As US scientists flee Trump, MP urges Britain to do more to nab them The EU and nation states have already heralded schemes to attract top scientific talent seeking to escape the Republic of Trump. So where's Britain in the mix? The chair of UK Parliamentary's Science, Innovation and Technology Committee has written a letter to the Minister for Science Lord Patrick Vallance, asking for more …
In the 80s Reagan talked about "welfare queens", but everyone knew what he meant when he said it. The names have changed over the years, but what they're talking about hasn't. They don't care - or even know - what DEI programs were intended to do, and in most cases actually did. All they know about "DEI" is how to spell it and what right wing media told them it meant: that unqualified blacks were getting jobs, university diplomas, mortgage loans, what have you. that should rightfully belong to the poor downtrodden white folks wearing the red hats and thinking they're the ones being discriminated against.
They don't even try to hide it. Anytime they can link ANYTHING bad that happens that involves a black person (or more recently, even a woman) they will proclaim them a "DEI hire" and leave the unstated assumption that if a white person, or more accurately, a white man, had been in their place it would not have happened.
Counting down until Trump or Hegseth blames the two planes that have fallen off carriers in the Middle East in the last few weeks (how does it happen once, let alone twice???) on DEI. Maybe they already have, I can't keep up with the bile excreting from the orange toddler and his collection of misfit toys. I mean surely there was a black person, or a woman, or best of all a black woman, who was on the carrier deck or on the bridge or something that they can decide was to blame. Just watch. Heck already multiple times Trump has blamed DEI before any facts are in, because that's just his reflex now, and his supporters are so deep into his cult they will accept it without question.
WOW. I'm going to get so many downvotes off this thread.
I don't know about the US since I live in the UK but have a suspicion that you are referring to a very small minority with your post. You are also selectively closing your eyes as to what has been happening in the real world.
News I have seen relating to the US is that universities have been preferentially selecting candidates on a racial basis. Probably companies as well.
I do not think that anytime something bad happens it was a DEI hire, my idea would be that it was a BAD hire, or just one of those things that happens.
Final paragraph may be 100% right
"what DEI programs were intended to do"
What schemes like DEI are supposed to do is prevent people being left out based on their race, ethnicity etc...what it isn't supposed to do is create quotas that mandate a certain quota of hiring based on ethnicity and race etc.
Equality of opportunity...Fuck yes! Absolutely.
Equality of outcome...Er no! Fuck no. Get out of my house.
Everyone should have an equal opportunity to progress in life, but outcome should be based on ability, skill, talent, competence and so on...
I think largely, in most developed nations, equality of opportunity has largely been achieved...it's possible to study for, practice and enter a profession no matter your background...what has changed and crept in over a number of years, is arbitrary and mandatory inclusion regardless of skill, talent and competence...and that is what people generally object to.
Personally, if I am hired for a role...I want to know that I was hired because I was the best candidate. Who on earth wants to be hired because of a quota? You'll never be respected by your peers, you'll always be seen as the person that got there on a technicality.
DEI literally draws attention to your background, ethnicity, race, religion, sexual persuasion etc and could potentially make things worse...because you've gone from being hired because perhaps you're awesome at the job regardless of your persuasions to being hired *because* of your persuasions.
"I think largely, in most developed nations, equality of opportunity has largely been achieved"
Let me guess your a white male...
If it has been achieved it was through such programs, but there will always be forces wanting to drag us back to the dark ages, and this sort of lazy "its all OK now" is the reason we are regressing as we are.
It is a base human instinct to tend to those that look and sound like us. The difference between the sides is whether you are willing to fight those instincts or not. Many do not, and this is why you need DEI policy. It is not about quotas, it is about ensuring the procedures are put in so that everyone ha equal opportunities. Anyone who believes that this is some sort of static position hasn't seen the battles fought over the last 50 years to get where we are today
And we need diversity in the work force. Without it you are condemning your company to perpetual group think
Like the idiots that voted for Reform. And now those Reform councillors have said they are going to everything they can to dismantle DEI and green energy efforts at the council they are at. So pissing away the local tax money on that. Voting for them is as bad as voting for the BNP.
Yes because DEI doesn't mean what you think it does and yes, I'd rather us not cook the planet thanks. "This wind here is free energy and so is the sun, do you want to use it? Free energy, yes you buy the solar panels but still. Do you want it?".
Fuck no, give me coal burning, we love the smog. Give me oil, I love it.
I'm not exactly bright but fucking 'ell, some people really are fuck whits.
I made the point in an article about EU countries attracting this talent that it all depends on what sort of scientists. The poster you responded to is correct. We in the process of correcting some of the DEI nonsense (at least we now know what a woman is) and I suspect that a lot of the ones seeking to leave the US will be well and truly in the DEI camp. There is also then the matter of what their subject specialty is. Do we really need any more environmentalists carrying out surveys to see if bears still shit in woods?
No we need engineers, physicists, chemists, proper doctors etc.
Traditionally roles held by strapping blokes with beards...the kind of people that have been seemingly outlawed.
I'm all for equality of opportunity, without a doubt, but arbitrarily hiring people based on anything other than competence, skill, talent and ability is fucking wild.
Weirdly, we don't have to look far to see where policies like DEI lead...look at South Africa...they've had equivalent DEI policies for decades...their infrastructure is fucked, the economy is fucked, everything is fucked...because they have mandatory quotas on hiring for all positions all the way to the top and a lot of positions are now occupied by people that really shouldn't be there because they weren't hired for their abilities...the were hired because of quotas. Further to this, workarounds have been found and are sometimes used...there are CEOs in South Africa that have never set foot in the board room, they hire someone on a township, give them the title and a peppercorn salary, tick the box...and just carry on doing business as if the guy doesn't exist...and this fake CEO doesn't give a shit, he's getting more money than he would elsewhere and he doesn't have to anything for it other than stay alive and the board get to say they have X non-white members on the board.
