Also in the News - Part 2

[dsr-burnley]

36 minutes ago, Sideshow Faes said:

I don't think many people understand this point tbh

 

As this proves 

I believe I understand the point, but I disagree with it.  If you can give a more detailed explanation of what it means, it would be helpful so that I could know for sure whether I understand it.

[Guesty]

1 hour ago, Tommy G said:

£100m on an IT system that should of cost £19m. Wow. No amount of money could drag me to work within the space of a local council, much be a complete trudge day in day out. 

I genuinely don't think people realise how much of a mess some councils are - as in, they think it's bad, but it's actually worse than they think it is.

 

Our department needed a new IT software (was the main operating system, so integral). None of the managers had any idea - didn't even know what the cloud was; but they were making the decision. They spent big money on a new system that they knew wouldn't do what we needed. To then pay a fortune to a consultancy firm from India to reprogramme the new software to get it usable for us. They also created a new team in the council to facilitate all this. They were working on this for about 4-5 years.

 

There was software from a different provider that out of the box would do what we needed - they used to use it years ago. But all cause one senior manager in another department didn't want to change their software we couldn't use it.

 

Our department was one which took on external business - so could make the council money. This new software was such a disaster and wasted so much money; not only did they not get any new business. All the existing external business had to leave. 30 to 50% of the department (roughly 40 people) were made redundant. Of course, all the managers and business development team were okay. Before that the same people tried to introduce a new set of software for something different. After spending a fortune they realised they'd forgotten all about data protection and had to scrap it.

 

There are very valid arguments for the underfunding of local councils from central government. But some of the waste and incompetence is astounding and there's rarely any accountability for managers. They mainly promote from within so nothing ever improves and they all protect each other.

 

Edit: I missed the fact it was and Oracle IT system in Birmingham. My story above is also an Oracle system.

Edited 5 September 2023 by Guesty

[fox_up_north]

4 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

It helps no one to stop people spending their money on their kids.  Really, no one.  What does help is providing good education for everyone, and clearly that is not happening.  It should be happening.  I would happily pay more tax for it to happen.  Also the ones you are complaining about pay the majority of the tax, just saying.

Quite right. Education needs to improve, as a whole. 

 

Having worked in elements of private/ after school education, I can see both sides. One of the very obvious things is if you have Little Johnny son of a famous person, it raises the question of whether it is appropriate or safe for him to be in a state school environment. 

 

In my ideal world, there'd be a greater spread of things in education. I'm lucky that I was/ am quite academic and went to a grammar school but there are plenty of people for whom this just isn't for them. They still have skills and abilities but expecting them to sit and learn stuff off a board all day won't work.

 

Personally I'd like to see secondary schools offer fewer GCSEs (you only need 5, two of which are Maths and English) and focus on encouraging a positive attitude to learning and society. 

[Jattdogg]

1 hour ago, Guesty said:

I genuinely don't think people realise how much of a mess some councils are - as in, they think it's bad, but it's actually worse than they think it is.

 

Our department needed a new IT software (was the main operating system, so integral). None of the managers had any idea - didn't even know what the cloud was; but they were making the decision. They spent big money on a new system that they knew wouldn't do what we needed. To then pay a fortune to a consultancy firm from India to reprogramme the new software to get it usable for us. They also created a new team in the council to facilitate all this. They were working on this for about 4-5 years.

 

There was software from a different provider that out of the box would do what we needed - they used to use it years ago. But all cause one senior manager in another department didn't want to change their software we couldn't use it.

 

Our department was one which took on external business - so could make the council money. This new software was such a disaster and wasted so much money; not only did they not get any new business. All the existing external business had to leave. 30 to 50% of the department (roughly 40 people) were made redundant. Of course, all the managers and business development team were okay. Before that the same people tried to introduce a new set of software for something different. After spending a fortune they realised they'd forgotten all about data protection and had to scrap it.

 

There are very valid arguments for the underfunding of local councils from central government. But some of the waste and incompetence is astounding and there's rarely any accountability for managers. They mainly promote from within so nothing ever improves and they all protect each other.

I work in IT Application/Solutions and some of the decisions made by upper IT management (and business leadership) is mind boggling.  Even when presented with proof of bad ideas, bad decisions you are told to essentially fook off.

 

It never seems to impact them though, just us minions.

