Levelling the workplace -- to the ground

d1carter

How lucky you guys are! Complete insanity.

elixelx

Already done in Canada.
My nephew has had 2 children in the space of 1 1/2 years, and given that he and his wife both occupy high executive positions in the same head office of a well-known bank, what with maternity and paternity leave, sickness days and etc. their combined salaries for NOT working comes to well over $250,000.
In the meantime all movement- up, down, sideways-of their underlings is on hold awaiting the end of this period of fecundity!
They originally wanted just two but now that quids in they intend to have another four in rapid succession!

Note that this applies to single-sex and unmarried couples as well!

Thinkster

Everyone in a position of authority in this country has lost the plot. Where once there was common sense, now there is a void.

Richard

So you're saying "no" to radical injustice, but:

1) "yes" to denying men the same rights as women
- or -
2) "yes" to denying women the option of combining a career and motherhood.

And you accuse others of manipulating the meaning of words...

Ann

"My nephew has had 2 children in the space of 1 1/2 years ... 4 more".

That's right - who gives a toss about the future of the human species when a quick buck can be made.

Richard, don't talk such rot.

steve

Yeah, it would be much better to have a system like in the U.S. where my sister was expected to be back to work 6 weeks after giving birth. Programs like the one proposed in the Uk only encourage people to have children when the world is already overpopulated and they also hurt the daycare industry since women and men are at home spending those first few months with their baby instead of working and putting the baby into a daycare.

Robbit

Richard - as Ann says don't talk such utter rot. Since when was an option a right? Choices have concequences but of course the whole objective of the Nanny State is to give everyone so many rights to be absolved of the natural consequences of their "options" that they will end up in complete serfdom. Whence do we acquire the right to have everything we want at the expense of our work colleagues, the tax-payer and everyone else? Why should someone else fit the bill for anyone else bringing up their children?

Miranda Rose Smith

At one time, it was legal and common for classified ads to say "Only married men need apply." Soon only single people-leading religious, moral, not-fooling-around lives-will be able to find jobs. WHO is supposed to make the company sufficiently profitable to enable the ompany to pay the salaries-and hold the jobs-of these people who take these long maternity and paternity leaves? Santa Claus?

Miranda Rose Smith

At one time, it was legal and common for classified ads to say "Only married men need apply." Soon only single people-leading religious, moral, not-fooling-around lives-will be able to find jobs. WHO is supposed to make the company sufficiently profitable to enable the ompany to pay the salaries-and hold the jobs-of these people who take these long maternity and paternity leaves? Santa Claus?

Roy

There appears to be a clear case of acceleration in the use of employers to work and pay for the absurd welfare featherbedding. By requiring worker agreements to offer these perverse perks it divorces governments from paying for these services rendered. Having spent up big overindulging the population in all manner of mollycoddling, the bright sparks are now forcing employers to carry on were the government spoon-feeders left off. Having run out of tits of state it fosters out its obsessively milk sop offspring to another mother. Of course employees will be all for it and hopefully for the indulging, paternalistic, nanny state, it will get its vote. Sooner or later (especially in a recession) something ... will have to give.

C Powell

Let's calm down. There are a number of issues here which need disentangling and clear thought. (1)Clearly if you make women very expensive to employ, you risk making them less employable than men. But (2) it's not acceptable to move to the system we used to have - and still do with less enlightened employers - where women lose their jobs on pregnancy or are discriminated against when they work. (3) Such rights are costly, particularly for small employers. (4) We are always bemoaning the fact that men don't take fatherhood seriously etc. So enabling men to do just that should not be criticised out of hand as political correctness gone mad. On the contrary. (5) It also makes sense to treat men and women equally for the purpose of these rights precisely in order to avoid the sort of egregious discrimination there can be against working women. Perhaps what is wrong is the scale of the benefits given to parents i.e. rather than giving everyone a year off, maybe give 6 months off to both. So reduce the benefits on an equal basis to both parents to something more affordable and consider having exceptions for small businesses, where the cost and inconvenience are disproportionately greater. And do something intelligent about taxation and child benefit for working parents so that they are in a better position to take responsibility themselves for their family. But let's never forget that the family is the bedrock of society and helping families is a good thing not something to be met by hails of abuse and vituperation, as MP and too many of the comments below, I fear, are doing.

Alice

I utterly disagree with something MP writes. How very unusual.

