On 1/31/2017 1:04 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
newshound wrote:

On 1/30/2017 2:43 PM, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 30 January 2017 14:24:30 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:

On Sunday, 29 January 2017 14:28:40 UTC, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38787723




--
Adam

I find what;s more worrying is the women that might have said yes to such
things where they have exchanged sex because they couldn't do what was
asked so used thier bodies to get what they wanted. Womens groups never
stand up against this sort of thing I wonder why.


Personally I don't think that is more worrying than blackmailing young
women over whom one is in a position of trust. Worrying, yes, but not
*more* worrying.

You have someone in charge of a nuclear engineering installation who has
passed her qualifications because she gave good blow jobs rather than
know the job. For me that would be worrying.

It was only in my final ten years in that industry that women started to
make much of an appearance. And the ones I knew didn't need any such
methods, they were all *bloody* good.

There is also something mildly worrying about the idea of putting a new
graduate in charge of a nuclear installation without a little training
and supervised work for people with sound reasons for wanting to make
sure she could actually do it. So I think the worst that could happen
is someone getting into a training course ahead of someone who should
have got better grades than them. Annoying, but not dangerous.


Who said anything about putting a new graduate in charge of a nuclear
installation? Let alone without training?

On 1/31/2017 8:47 AM, tim... wrote:


"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 1/30/2017 2:43 PM, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 30 January 2017 14:24:30 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:

On Sunday, 29 January 2017 14:28:40 UTC, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38787723




--
Adam

I find what;s more worrying is the women that might have said yes
to such
things where they have exchanged sex because they couldn't do what was
asked so used thier bodies to get what they wanted. Womens groups
never
stand up against this sort of thing I wonder why.


Personally I don't think that is more worrying than blackmailing young
women over whom one is in a position of trust. Worrying, yes, but not
*more* worrying.

You have someone in charge of a nuclear engineering installation who
has passed her qualifications because she gave good blow jobs rather
than know the job.
For me that would be worrying.

It was only in my final ten years in that industry that women started
to make much of an appearance. And the ones I knew didn't need any
such methods, they were all *bloody* good.

yes I found that

throughout my 35 years in industry, the (few) women that worked
alongside me were either very good, or completely bloody useless

tim



And there were no useless men?

"ARW" wrote in message ...

On 31/01/2017 07:02, Richard wrote:

Which makes her much worse than the alleged pervert. She who must be
believed (apparently), promotes herself as a saviour of women, only
opens her mouth when opportunity for maximum self gain is present.

She does have good driving skills:-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrie...ng_convictions

Thanks, I needed a laugh.

On 31-Jan-17 8:37 PM, Richard wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...

On 30-Jan-17 9:18 PM, Richard wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...

On 30-Jan-17 11:24 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, 29 January 2017 14:28:40 UTC, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38787723




--
Adam

Somehow I dont believe her. Its just my gut reaction.

A friend of mine has known her since university and does believe her.

And why does your friend believe her?...

Are you saying that you could know somebody for the best part of half
a century and not have a fair idea about how truthful they are?

I didn't say anything. I asked two questions, neither of which you
answered.

I did answer your first question. However, if you can't understand the
answer; she believes her because she has known her long enough to be
able to make that judgement with reasonable certainty. As for the second
question, I have no idea and nor do I plan to cross-examine her to
satisfy your curiosity.

--
--

Colin Bignell

"ARW" wrote in message
...
On 31/01/2017 08:47, tim... wrote:

throughout my 35 years in industry, the (few) women that worked
alongside me were either very good, or completely bloody useless


Not even one average middle of the road one?

not that I recall

tim

"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 1/31/2017 8:47 AM, tim... wrote:


"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 1/30/2017 2:43 PM, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 30 January 2017 14:24:30 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:

On Sunday, 29 January 2017 14:28:40 UTC, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38787723




--
Adam

I find what;s more worrying is the women that might have said yes
to such
things where they have exchanged sex because they couldn't do what
was
asked so used thier bodies to get what they wanted. Womens groups
never
stand up against this sort of thing I wonder why.


Personally I don't think that is more worrying than blackmailing young
women over whom one is in a position of trust. Worrying, yes, but not
*more* worrying.

You have someone in charge of a nuclear engineering installation who
has passed her qualifications because she gave good blow jobs rather
than know the job.
For me that would be worrying.

