Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Always keep some loot stashed under the bed - that's my motto.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Always keep some loot stashed under the bed - that's my motto.

The bank of the SUTM* is one of the most secure.



*Sock-Under-The-Mattress

http://news.sky.com/story/andrea-leadsoms-brexit-boast-fails-to-impress-farmers-10718020

Farming minister Andrea Leadsom spectacularly failed to impress an audience of sceptical farmers when she promised them a Brexit bonfire of Brussels red tape.

Speaking at the Oxford Farming Conference, she said: "By cutting the red tape that comes out of Brussels we will free our farmers to grow more, sell more and export more great British food."

But when her audience was asked for a show of hands after she boasted that her department, the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, was ready to deliver Brexit, not a single hand went up in agreement from the farmers present.

Embarrassingly for the Secretary of State, the only hand raised in her support was that of her loyal ministerial deputy, George Eustice, who, like his boss, was and is a passionate pro-Brexit campaigner.

Good times.

 reds8n wrote:
http://news.sky.com/story/andrea-leadsoms-brexit-boast-fails-to-impress-farmers-10718020

Farming minister Andrea Leadsom spectacularly failed to impress an audience of sceptical farmers when she promised them a Brexit bonfire of Brussels red tape.

Speaking at the Oxford Farming Conference, she said: "By cutting the red tape that comes out of Brussels we will free our farmers to grow more, sell more and export more great British food."

But when her audience was asked for a show of hands after she boasted that her department, the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, was ready to deliver Brexit, not a single hand went up in agreement from the farmers present.

Embarrassingly for the Secretary of State, the only hand raised in her support was that of her loyal ministerial deputy, George Eustice, who, like his boss, was and is a passionate pro-Brexit campaigner.

Good times.

What's hilarious is that many British farmers have imposed their own red tape on themselves in the form of the Red Tractor Scheme, which has higher standards than the EU minimums.

They, largely, voted for Brexit as well.

Turkeys & xmas comes to mind somewhat but..well.... we'll have to see how things unfold.


It's only the food we eat after all, it's not like we need it or anything.

Did someone on this thread mention Le Penn / National Front changing their tune regarding leaving the EU and just trying to leave the currency union? I thought they had but I can't find any mention of it now and think I may have been hallucinating.

Indeed.

Guess the money from Russia hasn't come through in time.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Oh for gods sake, people are complaining of sexism again? Its not enough that we've Maggie Thatcher Mk II our second female Prime Minister (and yet again, a conservative) and, according to Ketara, more female ministers than ever? Just what does it take to satisfy these complaints?

It's not just sexism, it could be race, religion, sexual preference or whatever. Just because we have a female prime minister doesn't mean that decisions aren't still biased. In physics for example there is evidence that both men and women give other women scientists more critical feedback (as in require greater justification for their results) than men. This surprised everybody, the assumption that it would only be men that were more critical. So the idea that we have a 'woman prime minister' means that this position wasn't filled with a sub-conscious bias (note we aren't talking about flagrant sexism) is inherently flawed.

The fact that there is an argument that there 35 head of departments shows just how far we have to go because people are fixating on whether they are women or not (I didn't really intend to make this a male/female argument, more that a closed door selection method generally allows sub-conscious bias to take hold and that leads to things like women getting lower paid jobs on average). The real issue is that by not having a transparent recruitment process how do we know that they have the best person for the job? Where those other heads of departments actually given the opportunity to apply and allow them to make the decision as whether they want to go for the job? The thinking that there are high number of women already in such jobs is exactly the issue and shows a sub-conscious bias that "there are already plenty why should there be more?"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

Wouldn't you agree that parachuting someone suitable in that they know to be adequately experienced and qualified a sufficiently urgent task right now for the nation as to override normal appointment procedures?

No, there should be a fair and equal recruitment process. The timeline that May has set is completely arbitrary and could easily be moved. Ignoring fairly representative recruitment methods is the short way to fill posts with the wrong candidates. There are always time/work pressures in any job (otherwise they wouldn't exist). This type of thinking effectively gives everyone free reign to recruit who they want rather than the best candidate.

With regards to equality, I suppose it is theoretically possible there could be thirty equally well placed women behind him, but May decided that women don't belong in politics and ignored them as candidates. Something about insinuations in that direction seem a little off though, given the fact she's appointed more women to ministerial positions than any other PM, ever (and is indeed, a woman herself?). I suspect it is more likely that the position came up, they needed someone of suitable gravitas and experience to fill it chop chop, pronto, and he appeared the best immediate candidate. As listed above, he certainly would appear to have the pedigree, experience, and connections to do so, moreso than his predecessor ever did.

