Will it be a Knot or a Noose?

As the wedding gets closer I feel my anxieties rising for the happiness and welfare of our young prince Harry. I find myself uncharacteristically praying that Harry sees through the pretence of this female – better to be hurt now than devastated later!

Why am I so anxious – this is a woman who does not appear to value the very thing Harry values – family. I think she will be the biggest threat the Royal family has ever faced and believe me there will be no getting rid of her – she is in this for herself. But if the press is to be believed that seems to be how she conducts her life.

This belief that she will become the people’s princess and replace Harry’s mother is never going to happen. No- one can ever fill those shoes. So now is the time to stop trying to copy her.

As I have previously said I may be completely wrong but I feel incredibly uneasy about Meghan Markle, and I worry for Harry. I just wish he had taken a leaf out of William and Kate’s book by taking a break in this relationship to see if it was really what they both wanted.

Meghan has given so little thought to her parents who are now expected to meet the queen et al in the couple of days leading up to this wedding and then they are each expected to play a key role whilst the world watches – I really feel for them. If she was as ‘nice’ as she wants us to believe she would have made this so much easier for them.

As for not having a matron of honor because she can’t choose between her 3 best friends – really!! Let’s be honest she hasn’t known them for much longer than Harry. I love their loyalty – but let’s see how much you feature in her life after she gets married girls! I think you might find this is her way of kicking you into the long grass, I suspect you and her family will not be seeing a lot of her.

And sadly I think Harry will not have the family his brother has and which he so much wants. I fear IF they do have the children Harry appears to so want, she will take them from him, and I’m not sure he could cope with that.

I seriously hope I am wrong because Harry deserves to be happy, he is a lovely young man, but so vulnerable. Whilst many of you may see me as a cynic believe me I am not alone.

I must reiterate once more Prince Harry has the right to marry whoever he wants just as everyone else does, however it is hard to watch someone perhaps making the biggest mistake of their life without making unsolicited and most likely unwanted comments.

I have to qualify that I have never met Harry or Meghan, although I did have the privilege of spending time with Harry’s lovely mother who, it has to be said, expressed the view that everyone has to be able to make their own mistakes; it would be nice if Harry’s wasn’t looking like being such a big mistake.

Still I may just be the voice of doom and gloom – time will tell, but I reckon the honeymoon will be over very quickly. ūüė¶

 

Advertisements
Will it be a Knot or a Noose?

Royal Wedding

Well it’s not long now until the latest royal wedding takes place and as usual the press are trying to guess every detail in advance, of course half the pleasure of these events is waiting to see the details as they really are. But hey I suppose it is¬† all part of the great press game of whipping everyone into a frenzy but somehow there is not the same interest in this wedding, it might be that Harry is not the heir to the throne, but I’m sure it will become quite an event when the big day arrives.

Meghan Looks More Radiant Than Ever as She and Harry Step Out in the London Sunshine: Prince Harry continued his busy week of Commonwealth-related events on Wednesday as he attended a reception for the Commonwealth Youth Forum. And this time around, he had his fiancée Meghan Markle at his side. The royal couple were all smiles as they made their way into the event at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in London. It was great to see the stylishly dressed pair enjoying a spot of sunshine after so many earlier appearances wrapped up against the cold. They must be crossing their fingers that the beautiful weather the UK is currently experiencing continues right up to their May 19 wedding!

Still I wonder if Meghan really knows what she is getting herself into, I fear she is going to suddenly realise this is not just another role in another soap but by then it will be too late. Beware Meghan, you have a country full of mothers watching you, they vowed to watch over Princess Di’s boys after her death and believe me that is what they will do, so be sure you are in this for the long haul!! A divorce will be the end of you, these mothers are not about to let some female hurt their prince!!

Britain's Prince Harry's and his fiancee Meghan Markle visit Cardiff Castle in Cardiff, Britain, January 18, 2018.

