Thatcherite. Libertarian. 30 years a Brexiteer. Classicist, chartered accountant, retired insurance exec. Deep sceptic of AGW hypothesis. @iealondon fnudder.
@Ianbarnes2001@danny__kruger That may be so but is irrelevant to the point. It should still conduct its business outside working hours. There is absolutely no reason why any employer should pay for its activities. And certainly not where the taxpayer is paying the wage bill.
@vinylhead82@danny__kruger No. Private interest groups should meet outside working hours at their own expense. Absolutely no reason why any employer should subsidise them. When at work you should be doing what you are paid to do 100% of the time.
@Ianbarnes2001@danny__kruger Clubs and associations come in many forms: golf clubs, beekeeping associations, churches and, indeed, unions.
What’s your point? My point is that none of these things has any place in the workplace. Meet outside at your own expense.
@Miatsf The solution is simple:
* repeal the Climate Change Act
* authorise and incentivise North Sea oil drilling;
* remove fracking bans and issue licences;
* license new nuclear copying proven overseas designs with no gold plating regs designed to slow down implementation & add cost.
@vinylhead82@danny__kruger It should be zero. There is no excuse for engaging in extra curricular activities during working hours. When at work every hour should be spent on the employer’s business.
@Ianbarnes2001@danny__kruger It should be zero. There is no reason why any employer should be compelled to subsidise any club or association that some of its employees may be a member of. These activities belong wholly outside working hours.
@bphillipsonMP Your own family circumstances are important to you but irrelevant in policy terms. What matters is what the aggregate data tell us. And that is clear and unarguable: outcomes for children brought up by a mother and a father are better on every measure.
@SpeechUnion@mattwridley People who cite the Data Protection Act to defend some form of obstructive behaviour invariably either
a) demonstrate they have no understanding of the Act; or
b) are assuming that other people don’t understand it and will accept the brush off.
DPA is clearly irrelevant here.
This will not assist the University of Cambridge in fulfilling their Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) under the Equality Act 2010.
By muddling sex and gender identity, they fail to capture either of the relevant protected characteristics, which are sex and gender reassignment.
The simple solution is to collect each of these as a distinct variable.
@timfarron If you’d had it done outside the NHS wouldn’t that be brilliant too?
Isn’t it the operation that’s brilliant, not the legal structure of the provider?
Why this obsessive need to idolise a nationalised health care provider?
@QcWynter@SVPhillimore You’d have thought so. But Mr Maugham is a KC and holds this curious position. Or do you contend that, despite his KC status, he is no longer really a lawyer, only someone who identifies as such?
@francessmith@TIMGOLDFINCH A real Conservative might suggest this is because she isn’t one, and should never have been allowed to become a MP with that badge.
@jamespriceglos@jfwduffield Just demonstrating that he ticks the necessary boxes to be a Guardian columnist.
I don’t think they realise how ridiculous they look to the world outside the Guardian bubble.
@oliverbrown_tel@CazEllerington Do we really need to know whether you were sitting, standing or in any other position when you *met* Mary-Ann Stephenson?