It doesn't need to be thirty, just one; why should there have to be 30 equally placed women before one might be considered against one man? What about, religious beliefs, race etc etc. I'm not insinuating anyone is sexist consciously, but sub-conscious bias as I described above are prevalent in us all (as this discussion highlights) including in myself. That's why you need a fair and equal recruitment process to ensure that these biases don't come out to play (and is why there is still such a differential in women/men pay etc).

Still and all, the key message from all of this shenanigans is that there is a clear path forwards to the sunny uplands. We only have to keep the faith and be united.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Forget ambassadors - the naysayers said that after June 23rd, we'd be heading for recession, people would need wheelbarrows full of bank notes to buy bread, we wouldn't be able to afford to put the salt sachet in salt and shake crisps, and so on...

But the latest economic data proves them wrong:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/05/why-uk-economy-defied-predictions-doom-brexit-vote

Crisis? What crisis?

Let the good times roll

This comes around month on month it appears
It's just one month. As I've said many times before one month isn't enough to draw any conclusions up or down. It could simply be that people spent more during December than previous month (for example waiting for sales). There might have also been an influx of shopping tourists because of the weak £ and so on. The markets are too fluid to make judgements over these sort of timescales. The market might simply rebalance itself in January/February if people cut back to pay for Xmas. There's also the question where this money is going? Sales could simply be higher because prices are higher because of inflation? There is evidence that some higher priced items are slowing down. Car sales may be increasing but that appears to be driven at the moment by corporate sales/showroom sales. Actual private new buys have dropped quite dramatically (5.5%) there's a number of push/pull factors that are at play at the moment, however even May is warning people that the economy will have to re adjust after leaving the EU. The lower £ (with further falls likely) and now with increasing fuel prices will drive inflation and that means we will all be poorer for it (as we can't expect equivalent pay rises).

As for storing money under the bed, just make sure it's not in round one pound coins as they will be invalid tender in 12 months or so!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Still and all, the key message from all of this shenanigans is that there is a clear path forwards to the sunny uplands.

Is that by forcing us all to emigrate somewhere warmer and altogether more accepting?

 Whirlwind wrote:

No, there should be a fair and equal recruitment process. The timeline that May has set is completely arbitrary and could easily be moved. Ignoring fairly representative recruitment methods is the short way to fill posts with the wrong candidates. There are always time/work pressures in any job (otherwise they wouldn't exist). This type of thinking effectively gives everyone free reign to recruit who they want rather than the best candidate.

I very politely disagree with that, on the basis that this is reality, where perfect recruitment processes are nice, but optional with regards to national need and the higher echelons of government . We don't hold elections in times of war, for example, there's no specific 'recruitment process' for appointing ministers and assembling a Cabinet, and we don't interview for a new Royal Family every three years.

To reiterate, as far as I can ascertain, the Prime Minister is simply handed a list of suitable personages in government employ that are currently available for redeployment by the Cabinet Secretary, and she picks one. Like Ministerial portfolios, nobody sits there and sifts these positions to ensure there's sufficient ethnic diversity, etc, because 'Downing Street HR' does not have the ability to overrule the highest governmental position in the land. It's a bit weird to assume they should, primarily because 'Downing Street HR' don't actually exist in that sense. I mean, are you advocating appointing some sort of Parliamentary oversight for appointments made by the Prime Minister?

It doesn't need to be thirty, just one; why should there have to be 30 equally placed women before one might be considered against one man?

There doesn't, it was a random number. If you it really makes you feel better about my previous statement, insert an appropriate number pleasing to your eye. I won't quibble, pick any number between one and infinite. What a strange thing to comment on.

What about, religious beliefs, race etc etc. I'm not insinuating anyone is sexist consciously, but sub-conscious bias as I described above are prevalent in us all (as this discussion highlights) including in myself. That's why you need a fair and equal recruitment process to ensure that these biases don't come out to play (and is why there is still such a differential in women/men pay etc).

You more or less out and out implied that Theresa May was being sexist towards women in her appointments. Which comes off as as pretty bizare, given her track record there (and own gender). If that wasn't what you meant to imply, you might want to reword.

It's pretty obvious that a new Ambassador was needed, and the most obvious person immediately available got the tap on the shoulder.

