Crispy78 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Jadenim wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
It was actually a very interesting article.

I mean, the sheer amount of effort it must have taken to make something that sexist is astounding.

I know; when I read “male only event with paid escorts”, how could anyone think that wouldn’t lead to trouble? Even without the actual groping, etc. how can you approach an event saying “leave your wives/girlfriends at home and pay a pretty young woman to stand next to you” and think that’s ok?!

Where did you read escorts? They're hostesses, not escorts. This is just tricking young (attractive) women with an 'easy' day of work not at all mentioning the potential for sexual harassment.

As a side note I would assume escorts would charge at least 140 pound an hour or something? Certainly not 140 pounds for 10 hours. The payment really reflects an inadequate compensation for what they also should have been prepared for.

In my brother's line of work he has previously been involved in corporate events for large banks etc. He has told repeated stories of how people attending these events completely assume the female staff are prostitutes, and will just openly ask them 'OK how much for the night then?' etc. Are really quite taken aback when they are turned down.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Jadenim wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
It was actually a very interesting article.

I mean, the sheer amount of effort it must have taken to make something that sexist is astounding.

I know; when I read “male only event with paid escorts”, how could anyone think that wouldn’t lead to trouble? Even without the actual groping, etc. how can you approach an event saying “leave your wives/girlfriends at home and pay a pretty young woman to stand next to you” and think that’s ok?!

Where did you read escorts? They're hostesses, not escorts. This is just tricking young (attractive) women with an 'easy' day of work not at all mentioning the potential for sexual harassment.

As a side note I would assume escorts would charge at least 140 pound an hour or something? Certainly not 140 pounds for 10 hours. The payment really reflects an inadequate compensation for what they also should have been prepared for.

In my brother's line of work he has previously been involved in corporate events for large banks etc. He has told repeated stories of how people attending these events completely assume the female staff are prostitutes, and will just openly ask them 'OK how much for the night then?' etc. Are really quite taken aback when they are turned down.

Its pretty mind boggling that people would just ask this of women at a public event. It just shows such a disconnect from 'normal' human interaction, on top of the likely fact that some at least are married.

 Ketara wrote:
I think anyone who thinks that this is a problem specifically with rich or entitled men is fooling themselves. You should have seen how some of the builders who stayed at the hotel I used to work at used to treat the female staff.

The thing that stands out here is how the staff were expected by management to acquiesce in such revolting behaviours. Whichever company was responsible ought to have the book thrown at them.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Oh no, I agree that wearing lingerie is no excuse.

It's like Ketera said, it looks like this event was designed to have women be sexualised in mind. If the report is accurate of course, but the whole short skirt and corset makes it sound shady from the off.

DAVOS, Switzerland — In the year and a half since Britain’s shocking decision to sever itself from the European Union, Prime Minister Theresa May has labored to portray her country’s future as one of glorious progress. She has described a bold new era in which Britain would look beyond the confines of Europe, striking trade deals and reclaiming its place as a global power.

All the while, an uncomfortable reality has been sinking in. Britain’s stature on the world stage has diminished, and its economy has sagged. The former colonial empire has been reduced to a lesser actor, a reality that hit home on Thursday as Mrs. May delivered a sparsely attended speech before the World Economic Forum.


..
The day before, President Emmanuel Macron of France had received rock star-style treatment from a packed crowd that waited nearly an hour for a chance just to get into the room where he was to speak. People who arrived a moment before Mrs. May’s speech found empty seats within a few rows of the stage.

..

Above all, she cast Britain as a country that is not in retreat.

“The United Kingdom has a proud history of stepping up and seizing the opportunities of our time,” she said. “We stand ready to do so again.”

By that point, several people attending the speech were standing and walking toward the exits.

 reds8n wrote:
TBF even my most pro-brexit/may supporting friends wouldn't want to sit through one of her speeches.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Does anyone have a definitive answer as to what a Transition period Vs an Implementation period is. With regards to the time after Brexit.

