Had to laugh at this interview given by Harriet Harman on her wonderfully Orwellian “Equality Act” being published today. Right the way through posh Harriet was allowed to waffle, claiming that her class war act will lead to a stronger economy. Just to end the item Harriet was also given the chance to add her support to the 50% tax rate debate, without interruption. Isn’t life grand when you’re a hard left gender warrior on the BBC?
HARRIET HARPERSON – GENDER WARRIOR!
Bookmark the permalink.
On the contrary. I heard the interview with James Naughtie and, for once, he was skeptical and actually dared to doubt that legislation will work (in controlling our thoughts, as Orwell wd put it.)
Needless to say, Mz Harm-man was totally undeflected from her foam-flecked certainties.
She’s a true gender agenda offender.
It looks like Labour’s Minister for Women and Equality, Ms. Harman, is dertermined to lose Labour significant elements of the male vote through her anti-men discriminatory legislation:
As the ‘Evening Standard’, but not BBC, puts it:
“Harman wants employers to discriminate and choose the best woman for the job”
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23681490-details/article.do?ito=newsnow&
sorry,only got twenty seconds in.
just cannot stomach the woman.
Preposteroso 9:49
I wouldn’t fancy trying to say that after a couple of glasses of wine. Wouldn’t fancy Harriet after a couple of bottles of wine.
O/T
Greg Dyke..
“The BBC’s published aim at that time was “to be the most effective, best-run public sector organisation in Britain”. Worthy, but who was going to get out of bed for that?
So we changed it to “Our aim is to be the most creative organisation in the world”.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/greg-dyke-the-language-of-cost-and-profit-doesnt-work-with-creative-people-1674771.html
so you have to pretend its not about money with “creative people”… but if you don’t massage their collective ego & give them a shitload of licence-payer’s cash, they’re probably not interested in the slightest.
Brown to resign and be replaced by Harman? A dream scenario for her. A nightmare for newlabour condemned to obscurity for a generation. let her keep spouting her nonsense and hope the BBC gives her all the opportunities she needs to destroy her party.
It’s called ‘changing the news agenda’.
And ZaNu Labour and thier media luvvie pals, particularly in AljaBeeba, are simply the best at doing it.
Just watched this item on the one o’clock news bulliten. The speakerene declared from the off that women receive 30%ish less per hour than men as a fact and then introduced a woman from Kirklees Council who was a care worker. Apparently she earns less than the binmen and has won 20 odd grand because of this ‘unfair’ discrimination. Naturally the obvious questions were not asked
1. Where did the 30%ish figure come from and how was it calculated?
2. Did male care workers receive the same money as female care workers? A question that sure is apposite for this proposed legislation. AFAIK all council workers get the same money according to their pay grade and seniority so it is difficult to see how a council would get away with paying men and women different amounts if they are on the same scale.
2. Why should a care worker recieve the same money as a binman – it’s a different job surely? You could argue that the care workers deserved more money than the binmen, if you were so inclined, but there was no evidence that the difference in pay was due to inequallity.
The BBC must think we are thick if we can’t spot a differentials arguement. Back to the ’70’s boys and girls 🙁
Sometime before the Harperson interview (having done away with fireman, postman etc. how implausible that the equality minister is still a Harman) another three way item discussed the rich/poor inequality that this Bill would change – really?
As ever the interviewer made no interjection to challenge the statement that “the poor are getting poorer”. Surely after 12 years of this redistributive government with tax credits etc. that fact cannot be true, can it? Of course we could raise benefits / credits to such a level that nobody needs to be “poor” but then of course nobody would want to work to pay the penal tax rates that would be required to be no better off than being “on the state”. Hang on, we could get immigrants in to do the work and pay the taxes – until they qualify for the payments!
“Minister for Equality” Harriet Harman! The sadness of the BBC is that the Jim N interview never questions the presuppositions of the horrid Harman – who has never done a day’s WORK in her life.
But thanks David Vance for one bringing the interview to our attention: the sentence that into my book of quotes is this:
“Though women live longer than men, better-off men live longer than poorer women…”
A desperate attempt, in Harman’s Alice in Wonderland world of “equality’ to make women less equal than men. Don’t these people ever hear themselves as others hear them?
No doubt the hypocritical Harman and Labour will do nothing about the consequences of Islam’s unequal and unfair treatment of women in Saudi Arabia being extended to British women:
‘Jihadwatch’ comment on ‘Times’ re-port:
“BMI air stewardess fired for refusing to fly to Saudi Arabia and walk behind men”
[Extrtact]:
“Her letter of dismissal said it was ‘proportionate’ to ask female employees to walk behind men out of respect for Saudi culture.”