Is this what DEI proponents want? Because ultimately this is where it leads.
How is his statement exclusively right wing?
The classical left wing doesn't recognise DEI either. DEI is aggressively anti-left because it is fundamentally against merit and is unfair.
I really wish these lunatics and nutters would stop trying to co-opt the left, because they have no idea what left wing politics are and what they stand for.
DEI being shit is one of the few things that the left and right tend to agree on.
Now how about you fuck off back to BlueSky to carry on "feeling like a woman".
Yep, I'm entirely sure that disgruntled DEI strawmen are why this post and the vast bulk of your ramblings continue to be consistently downvoted by a large majority.
It's not just that you're just a tedious parroter of right-wing US culture war talking points that most here see through for the shite they are, is it?
@AC
"the vast bulk of your ramblings continue to be consistently downvoted by a large majority."
Amusingly I can get 5 downvotes just from saying I can post nothing and be downvoted- https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2025/04/07/llama_4_debuts/#c_5050929
Just occasionally it is amusing to troll back the trolls who follow me. Both the cowards and the few who dare name themselves.
The fact that, currently, your two comments above each have 2 upvotes versus 20 and 28 downvotes respectively suggests that you have an inordinately large number of troll followers yet curiously few "ordinary" people willing to upvote you despite plenty of adjacent commenters having far more.
Or more likely, everyone here just thinks you're talking rubbish?
@AC
"The fact that, currently, your two comments above each have 2 upvotes versus 20 and 28 downvotes"..."Or more likely, everyone here just thinks you're talking rubbish?"
So you are saying my 2 trolling comments to upset the usual suspects (and of course got responses from my trolls) got a lot of downvotes!!! No way!!!
Can you type and breathe at the same time or would that leave one less coward?
@Jamie Jones
"I see you often use the troll icon. Do you use the troll icon for all your troll posts, and never for the times you aren't trolling?
That would be useful to us to know, because it's not always clear from the content itself :-P"
My apologies for assuming a level of intellect beyond your demonstration. Yes. So for future reference if my comments dont have a troll icon but it makes no sense to you even to formulate a coherent reply, the comment probably isnt meant for you.
Hope that helps :)
Handy hints for people with 'trollish tendencies' or their intended audience/supporters:
You can only expect a 'coherent reply' IF your original post includes a modicum of coherency itself !!!
Replying to non-coherent nonsense is otherwise known as 'Feeding the Troll' which is NOT recommended if you value your sanity & free time.
Thank you for clarifying where on the spectrum you sit, which handily informs IF replies are really necessary as you appear to be talking to yourself by choice most of the time.
Partially to bolster your own belief in the views you have, by seeing them in print, so to speak, and partially because noone else is actually agreeing with your views and it must be getting somewhat lonely holding up that banner for 'Truth & Justice' !!!
All hail the Golden One & the reich that will last for 1000 years !!!
:)
@AC
"Replying to non-coherent nonsense is otherwise known as 'Feeding the Troll' which is NOT recommended if you value your sanity & free time."
With no other way than to point out the obvious, I already clearly said 3 days ago I was trolling with these comments as it upset my usual troll fan-club. If you cant wrap your head around that I understand your difficulty with the rest of my comments.
"Partially to bolster your own belief in the views you have, by seeing them in print, so to speak, and partially because noone else is actually agreeing with your views and it must be getting somewhat lonely holding up that banner for 'Truth & Justice' !!!"
This is an odd opinion which occasionally comes up and surprises me. Are you guys really so shallow as to need to fit in with the popular opinion regardless of fact or reality? I dont post with an XFactor mentality. I dont post for likes and adoration of people I do not know, probably never met nor will ever meet and whose 'vote' is entirely worthless. I post in the same way as I discuss topics in real life, for the exchange of information and facts.
I am one guy and cant read/hear everything nor would want to. So I post up what I believe based on the facts I am aware of, and if/when I get something incorrect I appreciate people posting facts to refute it. I do firmly believe people can agree on the facts and still come to different opinions, but that base level of fact is required to have a reasonable conversation. So the downvotes and trolls dont really bother me, their stupid comments (often a one line insult, some manage more lines) dont actually add anything and would be the equivalent of some child trying to disrupt a conversation for attention.
But sometimes winding up and teasing the children can be fun
"I post in the same way as I discuss topics in real life, for the exchange of information and facts"
No, you post to prove you are right even when everyone proves you are wrong. You are the person who wrangle facts to prove your point withouth regard to the truth.
But you keep on thinking you are the most intelligent here just because most people have tired of responding to your shitposts.
@Casca
"But you keep on thinking you are the most intelligent here just because most people have tired of responding to your shitposts."
Yet you continue to respond to my 'shitposts' but never with any facts to refute my post. And you do this consistently with others too. Either you think you are the most intelligent here and dont have to explain yourself or realise you are a moron with nothing to contribute (see my post about children trying to get attention).
This post has been deleted by its author
He's trying to pretend that he's playing a clever game of outtrolling-the-trolls to distract from the obvious reality that he's simply being downvoted by all and sundry.
Hence the overuse of the troll icon which obviously wants to be edgy and clever, but tries too hard and just looks sad, à la Elon Musk.
"Or more likely, everyone here just thinks you're talking rubbish?"
How dare you suggest people think that Madam Codejunky posts are just recycled opinion and guff draped in bad grammar and simplistic angry culture warrior beliefs.
If that were the case then their posts would be thoroughly and consistently downvoted ....
....ah ...
... oh dear.
You remind me of the guys with humiliation kinks who send unsolicited dick pics in direct messages because they want to be outed and told how pathetic and worthless they are so they can wank themselves raw.
Do you get off on your infantile trolling and the constant humiliation that's doled out to you?
Tiresome left wing ad hominem is more tedious to be fair. It takes up valuable screen space and forces me to scroll further.
I think your army of lefty clones needs to get together and revise the steps on page 23, paragraph 8 of the "lefty handbook". The section on "what to do when someone disagrees with you"...you know, you've seen it...the template looks like this:
[ Disagreement Response Template ]
It is critical that you pigeon hole and label someone as right wing if they disagree with you. Regardless of their actual political stance and voting tendencies...arguing back with logical counter points is unnecessary because there are none and it takes away valuable time that could be used dying your hair some shade of red or purple or writing Zelda and Link lesbian fan fiction.
Person: <posts argument you disagree with>
You: Nerr wanker...you right wing prick...fuck off....*
*in extreme circumstances it may be necessary to link the OP with the Nazi regime and Adolf Hitler. If this approach is taken, inform the mods immediately to get the post locked to prevent any rational arguments against our agenda being posted.
@gnasher729
"Maybe you just showed yourself up as a bigoted arsehole and outside the USA they don’t like bigoted arseholes."
Probably one of the better replies, but wouldnt you be the bigoted arsehole when you imply that within the USA they do like bigoted arseholes? Way to go insulting a whole country there.
So why do you consider it bigoted to suggest that when trying to acquire scientists we shouldnt be importing people doing 'not very important' stuff (see DEI)? Assuming a load of flag bearers for cars (guys to walk in front of a car with a flag) were kicked out of a job in some country that we should consider acquiring them? Left handed basket weavers? Graduates in German polka history?
If you're so against DEI can you explain to us all what qualifications Pete Hegseth has for his role?
Can you say what qualifications Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has for his role?
Can you explain what qualifications Karoline Leavitt has for her role?
What qualifications does Kash Patel have for his FBI Director role?
and so on and so on.
ALL of those are DEI hires in your brain. The way you incorrectly understand DEI, all of those are DEI hires.
Can we hear you shout about them now?
@steviebuk
"If you're so against DEI can you explain to us all what qualifications Pete Hegseth has for his role?"
Actual soldier.
"Can you say what qualifications Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has for his role?"
Personally I suspect a load of votes he was taking from Trump when he split from the democrat party in 2024. The tactic could have worked in the Dems favour except Trump brought him onboard and then the Dems fought to keep Kennedy on the ballot to try and split the votes in areas that were too close to call.
I hear the 'official' claim is something to do with his legal experience and his work for cleaning the environment.
"What qualifications does Kash Patel have for his FBI Director role?"
Again I had to look it up but apparently a decent history of legal works for the government (including under Obama).
"ALL of those are DEI hires in your brain."
No. I dont know why you would think to understand my brain but get things so vastly and wildly wrong. So how do you come to the conclusion that these are DEI hires? Why is it that YOU have come to that conclusion?
"The way you incorrectly understand DEI, all of those are DEI hires."
How about you tell me what you believe I think about DEI and then I can try to explain why you seem to be so vastly wrong.
"Can we hear you shout about them now?"
Who is shouting what about who? I think your 'vision' of me is very different to the reality.
You really do embody a true champion of the downtrodden political and pundit classes. Taking up the sword of truth and shield of justice to argue for those set-upon and held back by accident of birth, marriage or mishaps with Whatsapp chat!
Huzzah for your valiant defense of these heros of Fox News and conspiracy podcasts!
Where We Go One, We Go All !!
(Also, please do remind us of your educational path so that we too can aspire to your level of knowledge, insight and experience. )
As far as I can see, it is only ethanol for use in beer production that is exempt from tariffs.
We don't use ethanol as an input material in beer production, so that exemption amounts to basically nothing. We use it to make gin though.
The exemption for beef is only for beef that meets our standards, most of theirs doesn't. And is also only of practical benefit if it is price-competitive with our beef, which it isn;t. That also amounts to nothing.
It is quite normal for tariff exemptions to have rules of origin requirements. They have a rules of origin requirement that it can't be made by a Chinese company. We have similar requirements on the steel we import.
The exemption for beef is only for beef that meets our standards, most of theirs doesn't. And is also only of practical benefit if it is price-competitive with our beef, which it isn;t. That also amounts to nothing.
Unfortunately their labelling and tracing is shit and our customs is overwhelmed as it is, so our only hope is the supermarkets will put huge US flags on the packs to warn customers. All bets are off at restaurants though who may buy it up cheap just before the use by date.
The exemption for beef is only for beef that meets our standards, most of theirs doesn't. And is also only of practical benefit if it is price-competitive with our beef, which it isn't. That also amounts to nothing.
I read a news article about this recently. Apparently, their ranchers see our dislike of BGH in our food as protectionist and were lobbying their Philanderer in Chief to punish us for it.
@AC
"No need to stoop to base trolling as today is a good day for you. You can finally cite the first real Brexit benefit - the Trump administration will harm the UK slightly less than EU countries."
I nearly fell off my chair and had to read that twice! I wish you put your name to your comment so I could see which of you this was. Are you seriously telling me a fanatical remainer recognises a benefit of brexit?
That is a monumental improvement. I dont believe it I think you are trolling. Go on, put your name to this almost unbelievable comment.
No, I'm seriously telling you this is the first and only real actual Brexit benefit that there has been thus far, which is to be punched in the face slightly less hard than our neighbours.
However it's a pre-agreement, not a signed-off agreement, the EU may manage to use its clout to win a better deal, and there's always the possibility Trump may change his mind sometime later today, tomorrow, next week.
@AC
"No, I'm seriously telling you this is the first and only real actual Brexit benefit that there has been thus far, which is to be punched in the face slightly less hard than our neighbours"
As I guessed you are just trolling. Seriously, if you are a fanatical remainer (as per your 'only real brexit benefit' comment) lets see which one you are. I doubt any remainer fanatic would be able to bypass their delusion to suggest even one brexit benefit.
To preempt your question, no, I'm not the anonymous coward you are replying too.
Anyway, I'm a vocal remainer, but unlike MAGA, we never worshipped the EU like it was some kind of perfect god.
There were issues, but now we are in no place to fix them.
So sure, there have been a few Brexit benefits, but seeing as they are vastly outnumbered by disadvantages, they have no political or financial relevance.
Ironically, you chastise "remainer fanatics" for not admitting any Brexit benefits, but you don't admit the Brexit downsides.
Anyway, a list of benefits is here: https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/regular-features/the-davis-downside-dossier/
@Jamie Jones
"Anyway, I'm a vocal remainer, but unlike MAGA, we never worshipped the EU like it was some kind of perfect god."
That is promising, just like a MAGA cult an EU cult struggles with unvarnished realities of their 'god'. I am happy to hear you are not one.
"There were issues, but now we are in no place to fix them."
I am guessing that puts you in the remainer faction who voted to stay so we could try to 'fix' the EU. Not a position I agreed with nor believe we could do but I understand it.
"So sure, there have been a few Brexit benefits, but seeing as they are vastly outnumbered by disadvantages, they have no political or financial relevance."
That we do disagree on. Admitting there are any brexit benefits is a hard core impossibility for the fanatics of the cult we discuss above. Often enough some idiot will post that there have been no brexit benefits. Not one. And of course with a lie like that we can disregard their ability to think about the subject because they deny reality (as you admit here). Admitting the advantages and disadvantages is a factual necessity to be able to discuss, even if we have differing views of the 'weight' or 'value' for those factual advantages/disadvantages.
"Ironically, you chastise "remainer fanatics" for not admitting any Brexit benefits, but you don't admit the Brexit downsides."
How and where? Throughout the brexit discussion I acknowledged both but it doesnt fit the straw man when arguing against my comments. Do note the desperate straw men people argue with when replying to me, often not even replying to what I said. I do acknowledge costs of leaving but believe the benefits outweigh them. But just because that is my opinion I dont deny their existence even if I feel the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
You may occasionally notice I post something supportive of the 'other side of the argument' but it is always a pointless exercise as people ignore that to argue against their straw man MAGA fanatic, flat earther, cult, madam who is out of a job.
> "I am guessing that puts you in the remainer faction who voted to stay so we could try to 'fix' the EU. Not a position I agreed with nor believe we could do but I understand it."
I wouldn't put it as extreme as that - I don't think it needed fundamental fixing and changing, but I do recognise that there were some thing I felt needing fixing, and I am realistic enough to assume there is also a lot of broken stuff that I don't know about.
But yes, I am more a fixer than an abandoner. Especially as it was obvious the EU would always have some influence on us, but now we aren't in a position to be able to change it.
> "Admitting the advantages and disadvantages is a factual necessity to be able to discuss, even if we have differing views of the 'weight' or 'value' for those factual advantages/disadvantages."
I have 3 friends who voted Brexit that I know of (Well, a brother, and 2 friends, to be more accurate). One regrets his vote. One still thinks it's the right thing, and one voted for it for more geopolitical reasons (He's Irish, and as an IT contractor, his passport is now a great advantage to him for European based jobs)
I'm still friends with them. We've talked about it some times, but when it goes around in circles, we back off. None of their reasons were racist/xenophobic, and they all think Farage is a dodgy grifter, so whilst I think they are wrong, we can disagree. The nuance is lost with online conversations. I'm sure if all of us commentards had instead talked through this face to face, things would be a lot less fractious. (And I include myself in this, I've made some snips at you in the past over comments I probably wouldn't have thought so harsh and wrong if said in person.)
> "How and where? Throughout the brexit discussion I acknowledged both but it doesnt fit the straw man when arguing against my comments. Do note the desperate straw men people argue with when replying to me, often not even replying to what I said. I do acknowledge costs of leaving but believe the benefits outweigh them. But just because that is my opinion I dont deny their existence even if I feel the advantages outweigh the disadvantages."
Fair enough. I must have missed those. Maybe due to bias affecting which bits I remember. And probably also that the anti-remain comments you make get the most replies.
P.S. Not my downvote!
@Jamie Jones
"I wouldn't put it as extreme as that - I don't think it needed fundamental fixing and changing, but I do recognise that there were some thing I felt needing fixing, and I am realistic enough to assume there is also a lot of broken stuff that I don't know about."
Ok, I can understand that. I dont necessarily agree but I can see where you are coming from. For me it was more of a fundamentals problem.
"But yes, I am more a fixer than an abandoner. Especially as it was obvious the EU would always have some influence on us, but now we aren't in a position to be able to change it."
All countries have influence on us but I dont believe we had as much influence on the EU as we like to believe (mostly due to our politicians selling out or being spineless).
"I'm sure if all of us commentards had instead talked through this face to face, things would be a lot less fractious. (And I include myself in this, I've made some snips at you in the past over comments I probably wouldn't have thought so harsh and wrong if said in person.)"
Same here and while I am sure it will happen again in future I do appreciate a good conversation and appreciate the section you wrote about your friends. I can relate and face to face is certainly different and more nuanced.
"Fair enough. I must have missed those. Maybe due to bias affecting which bits I remember. And probably also that the anti-remain comments you make get the most replies."
Dont worry, they often get buried under the usual straw men I mentioned which results in most of my comments replying to one sided attacks. I see it a lot with the Trump stories at the moment where I can criticize him but people will still respond and attack me as some sort of MAGA or Trump worshipper. Guess an argument is more fun for them.
"All countries have influence on us but I dont believe we had as much influence on the EU as we like to believe (mostly due to our politicians selling out or being spineless)."
One thing I've always agreed with you on is your contempt for our politicians.
As for the influence, have you seen this? : https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/07/09/british-influence-in-brussels-had-been-far-greater-than-recognised/ (and still within the spirit of 'glasnost', I post this as a "What do you think about this" rather than a "ha ha, you're wrong" link)
"Same here and while I am sure it will happen again in future I do appreciate a good conversation and appreciate the section you wrote about your friends. I can relate and face to face is certainly different and more nuanced."
Thanks. As I've said before, there are some people on here so batshit crazy I've had to block them. However, I've found you to be the one person I disagree with a hell of a lot of times, but you've said things I agree with, and many things I haven't agreed with, but I could see your point, and in hindsight, the times you've been deliberately trolling should have been more obvious to me!
I'll also admit that there are a few times I've written ranting and unpolite replies to you, yet your replies to those have never devolved into insults. That has actually embarrassed me on more than one occasion when I read the posts a day or so later!
I don't like being guilty of "internet road rage" (code-rage?), so I'm trying to improve (Still unashamedly no tolerance for nasty twats though!)
I've decided that every post of yours I read, I'll read as if one of my real life brexit friends is saying it, and if I reply I'll reply as I would to them. (mind you, I've been known to call them effing morons to their faces on more than one occasion! [ and have received similar abuse from them!])
I know it's not important, but again, not my downvote. Indeed, have one the other direction.
@Jamie Jones
"post this as a "What do you think about this" rather than a "ha ha, you're wrong" link"
That was an interesting read and seems fairly right. Especially that the examples of our 40 years of influence are mostly late 70's and 80's to which we had Thatcher. Like her or not she had a spine and Europe knew it. Compare that to Blair who wanted us to have the Euro, gold plated regs and handed over the rebate he absolutely promised would not be negotiable. Following Blair we got wet lettuce Cameron who was sent packing and reportedly had a chair for Merkel when considering UK policy with the EU (I hope it was figuratively).
I imagine if we had a government with a spine people would have been happier to stay in the EU and the UK probably wouldnt have been as 'integrated' with the EU.
"I don't like being guilty of "internet road rage" (code-rage?), so I'm trying to improve (Still unashamedly no tolerance for nasty twats though!)"
Now that is a phrase we should 'be a thing'. Code-rage sounds awesome. I look forward to more conversations with you.
Yeah, you're right. Our influence was much greater back then than the last 20 years of EU membership. Having said that, the country has gotten weaker generally since then, and I see many Brexit votes were for that reason, but in my view, rather than protesting against the cause (successive UK governments) they went after the handy media scapegoat.
I wouldn't be so angry about it if there hadn't been so many uninformed voters. Only yesterday I read an article saying some Brexit voters are now blaming the government for not passing on this "Brexit wealth" they now believe the country has obtained. Sorry, but in my opinion, they still haven't managed to join the dots.
"Money that she believed had been saved by exiting the EU should have been channelled into improving it and other public services, she said."
It feels like we never left’: resentment builds in one of UK’s firmest Brexit-backing areas
> "Now that is a phrase we should 'be a thing'. Code-rage sounds awesome."
I thought of it a few years ago, but could never get it to catch on, so I shamelessly used the opportunity to shoe-horn into this discussion. :-)
> "I look forward to more conversations with you."
You too.. Especially now I'll have a better idea when you're just trolling!
But next time, I think a much more important debate is needed, so I'll kick it off: "Dogs or cats" ? :-)
@katrinab
"Like all the women, mostly black women, at Nasa, who invented software engineering and lots of other stuff related to computer programming?"
What is concerning is that you think those mostly black women at NASA are DEI. I dont think you meant to come across that way but it seems you look down on these people because of their gender and colour than recognise their merit and ability. Good job NASA recognised their ability.
I’ll tell you something. All my life I’ve got jobs because I was good at what I’m doing. And most places where I worked had no problem with any minorities. My last job I worked with one black guy, one real Aryan (he came from North Iran, nothing to do with stupid Nazis), one guy from Libya, one very very obviously gay guy, another guy where I would never have guessed he was gay, and one very young hongkong Chinese lady, who is now about 25 and one of the three best software developers I’ve ever met.
All of them were hired on merit. All of them were very, very good at their job. I was always good enough to compete. But you, codejunky, I’ll just guess that your toxic attitude comes from the fact that _you_ actually have nothing speaking for you other than your skin colour. Maybe it’s an attitude problem, aptly demonstrated by your username.
@gnasher729
"All of them were hired on merit. All of them were very, very good at their job. I was always good enough to compete. But you, codejunky, I’ll just guess that your toxic attitude comes from the fact that _you_ actually have nothing speaking for you other than your skin colour. Maybe it’s an attitude problem, aptly demonstrated by your username."
How very interesting. So you understand the concept of merit, of being good at their job. Then you go on an unhinged rant like an idiot claiming I said something else? Why?
Also things you mentioned in your comment- "My last job I worked with one black guy, one real Aryan (he came from North Iran, nothing to do with stupid Nazis), one guy from Libya, one very very obviously gay guy, another guy where I would never have guessed he was gay, and one very young hongkong Chinese lady,". I mentioned nothing about anything to do with sex, race, sexual orientation. You did.
I know I shouldn’t bite but I am nothing if not weak.
I would, however, really like to know what is intrinsically wrong with the concept of DEI. The stated aim is that the best person should be recruited for the job regardless of other things about them such as skin colour, sexual orientation and so on. So, how is it that efforts ensure that only the best person is hired are a bad thing?
TIA.
@Roger Kynaston
"I would, however, really like to know what is intrinsically wrong with the concept of DEI."
That depends if you mean the idealistic intent of DEI or the application of DEI. Just as the Soviet socialist paradise has an idealistic intent and the real world application (as we all know).
Hell even Disney got in trouble for their DEI hiring practice which was discrimination based on skin colour (if I remember it right).
"So, how is it that efforts ensure that only the best person is hired are a bad thing?"
At no point do I say that. I am entertained at the naive insistence that you all pretend DEI was that. While the dream might have been to hire on merit, DEI is being shut down for discriminating against merit. You may as well try to defend the Soviets 'new man'.
Thank you for replying.
I am not sure that comparing a series of policies that aim to remove biases from the process of employing something is akin to Stalin’s purges or Brezhniev’s corruption. My understanding is that things like removing the details of the gender of the candidates from the information presented to the shortlist panel. Also requiring that relationships between candidates and employers are disclosed are not equivalent to sending millions of people to the gulags in Siberia.
If you can provide evidence that these polices are preventing people from employing the best candidate then please share them. My inexpert view is that they don’t of course.
On a side issue I feel we need a rule like the one for accusing people of being fascist when they liken any vaguely left of centre policy as being akin to the Soviet Union. Modesty prohibits me from suggesting that it should be called Rogers law. ;-)
@Roger Kynaston
"I am not sure that comparing a series of policies that aim to remove biases from the process of employing something is akin to Stalin’s purges or Brezhniev’s corruption"
It was a simple comparison of the idealistic intent vs the applied reality. You asked- "what is intrinsically wrong with the concept of DEI." which of course the answer is nothing. But you might as well ask what is intrinsically wrong with the concept of utopia, the answer is obviously nothing. However when the result is a 180 to the intent and DEI becomes racist, sexist, etc and worse that it blocks employment based on merit then it is justified to argue against.
"My understanding is that things like removing the details of the gender of the candidates from the information presented to the shortlist panel. Also requiring that relationships between candidates and employers are disclosed are not equivalent to sending millions of people to the gulags in Siberia."
So lets agree those two things are good. But if I now ask you to justify discriminating based on race, sex, sexual orientation etc could you? The difference being the idealistic intent vs the applied reality. I cannot and dont want to argue against your dream but I will point out problems in reality.
"If you can provide evidence that these polices are preventing people from employing the best candidate then please share them. My inexpert view is that they don’t of course."
You mean the Disney example I mentioned? If you can forgive the source- https://www.gbnews.com/news/us/disney-executive-anti-white-hiring-footage. If not look up the video. Far more publicly (and somehow ignored) Biden was so proud of the colour and gender of who he would pick next for courts and VP as if that is a factor in their ability. The FAA also discriminated on race in their pro-DEI hiring practices and that was in 2013.
I am sure as a reasonable person you wouldnt consider such discrimination to be your idealistic intent of DEI, but in real world application these are just high profile exposures of the very thing trying to be stopped.
"On a side issue I feel we need a rule like the one for accusing people of being fascist when they liken any vaguely left of centre policy as being akin to the Soviet Union. Modesty prohibits me from suggesting that it should be called Rogers law. ;-)"
That gave me a good chuckle. Maybe we could make that a thing.
The US academics in the sciences that I have encountered usually on sabbatical in AU spoke and understood the Queen's English better than I daresay our late monarch.
Quite a few I suspect had spent part of their early careers in the UK and might well seriously consider relocating to blighty if the research and development resources were available to continue their work with salary not necessarily being the overarching consideration.
But this is the obvious flaw in this Baldrickine cunning plan of his lordship - funding for both Universities and research has atrophied over the previous decades to the point that in many areas they are facing extinction. The required facilities almost certainly just don't exist and the government and industry would have to pony up a great deal more the GBP50 million mentioned - even factor of ten or twenty more probably would not suffice.
Similar problems afflict AU (partly for the same reasons and partly being a much smaller nation) with most younger scientists forced to seek opportunities in the EU, UK and formerly the US. Many visiting US students and scientists I have met expressed a genuine desire to live and work in Oz for the climate, relaxed life style and the slightly fewer homicidal gun toting crazies.
The idea of Germany (ok the EU) hoovering up American "rocket scientists" as it were has a rather nice historical symmetry not that Germany would want von Braun returned.
My own state -- Vic.au -- is broke, due to overspending on capital works. That does not have much effect on research grants, but does have a big effect on research infrastructure, (which is not normally covered by grants). There are half-a-dozen research groups that I know of that are cutting back or looking at closure. Even if they could grab researchers -- good researchers often come with their own grants -- they wouldn't have anywhere to put them, with all the lab space defunded (cleaners, IT, payroll etc)
"... and we wrote it in English, the finest language in the world. In fact, the finest language in the universe - a language even spoken in space as any fan Star Trek will tell you. A language even Americans can handle with some degree of skill' - Al Murray
"UK universities already cash-strapped."
The US made a huge mistake not grabbing scientists leading up to WWII as Hitler's Un-chosen were dismissed from teaching posts and industry.
The UK universities are cash strapped as politicians have decided that providing food to children via free school lunches all year long is more important. When I went to school, free lunches were means tested, not universal. It was rare that I'd purchase food at school and took a packed lunch most days. My lunches today are super cheap and often based around leftovers that need eating up with some fruit, carrot sticks, etc. Last year I bought a case of zucchini (courgettes) at the peak of the season for a very low price and made a whole bunch of z-crisps flavored about a half dozen ways. They were so good that they didn't last a year as I thought so, this year I'll be making a whole lot more. Far cheaper than a small packet of Walker's/Lay's. That's my school lunch rant, but wait, there's more. I'll not enumerate any more, but it's a choice. It's also far cheaper to buy a lot of advanced knowledge than to grow it. In some fields, the climate in the UK isn't suitable so importing is the only way forward. (see what I did there?)
For an awesome account of what happened in the late 1930's and early 1940's, read "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes. He goes into depth about the scramble to find places for the top minds in greater Europe before Hitler had the chance to incarcerate/kill them. There were also a whole bunch of up and coming in physics that went on to contribute important work but hadn't finished their degrees or hadn't found a permanent university position.