Hearing David Davies I am none the wiser.

Spoiler:

Does anyone have a definitive answer as to what a Transition period Vs an Implementation period is. With regards to the time after Brexit.

Hearing David Davies I am none the wiser.

As we prepare for talks on the Implementation Period we start from an incredibly strong position.

MPs and peers were meant to vote on the refurbishment in autumn 2016, shortly after Mrs May became prime minister. However, she sanctioned repeated delays to the Commons vote.

An analysis by The Times found that Mrs May’s decision to delay it has already cost £230 million. Rising costs have increased the bill by £150 million, and the need for more temporary fixes will cost at least £70 million.

What @SamCoatesTimes doesn't say is that the expensive new chamber in Richmond House would not be temporary. It will be permanent, but only used temporarily (for a few years). Waste of taxpayers money thought up by useless "expert" management consultants.

The substantive issue of a customs union really matters to exporters.

In particular, to those companies operating pan-European integrated supply chains; firms purchasing thousands of parts from all across Europe for the production of car or aeroplane components, or those manufacturing pharmaceuticals.

Such manufacturers have communicated very clearly to the top of Government that they need to know, right now, if they will be required to change their systems to apply "rules of origin".

In a free trade agreement, even a comprehensive one, goods being exported from Britain will have to comply with a significant "rules of origin" threshold before being classed as UK content - e.g. 55% for cars.

This is to prevent, for example, an Asian manufacturer from setting up shop in the UK and rebranding their exports as British with only cosmetic UK production.

These are the "rules of origin"; but they are not required within a customs union.

Indeed, a Government deadly serious about leaving the customs union would right now be warning our biggest manufacturers they will have to comply with the subsequent reams of "rules of origin" paperwork.

It was precisely for this reason that Brexit Secretary David Davis wrote five years ago that he was in favour of staying in a customs union - to avoid "rules of origin" requirements.

Mr Davis was confronted with his own past writing on the subject by Labour MP Emma Reynolds during a meeting of the Brexit select committee this week.

This issue is the focus of how, for example, US President Donald Trump is attempting to bring back manufacturing to America.

As a vital part of trade negotiations, "rules of origin" are a potentially potent barrier to trade.

Government engagement with manufacturers on these types of issues has not been wholly successful.

Some report having to explain "rules of origin" to Cabinet ministers who should really have understood them.

At one meeting attended by a Cabinet minister, manufacturers machine-gunned one of the innovative options for post-Brexit customs arrangements floated in a Government white paper.

"It was killed in five minutes," said the representative of one of the world's biggest manufacturers.

They are still wondering what changes to their systems will be required once the UK leaves the EU.

On the ground preparations for new customs arrangements are also rather sparse too.

Motorways leading to and from the port of Dover, where the bulk of cross-Channel traffic moves through, have already been plagued by bouts of near-standstill traffic, and the chaos of Kent Police's Operation Stack.

The Government has looked for permanent solutions to the problems, such as constructing a £250m lorry park in Kent.

But, late last year, the Government withdrew its plans amid legal problems and will not even apply for planning for a new permanent solution until 2019.

An interim plan is due at some point "early this year" and could include physically separating off one lane of the M20 to serve as an effective lorry park.

Local Police and Crime Commissioner, Matthew Scott, told Sky News action on creating new lorry parks - and strengthening the hard shoulder of Kent's motorways - was required "now".

In other cross-Channel ports the planning required for extra space that increased customs checks would entail has not happened.

In many cases, for example in Portsmouth, such space simply does not exist by the harbour.

In theory, inland checking facilities could be created. But, again, there is little sign of such facilities being planned for, or purchased, or let alone actually constructed.

There seems zero chance of having infrastructure in place by 2019 to deal with the customs checks that would be required in the event of a "no deal" Brexit.

The same concern at the prospect of post-Brexit queues at ports also applies across the Channel.