“More dhimmitude from the same airline. ‘BMI told stewardess to wear Muslim robe,’ by Jon Ungoed-Thomas ‘Times’ :
“A BRITISH air stewardess was sacked for refusing to fly to Saudi Arabia after she was ordered to wear a traditional Islamic robe and walk behind male colleagues.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025857.php
I’m beginning to think that Gordon Brown is a secret Tory agent, bent on trying to destroy the Labour party from within. I mean, if you had to sell ‘positive’ discrimination to the British public who would you use as the front man/women, for the policy?
Harriet Harman • you’ve got to be kidding. She is a walking, talking stereotype for men who think that a women’s place is in the kitchen. She was born into the aristocracy, her life has been cosseted by money and privilege, she has never worked in the private sector and her political outlook hasn’t progressed beyond the 1970’s. The real world has never encroached on her life or core beliefs. Yet for all her wealth, education and political experience, she can’t manage a department or sustain an argument for toffee. When standing in for Gordon Brown at PMQ’s she is a total joke. In fact, she’s so bad, that the media seem to give her credit for still being in one piece by the end; William Hague it seems – is now expected to reduce Harriet to a quivering wreck for the contest to be scored a draw. Her campaign for the Deputy leadership of the Labour party was equally feeble • her one and only campaign slogan seemed to be • vote for me because I’m a woman. The fact that she won, says more about the Labour party than it does about her abilities as a politician.
Personally I wouldn’t employ Harriet if the alternative candidate was….. Well actually I wouldn’t employ her even if there wasn’t an alternative candidate, and my job was reliant upon me filling the post by the end of the day.
Oh! And BBC bias? Well they got to be biased to take her ambitions seriously. Harman for PM – yeah! Like that’s going to happen.
Other than that – she’s alright I suppose 🙂
That was pathetic. Harriet Harman is spelling out a basically neo-Marxist law, intended to force…er…something which will make society more “equal and fair”. How does it lead to a “more prosperous economy?” The BBC doesn’t care, because to them that’s not the point, of course. The point is that it will, you all need it and want it, so the only question is how to implement it.
Naughtie likes the forest so much he starts complaining that the trees won’t be robust enough for it to work. I admit it was refreshing to hear a Beeboid actually object to an increase in bureaucracy and behavioral law, but he still missed the point entirely.
Why doesn’t Naughtie ask what the “strategic duty” is she’s talking about? He likes the idea of eliminating wealth – he makes that clear at the end – but he’s not happy with this method. So he doesn’t object to the totalitarian stuff Harman is revealing. For example, does she want to reduce health care for rich men so that their life spans are reduced to that of poor women? That’s what it sounded like to me.
Naughtie doesn’t care; he’s found his angle, and he’s sticking to it.
Asking Harman what the hell she’s talking about ought to be more important than complaining how it’s going to be implemented. But no, he even attacks Labour from the Left, says they need to change their policies because the gap between rich and poor increased under them, instead of this new method.
Oh, and of course, because BBC editorial policy requires it, the 50p rate. Rich people can afford it, the end.
Off topic I know…. (sorry)
Yesterday we had ‘Dave the Miser’.
Today we have ‘Pakistan Minister misses Brown talk’
So how and why did the Pakistan President miss his scheduled talks with Gordon. Was he ill? Stuck in traffic? Did he forget… err no.
According to the BBC’s report: “Pakistan’s president has cancelled a planned news conference with UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
Sources suggest Asif Zardari is unhappy with the fallout from anti-terrorist operations in the UK, in which 11 Pakistani nationals were arrested.”
So shouldn’t the headline read -‘Pakistan President snubs Brown’ or ‘Pakistan President cancels Brown meeting’ etc… By using the word ‘miss’ the BBC headline falsely implies a mistake, regret or accident.
And please Beeboids, don’t say the headline doesn’t matter because the content of the story is accurate. A lot of people won’t read the story, they’ll just glance at the headline. But that’s the point and you know it.
As if by magic the BBC headline has just changed – but it is even worse.
‘Pakistan Minister misses Brown talk’ now becomes ‘Brown urges firmer Pakistan links’.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8021146.stm
The Pakistan’s Presidents snub is now reduced to just a paragraph with the above story. A feature which hardly anybody will read. As for Nick Robinson – despite travelling with the PM, his blog doesn’t mention the snub either…
BTW did anybody else notice that despite having more resources than their competitiors, the BBC news team were not even nominated for any of the BAFTA awards last night. And remember most of the BAFTA judges are luvvies who support (or have even been employed) by the BBC.
