A rather circular argument wouldn't you say? You can't carve out a position until years of customer feedback have told you what that position is? If that were the case, there would surely be no new entrants in the marketplace. Personally I wouldn't start a business without knowing clearly what position in the consumer's mind in relation to my competitors I wanted to occupy. Everyone wearing green wellies? There's an opportunity for someone to create a brand of red ones (that's theoretical; I am aware red wellies are available).
As for the detailed financials, I bow to your superior knowledge.
No - the "high quality, low prices" position is one that can only be created through customer perception. (e.g. M&S as was, Sainsbury's, Next). It's a very specific value proposition. There are lots of other ways to position companies that can be developed through product/marketing (e.g. premium/high touch, innovation-leader, fast-follower/mid price, etc), and marketing/advertising can be very impactful provided the customer proposition is clear.
Our family business, for instance, is a great example of premium/high-touch positioning, but built through customer recommendations and without any marketing.
Ah ok, I see.
As a marketer myself, I see marketing in its broadest sense as the bringing of a product or service to market. Therefore I would say if you've successfully positioned yourselves, you have 'marketed' and clearly done so very successfully, regardless of whether you've engaged in promotional activity. More power to you for that.
Just as make up and clothes should draw attention to the wearer, not themselves, so marketing should draw attention to the product, not itself. So many award-winning marketing campaigns have been utter failures in selling the product. If something screams 'marketing' it promotes instant distrust. Not many marketing people see it the way I do though.
We positioned ourselves before marketing was invented... ;-)
Or indeed before 'positioning' was invented by the sainted Al Ries (my marketing hero) and Jack Trout back in 1972.
If Charles is who I think he is then his family firm was set up three hundred years before Ries and Trout came up with their idea of positioning.
Avery has gone quiet for several weeks now, so no more Yellow Boxes showing George Osborne's magnificent stewardship of the UK Economy, I know that will upset you immensely
I did occasionally wonder how Avery would try to explain the borrowing figures being higher than last year.
I wonder if he's holidaying in Cleethorpes with Cousin Seth.
Grant Shapps, the Conservative Party Chairman, said: “Carswell’s position is regrettable, given that no-one has done more than David Cameron in Europe to ensure that the EU follows Britain’s model of greater competitiveness, more growth and jobs. This is the real work we are doing in Europe.”
I'd actually say that the fact that no-one in Europe has done more than Cameron's meagre record in pushing the EU towards competitiveness, growth and jobs just shows how unreformable the EU is.
I did during my absence occasionally look in and read a thread and noticed Sean Fear comparing Cameron and Miliband to buckets of shit and acid.
A better comparison is:
Cameron = Continuity Blair Miliband = Continuity Brown
Also someone (HYFUD I think) wondered why Cameron was so keen to bomb Assad last year despite massive public opposition but so loath to bomb ISIS this year even with public support.
There's a simple answer to that.
Bombing Assad last year was SamCam's then current issue while at present Iraqi Christians and Yezidis aren't it seems fashionable enough.
Which brings me to the Rotherham issue. Many people have expressed shock at the lack of response from Cameron and Miliband. Now I can understand EdM - any condemnation of Islamic communities (especially coming from a Jew) is going to cost Labour votes while any condemnation of the activities of social workers etc will outrage guardianistas. So easier to mumble platitudes and hope the issue goes away for EdM.
But what explains the attitude of Cameron, for whom doing the right thing would also be electorally beneficial ? My theory is that he's terrified of SamCam's disapproval. To posh lefties such as SamCam Rotherham is so damaging to so many of their beliefs that it must not be acknowledged, it must forever remain an unissue. And Cameron, with his insecurity complex, will yet again follow his wife's prejudices.
I wonder if Charles, who I believe has met both Camerons, would like to comment on what sort of influence SamCam has on her husband.
You could write for The Daily Wail. Your ability to speculate without any evidence is quite remarkable, even kipper-like.
Follow the utter defeat of the UK over the appointment of Juncker, I see we've now missed out on the big jobs of head of the Council and foreign affairs chief. The latter being someone with views utterly against those of the UK.
So surely we must be in line for the economic or internal market jobs?
There's an interesting game of bluff going on.
Juncker is hinting that he will give a senior position to the UK if Cameron changes his nomination to a woman.
But, of course, to require a change in nomination is a power play.
Juncker thinks that demanding on "equality" will give him a card to explain why the Brits didn't get a senior position by nominating a man (ignoring the fact that the other senior posts are going to men whose countries supported his nomination).
I don't think Cameron can change his nomination. So the question becomes whether Juncker wants to declare all out war or not.
We live in interesting times.
Mr. Charles, I agree that Cameron cannot change his nomination and so Juckner has already declared war. Whilst it in theory shouldn't matter, as commissioners are supposed to be independent of their home countries, having a massive contributor like the UK's nomination end up as OIC paper clips is likely to have repercussions.
If nothing else Cameron stands to look stupid and weak and possibly in thrall to the EU (all of which are true in my opinion but he can't afford to advertise the fact).
Think it is time to withdraw our forces from Lithuania, perhaps leave Nato, I can't see the point of involving ourselves in the defence of EU interests.
AnotherRichard Have to agree there, it seems odd that Obama is now bombing ISIS and Hollande enthusiastic for both that and arming the Kurds but Cameron is more reticent
Think it is time to withdraw our forces from Lithuania, perhaps leave Nato, I can't see the point of involving ourselves in the defence of EU interests.
Well, NATO is about more than just defending EU interests, so surely it is best to remain in it as it may involve defending our interests sometimes, interests we might need help defending. Also, our and EU interests, strategically, will often intersect.
I did during my absence occasionally look in and read a thread and noticed Sean Fear comparing Cameron and Miliband to buckets of shit and acid.
A better comparison is:
Cameron = Continuity Blair Miliband = Continuity Brown
Also someone (HYFUD I think) wondered why Cameron was so keen to bomb Assad last year despite massive public opposition but so loath to bomb ISIS this year even with public support.
There's a simple answer to that.
Bombing Assad last year was SamCam's then current issue while at present Iraqi Christians and Yezidis aren't it seems fashionable enough.
Which brings me to the Rotherham issue. Many people have expressed shock at the lack of response from Cameron and Miliband. Now I can understand EdM - any condemnation of Islamic communities (especially coming from a Jew) is going to cost Labour votes while any condemnation of the activities of social workers etc will outrage guardianistas. So easier to mumble platitudes and hope the issue goes away for EdM.
But what explains the attitude of Cameron, for whom doing the right thing would also be electorally beneficial ? My theory is that he's terrified of SamCam's disapproval. To posh lefties such as SamCam Rotherham is so damaging to so many of their beliefs that it must not be acknowledged, it must forever remain an unissue. And Cameron, with his insecurity complex, will yet again follow his wife's prejudices.
I wonder if Charles, who I believe has met both Camerons, would like to comment on what sort of influence SamCam has on her husband.
You could write for The Daily Wail. Your ability to speculate without any evidence is quite remarkable, even kipper-like.
Still bleating nothing but "my party good, your party bad" I see perdix.
Perhaps you might like to give some original thoughts on:
1) Why Cameron was so much keener on military action against Assad last year than on ISIS this year ?
I did during my absence occasionally look in and read a thread and noticed Sean Fear comparing Cameron and Miliband to buckets of shit and acid.
A better comparison is:
Cameron = Continuity Blair Miliband = Continuity Brown
Also someone (HYFUD I think) wondered why Cameron was so keen to bomb Assad last year despite massive public opposition but so loath to bomb ISIS this year even with public support.
There's a simple answer to that.
Bombing Assad last year was SamCam's then current issue while at present Iraqi Christians and Yezidis aren't it seems fashionable enough.
Which brings me to the Rotherham issue. Many people have expressed shock at the lack of response from Cameron and Miliband. Now I can understand EdM - any condemnation of Islamic communities (especially coming from a Jew) is going to cost Labour votes while any condemnation of the activities of social workers etc will outrage guardianistas. So easier to mumble platitudes and hope the issue goes away for EdM.
But what explains the attitude of Cameron, for whom doing the right thing would also be electorally beneficial ? My theory is that he's terrified of SamCam's disapproval. To posh lefties such as SamCam Rotherham is so damaging to so many of their beliefs that it must not be acknowledged, it must forever remain an unissue. And Cameron, with his insecurity complex, will yet again follow his wife's prejudices.
I wonder if Charles, who I believe has met both Camerons, would like to comment on what sort of influence SamCam has on her husband.