 

 

[Lionator]

1 hour ago, Guesty said:

I genuinely don't think people realise how much of a mess some councils are - as in, they think it's bad, but it's actually worse than they think it is.

 

Our department needed a new IT software (was the main operating system, so integral). None of the managers had any idea - didn't even know what the cloud was; but they were making the decision. They spent big money on a new system that they knew wouldn't do what we needed. To then pay a fortune to a consultancy firm from India to reprogramme the new software to get it usable for us. They also created a new team in the council to facilitate all this. They were working on this for about 4-5 years.

 

There was software from a different provider that out of the box would do what we needed - they used to use it years ago. But all cause one senior manager in another department didn't want to change their software we couldn't use it.

 

Our department was one which took on external business - so could make the council money. This new software was such a disaster and wasted so much money; not only did they not get any new business. All the existing external business had to leave. 30 to 50% of the department (roughly 40 people) were made redundant. Of course, all the managers and business development team were okay. Before that the same people tried to introduce a new set of software for something different. After spending a fortune they realised they'd forgotten all about data protection and had to scrap it.

 

There are very valid arguments for the underfunding of local councils from central government. But some of the waste and incompetence is astounding and there's rarely any accountability for managers. They mainly promote from within so nothing ever improves and they all protect each other.

 

Edit: I missed the fact it was and Oracle IT system in Birmingham. My story above is also an Oracle system.

It's not just council's, this is now a very British trait. Take HS2 for example. Kicking the can down the road time and time again which will just end up costing even more just so that it doesn't look bad on the current incarnates. I work in the NHS and the waste is simply diabolical. Your story is pretty much common place in the NHS. 

[Guesty]

Just now, Jattdogg said:

I work in IT Application/Solutions and some of the decisions made by upper IT management (and business leadership) is mind boggling.  Even when presented with proof of bad ideas, bad decisions you are told to essentially fook off.

 

It never seems to impact them though, just us minions.

 

 

I just edited my post. I hadn't realised the Birmingham story was an Oracle HR and Finance system. My story is all about Oracle HR and Finance. Wonder how many other councils took it on.

[Happy Fox]

I think the whole idea of party politics is useless and backwards to be honest.

 

If the politicians across parties decided to consult together and work together for the good of the country it wouldn’t be in this state right now, it wouldn’t be perfect either but it would be a damn site better.

 

 

Edited 5 September 2023 by Happy Fox

[st albans fox]

21 minutes ago, Happy Fox said:

I think the whole idea of party politics is useless and backwards to be honest.

 

If the politicians across parties decided to consult together and work together for the good of the country it wouldn’t be in this state right now, it wouldn’t be perfect either but it would be a damn site better.

 

I can see why you’re ‘happy fox’

humans have a habit of acting in their own interests and on the basis of their beliefs 

 

our future depends on who is programming AI !

[Guest Sideshow Faes]

2 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

I believe I understand the point, but I disagree with it.  If you can give a more detailed explanation of what it means, it would be helpful so that I could know for sure whether I understand it.

Sex is scientifically defined. It's chromosomes, DNA, stuff that is unchanging. Sex is defined and doesn't change.

 

Gender is about the societal and individual view of a person and is not scientifically measured. It's about how people see themselves and others.

 

Too often the debate around gender gets taken over by people that are actually talking about sex because they don't understand the discussion. And pointless questions like "what is a woman" which differs depending on whether you're talking about sex or gender.

[Dunge]

48 minutes ago, Sideshow Faes said:

Sex is scientifically defined. It's chromosomes, DNA, stuff that is unchanging. Sex is defined and doesn't change.

 

Gender is about the societal and individual view of a person and is not scientifically measured. It's about how people see themselves and others.

 

Too often the debate around gender gets taken over by people that are actually talking about sex because they don't understand the discussion. And pointless questions like "what is a woman" which differs depending on whether you're talking about sex or gender.

When did the word Gender take this definition? Is it an old definition that’s returned or is it that language has evolved? Because back 20 or 25 years ago I can only remember the words being interchangeable. ie When I grew up, if someone said Gender it would be about biology. Now it seems to be about identity.

[dsr-burnley]

1 hour ago, Sideshow Faes said:

Sex is scientifically defined. It's chromosomes, DNA, stuff that is unchanging. Sex is defined and doesn't change.

 

Gender is about the societal and individual view of a person and is not scientifically measured. It's about how people see themselves and others.

