Whenever a woman makes a rape accusation, the mainstream media refuses to publish the name and face of the accuser.
This story was surprising. They published the name and photo of the prostitute involved in the Secret Service scandal.
Originally, the published photos of her had her face blurred out. Now, they’re showing her name and face. However, this isn’t a false rape accusation. This woman was legally working as a prostitute, and the Secret Service agent refused to pay his bill. (Prostitution is legal in some parts of Columbia.)
They did publish the name of the agent who started the scandal, by refusing to pay his bill.
I always thought it was unfair. When a woman makes a false rape accusation, her anonymity is protected. The man’s reputation is ruined, even if he is never convicted. If a woman makes a false rape accusation, that’s OK, and her anonymity must be protected, lest other women be reluctant to make false rape accusations. If a woman is working as a prostitute, it’s OK to publish her photo and embarrass her.
It is also inconsistent that if a club member bends the law they get a free pass. Little people get stomped upon.
The Artist Taxi Driver discusses the Bribery Act 2010
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_QTd9yT3fY
David Laws MP cheats on expenses but gets a free pass
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1282489/David-Laws-resigns-paying-40-000-gay-lover.html
Woman jailed for the “crime” of earning a low, irregular salary of between
200 – 800 pounds a month. I would suspect most of her government benefit went on housing benefit i.e. to her Landlord not directly to her.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016419/Blonde-glamour-model-Clare-Evans-jailed-claiming-62k-benefits.html
So basically if you are a little person you go to jail. But if you are in government you get a free pass.
Off-topic, but related to a previous post by FSK on software hiring.
http://www.developer.com/daily_news/is-software-engineering-a-career-dead-end.html
Norman Maltoff also had a famous website about H1-Bs and the myth of a software engineer shortage.
Also, a “shortage of workers qualified to do X” really means “people don’t want to pay the fair market salary”.
An employer will demand 5 years of experience in .NET. That excludes a lot of people. A good programmer with less experience in .NET specifically can do the job. Unfortunately, hiring managers don’t think that way.
I agree that software engineer is a dead-end job, unless you become self-employed. Most of my experience counts for zero when looking for a job. When dealing with evil hiring managers, it’s frustrating. I’m shocked that no hiring managers think “Wow! FSK is a really good programmer! I want him to work for me!” I know that I’m near the top end of the ability scale.
Another “advantage” of younger workers is that they’re easier to push around. I’ve been around the block a few times, and I know when someone else is acting like a twit.
Off-topic, but it is interesting to compare FSK’s views with that of the cartoon below. They seem well aligned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHe4OQ4bY4o
If housing benefit is 700 pounds a month, then over 1 year it is 8400 pounds.
So the total is 25.5 + 8.4 = 33, 900 pounds per year for the Romanian woman.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2087857/Romanian-Big-Issue-seller-given-legal-right-claim-housing-benefit.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016419/Blonde-glamour-model-Clare-Evans-jailed-claiming-62k-benefits.html
The blonde woman got 10, 000 pounds per year from the government.
The Romanian woman was working selling Big Issue magazines.
The English woman was working as a model, earning an irregular salary of 200 – 800 pounds a month.
The Romanian woman gets free legal aid in order to get even more money out of the system.
The English woman gets banged up in prison.
Therefore it seems the British legal system is biased against British nationals.
Oops! My last comment was not meant to suggest that some groups of people have it soft and some groups have it hard. But rather a British court jailing a low-paid, pregnant woman with two children is wrong-headed. She had a job paying an irregular amount of money between 200 – 800 pounds a month. That salary is not enough to pay rent in the UK. So she had to claiming housing benefit. And for that a sick in the head judge put a pregnant woman in jail. This is so sick!
Both in the UK and the USA, a large proportion of our tax money, goes not to public services but straight into the hands of bankers, who were stupid enough to lose all their money and need a bailout. Plus government is going into debt just to pay the interest on previous debt to bankers. This loaned money from banks to government was created from thin air. The bankers are getting rich on money created from thin air.
There is no reason for government to go into debt. They should create the money directly themselves. Why should a banker do it? Bankers are not free market businesses that should be exempt from government regulation, because they create money from thin air, which should be controlled.
But instead of blaming the banks, the courts seem to blame low-paid, single mothers with jobs only paying 200 – 800 pounds a month.
A court jailed a single, pregnant woman with two children for the “crime” of having a low paid job with an irregular salary. In the UK, rents are higher than her irregular salary so she needed to claim housing benefit.
See
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2016419/Blonde-glamour-model-Clare-Evans-jailed-claiming-62k-benefits.html
THIS IS DISGUSTING.