Politics

[Christmas Tree 4679]

I think people are being harsh on CT. He has had different experiences than most people on here and thus has a different point of view. For instance, a single mother would have been hit hard when Thatcher cut free milk for school children in 1971, but this wouldn't have affected CT's children, as they had an ample supply of fresh milk from his obese sagging mammaries that had been developed over many years of gorging like a hippopotamus on doughnuts and cakes.

 

Keep trying, you might even get a token smile thrown in......

[Monkeys Fist 42001]

I think people are being harsh on CT. He has had different experiences than most people on here and thus has a different point of view. For instance, a single mother would have been hit hard when Thatcher cut free milk for school children in 1971, but this wouldn't have affected CT's children, as they had an ample supply of fresh milk from his obese sagging mammaries that had been developed over many years of gorging like a hippopotamus on doughnuts and cakes.

 

Keep trying, you might even get a token smile thrown in......

I laughed so hard a little bit of wee came out.

[ChezGiven 0]

What you mean is you've been back and had a look at the original reply, noticed that it was a very legitimate response given the preceeding post and the different political viewpoints and in no way made fun of anyone who had lost their job.

 

Some examples

 

Where are the lower classes who are being savaged?

 

How are they being savaged?

 

Everyday I am out there (on the front line) dealing with people from all sorts of backgrounds.

 

Nothing has changed, nobody is bleating or moaning, there are no soup kitchens springing up.

 

I dont think I can recall one person, friend, family or customer who has lost their job because of the cuts.

 

Who on here has lost their job because of the cuts?

[Gemmill 44247]

One down, one to go.

 

Now show me this deeply insensitive quote of mine.

 

I didnt say you had made a joke about it, i compared the levels of insensitivity. Maybe it was a bit subtle for you saying one thing is like doing another thing.

 

Claiming that you dont know anyone affected by the cuts on a forum where you know plenty of people who have posted about how the cuts are affecting them is a bit insensitive. If you made the statement in the pub, it would depend on who you know in the pub. You know full well (or forgot) that plenty on here have been affected. The point being, you are trying to use the fact that you dont know anyone affected as an argument for the lack of severity and implying its all a fuss over nothing. When the direct experience of those you are talking to contradicts your observation, it undermines everything you are saying and looks insensitive.

 

Look at this way CT; i'm telling you.

 

 

So it all boils down to that.

 

What you mean is you've been back and had a look at the original reply, noticed that it was a very legitimate response given the preceeding post and the different political viewpoints and in no way made fun of anyone who had lost their job.

 

Nobody was being a cuts denier, it was the use of language similar to when the hoo ha kicked off about the word "flooding" when use in the race debate.

 

Yes everyone jumped on Alex's little fuse (and all credit to Alex btw, currently getting back to his best form), but its no good piling all this belated feelings crap after the event.

 

We might as well close down general chat in case someone, somewhere takes offence at something.

 

One final word of caution, it is pub night so this very fair minded liberal Tory might be replaced by Norman Tebbitt come this evening.

 

In other words "It's pub night tonight and you know what a character I am when I'm drunk. I mean i am literally crazy after a drink."

[Ayatollah Hermione 13766]

Going to apologise to TS for continuing to be an insensitive cock to him losing his job? It's a good thing he seems to be a relaxed person because if I was in his shoes, I'd be calling you worse than shite.

 

Fuck off you daft shite. He lost his job back in October and I wished him well at the time. That doesnt mean Im never going to discuss politics or job losses again.

 

What a fucking arsehole you are. You should probably never discuss politics or job losses because you're fucking hopeless at doing both. If this is how low you'll stoop to get some attention then the reaction you receive when something inevitably does go wrong in your own life will be full deserved.

 

At the core of it, you're too dim to argue anything effectively which is why Chez and HF routinely have you bent over in anything regarding intelligent discussion which is why your attempts at riling everyone else up have to go even further. You're a prize cockend.

 

Put this in Stevie's moaning thread if you want.

 

I'll put it in the talk of pile of shite and dodge the argument thread. Unless ofcourse your brave enough or clever enough to quote which bit Ive said is so offensive. Surely your not just jumping on a band wagon

 

tick tock

 

There's no argument since you are not intelligent enough to foster one past your original attention seeking statements. My mate lost his job in the cuts in the middle of doing a career he'd always been looking to do simply because he was the last one in. This meant he couldn't afford the rent to live with my other mate who is now in the shit with rent paying since the one who lost his job has had to move home. Having two of your best mates struggling to make ends meet isn't great to see.

 

My argument was that it's cruelly insensitive to brush off the struggle of people simply because you've had no experience with it, something which has been clearly backed up by your stance in the rest of the thread. I made no such suggestion that they're being "savaged" but I have no doubts that people will be in time; you've responded to me as if I was making that original suggestion while I'm just calling you out on being a cruel, attention-seeking prick of a bloke.

[Holden McGroin 6471]

Fucking Hell ! Just caught up on this thread.

 

CT on the windup again and really puts his foot in it this time.

 

Where is his buddy, Tiote's Nutz for backup?

 

"EVERYONE NEEDS TO CALM THE FUCK DOWN'

[Tooj 17]

Redundancy rules could be relaxed, says government

 

Rules governing levels of compensation for workplace discrimination, and how long firms have to consult staff over job losses, are to be reviewed.

 

Chancellor George Osborne said that if the government was to support job creation it could not "shy away from looking at difficult issues".

 

The protection of staff terms and conditions when a firm is transferred to a new owner is also to be reviewed.

 

Labour said the proposals would make working life less secure.

 

"George Osborne's only idea for growth is to make it easier to cut pay and pensions, dismiss employees without giving time to plan for the future and make working life more insecure," said shadow business secretary John Denham.

 

"Successful companies have a workforce that is confident, dedicated and fairly rewarded," he added.

 

The government says it wants to remove unnecessary bureaucracy within current employment law.

 

At the moment, firms cannot make more than 100 workers redundant within 90 days of informing them of redundancies.

 

The Business Department said employers were concerned that this time scale was "hindering their ability to restructure efficiently and retain a flexible workforce".

 

It added: "Employers in financial difficulty worry about how long they need to keep paying staff after it has become clear that they need to let them go."

 

On discrimination compensation, it said that while there needed to be remedies, companies had "expressed concern about the high levels of compensation sometimes awarded by employment tribunals".

 

The Business Department added that employers were concerned that high compensation awards could encourage people "to take weak, speculative or vexation cases in the hope of a large payout".

 

It said this meant that some employers settled such cases before they went to a tribunal.

 

"If we are to support private sector growth and create jobs, we can't shy away from looking at difficult issues like employment law," said Mr Osborne in a speech to the Institute of Directors' annual convention.

 

"Examining these areas of the law which could be holding back job creation demonstrates the government's commitment to go for growth."

 

Unison leader Dave Prentis said: "The Tory review of employment law will hit ordinary working people hard.

 

"The government is weighting the jobs market heavily in favour of bosses, who will be able to hire and fire their staff at will."

 

However, the CBI business organisation welcomed the government's announcement, saying the review of employment law was "long overdue".

 

"Workplace relationships have changed dramatically over the last decade, with employers and employees engaging in a more flexible, personalised way, and it's time the law reflected this," said CBI chief policy director, Katja Hall.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13361130

[Monkeys Fist 42001]

Spin that fucker then CT.

[Christmas Tree 4679]

Spin that fucker then CT.

 

Tories, the party that puts business first!

Edited May 12, 2011 by Christmas Tree

[Monkeys Fist 42001]

In Engrish prease

[Happy Face 29]

Spin that fucker then CT.

 

Tories, the party that puts business first!

 

Hopefully, one day Britain will become as attractive to business as China where the working classes are happier than anywhere in the world and political correctness hasn't gone mad.

 

 

 

 

*Sarcmark*

[Matt 0]

Tories, the party that promotes the family unit by enabling their income to be turned off like a tap, then telling them to up sticks and move hundreds of miles if they want to get a job.

[Rob W 0]

Spin that fucker then CT.

 

Tories, the party that puts business first!

 

 

Labour, the party that puts Trade Unions first

[Matt 0]

Spin that fucker then CT.

 

Tories, the party that puts business first!

 

 

Labour, the party that puts Trade Unions first

 

Libdems, the party that puts people 49% first but under AV re-allocates craving for power as over-whelming second choice.

[ChezGiven 0]

Spin that fucker then CT.

 

Tories, the party that puts business first!

 

 

Labour, the party that puts Trade Unions first

 

And why not? If you believe that we should all have access to education, healthcare services and housing and you devote (even under hard right wing governments) billions of pounds to upholding these principles, why should it not extend into the domain of protection of worker's jobs and conditions?

 

I used to think that trade unions were a hinderance to the economy but then i worked abroad. I wonder why France & Germany (with their diversified and strong manufacturing sectors and powerful unions) have coped post-crisis better than the uk? Maybe because the unions fixed a structure to the economy that restricted high powered growth but provided a more stable economic environment. I dont have the answer but thats how it looks right now. Unionisation might just be the institutional and structural brake an economy needs to stop it funneling its resources into sectors bubbling over (like construction, finance etc). The more flexible you are the more you end up with structured skills and jobs that reflect an over-investment in risky sectors. As proven by the last 5 years and will be proven by the long term structural unemployment rate.

 

I wish Labour did put the unions first, it would have meant that the UK GDP growth of the last two decades might have been a little less impressive but maybe a little bit more fairly distributed. UK workers are already poorly protected compared to their European colleagues, any further erosion of these rights is both an affront to decency and a mis-reading of the economics.

 

Imo.

[Guest alex]

Rob'll struggle to counter that with one of his trademark pithy ripostes.

[ChezGiven 0]

There is also a train strike planned for tomorrow so i wont be going to the office and will have a day at home with our lass and the bairn instead. This may have some bearing on my attitude

[Guest alex]

Swings and roundabouts

[Christmas Tree 4679]

Spin that fucker then CT.

 

Tories, the party that puts business first!

 

 

Labour, the party that puts Trade Unions first

 

Libdems, the party that puts people 49% first but under AV re-allocates craving for power as over-whelming second choice.

 

[NJS 4365]

I wish Labour did put the unions first, it would have meant that the UK GDP growth of the last two decades might have been a little less impressive but maybe a little bit more fairly distributed. UK workers are already poorly protected compared to their European colleagues, any further erosion of these rights is both an affront to decency and a mis-reading of the economics.

 

Imo.

 

One of the worst legacies of the Thatcher/Blair years is that the UK seems to have embraced American attitudes to society and economics. The worship of greed and the rich and the so called American dream is very much Thatcher's ethos complete with the increased disparity of rich and poor in both countries.

 

Those who always cry "changes had to be made" when supporting the erosion of union power never think about the downside of the promotion of shit, temporary jobs in the pursuit of a "business friendly" market which does so much damage in the long run.

 

They also have no asnswer to the argument that France and Germany as you say have emerged from the 30 years of "there is no alternative" Thatcherite economics in the UK with stronger economies despite the unions and with "traditional" industries still flourishing and this in France's case despite a very socialist welfare state.

 

Instead of the admiration of American business practices we'd be better off looking to Europe.

[ChezGiven 0]

One of the most astounding cultural/political features of the post-crisis world is the continued dominance of strict free market thinking, despite the industry that caused it becoming the largest recipients of government welfare in history.

[NJS 4365]

One of the most astounding cultural/political features of the post-crisis world is the continued dominance of strict free market thinking, despite the industry that caused it becoming the largest recipients of government welfare in history.

 

The stock argument against those who said it was wrong to prop up the steel or mining industries that Farming was/is massively subsidised has now been hit out of the galaxy by the banking bailout.

[Guest alex]

I see whilst there's been a drop in the unemployment figures again, the amount of people on job seeker's allowance has risen again.

Nice work by the justice secretary yesterday as well. I'm pleased Ken Clarke gaffed though as it's helped bring to attention what is an absolute disgrace, i.e. that some rapists could serve as little as 15 months when you factor in good behaviour, etc.

Edited May 19, 2011 by alex

[NJS 4365]

Nice work by the justice secretary yesterday as well. I'm pleased Ken Clarke gaffed though as it's helped bring to attention what is an absolute disgrace, i.e. that some rapists could serve as little as 15 months when you factor in good behaviour, etc.

 

The way he said it was crass but I think what he was trying to say was that in "date rape" cases which come down to his word against hers, juries are reluctant to convict on the basis of say a 20 year sentence (even if it gets that far) whereas if the bloke was persuaded to plead guilty for a 5 year sentence at least there's be some justice and more convictions.

 

My view has always been that being raped by someone you know/trust "makes up" for the fear of death factor in knifepoint cases and makes them equal.

[Guest alex]

Nice work by the justice secretary yesterday as well. I'm pleased Ken Clarke gaffed though as it's helped bring to attention what is an absolute disgrace, i.e. that some rapists could serve as little as 15 months when you factor in good behaviour, etc.

 

The way he said it was crass but I think what he was trying to say was that in "date rape" cases which come down to his word against hers, juries are reluctant to convict on the basis of say a 20 year sentence (even if it gets that far) whereas if the bloke was persuaded to plead guilty for a 5 year sentence at least there's be some justice and more convictions.

 

My view has always been that being raped by someone you know/trust "makes up" for the fear of death factor in knifepoint cases and makes them equal.

I agree with you on both counts, actually.