Warning over jobs as more dramatic council cuts are predicted

READ ALL ABOUT IT: Council leader Spncer Flower at home in Verwood

READ ALL ABOUT IT: Council leader Spncer Flower at home in Verwood

First published in News Dorset Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Chief Reporter

‘NO-ONE will be immune’ from the wide sweeping dramatic cuts to be made by Dorset County Council.

That is the powerful warning by council leader Spencer Flower in an interview with the Dorset Echo.

And he warned that more jobs could be lost as the council seeks to make swinging cuts in a bid to save £48million over the next three years.

Around 200 staff have already been made redundant but the overall reduction in posts had been nearly 500 with removing vacant posts and redeploying staff.

Coun Flower said the council needs to ‘squeeze every penny that they can and that he and the council chiefs have ‘absolute responsibility’ to find this money.

“We have to fundamentally change the way we do things,” he said.

“I will do everything in my power to change process, change the layers of bureaucracy and change the way things have always been done before any frontline services are altered.”

In the most stark warning to date, Coun Flower said: “I have confidence that we will find these savings. It will be our biggest challenge yet but we have got the time to get it right and we will.”

“But just to make it clear this is the most radical and reforming change plan this council has ever experienced and is ever likely to experience again.”

In a hard-hitting meeting three weeks ago, Coun Flower announced that the local authority, which has already identified £18m in savings, must find an additional £30m by 2016/17.

He issued a strong warning to council officers that their ideas were not ‘brave enough’ and asked them to go back to the drawing board to find a further £30million in savings.

Now, three weeks later, an agenda published ahead of the Cabinet meeting on Wednesday identifies £42.4m of savings – which is 90 per cent of the £47million required.

Coun Flower said: “There is still a lot of bureaucracy in council processes and I plan to apply business principles to get the best practice out of the organisation.”

He added: “I would be dishonest if I didn’t say that this could involve jobs being lost – our main cost is payroll and there will be no ‘no go’ areas.”

There is also a planned restructure of the chief executive’s office and the corporate services directorate.

The Forward Together Transformation programme plans to transform the council into a ‘radical and reforming organisation’ which will have significantly reduced financial services.

As part of the plan, councillors, council staff and communities are being asked to come together to come up with ways of supporting council services in the future.

Vast savings are to be made in adult and community services – with at least £12.2million in savings to be made in that department alone.

He said that years of ‘over demand’ has put strain on the department and it goes over budget every year due to the fact that it is a demand-led service.

He said: “Over 50 per cent of our budget is spent on four per cent of the county’s population in adult social care and that is ‘looking to increase’.

Coun Flower added that voluntary organisations and support agencies will be consulted in the restructure to increase working together. A total of £14.6million savings will be made as part of the Whole authority operating strategy – which is described as having ‘far reaching’ projects including restructure.

Although Coun Flower admits the finer details of these savings have not yet been drawn up he pledged that it will be found.

He said: “I haven’t got the details at this point but we will be able to tell the public about this in a few months.”

At the moment many of the Dorset councils are sharing services such as the Dorset Waste Partnership .

Coun Flower said this is crucial for the future: “There is really a partnership mood in Dorset and I am very keen on that – why shouldn’t we all work together?”

The cabinet will meet on Wednesday to agree this report.

Conservative councillor Spencer Flower was elected leader of Dorset County Council in May 2013 for the next four years.
He was the leader of East Dorset District Council and had been in the position for five years.
Coun Flower has spent his working life in engineering, 10 years of which were in various line management roles, followed by 21 years as managing director for two engineering companies.

 

During that time he was described as ‘taking quite radical decisions’ to cope with the council’s financial challenges.
 

Coun Flower was chosen at an annual council meeting following the county elections.
He replaced Angus Campbell who said he was ‘stepping down to give someone else a chance’ after seven years as leader and added that the authority would benefit from ‘new people with new ideas’.

 

The leader chairs all meetings of the council's cabinet and leads on policy development and implementation.
 

Elected as a district councillor in 1999, Coun Flower was appointed leader of the district council nine years later in 2008.
 

He has an almost flawless attendance record for meetings with last year’s records showing he attended 95per cent of meetings.
 

He is the county councillor for Verwood and Three Legged Cross, district councillor for the Holt ward and town councillor for Verwood Town Council.
 

In his own blog, Coun Flower wrote: “The public rightly demand high standards, hard work and a positive approach from their local councils. I believe that in Dorset, while there are sometimes difficult choices to make, we are doing the right things to build a better more sustainable future.”
 

Coun Flower does not get paid a salary by the county council but can claim expenses.
Last year for 2012/2013 he claimed a total of £42,846 across two councils.
At Dorset County Council he claimed £22,476 – of which  £20,370 is the basic allowance and £2,106 was mileage.

 

For East Dorset District Council he claimed £15,576.65 – which includes £10,121.41 for the special responsibility of leader.

  • When asked how Dorset will look in 10 years, Coun Flower said: “In 10 years local government will look radically different and in Dorset it will be quite a departure from the past.

“During the next three years I think people will see a change in what the council can deliver which will be quite a departure from the past.”
He added that he would be surprised if in 10 years’ time anyone said that there was any unnecessary process or staff levels in the council.

Comments (61)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:33am Tue 14 Jan 14

arlbergbahn says...

"No One Is Safe". Sounds like the Godfather threatening to pay you a visit.
I love that his actual Job title is Leader. Aggrandisement there? Do his adoring underlings have to address him as "Dear Leader"?
"No One Is Safe". Sounds like the Godfather threatening to pay you a visit. I love that his actual Job title is Leader. Aggrandisement there? Do his adoring underlings have to address him as "Dear Leader"? arlbergbahn
  • Score: 22

9:04am Tue 14 Jan 14

IDONTKNOWIFITISTRRUE says...

Why don't they start the 'thinning out' process at the top because I guess that the salary n perks of a so-called ' senior' manager or a 'leader' equals or surpasses the wages of 10 of the 'lesser' employees.
Why don't they start the 'thinning out' process at the top because I guess that the salary n perks of a so-called ' senior' manager or a 'leader' equals or surpasses the wages of 10 of the 'lesser' employees. IDONTKNOWIFITISTRRUE
  • Score: 28

11:33am Tue 14 Jan 14

Seb Baker says...

People need to wake up! This government hates local government. They talk about "localism" while cutting resources to the councils that deliver some of our most important local services - lining them up to be privatised, and handed to the private companies that are their donors and friends. This year will see roads unrepaired, day centres cut, youth clubs closed, and support for elderly, disabled and carers slashed. Local authorities have already lost over 25% since 2010, while Whitehall has lost just 8%. We are NOT all in this together.
People need to wake up! This government hates local government. They talk about "localism" while cutting resources to the councils that deliver some of our most important local services - lining them up to be privatised, and handed to the private companies that are their donors and friends. This year will see roads unrepaired, day centres cut, youth clubs closed, and support for elderly, disabled and carers slashed. Local authorities have already lost over 25% since 2010, while Whitehall has lost just 8%. We are NOT all in this together. Seb Baker
  • Score: 23

1:18pm Tue 14 Jan 14

FooWoo says...

I would expect the mayor role to go now as that is a good saving and it would save some poor low paid persons job in the council.

I suspect the brave new council will still have a mayor though.
I would expect the mayor role to go now as that is a good saving and it would save some poor low paid persons job in the council. I suspect the brave new council will still have a mayor though. FooWoo
  • Score: -1

1:29pm Tue 14 Jan 14

February1948 says...

I appreciate that Councillor Flower is not salaried, and he does seem to have sound business sense, but his expenses seem terribly high. Add in the expenses of all the other Councillors and the cost to the local taxpayer seems astonomical. Mileage I can understand, but what was the remainer for? is it me?
I appreciate that Councillor Flower is not salaried, and he does seem to have sound business sense, but his expenses seem terribly high. Add in the expenses of all the other Councillors and the cost to the local taxpayer seems astonomical. Mileage I can understand, but what was the remainer for? is it me? February1948
  • Score: 11

1:31pm Tue 14 Jan 14

ziggystardust says...

Only about 10 years too late. Local Government is a inefficient gravy-train, loaded full of dead-wood all along for the ride, counting up the value in their lucrative pension schemes.

Come work in the real world, where you have to DELIVER real performance, rather than FAKE performance metrics.
Only about 10 years too late. Local Government is a inefficient gravy-train, loaded full of dead-wood all along for the ride, counting up the value in their lucrative pension schemes. Come work in the real world, where you have to DELIVER real performance, rather than FAKE performance metrics. ziggystardust
  • Score: 1

1:51pm Tue 14 Jan 14

PossumGoose says...

Wow – “wide sweeping dramatic” cuts. I think someone on the council’s after a job on the Echo.
Wow – “wide sweeping dramatic” cuts. I think someone on the council’s after a job on the Echo. PossumGoose
  • Score: 1

1:53pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Get a grip says...

FooWoo wrote:
I would expect the mayor role to go now as that is a good saving and it would save some poor low paid persons job in the council.

I suspect the brave new council will still have a mayor though.
There is no Mayor of Dorset County Council.
[quote][p][bold]FooWoo[/bold] wrote: I would expect the mayor role to go now as that is a good saving and it would save some poor low paid persons job in the council. I suspect the brave new council will still have a mayor though.[/p][/quote]There is no Mayor of Dorset County Council. Get a grip
  • Score: 14

2:05pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Parkstreetshufle says...

Maybe if those with massive public pensions did the right thing and handed some back? - and pigs might fly...
Maybe if those with massive public pensions did the right thing and handed some back? - and pigs might fly... Parkstreetshufle
  • Score: -6

2:19pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Tinker2 says...

ziggystardust wrote:
Only about 10 years too late. Local Government is a inefficient gravy-train, loaded full of dead-wood all along for the ride, counting up the value in their lucrative pension schemes. Come work in the real world, where you have to DELIVER real performance, rather than FAKE performance metrics.
Well said and very true!
[quote][p][bold]ziggystardust[/bold] wrote: Only about 10 years too late. Local Government is a inefficient gravy-train, loaded full of dead-wood all along for the ride, counting up the value in their lucrative pension schemes. Come work in the real world, where you have to DELIVER real performance, rather than FAKE performance metrics.[/p][/quote]Well said and very true! Tinker2
  • Score: -6

2:26pm Tue 14 Jan 14

portland rebel says...

they will never be efficient, like all public sector to many overpaid chiefs and to few indians, we have councilors whether they are doing a good job or not claiming expenses that are well in excess of local wages, and they tell us they dont get paid !, and how much of our council tax goes to feather their retirement packages, i could have a nice pension of my own if it was'nt for these parasites.
they will never be efficient, like all public sector to many overpaid chiefs and to few indians, we have councilors whether they are doing a good job or not claiming expenses that are well in excess of local wages, and they tell us they dont get paid !, and how much of our council tax goes to feather their retirement packages, i could have a nice pension of my own if it was'nt for these parasites. portland rebel
  • Score: 1

2:26pm Tue 14 Jan 14

CoogarUK.com says...

No-one is safe. Apart from those at the top, perhaps?
No-one is safe. Apart from those at the top, perhaps? CoogarUK.com
  • Score: 19

2:42pm Tue 14 Jan 14

osmington4 says...

Seb Baker wrote:
People need to wake up! This government hates local government. They talk about "localism" while cutting resources to the councils that deliver some of our most important local services - lining them up to be privatised, and handed to the private companies that are their donors and friends. This year will see roads unrepaired, day centres cut, youth clubs closed, and support for elderly, disabled and carers slashed. Local authorities have already lost over 25% since 2010, while Whitehall has lost just 8%. We are NOT all in this together.
The reason we are sadly in such a mess is because we were governed too long by the the labour party, who drove us into debt and now we are picking up the pieces of the devastation they left behind. It`s a real shame, I for one will never vote for the left again and may well hedge my bets with UKIP.
[quote][p][bold]Seb Baker[/bold] wrote: People need to wake up! This government hates local government. They talk about "localism" while cutting resources to the councils that deliver some of our most important local services - lining them up to be privatised, and handed to the private companies that are their donors and friends. This year will see roads unrepaired, day centres cut, youth clubs closed, and support for elderly, disabled and carers slashed. Local authorities have already lost over 25% since 2010, while Whitehall has lost just 8%. We are NOT all in this together.[/p][/quote]The reason we are sadly in such a mess is because we were governed too long by the the labour party, who drove us into debt and now we are picking up the pieces of the devastation they left behind. It`s a real shame, I for one will never vote for the left again and may well hedge my bets with UKIP. osmington4
  • Score: 1

3:10pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Seb Baker says...

osmington4 wrote:
Seb Baker wrote:
People need to wake up! This government hates local government. They talk about "localism" while cutting resources to the councils that deliver some of our most important local services - lining them up to be privatised, and handed to the private companies that are their donors and friends. This year will see roads unrepaired, day centres cut, youth clubs closed, and support for elderly, disabled and carers slashed. Local authorities have already lost over 25% since 2010, while Whitehall has lost just 8%. We are NOT all in this together.
The reason we are sadly in such a mess is because we were governed too long by the the labour party, who drove us into debt and now we are picking up the pieces of the devastation they left behind. It`s a real shame, I for one will never vote for the left again and may well hedge my bets with UKIP.
If you still believe that simplistic "it's Labour's fault" nonsense, then you have no grasp on global economics. The banking meltdown began in the US, and spread to 75% of the developed world. Labour didn't cause that - but they could and should have regulated the banks better... but remember at the time that the "right" in the US, EU and UK - including Tories - were calling for LESS regulation for their friends in the banks.
[quote][p][bold]osmington4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Seb Baker[/bold] wrote: People need to wake up! This government hates local government. They talk about "localism" while cutting resources to the councils that deliver some of our most important local services - lining them up to be privatised, and handed to the private companies that are their donors and friends. This year will see roads unrepaired, day centres cut, youth clubs closed, and support for elderly, disabled and carers slashed. Local authorities have already lost over 25% since 2010, while Whitehall has lost just 8%. We are NOT all in this together.[/p][/quote]The reason we are sadly in such a mess is because we were governed too long by the the labour party, who drove us into debt and now we are picking up the pieces of the devastation they left behind. It`s a real shame, I for one will never vote for the left again and may well hedge my bets with UKIP.[/p][/quote]If you still believe that simplistic "it's Labour's fault" nonsense, then you have no grasp on global economics. The banking meltdown began in the US, and spread to 75% of the developed world. Labour didn't cause that - but they could and should have regulated the banks better... but remember at the time that the "right" in the US, EU and UK - including Tories - were calling for LESS regulation for their friends in the banks. Seb Baker
  • Score: 12

3:20pm Tue 14 Jan 14

morrisseyobe says...