I really like your concept, but there's a far simpler explanation to who Cameron does and doesn't want to bomb. What the Americans want. They wanted Assad out. We were meant to comply. Did you hear Hague snivelling around after the no vote, saying 'the Americans have been very good about it', as if we'd just peed on their hearth rug or something. This time there's less need for them to build an international coalition, as the cause is widely seen as just, so there's less thumbscrew pressure. Cameron will still get us involved eventually if he can.
I did during my absence occasionally look in and read a thread and noticed Sean Fear comparing Cameron and Miliband to buckets of shit and acid.
A better comparison is:
Cameron = Continuity Blair Miliband = Continuity Brown
Also someone (HYFUD I think) wondered why Cameron was so keen to bomb Assad last year despite massive public opposition but so loath to bomb ISIS this year even with public support.
There's a simple answer to that.
Bombing Assad last year was SamCam's then current issue while at present Iraqi Christians and Yezidis aren't it seems fashionable enough.
Which brings me to the Rotherham issue. Many people have expressed shock at the lack of response from Cameron and Miliband. Now I can understand EdM - any condemnation of Islamic communities (especially coming from a Jew) is going to cost Labour votes while any condemnation of the activities of social workers etc will outrage guardianistas. So easier to mumble platitudes and hope the issue goes away for EdM.
But what explains the attitude of Cameron, for whom doing the right thing would also be electorally beneficial ? My theory is that he's terrified of SamCam's disapproval. To posh lefties such as SamCam Rotherham is so damaging to so many of their beliefs that it must not be acknowledged, it must forever remain an unissue. And Cameron, with his insecurity complex, will yet again follow his wife's prejudices.
I wonder if Charles, who I believe has met both Camerons, would like to comment on what sort of influence SamCam has on her husband.
You could write for The Daily Wail. Your ability to speculate without any evidence is quite remarkable, even kipper-like.
I really don't think speculating without evidence is a skill employed solely by, or in particularly noteworthy amounts, by Kippers.
Think it is time to withdraw our forces from Lithuania, perhaps leave Nato, I can't see the point of involving ourselves in the defence of EU interests.
Russia can live with the Baltic states. It's the possibility of having a complete ring of ABM sites that guarantees a war.
A rather circular argument wouldn't you say? You can't carve out a position until years of customer feedback have told you what that position is? If that were the case, there would surely be no new entrants in the marketplace. Personally I wouldn't start a business without knowing clearly what position in the consumer's mind in relation to my competitors I wanted to occupy. Everyone wearing green wellies? There's an opportunity for someone to create a brand of red ones (that's theoretical; I am aware red wellies are available).
As for the detailed financials, I bow to your superior knowledge.
No - the "high quality, low prices" position is one that can only be created through customer perception. (e.g. M&S as was, Sainsbury's, Next). It's a very specific value proposition. There are lots of other ways to position companies that can be developed through product/marketing (e.g. premium/high touch, innovation-leader, fast-follower/mid price, etc), and marketing/advertising can be very impactful provided the customer proposition is clear.
Our family business, for instance, is a great example of premium/high-touch positioning, but built through customer recommendations and without any marketing.
Ah ok, I see.
As a marketer myself, I see marketing in its broadest sense as the bringing of a product or service to market. Therefore I would say if you've successfully positioned yourselves, you have 'marketed' and clearly done so very successfully, regardless of whether you've engaged in promotional activity. More power to you for that.
Just as make up and clothes should draw attention to the wearer, not themselves, so marketing should draw attention to the product, not itself. So many award-winning marketing campaigns have been utter failures in selling the product. If something screams 'marketing' it promotes instant distrust. Not many marketing people see it the way I do though.
We positioned ourselves before marketing was invented... ;-)
Or indeed before 'positioning' was invented by the sainted Al Ries (my marketing hero) and Jack Trout back in 1972.
If Charles is who I think he is then his family firm was set up three hundred years before Ries and Trout came up with their idea of positioning.
seems like a bit of a spin job from the Telegraph..
Quite. He may well have been Cameron's preferred choice, and perhaps that even factored into things favourably (though of course there was speculation Cameron's involvement might hinder things), but surely Eastern Europe's wish for one of their candidates to get the post was more important to things. Not so much 'Cameron gets a boost' as 'Cameron doesn't face more accusations of lack of influence'.
@Charles "But then we'd have bigger things to worry about." You mean, bigger than IS/ISSL ?....
No.
Russia is a major threat in the Great Game.
ISIL plays by different rules.
Probably a fair comparison. We face many obstacles in foreign affairs, but an opponent broadly playing the same Great Game is different from someone who is trying to knock over the board.
Off topic and appropos of nothing at all, I've been listening to Bill Bryson's Notes from a Small Island over the last few days, a book I have read about 10 times and loved each time, and I must say it loses a lot in Audio format, where it becomes 10+ hours of someone constantly whinging about crappy developers and town planners. It seems to work better as a constant running theme when breezing through it on paper in 2-3 hours.
I see that Germany has a massive 8 out of 93 Eurofighters operational. But the new NATO offices in Brussels looks very nice.
Once again C. NorthCote Parkinson has the explanation. The moment any organisation builds itself a big new fancy headquarters it has forgotten why it exists and one should sell any shares in it immediately.
There is now now obvious reason why NATO should carry on. It lost its reason for being when the Soviet Union collapsed. It is a paper tiger whose members can't even act on agreements they have made (e.g. 2% GDP minimum on defence), the ideas of its members actually going to war to protect each other is fanciful.
LuckyGuy Obama was actually reluctant to act on Gaddaffi or Assad, it was Cameron and Hollande who were pushing it, now it is Obama taking the lead on ISIS
I did during my absence occasionally look in and read a thread and noticed Sean Fear comparing Cameron and Miliband to buckets of shit and acid.
A better comparison is:
Cameron = Continuity Blair Miliband = Continuity Brown
Also someone (HYFUD I think) wondered why Cameron was so keen to bomb Assad last year despite massive public opposition but so loath to bomb ISIS this year even with public support.
There's a simple answer to that.
Bombing Assad last year was SamCam's then current issue while at present Iraqi Christians and Yezidis aren't it seems fashionable enough.
Which brings me to the Rotherham issue. Many people have expressed shock at the lack of response from Cameron and Miliband. Now I can understand EdM - any condemnation of Islamic communities (especially coming from a Jew) is going to cost Labour votes while any condemnation of the activities of social workers etc will outrage guardianistas. So easier to mumble platitudes and hope the issue goes away for EdM.
But what explains the attitude of Cameron, for whom doing the right thing would also be electorally beneficial ? My theory is that he's terrified of SamCam's disapproval. To posh lefties such as SamCam Rotherham is so damaging to so many of their beliefs that it must not be acknowledged, it must forever remain an unissue. And Cameron, with his insecurity complex, will yet again follow his wife's prejudices.
I wonder if Charles, who I believe has met both Camerons, would like to comment on what sort of influence SamCam has on her husband.
I really like your concept, but there's a far simpler explanation to who Cameron does and doesn't want to bomb. What the Americans want. They wanted Assad out. We were meant to comply. Did you hear Hague snivelling around after the no vote, saying 'the Americans have been very good about it', as if we'd just peed on their hearth rug or something. This time there's less need for them to build an international coalition, as the cause is widely seen as just, so there's less thumbscrew pressure. Cameron will still get us involved eventually if he can.
I think you've got a good point there - Syria was meant to be a repeat of Libya with the UK and France being the front men in a regime change which Washington wanted.
Why British governments are always so willing to follow American orders while getting nothing back in return is baffling.
Whatever one thinks of Harold Wilson he at least said no to British involvement in Vietnam.
"David Cameron has shown no interest in Carswell’s ideas. Indeed, I suspect that – as is his way – he has directed robust insults at him, and that this helps explain Carswell’s sudden change of heart. Nigel Farage, by contrast, displays in private an intellectual curiosity that is at odds with his public image. If he embraces some of his new recruit’s manifesto for digital democracy, then Ukip’s appeal will be enriched."
LuckyGuy Obama was actually reluctant to act on Gaddaffi or Assad, it was Cameron and Hollande who were pushing it, now it is Obama taking the lead on ISIS
I did during my absence occasionally look in and read a thread and noticed Sean Fear comparing Cameron and Miliband to buckets of shit and acid.
A better comparison is:
Cameron = Continuity Blair Miliband = Continuity Brown
Also someone (HYFUD I think) wondered why Cameron was so keen to bomb Assad last year despite massive public opposition but so loath to bomb ISIS this year even with public support.
There's a simple answer to that.
Bombing Assad last year was SamCam's then current issue while at present Iraqi Christians and Yezidis aren't it seems fashionable enough.
Which brings me to the Rotherham issue. Many people have expressed shock at the lack of response from Cameron and Miliband. Now I can understand EdM - any condemnation of Islamic communities (especially coming from a Jew) is going to cost Labour votes while any condemnation of the activities of social workers etc will outrage guardianistas. So easier to mumble platitudes and hope the issue goes away for EdM.
But what explains the attitude of Cameron, for whom doing the right thing would also be electorally beneficial ? My theory is that he's terrified of SamCam's disapproval. To posh lefties such as SamCam Rotherham is so damaging to so many of their beliefs that it must not be acknowledged, it must forever remain an unissue. And Cameron, with his insecurity complex, will yet again follow his wife's prejudices.
I wonder if Charles, who I believe has met both Camerons, would like to comment on what sort of influence SamCam has on her husband.
I really like your concept, but there's a far simpler explanation to who Cameron does and doesn't want to bomb. What the Americans want. They wanted Assad out. We were meant to comply. Did you hear Hague snivelling around after the no vote, saying 'the Americans have been very good about it', as if we'd just peed on their hearth rug or something. This time there's less need for them to build an international coalition, as the cause is widely seen as just, so there's less thumbscrew pressure. Cameron will still get us involved eventually if he can.
I think you've got a good point there - Syria was meant to be a repeat of Libya with the UK and France being the front men in a regime change which Washington wanted.
Why British governments are always so willing to follow American orders while getting nothing back in return is baffling.
Whatever one thinks of Harold Wilson he at least said no to British involvement in Vietnam.
The good point on display is paranoia. By definition of course this is based on very ropey logic.
I am not sure how to quote your response kle4, but where is our response to Junker's provocations. At the very least stop rewarding them. Take a payments holiday, black ball any european politician looking for an international job, finagle a tax on any firm giving employment to foreign workers. Stop being so bloody wet.
Off topic and appropos of nothing at all, I've been listening to Bill Bryson's Notes from a Small Island over the last few days, a book I have read about 10 times and loved each time, and I must say it loses a lot in Audio format, where it becomes 10+ hours of someone constantly whinging about crappy developers and town planners. It seems to work better as a constant running theme when breezing through it on paper in 2-3 hours.
I loved that book when I first read it, shortly after it was published. The way it gently poked fun at who we were made me howl with laughter. Yet even then there were darker passages pointing to the way that we might go.
I re-read it a couple of years ago and it made me very sad. He describes a place, a society and a people that really don't exist any more.
I see that Germany has a massive 8 out of 93 Eurofighters operational. But the new NATO offices in Brussels looks very nice.
Once again C. NorthCote Parkinson has the explanation. The moment any organisation builds itself a big new fancy headquarters it has forgotten why it exists and one should sell any shares in it immediately.
Very true.
Another thing to watch out for is when an organisation changes its name, especially to something trendy that a 'consultant' has been paid a fortune to think up.
And the saying about Yorkshire business families 'rags to rags in three generations' will always have validity.
LuckyGuy Obama was actually reluctant to act on Gaddaffi or Assad, it was Cameron and Hollande who were pushing it, now it is Obama taking the lead on ISIS
Stalking horses.
This is absurd. Obama has clearly been reluctant to get involved in conflicts until the point when clear humanitarian or nonproliferation lines are being crossed. In Libya, that was the potential massacre of Benghazi. In Syria, it was the use of chemical weapons. In Iraq it has been the mass executions of ISIS.
UKIP drop 5 in tonight's Opinium poll for Observer
CON 30+2 LAB 36+4 LD 7-3 UKIP 16-5 GRN 4-1
If they followed their normal pattern, most of the fieldwork would have been conducted before the the traitorous Pig-dog Douglas Carswell committed his perfidy and ratted to UKIP, but mostly during the events of the Rotherham report
UKIP drop 5 in tonight's Opinium poll for Observer
CON 30+2 LAB 36+4 LD 7-3 UKIP 16-5 GRN 4-1
If they followed their normal pattern, most of the fieldwork would have been conducted before the the traitorous Pig-dog Douglas Carswell committed his perfidy and ratted to UKIP, but mostly during the events of the Rotherham report
Is UKIP always sleezy and broken :O ?
I think TSE forgot 'hyena' in his description of Carswell ;-)
Luckyguy1983 Rubbish Obama has been reluctant to do anything abroad and less absolutely necessary, Socrates has some good points, and I would assume you are not willing to stand by and watch the evil butchery of ISIS? Anyway, off to watch the new SinCity
UKIP drop 5 in tonight's Opinium poll for Observer
CON 30+2 LAB 36+4 LD 7-3 UKIP 16-5 GRN 4-1
If they followed their normal pattern, most of the fieldwork would have been conducted before the the traitorous Pig-dog Douglas Carswell committed his perfidy and ratted to UKIP, but mostly during the events of the Rotherham report
Is UKIP always sleezy and broken :O ?
I think TSE forgot 'hyena' in his description of Carswell ;-)
Talking about traitorous turncoats is no laughing matter.
They've had public spats in the past over benefit payments... seems like a bit of a spin job from the Telegraph. If this is what a "win" looks like in Europe, what the hell does a loss look like.
Oh wait, we know: Juncker.
Spats that have been resolved. Tusk does not look a bad choice from the UK perspective.
LuckyGuy Obama was actually reluctant to act on Gaddaffi or Assad, it was Cameron and Hollande who were pushing it, now it is Obama taking the lead on ISIS
Stalking horses.
This is absurd. Obama has clearly been reluctant to get involved in conflicts until the point when clear humanitarian or nonproliferation lines are being crossed. In Libya, that was the potential massacre of Benghazi. In Syria, it was the use of chemical weapons. In Iraq it has been the mass executions of ISIS.
How clever of you to know the inner workings of his mind.
Off topic and appropos of nothing at all, I've been listening to Bill Bryson's Notes from a Small Island over the last few days, a book I have read about 10 times and loved each time, and I must say it loses a lot in Audio format, where it becomes 10+ hours of someone constantly whinging about crappy developers and town planners. It seems to work better as a constant running theme when breezing through it on paper in 2-3 hours.
I loved that book when I first read it, shortly after it was published. The way it gently poked fun at who we were made me howl with laughter. Yet even then there were darker passages pointing to the way that we might go.
I re-read it a couple of years ago and it made me very sad. He describes a place, a society and a people that really don't exist any more.
That's actually another thing that got to me - listening to it more than reading it, his nostalgia for what he even seems to acknowledges at times is a fantasy or imaginary idea of what society was like in some bygone age (most notably leaping from a standard theme of 'it's such a shame [old thing - in this case mining] is gone', to talking about how it was a horrible job and trapped people in a cycle of poverty, for the first time in the book seeming to realise that 'hang on, sometimes things go away and change for good reasons, or because their time has naturally passed'), came across to me as more insufferably pessimistic. I desperately want to conserve the heritage, physical or otherwise, we have in this country, but he seems to regard any deviation from how things used to be as a shame, even where he acknowledges things have actually improved in many areas.
It's still a funny, thoughtful and engaging book, one which I find mostly warm and, in contrast to your good self, makes me feel happier in many ways about Britain because I think his doomsaying about many things have not proven as true as he feared, but the strand of pessimism in it (some warranted in hindsight, some not) detracts from the book's considerable charms while listening to it over 10 hours.
UKIP drop 5 in tonight's Opinium poll for Observer
CON 30+2 LAB 36+4 LD 7-3 UKIP 16-5 GRN 4-1
If they followed their normal pattern, most of the fieldwork would have been conducted before the the traitorous Pig-dog Douglas Carswell committed his perfidy and ratted to UKIP, but mostly during the events of the Rotherham report
UKIP drop 5 in tonight's Opinium poll for Observer
CON 30+2 LAB 36+4 LD 7-3 UKIP 16-5 GRN 4-1
If they followed their normal pattern, most of the fieldwork would have been conducted before the the traitorous Pig-dog Douglas Carswell committed his perfidy and ratted to UKIP, but mostly during the events of the Rotherham report
Is UKIP always sleezy and broken :O ?
I think TSE forgot 'hyena' in his description of Carswell ;-)
Talking about traitorous turncoats is no laughing matter.
Did you see what I did there?
I bow to your eminent wit, as I can't see a second meaning there. I blame the fact that I just woke up ;-)
UKIP drop 5 in tonight's Opinium poll for Observer
CON 30+2 LAB 36+4 LD 7-3 UKIP 16-5 GRN 4-1
If they followed their normal pattern, most of the fieldwork would have been conducted before the the traitorous Pig-dog Douglas Carswell committed his perfidy and ratted to UKIP, but mostly during the events of the Rotherham report
Is UKIP always sleezy and broken :O ?
