html
So much for equality although, as someone in the comments section pointed
out, she is three times more attractive than Richard Whiteley.

This is a bit like the argument that gets wheeled out re-tennis - because one
women or one very small group of women are perceived to be doing better than
one man or a very small group of men all this quest for equality stuff is
nonsense because these particular poor, poor men are being ill treated.

Some claim that the wage gap is a myth that has been debunked.

If only the outcry and drama was so loud for the millions of women worldwide
who are genuinely being ill-treated the problem may well have been long
resolved by now.

That is true but for some reason, Feminists won't speak out against the worst
abuses perpetrated against women. Sharia is completely ignored in favour of
white, male targets. No criticism of Islam will be countenanced.

[abelard]

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:37:36 -0000 (UTC), Incubus

Post by Incubus

Post by Incubus
Apparently the nation's favourite GILF, Carol Vorderman, was paid three
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5817677/Carol-Vorderman-reveals-earned-THREE-times-late-Countdown-star-Richard-Whiteley.html
So much for equality although, as someone in the comments section pointed
out, she is three times more attractive than Richard Whiteley.

This is a bit like the argument that gets wheeled out re-tennis - because one
women or one very small group of women are perceived to be doing better than
one man or a very small group of men all this quest for equality stuff is
nonsense because these particular poor, poor men are being ill treated.

Some claim that the wage gap is a myth that has been debunked.

If only the outcry and drama was so loud for the millions of women worldwide
who are genuinely being ill-treated the problem may well have been long
resolved by now.

That is true but for some reason, Feminists won't speak out against the worst
abuses perpetrated against women. Sharia is completely ignored in favour of
white, male targets. No criticism of Islam will be countenanced.

self-interest drives most dull people...not any form of ethical
consideration

[Incubus]

Post by abelard
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:37:36 -0000 (UTC), Incubus

Post by Incubus

Post by Yellow
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 09:27:44 -0000 (UTC), Incubus <incubus9536612

Post by Incubus
Apparently the nation's favourite GILF, Carol Vorderman, was paid three
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5817677/Carol-Vorderman-reveals-earned-THREE-times-late-Countdown-star-Richard-Whiteley.html
So much for equality although, as someone in the comments section pointed
out, she is three times more attractive than Richard Whiteley.

This is a bit like the argument that gets wheeled out re-tennis - because
one women or one very small group of women are perceived to be doing better
than one man or a very small group of men all this quest for equality stuff
is nonsense because these particular poor, poor men are being ill treated.

Some claim that the wage gap is a myth that has been debunked.

Post by Yellow
If only the outcry and drama was so loud for the millions of women
worldwide who are genuinely being ill-treated the problem may well have
been long resolved by now.

That is true but for some reason, Feminists won't speak out against the worst
abuses perpetrated against women. Sharia is completely ignored in favour of
white, male targets. No criticism of Islam will be countenanced.

self-interest drives most dull people...not any form of ethical consideration

Indeed - self-interest and all its attendant envy, resentment and self-pity.

[Yellow]

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:37:36 -0000 (UTC), Incubus <incubus9536612

Post by Incubus

Post by Incubus
Apparently the nation's favourite GILF, Carol Vorderman, was paid three
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5817677/Carol-Vorderman-reveals-earned-THREE-times-late-Countdown-star-Richard-Whiteley.html
So much for equality although, as someone in the comments section pointed
out, she is three times more attractive than Richard Whiteley.

This is a bit like the argument that gets wheeled out re-tennis - because one
women or one very small group of women are perceived to be doing better than
one man or a very small group of men all this quest for equality stuff is
nonsense because these particular poor, poor men are being ill treated.

Some claim that the wage gap is a myth that has been debunked.

Indeed, some do. Some also claim the Earth is flat.

Post by Incubus

If only the outcry and drama was so loud for the millions of women worldwide
who are genuinely being ill-treated the problem may well have been long
resolved by now.

That is true but for some reason, Feminists won't speak out against the worst
abuses perpetrated against women.

Of course feminists speak out against world wide abuse of women but my
comment was not about the people who are already speaking out but about
those who turn the argument back round so as to deny the issue even
exists.

A perfect example, so thanks for that.

