Author Archives: grumpy

BBC fake news

In a piece on the BBC web site, Daniele Palumbo & Clara Guibourg, calling themselves ‘Data Journalists’ have undertaken analysis published on this premier news channel of the UK about male and female pay.

However, neither appears to have had any solid grounding in numeracy (both having studied ‘journalism’, ‘humanities’ etc.), which probably accounts for the wording of the article. In spite of the fulsome descriptions of the roles they have undertaken since graduating (per LinkedIn) , neither has managed to hold a job for much more than a year. In fact, Danielle (a male) has managed 25 jobs listed in 7 years, which must be something of a record, and might have the agent at the Job Centre raising his eyebrows should he find himself on the dole.

To the point: the headline in the article is “The vast majority of firms pay men more than women“. This is either deliberately calculated to deceive or very sloppily worded, in spite of Danielle having had an astounding number of jobs as a journalist.

What does it mean? Any rational semantic analysis would conclude that the firms do not pay men and women equally, and this would surely be the interpretation of the casual reader.  This is simply and patently nonsense; the law has required equal pay for men and women in equivalent jobs for the last 40 years, and the majority of firms in the land conform with that law.

Lefties (and particularly a group of harpies on the labour benches), Momentum members, feminists and journalists who never progressed beyond kindergarten arithmetic (like the pair in question)  all seize this issue to make a point by conflating the Gender Pay Gap with companies somehow having a deliberate policy to short-change the fair sex.

For many reasons, but mostly not of corporate’s own making,  the gap is driven by current social structures and norms, in that companies employ more women in lower paying jobs than they do men. It’s nothing to do with “paying men more”

Companies can only do so much. Airlines can employ more women pilots (if they can  encourage them to follow the profession), and government (probably the worst offender) can employ more female judges. But in spite of their best efforts, women will have to choose to not have part time jobs, and seek jobs where they might not find the sacrifices needed for greasy salary pole climbing  unattractive; then so be it. Ultimately, the Gender Pay Gap will be in the hands of women themselves.

But to the article ? I suspect deliberately worded to be disingenuous, and to send the anti-corporate message so increasing pushed by hacks and politicians. We should expect better of the National broadcaster.

 

 

 

 

Mumsnet and trans issues

Mumsnet took issue (on 1st April – significant?) with Serco, who provide the Caledonian Sleeper train from Euston to Scotland. Apparently, Serco had said that  passengers who were born male but ‘self-identify’ as female could sleep in cabins reserved for women.

Mumsnet members immediately lambasted poor Rupert Soames, CEO of Serco, as they saw it as an open invitation for pervert and rapists to don a dress and share a dual cabin with a woman.

Poor Rupert was caught between a rock and a hard place, and was presumably equivocating between whether to offend the Mumsnet fraternity or transgender rights supporters.

He presumably he came down on the side of the later, as Mrs May, Jeremy Corbyn,  parliament and others have all supported removing the requirement for medical evidence of any transition and allowing self-identification by a man that he was in fact a woman. (Yes, the concept baffles grumpy as well, but he hasn’t looked closely into this – TMI)

Theresa May has pledged to press ahead with plans to let people officially change gender without medical checks, as she said “being trans is not an illness and it should not be treated as such”.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and cabinet minister David Lidington have both stated that their parties believe transgender women are women; This included those who self-identify as women.

Women’s Aid has begun the process to allow trans women to work in their refuges based on self-identifying as a woman, rather than requiring a change to their birth certificate.

Finally, Hansard reports the results of a debate on the topic were that “this House notes the UK’s status as a pioneer in legislating for equality for LGBT people; welcomes the Government’s announcement of a new trans equality action plan; and calls on the Government to review its response to the recommendations of the Women and Equalities Committee’s report on Transgender Equality to ensure that the UK leads the world on trans equality rights, in particular by giving unequivocal commitments to changing the Gender Recognition Act 2004 in line with the principles of gender self-declaration and replacing confusing and inadequate language regarding trans people in the Equality Act 2010 by creating a new protected characteristic of gender identity”

 I was surprised that Rupe merely didn’t cite these as evidence that Mumsnet members were behind the times, and  tell them that they should bring themselves into line with the new mores in society; instead he waffled and got fried.

However, Grumpy’s point is that this is clearly a complex area which arouses strong emotions on both sides, with  huge potential to create all manner of unintended consequences. Politicians, however can’t resist jerking their knees (as well as the electorate), pushing populist themes without real thought, and in the case of Corbyn, jumping in so as not to appear regressive and illiberal. Such is the stuff of future problems and presumably cutting the legislation will inevitable mean a few late nights for Civil Servants.

 

 

Karen Brady celebrates her dumbness and government spin

The Mail on Sunday allocated column inches (appropriately on 1st April) to Karen Brady, who proclaimed she “cannot be a victim of the BBC gender pay gap – because it’s written into her contract”. She told The Mail on Sunday: ‘I get paid the same as Claude Littner, who does exactly the same role as me.’

