I I do fear that if China doesn’t achieve their global domination via financial and insidious communications activities, then they will be all too happy to engage in the exchange of souls for territory.
I do believe I said big-girl pants, DCS, not big pants. From a woman's perspective, there's quite a difference, and quite an important one at that.
I think that china thinks it can pretty much do what it likes as russia is on it's side too (pretty much) so who's going to stop them? Like on the "team america" film, all we seem to do is send them a letter saying how displeased we are etc.... Basically, nothing.
Well there are 1.4 billion of them. So they can afford to sacrifice a good few million, and not even notice. They have also built so many massive cities, that the west don't have enough weaponry to deal with them all. While i am pretty sure, they have more than enough, to obliterate all of the American cities, any others that they choose.They are rapidly getting aquainted with India, ( Population 1.2 billion) and Russia. Dangerous times ahead i reckon.
Ahhh, I need not have been concerned, Old Sleepy has been on the blower and fixed things... isn’t it great world leaders can resolve stuff so easily! https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-...-agreed-abide-by-taiwan-agreement-2021-10-05/
This is (to me) a reasonably written piece on the modernisation of the big London financial companies along racial equality grounds. It’s not inflammatory or seem to be written by a woke warrior shaking his/her/their (don’t want to assume gender ) fist at the world, but rather a contemplation of how even the biggest of business now needs to reflect on their past and look at what they are doing now “internally” to represent the modern era standards of employment. BUT, I think they are really missing something here. Instead of the focus of the article being on the workplace hiring policies (like it often is, yawn) Why aren’t they asking what big fianace are doing to ensure their money and investments are involved with strong ethical companies. Are they ensuring that making money off modern slavery is not happening? Do they know where the Russian or Chinese investments have placed their line in the “ethical sand”? Or in other words, can they show that they have learned from their history? https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/lo...teeped-slavery-confronts-its-past-2021-10-06/
Slightly different. One is a failure of leadership across a whole organisation, the other is a failure deal with one person not doing the job well enough. Both carry responsibility though, I agree.
Looks like local dickheads round me have been inspired by the Everard case… what a wanker! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-58829818
Good God - there are some real sick manipulative opportunistic bastards out there. Copy cats should get double the original sentence.
Not stuck for a dickhead around here, so far as it goes.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-nottinghamshire-58791663
Here’s another git… he was behind the plan in the 80’s of having “leg protectors” on all motorbikes… I can’t say I feel that MP’s are top of my list of folk who need a wage rise!!! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58830792
Yes, a very reasonably written piece. Much of it applies to conditions in the U.S., too. While I agree with you, DCS, that the question should be what big finance is doing to focus on supporting and financing strong ethical companies, I'm feeling rather cynical these days and think that the bottom line will continue to be money. If it's profitable to invest in ethical companies, not make money off modern slavery, or withhold support from Russian and Chinese companies with questionable ethics and politics, then those things will be supported. If not, well, hmmm. I'm not confident that much change will happen. Companies can manage to "look good" with stats on diversity in hiring while little true change happens. I do wish we'd learn from our history but it seems we're doomed to repeat it oft times.
Funny you should say that, I was just thinking the very same thing. I reckon people should be aware that it was MAG that lead the charge against Bottomley's ridiculous and downright dangerous support for leg protectors.