Post by Incubus
Sharia is completely ignored in favour of
white, male targets. No criticism of Islam will be countenanced.

And there is another.

Any more for any more?

[Incubus]

Post by Yellow

Post by Incubus

Post by Yellow
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 09:27:44 -0000 (UTC), Incubus <incubus9536612

Post by Incubus
Apparently the nation's favourite GILF, Carol Vorderman, was paid three
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5817677/Carol-Vorderman-reveals-earned-THREE-times-late-Countdown-star-Richard-Whiteley.html
So much for equality although, as someone in the comments section pointed
out, she is three times more attractive than Richard Whiteley.

This is a bit like the argument that gets wheeled out re-tennis - because
one women or one very small group of women are perceived to be doing
better than one man or a very small group of men all this quest for
equality stuff is nonsense because these particular poor, poor men are
being ill treated.

Some claim that the wage gap is a myth that has been debunked.

Indeed, some do. Some also claim the Earth is flat.

The two hardly correlate.

Post by Yellow

Post by Incubus

Post by Yellow
If only the outcry and drama was so loud for the millions of women
worldwide who are genuinely being ill-treated the problem may well have
been long resolved by now.

That is true but for some reason, Feminists won't speak out against the
worst abuses perpetrated against women.

Of course feminists speak out against world wide abuse of women but my
comment was not about the people who are already speaking out but about those
who turn the argument back round so as to deny the issue even exists.
A perfect example, so thanks for that.

On the contrary: firstly, your premise is wrong because Feminists do not speak
out about the most systematic abuse of women that exists within the world
to-day (and, one might argue, that has ever existed); secondly, you yourself
are guilty of turning the argument around and therefore can hardly make such a
lofty claim.

[Yellow]

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:26:58 -0000 (UTC), Incubus <incubus9536612

Post by Incubus

Post by Yellow

Post by Incubus
Some claim that the wage gap is a myth that has been debunked.

Indeed, some do. Some also claim the Earth is flat.

The two hardly correlate.

Mad ideas that supporters claim they can prove but in fact cannot - so
exactly the same then.

Post by Incubus

Post by Yellow

Post by Incubus

Post by Yellow
If only the outcry and drama was so loud for the millions of women
worldwide who are genuinely being ill-treated the problem may well have
been long resolved by now.

That is true but for some reason, Feminists won't speak out against the
worst abuses perpetrated against women.

Of course feminists speak out against world wide abuse of women but my
comment was not about the people who are already speaking out but about those
who turn the argument back round so as to deny the issue even exists.
A perfect example, so thanks for that.

On the contrary: firstly, your premise is wrong because Feminists do not speak
out about the most systematic abuse of women that exists within the world
to-day

Why do you spell feminist with a capital letter?

[Incubus]

Post by Yellow

Post by Incubus

Post by Yellow
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 08:37:36 -0000 (UTC), Incubus <incubus9536612

Post by Incubus
Some claim that the wage gap is a myth that has been debunked.

Indeed, some do. Some also claim the Earth is flat.

The two hardly correlate.

Mad ideas that supporters claim they can prove but in fact cannot - so
exactly the same then.

One can provide credibly evidence in one case. There are a good many theories
that cannot be proven yet are taken seriously - Social 'Science', Marxism, etc.

Post by Yellow

Post by Incubus

Post by Yellow

Post by Incubus

Post by Yellow
If only the outcry and drama was so loud for the millions of women
worldwide who are genuinely being ill-treated the problem may well have
been long resolved by now.

That is true but for some reason, Feminists won't speak out against the
worst abuses perpetrated against women.

Of course feminists speak out against world wide abuse of women but my
comment was not about the people who are already speaking out but about
those who turn the argument back round so as to deny the issue even
exists.
A perfect example, so thanks for that.

On the contrary: firstly, your premise is wrong because Feminists do not
speak out about the most systematic abuse of women that exists within the
world to-day

Why do you spell feminist with a capital letter?

It is an all but obsolete convention of the English language to capitalise the
names of academic disciples, social theories &c. To-day, capitalisation is
generally restricted to beginnings of sentences, personal names and proper
nouns but since the English language is in terminal decline, I prefer to follow
the established standards of previous centuries.