This does not deny any of the other clearly apparent problems of the whole situation, of course.

May could have told the EU that the choice of a new ambassador needed thought and care, and got some breathing space for her overall planning.

Some of the EU countries aren't out of their Christmas-New Year holidays yet.

 Ketara wrote:
I very politely disagree with that, on the basis that this is reality, where perfect recruitment processes are nice, but optional with regards to national need and the higher echelons of government .

Of course by doing so you continue the theme of subconscious bias that leads to things such as male/female pay divide or that lack of opportunities for those from smaller ethnic communities because there will always be the argument that there is a national need not to have someone in high profile positions. Parliament and the government shouldn't run reports on how to improve such things for the more marginalised groups and allow anybody to exceed to CEO level and so on if they themselves aren't willing to put into practice those same ideals (it is just do as we say, not as we do mentality).

We don't hold elections in times of war, for example, there's no specific 'recruitment process' for appointing ministers and assembling a Cabinet, and we don't interview for a new Royal Family every three years.

I know Brexit is dividing the country but we haven't quite got to Civil War (yet anyway). As for cabinet there is some argument that they should also be allocated by fair and open selection process (because it goes back to getting the best people not just the nodding dogs). With regards to the royal family then that is probably a debate left for another topic. We are a monarchy, but I can definitely see the argument that having a large diplomatic clout just because you were born to certain parents, whose relatives in the dim and distant past hung/stabbed/chopped off the head of someone else is likely not the best way to choose a good candidate for such duties!

To reiterate, as far as I can ascertain, the Prime Minister is simply handed a list of suitable personages in government employ that are currently available for redeployment by the Cabinet Secretary, and she picks one. Like Ministerial portfolios, nobody sits there and sifts these positions to ensure there's sufficient ethnic diversity, etc, because 'Downing Street HR' does not have the ability to overrule the highest governmental position in the land. It's a bit weird to assume they should, primarily because 'Downing Street HR' don't actually exist in that sense. I mean, are you advocating appointing some sort of Parliamentary oversight for appointments made by the Prime Minister?

No I'm advocating a fair and equal recruitment selection process that gives all candidates an equal opportunity to demonstrate why they are best for the job (which is HR's job) and not by people making judgements as to who they think is suitable for the job. The latter allows sub-conscious bias because they may not be considering all information in a equally selective way (for example they may simply know more about one candidate than another because they have played pool or been down the pub with them more often). If that bias comes, for example, from playing golf with them at a men's only club then that can lead to sub-conscious bias because of the selective way that the information was obtained. It's not conscious sexism in this case, it's nurtured bias from past activities.

It doesn't need to be thirty, just one; why should there have to be 30 equally placed women before one might be considered against one man?

There doesn't, it was a random number. If you it really makes you feel better about my previous statement, insert an appropriate number pleasing to your eye. I won't quibble, pick any number between one and infinite. What a strange thing to comment on.

It was more to highlight what I was saying is that we are all sub-consciously biased. There is no such thing as a random number generator in our head. What it shows is that you excluded using one woman as an example because you needed a random number of women. What that indicates is a sub-conscious favouritism towards male employees. It's not that you are consciously biased, but you chose a number that was greater than the number of men which indicates that one man is worth more than one woman.

You more or less out and out implied that Theresa May was being sexist towards women in her appointments. Which comes off as as pretty bizare, given her track record there (and own gender). If that wasn't what you meant to imply, you might want to reword.

Hmmm where did I say this?

 Whirlwind wrote:
As for cabinet there is some argument that they should also be allocated by fair and open selection process (because it goes back to getting the best people not just the nodding dogs)

You are essentially advocating for a technocracy of sorts, if you think cabinet appointments should be made made on the basis of skillsets and selection procedures.

No I'm advocating a fair and equal recruitment selection process that gives all candidates an equal opportunity to demonstrate why they are best for the job (which is HR's job) and not by people making judgements as to who they think is suitable for the job.

But Prime Ministerial appointments are not made in that way, or a host of other kinds. There's no HR department overseeing who gets to be the Chief of the Defence Staff, or promotion to the House of Lords.

If you think all posts in the Government should be opened up to some sort of general HR department that has complete priority and authority, you are welcome to advocate for it, but I'm probably not the one you should be talking to.

It was more to highlight what I was saying is that we are all sub-consciously biased. There is no such thing as a random number generator in our head. What it shows is that you excluded using one woman as an example because you needed a random number of women. What that indicates is a sub-conscious favouritism towards male employees. It's not that you are consciously biased, but you chose a number that was greater than the number of men which indicates that one man is worth more than one woman.