Smacks to me of gross mismanagement of officers and over spending of councillors to get into this state.
Smacks to me of gross mismanagement of officers and over spending of councillors to get into this state. morrisseyobe
  • Score: 12

5:40pm Tue 14 Jan 14

smilealoft44 says...

These cuts where not cuts of choice, they have been impossed by the goverment. When you look at the make up of people driving these cut through, and the money they have do you really think they care, i think not. Thats why i will be voting UKIP at the next elections. We need change asap roll on May then 2015.
These cuts where not cuts of choice, they have been impossed by the goverment. When you look at the make up of people driving these cut through, and the money they have do you really think they care, i think not. Thats why i will be voting UKIP at the next elections. We need change asap roll on May then 2015. smilealoft44
  • Score: 1

5:57pm Tue 14 Jan 14

JamesYoung says...

Hmmmm.....sadly I think Brown has a case to answer for being the cause of the banking crisis.
Back in time to the late 1990s. Brown starts deregulating the city, ultimately taking regulatory power from the BoE and giving it to the FSA.
Wall Street Banks start to relocate to London.
US President starts to worry and repeals key sections of Class Steagal, implemented after the Great Depression to protect the assets of depositors. US banks are able to lend more and to less suitable clients. Brown further fails to act on an explosion of consumer debt, instead crowing about growth, and ignoring what was being used to pay for it.
2007. Crash. Brown protests that he's innocent. Gets away with it largely because the Tories were no better.
To an extent at least he had an excuse: he couldn't see the future.
Osbubble has no excuse: his lessons were in the very recent past.
Hmmmm.....sadly I think Brown has a case to answer for being the cause of the banking crisis. Back in time to the late 1990s. Brown starts deregulating the city, ultimately taking regulatory power from the BoE and giving it to the FSA. Wall Street Banks start to relocate to London. US President starts to worry and repeals key sections of Class Steagal, implemented after the Great Depression to protect the assets of depositors. US banks are able to lend more and to less suitable clients. Brown further fails to act on an explosion of consumer debt, instead crowing about growth, and ignoring what was being used to pay for it. 2007. Crash. Brown protests that he's innocent. Gets away with it largely because the Tories were no better. To an extent at least he had an excuse: he couldn't see the future. Osbubble has no excuse: his lessons were in the very recent past. JamesYoung
  • Score: -1

6:30pm Tue 14 Jan 14

marabout says...

FooWoo wrote:
I would expect the mayor role to go now as that is a good saving and it would save some poor low paid persons job in the council.

I suspect the brave new council will still have a mayor though.
Mayor..???? There is no Mayor of DCC. Which Mayor are you thinking about?
[quote][p][bold]FooWoo[/bold] wrote: I would expect the mayor role to go now as that is a good saving and it would save some poor low paid persons job in the council. I suspect the brave new council will still have a mayor though.[/p][/quote]Mayor..???? There is no Mayor of DCC. Which Mayor are you thinking about? marabout
  • Score: 6

6:48pm Tue 14 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

Ha ! Excellent. We don't need any of the million non-jobs labour created in the civil service during its reign of socialist terror Britain.
Ha ! Excellent. We don't need any of the million non-jobs labour created in the civil service during its reign of socialist terror Britain. David_divenghy2
  • Score: -8

6:50pm Tue 14 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

osmington4 wrote:
Seb Baker wrote:
People need to wake up! This government hates local government. They talk about "localism" while cutting resources to the councils that deliver some of our most important local services - lining them up to be privatised, and handed to the private companies that are their donors and friends. This year will see roads unrepaired, day centres cut, youth clubs closed, and support for elderly, disabled and carers slashed. Local authorities have already lost over 25% since 2010, while Whitehall has lost just 8%. We are NOT all in this together.
The reason we are sadly in such a mess is because we were governed too long by the the labour party, who drove us into debt and now we are picking up the pieces of the devastation they left behind. It`s a real shame, I for one will never vote for the left again and may well hedge my bets with UKIP.
Wise choice.
[quote][p][bold]osmington4[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Seb Baker[/bold] wrote: People need to wake up! This government hates local government. They talk about "localism" while cutting resources to the councils that deliver some of our most important local services - lining them up to be privatised, and handed to the private companies that are their donors and friends. This year will see roads unrepaired, day centres cut, youth clubs closed, and support for elderly, disabled and carers slashed. Local authorities have already lost over 25% since 2010, while Whitehall has lost just 8%. We are NOT all in this together.[/p][/quote]The reason we are sadly in such a mess is because we were governed too long by the the labour party, who drove us into debt and now we are picking up the pieces of the devastation they left behind. It`s a real shame, I for one will never vote for the left again and may well hedge my bets with UKIP.[/p][/quote]Wise choice. David_divenghy2
  • Score: 4

9:27pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Zummerzet Lad says...

Why not combine all Dorset District/ Borough Councils with the County Council and create a unitary authority which I believe Bournemouth has.
This would mean only one top layer management and would follow in the footsteps of W&PBC and WDDC, which would take this amalgamation one step further.
Plus would I believe reduce a line of Councillors so you would have Town/Parish Councillors and County Councillors only.
Why not combine all Dorset District/ Borough Councils with the County Council and create a unitary authority which I believe Bournemouth has. This would mean only one top layer management and would follow in the footsteps of W&PBC and WDDC, which would take this amalgamation one step further. Plus would I believe reduce a line of Councillors so you would have Town/Parish Councillors and County Councillors only. Zummerzet Lad
  • Score: 4

10:06pm Tue 14 Jan 14

weymouthfox says...

How can expenses of £42,846 possibly be justified? Councillor Flower takes expenses far in excess what many of the County Council staff earn,
The real problem is the huge raft of directors, super managers and supervisors who eat up most of the council's salary bill. No-one has ever been brave enough to recognise and tackle that problem.
How can expenses of £42,846 possibly be justified? Councillor Flower takes expenses far in excess what many of the County Council staff earn, The real problem is the huge raft of directors, super managers and supervisors who eat up most of the council's salary bill. No-one has ever been brave enough to recognise and tackle that problem. weymouthfox
  • Score: 15

10:10pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Thought Provoker says...

I have worked in Local Government for many years and the years of waste have gone! I for one work in excess of 50 hours per week for 37 hours remuneration.
Also don't believe the private sector is more efficient, absolute nonsense, in fact in some listed companies the watse and extravagance is phenomenal!
I know it is always to bash the Local Authority but give the staff and the majority of hard working members some credit!
I have worked in Local Government for many years and the years of waste have gone! I for one work in excess of 50 hours per week for 37 hours remuneration. Also don't believe the private sector is more efficient, absolute nonsense, in fact in some listed companies the watse and extravagance is phenomenal! I know it is always to bash the Local Authority but give the staff and the majority of hard working members some credit! Thought Provoker
  • Score: 11

10:58pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Rocksalt says...

Zummerzet Lad wrote:
Why not combine all Dorset District/ Borough Councils with the County Council and create a unitary authority which I believe Bournemouth has.
This would mean only one top layer management and would follow in the footsteps of W&PBC and WDDC, which would take this amalgamation one step further.
Plus would I believe reduce a line of Councillors so you would have Town/Parish Councillors and County Councillors only.
I have asked this question before. Shropshire County Council went down this route a few years back. Bedfordshire adopted a variation on the theme. The County Council was abolished and replaced by a couple of unitary authorities. Both approached removed an entire tier of local government.
[quote][p][bold]Zummerzet Lad[/bold] wrote: Why not combine all Dorset District/ Borough Councils with the County Council and create a unitary authority which I believe Bournemouth has. This would mean only one top layer management and would follow in the footsteps of W&PBC and WDDC, which would take this amalgamation one step further. Plus would I believe reduce a line of Councillors so you would have Town/Parish Councillors and County Councillors only.[/p][/quote]I have asked this question before. Shropshire County Council went down this route a few years back. Bedfordshire adopted a variation on the theme. The County Council was abolished and replaced by a couple of unitary authorities. Both approached removed an entire tier of local government. Rocksalt
  • Score: 3

10:58pm Tue 14 Jan 14

Rocksalt says...

Zummerzet Lad wrote:
Why not combine all Dorset District/ Borough Councils with the County Council and create a unitary authority which I believe Bournemouth has.
This would mean only one top layer management and would follow in the footsteps of W&PBC and WDDC, which would take this amalgamation one step further.
Plus would I believe reduce a line of Councillors so you would have Town/Parish Councillors and County Councillors only.
I have asked this question before. Shropshire County Council went down this route a few years back. Bedfordshire adopted a variation on the theme. The County Council was abolished and replaced by a couple of unitary authorities. Both approached removed an entire tier of local government.
[quote][p][bold]Zummerzet Lad[/bold] wrote: Why not combine all Dorset District/ Borough Councils with the County Council and create a unitary authority which I believe Bournemouth has. This would mean only one top layer management and would follow in the footsteps of W&PBC and WDDC, which would take this amalgamation one step further. Plus would I believe reduce a line of Councillors so you would have Town/Parish Councillors and County Councillors only.[/p][/quote]I have asked this question before. Shropshire County Council went down this route a few years back. Bedfordshire adopted a variation on the theme. The County Council was abolished and replaced by a couple of unitary authorities. Both approached removed an entire tier of local government. Rocksalt
  • Score: 0

10:03am Wed 15 Jan 14

Tinker2 says...

Rocksalt wrote:
Zummerzet Lad wrote: Why not combine all Dorset District/ Borough Councils with the County Council and create a unitary authority which I believe Bournemouth has. This would mean only one top layer management and would follow in the footsteps of W&PBC and WDDC, which would take this amalgamation one step further. Plus would I believe reduce a line of Councillors so you would have Town/Parish Councillors and County Councillors only.
I have asked this question before. Shropshire County Council went down this route a few years back. Bedfordshire adopted a variation on the theme. The County Council was abolished and replaced by a couple of unitary authorities. Both approached removed an entire tier of local government.
It wasn't just Shropshire; back in 2009 there were 44 district councils abolished in a major shake up. You don't have to look very far to see where this took place as both Cornwall and Wiltshire that have just a single unitary authority.
My view is to stop this hacking away of OUR services through cost cutting -No, reduce the costs by cutting red-tape duplication, building/offices costs, senior management posts, staffing levels and reducing the number of councillors.
Create a larger more efficient unitary authority which can provide better, clearer services from a stronger council which would have greater power to champion their locality. At the same time boost the area of grass roots accountablity and responsibility to the town and parish councils; Keeping it local.
How can this be achieved?
[quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zummerzet Lad[/bold] wrote: Why not combine all Dorset District/ Borough Councils with the County Council and create a unitary authority which I believe Bournemouth has. This would mean only one top layer management and would follow in the footsteps of W&PBC and WDDC, which would take this amalgamation one step further. Plus would I believe reduce a line of Councillors so you would have Town/Parish Councillors and County Councillors only.[/p][/quote]I have asked this question before. Shropshire County Council went down this route a few years back. Bedfordshire adopted a variation on the theme. The County Council was abolished and replaced by a couple of unitary authorities. Both approached removed an entire tier of local government.[/p][/quote]It wasn't just Shropshire; back in 2009 there were 44 district councils abolished in a major shake up. You don't have to look very far to see where this took place as both Cornwall and Wiltshire that have just a single unitary authority. My view is to stop this hacking away of OUR services through cost cutting -No, reduce the costs by cutting red-tape duplication, building/offices costs, senior management posts, staffing levels and reducing the number of councillors. Create a larger more efficient unitary authority which can provide better, clearer services from a stronger council which would have greater power to champion their locality. At the same time boost the area of grass roots accountablity and responsibility to the town and parish councils; Keeping it local. How can this be achieved? Tinker2
  • Score: 1

11:07am Wed 15 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

Efficiency? They employ over 84% female staff across the board I read not long ago (discriminating) , yet laid off 100% more male employees? Meanwhile the female employees were taking more time off sick, how is that efficient?