 

Too often the debate around gender gets taken over by people that are actually talking about sex because they don't understand the discussion. And pointless questions like "what is a woman" which differs depending on whether you're talking about sex or gender.

I can agree that, especially the last paragraph.  All this guff about whether people of the male sex should be allowed to enter women's races - had it been made clear from the off that this was a question of sex, not gender, then we needn't had had all the controversy.  It would have been simple from the off, women's sports are for people of the female sex.  End of controversy.

 

Ditto the women-only safe spaces that JK Rowling is so concerned about.  It could have been made clear from the start that women who (for whatever reason) are afraid of people of the male sex, should be able to have safe spaces where people of the male sex are not allowed, regardless of their gender.  I have no idea why Emma Watson and friends are so determined that women who are frightened of men should not be allowed safe spaces, but if it had been made clear to them that this is not about gender, it is about sex, then they wouldn't have needed to sound off so much (or at all).

Edited 5 September 2023 by dsr-burnley

[The Year Of The Fox]

6 hours ago, Guesty said:

 

Anyone on here tried to blame the Tories yet or?

[The Doctor]

2 hours ago, Sideshow Faes said:

Sex is scientifically defined. It's chromosomes, DNA, stuff that is unchanging. Sex is defined and doesn't change.

 

Gender is about the societal and individual view of a person and is not scientifically measured. It's about how people see themselves and others.

 

Too often the debate around gender gets taken over by people that are actually talking about sex because they don't understand the discussion. And pointless questions like "what is a woman" which differs depending on whether you're talking about sex or gender.

I mean that's a very dubious take on the science tbh. Setting aside that DNA is constantly changing, the vast majority of people will not know their sex chromosomes. Unless there is reason to be tested we just assume it's XX or XY as appropriate. Sex is judged at birth not on chromosomes (in which case there'd be more than 2 sexes) but on genitalia (and forcefully assigned to kids who don't fit the neat delineation), and is generally signified by genitals, gonads, gametes, hormonal profiles and secondary sex characteristics and all of those can be changed, either deliberately by medical intervention or by natural causes. As a general rule, anything biological is mutable (the underlying principle behind modern medicine, evolutionary theory and everything in-between)

 

1 hour ago, dsr-burnley said:

Ditto the women-only safe spaces that JK Rowling is so concerned about.  It could have been made clear from the start that women who (for whatever reason) are afraid of people of the male sex, should be able to have safe spaces where people of the male sex are not allowed, regardless of their gender.  I have no idea why Emma Watson and friends are so determined that women who are frightened of men should not be allowed safe spaces, but if it had been made clear to them that this is not about gender, it is about sex, then they wouldn't have needed to sound off so much (or at all).

And this is an utterly bizarre take, ascribing ignorance to Watson and other trans inclusive feminists with little justification, but let's work on this position. Women who are often justifiably frightened of men deserve safe spaces from men, on this we can absolutely agree, however why does this group not include trans women? Based on the data we have, over 50% of trans people will experience sexual violence in their lifetime [1], with rates consistent between trans men and women [2]. Seems very justified that they would also fear men, and I think it's not an unreasonable suggestion that segregating bathrooms etc by birth sex would expose trans women to higher risks of sexual violence, so I guess the question is why does their safety and comfort not matter?

 

[1] https://ovc.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh226/files/pubs/forge/sexual_numbers.html

[2] https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/

Edited 5 September 2023 by The Doctor

[dsr-burnley]

10 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

And this is an utterly bizarre take, ascribing ignorance to Watson and other trans inclusive feminists with little justification, but let's work on this position. Women who are often justifiably frightened of men deserve safe spaces from men, on this we can absolutely agree, however why does this group not include trans women? Based on the data we have, over 50% of trans people will experience sexual violence in their lifetime [1], with rates consistent between trans men and women [2]. Seems very justified that they would also fear men, and I think it's not an unreasonable suggestion that segregating bathrooms etc by birth sex would expose trans women to higher risks of sexual violence, so I guess the question is why does their safety and comfort not matter?

 

This is a complete misunderstanding of what I said.  Never, never did I say that trans women shouldn't have safe spaces where they can be away from the people they fear.  