Jean

It is prohibitively expensive, but I'm not sure there is an easy solution here.
First, we need to admit that it is possible that kids and a professional career are not easily compatible for women, whatever you do. If they have long leaves, their career is threatened; if they don't, they won't have kids.
So what do you do? The only way I see to make women as hirerable as men is to make men as unhireable as women. It certainly is not economically optimal, but maybe the only economically sane solution is to suppress leaves, and that could cause a demographic problem (as if there wasn't one already).
So what do you think? Is there a better solution?

Brian Richard Allen - Los Angeles

Thinkster - Anyone ONCE worthy of a "position of authority" in once great (although not since the nineteenth century) Britain is now an American! Quite likely by way of already dead and decadent former Africa colonies, New Zealand or Canada or, more recently, via Red-China Rudd's racketeers', irreversibly fascissocialist -- and therefor dying -- Australia.

Zkharya

This may be a problematical, Melanie, but surely there is a more serious problem: not enough Britons are having babies.

Roy

There never seems to be any ability by liberal left wing governments to recognise the revenue earners of society. They are always very good at giving away other peoples hard earned cash and causing hardship to businesses through their grasping and squeezing the very life out of them. To increase the countries turnover has a competent healthy establishment, the countries businesses from the very small to the very big have to be encouraged and given top priority, with every favour and stimulation. Not having to continuously be bombarded with every obstacle man can envisage to drain its lifeblood.

Victor, NW Kent

The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again.

And, Zkharya, Britons are having far too many babies. We do not have the physical resources to support those and the immigrants as well.

Miranda Rose Smith

A BIT OFF-TOPIC
Dear Roy: Regarding left wing governments not recognizing the revenue earners of society: Is it true, or was it at one time true, that, in England, a person or persons could "squat," trespass, in a vacant building and the owner of the property had to provide them with heat and light for six months?

Richard

Robbit
Granted you'd seem fairly well up on rot, but...

“Since when was an option a right?”
You appear confused. No-one was suggesting options are all rights. However, many rights exist to protect our having options. The right to life springs to mind...

“Whence do we acquire the right to have everything we want at the expense of our work colleagues, the tax-payer and everyone else?”
I don't remember the issue being whether mothers should have maternity leave, a yacht and holidays to Dubai. As to whether a parent should be able to have a child, and provide a loving home for that child, whilst maintaining a career to support that child. I'd refer you to the other well written comments below, explaining why healthy families might be a good thing.

John Williamson

C.Powell.

(1)Clearly if you make women very expensive to employ, you risk making them less employable than men.

- correct, which is why we are seeing the situation theat MP has highlighted

But (2) it's not acceptable to move to the system we used to have - and still do with less enlightened employers - where women lose their jobs on pregnancy or are discriminated against when they work.

- why is it unacceptable ? It has been "acceptable" to give men and childless women fewer rights and priveledges since the inception of Maternity Leave legislation. Allowing employers to make perfectly rational business decisions is far more acceptable IMHO than piling on yet further priveledge to the "special ones" at the expense of men and childless women.

(3) Such rights are costly, particularly for small employers.

- correct

(4) We are always bemoaning the fact that men don't take fatherhood seriously etc. So enabling men to do just that should not be criticised out of hand as political correctness gone mad.

- having marginalised, isolated and eliminated men and fathers from families in the last 20 odd years the "It's their won fault" mentality is kinda rich. Rather like sacking the policemen and firemen, and then complaining about why they don't catch the criminals and put out fires any more.

On the contrary. (5) It also makes sense to treat men and women equally for the purpose of these rights precisely in order to avoid the sort of egregious discrimination there can be against working women.

- So, to benefit women we are deigning to extend the priveledges only women with children have previously received - how egalitarian of you !!

Charlie

Manny innovative engineering / technology companies only employee 1-10 people who generate income. Many small technology companies need to generate overseas income which means travelling to foreign companies, often at short notice. A telephone call may be received one evening and the ability to win a contract requires the company to send someone sufficiently senior overseas within 24 hours. If there are two directors, one of whom is a women and pregnant: who flies overseas? If the women director takes maternity leave all the responsibility rest for foreign travels rests on the other director. What about if the two directors are both women and both become pregnant and take maternity leave: who runs the company? This type of legislation has little adverse impact on large organisations such as local government, banks , supermarkets but could seriously increase costs and reduce flexibility of small high tech companies who depend on foreign sales , especially where reacting very quickly to potential customers demands is essential to winning contracts. As small high tech companies tend to provide larger than average salaries and jobs which are likely to remain in the UK, rather than going overseas, then these are of vital importance especially if there is recesssion in this country. As few in the Labour Party have ever worked in engineering companies where significant part of income is from foreign sales then they do not appreciate the problems.