I think TSE forgot 'hyena' in his description of Carswell ;-)
Talking about traitorous turncoats is no laughing matter.
Did you see what I did there?
I bow to your eminent wit, as I can't see a second meaning there. I blame the fact that I just woke up ;-)
Hyenas, laughing, geddit?
Sheesh.
Obviously it's not as funny as I thought if I have to explain it.
I see that Germany has a massive 8 out of 93 Eurofighters operational. But the new NATO offices in Brussels looks very nice.
Once again C. NorthCote Parkinson has the explanation. The moment any organisation builds itself a big new fancy headquarters it has forgotten why it exists and one should sell any shares in it immediately.
Very true.
Another thing to watch out for is when an organisation changes its name, especially to something trendy that a 'consultant' has been paid a fortune to think up.
And the saying about Yorkshire business families 'rags to rags in three generations' will always have validity.
Spot on, Mr. Richard.
On an adjacent note I would advise people never to work for a company that has a Human Resources Department, or even worse, a Director of Human Resources. All the time that a company has a Personnel Department (if it is big enough to need one) you are probably fine. The moment Personnel become Human Resources they are sending their employees a massive signal and its time to dust of the CV and get out before they screw you. If the board can't tell the difference between a person and a resource then working for them is not going to be happy.
UKIP drop 5 in tonight's Opinium poll for Observer
CON 30+2 LAB 36+4 LD 7-3 UKIP 16-5 GRN 4-1
If they followed their normal pattern, most of the fieldwork would have been conducted before the the traitorous Pig-dog Douglas Carswell committed his perfidy and ratted to UKIP, but mostly during the events of the Rotherham report
Is UKIP always sleezy and broken :O ?
I think TSE forgot 'hyena' in his description of Carswell ;-)
Talking about traitorous turncoats is no laughing matter.
Did you see what I did there?
I bow to your eminent wit, as I can't see a second meaning there. I blame the fact that I just woke up ;-)
Hyenas, laughing, geddit?
Sheesh.
Obviously it's not as funny as I thought if I have to explain it.
LOL haha, Okay. That's entirely my fault, I'm clearly an idiot.
Luckyguy1983 Rubbish Obama has been reluctant to do anything abroad and less absolutely necessary, Socrates has some good points, and I would assume you are not willing to stand by and watch the evil butchery of ISIS? Anyway, off to watch the new SinCity
Sorry, but if you think Obama has displayed any reluctance whatsoever, you clearly don't understand what 'soft power' or indirect warfare are.
I see that Germany has a massive 8 out of 93 Eurofighters operational. But the new NATO offices in Brussels looks very nice.
Once again C. NorthCote Parkinson has the explanation. The moment any organisation builds itself a big new fancy headquarters it has forgotten why it exists and one should sell any shares in it immediately.
Very true.
Another thing to watch out for is when an organisation changes its name, especially to something trendy that a 'consultant' has been paid a fortune to think up.
And the saying about Yorkshire business families 'rags to rags in three generations' will always have validity.
Spot on, Mr. Richard.
On an adjacent note I would advise people never to work for a company that has a Human Resources Department, or even worse, a Director of Human Resources. All the time that a company has a Personnel Department (if it is big enough to need one) you are probably fine. The moment Personnel become Human Resources they are sending their employees a massive signal and its time to dust of the CV and get out before they screw you. If the board can't tell the difference between a person and a resource then working for them is not going to be happy.
Also be wary where an organisation engages in wholesale restructuring which they try to dress up in some kind of theme as though they are the first people to think of improving efficiencies (an often odious phrase in itself, as much as efficiency is sorely needed), with some kind of hip name like 'Dynamic Structuring' or 'System enhancement', the object of which they assure is not about finding where they can make redundancies (this just seem to occur as part of it by happenstance, as such restructuring is only done when redundancies are needed), and especially if they claim the work will 'be led by you' or some such, with highly paid consultants to spout cliches to all parts of the organisation about how the change will come from within. No I haven't seen such nonsense first hand, why do you ask?
I guarantee an organisation which just comes out and admits 'We are in a bind, we need to cut people and make changes' will do so in a much easier and sensible manner without needing to dress it up as something it is not, drawing out the process endlessly and with irritating managing buzzspeak.
UKIP drop 5 in tonight's Opinium poll for Observer
CON 30+2 LAB 36+4 LD 7-3 UKIP 16-5 GRN 4-1
If they followed their normal pattern, most of the fieldwork would have been conducted before the the traitorous Pig-dog Douglas Carswell committed his perfidy and ratted to UKIP, but mostly during the events of the Rotherham report
Is UKIP always sleezy and broken :O ?
I think TSE forgot 'hyena' in his description of Carswell ;-)
Talking about traitorous turncoats is no laughing matter.
Did you see what I did there?
I bow to your eminent wit, as I can't see a second meaning there. I blame the fact that I just woke up ;-)
Hyenas, laughing, geddit?
Sheesh.
Obviously it's not as funny as I thought if I have to explain it.
LOL haha, Okay. That's entirely my fault, I'm clearly an idiot.
Nah, my humour, like my pop music references is very, very, very subtle.
@Floater He's not calling for a new inquiry, he is asking why the one that is already in place hasn't started. Apparently there was only one judge they had thought of for the position, or they had lost the original shortlist.
Ask yourself why your lot did nothing about this and several other disgraces.
I see that Germany has a massive 8 out of 93 Eurofighters operational. But the new NATO offices in Brussels looks very nice.
Once again C. NorthCote Parkinson has the explanation. The moment any organisation builds itself a big new fancy headquarters it has forgotten why it exists and one should sell any shares in it immediately.
Very true.
Another thing to watch out for is when an organisation changes its name, especially to something trendy that a 'consultant' has been paid a fortune to think up.
And the saying about Yorkshire business families 'rags to rags in three generations' will always have validity.
Spot on, Mr. Richard.
On an adjacent note I would advise people never to work for a company that has a Human Resources Department, or even worse, a Director of Human Resources. All the time that a company has a Personnel Department (if it is big enough to need one) you are probably fine. The moment Personnel become Human Resources they are sending their employees a massive signal and its time to dust of the CV and get out before they screw you. If the board can't tell the difference between a person and a resource then working for them is not going to be happy.
Other danger signs - when internal departments start having SLAs( Service Level Agreements) between themselves; and "The Company is commencing a journey" means redundancies are in the offing.
I see that Germany has a massive 8 out of 93 Eurofighters operational. But the new NATO offices in Brussels looks very nice.
Once again C. NorthCote Parkinson has the explanation. The moment any organisation builds itself a big new fancy headquarters it has forgotten why it exists and one should sell any shares in it immediately.
Very true.
Another thing to watch out for is when an organisation changes its name, especially to something trendy that a 'consultant' has been paid a fortune to think up.
And the saying about Yorkshire business families 'rags to rags in three generations' will always have validity.
Spot on, Mr. Richard.
On an adjacent note I would advise people never to work for a company that has a Human Resources Department, or even worse, a Director of Human Resources. All the time that a company has a Personnel Department (if it is big enough to need one) you are probably fine. The moment Personnel become Human Resources they are sending their employees a massive signal and its time to dust of the CV and get out before they screw you. If the board can't tell the difference between a person and a resource then working for them is not going to be happy.
My latest bugbear is First Transpenine Express (although they aren't the only rail company to do this)
They now have, "Revenue Protection Officers" on their trains.
I see that Germany has a massive 8 out of 93 Eurofighters operational. But the new NATO offices in Brussels looks very nice.
Once again C. NorthCote Parkinson has the explanation. The moment any organisation builds itself a big new fancy headquarters it has forgotten why it exists and one should sell any shares in it immediately.
Very true.
Another thing to watch out for is when an organisation changes its name, especially to something trendy that a 'consultant' has been paid a fortune to think up.
And the saying about Yorkshire business families 'rags to rags in three generations' will always have validity.
Spot on, Mr. Richard.
On an adjacent note I would advise people never to work for a company that has a Human Resources Department, or even worse, a Director of Human Resources. All the time that a company has a Personnel Department (if it is big enough to need one) you are probably fine. The moment Personnel become Human Resources they are sending their employees a massive signal and its time to dust of the CV and get out before they screw you. If the board can't tell the difference between a person and a resource then working for them is not going to be happy.
My latest bugbear is First Transpenine Express (although they aren't the only rail company to do this)
They now have, "Revenue Protection Officers" on their trains.
Bugger off, you're conductors.
I've heard them officially described as 'Train Captains' in some companies.
I see that Germany has a massive 8 out of 93 Eurofighters operational. But the new NATO offices in Brussels looks very nice.