I don’t know either of this couple on a personal basis but some how I get the feeling that this just is not going to be a success, – well it wouldn’t be a wedding if someone didn’t make that prediction would it? But in all seriousness when I first heard about Meghan and Harry I was delighted, this was what this young man longed for, he had made no secret if it. Harry wants a family unit of his own – a big family and I’m sorry but Meghan does not seem the family type, my judgement there being mainly based on her failure to spend her last Xmas of freedom with her own mother, no she managed to wheedle an invitation to Buck Hse. I really felt for her mother, still families are strange and that can certainly be said about her relationship with virtually all the members of her family.

So the woman has a distant family relationship – so do lots of people. My next concern is this feigned surprise and the constant pawing of Harry when they are on¬† ‘official duties’ – no, I’m sorry, but you are at work Meghan, it’s not professional, We all know you are engaged to the young man but please you don’t need to keep grabbing his arm/ stroking his back, you are not some nervous 20something; no, I’m afraid you are moving rapidly close to middle age so please can we have a little mature reservation and decorum.

To sum things up, there is something very superficial about Meghan, the pretence that she had no idea who Harry was – come on!!

The coquettish behaviour – get a grip dear, you are accustomed to being in the public arena, and let’s be honest you are not naive, you have been married before.

I accept my misgivings may well be simply based on press reports and not knowing her;  it may just be that she is American and therefore there is more of a public display of affection than the Brits are accustomed to, but what ever it is  this wedding does not feel right. It comes across as Harry being madly in love and Meghan playing the part, I hope I am wrong but my final word to Meghan is

Make sure you really want to get married to Harry, he is very much loved by the nation and if he were to be hurt by a divorce it would be devastating for him and would galvanise the nation to defend him. This is very serious stuff, your life will change beyond belief and not all of it for the better. Don’t play this as if you’re making a film, start to show some sincerity because what little there was is disappearing on a daily basis.

If you genuinely love our Harry then I wish you both a long and happy life together but, if you don’t then be brave enough to admit it and make the break before the wedding. Yes he will be upset but not nearly as much as if you leave him later. Harry has his own demons and skeletons in their own dark closet, don’t go opening the closet door and shaking them up.

 

 

 

Royal Wedding

Equal Pay for Equal work – It Seems a Fair Deal!

I think you will have to search long and hard to find people who do not agree that everyone should get the same rate of pay for doing the same job- irrespective of age, gender, sexuality, ability etc. The truth is you would have to be something of a dinosaur to think otherwise. In the world today, the job should be evaluated and the respective rate of pay determined; it should not be based on any other factors and indeed the law in the UK anyway supports that stance. Any employers not paying a going rate for the job to everyone is liable to legal action.

Now that being the case and given that there are not huge numbers of legal cases waiting to go to court where does the gender pay gap fit in??? Let’s be honest it would be very unusual for the legal world not to jump into the argument if they thought there was a pound or two in it for them. So what is it all about?

Unusually (said with tongue in cheek), the media are whipping up a storm of confusion about pay rates and it worries me that we now have female MP’s jumping on the bandwagon – my god these MP’s are supposed to have the brains to run our country and yet they do not seem to understand the basics around the alleged gender pay gap!!

Basically if you are a cleaner working for a business and the pay rate is ¬£7.80 per hour that’s what you will get, it will not matter what your gender/ sexuality is. The same applies to all jobs, if you are a basic grade newly qualified nurse you will get the same pay as your peers irrespective of gender/ sexuality. Where the problem arises is when people start to try to compare some jobs with other jobs, recent examples have been working in warehouse deliveries at a supermarket being compared to working on the shop floor; another was comparing jobs in the airline industry such as pilot and cabin crew. This is a false comparison as it arguably is not comparing like with like. So where does the gender issue arise, there is nothing stopping females from becoming pilots/ warehouse delivery personnel just as there is nothing preventing males from becoming shop floor workers/ cabin crew and indeed there are examples of each of these things happening resulting in shop floor workers male and female receiving the same rate of pay according to their grade/ age.

So the gender pay gap is NOT about the rate of pay for the job you do, it is about your earning capacity over your working lifetime. The argument being made is that on average the females will earn less than their male counterparts over their working life because they will not hold as many of the senior posts which attract a higher pay rate, THAT fact is probably very true but does that mean women are being treated less favourably?? Well that depends on how you look at it.