Although, Rotterdam, Zeebrugge and French ports have recently announced recruitment of dozens more customs officers.

So, what exactly is going on?

The issue of customs arrangements have until now been seen mainly through the lens of the restriction on Britain's ability to forge new free trade policies.

Certainly, applying a common external tariff would restrict the UK's negotiating potential with non-EU countries.

It is not quite right, however, to say it would make free trade deals impossible.

Turkey, which is part of the EU's customs union for goods trade, has done deals with Malaysia and Georgia.

The country has also built up its car industry and forms an intrinsic part of the pan-European integrated automotive supply chain.

By contrast, Norway, Switzerland and other nations outside the customs union do not.

.......

The Government may try to fast-track a deal with Australia and New Zealand covering three or four chapters of trade, rather than the normal 30, but the big prizes will take longer.

Many of the biggest fish are waiting not just for the UK to leave the EU, or for their own deals with the EU, but for the UK to settle what its post-Brexit trading arrangements will be with Europe.

The former trade minister Lord Price told Sky News that new deals were, in fact, fifth priority at the Department for International Trade; behind regularising the UK's World Trade Organisation presence and rolling over the free trade deals the UK currently enjoys as a member of the EU.

So, if the great upside of leaving the customs union fully is the signing of new free trade deals - but they will be sparse, and highly unlikely to be implemented in a manner to fully outweigh the likely extra friction in the relationship with the EU - it appears clear why some in Government see a role for a customs union for a couple of years.

 reds8n wrote:

...err... hooray ?!

I live in Kent and when operation Stack goes into action it, basically, feths everything and almost all non local area travel grinds to a halt.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

In my brother's line of work he has previously been involved in corporate events for large banks etc. He has told repeated stories of how people attending these events completely assume the female staff are prostitutes, and will just openly ask them 'OK how much for the night then?' etc. Are really quite taken aback when they are turned down.

Its pretty mind boggling that people would just ask this of women at a public event. It just shows such a disconnect from 'normal' human interaction, on top of the likely fact that some at least are married.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I think this is more of a rich privilege than a male privilege thing. There’s something about these corporate type events where powerful wealthy people think they can do whatever they like. Ordinary people wouldn’t do that, or at least not a whole room of them doing it without comment, it’s something rich powerful men do because they think their power gives them the right to everything, especially the less well off. The women are product for them to sample. Sickening.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

In my brother's line of work he has previously been involved in corporate events for large banks etc. He has told repeated stories of how people attending these events completely assume the female staff are prostitutes, and will just openly ask them 'OK how much for the night then?' etc. Are really quite taken aback when they are turned down.

Its pretty mind boggling that people would just ask this of women at a public event. It just shows such a disconnect from 'normal' human interaction, on top of the likely fact that some at least are married.

I think this is more of a rich privilege than a male privilege thing. There’s something about these corporate type events where powerful wealthy people think they can do whatever they like. Ordinary people wouldn’t do that, or at least not a whole room of them doing it without comment, it’s something rich powerful men do because they think their power gives them the right to everything, especially the less well off. The women are product for them to sample. Sickening.

'Rogue' parking companies face government crackdown

"Rogue" parking companies will be banned from accessing driver data and issuing fines as part of plans to stop "unscrupulous operators".

The government has confirmed it will support new legislation aimed at raising standards among parking firms.

Sajid Javid, the communities secretary, said the legislation will provide "fair, clear and consistent" regulation of the parking industry.

It comes as firms issue almost 13 times more tickets than a decade ago.

Drivers' growing disquiet about the rules on parking are underlined by figures showing nearly 10,000 people approached the Citizens Advice Bureau for guidance on parking tickets last year.

There are complaints of inconsistent practices, substandard signage, confusing appeals processes and intimidating payment letters, said the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

Conservative MP Sir Greg Knight's Parking (Code of Practice) Bill to tackle rogue parking operators is due for its second reading in the House of Commons on Friday, effectively guaranteeing its passage into law.