A recent study in the BMJ shows women take 50% more short-term off sick leave then men across the board:
http://j4mb.wordpres
s.com/2013/12/17/wom
en-take-almost-50-mo
re-short-term-sick-l
eave-than-men/

You want efficiency, stop discriminating against men.
Efficiency? They employ over 84% female staff across the board I read not long ago (discriminating) , yet laid off 100% more male employees? Meanwhile the female employees were taking more time off sick, how is that efficient? A recent study in the BMJ shows women take 50% more short-term off sick leave then men across the board: http://j4mb.wordpres s.com/2013/12/17/wom en-take-almost-50-mo re-short-term-sick-l eave-than-men/ You want efficiency, stop discriminating against men. David_divenghy2
  • Score: 0

4:26pm Wed 15 Jan 14

iansedwell says...

DCC 'Leader', Councillor Flower, warns of 500 job cuts. Inevitably, the great majority of these will be staff at the lower end of the scale, around the £20K bracket.

This won't worry Councillor Flower. He isn't paid a salary by the county council, he claims expenses. For 2012/2013 he claimed a total of £42,846!

In other words he claims in expenses more than twice the salary of the typical person whose job he intends to cut.

We know what that makes him, don't we boys and girls?
DCC 'Leader', Councillor Flower, warns of 500 job cuts. Inevitably, the great majority of these will be staff at the lower end of the scale, around the £20K bracket. This won't worry Councillor Flower. He isn't paid a salary by the county council, he claims expenses. For 2012/2013 he claimed a total of £42,846! In other words he claims in expenses more than twice the salary of the typical person whose job he intends to cut. We know what that makes him, don't we boys and girls? iansedwell
  • Score: 4

7:50pm Wed 15 Jan 14

JamesYoung says...

Tinker2 wrote:
Rocksalt wrote:
Zummerzet Lad wrote: Why not combine all Dorset District/ Borough Councils with the County Council and create a unitary authority which I believe Bournemouth has. This would mean only one top layer management and would follow in the footsteps of W&PBC and WDDC, which would take this amalgamation one step further. Plus would I believe reduce a line of Councillors so you would have Town/Parish Councillors and County Councillors only.
I have asked this question before. Shropshire County Council went down this route a few years back. Bedfordshire adopted a variation on the theme. The County Council was abolished and replaced by a couple of unitary authorities. Both approached removed an entire tier of local government.
It wasn't just Shropshire; back in 2009 there were 44 district councils abolished in a major shake up. You don't have to look very far to see where this took place as both Cornwall and Wiltshire that have just a single unitary authority.
My view is to stop this hacking away of OUR services through cost cutting -No, reduce the costs by cutting red-tape duplication, building/offices costs, senior management posts, staffing levels and reducing the number of councillors.
Create a larger more efficient unitary authority which can provide better, clearer services from a stronger council which would have greater power to champion their locality. At the same time boost the area of grass roots accountablity and responsibility to the town and parish councils; Keeping it local.
How can this be achieved?
Centralised functions, a decent sized call centre to deal with residents concerns, and a much reduced number of high calibre councillors, possibly paid, to represent the affected areas.
I think you could look at the structure of multinational companies to understand how you can centralise and still act locally.
[quote][p][bold]Tinker2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocksalt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zummerzet Lad[/bold] wrote: Why not combine all Dorset District/ Borough Councils with the County Council and create a unitary authority which I believe Bournemouth has. This would mean only one top layer management and would follow in the footsteps of W&PBC and WDDC, which would take this amalgamation one step further. Plus would I believe reduce a line of Councillors so you would have Town/Parish Councillors and County Councillors only.[/p][/quote]I have asked this question before. Shropshire County Council went down this route a few years back. Bedfordshire adopted a variation on the theme. The County Council was abolished and replaced by a couple of unitary authorities. Both approached removed an entire tier of local government.[/p][/quote]It wasn't just Shropshire; back in 2009 there were 44 district councils abolished in a major shake up. You don't have to look very far to see where this took place as both Cornwall and Wiltshire that have just a single unitary authority. My view is to stop this hacking away of OUR services through cost cutting -No, reduce the costs by cutting red-tape duplication, building/offices costs, senior management posts, staffing levels and reducing the number of councillors. Create a larger more efficient unitary authority which can provide better, clearer services from a stronger council which would have greater power to champion their locality. At the same time boost the area of grass roots accountablity and responsibility to the town and parish councils; Keeping it local. How can this be achieved?[/p][/quote]Centralised functions, a decent sized call centre to deal with residents concerns, and a much reduced number of high calibre councillors, possibly paid, to represent the affected areas. I think you could look at the structure of multinational companies to understand how you can centralise and still act locally. JamesYoung
  • Score: 0

7:51pm Wed 15 Jan 14

JamesYoung says...

David_divenghy2 wrote:
Efficiency? They employ over 84% female staff across the board I read not long ago (discriminating) , yet laid off 100% more male employees? Meanwhile the female employees were taking more time off sick, how is that efficient?

A recent study in the BMJ shows women take 50% more short-term off sick leave then men across the board:
http://j4mb.wordpres

s.com/2013/12/17/wom

en-take-almost-50-mo

re-short-term-sick-l

eave-than-men/

You want efficiency, stop discriminating against men.
I'm told (but may be wrong) that a greater proportion of senior positions are held by men, as should be the case (men take fewer career breaks and therefore have more experience). However....that also means they are also bigger targets when rationalising and reducing the management structure. So that probably explains your concerns without resorting to misogyny.
[quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: Efficiency? They employ over 84% female staff across the board I read not long ago (discriminating) , yet laid off 100% more male employees? Meanwhile the female employees were taking more time off sick, how is that efficient? A recent study in the BMJ shows women take 50% more short-term off sick leave then men across the board: http://j4mb.wordpres s.com/2013/12/17/wom en-take-almost-50-mo re-short-term-sick-l eave-than-men/ You want efficiency, stop discriminating against men.[/p][/quote]I'm told (but may be wrong) that a greater proportion of senior positions are held by men, as should be the case (men take fewer career breaks and therefore have more experience). However....that also means they are also bigger targets when rationalising and reducing the management structure. So that probably explains your concerns without resorting to misogyny. JamesYoung
  • Score: 0

9:16pm Wed 15 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

JamesYoung wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
Efficiency? They employ over 84% female staff across the board I read not long ago (discriminating) , yet laid off 100% more male employees? Meanwhile the female employees were taking more time off sick, how is that efficient?

A recent study in the BMJ shows women take 50% more short-term off sick leave then men across the board:
http://j4mb.wordpres


s.com/2013/12/17/wom


en-take-almost-50-mo


re-short-term-sick-l


eave-than-men/

You want efficiency, stop discriminating against men.
I'm told (but may be wrong) that a greater proportion of senior positions are held by men, as should be the case (men take fewer career breaks and therefore have more experience). However....that also means they are also bigger targets when rationalising and reducing the management structure. So that probably explains your concerns without resorting to misogyny.
Then I suggest you do your homework before making such statements about misogyny, there is nothing misogynist about quoting official figures and studies as source of fact. I notice you conveniently left out the fact that 50% more sick time is taken by women? Beta male.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: Efficiency? They employ over 84% female staff across the board I read not long ago (discriminating) , yet laid off 100% more male employees? Meanwhile the female employees were taking more time off sick, how is that efficient? A recent study in the BMJ shows women take 50% more short-term off sick leave then men across the board: http://j4mb.wordpres s.com/2013/12/17/wom en-take-almost-50-mo re-short-term-sick-l eave-than-men/ You want efficiency, stop discriminating against men.[/p][/quote]I'm told (but may be wrong) that a greater proportion of senior positions are held by men, as should be the case (men take fewer career breaks and therefore have more experience). However....that also means they are also bigger targets when rationalising and reducing the management structure. So that probably explains your concerns without resorting to misogyny.[/p][/quote]Then I suggest you do your homework before making such statements about misogyny, there is nothing misogynist about quoting official figures and studies as source of fact. I notice you conveniently left out the fact that 50% more sick time is taken by women? Beta male. David_divenghy2
  • Score: -1

11:09pm Wed 15 Jan 14

westbaywonder says...

Love the photo of the main man,sat there like God deciding what to do with Dorset.
Love the photo of the main man,sat there like God deciding what to do with Dorset. westbaywonder
  • Score: 4

7:26am Thu 16 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

JamesYoung wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
Efficiency? They employ over 84% female staff across the board I read not long ago (discriminating) , yet laid off 100% more male employees? Meanwhile the female employees were taking more time off sick, how is that efficient?

A recent study in the BMJ shows women take 50% more short-term off sick leave then men across the board:
http://j4mb.wordpres


s.com/2013/12/17/wom


en-take-almost-50-mo


re-short-term-sick-l


eave-than-men/

You want efficiency, stop discriminating against men.
I'm told (but may be wrong) that a greater proportion of senior positions are held by men, as should be the case (men take fewer career breaks and therefore have more experience). However....that also means they are also bigger targets when rationalising and reducing the management structure. So that probably explains your concerns without resorting to misogyny.
Also James other then there being plenty of women in senior positions (3 women 2 men in the most senior of DCC) , it seems clear from comments and articles that it is the senior positions that are NOT being cut, so your explanation for male numbers does not hold water in this case. It is misandry being practiced in the DCC, simple

. If it was 84% men employed do you think that would be accepted? No. There would be Quotas.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: Efficiency? They employ over 84% female staff across the board I read not long ago (discriminating) , yet laid off 100% more male employees? Meanwhile the female employees were taking more time off sick, how is that efficient? A recent study in the BMJ shows women take 50% more short-term off sick leave then men across the board: http://j4mb.wordpres s.com/2013/12/17/wom en-take-almost-50-mo re-short-term-sick-l eave-than-men/ You want efficiency, stop discriminating against men.[/p][/quote]I'm told (but may be wrong) that a greater proportion of senior positions are held by men, as should be the case (men take fewer career breaks and therefore have more experience). However....that also means they are also bigger targets when rationalising and reducing the management structure. So that probably explains your concerns without resorting to misogyny.[/p][/quote]Also James other then there being plenty of women in senior positions (3 women 2 men in the most senior of DCC) , it seems clear from comments and articles that it is the senior positions that are NOT being cut, so your explanation for male numbers does not hold water in this case. It is misandry being practiced in the DCC, simple . If it was 84% men employed do you think that would be accepted? No. There would be Quotas. David_divenghy2
  • Score: 1

8:01am Thu 16 Jan 14

woodsedge says...

David_divenghy2 wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
Efficiency? They employ over 84% female staff across the board I read not long ago (discriminating) , yet laid off 100% more male employees? Meanwhile the female employees were taking more time off sick, how is that efficient?

A recent study in the BMJ shows women take 50% more short-term off sick leave then men across the board:
http://j4mb.wordpres



s.com/2013/12/17/wom



en-take-almost-50-mo



re-short-term-sick-l



eave-than-men/

You want efficiency, stop discriminating against men.
I'm told (but may be wrong) that a greater proportion of senior positions are held by men, as should be the case (men take fewer career breaks and therefore have more experience). However....that also means they are also bigger targets when rationalising and reducing the management structure. So that probably explains your concerns without resorting to misogyny.
Also James other then there being plenty of women in senior positions (3 women 2 men in the most senior of DCC) , it seems clear from comments and articles that it is the senior positions that are NOT being cut, so your explanation for male numbers does not hold water in this case. It is misandry being practiced in the DCC, simple

. If it was 84% men employed do you think that would be accepted? No. There would be Quotas.
James would like to answer but he is "doing his homework" like you told him to do. However, (I should know better than to give you the attention you crave) men have consistently higher employment rates than women above the age of 22, men with children more likely to work than those without – opposite picture for women, men tend to work in the professional occupations associated with higher levels of pay than women, mainly due to low pay, women dominate employment within caring and leisure, female graduates more likely to work in lower skilled occupation group than men and men make up the majority of workers in the top 10% of earners for all employees. Your homework for today old chap is to find my reliable source for this information.
[quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: Efficiency? They employ over 84% female staff across the board I read not long ago (discriminating) , yet laid off 100% more male employees? Meanwhile the female employees were taking more time off sick, how is that efficient? A recent study in the BMJ shows women take 50% more short-term off sick leave then men across the board: http://j4mb.wordpres s.com/2013/12/17/wom en-take-almost-50-mo re-short-term-sick-l eave-than-men/ You want efficiency, stop discriminating against men.[/p][/quote]I'm told (but may be wrong) that a greater proportion of senior positions are held by men, as should be the case (men take fewer career breaks and therefore have more experience). However....that also means they are also bigger targets when rationalising and reducing the management structure. So that probably explains your concerns without resorting to misogyny.[/p][/quote]Also James other then there being plenty of women in senior positions (3 women 2 men in the most senior of DCC) , it seems clear from comments and articles that it is the senior positions that are NOT being cut, so your explanation for male numbers does not hold water in this case. It is misandry being practiced in the DCC, simple . If it was 84% men employed do you think that would be accepted? No. There would be Quotas.[/p][/quote]James would like to answer but he is "doing his homework" like you told him to do. However, (I should know better than to give you the attention you crave) men have consistently higher employment rates than women above the age of 22, men with children more likely to work than those without – opposite picture for women, men tend to work in the professional occupations associated with higher levels of pay than women, mainly due to low pay, women dominate employment within caring and leisure, female graduates more likely to work in lower skilled occupation group than men and men make up the majority of workers in the top 10% of earners for all employees. Your homework for today old chap is to find my reliable source for this information. woodsedge
  • Score: 4

9:11am Thu 16 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

Have a few more facts woodsedge. I notice you also leave out discussing the 50% study . You also ignore womens employment/wage is down to their personal career/life choices, not some made up myths of discrimination. This has been proven time and time again.

