2015 post UK election discussion

[Tree13]

You obviously don't work in engineering.

Or Law.

 

[marty mcfly]

Or Law.

Seriously - There's more female law graduates today than male. How do they justify it?

 

[SNova]

Or Law.

Or tech.

 

[Moomin]

You obviously don't work in engineering.

Yes, Electrical Engineer. Was a production Engineer but due to globalisation my line got transferred to Eastern Europe and was made redundant. I've since been in the commercial side of the business and work in sales now.

Now, I can honestly say that no business would make redundancies based on gender, think its illegal.

 

[marty mcfly]

We should all gather round for a little cry

It does go to show what happens when government gets in the way.

 

[Tree13]

I skipped over why you are screwing yourself however I will answer it. I don't know much about the specifics but generally the welfare state is based on need above all else.

The more you save the less you will need of the government and therefore the less you will get.

If you want kids now have them. I would argue this would be the best time. You might even be able to get housing benefit as well.

Forget about the morality. You have to do what's best for your family - that's your most important responsibility and besides you will probably end up over your lifespan more than paying enough in tax to make up for it.

Really interesting take on the issue.

Re the housing benefit - I have no idea if we'd be eligible. I presume we wouldn't be, because of our joint income. Besides, we don't need it so it would be socially unjust, not to mention hypocritical, to claim it.

I don't look upon the welfare state as a pot of free money from which I am automatically entitled a share. I look at it as an emergency fund to tide me over temporarily if I get made redundant or suffer long-term illness or injury. The fact I pay tax into it doesn't mean I want to snatch some of it back by whatever means possible, because ideally I will never need it. I can in fact increase the likelihood of never needing it by saving in advance, building my career and maximising my income and THEN having a child. For similar reasons, I don't want to send my children to a state school if I can avoid it. I am happy to pay into the system, but if I can afford to educate my child privately I would regard it as greedy beyond measure to instead demand the state school place I am "entitled" to. The same stands true for private healthcare. Why spend £40 a month on smoking, massively increasing my likelihood of needing a huge chunk of state-funded healthcare, when I could instead pay £40 monthly for a private health insurance policy, reduce the llikelihood of contracting an illness AND reducing the burden on the NHS in the event I did fall ill?

To act to the contrary would sit very uncomfortably with me.

 

[bluemangroup]

I don't think that's funny at all. Quite the opposite in fact.

that's because you're a grumpy little sod

 

[Tree13]

Seriously - There's more female law graduates today than male. How do they justify it?

Many corporate solicitor roles now are actually sales positions, if you look at them from a certain perspective. Male company directors, when buying in legal services, like to buy in hot, attractive young female solicitors. There is an overabundance of them in certain areas of law (mainly the commercial areas) but obviously those factors are far less relevant in other areas, such as criminal defence.

If you look at the gender breakdown amongst NQ and early PQE solicitors, there are significant differences in certain sectors. They (the females) are every bit as capable and qualified, but invariably are preferred in the corporate positions because of the PERCEPTION that they will be more likely to attract more clients.

 

[larrygobfiend]

Really interesting take on the issue.

Re the housing benefit - I have no idea if we'd be eligible. I presume we wouldn't be, because of our joint income. Besides, we don't need it so it would be socially unjust, not mention hypocritical, to claim it.

I don't look upon the welfare state as a pot of free money from which I am automatically entitled a share. I look at it as an emergency fund to tide me over temporarily if I get made redundant or suffer long-term illness or injury. The fact I pay tax into it doesn't mean I want to snatch some of it back by whatever means possible, because ideally I will never need it. I can in fact increase the likelihood of never needing ity by saving in advance, building my career and maximising my income and THEN having a child. For similar reasons, I don't want to send my children to a state school if I can avoid it. I am happy to pay into the system, but if I can afford to educate my child privately I would regard it as greedy beyond measure to instead demand the state school place I am "entitled" to. The same stands true for private healthcare. Why spend £40 a month on smoking, massively increasing my likelihood of needing a huge chunk of state-funded healthcare, when I could instead pay £40 for a private health insurance policy, reduce the llikelihood of contracting an illness AND reducing the burden on the NHS in the event I did fall ill?

To act to the contrary would sit very uncomfortably with me.