Hardly. It could also be because I read the word 'thirty' in another post a minute beforehand and it stuck in my head, because I read an equivalent example elsewhere earlier that day, because it is my favourite number, or an almost infinite multitude of other reasons both conscious and not. Leave the highly amateur (and mildly offensive) psychological readings elsewhere, please.

Hmmm where did I say this?

I should think you can read back two or three posts of your own without my needing to go back and quote it. I reiterate, if that wasn't what you meant to imply, you might want to reword, as clearly at least two posters have drawn that impression from your words.

 Ketara wrote:

You are essentially advocating for a technocracy of sorts, if you think cabinet appointments should be made made on the basis of skillsets and selection procedures.

Partially, as a full Technocracy would be people based on their skill sets and expertise, but that would mean reducing democracy. I'm more highlighting that the positions should be filled from the MPs that are the best candidate for the job from those available. At least it would avoid having Boris the Clown as Foreign Secretary.

But Prime Ministerial appointments are not made in that way, or a host of other kinds. There's no HR department overseeing who gets to be the Chief of the Defence Staff, or promotion to the House of Lords.
If you think all posts in the Government should be opened up to some sort of general HR department that has complete priority and authority, you are welcome to advocate for it, but I'm probably not the one you should be talking to.

I think you are confusing fair and open employment with having a HR department which isn't the case. You can have open and fair employment practices without a HR department. They are there to make sure you are acting legally and within the law (for example if the vacating EU representative feels that he was constructively dismissed because of MP manoeuvring then that is something HR would get involved with). This is something more fundamental in that you should have an open process so that all candidates can explain to the panel why they might be the best candidate. That avoids biased pre-selection which can both result in the not best candidate being chosen and lets other sub-conscious biases arise which we are trying to remove. You are misunderstanding the purpose of what a HR department does; they aren't there to make decisions over the person in charge. You can have fair and open selection methods without a HR department and conversely you can have unfair and discriminatory selection methods even if the company has a HR department.

Hardly. It could also be because I read the word 'thirty' in another post a minute beforehand and it stuck in my head, because I read an equivalent example elsewhere earlier that day, because it is my favourite number, or an almost infinite multitude of other reasons both conscious and not. Leave the highly amateur (and mildly offensive) psychological readings elsewhere, please.

It's not meant to be offensive, but it's also known that our everyday wording/posture/body language can all give away sub-conscious prejudices which we all have. There's also an argument that we don't truly have consciousness but is an outcome of our nature and nurture. There is plenty of evidence to indicate that the decisions we make happened seconds before we actually aware that we are going to write/do/act (from brain studies). As such those numbers we come out with aren't random, they are pre-determined at a sub-conscious level which is subject to our individual upbringing. Therefore those stated numbers do highlight some sub-conscious thinking on your part. That doesn't been you are extrovertly sexist though!

I should think you can read back two or three posts of your own without my needing to go back and quote it. I reiterate, if that wasn't what you meant to imply, you might want to reword, as clearly at least two posters have drawn that impression from your words.

I did and cannot find the reference inferring that May made a decision on a sexist basis. The nearest I can get to is

Not really what I meant. Given the governments push to try and ensure equality in the workplace (equal pay for both sexes and background) and a fairer representation of the working population (I.e. not most bosses are 50+ white males) the fact that they have plumped for a white, bearded 50+ male is a bit questionable if they haven't gone through a fair selection process rather than just picking a 'mate' from the pub. There may be a more qualified woman etc that might not have even had a look in. It's almost worth an FOI request...hmmmm. "

but there is no reference to May, it was your response to it that raised May's name so I'm still confused as to what you are referring to?

 Whirlwind wrote:

I think you are confusing fair and open employment with having a HR department which isn't the case. You can have open and fair employment practices without a HR department. They are there to make sure you are acting legally and within the law (for example if the vacating EU representative feels that he was constructively dismissed because of MP manoeuvring then that is something HR would get involved with). This is something more fundamental in that you should have an open process so that all candidates can explain to the panel why they might be the best candidate. That avoids biased pre-selection which can both result in the not best candidate being chosen and lets other sub-conscious biases arise which we are trying to remove. You are misunderstanding the purpose of what a HR department does; they aren't there to make decisions over the person in charge. You can have fair and open selection methods without a HR department and conversely you can have unfair and discriminatory selection methods even if the company has a HR department.

I understand what you are saying, but the fact remains that your issue is essentially with the process in place.

It's not meant to be offensive, but it's also known that our everyday wording/posture/body language can all give away sub-conscious prejudices which we all have.

It is also well known that sub-conscious prejudices can bias analysis of sub-conscious prejudice.Your psychological profiling of me could be tainted by an unconscious desire to root out sexists due to a traumatic personal experience with a misogynist at some point in your life.

There's also an argument that we don't truly have consciousness but is an outcome of our nature and nurture. There is plenty of evidence to indicate that the decisions we make happened seconds before we actually aware that we are going to write/do/act (from brain studies). As such those numbers we come out with aren't random, they are pre-determined at a sub-conscious level which is subject to our individual upbringing. Therefore those stated numbers do highlight some sub-conscious thinking on your part. That doesn't been you are extrovertly sexist though!

Does it have to be sub-conscious? I could be lying to you, and have picked the number thirty because it holds some specific relevance to myself which you are unaware of. I could go on with other reasons, but frankly?

You tried to score some kind of obscure personal point by saying that I (personally) equated men as worth more than woman which therefore indicates that I possess, to quote directly, a 'sub-conscious favouritism towards male employees'. We have now established though, that your psychological analysis is only one of a vast, vast number of reasons why I could have typed what I did (and that your own biases could come into play in the analysis), and that you have no real grounds for believing that comment accurate.

Claiming 'It's not meant to be offensive' either means you are lying or need to be far, far more aware of how such accusations and implications towards other people are received, especially when there's so little basis for them. I'll assume the latter is the case here, but you need to think about what you type a little more carefully if you don't want people to perceive you in a negative way.

I did and cannot find the reference inferring that May made a decision on a sexist basis. The nearest I can get to is

Not really what I meant. Given the governments push to try and ensure equality in the workplace (equal pay for both sexes and background) and a fairer representation of the working population (I.e. not most bosses are 50+ white males) the fact that they have plumped for a white, bearded 50+ male is a bit questionable if they haven't gone through a fair selection process rather than just picking a 'mate' from the pub. There may be a more qualified woman etc that might not have even had a look in. It's almost worth an FOI request...hmmmm. "

but there is no reference to May, it was your response to it that raised May's name so I'm still confused as to what you are referring to?

Given that May is the 'they' mentioned in the quote there about the person doing the hiring, she's by definition the one you're talking about.The rest of the quote is about equality, and how a more qualified woman might have been passed over (the implication being that this is due to sexism). In other words, you implied that May might have made a hiring decision that was sexist towards women.

Whirlwind, if you think Theresa May, a woman herself, has been sexist by overlooking more qualified women to appoint Tim Barrow, then cite somebody. Give an example of a woman, or ethnic minority, or someone of whatever special grievance groups you think are discriminated against, who are better qualified than Tim Barrow. Prove your case.

Is it really so hard to believe that Tim Barrow was selected on merit? That he was simply the best qualified candidate with the greatest depth of experience available? He's certainly better qualified than his predecessor.

This entire discussion is absurd.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Is it really so hard to believe that Tim Barrow was selected on merit? That he was simply the best qualified candidate with the greatest depth of experience available? He's certainly better qualified than his predecessor.

Looking it over, I think Whirlwind's original premise was that the replacement was selected so quickly, there can't possibly have been time for there to have been a thorough selection process with all interested candidates putting their names forward, and a shortlist carefully vetted and selected from. Hence his comments about women potentially being passed over on subconscious sexist grounds.

I suspect however, Whirlwind may have posted that without looking into the process in depth enough to realise that May was the one making the decision. If you assume ignorance of that fact on his part at that stage, then his comment makes sense. But as he never subsequently posted any retraction/clarification of his earlier comment, but rather just jumped right into debating the validity of the appointment process and accusations of sub-conscious sexism, we're just assuming that he was aware of that fact when he might not have been.

I say this because I think he's probably not daft enough to accuse May of sexism towards the ladies. I suspect if he'd known she was the one doing the appointing, he'd have made a comment instead about how it could be a black person being passed over or somesuch to make the point he was trying to make.

Nevertheless, I still challenge him to cite better qualified and experienced female diplomats than Tim Barrow, if he's so certain that A) one exists and B) they were discriminated against because of gender.

