Well FWIW you do in part pay for the BBC - they receive a sizeable stipend from general taxation in addition to the monies raised through the license fee.
Only an injust system would charge a successful defendant costs rather than make an award of [reasonable] costs against the plaintiff. Ridiculous.
Climate change study?
So criminals can now just use some sign language in front of any video camera - a conversation will have been recorded and the police will instead of charging the criminals order a destruction of the evidence and charge the camera owner with a felony.
That doesn't sound like something you'd need a good lawyer for, that sounds like something a law school student that had only been to half their classes should be able to bring up
I don't understand why we need to force more men in to nursing - certainly when I've needed a nurse then I've not cared which sex they were, just as when I've needed a doctor. What improvement does the healthcare system get from male nurses that female nurses can't provide?
>*But in this thread, looking around, some guys are claiming that women aren't good at math.*
Isn't the problem that the spread of achievement, ability, etc., is far greater in men. There are more male geniuses but also far more male fools. Women don't clamour to be recognised as fools though. In schools in my country girls have far out-performed boys in maths for a long time but they still don't choose the "hard" sciences or engineering courses at the same rates as boys; most likely because university level study creams off the top and so exaggerates the difference, leading to sex imbalance in workplace roles that garner people from those university courses.
Certainly in my chosen field whilst there were lots of women who were more intelligent, more studious and with greater achievement than many men (me for example) the couple of people in a thousand that stood out as future leaders in the field were men.
If you can't handle there being a sex-based difference then what are you going to do about autism rates, suicide rates, homelessness rates,
Well if 100 women applied for each position but only 10 men and the candidates were on average equally qualified whether female or male, ie their sex didn't on average make any difference as to their ability to perform, then the number of women would be greater than the number of men. If the numbers are the same then there has been unfair sexual discrimination.
So in this situation did the proportion of school children wishing to follow a particular career path match with the proportions who were accepted in to those roles in companies when ability is accounted for? If not then there was sexual discrimination.
I'd imagine that giving one group preferential treatment, more scholarships to men say, would mean a greater proportion of the suitably skilled were able to achieve a target role and thus discrimination would have occurred.
>"scholarship aimed at single mothers"
Why shouldn't fathers looking after kids on their own have that same opportunity?
>"There is a lack of women in STEM fields."
The corollary of this is that women can uniquely provide skills in STEM fields that men are unable to provide. Yet it's been hotly denied that men can bring anything to any field that women can't (even as a generality by some). So, in what way is there a lack of women? Are we suddenly allowed to say that a person brings skills to the table simply because of their chromosomes? Personally I don't doubt it but it contradicts exactly the express position of many feminists and undermines entirely the basis for equalising the proportion of each sex employed in a particular field.
>"If we were offering incentives to women to become nurses, I would have a problem with this."
Why? Don't we need people to become nurses just as we need people to work in other specialisms?
Suppose practically no women want to be sysadmins, lots of men do and that a certain cadre of nerds (who're perceived as being borderline-autistic) are most able to perform the role; such characters are usually men, these men want to do that job, few women want to do that job
Provided the choice of job candidates is performed fairly why should we rail against the progress in removing discrimination and add in new types of discrimination?
Ladies Nights are discriminatory. I have no problem with them for private businesses, the minute the government starts running them and claiming that they aren't discriminatory or that they somehow are working against discrimination, that's when the government has gone of the rails.
>*one cannot allow anyone else to "dilute" it*
You can't allow it to be genericised, sure. But you can grant a license to anyone to use your trademark and so your argument is moot, the RTM holder can issue a license which avoids any sense of dilution, you'd simply need a sticker "yellow colour used under license from Cocks Inc." so unwary buyers aren't fooled.
You lose trademarks by not paying the renewal fees, it's _almost_ impossible to lose them otherwise.
Why? Under what treaty or agreement would the EU not be able to claim those oilfields? They are British oil fields, hence part of the EU at the moment. What law means that Scotland receives them if it chooses independence? What bargaining power do Scotland have against the united might of the EU if the EU say "lolz, nice try, still ours"?
It's going to be interesting if the vote goes through as "yes". No established currency, no rights under international treaties (but then no obligations, like copyright), no protection from established accords, no monarchy, no armed forces and such. Will be interesting to see, for example, if the Queen allows Scots to resign their posts in UK armed forces and such.
Flat-Earther with incredible eyesight?
>*The United Kingdom is a union of equals*
What utter nonsense. The UK is the union of 3 kingdoms - England, Scotland and Ulster - with a single monarch; it's not a republic of equals or a federation of states who've agreed equal voting rights. If you want that then you need to get rid of the monarchy first.
>*There's no relationship to how fast you go vs. safety.*
So as many people die in porsches travelling 5mph as do at 105mph?
Why not? Doesn't the spirit of the law exist in USA?