It was only in my final ten years in that industry that women started
to make much of an appearance. And the ones I knew didn't need any
such methods, they were all *bloody* good.

yes I found that

throughout my 35 years in industry, the (few) women that worked
alongside me were either very good, or completely bloody useless

tim



And there were no useless men?

there were dozens of them

tim

On 1/30/2017 10:36 PM, Bob Eager wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 22:11:00 +0000, newshound wrote:

On 1/30/2017 9:18 PM, Richard wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...

On 30-Jan-17 11:24 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, 29 January 2017 14:28:40 UTC, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38787723




--
Adam

Somehow I dont believe her. Its just my gut reaction.

A friend of mine has known her since university and does believe her.

And why does your friend believe her? Was your friend told by her at
the time?

What reason has she to make it up? I'm certainly inclined to believe
her.

Whether or not it's true, the motive for saying it now is to promote her
book.



Is anyone going to buy the book because that is in it? It's something
which reviewers have picked up on, seems a bit of a non story to me.
It's clearly a bit different to the usual politician's memoir.

On 2/1/2017 11:30 AM, tim... wrote:


"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 1/31/2017 8:47 AM, tim... wrote:


"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 1/30/2017 2:43 PM, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 30 January 2017 14:24:30 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:

On Sunday, 29 January 2017 14:28:40 UTC, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38787723




--
Adam

I find what;s more worrying is the women that might have said yes
to such
things where they have exchanged sex because they couldn't do
what was
asked so used thier bodies to get what they wanted. Womens groups
never
stand up against this sort of thing I wonder why.


Personally I don't think that is more worrying than blackmailing
young
women over whom one is in a position of trust. Worrying, yes, but
not
*more* worrying.

You have someone in charge of a nuclear engineering installation who
has passed her qualifications because she gave good blow jobs rather
than know the job.
For me that would be worrying.

It was only in my final ten years in that industry that women started
to make much of an appearance. And the ones I knew didn't need any
such methods, they were all *bloody* good.

yes I found that

throughout my 35 years in industry, the (few) women that worked
alongside me were either very good, or completely bloody useless

tim



And there were no useless men?

there were dozens of them

tim



Quite. Roger Hayter was suggesting that women in engineering were
getting their position by using female charms. *My* point is that it is
only relatively recently that the numbers have started to increase
(something, incidentally, which one of my contemporary collegues got an
MBE for her efforts in supporting). And those that do go into industry
these days tend to do well because they are good at their jobs.

Half a century ago, it was said that in the Soviet Union, women made up
most of the doctors, about half the engineers, but perhaps only 10
percent of pure scientists. That struck me at the time as being quite
consistent with the different general attributes of the sexes.

In the UK at that time, women only had about 15% of university places,
and only about 15% of my physics course were women.

newshound wrote:

On 2/1/2017 11:30 AM, tim... wrote:


"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 1/31/2017 8:47 AM, tim... wrote:


"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 1/30/2017 2:43 PM, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 30 January 2017 14:24:30 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:

On Sunday, 29 January 2017 14:28:40 UTC, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38787723




--
Adam

I find what;s more worrying is the women that might have said yes
to such
things where they have exchanged sex because they couldn't do
what was
asked so used thier bodies to get what they wanted. Womens groups
never
stand up against this sort of thing I wonder why.


Personally I don't think that is more worrying than blackmailing
young
women over whom one is in a position of trust. Worrying, yes, but
not
*more* worrying.

You have someone in charge of a nuclear engineering installation who
has passed her qualifications because she gave good blow jobs rather
than know the job.
For me that would be worrying.

It was only in my final ten years in that industry that women started
to make much of an appearance. And the ones I knew didn't need any
such methods, they were all *bloody* good.

yes I found that

throughout my 35 years in industry, the (few) women that worked
alongside me were either very good, or completely bloody useless

tim



And there were no useless men?

there were dozens of them

tim



Quite. Roger Hayter was suggesting that women in engineering were
getting their position by using female charms.


No he wasn't! Someone else said it and wanted to say it was dangerous.
I was merely pointing out that it would not be disastrous if they did
because people straight from university are not going to get too much
responsibility. I didn't comment on whether it actually happened.






*My* point is that it is
only relatively recently that the numbers have started to increase
(something, incidentally, which one of my contemporary collegues got an
MBE for her efforts in supporting). And those that do go into industry
these days tend to do well because they are good at their jobs.