[Yellow]

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:48:58 -0000 (UTC), Incubus <incubus9536612

Post by Incubus

Post by Yellow

Post by Incubus
On the contrary: firstly, your premise is wrong because Feminists do not
speak out about the most systematic abuse of women that exists within the
world to-day

Why do you spell feminist with a capital letter?

It is an all but obsolete convention of the English language to capitalise the
names of academic disciples, social theories &c. To-day, capitalisation is
generally restricted to beginnings of sentences, personal names and proper
nouns but since the English language is in terminal decline, I prefer to follow
the established standards of previous centuries.

We do not capitalise conservative or liberal or socialist when referring
to an individual's politics, and never have, so why would you capitalise
feminist?

No one else does it, so what point are you trying to make?

[Incubus]

Post by Incubus

Post by Yellow

Post by Incubus
On the contrary: firstly, your premise is wrong because Feminists do not
speak out about the most systematic abuse of women that exists within the
world to-day

Why do you spell feminist with a capital letter?

It is an all but obsolete convention of the English language to capitalise
the names of academic disciples, social theories &c. To-day, capitalisation
is generally restricted to beginnings of sentences, personal names and
proper nouns but since the English language is in terminal decline, I prefer
to follow the established standards of previous centuries.

We do not capitalise conservative or liberal or socialist when referring to
an individual's politics, and never have, so why would you capitalise
feminist?

It used to be the convention to do so.

No one else does it, so what point are you trying to make?

I do it, as previous posts of mine will attest. It has nothing to do with
trying to make a point.

[Yellow]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 08:42:46 -0000 (UTC), Incubus <incubus9536612

Post by Incubus

Post by Incubus

Post by Yellow

Post by Incubus
On the contrary: firstly, your premise is wrong because Feminists do not
speak out about the most systematic abuse of women that exists within the
world to-day

Why do you spell feminist with a capital letter?

It is an all but obsolete convention of the English language to capitalise
the names of academic disciples, social theories &c. To-day, capitalisation
is generally restricted to beginnings of sentences, personal names and
proper nouns but since the English language is in terminal decline, I prefer
to follow the established standards of previous centuries.

We do not capitalise conservative or liberal or socialist when referring to
an individual's politics, and never have, so why would you capitalise
feminist?

It used to be the convention to do so.

I did a bit of research before I posted and couldn't find evidence to
support that assertion. Interestingly Marxism seems to get routinely
capitalised, as does being a member or close supporter of a particular
political party and their manifesto, but not the words that are
generalisations of peoples political bent.

Post by Incubus

No one else does it, so what point are you trying to make?

I do it, as previous posts of mine will attest. It has nothing to do with
trying to make a point.

OK.

[Incubus]

Post by Incubus

Post by Yellow
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:48:58 -0000 (UTC), Incubus <incubus9536612

Post by Incubus

Post by Yellow

Post by Incubus
On the contrary: firstly, your premise is wrong because Feminists do
not speak out about the most systematic abuse of women that exists
within the world to-day

Why do you spell feminist with a capital letter?

It is an all but obsolete convention of the English language to
capitalise the names of academic disciples, social theories &c. To-day,
capitalisation is generally restricted to beginnings of sentences,
personal names and proper nouns but since the English language is in
terminal decline, I prefer to follow the established standards of
previous centuries.

We do not capitalise conservative or liberal or socialist when referring
to an individual's politics, and never have, so why would you capitalise
feminist?

It used to be the convention to do so.

I did a bit of research before I posted and couldn't find evidence to support
that assertion.

'Hart recommended his readers to use a capital letter at the beginning of every
sentence, proper name, and important common noun. By the 17th century, the
practice had extended to titles (Sir, Lady), forms of address (Father,
Mistris), and personified nouns (Nature). Emphasized words and phrases would
also attract a capital. By the beginning of the 18th century, the influence of
Continental books had caused this practice to be extended still further (e.g.
to the names of the branches of knowledge), and it was not long before some
writers began using a capital for any noun that they felt to be important.
Books appeared in which all or most nouns were given an initial capital (as is
done systematically in modern German) - perhaps for aesthetic reasons, or
perhaps because printers were uncertain about which nouns to capitalize, and so
capitalized them all.