If we look at the average couple with children, the female gives up her career aspirations to have the babies and look after them, then she works part time to fit things around school/ because the nursery fees are high or because the couple only want the free nursery hours. This will probably cover many households but the reality is the female only needs to be off work for 6weeks post delivery unless she had a section when depending on what her job is she may need to be off for 12weeks. After the medical reasons for having time off are taken into account there is no reason why the remainder of any leave cannot be divided between both parents, subsequently having less of an impact on either person’s career; but the truth is that it is usually the female who decides to take ALL of the leave – often leaving the male feeling left out of the bonding process, resulting in her having a career break or missing promotion opportunities at work, so yes her over all average earnings will be less than that of her male counterpart. But NO it is not because she HAS to take the time off to look after the children, she only HAS to take the 6-12 weeks off post delivery, any other time taken is by choice or as a result of her agreement with her partner.

Lets go on to consider the single¬† parent – don’t forget not ALL single parents are female and the reasons why any parent is single are very varied from choice /divorce/ separation/ death to name the most obvious causes. And yes irrespective of why you are single things are more difficult to manage on your own and your choices are different, that includes those females – some of whom I worked with, who made a conscious decision to give up a professional full time job to do part time in the same job – because if they worked more than 16hrs they would lose the benefits they would otherwise be able to claim!! They had calculated that by claiming state benefits and working 16hrs they were at least as well off as they were when they worked full time so why bother doing the full time when they would be no worse off doing 16hrs! Believe me it was galling to listen to females who were in well paid professional jobs who decided to get pregnant – more than once because the finances only worked out if you had a minimum of 2 children!! These were women who made a conscious well planned lifestyle choice!

Then there are the single female parents who only live on state benefits and have no intentions of working, they are now furious and upset because the government has put a maximum level on the amount they can receive irrespective of how many children they have. I must admit to thinking that is fair, after all if there was a new baby expected in my family I could not go to my boss and automatically get a pay rise to feed another mouth, I would have to manage my finances better. And before lots of you go off shouting about how poor people on benefits really are I have two nieces on benefits, both have more than one child, one works 16hrs and gets her benefits, the other with 4 children was receiving the equivalent of ¬£28,000 per anum, this included free nursery, all school breakfasts and lunches, her rent and council tax and water rates – not bad eh!! I wouldn’t mind but both these young ladies have a good degree, but neither is paying that back either!! These single parents again have made lifestyle choices.

Now for those parents who find themselves launched into an unplanned single parent situation the whole business can be traumatic whether they are male or female and I do think employers should have to be flexible and make some time allowance available for these people to get themselves sorted out, but this is not just a female matter so it would impact on career opportunities irrespective of the person’s gender.

So back to the gender pay gap; it is argued that many women have a reduction in earning opportunities because they HAVE to take low paid work to fit around their family demands – well clearly they do not. They cannot be forced from the job they held just because they are pregnant and that job has to be kept for them for the duration of their legally allowed maternity leave, so the choice to leave the job/ take lower paid work is theirs as their employers are also legally required to offer flexible working for the first 5yrs after the child is born – again for those worried about the impact on their career the leave can be taken by the male or the female.

On the face of it this whole argument is looking very thin and lacks substance as it is very much down to choices. Where the situation is very different is if the person is on a zero hours contract or self employed when irrespective of gender there can be a serious impact on the family finances if there is suddenly a crisis that results in the need to adjust your life to accommodate child care.

So does the gender pay gap really mean

female gets pregnant – takes 1yr leave- may be supported by partner whilst on leave – returns to work part time for own reasons- cannot do the full job remit on reduced hours- loses experience – does not want greater work responsibilities – child grows up – female wants to resume full career – sees her male counterparts who have been working full time hours and had no breaks making greater career advances – female feels left behind – Feels everything is Unfair – Starts claiming gender pay gap!

