Why the Guardian is going down the pan!

[PursuedByBears]

It's written by someone called Rupert FFS.

 

[fishfinger]

It's written by someone called Rupert FFS.

I can see why that would bother you

 

[SpookyFrank]

I was just about the post the same. Surely peak Guardian?

No matter how low they set the bar they'll always find a way to crawl under it next week.

 

[seventh bullet]

The comments make me wish I had a machine gun.

 

[equationgirl]

The comments make me wish I had a machine gun.

Never, ever, read the comments. Ever.

 

[NoXion]

What's the difference between an au pair and a babysitter? And why do they always seem to be foreign?

 

[scifisam]

What's the difference between an au pair and a babysitter? And why do they always seem to be foreign?

An au pair is a person from another country who comes to the UK to learn English and pays for their studies, and their rent, by doing childcare and assume light housework for the family whose house they live in. They generally do about 30 hours a week.

A babysitter is someone who comes to your house now and then to look after your children, usually in the evening. They're not an official childcare worker at all. They might not even be paid if they're a friend or family member.

Very little in common at all really.

 

[seventh bullet]

It's exploitation as novelty and 'cultural exchange' for middle class people who can't/won't pay for a nanny. And the racist, envious povs who voted for Brexit are ruining everything, or something.

 

[SpookyFrank]

What's the difference between an au pair and a babysitter? And why do they always seem to be foreign?

Babysitters/childminders get paid minimum wage. Au pairs get room and board plus pocket money, an 'opportunity' for rich kids who don't actually need a paying job to experience life in a foreign country and look after some braying bourgeois spawn into the bargain.

Basically it's an older version of the 'internship' scam.

 

[scifisam]

Babysitters/childminders get paid minimum wage. Au pairs get room and board plus pocket money, an 'opportunity' for rich kids who don't actually need a paying job to experience life in a foreign country and look after some braying bourgeois spawn into the bargain.

Basically it's an older version of the 'internship' scam.

I don't think it's mostly rich kids. Rich kids just pay their own fees and rent without having to deal with other people's kids.

Whether it's a good experience for the au pair varies hugely, but it can be great, and financially it's usually really good because tuition fees, board and rent cost so much. It's got absolutely zero in common with an internship.

Babysitters and childminders are not the same thing at all. Babysitters are informal arrangements and don't have to be paid minimum wage, but don't need any qualifications either.

Childminders also don't have to be paid minimum wage - they're self-employed, so minimum wage doesn't apply, and usually look after kids from more than one family. They do need qualifications, have to do tons of paperwork and have regular inspections.

 

[Mr Smin]

thelocal website (maybe the Denmark one, can't recall) had a piece from a lobby group of Brits resident in the EU.
Several sensible points and then they wrecked it by talking about how people who want to stay in their second homes abroad for long periods might not be able to in future. It's hard to feel a sense of solidarity with second home owners when you can only just afford your own rent.

I'm waiting for the guardian to pick it up since it will obviously affect some of their writers.

 

[Indeliblelink]

Straight eye for the queer guy – Owen Jones gets a (much-needed) makeover

 

[D'wards]

Quite a good article, but that sub heading is something else...

Women shun cycling because of safety, not helmet hair | Helen Pidd

 

[Poi E]

Blind date: ‘We spoke about baking cakes at altitude’

Chris, an artist, spoke with Helly, a technology consultant, about baking cakes at altitude.

 

[emanymton]

Quite a good article, but that sub heading is something else...

Women shun cycling because of safety, not helmet hair | Helen Pidd

Are we sure women don't shun cycling because they are less likely to be an arrogant, self-rightous dick?

 

[equationgirl]

Quite a good article, but that sub heading is something else...

Women shun cycling because of safety, not helmet hair | Helen Pidd

Paging weepiper for expert opinion.

 

[Pickman's model]

Quite a good article, but that sub heading is something else...

Women shun cycling because of safety, not helmet hair | Helen Pidd

one issue not addressed in that article is that of cycling instruction, which may be germane to the issue. just on the subject o helmet hair, the way many cyclists wear their helmets prevents them receiving the protection they believe they will have. newsflash: wearing a helmet at a jaunty angle or wearing a woolly hat underneath or wearing the helmet without straps fastened means that you might as well not be wearing a helmet at all for all the good it will do.

 

[Kaka Tim]

Entertainers, you’re not all narcissistic windbags – but keep it short, please | Fiona Sturges

performers are not all "narcissistic windbags" apparently. Guardian columnists on the other hand...

 

[ska invita]

My impression is the Guardian can take a good dose of credit for Rudd's scalp. They've been steadily reporting the deportations and other injustices the last two years, pretty much on their own, and I think they hit the final nail in the coffin yesterday. Looks like good campaigning and investigative journalism to me.

Guardian's Amelia Gentleman wins prize for Windrush reporting
Well deserved
...sadly the pressure went off the government a fair bit since Rudd's demotion, though I think the Guardian haven't moved on from the story

 

[bemused]

Quite a good article, but that sub heading is something else...

Women shun cycling because of safety, not helmet hair | Helen Pidd

How would a cycle lane desgined for women be different than a cycle lane designed for men?

 

[Pickman's model]

How would a cycle lane desgined for women be different than a cycle lane designed for men?

Reread the article

 

[JimW]

How would a cycle lane desgined for women be different than a cycle lane designed for men?

Its use would be restricted to the one sex not the other

 

[scifisam]

You guys know that a segregated cycle lane is one that's separate from other traffic, right? It's not one that bans men or brown people.

 

[bemused]

Reread the article

I read it and her premise seems to be that the lack of segegated cycle lanes seems to be the fault of predominaly male city planners and that this male cotery is deterring women from cycling.

She quotes Brice as saying:

Fifty-one per cent of the UK population is female, yet most of our cities are failing to design roads and streets for women to cycle[..]

The author then goes on to use the example of Richard Leese of Manchestert Council who didn't support segegated cycle lanes as of example of her premise that men are designing roads in such a way that they kill women.

Helan Pidd has previous reported that the vast majoirty (75%) of peple in urban of any sex support segegated cycle lanes and that the introduction of them in London delivered a 50% increase in cyclists. Dedicated cycling infrasturuture simply gets more people on bikes whatever their sex.

The lack of safe cycling infrastructure isn't because most city planners are men, it's because most cities don't want to spend the money and reduce space for cars to build them.

 

[Pickman's model]

I read it and her premise seems to be that the lack of segegated cycle lanes seems to be the fault of predominaly male city planners and that this male cotery is deterring women from cycling.

She quotes Brice as saying:



The author then goes on to use the example of Richard Leese of Manchestert Council who didn't support segegated cycle lanes as of example of her premise that men are designing roads in such a way that they kill women.

Helan Pidd has previous reported that the vast majoirty (75%) of peple in urban of any sex support segegated cycle lanes and that the introduction of them in London delivered a 50% increase in cyclists. Dedicated cycling infrasturuture simply gets more people on bikes whatever their sex.

The lack of safe cycling infrastructure isn't because most city planners are men, it's because most cities don't want to spend the money and reduce space for cars to build them.

She says nothing pejorative in the article which has so confused you about male design of cycle lanes being an issue

I know you have *read* the article
I asked you to *reread* the article

It's like herding cats

 

[scifisam]

Yes, but she's not asking for women only cycle lanes, as was claimed.

 

[bemused]

She says nothing pejorative in the article which has so confused you about male design of cycle lanes being an issue

The tone of the tagline

Roads designed by men are killing women – and stop millions from cycling

confuses the article.

It quotes Brice (one of the architects of the London cycle network) as saying:

Fifty-one per cent of the UK population is female, yet most of our cities are failing to design roads and streets for women to cycle,[..]

Which leads to the simple question, how does the street design that encourages women to cycle differ from that would encourage men to cycle?

The fundamental point is that dedicated cycling infrastructure is safer and more people use it - that's a fair point.

I don't think she's being pejorative to men, but I she hasn't made the case of the gender of planners is preventing roads designed for women to cycle.

 

[bemused]

Yes, but she's not asking for women only cycle lanes, as was claimed.

Who claimed this?

 

[Pickman's model]

The tone of the tagline confuses the article.

It quotes Brice (one of the architects of the London cycle network) as saying:



Which leads to the simple question, how does the street design that encourages women to cycle differ from that would encourage men to cycle?

The fundamental point is that dedicated cycling infrastructure is safer and more people use it - that's a fair point.

I don't think she's being pejorative to men, but I she hasn't made the case of the gender of planners is preventing roads designed for women to cycle.

you do like shifting the goalposts from your post 7670, which asked about the design of CYCLE LANES not your actual streets.

 

[bemused]

you do like shifting the goalposts from your post 7670, which asked about the design of CYCLE LANES not your actual streets.

She's talking about cycle lanes, segregated from traffic. That is street design.