|
Originally Posted by Ninthace
(Post 11154275)
You will also find the Norwegian birth rate used to peak when the migrating storks arrived, and for all I know, it still does. Statistics are misused on a daily basis but that should not be used to discredit that particular branch of maths, rather it should make us want to learn more so we are not so easily deceived..
|
Originally Posted by Stratnumberone
(Post 11154442)
regardless of the weights of puffins, storks or Norwegians, I’m surprised that as many as 45% are happy with their single accommodation!
|
Fortissimo
I guess it depends if you think ‘neutral’ is satisfied or not. I tend to look for positive indicators to say when someone is satisfied :ok: Anyway, the level of detail you want is in those stats, but just for the examples you want, here you go (original in quotes): 51% of the RAF are satisfied with their Service Families’ Accommodation. Ie. 49% are dissatisfied with their married quarters. 45% of the RAF are satisfied with their Single Living Accommodation. Ie. 55% are dissatisfied with their mess accomodation. That sort of carp is why people leave, not because of some virtue signalling name change. |
Originally Posted by cynicalint
(Post 11154247)
You are quite right. stats show that the majority of the british public have an above average number of legs.
Easy. Not many people have 3 legs Quite a few have one leg while many more have half a leg or just two thighs. Therefore, the average number of legs per person in somwhere above 0 and less than 2. i.e. 1.(n) . Consequently those with 2 legs have an above average number of legs per person than the national average. Stats can prove anything you want. Joking aside, there are three [actually more] ways of finding a characteristic of a statistical population. I suggest "mode" is a good fit for the legs research. Your folk with fewer than two legs and my three-legged Manxmen would be seen to be a very insignificant contribution. |
Originally Posted by langleybaston
(Post 11154600)
Did you miss all the three legged people? .
|
Cut me off at the knees and call me TRIPOD!
|
SoS Defence piles in:-
Armed forces to get new guidance on how to use 'inclusive language' The new guide includes more inclusive ways to address disability, race, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation and social mobility ByDominic Nicholls, DEFENCE AND SECURITY EDITOR12 December 2021 • 4:16pm Admiral Sir Tony Radakin pictured in April CREDIT: PA The armed forces are to be given new guidance on “inclusive language” after the Defence Secretary said he is “unhappy” with the current advice. Military personnel from all three services had been told to avoid using phrases such as "crippled with debt" or "blind drunk". The MoD said its Inclusive Language Guide 2021 was a “practical toolkit” to help servicemen and women understand why “certain words or use of language is hurtful or non-inclusive”. A senior defence source told the Telegraph: "The Defence Secretary and Chief of the Defence Staff (CDS) have been clear that the UK armed forces must modernise to tackle the threats of the future. That includes our approach to our people who are critical to that task. “The Defence Secretary is unhappy with the current approach set out in the guide. A revised version will be published in the coming weeks." The guide will be taken down from the MoD website while changes are made. The guide, produced by the MoD's Diversity and Inclusion Directorate, denies being "an attempt to police language" or "restrict your personal style of communication", but was created to help staff "speak more powerfully, precisely and respectfully", according to the Mail on Sunday. It recommended avoiding phrases such as "deaf to our pleas" in case it offended the disabled. The 30-page pamphlet said the words "woman" and "female" “mean different things but are often used interchangeably”, adding: “Referring to women as females is perceived by many as reducing a woman to her reproductive parts and abilities. “Not all women are biologically female, and the conflation of ‘female’ to ‘woman’ erases gender nonconforming people and members of the trans community.” “The women in the platoon” is said to be a more inclusive phrase than “the females in the platoon”. The guide includes more inclusive ways to address disability, race, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation and social mobility. The MoD wants personnel to put the “person first” For those who can't see the text in the telegraph, the article is above. It would seem the SoS defence is not happy with the guidance. Does that mean it does not go far enough, or does it go too far? My reading is that it goes too far. Is it at odds with CAS and aviator? |
Sounds like this top bit of comedy…
|
Originally Posted by alfred_the_great
(Post 11153262)
much easier solution - call everyone Senior to you ma’am, regardless of chromosomal status.
|
Originally Posted by ExAscoteer2
(Post 11153211)
The 1950's called. Apparently they want their sexists back.
|
Originally Posted by alfred_the_great
(Post 11153100)
he’s in the RNR, and has mobilised several times to HERRICK, TELIC and KIPION.
As I said to him earlier. He has been given short shrift here and should refrain from telling us what to think. His sad handbag-swinging about 'values and standards' belong in the bin, along with his trite (and often wrong) Thin Pinstriped Line Blog, where he pontificates about military matters based on his experience as a civil servant. Ha ha ha. |
Originally Posted by Krystal n chips
(Post 11153206)
Changing the rank to Mistress Aircrew may induce some confusion as to her role...
|
Can I still refer to a multi tool as a Leatherman, or is it now a Wigston?
|
Originally Posted by minigundiplomat
(Post 11155258)
Can I still refer to a multi tool as a Leatherman, or is it now a Wigston?
|
Originally Posted by Vortex Hoop
(Post 11155228)
His sad handbag-swinging about 'values and standards' belong in the bin, along with his trite (and often wrong) Thin Pinstriped Line Blog, where he pontificates about military matters based on his experience as a civil servant. Ha ha ha.
|
Originally Posted by Easy Street
(Post 11155281)
He got into a very testy Twitter exchange with Greg Bagwell this weekend just gone over his latest adulatory blog on CSG21, in which pretty much his only mention of the RAF contribution was a cheap (and inaccurate ;)) shot about wanting to imitate submariners with the F35 accident. Having got all uppity and defensive in response to Baggers' criticism, he then edited the blog to be somewhat less partisan, resulting in Baggers getting a load of stick from people who'd only seen the edited version. As ever it pays to be aware of the personal baggage of an opinion writer, something made difficult when they operate only under a pseudonym.
|
Originally Posted by Foghorn Leghorn
(Post 11155318)
Who did that, Easy Street?
|
Originally Posted by Easy Street
(Post 11155327)
The writer of the Pinstriped Line blog, aka Sir Humphrey (I was carrying on the 'his' from the text by Vortex Hoop, quoted at the top of my post). Twitter handle is @pinstripedline if you are looking him up.
|
So let me get this right...... An Aviator is involved in a war. He, sorry they, come face to face with the enemy who is about to shoot them. They can therefore shoot and kill the enemy, but must be very careful in what they say or shout.... just in case they offend them as they are dying? Really!!!!!
|
The SofS may wish to withdraw it, but once it’s on t’internet then you instantly lose control of it. Plenty of examples of the poorly staffed document if people look for them: https://www.scribd.com/document/5305...-Guidance-v1-O
Looking forward to see what V2.0 looks like! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:22. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.