Some silly cow on Radio 5 this morning claimed that a woman who sits in an office but who has some degree should be paid more than say a fireman who (quote) “only does a few weeks training”
I wonder if she’d say that when scraping up someone’s remains out of a car crash or similar?
of course the catch all used by the feminist lesbian left is “work of equal value” NOT the same work.
So in a hospital a cleaner should be paid the same as a brain surgeon after all both do work of equal value don’t they?
Look at the accident and ill health statistics. Most people who die in the workplace are men and most who suffer serious ill health are men. Funny that the other day Harperson was sneering that is some places some women die younger than men and this MUST be corrected.
Can’t have that can we? men living longer.
The trouble is the gay/camp left wing males at the BBC just NEVER challenge this feminist view.
I wonder though if BBC males will be happily disclosing what they get paid?
Can anyone remember the Wimbledon womens final last year? No, but it was a yawn fest. But the men’s final was superb, yet the bints got paid the same.
It’s a joke and whilst the public sector might be forced into this crap, the private sector won’t.
Martin:
Yeah and look how many sets Nadal had to play to win.
They should stop sex discrimination at Wimbledon and do away with the outdated mens’ and womens’ singles. One singles competition, open to both sexes.
Then there will be no need to complain about unequal prize money, or unequal sets played.
Advice for ninnies who insist that equal pay for men and women is some sort of organic right: go found a company and pay your female employees as much as your male employees, or more.
But this, of course, would mean going onto the field and playing in the real game instead of making a career standing on the sidelines impressing the gullible and the young with airy-fairy notions.
No doubt out of political discrimination towards Labour and Harman, and dhimmitude towards Saudi Arabia and Islam, the BBC still doesn’t have a report on this on its news website:
‘Jihadwatch’ comment on ‘Times ‘ report:
“BMI air stewardess fired for refusing to fly to Saudi Arabia and walk behind men”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025857.php
For the BBC:
Other versions of the report you apparently refuse to run on news website for your own political reasons:
1.)’Mail’ :
“Stewardess sacked for refusing to wear Islamic robe and walk behind male colleagues”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1173861/Stewardess-sacked-refusing-wear-Islamic-robe-walk-male-colleagues.html
2.)’Telegraph’:
“Stewardess sacked after refusing to wear Islamic robe”
[Extract]:
“An air stewardess has been sacked after refusing her airline’s demand to wear traditional Islamic dress and walk behind male colleagues in Saudi Arabia.
“Lisa Ashton, who worked for BMI, was told that she was expected to wear the abaya, a long black robe that leaves only the face uncovered, when she was out in public in the Gulf state.
“She was also told that she should walk behind male colleagues irrespective of their rank, in order to conform with the social codes of the conservative country.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/5224601/Stewardess-sacked-after-refusing-to-wear-Islamic-robe.html
Labour’s ‘Equality’ industry – as approved by BBC:
‘Mail:
“Spending on equality watchdog soars by 50% to £70million”
[Extract]:
“The cost of the Government’s anti-discrimination watchdog has ballooned by £22.5million in a year to an eye-watering £70million.
“Salaries for bureaucrats at the Equality and Human Rights Commission have also soared by an inflation-defying 25 per cent.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1169166/Spending-equality-watchdog-soars-50-70million.html
Pakistani President refuses photo opportunity with grinning gimp
(If Carlsberg did teletext page headlines)
Here’s is the Mail’s reporting of Harman’s disgraceful inequality proposals:
Harman under fire over equality bill that will allow employers to ‘positively discriminate’ AGAINST men
It contains plenty of criticism. I wasn’t therefore surprised that I couldn’t find any mention of it on the BBC news site. I was expecting to find the usual promotional write-up without any of the criticism – the Beeb will usually of course airbrush out any controversy when writing up stories like this….but alas I couldn’t even find that. There was nothing.
People like Harman never having had to work for a company that can only survive by making a profit don’t realise that people like my bosses would get rid of me in an instant if I could be replaced by a woman who would do exactly the same work for 30% less.
Anyone got any gripes about the BBCs coverage of the swine flu? Havent read any yet, just wondered why not.
Martin, Vance etc have an opinion on everything else
Harman has only got where she is by using her gender as an excuse.
She has no talent (OK neither do most of the Liebour party) nor would she be capable of earning a living in the real world.