 

Since you ask, there are two reasons why the woman-only safe space should not include trans women.  First and foremost, some women are afraid of all men, including those who have become trans women.  The point of a safe space is that they shouldn't have to share it with a person they fear, and they shouldn't be flat-out told that their fears are wrong and should be ignored.   2. Less vitally but still a risk, it is possible for a man who enjoys beating or abusing women, to lie.  We can't rely on sex abusers and violent criminals to be honest and truthful.  If we allow trans women into women-only safe spaces, it is possible - likely - that some men will try and abuse it.

 

I think the real question is why you would assume that supports safe spaces for women would automatically not care about trans women.  It's as absurd as criticising supporters of the Lifeboats for not caring about Mountain Rescue.  Here's an idea - provide safe spaces for women AND for trans women.  If that sticks in your craw, tough.

[The Doctor]

1 minute ago, dsr-burnley said:

This is a complete misunderstanding of what I said.  Never, never did I say that trans women shouldn't have safe spaces where they can be away from the people they fear.  

 

Since you ask, there are two reasons why the woman-only safe space should not include trans women.  First and foremost, some women are afraid of all men, including those who have become trans women.  The point of a safe space is that they shouldn't have to share it with a person they fear, and they shouldn't be flat-out told that their fears are wrong and should be ignored.   2. Less vitally but still a risk, it is possible for a man who enjoys beating or abusing women, to lie.  We can't rely on sex abusers and violent criminals to be honest and truthful.  If we allow trans women into women-only safe spaces, it is possible - likely - that some men will try and abuse it.

 

I think the real question is why you would assume that supports safe spaces for women would automatically not care about trans women.  It's as absurd as criticising supporters of the Lifeboats for not caring about Mountain Rescue.  Here's an idea - provide safe spaces for women AND for trans women.  If that sticks in your craw, tough.

So on 1) their fears of trans women are irrational. trans people have been using single sex spaces in line with their identity for decades, have been legally protected in doing so for 13 years, and self ID laws exist in dozens of countries, without any increase in violence.

2) ignoring that that hasn't played out in reality, the same would apply in birth sex segregated spaces, the only difference is whether said predatory man tries to abuse trans women being allowed in women's spaces (which is already the case and hasn't been abused to any significant degree) or pretends to be a trans man. 

 

As for safe spaces for both, there's so many issues with the idea of "trans only" bathrooms and changing rooms (phrased that way might bring back memories of racial segregation?), but primary among them is logistics. There's been talk in recent pages of the financial waste in councils, who is funding and finding room to put these bathrooms in public spaces? Unless you want to go on a multimillion pound spending spree to accommodate less than 0.5% of the population, the end result of this "people should use the spaces associated with their birth sex" is giving trans people the option between exclusion from public life or a constant threat of violent crime against them. 

[Foxdiamond]

1 hour ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

Anyone on here tried to blame the Tories yet or?

I would think the problems of this council would not lead voters to think oh this Tory government should be supported after all

[Guest Sideshow Faes]

4 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

I can agree that, especially the last paragraph.  All this guff about whether people of the male sex should be allowed to enter women's races - had it been made clear from the off that this was a question of sex, not gender, then we needn't had had all the controversy.  It would have been simple from the off, women's sports are for people of the female sex.  End of controversy.

 

Ditto the women-only safe spaces that JK Rowling is so concerned about.  It could have been made clear from the start that women who (for whatever reason) are afraid of people of the male sex, should be able to have safe spaces where people of the male sex are not allowed, regardless of their gender.  I have no idea why Emma Watson and friends are so determined that women who are frightened of men should not be allowed safe spaces, but if it had been made clear to them that this is not about gender, it is about sex, then they wouldn't have needed to sound off so much (or at all).

There shouldn't really be any controversy - it's manufactured.

 

Sports associations decide their rules and they broadly go with sex though it's never exact as sex is actually far more complicated than most people realise, even at a genetic level.

 

When it comes to women only spaces, we should just ask women what they think.

Edited 5 September 2023 by Sideshow Faes

[Guest Sideshow Faes]

3 hours ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

Anyone on here tried to blame the Tories yet or?

Birmingham City Council alone had to make austerity cuts of £736 million. Overall, between 2010/2011 and 2019/20, the spending power of the Council decreased by 36.3% in real terms in 2019-20 prices.

I haven't bothered finding more recent figures as they aren't going to show a much different picture.