I think its more likely that the May government were already eyeing up Tim Barrow as a replacement for Ivan Rogers, so Rogers simply jumped before he was pushed. The "selection" process was so quick because Barrows had already been selected, and in any case it had to be quick as the clock is ticking. May can't afford to dither for weeks and months, she needs a replacement right now.

I doubt they'd already selected Barrow personally.

I assume though, that Barrow had made them aware of his desire to relocate previously. It's also about time for a rotation of his role anyway (ambassadorial staff usually get recalled every five years or so to stop any risk of going native). So his name was already most likely on the Cabinet Secretary's desk as needing a fresh placement. So when the shock announcement came in about Rogers, the Secretary probably mooted the name and pedigree to May along with five or six others in similar positions. Then she picked the one she liked the look of most (which was Barrow) and that was that.

A bit like most ambassadorial/cabinet appointments really.

I'm sure there are be equally qualified and even better female diplomats about. It's be daft to underestimates they or assume otherwise.

But how many of them were for deployment or the like at that time, is potentially a different question. Or whether they shared the same area of expertise. I think Krysta probably had the right of it. However considering his intentions of leaving were already known, I think there would almost certainly lists drawn up already. Maybe blog quite specifically for that private showing bird in general, I'd imagine so.

Well yes, I did say just that. "The best candidate available".

Its also worth keeping in mind that its a political appointment, not some corporate executive role. The normal rules of employment discrimination do not apply. Even if a better qualified female diplomat was available, May isn't going to appoint her if she's politically opposed to Brexit, or has close ties with another party, or has publicly spoken out against Brexit/May/the Government. Etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Meanwhile, in other news...

The Queen was reportedly almost shot by one of her own Guards when she went for a walk in the gardens at 3am and made him gak himself...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4089120/The-Queen-SHOT-one-guards-took-3am-stroll-Buckingham-Palace-grounds.html

The guard confessed to Her Majesty he had nearly fired his weapon, to which she quipped: 'Next time I'll ring through beforehand so you don't have to shoot me.'

"Can you tell me why you left your previous role?"


"I committed Regicide."

At any rate, I wheely hope that the EU don't push Barrow around

Ok, ok, I admit I stole that from somewhere else

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
At any rate, I wheely hope that the EU don't push Barrow around

Ok, ok, I admit I stole that from somewhere else

Wheelie?

 Ketara wrote:
It is also well known that sub-conscious prejudices can bias analysis of sub-conscious prejudice.Your psychological profiling of me could be tainted by an unconscious desire to root out sexists due to a traumatic personal experience with a misogynist at some point in your life.

Would it help to know that I've been trained to look out for this sort of thing as part of my career? Also you can rest assured knowing that I haven't had a traumatic experience with someone who hates women, primarily because I can't see why that would be traumatic at all for myself.

Does it have to be sub-conscious? I could be lying to you, and have picked the number thirty because it holds some specific relevance to myself which you are unaware of. I could go on with other reasons, but frankly?

Well I am assuming you aren't lying. I do try and take what you say as what you believe as the truth (again I'd point out that there is research showing that our brains can actually deceive us and recall something that is factually incorrect). Would you prefer I assumed that you are?

You tried to score some kind of obscure personal point by saying that I (personally) equated men as worth more than woman which therefore indicates that I possess, to quote directly, a 'sub-conscious favouritism towards male employees'. We have now established though, that your psychological analysis is only one of a vast, vast number of reasons why I could have typed what I did (and that your own biases could come into play in the analysis), and that you have no real grounds for believing that comment accurate.

There were was no point scoring involved or belittle who or what you are. I would quite freely accept that I also have biases if you repeated the same thing. In fact I'd be quite happy for these to be pointed out as in principle it lets me become a better person by recognising them and attempting to control them.

Claiming 'It's not meant to be offensive' either means you are lying or need to be far, far more aware of how such accusations and implications towards other people are received, especially when there's so little basis for them. I'll assume the latter is the case here, but you need to think about what you type a little more carefully if you don't want people to perceive you in a negative way.