I think you've gone way way overboard with that, mate. EVERY child should be entitled to a free education.

 

[marty mcfly]

Really interesting take on the issue.

Re the housing benefit - I have no idea if we'd be eligible. I presume we wouldn't be, because of our joint income. Besides, we don't need it so it would be socially unjust, not mention hypocritical, to claim it.

I don't look upon the welfare state as a pot of free money from which I am automatically entitled a share. I look at it as an emergency fund to tide me over temporarily if I get made redundant or suffer long-term illness or injury. The fact I pay tax into it doesn't mean I want to snatch some of it back by whatever means possible, because ideally I will never need it. I can in fact increase the likelihood of never needing ity by saving in advance, building my career and maximising my income and THEN having a child. For similar reasons, I don't want to send my children to a state school if I can avoid it. I am happy to pay into the system, but if I can afford to educate my child privately I would regard it as greedy beyond measure to instead demand the state school place I am "entitled" to. The same stands true for private healthcare. Why spend £40 a month on smoking, massively increasing my likelihood of needing a huge chunk of state-funded healthcare, when I could instead pay £40 for a private health insurance policy, reduce the llikelihood of contracting an illness AND reducing the burden on the NHS in the event I did fall ill?

To act to the contrary would sit very uncomfortably with me.

You see the problem is. If you wait until you can afford it both in terms of saving and salary you will loose out on those benefits and that means you will be worse off putting at risk the chances of sending your kids to private school later or perhaps even university. You need to take benefits when you can.

I don't think people smoke to pay for the NHS. I just can't stand when do gooders go on about terrible smokers who more than pay for the whole of the NHS including all the illnesses they get and also don't claim as much as old people since they die earlier.

 

[Tree13]

I think you've gone way way overboard with that, mate. EVERY child should be entitled to a free education.

I don't disagree with every child being ENTITLED to it. I'm simply saying that if I can afford to educate my child privately I will, and I will feel pretty pleased knowing that my tax is going towards educating someone else's child, who, by luck, fate or whatever you call it, isn't in the same position as Mrs Tree and I.

What's overboard about that?

 

[daylightrobber]

I can't really be bothered to go and find loads of hard facts. You're making it out like it never happens. You seriously can't think that?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...t-has-helped-28-terrorists-to-stay-in-UK.html

No, but 20, or maybe 28 over 10 years, although they can't be sure because "The Home Office said it did not keep figures on the numbers of terror suspects allowed to remain here by the courts", doesn't mean that the Government can use it as an excuse to infringe on the civil liberties of the rest of us.

The article is scaremongering at its finest - muslim terrorists roam free in our communities and are committing further crimes. It generally isn't the case. Nor is it the case btw that there are disproportionately more convicted Muslim terrorists than of any other religion or indeed no religion.

Immigrants though hey. Blame them for everything.

 

[marty mcfly]

Many corporate solicitor roles now are actually sales positions, if you look at them from a certain perspective. Male company directors, when buying in legal services, like to buy in hot, attractive young female solicitors. There is an overabundance of them in certain areas of law (mainly the commercial areas) but obviously those factors are far less relevant in other areas, such as criminal defence.

If you look at the gender breakdown amongst NQ and early PQE solicitors, there are significant differences in certain sectors. They (the females) are every bit as capable and qualified, but invariably are preferred in the corporate positions because of the PERCEPTION that they will be more likely to attract more clients.

That's totally true. If you are under a certain age being a young attractive female is a golden ticket for any client facing job. However the opposite is also the case as they get older.

I can't really complain. My wife does one of those jobs but she's aware of the situation and knows she needs to move on before she gets too old.

 

[Walken]

Seriously - There's more female law graduates today than male. How do they justify it?

why do they need to justify it

 

[SNova]

No, but 20, or maybe 28 over 10 years, although they can't be sure because "The Home Office said it did not keep figures on the numbers of terror suspects allowed to remain here by the courts", doesn't mean that the Government can use it as an excuse to infringe on the civil liberties of the rest of us.

The article is scaremongering at its finest - muslim terrorists roam free in our communities and are committing further crimes. It generally isn't the case. Nor is it the case btw that there are disproportionately more convicted Muslim terrorists than of any other religion or indeed no religion.

Immigrants though hey. Blame them for everything.

Oh, bloody hell. Come off it.