Familiar Clown

Is there a future for robots in all this?

George

Here in Israel it already happens. Paid maternity leave (at two-thirds salary, paid by national insurance) is for 12 weeks, but the couple can decide which one of the parents will take it. Alternatively, they can split the period between them. In a situation where the mother is not feeding and the father is earning a higher salary, it makes sense for the father to stay at home.

Mum on maternity leave

Most European countries manage to have way more extensive parental rights, equality legislation and less anxiety over "what is my neighbour having more than i am". Maybe it would be worth checking out how they manage it? PS. The state takes more part in most of Europe, paid from tax funds, oh my god how unfair...

Verity

As ever, this insane, Stalinesque government cannot keep its febrile statist fingers off any aspect of private lives or private industry.

The woman has a choice as to whether to get pregnant or not. The employer does not enjoy the choice of declining to employ a woman in her childbearing years. The entity that loses out is private industry, so hated by the socialist planners.

The totalitarian nature of Britain's governance during the past 11 years is horrifing.

Women cannot "have it all" if it means their having it all means someone else has less, i.e., the employer and/or the shareholders.

If they want a career, fine, they should come into the workplace on the same terms as men. Why should shareholders give a monkey's about whether these women are "fulfilled"?

Ann

C Powell, don't be such a patronising, pompous prat. We are perfectly calm.

There is a huge distance between women losing their jobs if they become pregnant, and what is being discussed here. In other words, your post is so much irrelevant hot air.

Robbit

Richard,

Go on add to the rot:

Robbit
Granted you'd seem fairly well up on rot, but...

“Since when was an option a right?”
"However, many rights exist to protect our having options. The right to life springs to mind..."

Rubbish, the right to life is not there for any secondary purpose of "having options"!!!
What utter rot. You are confusing the right to life with the right to enjoy any LIFE-STYLE you want at other people's expense. So please address the question and explain to us why any company, colleagues, taxpayers, or anyone else should fit the bill for some else to enjoy staying at home with his or her children? while maintaining a lucrative career...? I have not denyed anyone any right to their options I have just asked that they fit the bill for their lifestyle choices and do not expect me or anyone else to bank-roll their specific lifestyle choices.

Robbit

Verity,
Quite so. All socialism is a one way road to serfdom under a totalitarianism - as Hayek explained 60 years ago - and this country is well down that road. Especially with the current crop of closet Bolsheviks who think that now, under Gordon McBottle Brezhnev, it is the right time to come out of the wood-work where they have been festering like maggots and seething with resentment ever since the dropping of clause 4...

Winnie McCrann

In the days before 'equal pay' you could raise a family with one wage. Only the rich can do that now.

Bill M

Are they also planning to place a limit on the number times a working mother/father may receive these benefits?

Richard

Robbit,

Whether by accident or by design, you are still sorely missing the point. Rights frequently (in fact nearly always) exist in order to allow/enhance individual agency and choice. Please tell me why we have a right to not be falsely imprisoned, for example, if it is not because it restricts our options and agency.

The only interesting question here is whether this is a legitimate option for governments to facilitate. Your comparing the raising of a family to "any life-style you want" is laughable. It never ceases to amaze/amuse me how quickly conservatives dismiss the family when they realise it might cost money.

What we should be asking is are there enormous social benefits from children being raised well by parents having time at home? Yes. Is it fair that by an accident of nature, when a couple decide to have a child, then only one of them must sacrifice their career? No. Is asking a family to choose between a significant drop in income and a significant harm to a career or isolation from really "not denying" [sic] them a fair choice? No. Any of these offer a good reason for state intervention.

You should note that these systems are most advanced in the Scandinavian countries. These nations are amongst the most competitive economies in the world. They have extremely low crime rates, instances of family breakdown, and the best educated and behaved children in the world. Would you care to explain how that is?

Kiffa

Good solutions, Roy; especially your comments about taxation breaks to ease the burden.
Somebody, give the man a govt. consultancy

Bob

Oh how I desire for this idiotic welfare state do be dismantled.
We thought that idol worship died out in ancient history, yet the welfare state is worshipped with all the fanaticism of a religious cult. Lets get it straight, the welfare state provides nothing. It merely taxes people to the hilt and then filters down a very small percentage of that money in services to those it can bribe the best for votes. The rest is lost in the megalithic system. The NHS is the third biggest employer in the world (according to the Times.) When you add the staff role in the welfare system I suspect that it tops the whole list.
Every time anyone breathes the slightest breath of intent against the idol he is met with screams of "They are going to dismantle the welfare state".
Oh if only someone had the courage.
In the meantime those being served "from the cradle to the grave", are for the most part still sucking their bottles in the cradle, after all it is our right.
This country, with the welfare mentality of "my rights" will continue going to the dogs until some one has the balls to shout enough. When will people start talking about responsibility!!!!

Pete, Scotland

Verity, I agree with you.

Employees of the state funded and corporate world have the luxury of arguing this cause.

I think that people that believe in this should set up a charity whereby they donate a weekly amount from their wages to fund all those good parents that want to be at home with their offspring, while the rest of us get on with trying to keep the economy moving!

How many of these same people would be happy to pay for a plumber, every week, for months while the plumber is sat at home looking after baby?

I think they would sing a different tune then if it they had to pay for it!

field

There's only one proper solution to this problem:

A state backed insurance system. Under this women (or men) would pay contributions from their early 20s on into a National Parental Leave Fund. After a certain no. of years this would entitle them to certain no. of years paid leave from work. The amount of pay might be say one third but with 100% tax relief.
Government and employers would also contribute to this fund. On return to work the fund member would continue to pay contributions. Any shortfall in contributions would be made good through a charge on the person's estate or property transaction if they failed to meet the terms of the fund.

The merit of this fund would be that all employers contributed to parental leave equitably. Small employers would not be crippled by a sudden outbreak of parental leave. The fund would pay for substitute workers.

Mercutio

Has everyone except us gone crazy? I can't believe the pure greed of expecting the government to force a business to pay for you to have a baby. What ever happened to looking after yourself? Saving money for a rainy day?

If you want a year off to have a child, then save your money beforehand and take a year off while living on your own goddamn money, the money you actually earned by doing something for someone.

Scratch that, why live below your means and save for later when you can have taxpayers and businesses pay for everything for you? Time to join the ranks of the feckless idiots and demand as many handouts as possible, at least until everyone thinks the same way and society collapses. It's what everybody seems to want to encourage!

Geoff Miller

Meanwhile the rest of us have to cope with the absence of collegues for no extra pay and with no reduction in workload.

We will even have to spend time recruiting temporary staff that have to be trained, supervised and then disposed of when the incumbent swans back into the office.

No wonder so many of us have packed it in, gone abroad and retired early.

Roy

ALSO A BIT OFF TOPIC, not sure Miranda, but it wouldn't surprise me. It's a wonder councils don't have hot & cold water laid on under bridges for the benefit of street kids and the like.

Richard

Seriously, can any of you answer how it is that these maternity payment systems are most advanced in the Scandinavian countries, and far from collapsing economically or socially these nations are amongst the most competitive economies in the world, with extremely low crime rates and instances of family breakdown, and with the best educated and behaved children in the world?

Roy

Simple, Richard, they have the good fortune of having a closed, tough, proud, North European population of like minded people, dedicated to the welfare and prosperity of their country. They get the fundamentals right, good business, and the rest follows.

Ann

Richard - (a) I don't believe they are that economically competitive at all, (b) they don't allow the entire third world to enter the country and destroy the local national culture and cohesiveness, (c) look at the suicide rates in some of those countries - not necessarily an indication of healthy people and family life.

bruce

I heard Francis Fukuyama coin a good term for all this: burogamy - marriage to the State.

Women seem to have an instinct to get connected to the most powerful available male to support their children, and a powerful urge to 'trade up'.

Hence perhaps the medieval practice of Droit de seigneur...

Is all this really what women want?

Richard

Ann (and Roy),

"(a) I don't believe they are that economically competitive at all"

The OECD and World Economic Forum would say otherwise. Denmark, Sweden and Finland are ranked as the 3rd, 4th and 6th most competitive economies in the world.

"(b) they don't allow the entire third world to enter the country and destroy the local national culture and cohesiveness"

The OECD would say otherwise. The foreign-born population of the UK is 9.7%, the foreign-born population of Sweden for example is 12.7%.

"(c) look at the suicide rates in some of those countries"

If you're making the argument that suicide rates are a good measurement of a healthy society then (by the WHO rankings) the healthiest societies in the world include Iran, Haiti, Egypt and Azerbaijan. The unhealthiest would include Japan, France and Belgium. I'm not sure that's quite what you want to argue, is it?

Any other fascinating theories?

Robbit

Goodness Richard, with all the rot you have been talking you have well and truely fallen into the all traps I set for you.

