The gender pay gap as misrepresented by the BBC

The gender pay gap is one of the BBC's favourite hobby horses and they are off riding that toy animal for all its worth today.

'UK companies are rushing to submit their gender pay figures ahead of Wednesday's midnight deadline.

By 11:00 BST, 9,053 companies had done so, with more than 1,000 companies reporting in the last day alone.

Firms with more than 250 staff must state the average difference between male and female employees.

Of those that have published data, 78% pay men more than women, 13% pay women more and 8% said they had no gender pay gap, based on the median measure.

One of the biggest names among the worst offenders so far is Ryanair, which reported a 71.8% gender pay gap.'

That looks serious, but then if I turn to the ONS report then I read this:

'It should be noted that the gender pay gap figures presented in this bulletin do not show differences in rates of pay for comparable jobs, as they are affected by factors such as the proportion of men and women working part-time or in different occupations. For example, a higher proportion of women work in occupations such as administration and caring, which tend to offer lower salaries.'

Shouldn't the BBC be putting that information front and centre or would it rather misrepresent the truth in the chase foir headlines?

Maybe the BBC should precis the information to be found here before constructing their next sensationalist headline.

A proposed 28th amendment to the US Constitution

I know that in the US there is much debate about whether members of Congress are in fact 'above the law'. I think that making it clear that they are not would be a good thing.

In the UK where MPs enjoy huge privileges, I would suggest that such a law should be the first priority of a true Conservative government. This of course means not David Cameron's CINO party lead coalition, but maybe one day.

Labour springs its well laid trap

Harriet Harman's equality legislation passed this year was passed for a reason, and that reason was not 'love'. Thus The Guardian's report that:

'George Osborne is facing a formal investigation by the equalities watchdog to establish whether the Treasury fulfilled its statutory duty to assess the impact of the spending review on women, disabled and ethnic minority people.'

did not surprise me. Labour knew they would be out of office soon and so left behind all sorts of traps for the incoming government. The fact that the Conservatives have to govern in a coalition with the LibDems means that they cannot repeal these pieces of legislation as easily as they otherwise might thus the impeccably left-of-centre, but statutorily reinforced Equality and Human Rights Commission announced today that it would launch a formal assessment into the Treasury's conduct prior to the spending review last month:

"Under the public sector equality duties, covering race, gender and disability, the Treasury, like all public bodies, has a legal duty to pay 'due regard' to equality and consider any disproportionate impact on protected groups when making decisions, including decisions about the budget. Where decisions are found to have a disproportionate impact on a particular group protected by the legislation, public bodies must consider what actions can be taken to avoid, mitigate or justify that impact."

This week we've seen this 'equalities' legislation and Alistair Darling's EU crisis sign up emerge as well laid traps, what others will follow?

A bit late for Trafalgar day but I just found this...

'The Battle of Trafalgar,.. Today

Admiral Nelson: "Order the signal, Hardy."

Captain Hardy: "Aye, aye sir."

Nelson: "Hold on, that's not what I dictated to Flags. What's the meaning
of this?"

Hardy: "Sorry sir?"

Nelson (reading aloud): "England expects every person to do his or her
duty, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation,
religious persuasion or disability.' - What gobbledygook is this?"

Hardy: "Admiralty policy, I'm afraid, sir. We're an equal Opportunities
employer now. We had the devil's own job getting 'England'
past the censors, lest it be considered racist."

Nelson: "Gadzooks, Hardy. Hand me my pipe and tobacco."

Hardy: "Sorry sir. All naval vessels have now been designated smoke-free
working environments."

Nelson: "In that case, break open the rum ration. Let us splice the
mainbrace to steel the men before battle."

Hardy: "The rum ration has been abolished, Admiral. Its part of the
Government's policy on binge drinking."

Nelson: "Good heavens, Hardy. I suppose we'd better get on with it ...
full speed ahead."

Hardy: "I think you'll find that there's a 4 knot speed limit in this
stretch of water."

Nelson: "Damn it man! We are on the eve of the greatest sea battle in
history. We must advance with all dispatch. Report from the
crow's nest please."

Hardy: "That won't be possible, sir."

Nelson: "What?"

Hardy: "Health and Safety have closed the crow's nest, sir. No harness; and
they said that rope ladders don't meet regulations.
They won't let anyone up there until a proper scaffolding can be erected."

Nelson: "Then get me the ship's carpenter without delay."

Hardy: "He's busy knocking up a wheelchair access to the foredeck,
Admiral."

Nelson: "Wheelchair access? I've never heard anything so absurd."

Hardy: "Health and safety again, sir. We have to provide a barrier-free
environment for the differently abled."

Nelson: "Differently abled? I've only one arm and one eye and I refuse even
to hear mention of the word. I didn't rise to the rank of
admiral by playing the disability card."

Hardy: "Actually, sir, you did. The Royal Navy is under represented in the
areas of visual impairment and limb deficiency."

Nelson: "Whatever next? Give me full sail. The salt spray beckons."

Hardy: "A couple of problems there too, sir. Health and safety won't let
the crew up the rigging without hard hats. And they don't
want anyone breathing in too much salt - haven't you seen the adverts?"

Nelson: "I've never heard such infamy. Break out the cannon and tell the
men to stand by to engage the enemy."

Hardy: "The men are a bit worried about shooting at anyone, Admiral."

Nelson: "What? This is mutiny!"

Hardy: "It's not that, sir. It's just that they're afraid of being charged
with murder if they actually kill anyone. There's a couple of
legal-aid lawyers on board, watching everyone like hawks."