Here is some more facts and evidence you don't like.

http://www.avoicefor
men.com/feminism/gen
der-pay-gap-between-
numbers-and-propagan
da/

http://www.avoicefor
men.com/feminism/fem
inist-lies-feminism/
what-pay-gap/

http://therightsofma
n.typepad.co.uk/the_
rights_of_man/2009/0
6/compare-the-hyster
ia-of-the-gender-pay
-gap-with-the-silenc
e-on-the-gender-educ
ation-gap.html

http://therightsofma
n.typepad.co.uk/the_
rights_of_man/2011/1
2/official-silence-o
n-gender-pay-gap-for
-young-men.html
Have a few more facts woodsedge. I notice you also leave out discussing the 50% study . You also ignore womens employment/wage is down to their personal career/life choices, not some made up myths of discrimination. This has been proven time and time again. Here is some more facts and evidence you don't like. http://www.avoicefor men.com/feminism/gen der-pay-gap-between- numbers-and-propagan da/ http://www.avoicefor men.com/feminism/fem inist-lies-feminism/ what-pay-gap/ http://therightsofma n.typepad.co.uk/the_ rights_of_man/2009/0 6/compare-the-hyster ia-of-the-gender-pay -gap-with-the-silenc e-on-the-gender-educ ation-gap.html http://therightsofma n.typepad.co.uk/the_ rights_of_man/2011/1 2/official-silence-o n-gender-pay-gap-for -young-men.html David_divenghy2
  • Score: 2

9:18am Thu 16 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

woodsedge wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
Efficiency? They employ over 84% female staff across the board I read not long ago (discriminating) , yet laid off 100% more male employees? Meanwhile the female employees were taking more time off sick, how is that efficient?

A recent study in the BMJ shows women take 50% more short-term off sick leave then men across the board:
http://j4mb.wordpres




s.com/2013/12/17/wom




en-take-almost-50-mo




re-short-term-sick-l




eave-than-men/

You want efficiency, stop discriminating against men.
I'm told (but may be wrong) that a greater proportion of senior positions are held by men, as should be the case (men take fewer career breaks and therefore have more experience). However....that also means they are also bigger targets when rationalising and reducing the management structure. So that probably explains your concerns without resorting to misogyny.
Also James other then there being plenty of women in senior positions (3 women 2 men in the most senior of DCC) , it seems clear from comments and articles that it is the senior positions that are NOT being cut, so your explanation for male numbers does not hold water in this case. It is misandry being practiced in the DCC, simple

. If it was 84% men employed do you think that would be accepted? No. There would be Quotas.
James would like to answer but he is "doing his homework" like you told him to do. However, (I should know better than to give you the attention you crave) men have consistently higher employment rates than women above the age of 22, men with children more likely to work than those without – opposite picture for women, men tend to work in the professional occupations associated with higher levels of pay than women, mainly due to low pay, women dominate employment within caring and leisure, female graduates more likely to work in lower skilled occupation group than men and men make up the majority of workers in the top 10% of earners for all employees. Your homework for today old chap is to find my reliable source for this information.
Men with children, LOL, How many single dads with kids are you referring to then Woodesdge? Compared to the millions of state created and self made single mothers who cost the tax payer billions in supporting them?
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: Efficiency? They employ over 84% female staff across the board I read not long ago (discriminating) , yet laid off 100% more male employees? Meanwhile the female employees were taking more time off sick, how is that efficient? A recent study in the BMJ shows women take 50% more short-term off sick leave then men across the board: http://j4mb.wordpres s.com/2013/12/17/wom en-take-almost-50-mo re-short-term-sick-l eave-than-men/ You want efficiency, stop discriminating against men.[/p][/quote]I'm told (but may be wrong) that a greater proportion of senior positions are held by men, as should be the case (men take fewer career breaks and therefore have more experience). However....that also means they are also bigger targets when rationalising and reducing the management structure. So that probably explains your concerns without resorting to misogyny.[/p][/quote]Also James other then there being plenty of women in senior positions (3 women 2 men in the most senior of DCC) , it seems clear from comments and articles that it is the senior positions that are NOT being cut, so your explanation for male numbers does not hold water in this case. It is misandry being practiced in the DCC, simple . If it was 84% men employed do you think that would be accepted? No. There would be Quotas.[/p][/quote]James would like to answer but he is "doing his homework" like you told him to do. However, (I should know better than to give you the attention you crave) men have consistently higher employment rates than women above the age of 22, men with children more likely to work than those without – opposite picture for women, men tend to work in the professional occupations associated with higher levels of pay than women, mainly due to low pay, women dominate employment within caring and leisure, female graduates more likely to work in lower skilled occupation group than men and men make up the majority of workers in the top 10% of earners for all employees. Your homework for today old chap is to find my reliable source for this information.[/p][/quote]Men with children, LOL, How many single dads with kids are you referring to then Woodesdge? Compared to the millions of state created and self made single mothers who cost the tax payer billions in supporting them? David_divenghy2
  • Score: 0

9:34am Thu 16 Jan 14

woodsedge says...

David_divenghy2 wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
Efficiency? They employ over 84% female staff across the board I read not long ago (discriminating) , yet laid off 100% more male employees? Meanwhile the female employees were taking more time off sick, how is that efficient?

A recent study in the BMJ shows women take 50% more short-term off sick leave then men across the board:
http://j4mb.wordpres





s.com/2013/12/17/wom





en-take-almost-50-mo





re-short-term-sick-l





eave-than-men/

You want efficiency, stop discriminating against men.
I'm told (but may be wrong) that a greater proportion of senior positions are held by men, as should be the case (men take fewer career breaks and therefore have more experience). However....that also means they are also bigger targets when rationalising and reducing the management structure. So that probably explains your concerns without resorting to misogyny.
Also James other then there being plenty of women in senior positions (3 women 2 men in the most senior of DCC) , it seems clear from comments and articles that it is the senior positions that are NOT being cut, so your explanation for male numbers does not hold water in this case. It is misandry being practiced in the DCC, simple

. If it was 84% men employed do you think that would be accepted? No. There would be Quotas.
James would like to answer but he is "doing his homework" like you told him to do. However, (I should know better than to give you the attention you crave) men have consistently higher employment rates than women above the age of 22, men with children more likely to work than those without – opposite picture for women, men tend to work in the professional occupations associated with higher levels of pay than women, mainly due to low pay, women dominate employment within caring and leisure, female graduates more likely to work in lower skilled occupation group than men and men make up the majority of workers in the top 10% of earners for all employees. Your homework for today old chap is to find my reliable source for this information.
Men with children, LOL, How many single dads with kids are you referring to then Woodesdge? Compared to the millions of state created and self made single mothers who cost the tax payer billions in supporting them?
Oh David, you have felled your homework! As for your reliable resources for data, "the fights of man, a voice for men feminist lies" hardly impartial old boy.
[quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: Efficiency? They employ over 84% female staff across the board I read not long ago (discriminating) , yet laid off 100% more male employees? Meanwhile the female employees were taking more time off sick, how is that efficient? A recent study in the BMJ shows women take 50% more short-term off sick leave then men across the board: http://j4mb.wordpres s.com/2013/12/17/wom en-take-almost-50-mo re-short-term-sick-l eave-than-men/ You want efficiency, stop discriminating against men.[/p][/quote]I'm told (but may be wrong) that a greater proportion of senior positions are held by men, as should be the case (men take fewer career breaks and therefore have more experience). However....that also means they are also bigger targets when rationalising and reducing the management structure. So that probably explains your concerns without resorting to misogyny.[/p][/quote]Also James other then there being plenty of women in senior positions (3 women 2 men in the most senior of DCC) , it seems clear from comments and articles that it is the senior positions that are NOT being cut, so your explanation for male numbers does not hold water in this case. It is misandry being practiced in the DCC, simple . If it was 84% men employed do you think that would be accepted? No. There would be Quotas.[/p][/quote]James would like to answer but he is "doing his homework" like you told him to do. However, (I should know better than to give you the attention you crave) men have consistently higher employment rates than women above the age of 22, men with children more likely to work than those without – opposite picture for women, men tend to work in the professional occupations associated with higher levels of pay than women, mainly due to low pay, women dominate employment within caring and leisure, female graduates more likely to work in lower skilled occupation group than men and men make up the majority of workers in the top 10% of earners for all employees. Your homework for today old chap is to find my reliable source for this information.[/p][/quote]Men with children, LOL, How many single dads with kids are you referring to then Woodesdge? Compared to the millions of state created and self made single mothers who cost the tax payer billions in supporting them?[/p][/quote]Oh David, you have felled your homework! As for your reliable resources for data, "the fights of man, a voice for men feminist lies" hardly impartial old boy. woodsedge
  • Score: -2

9:38am Thu 16 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

woodsedge wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
Efficiency? They employ over 84% female staff across the board I read not long ago (discriminating) , yet laid off 100% more male employees? Meanwhile the female employees were taking more time off sick, how is that efficient?

A recent study in the BMJ shows women take 50% more short-term off sick leave then men across the board:
http://j4mb.wordpres






s.com/2013/12/17/wom






en-take-almost-50-mo






re-short-term-sick-l






eave-than-men/

You want efficiency, stop discriminating against men.
I'm told (but may be wrong) that a greater proportion of senior positions are held by men, as should be the case (men take fewer career breaks and therefore have more experience). However....that also means they are also bigger targets when rationalising and reducing the management structure. So that probably explains your concerns without resorting to misogyny.
Also James other then there being plenty of women in senior positions (3 women 2 men in the most senior of DCC) , it seems clear from comments and articles that it is the senior positions that are NOT being cut, so your explanation for male numbers does not hold water in this case. It is misandry being practiced in the DCC, simple

. If it was 84% men employed do you think that would be accepted? No. There would be Quotas.
James would like to answer but he is "doing his homework" like you told him to do. However, (I should know better than to give you the attention you crave) men have consistently higher employment rates than women above the age of 22, men with children more likely to work than those without – opposite picture for women, men tend to work in the professional occupations associated with higher levels of pay than women, mainly due to low pay, women dominate employment within caring and leisure, female graduates more likely to work in lower skilled occupation group than men and men make up the majority of workers in the top 10% of earners for all employees. Your homework for today old chap is to find my reliable source for this information.
Men with children, LOL, How many single dads with kids are you referring to then Woodesdge? Compared to the millions of state created and self made single mothers who cost the tax payer billions in supporting them?
Oh David, you have felled your homework! As for your reliable resources for data, "the fights of man, a voice for men feminist lies" hardly impartial old boy.
Woodsedge, you don't even bother to read and debate it, just make more silly comments. (normal feminist tactic to avoid truth)

They quote official source in their articles, it is official sources and studies they use for their argument, just because it tears up your propaganda and you don;t like it, does not mean it is wrong.
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: Efficiency? They employ over 84% female staff across the board I read not long ago (discriminating) , yet laid off 100% more male employees? Meanwhile the female employees were taking more time off sick, how is that efficient? A recent study in the BMJ shows women take 50% more short-term off sick leave then men across the board: http://j4mb.wordpres s.com/2013/12/17/wom en-take-almost-50-mo re-short-term-sick-l eave-than-men/ You want efficiency, stop discriminating against men.[/p][/quote]I'm told (but may be wrong) that a greater proportion of senior positions are held by men, as should be the case (men take fewer career breaks and therefore have more experience). However....that also means they are also bigger targets when rationalising and reducing the management structure. So that probably explains your concerns without resorting to misogyny.[/p][/quote]Also James other then there being plenty of women in senior positions (3 women 2 men in the most senior of DCC) , it seems clear from comments and articles that it is the senior positions that are NOT being cut, so your explanation for male numbers does not hold water in this case. It is misandry being practiced in the DCC, simple . If it was 84% men employed do you think that would be accepted? No. There would be Quotas.[/p][/quote]James would like to answer but he is "doing his homework" like you told him to do. However, (I should know better than to give you the attention you crave) men have consistently higher employment rates than women above the age of 22, men with children more likely to work than those without – opposite picture for women, men tend to work in the professional occupations associated with higher levels of pay than women, mainly due to low pay, women dominate employment within caring and leisure, female graduates more likely to work in lower skilled occupation group than men and men make up the majority of workers in the top 10% of earners for all employees. Your homework for today old chap is to find my reliable source for this information.[/p][/quote]Men with children, LOL, How many single dads with kids are you referring to then Woodesdge? Compared to the millions of state created and self made single mothers who cost the tax payer billions in supporting them?[/p][/quote]Oh David, you have felled your homework! As for your reliable resources for data, "the fights of man, a voice for men feminist lies" hardly impartial old boy.[/p][/quote]Woodsedge, you don't even bother to read and debate it, just make more silly comments. (normal feminist tactic to avoid truth) They quote official source in their articles, it is official sources and studies they use for their argument, just because it tears up your propaganda and you don;t like it, does not mean it is wrong. David_divenghy2
  • Score: 3

1:07pm Thu 16 Jan 14

JamesYoung says...