She revealed in a new TV documentary that she is presenting this week that she has a clause in her contract for  pay guaranteeing parity with any man or woman with the same role.

Someone should tell Karen Brady she should have kept her legal fees, because that right has been guaranteed by law for the last 40 years.

Grumpy is rather tiring of writing on the ‘confusion’ (why ??) between the “gender pay gap” and “equal pay”, but it has been skilfully manipulated by the harpies and harridans of both political parties who want to make a feminist, anti-male, point. By conflating equal pay and  the gender pay gap, they exploit people like Karen Brady and millions of others who don’t read more than headlines; they can present a facet of the current social structure (as manifest in the gender pay gap) into an example of the domineering unfairness of the ruling male class  (equal pay).

It underlines the increasing extent of distortion in the communication of news and policies, made worse by deliberate issue conflation, as in this example, and others in this blog. Ultimately it leads to the usurping of democracy when a political party can no longer win an election through truthful presentation of its policies, but instead is forced to spin, distort, obfuscate and plain lie to gain power.

 

Pink passport anyone ? weird political logic

A Home Office minister has suggested UK travellers can have any colour passport they wish post-Brexit by simply choosing a cover for it.

Baroness Williams of Trafford confirmed at Lords question time that post-Brexit blue UK passports will be introduced from late 2019. But she told those concerned about losing the old burgundy version simply had to choose a cover that allows  “people (t0) have any colour passport that they wish because they just need to buy a passport cover”.  Lady Williams said. “I’ve looked at different coloured passports. There are some rather nice yellow ones and there’s one with a picture of SpongeBob SquarePants on it.”

There are 793 members of the UK Upper Chamber compared with 100 in the US equivalent – that’s nearly 40 times as many per head of population . However, if ever there was a proof that size does not mean better performance, this is it. The Lords is bloated, expensive, pompous and senile.

If, as Baroness Williams asserts on behalf of the government, that you can have any coloured passport by simply buying a cover, then by what perverse and twisted logic was  it necessary to spend a reported £490m on a new blue version?

For the odd few cranks (probably about the same number who might buy a SongeBob cover?) who identified the colour burgundy as a ‘humiliation’ and the old blue one as representing a ‘national identity’, they could be equally satisfied by getting a blue cover from Tesco for £4.90 instead

Who cares what colour the passport is ? It is this sort of out of touch, gesture driven, trashing of tax payers money that anger citizens. Given we have a government readying the populace to announce a false EU exit because of the insolubility of the Irish problem,  it’s simply astounding that this would be anywhere on any priority list of things to do re Brexit.

Simply breath-taking stupidity which insults voters intelligence.

When it itches …

 

you’ve just gotta scratch …

This young woman at the Grand National April 2018 wasn’t factoring in a quick snapper being ready for this shot.

Moral : use a dab of Canesten before spending a long day in a thong.

 

Upskirt – Part 2 (or Maria Miller and unintended consequences)

If a Martian landed on Earth today to study the ways of humans, one aspect which would probably tax him (yes, male Martians make the best space travelers) would be the irrationalities of the male/female relationship.

He would be immediately aware of the current surge of hostility to men who behave in a certain way towards women, by making  advances, comments about appearance, and asking them out on dates, or (worse) attempting or occasioning physical contact, however minor. He might be puzzled because the unfortunate male  cannot know until after any comment or action whether it is welcome or not, because in some cases the women appear to be flattered and respond positively to the approach, especially to drivers of super cars.

He might in fact watch Parliamentary TV and see politician Maria Miller describing taking unwanted photographs of women’s underwear as an being an ‘horrific’ crime and a gross violation of the subject’s privacy. He might conclude from this that women kind regard any public  exposure of their undergarments as  (per Ms. Miller) ‘an act of indecency’.

So far, he’s  clear on the framework. But opening a copy of the Daily Mail (for example), he would be puzzled by multiple photographs of women having their undergarments exposed by means of evidentially  self-engineered ‘wardrobe malfunctions’  freely published in  national newspapers. (see upskirt alert )

However, his puzzlement would be compounded by a visit to a horse race called the Grand National, where a significant proportion of the female attendees (apart from being inebriated)  seem to willingly display an inordinate amount of flesh.  Indeed, as per the photographs in this note from the said Daily Mail, some appear to be only too  happy to pull up their skirts and display their underwear for photographers for general public consumption.

It is the conflation of these behaviours and views that our Martian traveller  might find hard to resolve. He would understand that if such garments are displayed against the wishes of a woman it is such a deeply personal matter that it becomes a horrendous crime.  However, the apparent willingness of many women to freely display their breasts and nether regions in public indicate that the exposure of their underwear is not of itself universally viewed by women as abhorrent. He would therefore have to conclude that the underwear exposure per se is an irrelevance; it is the violation of  a women’s wishes  (whatever they may be) that is the ‘horrific’ crime, whether that be a comment,  a touch, or an unwanted photograph. Maria Miller, therefore, should logically not relate the crime simply to the unwonted photographing of underwear, but to any acts which violate the wishes of a woman, whether  expressed before or after the fact.

