BBC Blog Network

User Profile

MartinW_1

Listed below are comments made by MartinW_1 between Friday, 5th June 2009 and Tuesday, 15th December 2009.

«Newer
Older»

COP15: Climate 'scepticism' and questions about sex 10:07pm on 15 Dec 2009 RE: 254. At 9:51pm on 15 Dec 2009, obrear

> Climate change exists - FACT.
> The exponential increase in fossil fuels in the
> atmosphere has enhanced the greenhouse effect - FACT.
> ...

Are you some sort of Inspector Clouseau tribute band?
'Positive action', not 'positive discrimination' 10:01pm on 20 Oct 2009
Since someone has referred my comment at 171 I'll see if I can re-phrase it without the most painful part of the truth ...

> 169. At 9:00pm on 20 Oct 2009, opaqueentity wrote:
>
> It's sexist. Simple as that. I would hope that
> anyone stopped from standing in their area
> because they were a man takes the party to court.

He couldn't. Some years ago this government changed the law to make it legal to discriminate against men in that way. That's what they mean when they use words like "equality".
'Positive action', not 'positive discrimination' 9:25pm on 20 Oct 2009 > 169. At 9:00pm on 20 Oct 2009, opaqueentity wrote:
>
> It's sexist. Simple as that. I would hope that
> anyone stopped from standing in their area
> because they were a man takes the party to court.

He couldn't. Some years ago ZaNuLiebour changed the law so that it could lawfully exclude men in this way. Obviously you can't exclude ethnic minorities - that's racist - and you can't exclude women - that's sexist - but excluding white men? That's absolutely fine.

As I said earlier - ZaNuLiebour, racist and sexist to its core.
'Positive action', not 'positive discrimination' 7:48pm on 20 Oct 2009
Well done Dave - embracing ZaNuLiebour's core principles of racism and sexism.
Statistical gender bending 6:51pm on 10 Aug 2009 > Yet another media attack against Harriet
> Harman...what a suprise! She's been so busy
> running the country last week, she didn't
> have time to personally correct some typos
> that came out in a report produced by a
> quango that resides in her department.

Don't be an idiot. The figures are not "typos" - they are deliberate falsifications. Try reading Mark Easton's note. She and her department have peddled these figures before and were told then that they are misleading. Now she and her department have repeated the offence and again been told that the figures are misleading. If the misleading figures had been "typos" then she would have issued a correction, but she didn't. Instead she sought to claim that obviously incorrect figures are valid. She's lying. Deliberately.

> Male politicians have been glossing over the
> statistics for years - do they get this level of
> interrogation

Yes. When they lie they get called on it. Harman thinks that as a woman she can tell any self-serving fabrication that she likes with impunity. Judging by your reaction, she is right.

> ...er no!

.. er yes!

> So big deal, you think the story should be that
> women working part-time earn ever so slightly
> more than men working part time...

Unlike Harman's version, that one is actually true. Now why would you sneer at running a story that is true?

However, no, that is not the story to run. The real story is that a senior government minister and her department are persistently stating falsehoods and continue to do so even after those falsehoods have been publicly exposed. There might even be a story about why so much of the mainstream media mindlessly reports Harman's claims even when they know them to be false.
While the cat's away... 8:38pm on 06 Aug 2009 > 112. At 8:16pm on 06 Aug 2009, Susan-Croft wrote:

> I really hope no one is impeding free speech here.

It's well documented that a significant proportion of BBC employees are closely associated with the Labour party (see for example Newsnight's recent "Politics Pen"). So for many of them, pointing out the uncomfortable fact that Harman is just a sexist bigot is akin to walking into a church or mosque and pointing out that there is no god. There are some things you just can't say in front of a believer - especially the truth.
Gender, pay and 'misleading' stats 4:46pm on 14 Jun 2009 > 19. At 00:03am on 14 Jun 2009, Yeltolad wrote:

> Additionally can anyone tell me the occupations
> where males get paid more than females for doing
> the same job?

Well, Mark Easton's original note includes the ONS figure for part-time work that shows women paid more than men - although, amazingly, Harman seems to have overlooked it. I mentioned tennis earlier, where female players get the same money for less work. Finally, google is your friend, search for "39 jobs where women make more than men". For the job at the top of the list - sales engineer - the bias in favour of women is 43%.
Gender, pay and 'misleading' stats 8:52pm on 12 Jun 2009 > 9. At 6:50pm on 12 Jun 2009, Boilerbill wrote:

> The strange thing is that the government and
> opposition, in fact any politician seem
> incapable of using stats at all.

They don't use them as you might expect. They start with a conclusion and then cast around for numbers to back their case. Hence Harman lying to push her women-first agenda.

Even the 12.8 and -3.4 numbers are suspect.

If we look at the Wimbledon tennis tournament, where "pay" (prize money) is fully public, there was much celebration a few years ago when women achieved "equal" pay. However, female tennis players average 2.5 sets per game, while men average 4. So men deliver more than 60% of the product for 50% of the pay, while women deliver less than 40% of the product for the same 50% of the pay. In any sane analysis the women are overpaid and the men underpaid - yet this is called "equality". If similar corrupted definitions apply to the ONS figures (by comparing skilled male workers with unskilled female ones for example) then its quite likely that the true pay gap points the other way.
Relieved and nervous 11:09pm on 05 Jun 2009 RE: 101. sagamix

>> The real problem is that Labour's use of women-only shortlists
>> leaves Gordon with a relatively large number of female MPs -
>> but almost all of them are useless. They fail because they
>> aren't up to the job and never were

> gratuitous - prejudiced - spectacularly ignorant ... jolly well done

You meant to say.

necessary - proportionate - deadly accurate ... jolly well done

It's not my problem if you can't handle the truth. The Labour party is the only British political party that mandates discrimination against half its own supporters, and you are fool enough to defend that. How does it feel to be even more bigoted than the BNP? Labour even had to pervert the legal system to de-criminalise their prejudice.

A woman who stands for Parliament representing any party other than Labour knows that she is the best available candidate. However, a woman that stands as a Labour candidate knows that she is merely the least worst woman. Is it really so hard for you to grasp that deliberate, overt sexism has consequences?

If it makes you feel any better, I do regret writing it, although not for a reason that will bring you any comfort. After today's elimination of Labour from our councils and the strong likelihood that the results of the European Parliament elections will be even worse, Labour are now firmly on course for complete meltdown in the General Election. After three consecutive drubbings even Labour party supporters might start facing facts and I'd hate to be the one that showed them one concrete measure they could use to improve the calibre of their MPs and their chances of returning to power.
Relieved and nervous 7:03pm on 05 Jun 2009 RE: 47. sicilian29

> The Caroline Flint comment that Gordon Brown has an inner circle
> and then the rest of The Cabinet certainly rings true.
> Her assertion that he treats women as window dressing needs to
> be addressed.

It can't be. The real problem is that Labour's use of women-only shortlists leaves Gordon with a relatively large number of female MPs - but almost all of them are useless. They fail because they aren't up to the job and never were. Brown is left with an impossible dilemma. He could abandon the sexist policy of women-only shortlists - but that would alienate the feminocracy, or, he can try to make use of what he has by putting them in visible, undemanding jobs - but then they fail anyway.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

MartinW_1