David_divenghy2 wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
Efficiency? They employ over 84% female staff across the board I read not long ago (discriminating) , yet laid off 100% more male employees? Meanwhile the female employees were taking more time off sick, how is that efficient?

A recent study in the BMJ shows women take 50% more short-term off sick leave then men across the board:
http://j4mb.wordpres







s.com/2013/12/17/wom







en-take-almost-50-mo







re-short-term-sick-l







eave-than-men/

You want efficiency, stop discriminating against men.
I'm told (but may be wrong) that a greater proportion of senior positions are held by men, as should be the case (men take fewer career breaks and therefore have more experience). However....that also means they are also bigger targets when rationalising and reducing the management structure. So that probably explains your concerns without resorting to misogyny.
Also James other then there being plenty of women in senior positions (3 women 2 men in the most senior of DCC) , it seems clear from comments and articles that it is the senior positions that are NOT being cut, so your explanation for male numbers does not hold water in this case. It is misandry being practiced in the DCC, simple

. If it was 84% men employed do you think that would be accepted? No. There would be Quotas.
James would like to answer but he is "doing his homework" like you told him to do. However, (I should know better than to give you the attention you crave) men have consistently higher employment rates than women above the age of 22, men with children more likely to work than those without – opposite picture for women, men tend to work in the professional occupations associated with higher levels of pay than women, mainly due to low pay, women dominate employment within caring and leisure, female graduates more likely to work in lower skilled occupation group than men and men make up the majority of workers in the top 10% of earners for all employees. Your homework for today old chap is to find my reliable source for this information.
Men with children, LOL, How many single dads with kids are you referring to then Woodesdge? Compared to the millions of state created and self made single mothers who cost the tax payer billions in supporting them?
Oh David, you have felled your homework! As for your reliable resources for data, "the fights of man, a voice for men feminist lies" hardly impartial old boy.
Woodsedge, you don't even bother to read and debate it, just make more silly comments. (normal feminist tactic to avoid truth)

They quote official source in their articles, it is official sources and studies they use for their argument, just because it tears up your propaganda and you don;t like it, does not mean it is wrong.
Without a doubt there are is a skew against men in several areas of society (family courts, police treatment of domestic violence, medical care, etc) and there is truth in what you say about benefit dependent single mothers - but equally, they didn't get pregnant on their own. My new wife was an 18 year old single mum, but she worked from the time her daughter was weeks old and still does 15 years later. In fact, her independence and work ethic are things i admire greatly. I have children with my former wife, but i support them financially. I suspect that wherever there is a benefit dependent single mum, there is also a young man who is not doing his duty by her. As for Woodsedge being a feminist, well, he's a fella, so that would be a pretty impressive achievement. You've made your point, so please don't keep banging out the same angry harry arguments and pasting links which nobody is going to read.
[quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: Efficiency? They employ over 84% female staff across the board I read not long ago (discriminating) , yet laid off 100% more male employees? Meanwhile the female employees were taking more time off sick, how is that efficient? A recent study in the BMJ shows women take 50% more short-term off sick leave then men across the board: http://j4mb.wordpres s.com/2013/12/17/wom en-take-almost-50-mo re-short-term-sick-l eave-than-men/ You want efficiency, stop discriminating against men.[/p][/quote]I'm told (but may be wrong) that a greater proportion of senior positions are held by men, as should be the case (men take fewer career breaks and therefore have more experience). However....that also means they are also bigger targets when rationalising and reducing the management structure. So that probably explains your concerns without resorting to misogyny.[/p][/quote]Also James other then there being plenty of women in senior positions (3 women 2 men in the most senior of DCC) , it seems clear from comments and articles that it is the senior positions that are NOT being cut, so your explanation for male numbers does not hold water in this case. It is misandry being practiced in the DCC, simple . If it was 84% men employed do you think that would be accepted? No. There would be Quotas.[/p][/quote]James would like to answer but he is "doing his homework" like you told him to do. However, (I should know better than to give you the attention you crave) men have consistently higher employment rates than women above the age of 22, men with children more likely to work than those without – opposite picture for women, men tend to work in the professional occupations associated with higher levels of pay than women, mainly due to low pay, women dominate employment within caring and leisure, female graduates more likely to work in lower skilled occupation group than men and men make up the majority of workers in the top 10% of earners for all employees. Your homework for today old chap is to find my reliable source for this information.[/p][/quote]Men with children, LOL, How many single dads with kids are you referring to then Woodesdge? Compared to the millions of state created and self made single mothers who cost the tax payer billions in supporting them?[/p][/quote]Oh David, you have felled your homework! As for your reliable resources for data, "the fights of man, a voice for men feminist lies" hardly impartial old boy.[/p][/quote]Woodsedge, you don't even bother to read and debate it, just make more silly comments. (normal feminist tactic to avoid truth) They quote official source in their articles, it is official sources and studies they use for their argument, just because it tears up your propaganda and you don;t like it, does not mean it is wrong.[/p][/quote]Without a doubt there are is a skew against men in several areas of society (family courts, police treatment of domestic violence, medical care, etc) and there is truth in what you say about benefit dependent single mothers - but equally, they didn't get pregnant on their own. My new wife was an 18 year old single mum, but she worked from the time her daughter was weeks old and still does 15 years later. In fact, her independence and work ethic are things i admire greatly. I have children with my former wife, but i support them financially. I suspect that wherever there is a benefit dependent single mum, there is also a young man who is not doing his duty by her. As for Woodsedge being a feminist, well, he's a fella, so that would be a pretty impressive achievement. You've made your point, so please don't keep banging out the same angry harry arguments and pasting links which nobody is going to read. JamesYoung
  • Score: 0

2:18pm Thu 16 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

JamesYoung wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
Efficiency? They employ over 84% female staff across the board I read not long ago (discriminating) , yet laid off 100% more male employees? Meanwhile the female employees were taking more time off sick, how is that efficient?

A recent study in the BMJ shows women take 50% more short-term off sick leave then men across the board:
http://j4mb.wordpres








s.com/2013/12/17/wom








en-take-almost-50-mo








re-short-term-sick-l








eave-than-men/

You want efficiency, stop discriminating against men.
I'm told (but may be wrong) that a greater proportion of senior positions are held by men, as should be the case (men take fewer career breaks and therefore have more experience). However....that also means they are also bigger targets when rationalising and reducing the management structure. So that probably explains your concerns without resorting to misogyny.
Also James other then there being plenty of women in senior positions (3 women 2 men in the most senior of DCC) , it seems clear from comments and articles that it is the senior positions that are NOT being cut, so your explanation for male numbers does not hold water in this case. It is misandry being practiced in the DCC, simple

. If it was 84% men employed do you think that would be accepted? No. There would be Quotas.
James would like to answer but he is "doing his homework" like you told him to do. However, (I should know better than to give you the attention you crave) men have consistently higher employment rates than women above the age of 22, men with children more likely to work than those without – opposite picture for women, men tend to work in the professional occupations associated with higher levels of pay than women, mainly due to low pay, women dominate employment within caring and leisure, female graduates more likely to work in lower skilled occupation group than men and men make up the majority of workers in the top 10% of earners for all employees. Your homework for today old chap is to find my reliable source for this information.
Men with children, LOL, How many single dads with kids are you referring to then Woodesdge? Compared to the millions of state created and self made single mothers who cost the tax payer billions in supporting them?
Oh David, you have felled your homework! As for your reliable resources for data, "the fights of man, a voice for men feminist lies" hardly impartial old boy.
Woodsedge, you don't even bother to read and debate it, just make more silly comments. (normal feminist tactic to avoid truth)

They quote official source in their articles, it is official sources and studies they use for their argument, just because it tears up your propaganda and you don;t like it, does not mean it is wrong.
Without a doubt there are is a skew against men in several areas of society (family courts, police treatment of domestic violence, medical care, etc) and there is truth in what you say about benefit dependent single mothers - but equally, they didn't get pregnant on their own. My new wife was an 18 year old single mum, but she worked from the time her daughter was weeks old and still does 15 years later. In fact, her independence and work ethic are things i admire greatly. I have children with my former wife, but i support them financially. I suspect that wherever there is a benefit dependent single mum, there is also a young man who is not doing his duty by her. As for Woodsedge being a feminist, well, he's a fella, so that would be a pretty impressive achievement. You've made your point, so please don't keep banging out the same angry harry arguments and pasting links which nobody is going to read.
I will do as I see fit according to the propaganda in the article or what facts/opinions I think might be relevant to it. Not what you say or what some whining lefty/feminist wants, get that through your head right now.

Male feminist do exist and in many circles are considered the lowest of the low. If you object to any facts or source I post, please feel free to debate it, but you will never stop me from expressing my opinion. Get that through your head. Were not all conformist poodles cow-towing to P.C and B.S ideology. Okay.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: Efficiency? They employ over 84% female staff across the board I read not long ago (discriminating) , yet laid off 100% more male employees? Meanwhile the female employees were taking more time off sick, how is that efficient? A recent study in the BMJ shows women take 50% more short-term off sick leave then men across the board: http://j4mb.wordpres s.com/2013/12/17/wom en-take-almost-50-mo re-short-term-sick-l eave-than-men/ You want efficiency, stop discriminating against men.[/p][/quote]I'm told (but may be wrong) that a greater proportion of senior positions are held by men, as should be the case (men take fewer career breaks and therefore have more experience). However....that also means they are also bigger targets when rationalising and reducing the management structure. So that probably explains your concerns without resorting to misogyny.[/p][/quote]Also James other then there being plenty of women in senior positions (3 women 2 men in the most senior of DCC) , it seems clear from comments and articles that it is the senior positions that are NOT being cut, so your explanation for male numbers does not hold water in this case. It is misandry being practiced in the DCC, simple . If it was 84% men employed do you think that would be accepted? No. There would be Quotas.[/p][/quote]James would like to answer but he is "doing his homework" like you told him to do. However, (I should know better than to give you the attention you crave) men have consistently higher employment rates than women above the age of 22, men with children more likely to work than those without – opposite picture for women, men tend to work in the professional occupations associated with higher levels of pay than women, mainly due to low pay, women dominate employment within caring and leisure, female graduates more likely to work in lower skilled occupation group than men and men make up the majority of workers in the top 10% of earners for all employees. Your homework for today old chap is to find my reliable source for this information.[/p][/quote]Men with children, LOL, How many single dads with kids are you referring to then Woodesdge? Compared to the millions of state created and self made single mothers who cost the tax payer billions in supporting them?[/p][/quote]Oh David, you have felled your homework! As for your reliable resources for data, "the fights of man, a voice for men feminist lies" hardly impartial old boy.[/p][/quote]Woodsedge, you don't even bother to read and debate it, just make more silly comments. (normal feminist tactic to avoid truth) They quote official source in their articles, it is official sources and studies they use for their argument, just because it tears up your propaganda and you don;t like it, does not mean it is wrong.[/p][/quote]Without a doubt there are is a skew against men in several areas of society (family courts, police treatment of domestic violence, medical care, etc) and there is truth in what you say about benefit dependent single mothers - but equally, they didn't get pregnant on their own. My new wife was an 18 year old single mum, but she worked from the time her daughter was weeks old and still does 15 years later. In fact, her independence and work ethic are things i admire greatly. I have children with my former wife, but i support them financially. I suspect that wherever there is a benefit dependent single mum, there is also a young man who is not doing his duty by her. As for Woodsedge being a feminist, well, he's a fella, so that would be a pretty impressive achievement. You've made your point, so please don't keep banging out the same angry harry arguments and pasting links which nobody is going to read.[/p][/quote]I will do as I see fit according to the propaganda in the article or what facts/opinions I think might be relevant to it. Not what you say or what some whining lefty/feminist wants, get that through your head right now. Male feminist do exist and in many circles are considered the lowest of the low. If you object to any facts or source I post, please feel free to debate it, but you will never stop me from expressing my opinion. Get that through your head. Were not all conformist poodles cow-towing to P.C and B.S ideology. Okay. David_divenghy2
  • Score: 2

2:51pm Thu 16 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

JamesYoung wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
Efficiency? They employ over 84% female staff across the board I read not long ago (discriminating) , yet laid off 100% more male employees? Meanwhile the female employees were taking more time off sick, how is that efficient?