'The fashion was at its height in the later 17th century, and continued into
the 18th. The manuscripts of Butler, Traherne, Swift, and Pope are full of
initial capitals. However, the later 18th-century grammarians were not amused
by this apparent lack of discipline in the written language. In their view, the
proliferation of capitals was unnecessary, and causing the loss of a useful
potential distinction. Their rules brought a dramatic reduction in the types of
noun permitted to take a capital letter.'

- The Cambridge Encyclopedia[sic] of the English Language.

Interestingly Marxism seems to get routinely capitalised,

That is because it is derived from a personal name.

as does being a member or close supporter of a particular political party and
their manifesto,

That is because they are Proper Nouns.

but not the words that are generalisations of peoples political bent.

If you read books printed in the first half of the previous century, you should
find such words capitalised.

[Yellow]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 12:13:09 -0000 (UTC), Incubus <incubus9536612

Post by Incubus

Post by Incubus

Post by Yellow
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:48:58 -0000 (UTC), Incubus <incubus9536612

Post by Incubus

Post by Yellow

Post by Incubus
On the contrary: firstly, your premise is wrong because Feminists do
not speak out about the most systematic abuse of women that exists
within the world to-day

Why do you spell feminist with a capital letter?

It is an all but obsolete convention of the English language to
capitalise the names of academic disciples, social theories &c. To-day,
capitalisation is generally restricted to beginnings of sentences,
personal names and proper nouns but since the English language is in
terminal decline, I prefer to follow the established standards of
previous centuries.

We do not capitalise conservative or liberal or socialist when referring
to an individual's politics, and never have, so why would you capitalise
feminist?

It used to be the convention to do so.

I did a bit of research before I posted and couldn't find evidence to support
that assertion.

'Hart recommended his readers to use a capital letter at the beginning of every
sentence, proper name, and important common noun. By the 17th century, the
practice had extended to titles (Sir, Lady), forms of address (Father,
Mistris), and personified nouns (Nature). Emphasized words and phrases would
also attract a capital. By the beginning of the 18th century, the influence of
Continental books had caused this practice to be extended still further (e.g.
to the names of the branches of knowledge), and it was not long before some
writers began using a capital for any noun that they felt to be important.
Books appeared in which all or most nouns were given an initial capital (as is
done systematically in modern German) - perhaps for aesthetic reasons, or
perhaps because printers were uncertain about which nouns to capitalize, and so
capitalized them all.
'The fashion was at its height in the later 17th century, and continued into
the 18th. The manuscripts of Butler, Traherne, Swift, and Pope are full of
initial capitals. However, the later 18th-century grammarians were not amused
by this apparent lack of discipline in the written language. In their view, the
proliferation of capitals was unnecessary, and causing the loss of a useful
potential distinction. Their rules brought a dramatic reduction in the types of
noun permitted to take a capital letter.'
- The Cambridge Encyclopedia[sic] of the English Language.

Interestingly Marxism seems to get routinely capitalised,

That is because it is derived from a personal name.

as does being a member or close supporter of a particular political party and
their manifesto,

That is because they are Proper Nouns.

but not the words that are generalisations of peoples political bent.

If you read books printed in the first half of the previous century, you should
find such words capitalised.

Yesterday I was reading an article about Whigs and politics between the
17th and 19th century and that had a whole section on how words like
"conservative" and "liberal" were spelt without capitalisation at that
time while Tory and Whig were spelt with.

This was specific to what we are discussing, not a generalisation as
with your above examples.

[Incubus]

Post by Incubus

Post by Yellow
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 08:42:46 -0000 (UTC), Incubus <incubus9536612

Post by Incubus

Post by Yellow
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:48:58 -0000 (UTC), Incubus <incubus9536612

Post by Incubus

Post by Yellow

Post by Incubus
On the contrary: firstly, your premise is wrong because Feminists
do not speak out about the most systematic abuse of women that
exists within the world to-day

Why do you spell feminist with a capital letter?

It is an all but obsolete convention of the English language to
capitalise the names of academic disciples, social theories &c.
To-day, capitalisation is generally restricted to beginnings of
sentences, personal names and proper nouns but since the English
language is in terminal decline, I prefer to follow the established
standards of previous centuries.