A friend, who eventually became a British citizen for this reason (and put it off for a long time because their birth nationality didn't allow dual citizenship), had to pay the ridiculous NHS surcharge, despite spending their entire working life in the UK, running a business that created jobs in the UK and being raised and educated at the cost of another country altogether (including paying foreign student tuition fees in the UK while at university) and therefore even without the surcharge being more of a net contributor to this country's fianances and health system than many UK born citizens.
Their example was particularly extreme, but many people targeted by the surcharge will similarly be arriving here at working age, earning money and paying tax (both on income and spending) just like everyone else. The only place it has any kind of (mean) logic is in preventing them bringing dependents, and if you want to attract skilled workers on UK salaries, asking them to pay an additional £700 per year for any children they might want to bring isn't exactly that appealing.
The salaries paid to highly qualified scientists in Britain are desperately poor.
A family member of mine is such a scientist with a PhD in chemistry, working at a government funded research institute in England. He's on a three year temporary contract, and isn't even earning enough to be able to rent his own flat. A few years ago, he told me that there had been no promotions, and no pay increases for 10 years. Additionally, of course, a recent Tory government cancelled their pension entitlements without compensation.
All that sends a clear message that science in the UK won't make you a comfortable living. The UK establishment clearly doesn't care about science. Not that it's necessarily any better in some EU countries.
" ($121k) for a professor, while full professors average about $155k in the US."
Even that comparison is misleading. Professor in the UK is head of dept or very senior staff. Professor in the USA is anyone with a permanent job. If the US stats include "associate professor" that's pretty much everyone.
A head of dept Prof in a major US school would be on $3-500k, or almost 10% of the football coach.
Doesn't a "permanent" Professor mean a "tenured Professor" in the US? Those are rare and getting rarer. Professors often end up heading out and looking for new work if they don't get tenure.
Earth's Gateway to Hell is growing by 35 million cubic feet each year
IIRC, a govt. employed scientist is on the civil service pay scale and if they don't have many underlings, they can't be advanced up the payscale. It's a strange anomaly that no one seems too interesting in looking at while they still have people prepared to do the jobs at the pay offered. I'd not be surprised to learn the turn-over is relatively high as people gain experience that is respected outside of govt.
Was a bigger problem in the UK.
I was involved in some "specialist government technology" back in the 90s. We were hiring mathematical modelling/computer science types when the city was paying £££ and Wall St was offering $$$$$ but we were stuck on public service pay scale. As a result, new graduates were being immediately promoted to Senior Scientific Officer and anyone hanging around for a few years was headed for the stratosphere of the civil service grades. It apparently led to some disgruntlement when ex-military types who had spent half a century clawing up the ranks were outnumbered in meetings by spotty oiks in t-shirts.
A generation earlier my partner's father in the Royal Engineers was quickly promoted to Colonel to keep him, and everyone else responsible for NATO pipelines, in uniform when the North Sea opened up and started paying gold rush rates.
To be fair, on civil service scale, you tend to have other non-tangible benefits that have been very useful. I'm speaking from past experience.
Of course, being restrained by civil service policies (like getting only a 1% payrise, or none at all) also absolutely sucks. But to be fair to the management of our institution, we got additional bennies to make up for that (like extra days holiday that could be sold).
"we got additional bennies to make up for that (like extra days holiday that could be sold)."
That's good as long as the benefits are something that one would be spending money for out of their salary anyway. If it means being on the lower end due to the cost of living where the job is located, the added benefits aren't going to be as nice. Grade school teachers can get good benefits, but might not be paid enough to not live in a van in places such as San Francisco or New York City. Perhaps if there is some sacrifices to make with better pay in the not too distance ahead, some might do that. Other's aren't going to live in "the projects" to be allowed to teach.
"IIRC, a govt. employed scientist is on the civil service pay scale and if they don't have many underlings, they can't be advanced up the payscale."
That leads to those people leaving civil service jobs for the private sector where they can make more money or shifting sideways to a position that pays more or has upward mobility. Either way, whatever job they were doing goes vacant and anybody new will have a learning curve to get past.
Or the funding for said salaries. As NIH and other US funding is cut (sometimes in the middle of programmes), charities like Alzheimers Society are having to bridge those gaps, leaving less money for projects elsewhere and so UK institutions are already starting to see knock on effects. If they want to attract US researchers the funding for the science needs to be there, £50M is approximately a single moderate to largish research centre.
The Brexit deal for unis saw them banned from bagging quality foreign students, especially Chinese, who may now have to stay at home and make China great again, rather than improving UK research. The resulting loss of income and caps on fees saw UK uni budgets undermined. UK unis are dropping courses, firing academics and selling assets to survive. Some will go under. Most will drop down the league tables, even the ones operated by UK entities, which they have always seemed to chart surprisingly well in.
Labour are running scared from activist-voter supported* Reform and will cheerfully isolate the UK from foreign talent to avoid attracting the ire of nationalists.
As for the STEM-is-everything-screw-everyone-else mentality of the Gradgrind UK government, STEM courses are expensive and are much more likely to be axed when the screens go red. Courses in the humanities and social sciences are simply cheaper. Ironically GAFA has been offloading STEM-qualified staff as if they were a disease for the last few years, believing their own propaganda - that they can be replaced by AI.
* Almost all Reform supporters vote in the UK (like MAGA supporters in the US). The mainstream parties don't have the ability to inspire large chunks of the electorate who may agree with their policies to actually get out and vote for them, after Brexit made everyone 25%+ poorer, grumpy and distrustful.
@Tron
"The Brexit deal for unis saw them banned from bagging quality foreign students, especially Chinese, who may now have to stay at home and make China great again, rather than improving UK research."