A recent study in the BMJ shows women take 50% more short-term off sick leave then men across the board:
http://j4mb.wordpres








s.com/2013/12/17/wom








en-take-almost-50-mo








re-short-term-sick-l








eave-than-men/

You want efficiency, stop discriminating against men.
I'm told (but may be wrong) that a greater proportion of senior positions are held by men, as should be the case (men take fewer career breaks and therefore have more experience). However....that also means they are also bigger targets when rationalising and reducing the management structure. So that probably explains your concerns without resorting to misogyny.
Also James other then there being plenty of women in senior positions (3 women 2 men in the most senior of DCC) , it seems clear from comments and articles that it is the senior positions that are NOT being cut, so your explanation for male numbers does not hold water in this case. It is misandry being practiced in the DCC, simple

. If it was 84% men employed do you think that would be accepted? No. There would be Quotas.
James would like to answer but he is "doing his homework" like you told him to do. However, (I should know better than to give you the attention you crave) men have consistently higher employment rates than women above the age of 22, men with children more likely to work than those without – opposite picture for women, men tend to work in the professional occupations associated with higher levels of pay than women, mainly due to low pay, women dominate employment within caring and leisure, female graduates more likely to work in lower skilled occupation group than men and men make up the majority of workers in the top 10% of earners for all employees. Your homework for today old chap is to find my reliable source for this information.
Men with children, LOL, How many single dads with kids are you referring to then Woodesdge? Compared to the millions of state created and self made single mothers who cost the tax payer billions in supporting them?
Oh David, you have felled your homework! As for your reliable resources for data, "the fights of man, a voice for men feminist lies" hardly impartial old boy.
Woodsedge, you don't even bother to read and debate it, just make more silly comments. (normal feminist tactic to avoid truth)

They quote official source in their articles, it is official sources and studies they use for their argument, just because it tears up your propaganda and you don;t like it, does not mean it is wrong.
Without a doubt there are is a skew against men in several areas of society (family courts, police treatment of domestic violence, medical care, etc) and there is truth in what you say about benefit dependent single mothers - but equally, they didn't get pregnant on their own. My new wife was an 18 year old single mum, but she worked from the time her daughter was weeks old and still does 15 years later. In fact, her independence and work ethic are things i admire greatly. I have children with my former wife, but i support them financially. I suspect that wherever there is a benefit dependent single mum, there is also a young man who is not doing his duty by her. As for Woodsedge being a feminist, well, he's a fella, so that would be a pretty impressive achievement. You've made your point, so please don't keep banging out the same angry harry arguments and pasting links which nobody is going to read.
Sorry James, got to pull you up on that grotesque over-simplification:


" there is truth in what you say about benefit dependent single mothers - but equally, they didn't get pregnant on their own" ?


Firstly, of course one recognises not all got there "on there own", a few are genuine and the blokes have been real cads. However, you say that without including some VERY important factors. I suspect with no real concept of how common "oops" pregnancies happen for benefits, housing and alimony in the first place. Those women basically making a lifestyle out of it. That's before you get to the spite in the family courts that now sees over 4 million + children without ever seeing their Father, most of it quite deliberate by mother and the state/legal machine.

You could also think about why the male pill has been held back for over 40 years? Who doesn't want a male pill? Who would lose their greatest franchise from it? How is it men have to pay for contraception, women do not? As for public cost, lets not include the £20 million a day to the tax payer for the 250,000 a year abortions because of women's lifestyle choices, don't forget "her body her choice", right?, that's a very important sticking point and caveat, right there.

Maybe when men have equal say in a pregnancy or termination of it therein, then it would be right to hold them to account for it equally. Until then the woman's decision is ultimate ( her body her choice, right?) therefore SHE should be responsible and liable for all that it entails until that situation changes. That's REAL equality, but it is something I bet you a majority of them do not want to see ever happen.

Here is some more food for thought, well you brought it up :-)

http://www.avoicefor
men.com/men/mens-iss
ues/the-real-reasons
-we-do-not-have-a-ma
le-birth-control-pil
l/

http://www.avoicefor
men.com/mens-rights/
when-is-it-illegal-t
o-make-reproductive-
choices-for-others-w
hen-youre-a-man/

http://www.avoicefor
men.com/women/hyperg
amy/conception-by-de
ception-amanda-holde
n-rapes-her-husband/
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: Efficiency? They employ over 84% female staff across the board I read not long ago (discriminating) , yet laid off 100% more male employees? Meanwhile the female employees were taking more time off sick, how is that efficient? A recent study in the BMJ shows women take 50% more short-term off sick leave then men across the board: http://j4mb.wordpres s.com/2013/12/17/wom en-take-almost-50-mo re-short-term-sick-l eave-than-men/ You want efficiency, stop discriminating against men.[/p][/quote]I'm told (but may be wrong) that a greater proportion of senior positions are held by men, as should be the case (men take fewer career breaks and therefore have more experience). However....that also means they are also bigger targets when rationalising and reducing the management structure. So that probably explains your concerns without resorting to misogyny.[/p][/quote]Also James other then there being plenty of women in senior positions (3 women 2 men in the most senior of DCC) , it seems clear from comments and articles that it is the senior positions that are NOT being cut, so your explanation for male numbers does not hold water in this case. It is misandry being practiced in the DCC, simple . If it was 84% men employed do you think that would be accepted? No. There would be Quotas.[/p][/quote]James would like to answer but he is "doing his homework" like you told him to do. However, (I should know better than to give you the attention you crave) men have consistently higher employment rates than women above the age of 22, men with children more likely to work than those without – opposite picture for women, men tend to work in the professional occupations associated with higher levels of pay than women, mainly due to low pay, women dominate employment within caring and leisure, female graduates more likely to work in lower skilled occupation group than men and men make up the majority of workers in the top 10% of earners for all employees. Your homework for today old chap is to find my reliable source for this information.[/p][/quote]Men with children, LOL, How many single dads with kids are you referring to then Woodesdge? Compared to the millions of state created and self made single mothers who cost the tax payer billions in supporting them?[/p][/quote]Oh David, you have felled your homework! As for your reliable resources for data, "the fights of man, a voice for men feminist lies" hardly impartial old boy.[/p][/quote]Woodsedge, you don't even bother to read and debate it, just make more silly comments. (normal feminist tactic to avoid truth) They quote official source in their articles, it is official sources and studies they use for their argument, just because it tears up your propaganda and you don;t like it, does not mean it is wrong.[/p][/quote]Without a doubt there are is a skew against men in several areas of society (family courts, police treatment of domestic violence, medical care, etc) and there is truth in what you say about benefit dependent single mothers - but equally, they didn't get pregnant on their own. My new wife was an 18 year old single mum, but she worked from the time her daughter was weeks old and still does 15 years later. In fact, her independence and work ethic are things i admire greatly. I have children with my former wife, but i support them financially. I suspect that wherever there is a benefit dependent single mum, there is also a young man who is not doing his duty by her. As for Woodsedge being a feminist, well, he's a fella, so that would be a pretty impressive achievement. You've made your point, so please don't keep banging out the same angry harry arguments and pasting links which nobody is going to read.[/p][/quote]Sorry James, got to pull you up on that grotesque over-simplification: " there is truth in what you say about benefit dependent single mothers - but equally, they didn't get pregnant on their own" ? Firstly, of course one recognises not all got there "on there own", a few are genuine and the blokes have been real cads. However, you say that without including some VERY important factors. I suspect with no real concept of how common "oops" pregnancies happen for benefits, housing and alimony in the first place. Those women basically making a lifestyle out of it. That's before you get to the spite in the family courts that now sees over 4 million + children without ever seeing their Father, most of it quite deliberate by mother and the state/legal machine. You could also think about why the male pill has been held back for over 40 years? Who doesn't want a male pill? Who would lose their greatest franchise from it? How is it men have to pay for contraception, women do not? As for public cost, lets not include the £20 million a day to the tax payer for the 250,000 a year abortions because of women's lifestyle choices, don't forget "her body her choice", right?, that's a very important sticking point and caveat, right there. Maybe when men have equal say in a pregnancy or termination of it therein, then it would be right to hold them to account for it equally. Until then the woman's decision is ultimate ( her body her choice, right?) therefore SHE should be responsible and liable for all that it entails until that situation changes. That's REAL equality, but it is something I bet you a majority of them do not want to see ever happen. Here is some more food for thought, well you brought it up :-) http://www.avoicefor men.com/men/mens-iss ues/the-real-reasons -we-do-not-have-a-ma le-birth-control-pil l/ http://www.avoicefor men.com/mens-rights/ when-is-it-illegal-t o-make-reproductive- choices-for-others-w hen-youre-a-man/ http://www.avoicefor men.com/women/hyperg amy/conception-by-de ception-amanda-holde n-rapes-her-husband/ David_divenghy2
  • Score: 4

3:12pm Thu 16 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

* correction: cost is 1/3rd million per day.
* correction: cost is 1/3rd million per day. David_divenghy2
  • Score: 0

10:18pm Thu 16 Jan 14

JamesYoung says...

David_divenghy2 wrote:
* correction: cost is 1/3rd million per day.
I'll leave you to your rant.
[quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: * correction: cost is 1/3rd million per day.[/p][/quote]I'll leave you to your rant. JamesYoung
  • Score: 0

8:37am Fri 17 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

JamesYoung wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
* correction: cost is 1/3rd million per day.
I'll leave you to your rant.
It's easier than reading the facts....
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: * correction: cost is 1/3rd million per day.[/p][/quote]I'll leave you to your rant.[/p][/quote]It's easier than reading the facts.... David_divenghy2
  • Score: 1

12:18pm Fri 17 Jan 14

woodsedge says...

David_divenghy2 wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
* correction: cost is 1/3rd million per day.
I'll leave you to your rant.
It's easier than reading the facts....
At last we agree and you finally accept that your 'rant' is easier than you reading the facts.
[quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: * correction: cost is 1/3rd million per day.[/p][/quote]I'll leave you to your rant.[/p][/quote]It's easier than reading the facts....[/p][/quote]At last we agree and you finally accept that your 'rant' is easier than you reading the facts. woodsedge
  • Score: -1

12:32pm Fri 17 Jan 14

Bert Fry says...

Unfortunately Dd2,, to many reading this, your debating skills and general outlook are far too reminiscent of Alex Jones (Google his 'chat' with Piers Morgan) to be taken too seriously.
Unfortunately Dd2,, to many reading this, your debating skills and general outlook are far too reminiscent of Alex Jones (Google his 'chat' with Piers Morgan) to be taken too seriously. Bert Fry
  • Score: -2

3:37pm Fri 17 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

woodsedge wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
* correction: cost is 1/3rd million per day.
I'll leave you to your rant.
It's easier than reading the facts....
At last we agree and you finally accept that your 'rant' is easier than you reading the facts.
Idiot. I meant you leaving is easier then reading the facts. Funny how those who don;t agree never debate them, just make silly remarks. Says a lot.
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: * correction: cost is 1/3rd million per day.[/p][/quote]I'll leave you to your rant.[/p][/quote]It's easier than reading the facts....[/p][/quote]At last we agree and you finally accept that your 'rant' is easier than you reading the facts.[/p][/quote]Idiot. I meant you leaving is easier then reading the facts. Funny how those who don;t agree never debate them, just make silly remarks. Says a lot. David_divenghy2
  • Score: 3

7:24pm Fri 17 Jan 14

JamesYoung says...

David_divenghy2 wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
* correction: cost is 1/3rd million per day.
I'll leave you to your rant.
It's easier than reading the facts....
At last we agree and you finally accept that your 'rant' is easier than you reading the facts.
Idiot. I meant you leaving is easier then reading the facts. Funny how those who don;t agree never debate them, just make silly remarks. Says a lot.
David. When I hear about something, then i go and read both sides of the argument. Then i think about it, then i arrive at a conclusion. You, however, seem to approach any story involving the word "woman" like a bull in a china shop. You have already decided what your opinion is before you've read the story. You make some good points, but you persist in blasting people with page after page of links that are, in most cases, of little relevance to the story in question. Relax, breathe a bit, look at things from the other side.
[quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: * correction: cost is 1/3rd million per day.[/p][/quote]I'll leave you to your rant.[/p][/quote]It's easier than reading the facts....[/p][/quote]At last we agree and you finally accept that your 'rant' is easier than you reading the facts.[/p][/quote]Idiot. I meant you leaving is easier then reading the facts. Funny how those who don;t agree never debate them, just make silly remarks. Says a lot.[/p][/quote]David. When I hear about something, then i go and read both sides of the argument. Then i think about it, then i arrive at a conclusion. You, however, seem to approach any story involving the word "woman" like a bull in a china shop. You have already decided what your opinion is before you've read the story. You make some good points, but you persist in blasting people with page after page of links that are, in most cases, of little relevance to the story in question. Relax, breathe a bit, look at things from the other side. JamesYoung
  • Score: 0

10:06am Sat 18 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

James don't be a hypocrite, you never debate the facts or the material in the links i post which are relevant. You just ultimately default to your base doctrine. (do their duty, oh please) .