The reality is that even if the pay rate never changed from £15 an hour for 30years a person working 36hrs a week will earn more in 30yrs  (total earned=£842,400 )than someone who gets the same rate of pay but works 10 of the 30yrs at half the hours (Total earned =£678600) In this example the pay gap is £163,800 less earned in a lifetime,

  • but is it a gender pay gap??
  • NO, because if a male took the same career break decision the outcome would be the same!!

Now if a female returns to work and get everything up to full speed again but constantly get overlooked for promotion then we have an issue, BUT THIS IS NOT A PAY GAP it is a loss of career opportunity based on gender so it is inequality of opportunity, which, if it happens in the UK is against the law; so again if this is the problem

  • Why do we not have lawyers like swarms of bees round the honey pot on this one?

IF ANYONE HAS THE ANSWER LET ME KNOW

Sorry ladies but it is beginning to look like you want your cake and eat it, the situation is exactly the same where males take time out of work/ career breaks/ reduce their hours for domestic reasons, therefore this is not a gender issue, you may argue that it affects more women but again much of that is because of choices they make.

Interesting that once again it is the rich females complaining, those who are on VERY good salaries!

Is there not more merit in fighting the corner for those poor sods on the minimum wage and zero hour contracts, they are working the asses off but getting no- where. These are the people who deserve our support and help, these are the REAL poor people of our country. These are the poor sods who are employed by people who couldn’t give a shit about what happens to that person or their family if they get zero hours.

  • So before we start worrying about how much women earn over a lifetime after they have made their choices, lets look after those people who have jobs that do not allow them to make choices and who do not have the luxury of having paid sick leave never mind having long maternity leave!

 

  • What will they earn over their life time- irrespective of their gender? It’s guaranteed that it is a damned site less than those who are twittering on about some imaginary ‘gender pay gap’

 

Equal Pay for Equal work – It Seems a Fair Deal!

There is no show without Punch!!

Well over the last week I have read the newspapers, listened to the daily news reports and watched some topical discussions on TV and then I have read some of the headlines in the internet home page and I have to ask

Why does everyone want to be a victim??

No one seems capable of making a decision and living with the consequences, oh no! They must make out they are the victim of someone else’s behaviour/ attitude/ beliefs! Honestly I am sick to death of hearing and seeing all this bleeding hearts and spleen venting that’s going on – much of it in the celebrity world is just about grandstanding. Why do we see so much crap about who has split up with who, who has screwed who and who’s going out with who? Does it matter to anyone but the people involved – No, does it give another opening to become a victim and try to gain public support YES!

So who are the people who seem to want to be victims

Anyone who has a shade of skin darker than a pasty pale pinky/white.

Single mothers.

Illegal Immigrants.

If you have a mental illness

Anyone who is non christian

If you are anywhere on the LGBT scale

If you are female.

If you are a celebrity.

For some strange reason it is very fashionable to put yourself into a victim category then you do not have to be responsible for your own decisions/ actions.

Please for god’s sake (and I really do not care who your god is) can we all stop this constant whining and self pity, there are people in this world who really are suffering and your constant whinging and victim claiming is an insult to the suffering these people go through. I feel I am living in a world of would be Peter Pan’s- people who claim to be victims because then they do not have to do the grown up thing and take responsibility.

It is all very much a case of ‘no show without Punch’

There is no show without Punch!!

Giving a clear insight into the problem – I don’t think so!!

Today I read an article from the Huffington Post, my attention having been grabbed by the dramatic headline

Patronised, Talked Down To And Harassed: Parliament’s Boys’ Club Culture Laid Bare

Now there’s an eye catching headline!

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBJjGj2.img?h=65&w=136&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=t&l=f

But lets look at the evidence it’s based on:-

208 females in houses of parliament were asked to complete a survey about bullying/ sexual harassment etc 40 responses given(19.2%),

this might suggest that 168 of them (80.8%) did not think it an issue.

3 in 10 of the respondents said they had been sexually harassed that actually = 12 people.

Just over half experienced bullying = 20 people, it is unclear if those subjected to sexual harassment are also in the numbers of those subjected to alleged bullying.

40% of the 40 respondents =16 said they had either received an complaint or lodged a complaint about harassment/ bullying  so this includes those who were alleged victims-

Over half of the respondents said the situation in parliament was worse than in previous jobs, there is no actual number given so this could be anything from 50.1% and is therefore to ambiguous to have significant meaning.

Finally 57.5% of the 40 respondents = 23 people felt it was harder to get things done in parliament if you were a woman.

Whilst any kind of harassment is wrong, only the Huffington post could come up with this dramatic headline based on 19.2% of the female population of parliament. In reality if we assume those who did not respond were not victims then it means less than 10% of the females in parliament said they were subject to inappropriate behaviour.

Ahhh I hear you cry, you cannot assume that those who did not respond had never been subjected to inappropriate behaviour and you are of course right; but equally you cannot assume they have been victims of this uninvited behaviour, either way it does not support the dramatic and misleading nature of the news report.

The fact is that there are few sad souls around like me who will actually look at the figures in more  detail, so they will have read the piece and been left with the (I suggest intended) impression that the house of parliament is a seething mass of hormone driven out of control males. I think the results probably reflect behaviour in other organisations, not that I am for one minute suggesting this is O.K.

Another thing to consider is whether or not the behaviour was from one or more individuals and was the bullying from males/ females or both, as we know both are capable of these behaviours. The truth is that on closer scrutiny this report does not support the headline suggestion of parliament having a ‘boys club culture’.

Would a more appropriate headline be

Twenty  of the 208 females in parliament report being bullied and 12 report having been sexually harassed.

But would that have grabbed as much attention?

No, probably not, however it would have been accurate so it begs the question

‘Does the Huffington Post want to be taken seriously or not’? If it does it needs to hugely improve the quality of its reporting, currently I think it deserves to be awarded first place in the toilet tissue holder!!

I expect the media to take a responsible approach to their¬† job of keeping the public informed, I don’t expect these so called journalists to keep spewing forth this inaccurate shit. This is an insult to serious and reliable journalism.

Read the article and decide for yourself

https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BBJjGj2.img?h=65&w=136&m=6&q=60&u=t&o=t&l=f

Giving a clear insight into the problem – I don’t think so!!

So people can no longer afford to buy a house – Whose fault is it really?

All we keep hearing is :

There are not enough houses being built for the number of people who need them.

The government should do more to provide more housing’

Builders and developers are sitting of plots of land and not developing them even after planning permission has been given.

People will never be able to pay the mortgages because of the price of houses.

So what is the situation, who has a part to play in this scenario, is anyone at fault?

Let’s take a look at this more closely

Yes the government has a role to play, when council houses were first put on the market the money they generated was supposed to provide more social housing;¬† that was the Margaret Thatcher era and yet successive governments have failed to reinvest in proper social housing, choosing to go for the new terminology of ‘Affordable housing’. This raises the new question – affordable to who??

Then we have had – the rise of the new landlords, the portfolio builders who are buying up all of the houses first time buyers used to buy and ‘do up’. Affectionately known as the ‘doer uppers’, these landlords then they rent them to people for exorbitant and immoral rents that leave the tenants so fleeced their chances of ever being able to save for a new home are gone. Who are these landlords – well there seems to be 3 main categories:

We have the likes of Cheri Blair and son Ian who have swept the country buying up whole streets – because as she once revealed she is scared of being poor – well she doesn’t give a shit about who she might make poor!! No this is not fear, this is greed!

Then we have foreign landlords who have never set foot in the county and who have people finding properties for them to buy, which they then rent out at disgusting prices and they do not even pay tax on the earnings they get from the rent. Many of these individuals are also using the housing market to launder their own ill gotten gains.

And lets not forget those who are investing in housing so that they can leave their children well off – their children could of course get a job! But many of these people are the 30+ professional group who are selfishly happy to buy up housing stock through the bank of mum and dad, then they to go for the over priced rent.

I think that covers the vast majority of the landlords, but I am sure there will be a sprinkling of others who do not fall into these categories. Essentially we have a situation where everyone is looking to make a fast buck and couldn’t give a shit about how that affects others, it’s the ‘all about me’ campaign again!!

