Odyssey

Absolutely correct LadyMuck. Legal aid helped the poor to access the legal system. But what i think is more unfair to the poor is the increase in VAT which will have much more of a negative effect on them than the wealthy. What the government should have done is increase income taxes.

RosieH, there is nothing to win or lose here as far as I am concerned. Regarding the knock-out punch, this was just friendly banter. Arrogance is in the mirror of those who look for it.

Huguenot, Being a former Systems' Administrator, part of keeping the user base content and informed was that I would explain the nature of any outage and the reasons why. This was perfectly normal and kept people informed of precisely what was going on. Admin. are very right, most people don't give a damn, but what I used to find was that there were always the few who wanted to know more. Anyhow, it's always nice to have a new sparring partner on here. I hope that you don't mind if every now and again I raise my head to deliver that occasional knock-out punch.;-)

Admin, thanks for your enlightening response because this is of interest to some of us. It's good to see that the Linux box is up and working. Thanks for your response.

Huguenot, some of us take great interest in the forum be it quietly in the background and raising our heads every now and again. This is just to complete the circle and because I am a nosy git. As for admin. being open - why not? And it's good to see that /etc/rc.d/init.d/network restart fixed the problem. Once again, sharing knowledge - nice to know.

Normally, from my past experience with servers and work being done, the Administrator explains the precise nature of the outage i.e. system being unavailable due to increasing memory to improve performance. So please could you inform us of the precise nature of the outage as, you are probably aware, there are many addicts of the forum who would probably like to know why and in the nature of being open as well. GLASNOST.

It won't last.

I think the choice is pretty obvious really. Those who can go to university should go, because it makes their chances of employment a lot higher.

I have been following this and the lesbians threads throughout the day and what I can't understand is what the fuss is all about. The threads are neither offensive nor rude and the only thing that I can put it down to is some small petty-minded people trying to get their own way. As the old cliche goes: live and let live. Get off your petty stand and just let the forum flourish.

Hopefully, if he's a well-balanced person, he should understand. If not, you could try approaching the subject when you have your "one-to-one" with him.

katie1997 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > so just throwing this out here...what would you do > (ladies) if you discovered that your new boss was > a 'starer' even when the top is not low cut? Is > the solution to wear a really low-cut top as they > might try better to avoid looking? > > or maybe not? Dear Katie 1997, I am sure that the feminists on this thread will start throwing bricks at me. I am not a female as you may have guessed. But, if I were you, I would try an experiment. I would first wear tops that reveal nothing at all (i.e. no cleavage at all showing) and see whether he stops staring. If he does stop staring, I would approach him and ask him if your dress code makes him feel uncomfortable because you notice that he tends to stare when you wear tops that are slightly lower cut. This I would do at maybe a social event where everyone is a bit more relaxed. If he is what I call an "eye-dropper", it may be that he is gawping without even thinking about it. Best of luck.

Just popping in as I've been really busy. But come on now. Being at home in your best frock with your high heels and make-up on does sound as though you are waiting for the postman to knock!;-):)):):)-D

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You forget Odyseey that women are also contending > with underwired bras and so on so it's a different > level of discomfort to wearing jeans/ > trousers...... > > I am one woman who prefers a low cut top to a > poorly fitting blouse (something women with > cleavage often find) and I am certainly not > wearing that top to attract anyone and nor do most > of the men I know have any problem with women > dressing as such in the workplace as long as they > are smart. Half the population are female I think > men have no right to tell any woman what they > should and shouldn't wear anyway, simply because > some men can't control the way they look at > women! > > That's my view. We'll have to agree to disagree. > I'm certainly not about to offer 'advice' on > something I see as men dictating to women. This > is not Saudi Arabia.... This is not about men dictating to women what they should wear. Indeed, I have had women come up to me and pointing out another woman's inappropriate dress. We should get away from this sexism argument which a few women bring up as their first line of defence. It is like someone saying: it is because I am black, it is because I am Jewish, it because I'm a Muslim, it's because I'm gay etc. etc. If a woman wants to go down the pub flashing her tits I have no objection to that at all. It is merely in the office environment, where I think people (both men and women) should dress appropriately. Why are you bringing up an extreme as an argument? No-one is saying that this is Saudi Arabia. Yes I do think we will have to agree to disagree.

giggirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well that was unhelpful. You say this woman is > inappropriate. I ask you to describe her. And > that would be a no. I am not saying a particular woman is inappropriate, I am saying it is the dress which is inappropriate. I am not talking about a particular woman - this is something which has occurred many times in the past. It is not only me which finds this inappropriate but other men (and women) in the office do so too.

giggirl Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm loosing the plot here. Odyessy - the lady in > question is in your office, yes? Describe please. > Does she have large breasts? What does she wear? > Is her top low cut, see through? What? > Seriously - paint me a picture. Size of breast has nothing to do with it. It is the fact of women dressing inappropriately for an office environment.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But what you are talking about is not comparable. > And something else. If a woman has large cleavage > she sweats in the joins - sorry to get intimate - > so there are very good reasons why women prefer > low cut necklines - especially in hot weather. > It's not about being sexually provocative but > comfort most the time. Wearing jeans below the bum > on the other hand would never be comfortable and > absolutely provocative. I totally disagree. Someone who's got a large arse sweats between the crack as well so they equally need adequate ventilation, but most people who work in offices do not go around with trousers below the arse for ventilation purposes. I do believe that a woman can have adequate ventilation without revealing so much cleavage - e.g. by wearing a light blouse/shirt etc. I get very sweaty under the armpits - do you suggest I take off my shirt in the office? I do honestly believe that most women who reveal a substantial amount of cleavage in the office do it for reasons other than comfort - i.e. to attract men (or other women). I think KidKruger has a very valid point and is dealing with a very difficult situation at work. Maybe some constructive advice from you might help resolve the issue?

All jokes aside, I think this is a serious point. For most men in the workplace, a woman revealing a substantial amount of cleavage is very distracting. And since we are all at work to work and not to flash our bits which we should be covering up in the office, I believe that there should be some form of dress code. I have also spoken to other colleagues about this and it really is quite embarrassing when in a meeting and you are trying to look at someone eye to eye but your gaze keeps drifting down to the cleavage. What if I was to walk into the office in one of those baggy jeans which hang around your arse revealing a substantial amount of bum cleavage. Would this be allowable or would the boss call me in for a chat? This is not about equality for women or anything like that. It is simply about what is acceptable in the office.

legalbeagle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ok. But just bear in mind there's a fine line > between "Baby Got Back" and mincing like a BeeGee. > I'm just saying. As true to my word today I invested in a pair of jeans that emphasise my shapely bits. Although the pitch of my voice has slightly increased this, I think is worth it, as I will use the jeans as a countermeasure to women who insist on wearing low-cut tops in meetings. This way, we can distract each other.

legalbeagle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Did I just share too much? Not at all. It just means that I will invest in an extra tight pair of jeans tomorrow.

legalbeagle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In my view the female verions is oggling a nice > pair of buns. Can you clarify "buns". Do you mean bunions...as in feet watching?

beautyofthebeholder Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ur a perve for looking...... > if you are not strong enough and proffessional > enough to keep eye contact then thats your > problem... > dont see women gazing at ur tiny bulge when they > talk to you do you... > > you perve I think that's a very cheap shot calling me a perve for doing something that is naturally normal for most men. If I was to walk topless into the office showing my naturally rippling, toned, six-packed body, would you equally accuse a woman of being a perve for looking?

Should women be allowed to wear low-cut tops in business? Having had a number of business meetings with women who wear low-cut tops, it is most distracting in the environment of a business meeting because most people get distracted from the eye-to-eye contact and you find yourself looking down and gawping at the cleavage. This does not make for good business and I wonder if women do this on purpose and that's why I think it should be banned in the working environment.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Do you have a link to some > announcement or is this just speculation on your > part? Scroll forward about 26m.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've not seen that. Do you have a link to some > announcement or is this just speculation on your > part? This is speculation on the part of politicians and some people in the media as well as to the way that it will go. Busy GPs are not going to have the time to take on this role effectively, so they will form private companies to do the work. It came up on Question Time. I'll see if I can find a link.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why Odyssey - how do you see this 'privatisation' > happening? I can see this working in the same way as with some GPs' surgeries privatising "out of hours" work. I think that the same formula will be used when PCTs are moved to GPs who will then form private companies to take up the role of the PCTs. When I go to see my GP I go to see a doctor - not an accountant.