Shopping & Style8 mins ago
Job Title - Ethnic Minority Achievement Teacher - £37,000Pa
Domestic Abuse Assistants (no, me neither)
Just a couple of the more 'colourful' jobs amongst the more usual Diversity Officers and Project Coordinators that my local(labour) council, apparently, can never have too many of.
Then, tonight, I read about their wage bill. Number of people earning £100,000+ =34. £150,000+ =7. 200,000+ =1.
My question is; When do you think this dreadful (tory) austerity will be over?
Just a couple of the more 'colourful' jobs amongst the more usual Diversity Officers and Project Coordinators that my local(labour) council, apparently, can never have too many of.
Then, tonight, I read about their wage bill. Number of people earning £100,000+ =34. £150,000+ =7. 200,000+ =1.
My question is; When do you think this dreadful (tory) austerity will be over?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Svejk. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.@ Bazwillrun but also taking in other comments here....given that breastfeeding is proven strategy for reducing illnesses later in life, and given the hideous success of corporations like nestle in persuading vulnerable women that breastfeeding was inadequate / gross / a sign of poverty / unfeminine, maybe it ain't so bad to get someone skilled to turn women's thinking towards breastfeeding as an alternative to expensive purchased milk? Kinda like, money in the bank for later on? As all illness costs society, eventually?
Like reducing HIV, injury and exploitation (ref the cottaging outrage cited by Baz)
Is there something actually wrong and outrageous in reducing harm - if only because permitting harm to happen costs all of us dear in the long run?
And....is every aspect of society actually an accounting exercise? Would our society actually be better/ happier/ less stressed if we accepted that certain functions are outwith that rather narrow assessment?
Like reducing HIV, injury and exploitation (ref the cottaging outrage cited by Baz)
Is there something actually wrong and outrageous in reducing harm - if only because permitting harm to happen costs all of us dear in the long run?
And....is every aspect of society actually an accounting exercise? Would our society actually be better/ happier/ less stressed if we accepted that certain functions are outwith that rather narrow assessment?
Those jobs are there, just need to look for them.
https:/ /jobs.n ewport. gov.uk/ itlive_ webrecr uitment /wrd/ru n/ETREC 107GF.o pen?VAC ANCY_ID =875486 4VEw&am p;WVID= 3237380 0AE& ;LANG=U SA
https:/
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.