More Aintree … is the one on the right an upskirt picture ? If the photographer took this without permission would he be liable under Ms Miller’s planned law? ... and what is it about Horse Racing that spurs women on to lifting their skirts to show their panties ?

Upskirt alert … panties on view

As a 15 year old schoolboy before sex was invented in the 1960’s and the arrival of tights, one of Grumpy’s pleasures on his trip to school was following a young woman up the stairs on a ‘double decker’ bus to be greeted by the sight of the bare flesh gap between stocking tops and (generally) Marks and Spencer  ‘big knickers’. He never thought of this as being particularly perverted, since the thrill seemed to be universally shared with all his  male contemporaries.  Now, in the current febrile feminist atmosphere, this simple youthful pleasure may become a criminal offence, even though it may be argued that there are existing laws which may be broken by those more threatening  and overt acts with mobile phones.

Maria Miller, acting as moral guardian, called up-skirting ‘horrific’, with the current penchant for labelling all crimes with extreme labels [No, Maria, beheading recorded by some Jihadi on a mobile, or FGM perpetrated on innocent young girls,  is ‘horrific’,  so find a lesser word for this admittedly anti-social act.]

However, like much of the current focus on matters sexual, there is an odd counterpoint. A quick scan of the celeb loving Daily Mail, shows multiple up-skirt pictures, along with a variety of other ‘wardrobe malfunctions’ for example

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4191096/Jessica-Cunningham-suffers-wardrobe-malfunction.html or  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2621229/Zo-Kravitz-flashes-pink-knickers-suffers-wardrobe-malfunction-vintage-themed-Met-Gala.html or  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5065629/Olivia-Culpo-reveals-daring-outfit.html or http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3117257/Emmauelle-Chriqui-puts-leggy-display-thigh-split-white-dress-Entourage-London-premiere.html

The accompanying text in one of these incidents reads  “The former Miss Universe looked ready to board a pirate ship in her Burberry ensemble which was saucily unbuttoned to show off more than she bargained for” .

This is plain disingenuous moonshine.  Of course she bargained, nay, planned, for it. If a female dons a dress  split to the navel, common sense would dictate that there is a high probability of revealing underwear – or worse if she goes commando –  (of which there are many examples, but which Grumpy has omitted for the sake of decorum).

The simple, real world, fact is that these actresses / celebs / reality stars “suffer”  these malfunctions either through rank stupidity or precisely because they know that the flash of panty or crotch will put their picture in the press.

So, does Maria Miller envisage that the Daily Mail will be prosecuted for having their photographers taking the red carpet  up-skirt photographs?  And how is the conflict to be resolved between a man taking a mobile phone picture of a woman accidentally flashing her panties in the park at lunchtime, and the Daily Mail doing exactly  the same thing on the red carpet ?

Or is it part of growing philosophy that womankind may tease, flash, flaunt and titillate mankind to any extent for monetary gain by exploiting hapless, libidinous males – what has been called ‘erotic capital’ –  whilst demanding ever more severe sanctions for any response, however minimal, to same ?

Builders beware … wolf whistling a passing girl with a skirt chosen to be above her butt may  in the future be rewarded by jail time.

 

 

How remoaners distort rationality and truth

Grumpy has never been a fan of The Guardian newspaper, but columnist Polly Toynbee encapsulates everything that is bad about its editorial content. In  her column of 12.02.2018, she offer a litany of ills which will befall the country in the event of a ‘hard’ (or even ‘mild’) Brexit, and  in doing so displays an astounding level of disingenuous  illogicality.

Citing a news piece on which Grumpy has already commented (see ‘Out of work ? Ask a farmer for a job’),  she notes  “we have learned of fruit and vegetables being left to rot in the fields for lack of foreign EU labour”. Conflating the reason for rotting foodstuffs  and EU  labour is both illogical and disingenuous.

The carrots are rotting because of insufficient manpower to pick them. There is absolutely nothing intrinsic in the harvesting of carrots (or whatever) which mandates that it can only be done by Bulgarians, or that Romanians are exclusively genetically gifted with the capability to pluck apples. It’s a shortage of manpower with the ability to perform the task, regardless of the origin of same.

Indeed, Toynbee’s analysis (if one can call it such) taken as written, implies that either (a) the Eastern Europeans are indeed generically gifted with  such skills, or alternatively (b) that  the 1.4 million unemployed Britons are too stupid or lazy to be able to do this. She is deliberately (or ignorantly, take your pick) seeking to establish cause (lack of EU labour) with effect (rotting vegetables) in a manner which lacks any logical credibility.

Instead, Toynbee should be focusing on how it is that of those 1.4 million people getting tax payers funds to sit and watch daytime TV, not even a mere 2.5%  of them  (to make up the stated 4,000 shortfall of foreign workers) can be persuaded to perform these tasks. The question she should be addressing is the reason for the  imbalances in a system which makes it attractive for a Romanian to up sticks and travel from Bucharest for a job, but not for an out of work person from Chatham.