Honest question but how has brexit blocked Chinese students? I suspect that isnt true as I know a few Asians who came to study (not chinese but neighbouring country) and their classes contained a lot of Asian (including Middle Eastern) students.
"The resulting loss of income and caps on fees saw UK uni budgets undermined."
I suspect the failure started when Blair wanted 50% of school leavers to go to uni without any method of funding it. Since then the 'no tuition fees' fell apart and now UK students pay part of the cost of education which student complain as too high. Foreign students paying the costs and bringing talent to the UK is a good thing.
"STEM courses are expensive and are much more likely to be axed when the screens go red."
I would hope not but you are probably right. In some other discussions people suggest the 'fries with that' degrees are worth having because they fund the STEM courses but all of it is backstopped by the taxpayer. I dont know if the UK even could compete with funding for STEM scientists but making the country attractive to them sounds like a good idea
but making the country attractive to them sounds like a good idea
Agreed.
An immigration "hostile environment" and enabling/encouraging the right wing nutters to scream, "GO BACK TO WHERE YOU CAME FROM!!!" in the streets are both good starts, yes?
"If you look at the history of science in the UK, we have always relied on immigration of top talent," Lord Vallance replied.
Really? I seem to recall that many of the great "British" inventors [Including Alexander Graham Bell] were, in fact, Scottish. But it's a stretch to call them "immigrants".
I'm all for the UK being a place that attracts immigrants, though I don't think science is one of those attractions.
"The Brexit deal for unis saw them banned from bagging quality foreign students, especially Chinese, "
On the contrary, we're very dependent on Chinese students (who, these days, are mostly quality). We're one geopolitical incident away from bankruptcy. ("We" means most Russell Group universities, except Oxbridge, who can afford to maintain a more balanced intake). In my class, the Scots are still (just) the largest nationality and the (mainland) Chinese are the second, but there's not much between them.
Almost all Reform supporters vote in the UK (like MAGA supporters in the US). The mainstream parties don't have the ability to inspire large chunks of the electorate who may agree with their policies to actually get out and vote for them, after Brexit made everyone 25%+ poorer, grumpy and distrustful.
Just do what Australia does - mandatory voting. The vast majority of people still do not vote for extremes.
"The proportion of deaths by stabbing is five times higher in the USA than in the UK."
The link had 2021 figures and they were higher for the US. It's hard to tell based on news articles, but seems like there are many more stabbings in the UK per capita going by impressions from the news.
However, I have to admit that sending money to Afghanistan so that they can grow poppy which will undoubtedly be used to make opium which will be sold back to the USA at a vastly inflated price is something that must have the Taliban in stitches.
I've heard the the EU wants to replace the US in USAID funding. Have they had a look at that line ? Because I don't want to fund opium production in Afghanistan. I do not approve of that.
This thing about recovering US scientists also has me wondering. I doubt very much that US scientists wotking for the military or the nuclear industry are in any way concerned by this decision. They will not be the minds leaving and we won't be recovering them.
A solution was put forward about twenty years ago by respected and, sadly, much lamented economist and drugs policy academic Mark Kleiman:
1. There is a shortage of medical grade opium, particularly in the global South, leading to unnecessary high morbidity.
2. The various factions in Afghanistan have always grown opium poppies, sometimes with, sometimes without approval of whoever is in regional control.
3. The US pays to farmers to not grow poppy, so the Taliban says "grow it, and we'll take the profits".
Solution:
The US pays the farmers to grow it on behalf of Pharma, ensuring a regular supply, and ensures its safe transport, and the local warlords/Taliban get their cut.
Side benefit: there is a legitinate market for Afghan opium, denying it to the narco gangs.
They give them money so they can improve their land, improve irrigation and so on. Maybe they build warehouses to store harvested goods.
And then quite inevitably someone will use the improved infrastructure to grow poppies. It’s illegal in Afghanistan. You better not get caught.
For some similar, but much worse whistleblowing: Doge found out that the USA was paying to prevent AIDS infecting babies in Gaza. They quickly concluded that the whole money was turned into condoms given to Hamas fighters to have a good time. Then it turned out the money went to Gaza, which is a desperately poor province in Mozambique. With a huge HIV problem. Stopping that money kills babies in Gaza, Mozambique. Hamas has never, ever been anywhere near that place, so they _can’t_ have received money for condoms, so that part of the story was an absolute lie.
... but the relevant scheme is likely to get £50 million ($67 million) in funding.
As I was reading the article, I was thinking of the likely funding that may be allocated to it, and thought of £50million - then to see that's the figure mentioned in the article.
You can trust the UK Government to deploy a butterfly net to catch a tiger.
I'm reminded of one of Le Carre's novels where they are considering the difference between what they could offer a defecting Russian General compared to what he might have already. "A dacha by the Black Sea, and what do we have? A semi-detached in Neasden?"
Also, having glimpsed the luxurious flat of an American professor while at Uni in the UK, I toyed with the idea of using my relative wealth to enjoy similar facilities, if only for a while, back in Blighty. However, with the sky high cost of living in the UK now, compared to where I live in the USA, there was no way I actually wanted to do it. I'm pretty sure that any American landing in the UK would feel the same way. I mean, there was that astronomically priced former bus shelter of legend. At least it had a view.
I don't know if the British Prime Minister reads El Reg, but this Europe Day article (May 9th) was followed after the weekend on May 12th by a White Paper condemning immigration, especially skilled immigration.
The damage this has done to our country is incalculable. Public services and housing access have been placed under too much pressure. Our economy has been distorted by perverse incentives to import workers rather than invest in our own skills. In sectors like engineering, for example, apprenticeships have almost halved while visas doubled.
But arguably even worse is the wound this failure has opened when it comes to trust in politics. It is a wound, as I said on my first day as prime minister, that can only be healed by actions not words.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