Once again C. NorthCote Parkinson has the explanation. The moment any organisation builds itself a big new fancy headquarters it has forgotten why it exists and one should sell any shares in it immediately.
Very true.
Another thing to watch out for is when an organisation changes its name, especially to something trendy that a 'consultant' has been paid a fortune to think up.
And the saying about Yorkshire business families 'rags to rags in three generations' will always have validity.
Spot on, Mr. Richard.
On an adjacent note I would advise people never to work for a company that has a Human Resources Department, or even worse, a Director of Human Resources. All the time that a company has a Personnel Department (if it is big enough to need one) you are probably fine. The moment Personnel become Human Resources they are sending their employees a massive signal and its time to dust of the CV and get out before they screw you. If the board can't tell the difference between a person and a resource then working for them is not going to be happy.
My latest bugbear is First Transpenine Express (although they aren't the only rail company to do this)
They now have, "Revenue Protection Officers" on their trains.
Bugger off, you're conductors.
I've heard them officially described as 'Train Captains' in some companies.
Luckyguy1983 Rubbish Obama has been reluctant to do anything abroad and less absolutely necessary, Socrates has some good points, and I would assume you are not willing to stand by and watch the evil butchery of ISIS? Anyway, off to watch the new SinCity
Sorry, but if you think Obama has displayed any reluctance whatsoever, you clearly don't understand what 'soft power' or indirect warfare are.
Or maybe he understands that a decision to use soft power over hard power, or indirect warfare over direct warfare is indeed some reluctance.
LuckyGuy Obama was actually reluctant to act on Gaddaffi or Assad, it was Cameron and Hollande who were pushing it, now it is Obama taking the lead on ISIS
Stalking horses.
This is absurd. Obama has clearly been reluctant to get involved in conflicts until the point when clear humanitarian or nonproliferation lines are being crossed. In Libya, that was the potential massacre of Benghazi. In Syria, it was the use of chemical weapons. In Iraq it has been the mass executions of ISIS.
How clever of you to know the inner workings of his mind.
Yes, either that or the numerous media reports about splits in security discussions, or long periods of no military intervention despite high domestic pressure to do so.
I see that Germany has a massive 8 out of 93 Eurofighters operational. But the new NATO offices in Brussels looks very nice.
That figure looks so ridiculous that my first instinct was that it is b/s. Having looked into the sources, it seems likely that a journalist has either accidentally or purposefully misinterpreted maintenance reports, as the Luftwaffe claim.
I can imagine around 50%, but for a front-line, high-profile aircraft that is out of its first few years of service, I really doubt it would be less than 10%.
I see that Germany has a massive 8 out of 93 Eurofighters operational. But the new NATO offices in Brussels looks very nice.
Once again C. NorthCote Parkinson has the explanation. The moment any organisation builds itself a big new fancy headquarters it has forgotten why it exists and one should sell any shares in it immediately.
Very true.
Another thing to watch out for is when an organisation changes its name, especially to something trendy that a 'consultant' has been paid a fortune to think up.
And the saying about Yorkshire business families 'rags to rags in three generations' will always have validity.
Spot on, Mr. Richard.
On an adjacent note I would advise people never to work for a company that has a Human Resources Department, or even worse, a Director of Human Resources. All the time that a company has a Personnel Department (if it is big enough to need one) you are probably fine. The moment Personnel become Human Resources they are sending their employees a massive signal and its time to dust of the CV and get out before they screw you. If the board can't tell the difference between a person and a resource then working for them is not going to be happy.
My latest bugbear is First Transpenine Express (although they aren't the only rail company to do this)
They now have, "Revenue Protection Officers" on their trains.
Bugger off, you're conductors.
Alas, Mr. Eagles you are missing the point the train company is making. A conductor had many tasks, most them to do with passenger safety and comfort with checking tickets as something they also did. The company is telling you that those conductors have gone, the employee's primary task now has nothing to do with assisting passengers - they are there to to maximise the company's revenue and can no longer be relied upon for any display of common sense or good manners.
I watched one those clowns in action on the train up to Town a few weeks back. A group of Spanish speakers with very little English got on at Gatwick having obviously just arrived in the country. They all had tickets for the Gatwick Express, which cost more than the ordinary trains. However, the Gatwick Express tickets are not valid on the ordinary trains on to one of which they had strayed by mistake. Not only did the prick make them pay again but he also fined each of them £20 for travelling without a valid ticket. This was too much for me and I remonstrated with him, he was jolly rude. I have seldom felt embarrassed about being English but I did that day. The train company have yet to reply to my letter of complaint.
Luckyguy1983 Rubbish Obama has been reluctant to do anything abroad and less absolutely necessary, Socrates has some good points, and I would assume you are not willing to stand by and watch the evil butchery of ISIS? Anyway, off to watch the new SinCity
Sorry, but if you think Obama has displayed any reluctance whatsoever, you clearly don't understand what 'soft power' or indirect warfare are.
Or maybe he understands that a decision to use soft power over hard power, or indirect warfare over direct warfare is indeed some reluctance.
How is it reluctance? It's just as deadly, people still die, and are maimed, and are dealt with by local insurgent groups who often have even less regard for the the rules of war than conventional troops would. Added to which it destroys societies for generations. And has ended up with groups ISIS. That's soft power. Currently buggering up the world.
I see that Germany has a massive 8 out of 93 Eurofighters operational. But the new NATO offices in Brussels looks very nice.
Once again C. NorthCote Parkinson has the explanation. The moment any organisation builds itself a big new fancy headquarters it has forgotten why it exists and one should sell any shares in it immediately.
There is now now obvious reason why NATO should carry on. It lost its reason for being when the Soviet Union collapsed. It is a paper tiger whose members can't even act on agreements they have made (e.g. 2% GDP minimum on defence), the ideas of its members actually going to war to protect each other is fanciful.
The Telegraph is forced to point out - ''But defence sources have sought to rubbish Spiegel, saying the publication has misinterpreted an internal report. Officials said the magazine's reporters had listed some planes as unable to fly, when in fact they were only in need of routine maintenance.''
It might surprise some people to learn that NATO's new multi million HQ replaces its old multi million HQ. Let me think now - how old was that old HQ? 60 years (it was meant to be temporary). Ignoring the fact that the building has always been out of date, is noe=w overcrowded and is even now falling to bits, just how much has military technology changed in those years? By your definition the USA should never have built the Pentagon - or updated it.
Luckyguy1983 Rubbish Obama has been reluctant to do anything abroad and less absolutely necessary, Socrates has some good points, and I would assume you are not willing to stand by and watch the evil butchery of ISIS? Anyway, off to watch the new SinCity
Sorry, but if you think Obama has displayed any reluctance whatsoever, you clearly don't understand what 'soft power' or indirect warfare are.
It's all relative though. If the state dept are permanently at 11 then even 8 is reluctant.
I see that Germany has a massive 8 out of 93 Eurofighters operational. But the new NATO offices in Brussels looks very nice.
Once again C. NorthCote Parkinson has the explanation. The moment any organisation builds itself a big new fancy headquarters it has forgotten why it exists and one should sell any shares in it immediately.
Very true.
Another thing to watch out for is when an organisation changes its name, especially to something trendy that a 'consultant' has been paid a fortune to think up.
And the saying about Yorkshire business families 'rags to rags in three generations' will always have validity.
Spot on, Mr. Richard.
On an adjacent note I would advise people never to work for a company that has a Human Resources Department, or even worse, a Director of Human Resources. All the time that a company has a Personnel Department (if it is big enough to need one) you are probably fine. The moment Personnel become Human Resources they are sending their employees a massive signal and its time to dust of the CV and get out before they screw you. If the board can't tell the difference between a person and a resource then working for them is not going to be happy.
Also be wary where an organisation engages in wholesale restructuring which they try to dress up in some kind of theme as though they are the first people to think of improving efficiencies (an often odious phrase in itself, as much as efficiency is sorely needed), with some kind of hip name like 'Dynamic Structuring' or 'System enhancement', the object of which they assure is not about finding where they can make redundancies (this just seem to occur as part of it by happenstance, as such restructuring is only done when redundancies are needed), and especially if they claim the work will 'be led by you' or some such, with highly paid consultants to spout cliches to all parts of the organisation about how the change will come from within. No I haven't seen such nonsense first hand, why do you ask?
I guarantee an organisation which just comes out and admits 'We are in a bind, we need to cut people and make changes' will do so in a much easier and sensible manner without needing to dress it up as something it is not, drawing out the process endlessly and with irritating managing buzzspeak.
Not long after I left full-time employment I was taken on as a free-lance consultant by a company who were the Change Management Consultants in just such an exercise as you describe in your first paragraph. It was the first time I fired a client.
Alas, Mr. Eagles you are missing the point the train company is making. A conductor had many tasks, most them to do with passenger safety and comfort with checking tickets as something they also did. The company is telling you that those conductors have gone, the employee's primary task now has nothing to do with assisting passengers - they are there to to maximise the company's revenue and can no longer be relied upon for any display of common sense or good manners.
I watched one those clowns in action on the train up to Town a few weeks back. A group of Spanish speakers with very little English got on at Gatwick having obviously just arrived in the country. They all had tickets for the Gatwick Express, which cost more than the ordinary trains. However, the Gatwick Express tickets are not valid on the ordinary trains on to one of which they had strayed by mistake. Not only did the prick make them pay again but he also fined each of them £20 for travelling without a valid ticket. This was too much for me and I remonstrated with him, he was jolly rude. I have seldom felt embarrassed about being English but I did that day. The train company have yet to reply to my letter of complaint.
I fear there may be another reason behind such changes, Mr Llama. 'Conductors' had set roles and pay scales, set in stone in negotiations with unions over the decades. Woe betide the company if they wanted a conductor to do anything other than the task set in the labyrinthine rulebooks.
Renaming roles officially can allow companies to redefine the roles and pay, increasing the flexibility for their employer. The downsides are obvious.
I see that Germany has a massive 8 out of 93 Eurofighters operational. But the new NATO offices in Brussels looks very nice.
Once again C. NorthCote Parkinson has the explanation. The moment any organisation builds itself a big new fancy headquarters it has forgotten why it exists and one should sell any shares in it immediately.
Very true.
Another thing to watch out for is when an organisation changes its name, especially to something trendy that a 'consultant' has been paid a fortune to think up.
And the saying about Yorkshire business families 'rags to rags in three generations' will always have validity.
Alas, Mr. Eagles you are missing the point the train company is making. A conductor had many tasks, most them to do with passenger safety and comfort with checking tickets as something they also did. The company is telling you that those conductors have gone, the employee's primary task now has nothing to do with assisting passengers - they are there to to maximise the company's revenue and can no longer be relied upon for any display of common sense or good manners.
I watched one those clowns in action on the train up to Town a few weeks back. A group of Spanish speakers with very little English got on at Gatwick having obviously just arrived in the country. They all had tickets for the Gatwick Express, which cost more than the ordinary trains. However, the Gatwick Express tickets are not valid on the ordinary trains on to one of which they had strayed by mistake. Not only did the prick make them pay again but he also fined each of them £20 for travelling without a valid ticket. This was too much for me and I remonstrated with him, he was jolly rude. I have seldom felt embarrassed about being English but I did that day. The train company have yet to reply to my letter of complaint.
I see that Germany has a massive 8 out of 93 Eurofighters operational. But the new NATO offices in Brussels looks very nice.
Once again C. NorthCote Parkinson has the explanation. The moment any organisation builds itself a big new fancy headquarters it has forgotten why it exists and one should sell any shares in it immediately.
There is now now obvious reason why NATO should carry on. It lost its reason for being when the Soviet Union collapsed. It is a paper tiger whose members can't even act on agreements they have made (e.g. 2% GDP minimum on defence), the ideas of its members actually going to war to protect each other is fanciful.
The Telegraph is forced to point out - ''But defence sources have sought to rubbish Spiegel, saying the publication has misinterpreted an internal report. Officials said the magazine's reporters had listed some planes as unable to fly, when in fact they were only in need of routine maintenance.''
It might surprise some people to learn that NATO's new multi million HQ replaces its old multi million HQ. Let me think now - how old was that old HQ? 60 years (it was meant to be temporary). Ignoring the fact that the building has always been out of date, is noe=w overcrowded and is even now falling to bits, just how much has military technology changed in those years? By your definition the USA should never have built the Pentagon - or updated it.
How many NATO countries are abiding by the agreement, that they all signed up to, to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence? Nice new HQ, lower capabilities all round. Progress?
Luckyguy1983 Rubbish Obama has been reluctant to do anything abroad and less absolutely necessary, Socrates has some good points, and I would assume you are not willing to stand by and watch the evil butchery of ISIS? Anyway, off to watch the new SinCity
Sorry, but if you think Obama has displayed any reluctance whatsoever, you clearly don't understand what 'soft power' or indirect warfare are.
Or maybe he understands that a decision to use soft power over hard power, or indirect warfare over direct warfare is indeed some reluctance.
How is it reluctance? It's just as deadly, people still die, and are maimed, and are dealt with by local insurgent groups who often have even less regard for the the rules of war than conventional troops would. Added to which it destroys societies for generations. And has ended up with groups ISIS. That's soft power. Currently buggering up the world.
I assume you're talking about Syria here. What's destroyed that society for generations has been Assad's brutal repression of all protests against his rule. There were thousands and thousands of deaths before the US even started backing the rebels. Groups like ISIS have taken over because the moderate opposition was decimated, being the one lot that couldn't afford to pay its fighters, and the anti-Assad population became radicalised by their sheer desperation.
It's rank anti-Americanism that puts the problems of the Middle East, which have gone back centuries, as all down to Uncle Sam. The basic issue is that Western values of limited government and pluralist democracy never took root there. Centuries of authoritarian rule and religious intolerance aren't Obama's fault. All we can do in the West is to try to stay out of it, but occasionally intervene when it looks like things are about to get really bad.
Dear Mr Jessops, if it is out of service because spare parts aren't funded then it is out of service. Wasn't there an American fighter flown by West Germany that had a terrible accident rate because of lack of service.
I see that Germany has a massive 8 out of 93 Eurofighters operational. But the new NATO offices in Brussels looks very nice.
Once again C. NorthCote Parkinson has the explanation. The moment any organisation builds itself a big new fancy headquarters it has forgotten why it exists and one should sell any shares in it immediately.
Very true.
Another thing to watch out for is when an organisation changes its name, especially to something trendy that a 'consultant' has been paid a fortune to think up.
And the saying about Yorkshire business families 'rags to rags in three generations' will always have validity.
Spot on, Mr. Richard.
On an adjacent note I would advise people never to work for a company that has a Human Resources Department, or even worse, a Director of Human Resources. All the time that a company has a Personnel Department (if it is big enough to need one) you are probably fine. The moment Personnel become Human Resources they are sending their employees a massive signal and its time to dust of the CV and get out before they screw you. If the board can't tell the difference between a person and a resource then working for them is not going to be happy.
I guarantee an organisation which just comes out and admits 'We are in a bind, we need to cut people and make changes' will do so in a much easier and sensible manner without needing to dress it up as something it is not, drawing out the process endlessly and with irritating managing buzzspeak.
Not long after I left full-time employment I was taken on as a free-lance consultant by a company who were the Change Management Consultants in just such an exercise as you describe in your first paragraph. It was the first time I fired a client.
My brother pointed out to me that a company that no longer arranged tea breaks is doomed.
All sensible companies know that encouraging members of staff to informally sort things out and chat about problems is not wasted time, but rather is the essential lubrication that keeps the wheels of an organisation turning.
His (private) company has tea breaks with biscuits, in the NHS I am lucky to gulp a mouthful of warm brown unidentifiable beverage between patients in clinic.
Are there any nails left to bang in the NHS? my organisation has all the issues of this subthread, and more.
Incidentally, I see TSE has tipped Leicester City to beat Arsenal tommorow, so we are doomed too..
I see that Germany has a massive 8 out of 93 Eurofighters operational. But the new NATO offices in Brussels looks very nice.
That figure looks so ridiculous that my first instinct was that it is b/s. Having looked into the sources, it seems likely that a journalist has either accidentally or purposefully misinterpreted maintenance reports, as the Luftwaffe claim.
I can imagine around 50%, but for a front-line, high-profile aircraft that is out of its first few years of service, I really doubt it would be less than 10%.
I could well be wrong on that, though.
I remember the report from a few days ago and Der Spiegel were not just talking about Germany's fighters but all classes of their aircraft. I dare say there was some exaggeration but the German government's denial didn't look awfully credible.
Germany's armed services look like being in shit order. They have introduced crèches and flexible working hours to try and get enough recruits following the abolition of conscription in 2011. Defence spending is down to 1.3% (NATO agreement minimum of 2%, remember) and seems to be in line for further cuts. The German infantry contribution to the NATO operation in Afghanistan was less than stellar .
I see that Germany has a massive 8 out of 93 Eurofighters operational. But the new NATO offices in Brussels looks very nice.
Once again C. NorthCote Parkinson has the explanation. The moment any organisation builds itself a big new fancy headquarters it has forgotten why it exists and one should sell any shares in it immediately.
Very true.
Another thing to watch out for is when an organisation changes its name, especially to something trendy that a 'consultant' has been paid a fortune to think up.
And the saying about Yorkshire business families 'rags to rags in three generations' will always have validity.
Alas, Mr. Eagles you are missing the point the train company is making. A conductor had many tasks, most them to do with passenger safety and comfort with checking tickets as something they also did. The company is telling you that those conductors have gone, the employee's primary task now has nothing to do with assisting passengers - they are there to to maximise the company's revenue and can no longer be relied upon for any display of common sense or good manners.
I watched one those clowns in action on the train up to Town a few weeks back. A group of Spanish speakers with very little English got on at Gatwick having obviously just arrived in the country. They all had tickets for the Gatwick Express, which cost more than the ordinary trains. However, the Gatwick Express tickets are not valid on the ordinary trains on to one of which they had strayed by mistake. Not only did the prick make them pay again but he also fined each of them £20 for travelling without a valid ticket. This was too much for me and I remonstrated with him, he was jolly rude. I have seldom felt embarrassed about being English but I did that day. The train company have yet to reply to my letter of complaint.
That's an insult to clowns.
No it isn't. Clowns are the spawn of the devil and as funny as a floating turd in a swimming pool.
I could go all Jeremy Clarkson on the balloon tying gits...
Dear Mr Jessops, if it is out of service because spare parts aren't funded then it is out of service. Wasn't there an American fighter flown by West Germany that had a terrible accident rate because of lack of service.
*If* that is the case. That seems to be a journalistic assumption.
I think the fighter you are talking about was the F-104 Starfighter. It seems that its terrible attrition rate was due to the fact it was a bit of a dog to fly, the European weather and its role, as well as servicing problems.
Ha, I had joined an old, tired company and in the first get to know you meeting the old hands spoke vehemently against the pretensions of management and the concept of "agent of change". I able to let them know that I had been recruited as an agent of change.
Luckyguy1983 Rubbish Obama has been reluctant to do anything abroad and less absolutely necessary, Socrates has some good points, and I would assume you are not willing to stand by and watch the evil butchery of ISIS? Anyway, off to watch the new SinCity
Sare.
Orance.
How is it reluctance? It's just as deadly, people still die, and are maimed, and are dealt with by local insurgent groups who often have even less regard for the the rules of war than conventional troops would. Added to which it destroys societies for generations. And has ended up with groups ISIS. That's soft power. Currently buggering up the world.
I assume you're talking about Syria here. What's destroyed that society for generations has been Assad's brutal repression of all protests against his rule. There were thousands and thousands of deaths before the US even started backing the rebels. Groups like ISIS have taken over because the moderate opposition was decimated, being the one lot that couldn't afford to pay its fighters, and the anti-Assad population became radicalised by their sheer desperation.
It's rank anti-Americanism that puts the problems of the Middle East, which have gone back centuries, as all down to Uncle Sam. The basic issue is that Western values of limited government and pluralist democracy never took root there. Centuries of authoritarian rule and religious intolerance aren't Obama's fault. All we can do in the West is to try to stay out of it, but occasionally intervene when it looks like things are about to get really bad.
Indeed. I do bemoan the blunders and interferences of the West, but they are blamed when they do interfere, when they don't interfere, when they interference indirectly - all of which may be justifiable depending on the circumstances of the particularly vicious quagmire is being discussed, but far too often is treated as if it is the sole factor in whichever conflict of note, whereas for many, even if the USA and the West have undeniably made things worse, possibly even a lot worst, other factors and agents may have added considerably more to the situation. The USA and the West wish they had the kind of power, control or influence that would mean that every or the bulk of issues with any conflict are a result of their power, hard or soft, and decisions, but often they are pretty helpless or, despite the power and influence, incapable of adding much to an already desperate situation, to make it better or worse.
Apols if posted before. Patrick O'Flynn @oflynnmep 1m Wow Mail on Sunday is splashing on poll givingUKIP and Douglas Carswell a 44 point lead over the Tories in Clacton!!!!
Dear Mr Jessops, if it is out of service because spare parts aren't funded then it is out of service. Wasn't there an American fighter flown by West Germany that had a terrible accident rate because of lack of service.
Starfighter, though more down to training (air and ground crew) I believe.
I see that Germany has a massive 8 out of 93 Eurofighters operational. But the new NATO offices in Brussels looks very nice.
Once again C. NorthCote Parkinson has the explanation. The moment any organisation builds itself a big new fancy headquarters it has forgotten why it exists and one should sell any shares in it immediately.
Very true.
Another thing to watch out for is when an organisation changes its name, especially to something trendy that a 'consultant' has been paid a fortune to think up.
And the saying about Yorkshire business families 'rags to rags in three generations' will always have validity.
That's an insult to clowns.
No it isn't. Clowns are the spawn of the devil and as funny as a floating turd in a swimming pool.
I could go all Jeremy Clarkson on the balloon tying gits...
Alas, Mr. Eagles you are missing the point the train company is making. A conductor had many tasks, most them to do with passenger safety and comfort with checking tickets as something they also did. The company is telling you that those conductors have gone, the employee's primary task now has nothing to do with assisting passengers - they are there to to maximise the company's revenue and can no longer be relied upon for any display of common sense or good manners.
I watched one those clowns in action on the train up to Town a few weeks back. A group of Spanish speakers with very little English got on at Gatwick having obviously just arrived in the country. They all had tickets for the Gatwick Express, which cost more than the ordinary trains. However, the Gatwick Express tickets are not valid on the ordinary trains on to one of which they had strayed by mistake. Not only did the prick make them pay again but he also fined each of them £20 for travelling without a valid ticket. This was too much for me and I remonstrated with him, he was jolly rude. I have seldom felt embarrassed about being English but I did that day. The train company have yet to reply to my letter of complaint.
I fear there may be another reason behind such changes, Mr Llama. 'Conductors' had set roles and pay scales, set in stone in negotiations with unions over the decades. Woe betide the company if they wanted a conductor to do anything other than the task set in the labyrinthine rulebooks.
Renaming roles officially can allow companies to redefine the roles and pay, increasing the flexibility for their employer. The downsides are obvious.
Mr. Jessop, my first reaction to sure post was to say, "Surely, you can't be serious!" Then I realised you would tell me off for calling you, "Shirley" and of course you are serious because you posted it.
Damn it, this is the sort of stuff that Southam Observer and I (amongst others) have been talking about for months. This is the sort of idiotic management that one might have expected in British Leyland plants in the 1970s.
If the by-election is not even close, what sorts of excuses will be able to be trotted out? A close run thing they can suggest most areas will not be as receptive to UKIP, Carswell's personal vote gave him an edge etc etc, but if it is a massive win, personal vote and such would not cover even the nonsense excuses that are trotted out in these circumstances. Cameron is not about to suddenly harden his stance on the EU, he's taken that as far as he is able already, and radically shifting direction and strategy less than a year from the GE seems like it would be tricky so that is out as a response, leaving what?
Gods, Labour will be insufferable for a week afterwards, won't they?
Also look for Greens in 4th talking about how that shows Britain understands there is an alternative to the big three, without seeming to note that Britain does appear to understand that, and that the alternative is UKIP, not them. I'd have thought they would have hoped to have filled the LD gap in the political market, but they don't seem to be capitalizing. Maybe their hard left stance prevents capitalizing on anything, ho ho.
Ha, I had joined an old, tired company and in the first get to know you meeting the old hands spoke vehemently against the pretensions of management and the concept of "agent of change". I able to let them know that I had been recruited as an agent of change.
Awkward. Change is sometimes very necessary. One of my main problems though is when bog standard changes are dressed up as some innovative new wonder management system or company ethos led by outside gurus, rather than the cyclical cleaning up of a somewhat moribund or stagnating organisation it almost always is, only with different terminology.
“The view of some Islamic preachers towards white women can be appalling. They encourage their followers to believe that these women are habitually promiscuous, decadent, and sleazy — sins which are made all the worse by the fact that they are kaffurs or non-believers.
“Their dress code, from miniskirts to sleeveless tops, is deemed to reflect their impure and immoral outlook. According to this mentality, these white women deserve to be punished for their behaviour by being exploited and degraded.”
Mr. Jessop, my first reaction to sure post was to say, "Surely, you can't be serious!" Then I realised you would tell me off for calling you, "Shirley" and of course you are serious because you posted it.
Damn it, this is the sort of stuff that Southam Observer and I (amongst others) have been talking about for months. This is the sort of idiotic management that one might have expected in British Leyland plants in the 1970s.
From what I have been told (although the gent is a union man through and through, so he is biased). The company wants to change the role slightly, but know it will be the devil to get it agreed with the union. So they rename the role to something fluffy and modern, and preferably including the words 'service' or 'facilitator'.
Now, the people who are already employees in that role just have a change in the name of the role. New employees in that role have a subtly different role and sometimes different pay defined in their contract. The existing employees are happy because they have their old conditions, and are essentially better off than the new ones.
It may not be the truth of what is going on (and I'm surprised the unions let the employers get away with it), but he believed it to be true.
Ha, I had joined an old, tired company and in the first get to know you meeting the old hands spoke vehemently against the pretensions of management and the concept of "agent of change". I able to let them know that I had been recruited as an agent of change.
Nothing wrong with change or being the agent of change. The reason I am sitting here now with complete flexibility of what I am shall do on Monday, retired and comfortable with a glass of something, is because I was rather good at bringing change about - getting a better job done with fewer people and lower costs. However, I always did it with integrity and respect for the people concerned. HR departments are really the self serving instruments of Satan.
Comments
I wonder if he's holidaying in Cleethorpes with Cousin Seth.
Ed is Crap is PM 8 Months and 8 days to go
I'd actually say that the fact that no-one in Europe has done more than Cameron's meagre record in pushing the EU towards competitiveness, growth and jobs just shows how unreformable the EU is.
If nothing else Cameron stands to look stupid and weak and possibly in thrall to the EU (all of which are true in my opinion but he can't afford to advertise the fact).
Perhaps you might like to give some original thoughts on:
1) Why Cameron was so much keener on military action against Assad last year than on ISIS this year ?
2) Cameron's attitude to Rotherham.
There is now now obvious reason why NATO should carry on. It lost its reason for being when the Soviet Union collapsed. It is a paper tiger whose members can't even act on agreements they have made (e.g. 2% GDP minimum on defence), the ideas of its members actually going to war to protect each other is fanciful.
Why British governments are always so willing to follow American orders while getting nothing back in return is baffling.
Whatever one thinks of Harold Wilson he at least said no to British involvement in Vietnam.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/08/can-douglas-carswell-stop-ukip-screwing-things-up/
I re-read it a couple of years ago and it made me very sad. He describes a place, a society and a people that really don't exist any more.
Another thing to watch out for is when an organisation changes its name, especially to something trendy that a 'consultant' has been paid a fortune to think up.
And the saying about Yorkshire business families 'rags to rags in three generations' will always have validity.
Did you see what I did there?
Paddy Ashdown slams 'kneejerk' Tory response to jihadi terror threat
Intervention comes as Cameron prepares anti-terror message, with prime minister criticised over 'damaging' rhetoric
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/aug/30/paddy-ashdown-kneejerk-reaction-jihadi-threat
It's still a funny, thoughtful and engaging book, one which I find mostly warm and, in contrast to your good self, makes me feel happier in many ways about Britain because I think his doomsaying about many things have not proven as true as he feared, but the strand of pessimism in it (some warranted in hindsight, some not) detracts from the book's considerable charms while listening to it over 10 hours.
Sheesh.
Obviously it's not as funny as I thought if I have to explain it.
On an adjacent note I would advise people never to work for a company that has a Human Resources Department, or even worse, a Director of Human Resources. All the time that a company has a Personnel Department (if it is big enough to need one) you are probably fine. The moment Personnel become Human Resources they are sending their employees a massive signal and its time to dust of the CV and get out before they screw you. If the board can't tell the difference between a person and a resource then working for them is not going to be happy.
I guarantee an organisation which just comes out and admits 'We are in a bind, we need to cut people and make changes' will do so in a much easier and sensible manner without needing to dress it up as something it is not, drawing out the process endlessly and with irritating managing buzzspeak.
"The Company is commencing a journey" means redundancies are in the offing.
They now have, "Revenue Protection Officers" on their trains.
Bugger off, you're conductors.
When I remembered and switched channels with 90 + on the clock imagine how gutted I was when I saw that score line.
I can imagine around 50%, but for a front-line, high-profile aircraft that is out of its first few years of service, I really doubt it would be less than 10%.
I could well be wrong on that, though.
I watched one those clowns in action on the train up to Town a few weeks back. A group of Spanish speakers with very little English got on at Gatwick having obviously just arrived in the country. They all had tickets for the Gatwick Express, which cost more than the ordinary trains. However, the Gatwick Express tickets are not valid on the ordinary trains on to one of which they had strayed by mistake. Not only did the prick make them pay again but he also fined each of them £20 for travelling without a valid ticket. This was too much for me and I remonstrated with him, he was jolly rude. I have seldom felt embarrassed about being English but I did that day. The train company have yet to reply to my letter of complaint.
It might surprise some people to learn that NATO's new multi million HQ replaces its old multi million HQ. Let me think now - how old was that old HQ? 60 years (it was meant to be temporary). Ignoring the fact that the building has always been out of date, is noe=w overcrowded and is even now falling to bits, just how much has military technology changed in those years?
By your definition the USA should never have built the Pentagon - or updated it.
edit: good excuse for
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xgx4k83zzc
Renaming roles officially can allow companies to redefine the roles and pay, increasing the flexibility for their employer. The downsides are obvious.
This story just made me WTF.
A man and US TV host, originally from Suffolk, has been shot dead by his son-in-law. Who was also his former lover.
Uh. And reading the story, it gets even weirder.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-29000511
It's rank anti-Americanism that puts the problems of the Middle East, which have gone back centuries, as all down to Uncle Sam. The basic issue is that Western values of limited government and pluralist democracy never took root there. Centuries of authoritarian rule and religious intolerance aren't Obama's fault. All we can do in the West is to try to stay out of it, but occasionally intervene when it looks like things are about to get really bad.
Pollster is survation
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BwUHNXVIUAAC7ke.jpg
All sensible companies know that encouraging members of staff to informally sort things out and chat about problems is not wasted time, but rather is the essential lubrication that keeps the wheels of an organisation turning.
His (private) company has tea breaks with biscuits, in the NHS I am lucky to gulp a mouthful of warm brown unidentifiable beverage between patients in clinic.
Are there any nails left to bang in the NHS? my organisation has all the issues of this subthread, and more.
Incidentally, I see TSE has tipped Leicester City to beat Arsenal tommorow, so we are doomed too..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11065878/Labour-MPs-Left-ignored-sex-abuse.html
Germany's armed services look like being in shit order. They have introduced crèches and flexible working hours to try and get enough recruits following the abolition of conscription in 2011. Defence spending is down to 1.3% (NATO agreement minimum of 2%, remember) and seems to be in line for further cuts. The German infantry contribution to the NATO operation in Afghanistan was less than stellar .
I could go all Jeremy Clarkson on the balloon tying gits...
Parliament demand answers over what Tony Blair's ministers and officials knew...
Hope nobody covered any of this up at higher levels than the council !!!
I think the fighter you are talking about was the F-104 Starfighter. It seems that its terrible attrition rate was due to the fact it was a bit of a dog to fly, the European weather and its role, as well as servicing problems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter
Patrick O'Flynn @oflynnmep 1m
Wow Mail on Sunday is splashing on poll givingUKIP and Douglas Carswell a 44 point lead over the Tories in Clacton!!!!
UKIP 64%
Con 20%
Lab ? (who cares?)
LD ? ""
Damn it, this is the sort of stuff that Southam Observer and I (amongst others) have been talking about for months. This is the sort of idiotic management that one might have expected in British Leyland plants in the 1970s.
Gods, Labour will be insufferable for a week afterwards, won't they?
Also look for Greens in 4th talking about how that shows Britain understands there is an alternative to the big three, without seeming to note that Britain does appear to understand that, and that the alternative is UKIP, not them. I'd have thought they would have hoped to have filled the LD gap in the political market, but they don't seem to be capitalizing. Maybe their hard left stance prevents capitalizing on anything, ho ho.
Carswell winning effectively unopposed would amount to the same thing as not having a by-election. There would also be far less media coverage.
Only downside is it may encourage other defectors!
“Their dress code, from miniskirts to sleeveless tops, is deemed to reflect their impure and immoral outlook. According to this mentality, these white women deserve to be punished for their behaviour by being exploited and degraded.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10061217/Imams-promote-grooming-rings-Muslim-leader-claims.html?=1
Now, the people who are already employees in that role just have a change in the name of the role. New employees in that role have a subtly different role and sometimes different pay defined in their contract. The existing employees are happy because they have their old conditions, and are essentially better off than the new ones.
It may not be the truth of what is going on (and I'm surprised the unions let the employers get away with it), but he believed it to be true.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-29001401