• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Something going on in Parliament - RIP QE2

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post

    As a society we do seem very of the view "anything that isn't perfect should be torn down" of late. Maybe that's always how it's been and only now am I aware of it, but my default position tends to be not "if it's been this way for centuries it's OK" but "if it's been this way for centuries, nothing has changed in the last decade to suddenly invalidate it". When I say "default position" I am open to being convinced otherwise but if we start changing entrenched systems because they are not fully aligned with modern views, we'll never stop tearing them down and rewriting them such is the pace of change right now.

    A point made - by Russell Brand of all people - that I found thought-provoking is that the death of the queen who has been such a symbol of constancy and lived through (or outlived) so many changes, will inevitably be a bit of a dam-breaking in terms of societal change and challenging established ways of thought.
    Its worrying when Russell Brand has a point instead of his best attempt is phoning up King Charles and claiming to have taken Meghan or Kate up the jacksie.

    But he has hit it on the head, with change comes opportunity. Lets hope they take it.

    Leave a comment:


  • northernladuk
    replied
    Originally posted by ladymuck View Post

    So because there hasn't been reform, that means there shouldn't be any?

    You think, based on recent events, that it's ok the royal households are exempt from laws allowing staff to report sexual assault?
    There has been a lot of reform in recent years and I'm absolutely certain that will continue at pace, particularly under Willam. Very difficult to provide top down reform when the top hasn't changed. She did great but such a long service doesn't always give the opportunity for new ways of thinking. We've got that now and I'm sure there will be lots of good stuff happening.

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by ladymuck View Post

    Fair point. I'm not for change for sake of change, just change where old ways just don't work in modern times.
    As a society we do seem very of the view "anything that isn't perfect should be torn down" of late. Maybe that's always how it's been and only now am I aware of it, but my default position tends to be not "if it's been this way for centuries it's OK" but "if it's been this way for centuries, nothing has changed in the last decade to suddenly invalidate it". When I say "default position" I am open to being convinced otherwise but if we start changing entrenched systems because they are not fully aligned with modern views, we'll never stop tearing them down and rewriting them such is the pace of change right now.

    A point made - by Russell Brand of all people - that I found thought-provoking is that the death of the queen who has been such a symbol of constancy and lived through (or outlived) so many changes, will inevitably be a bit of a dam-breaking in terms of societal change and challenging established ways of thought.

    Leave a comment:


  • ladymuck
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    You think that because it hasn't, it should? Anything old is automatically wrong?
    Fair point. I'm not for change for sake of change, just change where old ways just don't work in modern times.

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Originally posted by ladymuck View Post

    So because there hasn't been reform, that means there shouldn't be any?
    You think that because it hasn't, it should? Anything old is automatically wrong?

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post

    So you think it is wrong for say the H&S at Work Act to apply to the monarch's and Prince of Wales households but fine for it to apply to government departments and other people's private households?

    Do you think it would be a good look for the British monarchy for someone to die on a royal estate owned by one of them with say Prince Andrew in residence due to a lapse in H&S? It would make the British state look as corrupt as Middle Eastern countries where servants are killed for displeasing a Prince.
    So someone dying due to poor management and precautions is exactly the same as the prince sending someone out to the courtyard to have his head chopped off because his majesties egg wasn't runny enough. Seems reasonable.
    Last edited by vetran; 16 September 2022, 20:03.

    Leave a comment:


  • SueEllen
    replied
    Originally posted by malvolio View Post

    No, of course I don't. That's clearly wrong


    It's not that they shouldnt apply, but you have to distinguish between rules applying to people and those applying to the State and its employees. Changing the latter has its own problems due to the way the State is constructed, and the constraints on those rules that feed back to why Charles 1 lost his head and Charles 2 got his crown.
    So you think it is wrong for say the H&S at Work Act to apply to the monarch's and Prince of Wales households but fine for it to apply to government departments and other people's private households?

    Do you think it would be a good look for the British monarchy for someone to die on a royal estate owned by one of them with say Prince Andrew in residence due to a lapse in H&S? It would make the British state look as corrupt as Middle Eastern countries where servants are killed for displeasing a Prince.

    Leave a comment:


  • malvolio
    replied
    Originally posted by ladymuck View Post

    So because there hasn't been reform, that means there shouldn't be any?

    You think, based on recent events, that it's ok the royal households are exempt from laws allowing staff to report sexual assault?
    No, of course I don't. That's clearly wrong


    It's not that they shouldnt apply, but you have to distinguish between rules applying to people and those applying to the State and its employees. Changing the latter has its own problems due to the way the State is constructed, and the constraints on those rules that feed back to why Charles 1 lost his head and Charles 2 got his crown.

    Leave a comment:


  • ladymuck
    replied
    Originally posted by malvolio View Post

    Clearly I am understanding a lot more than you do.

    There hasn't been relevant reform between 1640 and now. Some rules have been updated, mainly to do with individuals, but those defining the State and its government haven't.

    Perhaps learn to distinguish between State, Monarch and Incumbent and you might make more sense.
    So because there hasn't been reform, that means there shouldn't be any?

    You think, based on recent events, that it's ok the royal households are exempt from laws allowing staff to report sexual assault?
    Last edited by ladymuck; 15 September 2022, 20:06.

    Leave a comment:


  • malvolio
    replied
    Originally posted by ladymuck View Post

    Which part of reform are you not understanding.

    Times have changed. However, if you wish to cling to Charles I era rules then we should bring back beheading, maybe?
    Clearly I am understanding a lot more than you do.

    There hasn't been relevant reform between 1640 and now. Some rules have been updated, mainly to do with individuals, but those defining the State and its government haven't.

    Perhaps learn to distinguish between State, Monarch and Incumbent and you might make more sense.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X