You are the one who is "still sorely missing the point". You tell us:

"Rights frequently (in fact nearly always) exist in order to allow/enhance individual agency and choice. Please tell me why we have a right to not be falsely imprisoned, for example, if it is not because it restricts our options and agency."

I have never heard anything so fatuous and vacuously circular and tautologous in my life. The "right not to be falsely imprisoned" is there to protect us against _injustice_ and an over-powerful state or other body that might threaten any of our freedoms. And what is this talk about rights "existing" for some other extraneous "in order to" some extraneous purpose?

"The only interesting question here is whether this is a legitimate option for governments to facilitate." It is NOT the legitimate business of the government to FACILITATE my my agency and choices - that is entirely up to ME. If I need the state to _facilitate_ my choices then I am, virtually by definition, NOT free! It is the job of government to protect (via the law of the land) my freedom to make my choices - it NOT its legitimate job to FACILITATE (i.e. quite honestly, finance at other peoples expense) MY choices. You seem wholy incapable of making this distinction. You have a right to freedom of movement, speech and association - that does not mean that anyone anywhere must be made to pay for your bicycle, publish your maunderings or subsidise your club memberships... in order to "facilitate" your freedoms and choices. If you do need that then you are not really free at all - and will in fact just wind up being in-hock to whoever "facilitates" them ... probably in hock to the STATE, i.e. a latter-day serf, not a citizen.

"Your comparing the raising of a family to "any life-style you want" is laughable."
- your travesty of what I said is what is utterly laughable.
I am all for strong familes: genuinely, independently strong families - not State-subsidised ones. What I object to is the notion that anyone has a _right_ to prolonged leave _paid for by other people_ so that they can enjoy home life and raising a family AND maintain an independent lucrative career - at other people's expense. An _entirely_ different matter.

And so you say:
"It never ceases to amaze/amuse me how quickly conservatives dismiss the family when they realise it might cost money."
... and this is where you have well and truely shot yourself in the foot. You see, Richard, we conservatives (small "c"!) believe that the family is the most fundamental building block of civil society and perhaps our last bulwark against an over-mighty State - like our current one, that at every turn, is extending its power and control into every nook and cranny of private life, family life and civil society - and so, in effect, turn the family into a State dependency - i.e. a form of latter-day serfdom.

"What we should be asking is are there enormous social benefits from children being raised well by parents having time at home? Yes." - That goes (or should go!) without saying and I never denied it, and nothing I said entails its denial. My wife stayed out of work for 7+ years until our children were both of school going age, and we paid the price (and it was very considerable) and we did not expect anyone else to pay it for us.

"Is it fair that by an accident of nature, when a couple decide to have a child, then only one of them must sacrifice their career? No." It is not a matter of fair or not fair. It is a fact of nature that women can brest-feed babies and men cannot. That is that. It is up to husdand and wife to plan and make their own choices and not expect, and depend on, State-enforced charity and subsidy in order to do so.

"Is asking a family to choose between a significant drop in income and a significant harm to a career or isolation from really "not denying" [sic] them a fair choice? No."
- No, indeed! It is not denying them the choice or anything at all, even a "fair" choice, it is just saying that they, and no one else, should take responsibility for, and fit the bill for, the choices they make, including having children in the first place. No one has an automatic right to continue enjoying their career and current level of income no matter what choices and decisions they make.

"Any of these offer a good reason for state intervention." NONE of them are any good reason at all. The only thing the state has a right to do is reduce the tax burden on individual families - since their income is, after all and in the first place, THEIR OWN MONEY! That is, if the state believes, as I do, that the traditional family should be encouraged and strengthened. But, over and above that, to force employers, colleagues, the taxpayer or anyone else to subsidise someone else's career, current income and family life-style or alternative life-style experiments, is most certainly NOT justifiable "state intervention" at all.

And, what is more, there are already child benefits that apply equally to all. If that and their own family income and family tax allowances is not enough to enable them to stay at home with the kids AND maintain and enjoy their careers and current level of income then THEY have to decide which to sacrifice. Please explain why a career manager should be subsidised by industry or the taxpayer to the tune of his salary of £5,000 a month when a shop assistant is subsidised to the tune of £1,200 a month? I thought your type was very keen on "equality"?

So it is back to the drawing-board for you. He who pays the piper calls the tune. You have to decide whether you want the family to become a Fiefdom of the State - or regain its place as the fundamental building block of a free civil society, our only independent bulwark against the might of the State - a role that has been steadily and remorselessy undermined and eroded, primarily by the pieties, ideologies and policies of the big-government, nanny-state, parlour-pink left, for the last 100 years or more.

Roy

Thanks Richard for the following observation: "The OECD would say otherwise. The foreign-born population of the UK is 9.7%, the foreign-born population of Sweden for example is 12.7%."
... The obvious fault with these figures in putting forward an argument for Sweden having more foreigners in their midst is ridiculous. Britain has a bursting at the seams birthrate of fifth, forth, third, second, and first generation immigrant. All foreigners in the eyes of original native Brits. Also you quote figures when British officials themselves don't know how many illegal immigrant they have. In half a century when English city market places resemble an eastern bazaar, your figures could be the same. They will not show the growth of immigrant people and their culture ... right.

Ann

Roy, I don't believe those useless twerps know how many LEGAL immigrants there are, never mind illegals.

Verity

Francis - There were no droits des seigneur in Britain. That's why it's in French.

Robbit - Your post looked promising and I think I agree with you, but I am not going to learn a new system of online punctuation to read it.

Robbit

Verity,
Sincerest apologies for my appaling paragraph structrue!
The only excuse I can offer is haste to respond while the topic is still warm. That is a very lame excuse for my awful run-on sentences with interminable "-"'s and elipses ... - nothing but an evasion of the effort needed for proper punctuation and structure. Very bad and slovenly habits!

Verity

Robbit - It was all those inexplicable, random underscores peppering the page that disoriented me. I have absolutley no idea what they're supposed to convey.

Robbit

Verity - underscores trivial really: "_terrible_" is in many internet forums a substitute for italicised emphasis or underlining, which are not often available, a way of shouting, but not quite so loud as TERRIBLE block capitals!

Verity

Robbit writes: "in many internet forums a substitute for italicised emphasis or underlining, which are not often available".

What do you mean, "not often available"? I have never seen any forum in any language where you couldn't decide to have an italic by doing the code for italic. Or bold by doing the code for bold.

I would counsel you to learn how to do this before cluttering up a civilised site with your unreadable, ugly dashes slammed across the site. Do you really think anyone stuck with your post for more than a sentence?

Robbit

Your Majesty Verity,

I bow before you in abject, grovelling apology and obescience. I am sorely reproved. I am contrite. I realise now that my attempt at apology and self-criticism in a light-hearted spirit was nothing less than an impertinence and an affront to your August Majesty and your most Delicate Sensibilities, the Exquisite Refinement of which I cannot even presume to Imagine. I know that a comma or apostrophe out of place can fortel the collapse of Civilisation. The appaling habits of us peasants who grew up in the days of news-groups on character based terminals and vi, rather than MSWord and PowerPoint, die very hard, but absolutely must be eliminated at all costs. So I will now voluntarily exile myself to some outer Gulag for a extended period of re-education and penance.

But I remain...

Your most humble and obedient servant,

Robbit.

Robbit

So, Verity, out of which side of the bed did you fall this morning?

Now may I counsel you to re-read my SHORT post of July 17th, 2008 11:47am and try to discern, through the fog of your spite and arrogance, the spirit in which I originally wrote it. Then I would counsel you to consider the adjectives which quite justifiably spring to mind when reading your post of this morning, some of the milder of which are:
arrogant
impertinet
stuck-up
boorish
conceited
bitchy
mean-spirited
presumptious
patronising...

Other epithets that may spring to mind would not be appropriate in polite society or printable on what you would presumably call “a civilised site”.

But if the likes of you set yourselves up as the arbiters of civilised posting on the net then God help civilised internet conversations, or any others, for that matter.

As for reading my longer post which started all this: for heaven's sake please don't put youself out. I could not give a tinker's toss whether you read it or not.

Verity

Robbit - You seem a little uppity for someone who hasn't bothered to learn simple html.

You wrote a post that was so littered with random underscores and capital letters that the site looked as though it had been strafed, apparently imagining that your thoughts were fascinating enough to keep anyone hacking through the undergrowth to get at your message.

Ask yourself this: have you seen any other posts that look like this on the entire Speccie site? Or any other blog, come to think of it?

If you're too lazy to use basic html, don't be surprised if other people see your post and think "Pass".

You gained nothing by resorting to wounded personal abuse.

Melanie F

Robbit-I read and understood your post, and agree with every word of it.

Robbit

Thanks, Melanie F.
Glad you found it legible and even more glad you found it agreeable.
(Have been ill for three days and have also been without my home internet connection.)