We do not capitalise conservative or liberal or socialist when
referring to an individual's politics, and never have, so why would you
capitalise feminist?

It used to be the convention to do so.

I did a bit of research before I posted and couldn't find evidence to
support that assertion.

'Hart recommended his readers to use a capital letter at the beginning of
every sentence, proper name, and important common noun. By the 17th century,
the practice had extended to titles (Sir, Lady), forms of address (Father,
Mistris), and personified nouns (Nature). Emphasized words and phrases would
also attract a capital. By the beginning of the 18th century, the influence
of Continental books had caused this practice to be extended still further
(e.g. to the names of the branches of knowledge), and it was not long
before some writers began using a capital for any noun that they felt to be
important. Books appeared in which all or most nouns were given an initial
capital (as is done systematically in modern German) - perhaps for aesthetic
reasons, or perhaps because printers were uncertain about which nouns to
capitalize, and so capitalized them all.
'The fashion was at its height in the later 17th century, and continued into
the 18th. The manuscripts of Butler, Traherne, Swift, and Pope are full of
initial capitals. However, the later 18th-century grammarians were not
amused by this apparent lack of discipline in the written language. In their
view, the proliferation of capitals was unnecessary, and causing the loss of
a useful potential distinction. Their rules brought a dramatic reduction in
the types of noun permitted to take a capital letter.'
- The Cambridge Encyclopedia[sic] of the English Language.

Post by Yellow
Interestingly Marxism seems to get routinely capitalised,

That is because it is derived from a personal name.

Post by Yellow
as does being a member or close supporter of a particular political party
and their manifesto,

That is because they are Proper Nouns.

Post by Yellow
but not the words that are generalisations of peoples political bent.

If you read books printed in the first half of the previous century, you
should find such words capitalised.

Yesterday I was reading an article about Whigs and politics between the 17th
and 19th century and that had a whole section on how words like
"conservative" and "liberal" were spelt without capitalisation at that time
while Tory and Whig were spelt with.

That's because at that time, the parties weren't known respectively as the
Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats and conservative and liberal were
only used as adjectives rather than referring to Conservative and Liberal modes
of thought. That is one example where capitalisation can be useful.

[Yellow]

On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 13:28:36 -0000 (UTC), Incubus <incubus9536612

Post by Incubus

Post by Incubus
If you read books printed in the first half of the previous century, you
should find such words capitalised.

Yesterday I was reading an article about Whigs and politics between the 17th
and 19th century and that had a whole section on how words like
"conservative" and "liberal" were spelt without capitalisation at that time
while Tory and Whig were spelt with.

That's because at that time, the parties weren't known respectively as the
Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats and conservative and liberal were
only used as adjectives rather than referring to Conservative and Liberal modes
of thought. That is one example where capitalisation can be useful.

You have that wrong. Capitalisation denotes that you are a member or
close supporter of a particular political party where as the lack of
capitalisation denotes that it is your political persuasion. The two
things are quite different.

I am a liberal, a feminist and today I am happy if a little dirty as I
am cleaning out a cupboard - and none of those descriptive words should
be capitalised.

[Incubus]

Post by Incubus

Post by Yellow
On Tue, 12 Jun 2018 12:13:09 -0000 (UTC), Incubus <incubus9536612

Post by Incubus
If you read books printed in the first half of the previous century, you
should find such words capitalised.

Yesterday I was reading an article about Whigs and politics between the
17th and 19th century and that had a whole section on how words like
"conservative" and "liberal" were spelt without capitalisation at that
time while Tory and Whig were spelt with.

That's because at that time, the parties weren't known respectively as the
Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats and conservative and liberal
were only used as adjectives rather than referring to Conservative and
Liberal modes of thought. That is one example where capitalisation can be
useful.

You have that wrong. Capitalisation denotes that you are a member or close
supporter of a particular political party where as the lack of capitalisation
denotes that it is your political persuasion. The two things are quite
different.

To your mind, perhaps, but your lack of understanding is but a symptom of the
degradation of the English language and its orthography.

I am a liberal, a feminist and today I am happy if a little dirty as I am
cleaning out a cupboard - and none of those descriptive words should be
capitalised.

Oh yes they should as they are recognised modes of thought and ambiguity might
arise when they are used as adjectives.