I just wonder though if the BBC will be releasing the salary scales of their presenters?
I’ve had to negotiate my own salary with the employers I’ve worked for. If I found out a colleague was getting paid a lot more that I was, I’d simply look for a better job. When asked why I was leaving I’d point out that I’m not paid what I think I’m worth.
I’ve done it before and I’d do it again.
I’ve had two jobs over the recent years where I took a pay cut to join them. Often it’s what you do as much as what you get paid.
Ron Todd | 27.04.09 – 5:54 pm |
I can’t speak for the UK, but in the US gender inequality in pay used to be very real at higher levels. Used to be. There have been laws and campaigns and the like for ages which have addressed that to a large degree. Nothing’s ever perfect, but it’s no longer possible to say it’s a serious problem. In the US at least, a lot of the complaints today use cherry-picked figures which don’t take into account seniority, previous experience, etc., when defining job and pay levels.
I don’t think I agree with your suggestion about being replaced by a women at a lower salary. No male chauvinist boss who thinks that women don’t deserve the same pay is going to get rid of all the male workers simply to save money. He’d think that too many women would ruin his company. No savings in the end.
None of this has any bearing on the insanity of what Harman was saying, though. It’s obvious from the words she uses that her theories ignore experience and seniority. That’s only good for unions, of course.
Not that the Beeboids are remotely interested in addressing the logic of any of it, or asking her to define her terms beyond platitudes and buzz words. Naughtie found the easy angle, and that was it. Funny how Cameron got called to task to define his terms, and when he didn’t, Sarah Montague tried to define them in a derogatory way.
I’m sure things will improve in September.
Forget Harridan Harpic,sign the petition to get Gordon Brown to resign.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/please-go/#detail
Gavin Barass | 27.04.09 – 6:14 pm |
Brilliant contribution to the thread – such in deph knowledge of Harmans “equilties bill” is astounding.
Gavin Barass: Drug dealer not around tonight then?
Gavin,
It’s the end of the world. Isn’t it?
And my name is David, use it.
Harman is no suprise. She has banged on about equality for years. Only she does not know what equality equates to.
I wonder if she will campaign for more male teachers in primary schools or more male parents getting custody (or at least proper visiting rights) of their children in divorce courts.
This is an extremely complicated issue and there are numerous reasons for women earning less than men. The short answer is:
‘men and women are different’
Ultimately, that is all it comes down to. Different doesn’t mean inferior.
Harman, is a moron. She thinks that she can regulate away millions of years of evolution. Despite all the previous socialist regulations, women haven’t ‘risen to the challenge/example’ laid down by Harman and her ilk. Instead, women continue to prioritise different things to men. For example:
* Settling down and starting a family
* Spending more time with friends and family
* Taking time out from their careers to stay at home with their children
* Finding a ‘provider’
Obviously, these are gross generalisations. However, they are true for a sizeable chunk of British women. There is nothing ‘wrong’ or ‘abnormal’ about this behaviour, but it does have consequences.
I personally know a lady (my friend’s wife) that works for a well known multinational. She doesn’t like her job, but decided not to quit. Instead, she has taken two years paid leave to have children. Good for her!
When/if she returns to work, she won’t expect to rejoin the company with an automatic promotion. Why would she re-enter the company at the same level as her male colleagues, that have not taken leave. That would be absurd – but not in ‘Harman land’.
I despair at these cretinous dinosaurs from the seventies. They are the same ‘radicals’ that removed Home Economics from the curriculum because it was ‘sexist’ to train women for a life of drudgery. Now we have whole sections of society that can’t even cook a meal for their children. It never occurred to them that it might be a better idea to also teach the boys to cook.
There will be similarly disastrous consequences to Harman’s proposed class/gender warfare.
Oh well, I’m now actively saving cash to leave this shit hole of a nation, within the next few years.
A minute’s silence for Jack Dromey.
Gavin Barass (did Martin invent that name?):
I agree with you that the rare case of (till now) fairly straight reporting of the swine fever outbreak tends to highlight the fact that the rest of the BBC’s output is highly partisan – biased even. And I look forward to your observations on this 99% biased reporting
The answer to Har-person was given by that journalist-
Re: Womens right to Wages for Housework.
Maam, if I was going to pay wages for housework, I would employ a man and have it done properly.
Re: Womens right to Wages for Housework.
AndrewSouthLondon | 28.04.09 – 9:28 pm | #
Maybe Ms. Harperson would be up for a bit of O/T helping Mr. Purnell tidy his gaff?