The links I post are always relevant to the article, the point I am making or a statement another commenter has made. If you bothered to read, view or debate them that would be clear, but of course those who do not like the opinion find it easier to use shaming tactics or other methods to undermine it, but never debate it of course.

Lets try a little experiment.

" Dorset County Council an employer that has 84% white people, announced today during cutbacks over money, that they would be laying off twice as many of the minority blacks. This is even though the whites are less efficient and take more time off sick. In a recent study it was shown that whites in fact take 50% more short term sick than blacks."

Now James, Qualify that statement for me please and tell me how that is acceptable to you? Because you seem to think it is acceptable when the word is Men.

Now in any article of this nature I comment on in this way, please replace the words Man or Men, with any of the words Black, Gay or Jew. Does it sound wrong? If it does, it most likely is.

Then try debating the facts of the content or links if you disagree, not the personality of it.
James don't be a hypocrite, you never debate the facts or the material in the links i post which are relevant. You just ultimately default to your base doctrine. (do their duty, oh please) . The links I post are always relevant to the article, the point I am making or a statement another commenter has made. If you bothered to read, view or debate them that would be clear, but of course those who do not like the opinion find it easier to use shaming tactics or other methods to undermine it, but never debate it of course. Lets try a little experiment. " Dorset County Council an employer that has 84% white people, announced today during cutbacks over money, that they would be laying off twice as many of the minority blacks. This is even though the whites are less efficient and take more time off sick. In a recent study it was shown that whites in fact take 50% more short term sick than blacks." Now James, Qualify that statement for me please and tell me how that is acceptable to you? Because you seem to think it is acceptable when the word is Men. Now in any article of this nature I comment on in this way, please replace the words Man or Men, with any of the words Black, Gay or Jew. Does it sound wrong? If it does, it most likely is. Then try debating the facts of the content or links if you disagree, not the personality of it. David_divenghy2
  • Score: 2

11:09am Sat 18 Jan 14

Tike says...

This was all fairly reasonable and sane until the woman hater started posting. Let him rant if you must, but please consider not giving him the attention he craves by responding. Many thanks.
This was all fairly reasonable and sane until the woman hater started posting. Let him rant if you must, but please consider not giving him the attention he craves by responding. Many thanks. Tike
  • Score: -2

11:17am Sat 18 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

Tike wrote:
This was all fairly reasonable and sane until the woman hater started posting. Let him rant if you must, but please consider not giving him the attention he craves by responding. Many thanks.
Is that all you got? The best you can do? Thank for proving me right.
[quote][p][bold]Tike[/bold] wrote: This was all fairly reasonable and sane until the woman hater started posting. Let him rant if you must, but please consider not giving him the attention he craves by responding. Many thanks.[/p][/quote]Is that all you got? The best you can do? Thank for proving me right. David_divenghy2
  • Score: 3

12:27pm Sat 18 Jan 14

JamesYoung says...

David_divenghy2 wrote:
James don't be a hypocrite, you never debate the facts or the material in the links i post which are relevant. You just ultimately default to your base doctrine. (do their duty, oh please) .

The links I post are always relevant to the article, the point I am making or a statement another commenter has made. If you bothered to read, view or debate them that would be clear, but of course those who do not like the opinion find it easier to use shaming tactics or other methods to undermine it, but never debate it of course.

Lets try a little experiment.

" Dorset County Council an employer that has 84% white people, announced today during cutbacks over money, that they would be laying off twice as many of the minority blacks. This is even though the whites are less efficient and take more time off sick. In a recent study it was shown that whites in fact take 50% more short term sick than blacks."

Now James, Qualify that statement for me please and tell me how that is acceptable to you? Because you seem to think it is acceptable when the word is Men.

Now in any article of this nature I comment on in this way, please replace the words Man or Men, with any of the words Black, Gay or Jew. Does it sound wrong? If it does, it most likely is.

Then try debating the facts of the content or links if you disagree, not the personality of it.
David, discrimination does not occur just because a black person is fired and a white person is not. It is only discrimination if the black person is fired _because_ he is black.
So unless you have evidence to prove that DCC is deliberately targeting male employees, then i don't think there is any case to answer.
That's not to say that we men are not discriminated against. We are, in everything from family courts to medical screening. However, that is a different argument.
[quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: James don't be a hypocrite, you never debate the facts or the material in the links i post which are relevant. You just ultimately default to your base doctrine. (do their duty, oh please) . The links I post are always relevant to the article, the point I am making or a statement another commenter has made. If you bothered to read, view or debate them that would be clear, but of course those who do not like the opinion find it easier to use shaming tactics or other methods to undermine it, but never debate it of course. Lets try a little experiment. " Dorset County Council an employer that has 84% white people, announced today during cutbacks over money, that they would be laying off twice as many of the minority blacks. This is even though the whites are less efficient and take more time off sick. In a recent study it was shown that whites in fact take 50% more short term sick than blacks." Now James, Qualify that statement for me please and tell me how that is acceptable to you? Because you seem to think it is acceptable when the word is Men. Now in any article of this nature I comment on in this way, please replace the words Man or Men, with any of the words Black, Gay or Jew. Does it sound wrong? If it does, it most likely is. Then try debating the facts of the content or links if you disagree, not the personality of it.[/p][/quote]David, discrimination does not occur just because a black person is fired and a white person is not. It is only discrimination if the black person is fired _because_ he is black. So unless you have evidence to prove that DCC is deliberately targeting male employees, then i don't think there is any case to answer. That's not to say that we men are not discriminated against. We are, in everything from family courts to medical screening. However, that is a different argument. JamesYoung
  • Score: 1

12:45pm Sat 18 Jan 14

woodsedge says...

JamesYoung wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
James don't be a hypocrite, you never debate the facts or the material in the links i post which are relevant. You just ultimately default to your base doctrine. (do their duty, oh please) .

The links I post are always relevant to the article, the point I am making or a statement another commenter has made. If you bothered to read, view or debate them that would be clear, but of course those who do not like the opinion find it easier to use shaming tactics or other methods to undermine it, but never debate it of course.

Lets try a little experiment.

" Dorset County Council an employer that has 84% white people, announced today during cutbacks over money, that they would be laying off twice as many of the minority blacks. This is even though the whites are less efficient and take more time off sick. In a recent study it was shown that whites in fact take 50% more short term sick than blacks."

Now James, Qualify that statement for me please and tell me how that is acceptable to you? Because you seem to think it is acceptable when the word is Men.

Now in any article of this nature I comment on in this way, please replace the words Man or Men, with any of the words Black, Gay or Jew. Does it sound wrong? If it does, it most likely is.

Then try debating the facts of the content or links if you disagree, not the personality of it.
David, discrimination does not occur just because a black person is fired and a white person is not. It is only discrimination if the black person is fired _because_ he is black.
So unless you have evidence to prove that DCC is deliberately targeting male employees, then i don't think there is any case to answer.
That's not to say that we men are not discriminated against. We are, in everything from family courts to medical screening. However, that is a different argument.
James, this is a clear example of how DD has such a perverse and one sided view of discrimination. I have represented men and women who have been discriminated against in the workplace up to and including employment tribunals, and I find DD latest post has exposed him for the extremist that he obviously is. He does those males that find themselves in a position where they genuinely are being discriminated against a disservice.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: James don't be a hypocrite, you never debate the facts or the material in the links i post which are relevant. You just ultimately default to your base doctrine. (do their duty, oh please) . The links I post are always relevant to the article, the point I am making or a statement another commenter has made. If you bothered to read, view or debate them that would be clear, but of course those who do not like the opinion find it easier to use shaming tactics or other methods to undermine it, but never debate it of course. Lets try a little experiment. " Dorset County Council an employer that has 84% white people, announced today during cutbacks over money, that they would be laying off twice as many of the minority blacks. This is even though the whites are less efficient and take more time off sick. In a recent study it was shown that whites in fact take 50% more short term sick than blacks." Now James, Qualify that statement for me please and tell me how that is acceptable to you? Because you seem to think it is acceptable when the word is Men. Now in any article of this nature I comment on in this way, please replace the words Man or Men, with any of the words Black, Gay or Jew. Does it sound wrong? If it does, it most likely is. Then try debating the facts of the content or links if you disagree, not the personality of it.[/p][/quote]David, discrimination does not occur just because a black person is fired and a white person is not. It is only discrimination if the black person is fired _because_ he is black. So unless you have evidence to prove that DCC is deliberately targeting male employees, then i don't think there is any case to answer. That's not to say that we men are not discriminated against. We are, in everything from family courts to medical screening. However, that is a different argument.[/p][/quote]James, this is a clear example of how DD has such a perverse and one sided view of discrimination. I have represented men and women who have been discriminated against in the workplace up to and including employment tribunals, and I find DD latest post has exposed him for the extremist that he obviously is. He does those males that find themselves in a position where they genuinely are being discriminated against a disservice. woodsedge
  • Score: -2

1:16pm Sat 18 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

JamesYoung wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
James don't be a hypocrite, you never debate the facts or the material in the links i post which are relevant. You just ultimately default to your base doctrine. (do their duty, oh please) .

The links I post are always relevant to the article, the point I am making or a statement another commenter has made. If you bothered to read, view or debate them that would be clear, but of course those who do not like the opinion find it easier to use shaming tactics or other methods to undermine it, but never debate it of course.

Lets try a little experiment.

" Dorset County Council an employer that has 84% white people, announced today during cutbacks over money, that they would be laying off twice as many of the minority blacks. This is even though the whites are less efficient and take more time off sick. In a recent study it was shown that whites in fact take 50% more short term sick than blacks."

Now James, Qualify that statement for me please and tell me how that is acceptable to you? Because you seem to think it is acceptable when the word is Men.

Now in any article of this nature I comment on in this way, please replace the words Man or Men, with any of the words Black, Gay or Jew. Does it sound wrong? If it does, it most likely is.

Then try debating the facts of the content or links if you disagree, not the personality of it.
David, discrimination does not occur just because a black person is fired and a white person is not. It is only discrimination if the black person is fired _because_ he is black.
So unless you have evidence to prove that DCC is deliberately targeting male employees, then i don't think there is any case to answer.
That's not to say that we men are not discriminated against. We are, in everything from family courts to medical screening. However, that is a different argument.
The numbers prove something alone and would certainly be classed as discrimination if they was the other way around James. Discrimination against women is claimed all the time based on nothing more than numbers. The real truth behind it, the personal choices, ability to make personal sacrifices, the merit and ability don't even come into it. It is dealt with the ridiculous formula of , " Women less than men in an area = discrimination.

Why have quotas for women and government trying to FORCE 40% women on company boards simply because they are women and they don't think there is enough of them, forget merit, personal sacrifice and all the other things that really make it this way.
http://j4mb.files.wo
rdpress.com/2013/10/
131029-two-pages-han
dout-for-cambridge-p
resentation.pdf.

Why, for example, do we have STEM subjects in university getting funding ONLY for females, the lads have to make their own way, thus disadvantaging boys deliberately simply because of the lack of numbers of women in Science and tech ?, It is not because of any proven discrimination but simply because they don't think there is enough. The list of such examples is very long. Nobody says anything though, when it is being done to benefit women.

I will ask again a simple question, if it was 84% men in employment and they laid off 100% more of the 16% of women employed, even though they was more efficient, do you think nobody would question it? That was the original point I was making in relevance to the article before the usual idiots with the usual shaming language started their white-knighting.