[Guest Sideshow Faes]

4 hours ago, Dunge said:

When did the word Gender take this definition? Is it an old definition that’s returned or is it that language has evolved? Because back 20 or 25 years ago I can only remember the words being interchangeable. ie When I grew up, if someone said Gender it would be about biology. Now it seems to be about identity.

From Wikipedia:

 

In the mid-20th century, a terminological distinction in modern English (known as the sex and gender distinction) between biological sex and gender began to develop in the academic areas of psychology, sexology, and feminism. Before the mid-20th century, it was uncommon to use the word gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories.^[3][1] In the 1970s, feminist theory embraced the concept of a distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender. Most contemporary social scientists in western countries,^[10][11][12] behavioral scientists and biologists,^[13] many legal systems and government bodies,^[14] and intergovernmental agencies such as the WHO,^[15] make a distinction between gender and sex.

[Zear0]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66712589

 

"Ex-Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio jailed for 22 years for Capitol riot"

 

[Free Falling Foxes]

Not seen this reported here but several sources giving credence to this new theory as to where MH370 may be located.

Edited 5 September 2023 by Free Falling Foxes

[Captain...]

4 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

This is a complete misunderstanding of what I said.  Never, never did I say that trans women shouldn't have safe spaces where they can be away from the people they fear.  

 

Since you ask, there are two reasons why the woman-only safe space should not include trans women.  First and foremost, some women are afraid of all men, including those who have become trans women.  The point of a safe space is that they shouldn't have to share it with a person they fear, and they shouldn't be flat-out told that their fears are wrong and should be ignored.   2. Less vitally but still a risk, it is possible for a man who enjoys beating or abusing women, to lie.  We can't rely on sex abusers and violent criminals to be honest and truthful.  If we allow trans women into women-only safe spaces, it is possible - likely - that some men will try and abuse it.

 

I think the real question is why you would assume that supports safe spaces for women would automatically not care about trans women.  It's as absurd as criticising supporters of the Lifeboats for not caring about Mountain Rescue.  Here's an idea - provide safe spaces for women AND for trans women.  If that sticks in your craw, tough.

Interesting that the solution is more safe spaces and more toilets and not looking at the actual root cause of the issue. Us. Men.

 

We really need to be better.

 

[dsr-burnley]

22 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Interesting that the solution is more safe spaces and more toilets and not looking at the actual root cause of the issue. Us. Men.

 

We really need to be better.

 

I have a suspicion that if the solution proposed would be to have fewer "safe spaces" on the grounds that men will start to behave better, that wouldn't go down well either.

[dsr-burnley]

4 hours ago, The Doctor said:

So on 1) their fears of trans women are irrational. trans people have been using single sex spaces in line with their identity for decades, have been legally protected in doing so for 13 years, and self ID laws exist in dozens of countries, without any increase in violence.

2) ignoring that that hasn't played out in reality, the same would apply in birth sex segregated spaces, the only difference is whether said predatory man tries to abuse trans women being allowed in women's spaces (which is already the case and hasn't been abused to any significant degree) or pretends to be a trans man. 

 

As for safe spaces for both, there's so many issues with the idea of "trans only" bathrooms and changing rooms (phrased that way might bring back memories of racial segregation?), but primary among them is logistics. There's been talk in recent pages of the financial waste in councils, who is funding and finding room to put these bathrooms in public spaces? Unless you want to go on a multimillion pound spending spree to accommodate less than 0.5% of the population, the end result of this "people should use the spaces associated with their birth sex" is giving trans people the option between exclusion from public life or a constant threat of violent crime against them. 

I have a suspicion you're not recognising my distinction between "safe spaces" and public toilets.  What I have been talking about all along, from my first mention of the JK Rowling v Emma Watson row about safe spaces, is what used to be called women's refuges.  (Perhaps they still are.)  It isn't helpful to tell the women in the refuges that their fears of men or trans women are irrational.  Their fears need to be met, but in a sympathetic manner, not a flat out "this man is actually a trans woman so he/she is sharing your space whether you like it or not".

 

Let me put it very bluntly.  If a woman is frightened of people with penises, then putting a person with a penis into her space and saying "this is a woman" is not the best way to help her. 

[ozleicester]

14 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

What?  People who have gender reveal parties?  My main point to them would be they are revealing sex not gender..

The only things being revealed are the ignorance of the parents and the genitalia of the baby