Hmmm, that's just an argument that you shouldn't say anything that in case it upsets someone. However it's exactly that attitude that leads us to biased sub-conscious thoughts developing. Challenging biases is the best way to ensure that they don't become more firmly rooted over time. I could even point to the whole conversation in this. Most people here are not questioning whether it was a fair and open employment process without evidence yet to question it opens a storm and a challenge that there is no evidence either way (which I agree hence the use of *if* in the terminology because the only area of concern was just how quickly the process was completed). However given that shows some sub-conscious bias already. There's a big difference between open bias (which is pretty obvious and easily controlled) versus a subconscious bias. Most people argue against the former strongly but the idea that an individual themselves are biased is strongly resisted because it is felt to be a slur against them personally without recognising that we all are and it is the small things that give away those small sub-conscious biases. For myself I could point out that I've concentrated on women equalities whereas it is not the only equality issue that could have been biased against. That the discussion became focussed on women vs men debate is not actually what I wanted but was due to me being was sloppy by using etc at the start and that focussed the argument. However it also applies to race, religion, sexual preference as well and that the selection method could have easily been biased against these groups if it wasn't fair and open. That I highlighted only women might mean that I am sub-consciously biased to think that women equality is slightly more important. I'm not extrovertly racist and so on but it might show a slight sub-conscious tendency, but then I have recognised that and I can challenge my subconscious and train myself to be less so (but knowing that I can never be truly unbiased). People fear the idea that themselves and people they respect can be sub-consciously biased therefore they resist the thought they can be (and hence over-react to challenges on it).

Given that May is the 'they' mentioned in the quote there about the person doing the hiring, she's by definition the one you're talking about.The rest of the quote is about equality, and how a more qualified woman might have been passed over (the implication being that this is due to sexism). In other words, you implied that May might have made a hiring decision that was sexist towards women.

You see this is another example of sub-conscious bias. You know that I am pretty negative about May and hence have read 'they' as Empress Maybe. Yet you've failed to consider that I said 'they' because at the time I wrote the statement I didn't know who had made the decision and hence I used a broader term. You've also missed that I used the word 'if', hence it's not an outright accusation of pre-selection bias (whether that's on the nature of peoples sex, race, religion and so on); it's questioning whether it could be an open and transparent process if they made the decision in one day and if it wasn't and they just found someone that appeared suitable that could open the significant risk that sub-conscious bias comes into play. The sub-conscious bias in your brain has made you read it in a way that the sub-conscious part of my brain has not written it. Rest assured that if I felt Empress Maybe was being sexist then I would say this openly...

Could we please drop the psycho-analysing of other Dakka members? Its borderline rude.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Whirlwind, if you think Theresa May, a woman herself, has been sexist by overlooking more qualified women to appoint Tim Barrow, then cite somebody. Give an example of a woman, or ethnic minority, or someone of whatever special grievance groups you think are discriminated against, who are better qualified than Tim Barrow. Prove your case.

Is it really so hard to believe that Tim Barrow was selected on merit? That he was simply the best qualified candidate with the greatest depth of experience available? He's certainly better qualified than his predecessor.

This entire discussion is absurd.

That you feel the discussion is absurd shows just how far we still have to go. The question is whether you could have had a fair and equitable process to determine merit and allow everyone to put forward their case by themselves rather than potentially (given the short timespan) have someone decide which person appears to have better experience from just records.

Imagine you would have liked to have gone for a job but found out they gave to someone else simply on the basis that they were known about. No application, no interview, no chance to sell yourself.

That May is female is irrelevant - as I have pointed out previously that doesn't guarantee sub-conscious bias still exists because the women were just as critical of other women candidates as the men were (and less critical of men just as the men were). The fact that we could think that because there is woman in charge makes it less likely to be biased is in itself a sub-conscious bias.

As for an example of a potentially qualified diplomat, how about Jane Marriott?
Worked for Cabinet Office
Worked for Home Office
Ambassador to Sana’a, Yemen
FCO Director for the Middle East and North Africa
Deputy and Acting Ambassador to Tehran
Adviser to the US Special Representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan
FCO’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Team

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Could we please drop the psycho-analysing of other Dakka members? Its borderline rude.

Well we all do it all the time, so there's not really any change...it's just human nature.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Would it help to know that I've been trained to look out for this sort of thing as part of my career? Also you can rest assured knowing that I haven't had a traumatic experience with someone who hates women, primarily because I can't see why that would be traumatic at all for myself.

You wouldn't know. Hence the word 'sub-conscious'.

Well I am assuming you aren't lying. I do try and take what you say as what you believe as the truth (again I'd point out that there is research showing that our brains can actually deceive us and recall something that is factually incorrect). Would you prefer I assumed that you are?

If it really makes you feel better, the number 'thirty' is random. But it's a phrase I use quite frequently in relation to many other things in similar sentence structures. eg. 'Are you sure this is the only newsagent around?' 'Well, there could be thirty other shops about the place, but this is the only one I know'.

There were was no point scoring involved or belittle who or what you are. I would quite freely accept that I also have biases if you repeated the same thing. In fact I'd be quite happy for these to be pointed out as in principle it lets me become a better person by recognising them and attempting to control them.

No, it was point scoring. As I have established multiple times now, trying to play amateur psychologist on the internet like this is incredibly inaccurate off such a tenuous example. It added nothing to the discussion, namely the fact an ambassador had resigned and a new ambassador had been appointed. It was a completely personal tangent targeted at me personally. Me or my potential biases have no real relation to the subject matter at hand, unless you are attempting to discredit something I am saying via ad hominem. Aka, point scoring.

You can try and deny it, but in light of the fact you just claimed you want your own biases pointed out in order to control them, that would be a strange thing to do.

Hmmm, that's just an argument that you shouldn't say anything that in case it upsets someone.

No, it's reminding you of basic societal norms. 'Telling it like it is' is the sort of argument usually reserved for people who like talking loudly about how black people are thick, Jews are thieves, and transgenders special attention snowflakes. Do you really want to start pulling out the same kind of lines as people like that?

However it's exactly that attitude that leads us to biased sub-conscious thoughts developing. Challenging biases is the best way to ensure that they don't become more firmly rooted over time.

When there is sufficient evidence, yes. One idiosyncratic phrase that you're defending an over-extensive and inaccurate analysis of to the death is not it. A brick does not a pyramid build.

You see this is another example of sub-conscious bias. You know that I am pretty negative about May and hence have read 'they' as Empress Maybe. Yet you've failed to consider that I said 'they' because at the time I wrote the statement I didn't know who had made the decision and hence I used a broader term.

I assumed that if you were so considerably outraged as to be considering lodging a FOI request, you'd be aware of the basic selection process already. Would you prefer I assume you ignorant in the future?

You've also missed that I used the word 'if', hence it's not an outright accusation of pre-selection bias (whether that's on the nature of peoples sex, race, religion and so on); it's questioning whether it could be an open and transparent process if they made the decision in one day and if it wasn't and they just found someone that appeared suitable that could open the significant risk that sub-conscious bias comes into play. The sub-conscious bias in your brain has made you read it in a way that the sub-conscious part of my brain has not written it.

Errr....

Ketara wrote:The rest of the quote is about equality, and how a more qualified woman might have been passed over (the implication being that this is due to sexism). In other words, you implied that May might have made a hiring decision that was sexist towards women.

Note the word 'might' used twice there, and the word 'implication'. Because you used the word 'if'. It's pretty clearly stated it was an insinuation on your part. And at least one other poster detected the same insinuation.

In other words, perhaps the onus might be on you for unclear wording? For a man who apparently likes to recognise his own sub-conscious biases, you seem to spend a lot of time (both here and elsewhere) putting all responsibility for communication on the other party and refusing to accept any possibility of flaw on your own end.

https://www.neweurope.eu/article/moodys-places-u-k-italy-negative-outlook/

Moody’s is about to place Britain and Italy on a negative credit rating outlook amidst a sharp rise in political risk globally, Reuters reported on Thursday.

Political insecurity puts one in four rated sovereigns in a negative outlook, the highest since the peak of the euro crisis, according to Moody’s managing director Alastair Wilson.

The credit agency is focusing on the Brexit strain on the U.K’s economy and looming possibility of elections. “Brexit is negative for the UK from a credit perspective, the question is how negative,” Wilson said.

In Europe, Moody’s rates Britain under triple -A at Aa1; Italy tumbles to Baa2 Italy.

The agency will review the British economy on June 2nd and September 22nd when Brexit negotiations will be at an advanced stage. Then, according to Wilson, London could see its credit rating decline further.

Moody’s is due to review the UK on June 2 and then on September 22. By then formal EU divorce proceedings should have started, and Wilson said the “mood music” of the talks should be enough to decide whether to strip London of its Aa1 rating.

Meanwhile, Italy is facing its banking problems, and the issue at hand is whether the €20bn set aside by the Italian government will suffice. There is also the question of whether Italy will go to the polls, which at the moment would mean that the anti-Euro Five Star party could come to power.

Italy is clearly a systemic issue for the single currency as such, Moody’s estimates.

Political risk is also becoming a factor in France. The French Presidential-aspirant Marine Le Pen suggested on Wednesday that France should leave the Euro, but suggested an ordered Europe-wide retreat to the ECU.

Good times.