Nelson: "Then how are we to sink the Frenchies and the Spanish?"

Hardy: "Actually, sir, we're not."

Nelson: "We're not?"

Hardy: "No, sir. The French and the Spanish are our European partners now.
According to the Common Fisheries Policy, we
shouldn't even be in this stretch of water. We could get hit with a claim
for compensation."

Nelson: "But you must hate a Frenchman as you hate the devil."

Hardy: "I wouldn't let the ship's diversity coordinator hear you saying
that sir. You'll be up on disciplinary report."

Nelson: "You must consider every man an enemy, who speaks ill of your
King."

Hardy: "Not any more, sir. We must be inclusive in this multicultural age.
Now put on your Kevlar vest; it's the rules. It could save
your life"

Nelson: "Don't tell me - health and safety. Whatever happened to rum,
sodomy and the lash?"

Hardy: As I explained, sir, rum is off the menu! And there's a ban on
corporal punishment."

Nelson: "What about sodomy?"

Hardy: "I believe that is now legal, sir."

Nelson: "In that case... kiss me, Hardy." '

Thanks to Doin' the Time Warp for the spot.

Sunday morning catchup (part 1)

To clear some tabs from Firefox before it crashes...

1) 'Gordon Brown 'absolutely furious' about Ed Miliband's attack on his economic record'. Do remember that Ed Miliband was a key economic advisor to Gordon Brown before being appointed to the labour Cabinet. Ed Miliband is as much a protoge of Gordon Brown as Ed balls.

2) The Freeman Online asks: ' Will “Clean Energy” Lead an Economic Recovery? Can pigs fly?' I think we all know the answer.

3) Toby Young tells how 'Lefties go mental while watching my school documentary' Is anyone surprised at the violence and hatred shown by the left?

4) The Telegraph report on another legacy left to the UK by the last Labour government.

'Equality Act: firms must not ask job applicants about health

Employers will not be able to ask people who apply for a job about their health under new equality laws that come into force today.

Staff who are dyslexic, have taken a large number of sick days or who look after disabled and elderly relatives will also find it easier to win unfair dismissal cases under the new law. '

5) What is happening in Iran with the Stuxnet virus? The US Report explains the background and The Telegraph blame it on/ give credit to Israel.

6) Watts Up With That reports an invonvenient fact: 'Less ice in the Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 years ago'.

7) C3 Headlines reports that: 'Peer-Reviewed Cherry Blossom Reseach Confirms Japan's Medieval Climate Warmer Than Current One'. So the Medieval warm period was not just confined to Northern europe.

Something from Harriet Harman's equality obsessed past

"In June 2009, Sir Michael Scholar, head of the UK Statistics Authority, wrote to Harman to warn her that different headline figures used by the ONS and Government Equalities Office with regards to pay differentiation between men and women might undermine public trust in official statistics. The GEO's headline figure was 23%, which was based on median hourly earnings of all employees, not the 12.8%, based on median hourly earnings of full-time employees only, used by the ONS. Scholar wrote: "It is the Statistics Authority’s view that use of the 23% on its own, without qualification, risks giving a misleading quantification of the gender pay gap". The Equalities Office rejected his criticism, saying: 'With women representing over three-quarters of the part-time workforce, we believe this figure gives the fullest picture of the country's gender pay gap.'"

Per Wikipedia.

The sixty-fourth weekly "No shit, Sherlock" award

This week's winner by a long way is the Deloitte consultancy for reporting (per The Mail) that:

"The equality watchdog lacks leadership, represents only the Labour party and is packed with state sector 'placemen'... It described the Equality and Human Rights Commission as cumbersome, confused and divided."

Representing only the Labour party, packed with state sector 'placemen' (surely 'placepersons).

"No shit, Sherlock"

Who will rid us of this meddlesome minister?

Harriet Harman's at it again. This time whilst giving evidence to the Treasury select committee she called for the City to end the 'nightmare' of men-only boards. Harriet Harman, speaking as minister for women and equality, said that while there were no plans at this stage for quotas, 'further steps' would be taken if the City refused to act. She claimed without any evidence that companies with male-only boards were less likely to spot new opportunities and deal with risks.

Does anyone think that Harriet Harman is just a teeny bit obsessed?

Are there any more ways that I can be discriminated against by this "equality" obsessed Labour government?

I only ask because as well as being white, male and middle class, I know find that I am also hideously Southern English and that Harriet Harman seems to believe that it should be illegal for public bodies to discriminate against Northerners. I presume that this is just the Labour government frantically trying to shore up its core vote or Northerners, public sector workers and ethnic minorities, but I am getting really fed-up with the Labour government's obsession with "equality" that is nothing of the sort.

And all must be equal...

"THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren’t only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General.


Some things about living still weren’t quite right, though. April, for instance, still drove people crazy by not being springtime. And it was in that clammy month that the H-G men took George and Hazel Bergeron’s fourteen-year-old son, Harrison, away.


It was tragic, all right, but George and Hazel couldn’t think about it very hard. Hazel had a perfectly average intelligence, which meant she couldn’t think about anything except in short bursts. And George, while his intelligence was way above normal, had a little mental handicap radio in his ear. He was required by law to wear it at all times. It was tuned to a government transmitter. Every twenty seconds or so, the transmitter would send out some sharp noise to keep people like George from taking unfair advantage of their brains.


George and Hazel were watching television. There were tears on Hazel’s cheeks, but she’d forgotten for the moment what they were about."

You can read the rest of Kurt Vonnegut's 1961 short story "Harrison Bergeron" here, and then wonder where the left's obsession with equality might really lead us...