Firms which don't obey the rules will be blocked from accessing drivers' DVLA records.

This will prevent the firms from issuing fines, effectively forcing them out of the industry.

Mr Javid said drivers have suffered for too long "at the hands of dodgy parking firms".

He said: "That is why government is putting the brakes on these rogue operators and backing new laws that will put a stop to aggressive behaviour and provide a simpler way for drivers to appeal fines."

The department hopes motoring groups and other experts will help the Communities Secretary to develop the code of practice.

Steve Gooding, director of the RAC Foundation, said the move would bring "some much-needed regulatory rigour to the world of private parking".

He added: "Drivers don't want a parking free-for-all, but they do want a system that is fair to all parties and that's what a code of practice set by government - rather than the industry itself - should bring about."

tneva82 wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

In my brother's line of work he has previously been involved in corporate events for large banks etc. He has told repeated stories of how people attending these events completely assume the female staff are prostitutes, and will just openly ask them 'OK how much for the night then?' etc. Are really quite taken aback when they are turned down.

Its pretty mind boggling that people would just ask this of women at a public event. It just shows such a disconnect from 'normal' human interaction, on top of the likely fact that some at least are married.

I think this is more of a rich privilege than a male privilege thing. There’s something about these corporate type events where powerful wealthy people think they can do whatever they like. Ordinary people wouldn’t do that, or at least not a whole room of them doing it without comment, it’s something rich powerful men do because they think their power gives them the right to everything, especially the less well off. The women are product for them to sample. Sickening.

Funny. I could SWEAR students generally aren't rich but still have plenty of such behaviour. Guess I was worse financially as a student than I thought then.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:


I’ve never been to any event where the students attendees thought all the serving staff were prostitutes they could pay to take home. Sounds like no university of college I’ve experience of.

There’s a difference between chatting up the girl behind the bar, which is what students probably do, and assuming that female staff at an event have only been employed for you to sample before buying to take home. Which is what arrogant wealthy people tend to do, their money gives them the expectation that everything is for sale, and they have the right to have it.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Can anyone explain how David Davis still has a job?

Key members of the cabinet will be shown the government impact assessments in one-to-one meetings with officials this week, before a cabinet sub-committee discussion expected the following Wednesday.

The analysis, drawn up using contributions from across Whitehall, is likely to cause a dispute since cabinet ministers expect it to show that hard Brexit options will stall the economy for years to come. “The impact analysis will put the cat among the pigeons, assuming you believe in experts,” one government source said.

At the end of each of the meetings, which Oliver Robbins, the prime minister’s…

shown the government impact assessments

The government has not carried out any impact assessments of leaving the EU on the UK economy, Brexit Secretary David Davis has told MPs.

Mr Davis said the usefulness of such assessments would be "near zero" because of the scale of change Brexit is likely to cause

...

Opposition MPs have been on the trail of the "Brexit impact assessments" for months. And when David Davis told them they didn't exist, they were quick to highlight some similar-sounding studies he had referred to in the past:

October 2016, asked what assessment the government had made of the impact of Brexit on the economy: "We currently have in place an assessment of 51 sectors of the economy. We are looking at those one by one, but the aim at the end is that this will inform the negotiating approach so that no one gets hurt."
December 2016, to the Brexit Committee: "We are in the midst of carrying out about 57 sets of analyses, each of which has implications for individual parts of 85% of the economy… everything except sectors that are not affected by international trade."
February 2017, in a statement to MPs: "We continue to analyse the impact of our exit across the breadth of the UK economy, covering more than 50 sectors - I think it was 58 at the last count - to shape our negotiating position."
June 2017, on the Andrew Marr Show:"That data's being gathered, we've got 50, nearly 60 sector analyses already done, we've got planning work going on in the customs, we've got planning work going on 22 other issues which are critical, 127 all told."

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
FFS repeal Article 50 until we know what we're doing.

Get this shower of shirts out of the way.