Half a century ago, it was said that in the Soviet Union, women made up
most of the doctors, about half the engineers, but perhaps only 10
percent of pure scientists. That struck me at the time as being quite
consistent with the different general attributes of the sexes.

In terms of the *innate* attributes of the sexes I doubt if there is any
difference.




In the UK at that time, women only had about 15% of university places,
and only about 15% of my physics course were women.

So no discrepancy?


--

Roger Hayter

On 2/1/2017 1:55 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
newshound wrote:

On 2/1/2017 11:30 AM, tim... wrote:


"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 1/31/2017 8:47 AM, tim... wrote:


"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 1/30/2017 2:43 PM, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 30 January 2017 14:24:30 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:

On Sunday, 29 January 2017 14:28:40 UTC, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38787723




--
Adam

I find what;s more worrying is the women that might have said yes
to such
things where they have exchanged sex because they couldn't do
what was
asked so used thier bodies to get what they wanted. Womens groups
never
stand up against this sort of thing I wonder why.


Personally I don't think that is more worrying than blackmailing
young
women over whom one is in a position of trust. Worrying, yes, but
not
*more* worrying.

You have someone in charge of a nuclear engineering installation who
has passed her qualifications because she gave good blow jobs rather
than know the job.
For me that would be worrying.

It was only in my final ten years in that industry that women started
to make much of an appearance. And the ones I knew didn't need any
such methods, they were all *bloody* good.

yes I found that

throughout my 35 years in industry, the (few) women that worked
alongside me were either very good, or completely bloody useless

tim



And there were no useless men?

there were dozens of them

tim



Quite. Roger Hayter was suggesting that women in engineering were
getting their position by using female charms.


No he wasn't! Someone else said it and wanted to say it was dangerous.
I was merely pointing out that it would not be disastrous if they did
because people straight from university are not going to get too much
responsibility. I didn't comment on whether it actually happened.


Sorry, my mistake. The thread had become somewhat tangled. As you say,
you don't normally reach positions of power or significance without
demonstrating ability in many ways.





*My* point is that it is
only relatively recently that the numbers have started to increase
(something, incidentally, which one of my contemporary collegues got an
MBE for her efforts in supporting). And those that do go into industry
these days tend to do well because they are good at their jobs.

Half a century ago, it was said that in the Soviet Union, women made up
most of the doctors, about half the engineers, but perhaps only 10
percent of pure scientists. That struck me at the time as being quite
consistent with the different general attributes of the sexes.

In terms of the *innate* attributes of the sexes I doubt if there is any
difference.

We'll have to agree to differ.



In the UK at that time, women only had about 15% of university places,
and only about 15% of my physics course were women.

So no discrepancy?


I don't believe that 50% of the population should go to university.

I *do* believe that 50% of the undergraduate population should be women,
but I expect some variation between courses.

On Tuesday, 31 January 2017 21:24:14 UTC, newshound wrote:
On 1/31/2017 1:04 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
newshound wrote:

On 1/30/2017 2:43 PM, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 30 January 2017 14:24:30 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:

On Sunday, 29 January 2017 14:28:40 UTC, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38787723




--
Adam

I find what;s more worrying is the women that might have said yes to such
things where they have exchanged sex because they couldn't do what was
asked so used thier bodies to get what they wanted. Womens groups never
stand up against this sort of thing I wonder why.


Personally I don't think that is more worrying than blackmailing young
women over whom one is in a position of trust. Worrying, yes, but not
*more* worrying.

You have someone in charge of a nuclear engineering installation who has
passed her qualifications because she gave good blow jobs rather than
know the job. For me that would be worrying.

It was only in my final ten years in that industry that women started to
make much of an appearance. And the ones I knew didn't need any such
methods, they were all *bloody* good.

There is also something mildly worrying about the idea of putting a new
graduate in charge of a nuclear installation without a little training
and supervised work for people with sound reasons for wanting to make
sure she could actually do it. So I think the worst that could happen
is someone getting into a training course ahead of someone who should
have got better grades than them. Annoying, but not dangerous.


Who said anything about putting a new graduate in charge of a nuclear
installation? Let alone without training?

Why would anyone want a graduate in nuclear engineering if they weren't going to do stuff other than serve the hobnobs at meetings. ?
Seems a waste of money to me.

On Wednesday, 1 February 2017 11:43:52 UTC, newshound wrote:
On 1/30/2017 10:36 PM, Bob Eager wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 22:11:00 +0000, newshound wrote:

On 1/30/2017 9:18 PM, Richard wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...

On 30-Jan-17 11:24 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, 29 January 2017 14:28:40 UTC, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38787723




--
Adam

Somehow I dont believe her. Its just my gut reaction.

A friend of mine has known her since university and does believe her.

And why does your friend believe her? Was your friend told by her at
the time?

What reason has she to make it up? I'm certainly inclined to believe
her.

Whether or not it's true, the motive for saying it now is to promote her
book.



Is anyone going to buy the book because that is in it?

Why do people buy these types of books ?
Never having brought one I don't know.


It's something
which reviewers have picked up on, seems a bit of a non story to me.
It's clearly a bit different to the usual politician's memoir.

"Roger Hayter" wrote in message
...
newshound wrote:

On 2/1/2017 11:30 AM, tim... wrote:


"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 1/31/2017 8:47 AM, tim... wrote:


"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 1/30/2017 2:43 PM, whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 30 January 2017 14:24:30 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:

On Sunday, 29 January 2017 14:28:40 UTC, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38787723




--
Adam

I find what;s more worrying is the women that might have said yes
to such
things where they have exchanged sex because they couldn't do
what was
asked so used thier bodies to get what they wanted. Womens groups
never
stand up against this sort of thing I wonder why.


Personally I don't think that is more worrying than blackmailing
young
women over whom one is in a position of trust. Worrying, yes, but
not
*more* worrying.

You have someone in charge of a nuclear engineering installation
who
has passed her qualifications because she gave good blow jobs
rather
than know the job.
For me that would be worrying.

It was only in my final ten years in that industry that women
started
to make much of an appearance. And the ones I knew didn't need any
such methods, they were all *bloody* good.

yes I found that

throughout my 35 years in industry, the (few) women that worked
alongside me were either very good, or completely bloody useless

tim



And there were no useless men?

there were dozens of them

tim



Quite. Roger Hayter was suggesting that women in engineering were
getting their position by using female charms.


No he wasn't! Someone else said it and wanted to say it was dangerous.
I was merely pointing out that it would not be disastrous if they did
because people straight from university are not going to get too much
responsibility. I didn't comment on whether it actually happened.






*My* point is that it is
only relatively recently that the numbers have started to increase
(something, incidentally, which one of my contemporary collegues got an
MBE for her efforts in supporting). And those that do go into industry
these days tend to do well because they are good at their jobs.

Half a century ago, it was said that in the Soviet Union, women made up
most of the doctors, about half the engineers, but perhaps only 10
percent of pure scientists. That struck me at the time as being quite
consistent with the different general attributes of the sexes.

In terms of the *innate* attributes of the sexes I doubt if there is any
difference.

More fool you. Do you seriously believe that there is no
difference at all with some stuff like say a car mechanic
or builder or someone who looks after little kids as a job ?

In the UK at that time, women only had about 15% of university
places, and only about 15% of my physics course were women.

So no discrepancy?

On 2/1/2017 3:50 PM, Huge wrote:
On 2017-02-01, newshound wrote:

[76 lines snipped]

Sorry, my mistake. The thread had become somewhat tangled. As you say,
you don't normally reach positions of power or significance without
demonstrating ability in many ways.

Except in politics.


I don't know who you have in mind.

I'm not saying that politicians are all particularly admirable, but I
think this is true of any who make it to the top:

"But what I do have are a very particular set of skills, skills I have
acquired over a very long career."

(Not my grammatical error).

newshound wrote:

On 2/1/2017 1:55 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
newshound wrote:


snip

In the UK at that time, women only had about 15% of university places,
and only about 15% of my physics course were women.

So no discrepancy?


I don't believe that 50% of the population should go to university.

I *do* believe that 50% of the undergraduate population should be women,
but I expect some variation between courses.

That's why I was commenting. Your figures suggest an equal proportion
fo women as men wanted to do physics.


--

Roger Hayter

On Wednesday, 1 February 2017 16:14:30 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
newshound wrote:

On 2/1/2017 1:55 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
newshound wrote:


snip

In the UK at that time, women only had about 15% of university places,
and only about 15% of my physics course were women.

So no discrepancy?


I don't believe that 50% of the population should go to university.

I *do* believe that 50% of the undergraduate population should be women,
but I expect some variation between courses.

That's why I was commenting. Your figures suggest an equal proportion
fo women as men wanted to do physics.

It;s what they have problems understanding here, they seem to want more women doing engineering but don;t seem to be intrested in gettign women in at the 'bottom' level all they want to do is promte the women to higher levels so they get specail help from the athena swan group.
I agree perhaps more women should be engineers but our admin dept. is 85% women ans ther;s no intersting in getting men more interested in admin.


I even heard about a research study done here, I heard about it on This week in science TWIS.
Basicaly they ask for studetn volenteers so they could test if playing computer games help them become more dextrous or hand-eye co-ordination imporved after game playing. I remmebr the email asling for participants it said something like staff or students needed for a couple of hours to play a computer game(s).
Anyone can aplpy but they must play les sthan 4 hours a week on a computer.
(can;t remmebr teh exact coult could have been 2 hours a day limit)

So the study in the end consisted of about ~20 women.
swhy only women it was asked, well apparently they couldn't find any male that spend less than the stated time playing games .

On 01/02/17 15:50, Huge wrote:
On 2017-02-01, newshound wrote:

[76 lines snipped]

Sorry, my mistake. The thread had become somewhat tangled. As you say,
you don't normally reach positions of power or significance without
demonstrating ability in many ways.

Except in politics.


ON the contrary success in politics demonstrates a talent or
pathological lying, a very short memory and the willingness to do
whatever it takes to get there.

Rare skills.


--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 01/02/17 15:50, Huge wrote:
On 2017-02-01, newshound wrote:

[76 lines snipped]

Sorry, my mistake. The thread had become somewhat tangled. As you say,
you don't normally reach positions of power or significance without
demonstrating ability in many ways.

Except in politics.


ON the contrary success in politics demonstrates a talent or pathological
lying, a very short memory and the willingness to do whatever it takes to
get there.

but not if you a Labour woman who has been elevated there to meet the
"quota"

tim

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...

It;s what they have problems understanding here, they seem to want more
women doing engineering but don;t seem to be intrested in gettign women in
at the 'bottom' level all they want to do is promte the women to higher
levels so they get specail help from the athena swan group.


Yep that's always been my point

It is unfair to everyone (men who unfairly get passed over, women who get
unfairly promoted and women who are fairly promoted, plus the company who
have to suffer the consequences of the first 2) to have equal quota of
male/female managers if you don't have an (approx) equal number of
male/female applicants at graduate entry level.

IME The graduate disparity in engineering is like 99 to 1. Overly promoting
women in that circumstance is just nutty.

If you want to fix this problem you have to enact the solution at school
level. Once you have missed that opportunity, you are stuck with it.

tim

On 31/01/2017 21:31, Richard wrote:
"ARW" wrote in message ...

On 31/01/2017 07:02, Richard wrote:

Which makes her much worse than the alleged pervert. She who must be
believed (apparently), promotes herself as a saviour of women, only
opens her mouth when opportunity for maximum self gain is present.

She does have good driving skills:-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrie...ng_convictions

Thanks, I needed a laugh.

And she never made herself look a fool other than on the road

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...st-friend.html



--
Adam

"tim..." wrote in message
news


"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...

It;s what they have problems understanding here, they seem to want more
women doing engineering but don;t seem to be intrested in gettign women
in at the 'bottom' level all they want to do is promte the women to
higher levels so they get specail help from the athena swan group.


Yep that's always been my point

It is unfair to everyone (men who unfairly get passed over, women who get
unfairly promoted and women who are fairly promoted, plus the company who
have to suffer the consequences of the first 2) to have equal quota of
male/female managers if you don't have an (approx) equal number of
male/female applicants at graduate entry level.

IME The graduate disparity in engineering is like 99 to 1. Overly
promoting women in that circumstance is just nutty.

If you want to fix this problem

Not even possible IMO.

you have to enact the solution at school level.

Dont believe that is even possible.

Once you have missed that opportunity, you are stuck with it.

You're stuck with it regardless.

In article ,
tim... wrote:


"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...

It;s what they have problems understanding here, they seem to want more
women doing engineering but don;t seem to be intrested in gettign women in
at the 'bottom' level all they want to do is promte the women to higher
levels so they get specail help from the athena swan group.


