You've actually inadvertantly made a good point there. I've seen horrific bullying in the work place. People literally harangued on a daily basis. Compared to being told over the internet that your picture is "stunning", it would be immeasurably worse. 100s of times worse and then some. Yet, whereas bullying such as I've seen, that can genuinely destroy people's lives, can be dealt with perhaps with a warning of further action by an employer, there are some such as yourself who would argue the absurdity that Parliament's intention when introducing equal rights legislation, was that a person who has complimented somebody's picture should be prosecuted for having committed a criminal offence. When people say that p.c. is 'the world gone mad', they couldn't find a better example, than by reading Powerspurs's posts on here.
It's pointless arguing with him Bobby. He is not here to have a discussion, but to advertise his racist and sexist beliefs.
Then this film deserves total contempt. Especially for its Gozerism, and refusing to acknowledge the rights of pan-dimensional beings to choose their gender manifestation when coming to destroy worlds.
Aside from your consistent bias toward one gender over another which is so extreme as to appear to preclude consideration of the other gender's position entirely, I've seen at least two comments of your where you have appeared to actively condone the persecution of people based on their race and gender. Your arguments remind me of the very reason why equal rights legislation actually was brought in decades ago, in the dark days when discrimination was a genuine threat to society, rather than a game of 'spot the infringement'.
It's only racist if you think that colour of skin is the cause of the knife violence. Casual observance of the facts that black teenagers are more likely to be involved in knife crime is not very helpful unless you bring in class, culture and socialisation. Having the stats is one thing, correctly drawing conclusions from them is another. There is no point to that stat unless it is to formulate a policy to deal with it. On its own, the action would be to clamp down on young black men, when that would miss the point.
I've shown no such bias. If the junior barrister had been male and the senior solicitor female or any other combination I would have argued exactly the same way. Please post the comments you are referring to
Completely agree with this. And it's one of the major problems concerning the original issue raised (and which I still intend to come back to), of the 'gender pay war'. People are shown a graph with two lines on, told it shows sexual discrimination, and they believe it. And any business who dares to say 'ummm, actually it's not quite as simple as that' becomes the latest target of the vitreol (eg saatchi and saatchi).
I would agree if it was an isolated instance. But if young women trying to use a business networking site get their inboxes full of messages from men hitting on them then that means they are at a disadvantage to their male colleagues. That is not a good outcome and can only be solved by publicising it. "
So we're getting an all-woman Oceans Eleven movie. That's the next nine months of Anita Sarkeesian's ill-informed Youtube videos taken care of then...
By the way I agree with you that the recipient of the comment is best placed to judge whether it is offensive. But for some reason you don't extend that courtesy to the female barrister...
I also completely agree. But I've looked at the data in quite some depth and I think it quite clearly demonstrates the sexual and racial discrimination continues to exist. By the way I form my views by analysing the evidence. I don't look for odd bits of info that support my views.
The brand's played out. I don't think that this is a particularly good idea. The film will get negative press from the Ghostbusters fallout and the Ocean's Eleven remake itself being a bit controversial. They'd have been better off starting a whole new heist franchise with an entirely female cast, in my opinion. Put Sandra Bullock, Cate Blanchett, Anne Hathaway, Rihanna, Mindy Kaling and a few rumoured others in it and it has enough draw. Why bother attaching all of this baggage to it from the start?
You've shown consistent bias in my view. Long before you boasted that you would never judge someone (ie the barrister) before you had the full facts, you had already stated that you found her actions more acceptable than that of the solicitor, and that you would be happy to employ her. This patent inconsistancy is a clear example of your bias. Your suggestion that would have supported the same parties had their genders been resolved is also incredulous. If the events were described but with the genders of those involved made annonomous, no reasonable objective person would lend support to the barrister. Furthermore, as you are no doubt fully aware, had the genders been reversed, thte incident would never have happened because he press attention only existed due to the gender bias and agenda of the press. Your comment is therefore fatuous as well as incredulous. With regards to your comments which appear to condone and support the persecution of peoples based on their race and gender, I would include the following : " often in the past there have been classes of people in the world where the people in powerful positions (usually white, older men) have ignored this simple rule and we are now all feeling the backlash." " The box you are being put in is the group that has historically wielded power in the world and has often wielded it to the major disadvantage of some groups. It is just an example of negative feedback." Such comments depict the victimisation of groups in society based on their gender and race (white males) as acceptable. Such victimisation is not acceptable or tolerable, and neither is the tacit approval of it by you or by anybody else.
Odd bits of info? More hours, more danger, less flexibility of hours, less career breaks, prioritising pay... Yeah, just a few irrelevant points.
This again appears to contradict your earlier comments, where you stated, for example : "I tend to agree with Robspur that generally speaking companies don't overtly break the law on remuneration but why do social lawyers get paid less than say corporate lawyers. " Btw, how is it that you have a view before you have looked at the data ? You've just admitted your own bias right there.
So that will be 11 smartly (but non-slutty) dressed women, using their (non-sexual) persuasive wiles on targets of both genders who are not sexual bigots, to pull off a heist ?? <yeah, right>
I wonder who gets to have the appalling cockney accent in this one? Don Cheadle outdid Dick van Dyke.
I guess we know why Helena Bonham-Carter is being mentioned. But there is an immediate Hollywood dichotomy clash. Her as "token English" for cockney accent, or default Hollywood villain nationality (as we complain least about it - no threats of suicide bombers etc) .