So what should we be doing? Well these are my thoughts, I am sure others have their own views;

There should be housing available where people do NOT need to find a huge deposit before they can rent the place, and they should be rented at reasonable rates, so that people on low incomes can afford them.

Non residential foreigners should not be allowed to buy more than one residential property, and they should pay the tax on any income they earn from that property at the higher rate.

Perhaps UK residents who are landlords should have to rent one house out at a lower rate for people on lower incomes and they register that property with the local council, the system could be that the first house you buy to rent out goes on the open rental market but second one goes on the council list of restricted rents.

The council needs to do 2 things build more proper social housing and manage its existing stock better than it currently does. There are large council properties with one elderly person in them who is unable to get upstairs or to manage the house. They need to be building 1 and 2 bedroomed bungalows and sheltered maisonettes/ flats in all areas so people can downsize but not move out of their immediate area, meaning they do not suddenly become even more socially isolated and they are still with neighbours they have known for years and who they trust. This would release many family homes, and might reduce the number of families sofa surfing/ living in bed and breakfast accommodation.  There needs to be a much wider range of council accommodation available and the council DOES need to be providing homes because the past 30yrs has shown just how the underlying greed of humans has reeked havoc in the housing market.

As to the builders and developers, they need to firstly be building houses that are suitable for family life, currently the living areas are so small a family of four is crowded in their own lounge, so everyone goes to their own room – hardly promoting good family life and quality time. There should be a minimum size of footprint for a house living quarters, i.e a minimum for a 3 bedroomed house, a different one for a four bedroomed house etc.

Those builders/ developers sitting on land where development had been agreed should have an agreed number of months in which to start the development with an agreed completion date; failure to meet these dates should incur a very large fine which should be paid to the local council.

So who’s fault is it – well clearly contrary to the opinion of the press there is no single guilty party, there are many people who are causing this problem which is compounded by the fact that we have had thousands of people come here to live and obviously they also want a home. They did not arrive unexpectedly, we knew they were coming so again successive governments AND developers/ builders have failed to make adequate provision.

The reality is that the builders and developers need to start pulling their fingers out and building, the government needs to look at who is accessing the help to buy scheme as currently tax payers money is helping to fund homes for young professionals who CAN afford to buy, and what return are we getting on or money??

I await with keen interest to see how Andy Burnham the Manchester mayor is going to resolve the homelessness problem in Manchester!! Perhaps he can come up with a model for everyone else.

But we all need to look at our priorities Рthere is no good spending £15000+ on a wedding if you cannot afford somewhere to live, that £15000 could have been your house deposit! Young couples do need to look at the money they waste on stag nights/ hen nights/ weddings and honeymoons, yes by all means celebrate but cut your cloth accordingly!

And lets look at the figures of low paid workers

paid on average £7. 15ph for a 40hr week =£300 per wk

= £15600 per year minus tax and national insurance = approx £14000 per year

= £1204 per month Рrent £650 per month = £554 to live in, pay bills, clothing etc for the family!!

NOT A PRETTY PICTURE!!

 

So people can no longer afford to buy a house – Whose fault is it really?

Good for you Jimmy Tarbuck!!

Well done Jimmy Tarbuck!!!

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/comedian-jimmy-tarbuck-defends-presidents-club-dinner-and-calls-on-critics-to-look-at-hen-parties/ar-AAvdmB6?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=HPCDHP

At last it seems that the male species is beginning to respond to this constant vilification of men.

Yes Mr Tarbuck is quite right the rules should apply to everyone!!

Are all men guilty of sexual harassment or sexual abuse?

Are these accusations justified??

Is Jimmy going to be left to stand up for justice on his own?

Are men going to continue to take these accusations and this tongue lashing without an attempt to defend themselves!!

Or are they going to get behind Jimmy and defend themselves??

To ignore what is being said is to confirm it’s accuracy.

Is abuse in all it’s forms a male characteristic only, and are women the innocent victims of such behaviour

OR

Is this more a case of social boundaries have fallen to such a degrading low that it is time to redefine the rules and boundaries for people of all sexualities?

 

Discuss!

Good for you Jimmy Tarbuck!!