Fewer Hong Kong youngsters with degrees land middle-class jobs, while more work as clerks


Fewer young people found middle-class jobs compared with a decade earlier while the number of clerks holding degrees increased, a study has found.

But the Chinese University researchers said it was inappropriate to attribute this trend to the radicalisation of young people as they believed that social mobility did not affect political outlook.

Only 73.4 per cent of university graduates managed to secure a middle-class position – manager, administrator, professional and associate professional – in 2011, compared with 82.5 per cent in 2001, according to the study, which was published in the journal of a semi-official mainland think tank.

Those who completed only Form Six and sub-degree courses found life even harder – 32.5 per cent landed middle-class jobs, a drop of 14.2 percentage points from a decade ago.

In contrast, an increasing number of degree holders – from 11 per cent to 18.2 per cent – worked as office clerks, an occupation that usually requires only secondary education level. Almost three in five youngsters who had completed Form Six or sub-degree level worked as clerks or services and sales workers.

“[The findings] had reflected that the opportunity for young people taking up middle-class postings had dropped whereas their elevated level of education level had failed to bring them any advantage in the labour market,” wrote the researchers, Dr Stephen Chiu Wing-kai and Dr Joanne Ip Chung-yan, of the university’s Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies.

The article came out just a week after a Beijing-friendly policy group, New Forum, found that the median monthly income of fresh college graduates had plunged by almost 20 per cent in two decades.

While acknowledging the problem of downward mobility, the duo said it was wrong to link the phenomenon with the radicalised young people taking part in protest movements, citing research by Chiu last year that was submitted to the government’s Central Policy Unit.

The political attitudes of the younger generation was related more to their trust in the Hong Kong and central governments than their opportunities to move upwards, Chiu and Ip wrote, referring to the 2014 study, which found that only 24.6 per cent of people aged 18 to 34 were unhappy with the chances they were given in developing their careers.

The academics called on the government to introduce more subsidised university places to help young people. They argued that the problem of downward mobility might offer anti-government bodies an opportunity to provoke young people.

Lessons American Women Can Learn from Japanese Women – by Rudy

lessons anglo women can learn from non anglo women



Japanese women will not be seen out of the house without looking their best. Most don’t need or use much if any makeup at all but if so, it is applied perfectly. They always dress well, aren’t afraid to wear skirts, bows on their hair, cute things like that. They aren’t afraid to look feminine. Most American girls seem to just look shabby, at best. Bad hair, bad skin, clothes that don’t fit right (you know who you are). Please just look in the mirror before you leave the house and ask yourself, “would my man be happy to see me like this?” Another thing, tattoos. Most men will admit that tattoos look gross on women, and nobody has more of them than American girls. It’s extremely rare for a Japanese girl to have any ink, and I appreciate that fact deeply. Tattoos may look sexy on a small minority of women (not you), but for the most part it is a huge slut indicator and men will simply not take you seriously. Seeing a beautiful Japanese woman’s ink-free skin is amazing.

Public Decency:

It is annoying to all men when women talk loudly in public. It’s annoying when men do it too but we were born with an amazing deep voice that doesn’t pierce the ears quite like the high treble of a woman’s shrieking voice. Knock it off. As expected, Japanese girls do none of that. It’s called being a decent human being in public.

I cringe every time I am in mixed company and an American girl announces to everybody that she has to pee. I expect this sort of behavior out of men at times because as men, we are glorious pigs and it’s widely known that mild bathroom humor by men is 100% hilarious in any situation. We look to women as something more beautiful and different. We don’t need to hear about the big dump you’ve been holding for hours. Seriously, we can smell it. Just go get rid of it for the love of all things holy. I have never once heard a Japanese girl say anything like that in public. To be honest, Japanese girls don’t pee or poop anyway so of course nobody has ever heard them announcing anything of the sort. I have heard American girls fart on dates before. I only regret not having a diamond ring with me at those moments so I could make such a perfect girl my wife! Another thing Japanese girls don’t do… fart. American women, just stop farting in general and we as men might give you a second glance.