Ultimately the grotesque inequality of gender-employee numbers aside, If the local government is looking to save money and achieve better efficiency, then surely they should be looking at this as a means? Nothing unreasonable or "woman hating" about that at all.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: James don't be a hypocrite, you never debate the facts or the material in the links i post which are relevant. You just ultimately default to your base doctrine. (do their duty, oh please) . The links I post are always relevant to the article, the point I am making or a statement another commenter has made. If you bothered to read, view or debate them that would be clear, but of course those who do not like the opinion find it easier to use shaming tactics or other methods to undermine it, but never debate it of course. Lets try a little experiment. " Dorset County Council an employer that has 84% white people, announced today during cutbacks over money, that they would be laying off twice as many of the minority blacks. This is even though the whites are less efficient and take more time off sick. In a recent study it was shown that whites in fact take 50% more short term sick than blacks." Now James, Qualify that statement for me please and tell me how that is acceptable to you? Because you seem to think it is acceptable when the word is Men. Now in any article of this nature I comment on in this way, please replace the words Man or Men, with any of the words Black, Gay or Jew. Does it sound wrong? If it does, it most likely is. Then try debating the facts of the content or links if you disagree, not the personality of it.[/p][/quote]David, discrimination does not occur just because a black person is fired and a white person is not. It is only discrimination if the black person is fired _because_ he is black. So unless you have evidence to prove that DCC is deliberately targeting male employees, then i don't think there is any case to answer. That's not to say that we men are not discriminated against. We are, in everything from family courts to medical screening. However, that is a different argument.[/p][/quote]The numbers prove something alone and would certainly be classed as discrimination if they was the other way around James. Discrimination against women is claimed all the time based on nothing more than numbers. The real truth behind it, the personal choices, ability to make personal sacrifices, the merit and ability don't even come into it. It is dealt with the ridiculous formula of , " Women less than men in an area = discrimination. Why have quotas for women and government trying to FORCE 40% women on company boards simply because they are women and they don't think there is enough of them, forget merit, personal sacrifice and all the other things that really make it this way. http://j4mb.files.wo rdpress.com/2013/10/ 131029-two-pages-han dout-for-cambridge-p resentation.pdf. Why, for example, do we have STEM subjects in university getting funding ONLY for females, the lads have to make their own way, thus disadvantaging boys deliberately simply because of the lack of numbers of women in Science and tech ?, It is not because of any proven discrimination but simply because they don't think there is enough. The list of such examples is very long. Nobody says anything though, when it is being done to benefit women. I will ask again a simple question, if it was 84% men in employment and they laid off 100% more of the 16% of women employed, even though they was more efficient, do you think nobody would question it? That was the original point I was making in relevance to the article before the usual idiots with the usual shaming language started their white-knighting. Ultimately the grotesque inequality of gender-employee numbers aside, If the local government is looking to save money and achieve better efficiency, then surely they should be looking at this as a means? Nothing unreasonable or "woman hating" about that at all. David_divenghy2
  • Score: 1

1:18pm Sat 18 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

woodsedge wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
David_divenghy2 wrote:
James don't be a hypocrite, you never debate the facts or the material in the links i post which are relevant. You just ultimately default to your base doctrine. (do their duty, oh please) .

The links I post are always relevant to the article, the point I am making or a statement another commenter has made. If you bothered to read, view or debate them that would be clear, but of course those who do not like the opinion find it easier to use shaming tactics or other methods to undermine it, but never debate it of course.

Lets try a little experiment.

" Dorset County Council an employer that has 84% white people, announced today during cutbacks over money, that they would be laying off twice as many of the minority blacks. This is even though the whites are less efficient and take more time off sick. In a recent study it was shown that whites in fact take 50% more short term sick than blacks."

Now James, Qualify that statement for me please and tell me how that is acceptable to you? Because you seem to think it is acceptable when the word is Men.

Now in any article of this nature I comment on in this way, please replace the words Man or Men, with any of the words Black, Gay or Jew. Does it sound wrong? If it does, it most likely is.

Then try debating the facts of the content or links if you disagree, not the personality of it.
David, discrimination does not occur just because a black person is fired and a white person is not. It is only discrimination if the black person is fired _because_ he is black.
So unless you have evidence to prove that DCC is deliberately targeting male employees, then i don't think there is any case to answer.
That's not to say that we men are not discriminated against. We are, in everything from family courts to medical screening. However, that is a different argument.
James, this is a clear example of how DD has such a perverse and one sided view of discrimination. I have represented men and women who have been discriminated against in the workplace up to and including employment tribunals, and I find DD latest post has exposed him for the extremist that he obviously is. He does those males that find themselves in a position where they genuinely are being discriminated against a disservice.
More typical shaming language without pointing out a single fact or example in debate. You are capable of nothing more woodsedge.
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David_divenghy2[/bold] wrote: James don't be a hypocrite, you never debate the facts or the material in the links i post which are relevant. You just ultimately default to your base doctrine. (do their duty, oh please) . The links I post are always relevant to the article, the point I am making or a statement another commenter has made. If you bothered to read, view or debate them that would be clear, but of course those who do not like the opinion find it easier to use shaming tactics or other methods to undermine it, but never debate it of course. Lets try a little experiment. " Dorset County Council an employer that has 84% white people, announced today during cutbacks over money, that they would be laying off twice as many of the minority blacks. This is even though the whites are less efficient and take more time off sick. In a recent study it was shown that whites in fact take 50% more short term sick than blacks." Now James, Qualify that statement for me please and tell me how that is acceptable to you? Because you seem to think it is acceptable when the word is Men. Now in any article of this nature I comment on in this way, please replace the words Man or Men, with any of the words Black, Gay or Jew. Does it sound wrong? If it does, it most likely is. Then try debating the facts of the content or links if you disagree, not the personality of it.[/p][/quote]David, discrimination does not occur just because a black person is fired and a white person is not. It is only discrimination if the black person is fired _because_ he is black. So unless you have evidence to prove that DCC is deliberately targeting male employees, then i don't think there is any case to answer. That's not to say that we men are not discriminated against. We are, in everything from family courts to medical screening. However, that is a different argument.[/p][/quote]James, this is a clear example of how DD has such a perverse and one sided view of discrimination. I have represented men and women who have been discriminated against in the workplace up to and including employment tribunals, and I find DD latest post has exposed him for the extremist that he obviously is. He does those males that find themselves in a position where they genuinely are being discriminated against a disservice.[/p][/quote]More typical shaming language without pointing out a single fact or example in debate. You are capable of nothing more woodsedge. David_divenghy2
  • Score: 2

2:52pm Sat 18 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

In fact James here is an excellent video from Manwomanmyth on their new channel that's just started. This actually lays out quite well the argument of discrimination being claimed on behalf of women, not because of any actual discrimination, but simply because of the lack of representation.

This enforces my claim that Local government discriminates against men based on employee rates per gender (also making them less efficient) and dismisses your claim that a lack of numbers does not equal discrimination.

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=t_REMnrG2
J4&feature=youtu.be
In fact James here is an excellent video from Manwomanmyth on their new channel that's just started. This actually lays out quite well the argument of discrimination being claimed on behalf of women, not because of any actual discrimination, but simply because of the lack of representation. This enforces my claim that Local government discriminates against men based on employee rates per gender (also making them less efficient) and dismisses your claim that a lack of numbers does not equal discrimination. http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=t_REMnrG2 J4&feature=youtu.be David_divenghy2
  • Score: 1

2:56pm Sat 18 Jan 14

woodsedge says...

For someone who believes they are a self appointed expert on discrimination against men, the example you give really does expose your naivety. I can assure you that despite current legislation and in the example you have given, an employer will dismiss by redundancy the employees that the employer has targeted. The employer would use an objective selection process but believe me the decision would be made before the consultation period had began! This would be regardless of the employees colour, creed, sexual orientation etc. take a look at the 2013 employment tribunal statistics and you will see what I am talking about. But you won't do that because it doesn't fit in with your perverse view of the planet, and the data doesn't come from a male extremist web site.
For someone who believes they are a self appointed expert on discrimination against men, the example you give really does expose your naivety. I can assure you that despite current legislation and in the example you have given, an employer will dismiss by redundancy the employees that the employer has targeted. The employer would use an objective selection process but believe me the decision would be made before the consultation period had began! This would be regardless of the employees colour, creed, sexual orientation etc. take a look at the 2013 employment tribunal statistics and you will see what I am talking about. But you won't do that because it doesn't fit in with your perverse view of the planet, and the data doesn't come from a male extremist web site. woodsedge
  • Score: -1

3:07pm Sat 18 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

woodsedge wrote:
For someone who believes they are a self appointed expert on discrimination against men, the example you give really does expose your naivety. I can assure you that despite current legislation and in the example you have given, an employer will dismiss by redundancy the employees that the employer has targeted. The employer would use an objective selection process but believe me the decision would be made before the consultation period had began! This would be regardless of the employees colour, creed, sexual orientation etc. take a look at the 2013 employment tribunal statistics and you will see what I am talking about. But you won't do that because it doesn't fit in with your perverse view of the planet, and the data doesn't come from a male extremist web site.
I have never said any such thing woodsedge about being an expert, again you are typical of those who thinks if they use the worn old tactic of " scream and shout enough and make enough allegations they will be right and people will believe them eventually" .

Meanwhile and before you jump the gun so as not to answer previous questions, mull over the video again and what has been said previously about numbers vs discrimination and discuss that first.


http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=t_REMnrG2

J4&feature=youtu.be
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: For someone who believes they are a self appointed expert on discrimination against men, the example you give really does expose your naivety. I can assure you that despite current legislation and in the example you have given, an employer will dismiss by redundancy the employees that the employer has targeted. The employer would use an objective selection process but believe me the decision would be made before the consultation period had began! This would be regardless of the employees colour, creed, sexual orientation etc. take a look at the 2013 employment tribunal statistics and you will see what I am talking about. But you won't do that because it doesn't fit in with your perverse view of the planet, and the data doesn't come from a male extremist web site.[/p][/quote]I have never said any such thing woodsedge about being an expert, again you are typical of those who thinks if they use the worn old tactic of " scream and shout enough and make enough allegations they will be right and people will believe them eventually" . Meanwhile and before you jump the gun so as not to answer previous questions, mull over the video again and what has been said previously about numbers vs discrimination and discuss that first. http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=t_REMnrG2 J4&feature=youtu.be David_divenghy2
  • Score: 1

3:10pm Sat 18 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

Can you please also qualify Woodedge, what makes the sites i link to like J4MB etc "extremist"? I know it's just more of your drivel and false claims to try and undermine , but I want to hear your precise reasons for calling them "extremist"
Can you please also qualify Woodedge, what makes the sites i link to like J4MB etc "extremist"? I know it's just more of your drivel and false claims to try and undermine , but I want to hear your precise reasons for calling them "extremist" David_divenghy2
  • Score: 2

6:02pm Sat 18 Jan 14

Bert Fry says...

David,
You weren't anything to do with setting pay lavels for female staff in Birmingham Council a few years ago were you? ;-)
David, You weren't anything to do with setting pay lavels for female staff in Birmingham Council a few years ago were you? ;-) Bert Fry
  • Score: 0

7:05pm Sat 18 Jan 14

David_divenghy2 says...

Bert Fry wrote:
David,
You weren't anything to do with setting pay lavels for female staff in Birmingham Council a few years ago were you? ;-)
Lol, no Bert. I have always supported equal pay for work undertaken on an "exact equal basis" and with an exact equal value, including risk, personal sacrifice, conditions , overtime and ability etc all taken into account. However the interpretation of that in many cases is questionable, including in areas that have had standards of entry lowered thus showing a lower standard of merit and value compared to men.

On that note, Recently 50% of women going into the U.S Marines failed the already "lowered" physical requirement of just 3 pull-ups, I know disabled people who could manage that! So what did they do, they suspended the requirement. So do all the men who had to earn it to a higher standard just previously get back-dated compensation? Will all the men killed as a result of working with someone not up to it, get compensation for their family's as a result?
http://www.wnd.com/2
014/01/not-even-half
-of-female-marines-m
eet-standards/

What about how long women have been getting paid maternity leave and men have had nothing ? when will we see Millions back-paid for the decades of that ?. What about pensions and backdating the billions for discrimination against men in that regard? When will we see that? That's just a few that spring to mind.

http://therightsofma
n.typepad.co.uk/the_
rights_of_man/2010/0
4/tories-to-deny-men
-nine-billion-pounds
-in-pensions.html

http://therightsofma
n.typepad.co.uk/the_
rights_of_man/2010/1
0/equalisation-of-st
ate-pension-ages-aft
er-70-years-of-gende
r-discrimination-aga
inst-men-is-still-at
ta.html
[quote][p][bold]Bert Fry[/bold] wrote: David, You weren't anything to do with setting pay lavels for female staff in Birmingham Council a few years ago were you? ;-)[/p][/quote]Lol, no Bert. I have always supported equal pay for work undertaken on an "exact equal basis" and with an exact equal value, including risk, personal sacrifice, conditions , overtime and ability etc all taken into account. However the interpretation of that in many cases is questionable, including in areas that have had standards of entry lowered thus showing a lower standard of merit and value compared to men. On that note, Recently 50% of women going into the U.S Marines failed the already "lowered" physical requirement of just 3 pull-ups, I know disabled people who could manage that! So what did they do, they suspended the requirement. So do all the men who had to earn it to a higher standard just previously get back-dated compensation? Will all the men killed as a result of working with someone not up to it, get compensation for their family's as a result? http://www.wnd.com/2 014/01/not-even-half -of-female-marines-m eet-standards/ What about how long women have been getting paid maternity leave and men have had nothing ? when will we see Millions back-paid for the decades of that ?. What about pensions and backdating the billions for discrimination against men in that regard? When will we see that? That's just a few that spring to mind. http://therightsofma n.typepad.co.uk/the_ rights_of_man/2010/0 4/tories-to-deny-men -nine-billion-pounds -in-pensions.html http://therightsofma n.typepad.co.uk/the_ rights_of_man/2010/1 0/equalisation-of-st ate-pension-ages-aft er-70-years-of-gende r-discrimination-aga inst-men-is-still-at ta.html David_divenghy2
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree