Brewster McCloud

So what? Pick your bone with the media, not me. I'll refer to anyone as either an expat or an immigrant as they wish. You'll notice, I hope, that I've never actually referred to myself as an expat at any point in this thread, so get off the high horse. 

1 minute ago, David said:

No, it's not "whatever." As someone from the UK who's spent a fair amount of time living in other countries it pisses me off no end that when someone arrives in the UK to better their own circumstances they're referred to as immigrants or economic migrants, yet when we do the same we refer to ourselves as "expats."

We're not expats, we're immigrants for the most part.

Just another one of these silly hair-splitting debates over nomenclature that benefit no one. Expat, immigrant, alien, dreamer, call yourself whatever you like as far as I'm concerned. It is trivial at best, point scoring at worst. 

Whatever.

32 minutes ago, Fog Dude said:

 

Not sure where you get the idea that Singapore is a meritocracy. Who gets to decide what 'merit' is anyway? One of the reasons Brexit needs to be stopped is to prevent an experiment in which Britain becomes like Singapore economically on a massive scale. That said, not a lot of people realise that most Singaporeans actually live in social housing! The death penalty part is another thing we should want to avoid. 

1

Exactly. Who gets to decide? People with existing power. Perhaps it isn't a genuine meritocracy, and I lean towards the idea that it's a quasi-dictatorship, but it's certainly what it prides itself on being. What do you mean "becomes like Singapore economically"? Hugely successful and rich? People live in social housing in Singapore because it's a tiny place and there just isn't enough room to build big houses. Everything costs a bloody fortune, but salaries are also high and the overall standard of living is actually pretty great, especially for expats. 

20 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

It is a lie, for the stats I just quoted you. Also, look at France - now officially the most visited country in the world, and they got rid of their monarchy over 200 years ago. Plenty of people still visit the chateaux, the Louvre, Versailles, Notre Dame, etc.

And come on - I'm pretty sure you know what I mean by "fail", which is a general sense: that a family could experience hardship or adversity from either their own failure to do well or from misfortune.

And yes, as I said earlier, I do think they shape how people think and react to things, or I wouldn't have said it. Culture is a significant method via which to exercise soft power, and we see it all the time throughout the world.

Yes, Singapore is the only example of a meritocracy, and therefore we should abandon the whole idea. And other meritocracies are imperfect, and therefore we should give up on them and not see them as constant works in progress where we make efforts to do and be better.

Rather flimsy statistics, though. We don't know how many people were surveyed and the "Tourism and Heritage" pdf link I clicked didn't work. Look what a big deal the last wedding was - people all over the world watched it for some reason, they like the pageantry I suppose. 

OK, so how do the royal family shape how the average British person thinks, in a way that is significant?

And do you want a meritocracy (with all its inherent bias, nepotism and lack of diversity) or a functioning democracy, like the UK has at present?

21 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

That's one of the oldest lies that's ever been told about the monarchy. It's never been quantifiable, and the only indicators there are at all show that non-royal visitor attractions pull in way more than the royal ones. Link here to data provided by Republic: https://www.republic.org.uk/what-we-want/monarchy-myth-buster/its-good-tourism

Also, are people really going to stop coming to the country of Stonehenge, the Beatles, Shakespeare, the British Museum, Edinburgh Castle, Hadrian's Wall, etc., just because a certain family aren't recognised as our rulers any more?

Additionally, it's not just about what the monarchy costs and what they're able to do, it's what they represent - ideas have power, and they shape how people think and react to things. Once you accept the idea that someone can be accorded status, privilege, wealth, and a guarantee by law that, no matter how mediocre they might be, they won't ever be allowed to fail (something every other family around this country isn't accorded), you accept the notion that there's someone who, for mystic reasons, you have to bow to because they wear a big jewelled hat and because some priests waved their hands at them.

Given how much we bang on about meritocracy and democracy in this country, it's a regressive way of thinking. Culture, in academic terms, is the construction and signification of meaning, and, as long as we have a culture that accepts what a monarchy means, we will always fall short in trying to reform this country for the betterment of everybody, because, in its purest form, we're just subliminally accepting a belief that, for some reason we can't put our finger on, there's a group of people better than us by birth, and that by turn subliminally extends to the structure of aristocracy and the class system.

EDIT: Oh, and that fucking national anthem can fuck the fuck off too. I'm not massively patriotic, but I'd be prouder of a country that proclaims its people are what make it, not one bloody person.

3

It's not a lie: plenty of people visit the UK because they're interested in the whole medieval system of kings, queens and castles. Of course, they'd still visit without them, but it's a big part of the existing package. And "fail" at what, exactly? Waving to crowds? Making a speech at Christmas? I don't recall ever bowing to the queen, and I'm sure you haven't had to either. I don't imagine anyone younger than my grandparents' generation actually thinks the monarchy are better by birth; they're a tabloid sideshow who "lead" the armed forces. Do you really think, Carbomb, that the royal family "shape how people think and react to things"?

And, meritocracies are overrated; Singapore has one but they also whack criminals with canes and execute people for taking drugs, nor do their citizens seem particularly happy or get to enjoy a free press. A rather sterile place it is. 

Does this republican website have any specific examples of Liz or Phillip interfering in the UK's political process detrimentally at any point?

The anthem is wank, though, I grant you.

The two biggest factions voting leave were the elderly (who regard Europe as the enemy and think it somehow saps Britain's power) and those without much education who thought them foreigners were nicking their jobs. I imagine a referendum on abolishing the monarchy - not that it will ever happen - would see the great British public voting overwhelmingly to keep it as it simply doesn't affect people's lives in any meaningful way. Old Liz is little more than a figurehead; even if you object to the whole "better by birth" thing on moral grounds, it hardly makes a difference to everyday life. It's also not like countries with monarchies perform any worse than republics. 

What's wrong with the monarchy? The Queen doesn't bother you that much, does she? It's not like she actually does anything, apart from pull in tourists and improve the economy. 

Talk about a misleading cover... this was utter shit, but entertainingly so. The cast - a bunch of ropey looking strippers and cardboard men - seem like they're under heavy sedation as never before have I seen a horror film where the characters are so unfazed by imminent death. The titular elves aren't even part of it - there's a doll that shows up a few times, but that's yer lot as far as mischievous homunculi go. The acting is so bad it's actually pretty funny and the story makes no sense at all: something about an enchanted "naughty list" that convinces the idiots to do bad things. Then, towards the end, a figure in a goat masks shows up and turns it into a generic slasher film, because the makers obviously couldn't be bothered with their attempt at mythology making. An absolute abortion of a film, which still amused for just how inept everything about it is. it's quite Wiseauian. 

We're not putting the willies up anyone, dude. The UK has become a laughing stock in the eyes of the EU, and rightly so. 

Probably Sabu asking me where the toilet was in Walthamstow. I think my pointing made a real connection with the guy. 

Wow. Just wow. The world is more fucked than I thought. People actually care about this shit...

Wait a minute... superhero fanboys are actually getting their panties in a bunch about... erm, what exactly? This is all new to me. Caped crusaders should be more black, more white, more female, more gay? Or less so? My mind is boggled, educate me. What are the mongoloids up in arms about?

Really cheered me up this has! Happy Friday, you fucks.

14 hours ago, jazzygeofferz said:

Ken Clarke? 

He's not bad, but his taste in trousers would prevent him holding the top spot, and it always went tits up when he tried to become the leader of the Conservatives. Pretty good record as an MP, though - pro Europe and stood up to Thatcher about the NHS when he was health secretary.

13 hours ago, Merzbow said:

I just finished The Outsider by Camus, I'd probably have loved this during my earlier edgier days but I'm far less of a nihilist shite now or so I would hope.

As it happens I read it recently. I'm not a nihilist at all, but I loved the style of it. I reckon it's not so much espousing a nihilist mindset, but rather an exploration of how seemingly random choices can have a huge impact. The narrator wants to help his neighbour, yet by doing so he's going down a rather terrible path. Made me think, it did.

Why, you could almost be Michael Heseltine, carbomb.... Great minds etc.

He'd get my vote. An articulate, very intelligent man who understands the global economy. 

2 minutes ago, Sergio Mendacious said:

Would love to know how it would be better with any other plausible Tory at the helm, mainly because I don't follow UK politics that closely anymore.

Heseltine. He knew what Boris and the others were doing - fucking up the country for selfish ends - and said so at the time. 

Fiction-wise, I've been into Daphne Du Maurier of late - what an imagination she had! Great short stories and you can see why Hitchcock adapted them.

Doing the best she can in an impossible situation, no?

I know there's an existing book thread but I searched in vain. Fuck it.

Some of the financial jargon is flying over my head, but I'm a couple of chapters in and I'm learning a lot about the libertarian Sillicon Valley mindset and how guys like Zuckerberg took over the world. 

Is it just me who feels a wee bit sorry for May? What a mess she inherited from that prick Cameron. 

Well, at least he had his shirt tucked in.

4 hours ago, David said:

The problem there is that despite being in the job of your dreams, if such a thing exists, mental illness can strike at any given time. It's when it strikes and you have to then not only deal with the issues you have, but also maintain a facade of normality that cracks can start to appear. Often it's then that the worst can happen, which is usually followed by heartbroken colleagues and bosses wondering why the individual didn't confide in them, or didn't make their issues known as there was help available.

Yes, we are. No one really believes otherwise. There's a lot of work still to be done, but that work cannot be done if people keep their issues quiet and just "get on with it."

You may see acknowledgement of mental health as some sort of utopian dream, but I can't agree. I've been in positions where I've had to lead teams of people, and maybe it's just me, but I've always encouraged employees to be up front and honest about any issues they may have, from the very beginning.

I tell anyone I encounter as part of the interview process that they can be upfront about any issues, which can extend beyond mental health by the way, I've known females who've applied for jobs and are afraid to let it be known that they and their partner are trying for a baby as an example. 

I tell them that if they're the right person for the job, I'll work with them to make it work. Because I want the best people on my team, and the best people are worth the extra effort.

Is this me being a fantastic workplace superior who deserves admiration? Far from it. In fact, my reasons for doing so were two-fold. First of all, I obviously recognise that the team members I'm leading are people, and as people I give a fuck. That should go without saying.

Second, I'm also employed by the company to get the best results business-wise, and having team members taking time off and feigning physical illness, being unsettled in the workplace due to issues they can't discuss, and their workplace performance generally being the shits isn't doing me, them, or the company any great favours. 

It may sound a little business-oriented, and it is, but I'm happy to work with the right person and run the risk of them firing at 50% some of the time while the company and myself do what they can to help them through a tough time, than to shy away from hiring them and instead go for someone who's mentally strong but who's not a great fit and who's delivering results of 60% consistently.

Companies are willing to install facilities to accommodate people with physical disabilities (as well they should), and they do so not because said companies have suddenly become bleeding hearts who had decided to take the financial hit of having a wheelchair-bound mascot in the office for good publicity, but because they've recognised that a little financial outlay allows them to hire that person who's going to earn them a lot of money over a longer time period, be that person able-bodied or suffering from some mobility problems.

It obviously should be the case from a human standpoint, but the fact that it makes business sense makes companies all the more willing to make that effort.

Again, I'm not sure where you work or where you live, but for me it has absolutely fuck all to do with sympathy. I may feel sorry for a person from a personal viewpoint, but as part of a hiring department I can't allow that to come into my way of thinking.

It comes back to the analogy above. From a purely business standpoint I weigh up the pros and cons of someone who's a great fit for the job, but who faces some issues that affect them on occasion, or hiring someone who's less of a fit, who'll produce inferior results, but who can do so over a more consistent period.

In fact, in the past I've had someone on my team who suffered from mild mental illness where they basically have days they can't leave the house. They simply can't do it, but because they feel they can be upfront with the company they often work from home. 

Depending on how they're feeling that can range from dealing with conference calls (sometimes video, other times not, depending on how they're feeling. The client usually doesn't care) to simply going over reports, creating documents and so on. 

In all honesty, even at their worst when they were doing a little work from home, they were still providing the kind of results over any given period of time that I saw team members in other departments provide on a regular basis. 

You may see hiring such people as a utopian feel-good exercise in PR, but trust me, that's not how companies work. Not in my experience anyway. They want results, and if someone is shit-hot at their job, and are still regularly outperforming the average even with their down-time and issues, it's a hit the company will take.

I'm based in the UK most of the time, and things haven't changed really. Companies still want the candidate who can do the best job, and who can make them the most money.

The only thing that's changed in my view is that some companies have started to wise-up to the fact that by dismissing mental health out of hand they're essentially throwing away excellent candidates, often times in favour of less desirable candidates who, even though they turn up every day, aren't performing to the level that those who have been ignored can.

Some see it as ticking the boxes and playing the modern game. I've often claimed to be a cynical bastard, and as a cynical bastard I've experienced the fact that for companies it's about the bottom line, and getting the right people for the job is important.

Companies are starting to realise that those with mental health issues are often-times the perfect candidate for a job, and that they're worth the effort and care not only because it's the right thing to do, but because over the long haul it's going to result in an improved bottom line.

You can throw the hiring of females, physically disabled individuals and minorities into that mix as well. Any company who hesitates based on any of those factors is not only morally in the wrong, but they're doing themselves a disservice business-wise.

Well, thanks for giving such an insightful reply - I appreciate it, and I'm not going to argue, but let me clarify a couple of things: I'm not saying that mental health is any different to physical health or that people should simply keep a stiff upper lip and keep their emotional pain to themselves. I do though, think one has to play it carefully unless the matter has been established from the start. If a boss is as cool as you are, great, but I've found several of them not to be, unfortunately. At my lowest ebb a few years ago, I had to take two weeks off because I couldn't leave the house or, well... function. My boss at the time was super nice about it, even coming to my house to bring me food, but my contract wasn't renewed - the board of directors didn't want someone like me potentially taking 2 weeks off again and upsetting the applecart/the image they wanted to project as a Christian outfit. I accepted their decision, although maybe telling them I was drinking a liter of vodka a day was a mistake! Standards and all that.