Stop swearing in public. Nothing is less attractive to me than hearing a woman dropping F bombs. It’s one of the most unfeminine, unattractive things ever…other than farting. Unless it’s by me, then it’s awesome. Japanese girls have a great sense of humor! They don’t need to swear or talk about sex in the most vulgar manner in public to get attention like American women do. If complimented, Japanese girls blush and say thank you. Ever try complimenting a typical American girl? You’re lucky if you don’t end up with a rape charge.

Treatment of men:

It’s widely known that in Japan, men come first. This is how society functions best. When women and men are “equal”, they are anything but equal. In America, thanks mostly to the evil media, it has been culturally accepted to berate, humiliate, and mock men openly. Not just strange men, boyfriends and especially husbands. The attack on masculinity in America is partly to blame for turning many men into limp wristed pansies, which angers women on a deep level so I do understand some of the female backlash. The problem is when women try that nonsense on actual decent men, it just isn’t flying anymore and in recent times, American men are wising up and opting out of marriage on a wide scale. The amount of lip and disrespect I have witnessed and even personally received is astonishing. The thought of ridiculing their man in public is the farthest thing from a Japanese girl’s mind. I have witnessed and experienced a great respect for their men that Japanese women display.

In turn, their men give back the respect and love their women have earned. It’s a perfect cycle that best fits nature. The worst thing Japanese women will do is simply vanish when they’re not interested in a guy anymore, but that’s a lot better than being teased and having a long, drawn out, drama filled disaster when it’s just heading for the toilet anyway. When a guy asks an American girl to cook for him, the usual response is the middle finger and “hell no!” When the same is asked of a Japanese girl, she is glad to provide some hot food for her man. This in turn inspires undying loyalty in the man. Do you see why this works so well?

Diet/Physical health:

Japanese women aren’t afraid to drink their milk, eat meat, and keep away from garbage. The American diet has turned its women into walking train wrecks. I have never seen cellulite once here in Japan but even on somewhat average bodied American women there is always some dumpy cellulite. It’s unbelievable. I attribute a lot of this to genetics and the disgusting chemicals found in American food. I myself wasn’t always this Greek god specimen of a true man you see before you, before I moved here I was 20 lbs heavier and it was all fat/water retention!

Stop drinking soda you fat lards! Starbucks is not good for you either. In fact, if you aren’t “perimeter shopping” in the grocery stores (only buying the fresh meats and vegetables on the outer edges of the store), you have failed as a woman and nobody will ever love you. Japanese women also are not hooked on anti-depressants/anti-anxiety meds like countless psychotic American women. The level of mental illnesses here is microscopic compared to girls back in the states. Girls here do smoke and drink a little more than one may expect, but of course Japanese beer is made differently, people don’t get fat or have hangovers.

Saying Thank You:

Unthankfulness is a completely Western invention thanks mainly to feminism. It has taught women that they deserve the world and don’t need to be grateful. Japanese women thank me for even the littlest thing and it is just amazing. I had to teach my ex to thank me after I paid for huge meals. Being appreciated is what makes people want to do more for you in the future, so stop being a bitch and just thank your man for what he does for you. I have had Japanese women arrive to a date 5 minutes late profusely apologizing for their tardiness. This blows my mind. With most American girls you’re lucky if they show up at all and if they do they’re routinely late and don’t care. Just a total lack of respect that destroyed any desire I ever once had to even speak to American girls.

You people may accuse me of seeing Japanese girls through rose tinted glasses, but I am here to tell you that these big blue American eyes are WIDE OPEN. I have seen the grass on both sides of the hill, and it is amazing in the East. I’m never turning back, my heart is here. My Japanese girlfriend is totally awesome, and I’ve never been treated so well by a girl. In turn, I am happy to do things that make her happy. Everyone wins. Dating a Japanese girl is truly the only “red pill” experience that men need to have to believe me.

Like a Boss: Czech President to migrants ‘No-one invited you’


Czech President Milos Zeman lashed out at illegal immigrants on Sunday after dozens tried to flee a detention centre, prompting police to use tear gas against the demonstrators.

“No one invited you here. But now you are here, you must respect our rules, as we respect the rules when we go to your country,” he said in an interview published on the website of popular newspaper Blesk.

“If you don’t like it, then leave.”

About 100 people who were awaiting deportation, mainly from Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, tried to flee a detention centre in the northeast of the country on Friday.

Police were called in and used tear gas against the migrants, some of whom caused damage to the centre, the authorities said.

Interior Minister Milan Chovanec had said the migrants were probably trying to reach Germany.

“We can better assist these people on their own territory,” said Zeman, a former Social Democrat prime minister.

“We should work to bring down these terrorist regimes, ISIL in particular, to eliminate the main reason they leave (their own countries),” he said.

According to a survey published Friday by the Centre for Analysis and Empirical Studies, over 70 percent of Czechs are reluctant to welcome migrants from Africa and the Middle East into their country.

An EU member state since 2004, the Czech Republic has agreed to host 1,500 refugees by 2017.

During the first six months of the year, Czech police intercepted 3,018 illegal migrants, up almost 50 percent on the same period in 2014, according to police.

Ugly Fat Lying Cunt Connie St Louis strikes again! Falsely Accuses Colleague, Prize Winner of Ethics Breach


for the first time the producer in the science unit Erika Wright broke with the traditional and ethically  way that programmes from the science unit we’re entered for the Glaxo smith Kline / ABSW  prize and submitted the programmes that were jointly made just in her name. She  realised that this was wrong and she  recognised my contribution as presenter and writer of the scripts for the programme and we shared and divided the prize. However, she neglected to ask the organisers  to add my name to the prize.

Email from Connie St. Louis, re her City University CV‘s claim of winning the prize for ‘Life As A Teenager’ actually won by producer Erika Wright; the above claims are factually false, Ms. Wright committed no ethical breaches, submitted the entry in the normal way, won the prize, and had no duty to amend it or add Ms. St. Louis’ name to it in any way.

With Tim Hunt, sorry seems to be the hardest word.

Connie St. Louis, whose reports of ‘no laughing’ and ‘deathly silence’ have now been shown to be a lie, has still not apologized in the matter. She was exposed, early on in the affair, by a forensic piece of investigative journalism by the reporter Guy Adams, as having invented much of her CV. This was hugely important at the time, as I had not yet found witnesses, photos or audio that could prove that Sir Tim Hunt was telling the truth about his brief toast in Seoul (2-3 minutes duration, not 5-7 as Ms. St. Louis falsely reported). Back then, credibility was very important. City University removed her CV from their website but said they would stand by her, as did the Association of British Science Writers.

City University, London, have now published Ms. St. Louis’s ‘updated’ CV. It is still wrong.

Does it matter that the first  “reporter” of the Sir Tim Hunt lie is still teaching journalism? I think it does. In a way, this story, at first about proving the Hunt reporting false, has moved on to being one about ethics – and discrimination. Sir Tim and Ms. St. Louis were treated very differently by their academic institutions. UCL got it wrong with Sir Tim, and City University got it partly right with Ms. St. Louis. Whereas UCL jumped on the basis of a lying tweet and a campaign by Professor David Colquhoun, with Dean of Life Sciences Prof Geraint Rees tweeting about a colleague before even speaking to him, City did not blindly believe reporting.

That was the right thing to do. They took their time and spoke to Ms. St. Louis. However, she is not being open and truthful either then or now. She is still claiming under ‘awards and prizes’ the award given to another person, the producer Erika Wright, for ‘Life as A Teenager,’ a landmark radio show that Ms. St. Louis was just the presenter on.

In a sensational email, on the record, Ms. St. Louis falsely claims that she actually won this prize, and that Ms. Wright committed multiple ethical breaches; that Ms. Wright broke with tradition to claim a joint prize singly, that did not belong to her, and that Ms. Wright further failed to correct the record by not noting who really did win that prize. “add my name to the prize”

Such a claim of an ethics breach would be highly damaging if it were at all true, which it absolutely is not. Ms. Wright as a past winner served on the panel the following year judging the next year’s winners. Ms. St. Louis’s false charge is all the more graceless and remarkable because it would appear that Ms. Wright had been very kind about Ms. St. Louis’ false claims, and Ms. St. Louis was told that in advance. A BBC spokesman had said

“The awarding of the prize was in the producer’s name, but Connie was involved and as such it would not seem unreasonable for her to put it on her CV.”

The BBC of course did not award this prize; they therefore have no standing to say who should or should not claim it; so my inference is that this generous quote reflected the thoughts of Ms. Wright. (it was an Association of British Science Writers’ prize).

Ms. St. Louis was given that gracious quote in advance. However, her reply to this generosity was to falsely accuse the actual winner of ethics breaches both in her entry of the show and her subsequent behaviour. Connie St. Louis wrote:

For the first time the producer in the science unit Erika Wright broke with the traditional and ethically  way that programmes from the science unit we’re entered for the Glaxo smith Kline / ABSW  prize and submitted the programmes that were jointly made just in her name.She  realised that this was wrong and she  recognised my contribution as presenter and writer of the scripts for the programme and we shared and divided the prize. However, she neglected to ask the organisers  to add my name to the prize. [Sic]

It cannot be stressed strongly enough that this is an absolute falsehood. Ms. Wright committed no ethics breaches; she and she alone won the award. When asked about this claim of ethics breaches the BBC refuted it very strongly.

A BBC spokesman said

We are unaware of these allegations. Any suggestion that the proper process wasn’t followed around the 2002 award is untrue.

The false accusation that Ms. Wright broke with “the traditional and ethically way” [sic] that entries were made to the prize is factually false.The BBC has a process, and Ms. Wright as producer was the sole winner. In this link you can see previous BBC Science entries made for the producer of any show submitted to the awards.

Ms. St. Louis is here flinging vile accusations, without a shred of evidence to support them, at a former colleague who has been kinder to her than she deserves. Is that who City University Journalism students deserve to have designing their MA? A ‘journalist’ who not only reports lies and steals credit, but accuses other journalists of ethics breaches for prizes they actually won?

At some point universities have a duty to examine what they offer to students, not just a loyalty to staff.

Ms. St. Louis also accused City University for being responsible for the false information on her CV, such as that she wrote for papers she never wrote for:

My cv has not been changed. The information that was put on the website by the university was part of online profile trial it was inaccurate and scraped from places that were old and inaccurate. I had no Idea that this incorrect information was publicly available until I was asked about it last month. This information was removed as soon as possible.This profile is in the form of that the university stipulates. It is the first time I have written a profile for the university website.

This is, of course, absolute and total rubbish. Ms. St. Louis stood for election to the World Federation of Science Journalists on the same false CV. She submitted that CV to them. WCSJ2015, which sold conference tickets falsely calling her an ‘award-winning scientist’, is the conference of WFSJ – they are one and the same.

Ms. St. Louis was elected on a fraudulent CV and the WFSJ removed the same from their website to protect her. I do not include a link as the CV has personal details on it, but it has been archived.

City University needs to ask some ethical questions. Ms. St Louis is now on the Board of a World Federation of Science Journalists, elected by her peers on a CV that has been proven to be full of lies. It is not out-of-date – it is invented. Why did she falsely claim to write for papers she has not written for? Why does she put “Member of the Royal Institute” on her CV? These are not ‘out of date’ errors they are Jayson Blair style fiction.

Finally, Ms. St. Louis is a former President of the Association of British Science Writers. They were the award-giving body to ‘Life As a Teenager’. They supported her after her false CV was revealed. There is a huge conflict of interest in these ‘Science Journalism’ bodies acting improperly to cover up false reporting by one of their own.

Ms. St. Louis is, further, being covered up for by the Guardian newspaper. As her emails show, she is not at all a good writer; she writes with appalling grammar, yet positions herself as a senior journalist. Of course she is not likely to have lots of print journalism experience as she falsely claimed as she cannot write. There is an issue with the Guardian so heavily editing her wretchedly poorly written article slamming Sir Tim Hunt (and further lying about what he said). Here is the original.

First, a handmaidenesqueinterview in the Observer at Hunt’s lovely house in rural Hertfordshire. The interview is full of lovely anecdotes of Hunt doing the grocery shopping and cooking (a modern reconstructed man?). It ends with what can only be describes as a ‘whining’ platform.

“A whining platform”?

But because I thought it might happen and there might be a possibility that too much attention was turned on Hunt. [sic]

It goes on.

I asked the Royal Society, who is in charge of these matters in the UK funded by the taxpayer;


The Nobel eight’s idiotic attempt to orchestrate and equate the upset caused by Hunt’s ill advised and sexist comments with some kind of ‘academic chilling’.

Ohhh-kay. I’m sure they are all absolute idiots, as you say. ‘to orchestrate and equate the upset caused’ – well, if i can detangle some English sense out of that, Ms. St. Louis, I rather think that this was your role, was it not?

Connie St. Louis needs to apologise to both Erika Wright and Sir Tim Hunt. She accused them both falsely. She also ought not to be designing an MA course in journalism, or sitting on the WFSJ or ABSW boards, either. I will assume since City University didn’t care about her false CV, they won’t mind their students being taught by a woman who falsely accuses her colleague of stealing a joint prize through unethical behaviour (although I hope I am wrong). I assume that WFSJ, with Curtis Brainard, Deborah Blum, and Ivan Oransky all involved in its governance, is OK both with its members being deceived in an election and a new Board member lying about another journalist’s prize and that journalist’s ethics; same with ABSW who know perfectly well that Erika Wright correctly submitted her entry and won the award.

But all of that does not speak well to the ethics and standing of Connie St. Louis. Rather, it speaks very poorly to the ethics of the top brass at the World Federation of Science Journalists and at the Association of British Science Writers (if the latter now stand by her). Whether City University do anything to prevent their students being taught journalism by a lecturer who makes wholly false allegations against another science journalist, and wrongly claims that person’s prize, we shall see. They have a duty to their students. At this point Ms. St. Louis’ wrongful behaviour is already on the record. It is the behaviour of the institutions around her that is looking more and more unethical.

Indiana School Punishes 7-Year-Old For Being an Atheist


A lawsuit filed against Forest Park Elementary School in Indiana alleges a 7-year-old student (identified only as A.B. in court documents) faced punishment and harassment merely for expressing his religious beliefs – specifically, for being an atheist. After admitting he did not believe in God, A.B.’s teacher “banished” him from sitting with other students at the school lunch table for several days.

The suit – filed against second grade teacher Michelle Myer – alleges A.B. endured interrogations by both Myer and a second adult that portrayed the child’s belief system as somehow wrong or unworthy.

“The defendant’s actions caused great distress to A.B. and resulted in the child being ostracized by his peers past the three-day ‘banishment,’” the suit states. It went on to offer further details on Myer’s encroachment on A.B.’s First Amendment civil rights:

During a discussion with classmates on the playground he responded to a question by indicating that he did not go to church because he did not believe in God. This resulted in his teacher interrogating the child as to his beliefs and requiring the child to sit by himself during lunch and not talk to his classmates during lunch for three days. This violates the First Amendment. The defendant’s actions caused great distress to A.B. and resulted in the child being ostracized by his peers past the three-day “banishment.” No meaningful attempt has been made to remedy these injuries and the child seeks his damages.

The suit went on to break down the incident line by line:

7. In February of 2015, A.B. was a second-grade student at Forest Park Elementary School. . . .

9. On or about February 23, 2015, A.B. and his classmates were on the playground during the school day immediately before lunch when A.B. was asked by one of his classmates if he attended church.

10. A.B. responded by stating that he did not go to church and did not believe in God. He also stated that it was fine with him if his inquiring classmate believed in God.

11. The classmate said that A.B. had hurt her feelings by saying that he did not believe in God and started to cry.

12. A playground supervisor reported to [A.B.’s teacher] what had happened.

13. At that point the students were going to lunch and [the teacher] asked A.B. if he had told the girl that he did not believe in God and A.B. said he had and asked what he had done wrong.

14. [The teacher] asked A.B. if he went to church, whether his family went to church, and whether his mother knew how he felt about God.

15. She also asked A.B. if he believed that maybe God exists.

16. [The teacher] told A.B. that she was very concerned about what he had done and that she was going to contact his mother — although she never did.

17. This was very upsetting to A.B. as he was made to feel that he had done something wrong.

18. A day or two after the initial incident, A.B. and his fellow-student who had become upset with his comment on the playground were sent to another adult employed at Forest Park Elementary School.

19. This person asked them what the problem was and A.B. indicated that his classmate had become upset when, in response to her question, he had said he did not go to church and did not believe in God.

20. Upon hearing this, the adult employee looked at A.B.’s classmate and stated that she should not be worried and should be happy she has faith and that she should not listen to A.B.’s bad ideas. She then patted the little girl’s hand.

21. This was, again, extremely upsetting to A.B. as it reinforced his feeling that he had done something very wrong.

22. On the day of the incident and for an additional two days thereafter, [the teacher] required that A.B. sit by himself during lunch and told him he should not talk to the other students and stated that this was because he had offended them. This served to reinforce A.B.’s feeling that he had committed some transgression that justified his exclusion.

This understandably upset A.B.’s mother. She called the school, spoke with Assistant Vice Principal and the teacher in question. Upon Myer confirming the events did occur, the school guaranteed A.B. could believe as he wished with no further illegal harassment.

Unfortunately the damage was already done.

28. After this three-day period, and after V.S. complained, A.B. was told by [the teacher] and other teachers that he could believe what he wants.

29. But this was after A.B. had been publicly separated from his classmates and informed that he could not speak to them. All the students in his class heard and were aware of this. He was publicly shamed and made to feel that his personal beliefs were terribly wrong.

30. No efforts were made to correct the damages that had been done.

31. A.B. came home from school on multiple occasions crying saying that he knows that everyone at school — teachers and students — hate him.

32. Even now there are some classmates who will not talk to A.B.

33. Even now A.B. remains anxious and fearful about school, which is completely contrary to how he felt before this incident.

34. At all times defendant acted, and refused to act, under color of state law.

In the wake of the teacher’s illegal actions and the family’s legal action against her, the school district released a statement saying:

“It is clear that it is not the province of a public school to advance or inhibit religious beliefs or practices. Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, this remains the inviolate province of the individual and the church of his/her choice. The rights of any minority, no matter how small, must be protected.”

Since previous cases brought against taxpayer-funded institutions by non-Christians have resulted in even more harassment (at the hands of those in the Christian community), the judge in the case ruled that the case may proceed with the entire family remaining anonymous for their physical protection and for the protection of the minor against further harassment. the court stated:

A.B. is a young child and this suit involves religion and public schools-a topic that “has a tendency to inflame unreasonably some individuals” in most communities, including Fort Wayne. Accordingly, at this time, the Court finds that the risk to A.B.’s health and safety, if his mother is identified by name, outweighs the public’s interest in judicial openness and overcomes the presumption against anonymous litigation.

The ACLU of Indiana filed the suit on behalf of the family and will be assisting them in the litigation.