Yep that's always been my point

It is unfair to everyone (men who unfairly get passed over, women who get
unfairly promoted and women who are fairly promoted, plus the company who
have to suffer the consequences of the first 2) to have equal quota of
male/female managers if you don't have an (approx) equal number of
male/female applicants at graduate entry level.

IME The graduate disparity in engineering is like 99 to 1.

Is that still the case? That was the figure in degree course in 1959. Mind
you SWMBOI has an answer. "Women are far too intelllegant to go into a
badly paid profession."





--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:


"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...

It;s what they have problems understanding here, they seem to want more
women doing engineering but don;t seem to be intrested in gettign women
in
at the 'bottom' level all they want to do is promte the women to
higher
levels so they get specail help from the athena swan group.


Yep that's always been my point

It is unfair to everyone (men who unfairly get passed over, women who get
unfairly promoted and women who are fairly promoted, plus the company who
have to suffer the consequences of the first 2) to have equal quota of
male/female managers if you don't have an (approx) equal number of
male/female applicants at graduate entry level.

IME The graduate disparity in engineering is like 99 to 1.

Is that still the case? That was the figure in degree course in 1959.
Mind
you SWMBOI has an answer. "Women are far too intelllegant to go into a
badly paid profession."

Must be why they earn less than men do on average.

"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 1/30/2017 10:36 PM, Bob Eager wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 22:11:00 +0000, newshound wrote:

On 1/30/2017 9:18 PM, Richard wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...

On 30-Jan-17 11:24 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, 29 January 2017 14:28:40 UTC, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38787723




--
Adam

Somehow I dont believe her. Its just my gut reaction.

A friend of mine has known her since university and does believe her.

And why does your friend believe her? Was your friend told by her at
the time?

What reason has she to make it up? I'm certainly inclined to believe
her.

Whether or not it's true, the motive for saying it now is to promote her
book.



Is anyone going to buy the book because that is in it?

Some may well buy it because of the
publicity about the book that produced.

It's something which reviewers have picked up on, seems a bit of a non
story to me. It's clearly a bit different to the usual politician's
memoir.

And that may well see some buy the book who otherwise wouldnt bother.

On Thursday, 2 February 2017 00:13:29 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 1/30/2017 10:36 PM, Bob Eager wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 22:11:00 +0000, newshound wrote:

On 1/30/2017 9:18 PM, Richard wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...

On 30-Jan-17 11:24 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, 29 January 2017 14:28:40 UTC, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38787723




--
Adam

Somehow I dont believe her. Its just my gut reaction.

A friend of mine has known her since university and does believe her.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 2 February 2017 00:13:29 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 1/30/2017 10:36 PM, Bob Eager wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 22:11:00 +0000, newshound wrote:

On 1/30/2017 9:18 PM, Richard wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...

On 30-Jan-17 11:24 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, 29 January 2017 14:28:40 UTC, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38787723




--
Adam

Somehow I dont believe her. Its just my gut reaction.

A friend of mine has known her since university and does believe
her.

And why does your friend believe her? Was your friend told by her at
the time?

What reason has she to make it up? I'm certainly inclined to believe
her.

Whether or not it's true, the motive for saying it now is to promote
her
book.



Is anyone going to buy the book because that is in it?

Some may well buy it because of the
publicity about the book that produced.

Why else would anyone buy it ?
Other than friends or family.

Some do buy political memoirs to get the low down on what
happened behind closed doors during major events etc.

Some are worth reading, most arent.

It's something which reviewers have picked up on, seems a bit of a non
story to me. It's clearly a bit different to the usual politician's
memoir.

And that may well see some buy the book who otherwise wouldnt bother.

Yes, in order to sell a book the more points of interest the more you are
likely to sell.

Particularly when its salacious stuff like that.

On 2/2/2017 6:35 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 2 February 2017 00:13:29 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 1/30/2017 10:36 PM, Bob Eager wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 22:11:00 +0000, newshound wrote:

On 1/30/2017 9:18 PM, Richard wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...

On 30-Jan-17 11:24 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, 29 January 2017 14:28:40 UTC, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38787723




--
Adam

Somehow I dont believe her. Its just my gut reaction.

A friend of mine has known her since university and does
believe her.

And why does your friend believe her? Was your friend told by
her at
the time?

What reason has she to make it up? I'm certainly inclined to believe
her.

Whether or not it's true, the motive for saying it now is to
promote her
book.



Is anyone going to buy the book because that is in it?

Some may well buy it because of the
publicity about the book that produced.

Why else would anyone buy it ?
Other than friends or family.

Some do buy political memoirs to get the low down on what
happened behind closed doors during major events etc.

Some are worth reading, most arent.

It's something which reviewers have picked up on, seems a bit of a non
story to me. It's clearly a bit different to the usual politician's
memoir.

And that may well see some buy the book who otherwise wouldnt bother.

Yes, in order to sell a book the more points of interest the more you
are likely to sell.

Particularly when its salacious stuff like that.

Salacious? Sounds pretty damned boring to me.

On Thursday, 2 February 2017 18:42:35 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 2 February 2017 00:13:29 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 1/30/2017 10:36 PM, Bob Eager wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 22:11:00 +0000, newshound wrote:

On 1/30/2017 9:18 PM, Richard wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...

On 30-Jan-17 11:24 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, 29 January 2017 14:28:40 UTC, ARW wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38787723




--
Adam

Somehow I dont believe her. Its just my gut reaction.

A friend of mine has known her since university and does believe
her.

And why does your friend believe her? Was your friend told by her at
the time?

What reason has she to make it up? I'm certainly inclined to believe
her.

Whether or not it's true, the motive for saying it now is to promote
her
book.



Is anyone going to buy the book because that is in it?

Some may well buy it because of the
publicity about the book that produced.

Why else would anyone buy it ?
Other than friends or family.

Some do buy political memoirs to get the low down on what
happened behind closed doors during major events etc.

Oh of course that's how newspapers work too.
Go into detail about the good/bad points of a policy or point out
who's shagging who, what sells most.
What was the www or internet origianly designed for obviously cat videos ;-)



Some are worth reading, most arent.

I agree but I've not read any myself.
I hear some aren't even written by the 'author' stated on the front cover.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 2 February 2017 18:42:35 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 2 February 2017 00:13:29 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"newshound" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 1/30/2017 10:36 PM, Bob Eager wrote:
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 22:11:00 +0000, newshound wrote:

On 1/30/2017 9:18 PM, Richard wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...

On 30-Jan-17 11:24 AM, wrote:
On Sunday, 29 January 2017 14:28:40 UTC, ARW wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38787723

Somehow I dont believe her. Its just my gut reaction.

A friend of mine has known her since university and does believe
her.

And why does your friend believe her? Was your friend told by her
at
the time?

What reason has she to make it up? I'm certainly inclined to
believe
her.

Whether or not it's true, the motive for saying it now is to
promote
her
book.



Is anyone going to buy the book because that is in it?

Some may well buy it because of the
publicity about the book that produced.

Why else would anyone buy it ?
Other than friends or family.

Some do buy political memoirs to get the low down on what
happened behind closed doors during major events etc.

Oh of course that's how newspapers work too.

The difference is that it isnt someone personally
involved who wrote it with the newspapers.

And while it can never be clear how much of a spin
some politician applys to their memoir, if its been
spun too dramatically, someone else who was
involved at the time will likely say that and you
can decided for yourself who is likely more credible.

And since the memoir is often after the polly is no longer
politically relevant, like Blair, if can be interesting at times.

Go into detail about the good/bad points of a policy

And how they got that policy adopted.
That part of Blair's was interesting.

or point out who's shagging who,

Can be hard to work out who is lying tho like with this silly cow.

what sells most. What was the www or internet
origianly designed for obviously cat videos ;-)

You do have to wonder what those who were involved
in getting it started make of that sort of thing now.

And the other stuff like youtube videos where with
even the most specialised stuff people are likely to
need to know how to do in their house or with their
car etc is fully spelt out now and easy to find when
you need to work out how to get the damned thing
off when yours has broken etc.

Some are worth reading, most arent.

I agree but I've not read any myself.

I've read quite a few and some are certainly worth reading.

I hear some aren't even written by the 'author' stated on the front cover.

Sure, but it doesnt matter who did that actual writing, what
matters is what they told that person to include detail wise.

Blair's was quite interesting about how he put one hell of a bomb
under the Labour Party and made them electable to govt again.
Bloody boring with his justification for the complete and utter
****up that Iraq and Afghanistan turned into but it was interesting
to see what drove his involvement in those, in spite of massive
opposition in Britain at the time.

Pity Maggie Thatcher never did one.

Going to be interesting to see if May ever does.