Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
Seals don't have legs, you tit.
Wednesday: the Strike
- Thread starter Soary Stars
- Start date
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
Of course they don't - my mistake.
Well, you lot are all rich beyond the dreams of Croesus, with your number-crunching backgrounds and fine understanding of the world o'finance, so why not, er, club together and sponsor Clive of the Arctic to put the ideas to the test?
You could flipper coin to decide whether to go for the ad hoc venture or hire a full gang of clubbers - in fact, why not run the projects in parallel to see which would be the most profitable for future futures trading?
Grassy - I'm amazed. I'd mentally figured you for around 5' 6", short very dark hair, dark brown eyes and very white teeth, and around 29. Apart from the clear miss on age, how'm I doing on the rest?
You could flipper coin to decide whether to go for the ad hoc venture or hire a full gang of clubbers - in fact, why not run the projects in parallel to see which would be the most profitable for future futures trading?
Grassy - I'm amazed. I'd mentally figured you for around 5' 6", short very dark hair, dark brown eyes and very white teeth, and around 29. Apart from the clear miss on age, how'm I doing on the rest?
walsworth
Journeyman
We seem to have an awful lot of people on here capable of manipulating wealth, but very few capable of creating it. That is the nub of the argument, for Gods sake get this bloody country making things again!
Grasshopper
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 16,050
Take it easy, walsworth. For all his hollow protests, me and Clivex will soon be manufacturing seal-skin everything.
Very close, krizon, though it's the skin that's white and the teeth that are brown.
Very close, krizon, though it's the skin that's white and the teeth that are brown.
Colin Phillips
At the Start
Not sure if this is best posted here or on the Arse Cup thread:
The One Show has apologised after Jeremy Clarkson suggested on air that strikers should be "executed in front of their families".
The provocative Top Gear presenter sparked a storm of outrage on Twitter after telling viewers of the BBC One programme that he would have striking public sector workers shot.
"I would have them taken outside and executed them in front of their families," he said.
He prefaced the remarks, however, by asserting that he liked the strikers as the industrial action meant there was no traffic on the roads. Adding that he had to be balanced as he worked for the BBC, he then launched into an anti-strikers rant, which appeared to be at least partly in jest.
Clarkson went on to shock viewers by saying trains should not stop for people who have committed suicide by throwing themselves onto the rails.
The corporation said in a statement: "The One Show apologised at the end of the show to viewers who may have been offended by Jeremy Clarkson's comments."
The One Show has apologised after Jeremy Clarkson suggested on air that strikers should be "executed in front of their families".
The provocative Top Gear presenter sparked a storm of outrage on Twitter after telling viewers of the BBC One programme that he would have striking public sector workers shot.
"I would have them taken outside and executed them in front of their families," he said.
He prefaced the remarks, however, by asserting that he liked the strikers as the industrial action meant there was no traffic on the roads. Adding that he had to be balanced as he worked for the BBC, he then launched into an anti-strikers rant, which appeared to be at least partly in jest.
Clarkson went on to shock viewers by saying trains should not stop for people who have committed suicide by throwing themselves onto the rails.
The corporation said in a statement: "The One Show apologised at the end of the show to viewers who may have been offended by Jeremy Clarkson's comments."
I like Clarkson he is his own man and you either love him or hate him, success and comfort usually brings out certain human traits so nothing that shocking, but would he be brave enough to pull the trigger himself or pay someone to do it?
As for the private sector its a shame they do not have a collective voice like the pubic sector have then we may have had the chance to fight back ourselves.
As for the private sector its a shame they do not have a collective voice like the pubic sector have then we may have had the chance to fight back ourselves.
I dislike Clarkson. A nightmare saloon bar bore.
The best piece ive read on the current situation is Camilla Cavendish in the Times today. Clear sighted analysis of the problems and solution after solution.
What i want to know is how the public sector spending increased by 50% in REAL terms between 1999 and 2009. we can appreciate why some areas have required spending but the number of people working in the sector has also increased dramatically (most in europe i think i saw somewhere..) and this needs looking at. How many of these "jobs" are non essential ? From two people i know closely who have moved from private sector to public (neither is right wing or a workaholic), i would guess a hell of a lot...
Would not be surprised if you could fire off 30% with no adverse effect. From what i gather about the DTI, i think 75% would be about right
I seem to recall a labour minister said candidly half of whitehall could go tomorrow and no one would notice the difference
The best piece ive read on the current situation is Camilla Cavendish in the Times today. Clear sighted analysis of the problems and solution after solution.
What i want to know is how the public sector spending increased by 50% in REAL terms between 1999 and 2009. we can appreciate why some areas have required spending but the number of people working in the sector has also increased dramatically (most in europe i think i saw somewhere..) and this needs looking at. How many of these "jobs" are non essential ? From two people i know closely who have moved from private sector to public (neither is right wing or a workaholic), i would guess a hell of a lot...
Would not be surprised if you could fire off 30% with no adverse effect. From what i gather about the DTI, i think 75% would be about right
I seem to recall a labour minister said candidly half of whitehall could go tomorrow and no one would notice the difference
Last edited:
I am sure his agent hugged him this morning saying 'job well done'...
Under labour the public sector always gets bloated, same in other European countries, but how did the DTI arrive at 75%? So they are saying 3 out of 4 nurses or policeman are not needed? Or is it just office based PS staff that their research says is occupying unnecessary space?
simmo
Senior Jockey
thats about right.
My thyping skills have let me down,
Love that typo - and boy, there were a few hairy mingers among 'em yesterday, drumming and whistling their way down the road outside my flat. Had not realised the revolting masses would be marching past and had to cancel taxi for dentist appointment, as no way to get through.
I've no idea if every policeman is needed - they certainly gave the impression during the riots that it was far too arduous a task to get off their arses and protect life and limb, let alone property. I've also no idea if there are too many nurses, but going by the reports and exposures of nurses and doctors' ineptitude in the NHS, from endless waiting lists (what? With all those managers managing them?) to deaths caused by filth or carelessness, perhaps there aren't enough competent ones. But the old days of fearsome matrons controlling the wards and the quality of care therein are gone, and everything's down to faceless 'teams' where no responsibility is borne by individuals.
If I hear one more 'lessons will be learned from this' from members of the public sector ballsing-up their jobs and costing the lives of the public (whom they are supposed to serve), I'll throw up all over my local A&E. You can count the Home Office, the Borders Agency, the NHS, the police-not-much-of-a-force, the Pensions Service, the benefits system, the asylum system and pretty much any part of this vast, sprawling and hugely fuzzy 'sector' as over-staffed and under-competent.
The only problem with a throw-out would be useless managers clinging on and throwing out some decent staff along with the considerable dross.
I've no idea if every policeman is needed - they certainly gave the impression during the riots that it was far too arduous a task to get off their arses and protect life and limb, let alone property. I've also no idea if there are too many nurses, but going by the reports and exposures of nurses and doctors' ineptitude in the NHS, from endless waiting lists (what? With all those managers managing them?) to deaths caused by filth or carelessness, perhaps there aren't enough competent ones. But the old days of fearsome matrons controlling the wards and the quality of care therein are gone, and everything's down to faceless 'teams' where no responsibility is borne by individuals.
If I hear one more 'lessons will be learned from this' from members of the public sector ballsing-up their jobs and costing the lives of the public (whom they are supposed to serve), I'll throw up all over my local A&E. You can count the Home Office, the Borders Agency, the NHS, the police-not-much-of-a-force, the Pensions Service, the benefits system, the asylum system and pretty much any part of this vast, sprawling and hugely fuzzy 'sector' as over-staffed and under-competent.
The only problem with a throw-out would be useless managers clinging on and throwing out some decent staff along with the considerable dross.
I find it sad that suddenly it is worker turning against worker, divide & conqueror tactic works well for this Government, and it is coming to something when public sector workers who we will all rely on at some point are being viewed as the main culprit, and then the government (party is irrelevant) show less zealous methods (and the general public dont say word either) when taking tax of the big corps e.g. the recent tax let off for Vodafone or the recent 'agreement' with Goldman Sachs - why is that?
EC1
On a break
the problem with the private sector is that they have been gutless in the past and allowed employers to shit all over them..thats why their pensions ..if they have them..are shite. They have also had decades of being paid more than the public sector..no mention then about public sector being on better money in those days. When the private sector jobs were booming..no one gave a fook about pensions..live today spend today mentality
that same mentality now shows itself when they cry about people sticking up for themselves..and them by the way..decent pensions for all
its a fact that when jobs are plentiful..civil service jobs in particular are classed as ..boring..for the failures etc..but as soon as jobs are hard to come by..those doing these mundane tasks are suddenly lucky.
the private sector want to look at how this government are using them as total saps in the way they are turning them against their fellow workforce.
if we want to talk about tax payers paying for pensions..who exactly is going to pay benefits to those in the private sector without pensions when they haven't got enough money to live on when they retire?..the taxpayer..
that same mentality now shows itself when they cry about people sticking up for themselves..and them by the way..decent pensions for all
its a fact that when jobs are plentiful..civil service jobs in particular are classed as ..boring..for the failures etc..but as soon as jobs are hard to come by..those doing these mundane tasks are suddenly lucky.
the private sector want to look at how this government are using them as total saps in the way they are turning them against their fellow workforce.
if we want to talk about tax payers paying for pensions..who exactly is going to pay benefits to those in the private sector without pensions when they haven't got enough money to live on when they retire?..the taxpayer..
Last edited:
Thats complete rubbish
For a start the private sector has been on "better money' simply because the pensions rarely have been so strong and the job security a helluva lot less.
It is incredibly arrogant patronising and basically stupid to suggest that the "government is turning the workforce against blah blah". I think most in the private sector have experience of and can make their minds up about the quality of work and the benefits accrued in the public sector without having Cameron making suggestions
Would you like some examples? Because we have plenty I can tell you....
This is about a 3% cut in pensions. Does anyone seriously think that the public sector is being hammered here? In Ireland they had to take a 15% cut in salary.
And why have the number of public sector employees increased by 16% in the past ten years? Why are there 10% more civil servants? Most businesses have found a way to reduce admin staff. Thats what technology has brought about. What are these people doing?
For a start the private sector has been on "better money' simply because the pensions rarely have been so strong and the job security a helluva lot less.
It is incredibly arrogant patronising and basically stupid to suggest that the "government is turning the workforce against blah blah". I think most in the private sector have experience of and can make their minds up about the quality of work and the benefits accrued in the public sector without having Cameron making suggestions
Would you like some examples? Because we have plenty I can tell you....
This is about a 3% cut in pensions. Does anyone seriously think that the public sector is being hammered here? In Ireland they had to take a 15% cut in salary.
And why have the number of public sector employees increased by 16% in the past ten years? Why are there 10% more civil servants? Most businesses have found a way to reduce admin staff. Thats what technology has brought about. What are these people doing?
Last edited: