"So a BBC insider is equating Clarkson to Jimmy Saville. I hope he takes the BBC for every penny he can get out of the bastards.
Its about time the BBC really got its come uppance."
You're such a clown! It's the licence payers who'd end up paying. Anyway not an unreasonable comparison. Both have been accused of physically abusing underlings whilst working for the BBC
Bullying, racist petrolhead dinosaurs may get 800k muppets to support him but for the rest of us 60 million Brits..hes not our kind of people
Laughable when you consider how many viewers top gear gets, and how many countries it is syndicated to. Its the most widely syndicated factual show in the world ffs. He might not be your leftie cup of tea, but I imagine its mandatory viewing in most WWC households. But there again we can see in a nutshell how Labour has lost the working class vote, never to be seen again.
The interesting thing about Farage's line is that it seems like something that would be quite hard for Cameron to accept, but much easier for Ed Miliband.
I have a theory. UKIP wants there to be a referendum, and they want it lost.
They want to be the SNP of the UK. Losing the referendum enables them to secure the vote of the third of the UK that want "out under any circumstances".
And therefore increases the chance that Farage gets what he really wants, i.e. the keys to number 10.
Your theory is bonkers rcs. You have a bad night perhaps?
Losing the referendum has been manna from heaven for the SNP.
And why would Farage not want real political power?
A 35% voting block would make him the most likely next Prime Minister.
And that's a much bigger prize than a slightly different relationship with our neighbours.
Farage does not have a 35% voting block. Not even reliably half of that.
He will be lucky to get a seat in parliament let alone the keys to number 10.
The SNP did not have a 48% voting block until the referendum.
There is now a massive surge to the LibDems based on the 33% infuriated by losing the AV referendum too, I suppose?
I thought LibDems thought AV was a "miserable little compromise"?
Which is all the more puzzling why they sold their soul to get it.
The LibDems had no choice but to enter a coalition with the Conservative Party. It has destroyed them, but it was their only option.
But they didn't have to prioritise AV over their position on, say, tuition fees.
You forget the Conservative side of the equation. The Tories were prepared to offer the AV referendum but not the tuition fees policy.
I think Ukip know that Cameron is very Pro-Europe and won't accept their offer anyway. He could have arranged to begin negotiating two or three years ago and we'd have voted by now if he'd wanted. It was always a political fudge.
They're calling his bluff knowing he will fold.
Or the offer is aimed at Cameron's successor.
My anecdotal reading of the voters is that they think ... common market - good, political union - not so good. So Cameron may come back with a "no more political union in our lifetime, I have a piece of paper signed by Herr Juncker."
Even on those forecasts, Muslims are expected to make up less than 15% of the population in 20 years time, with atheists being by far the fastest growing group.
But I guess "Britain increasingly godless country" doesn't fit the narrative.
When atheists start putting on rucksacks and blowing up public transport in the name of their lack of a god, then I'll be worried. When atheists think its acceptable to gun down the writers of a satirical magazine, for making fun of atheism, then i'll be worried. When atheist teenagers run away to join a terrorist group of atheists who are enforcing an atheism across the middle east, which involves the stoning to death of rape victims, the beheading of homosexuals and journalists. Then i'll be worried.
The interesting thing about Farage's line is that it seems like something that would be quite hard for Cameron to accept, but much easier for Ed Miliband.
I have a theory. UKIP wants there to be a referendum, and they want it lost.
They want to be the SNP of the UK. Losing the referendum enables them to secure the vote of the third of the UK that want "out under any circumstances".
And therefore increases the chance that Farage gets what he really wants, i.e. the keys to number 10.
Your theory is bonkers rcs. You have a bad night perhaps?
Losing the referendum has been manna from heaven for the SNP.
And why would Farage not want real political power?
A 35% voting block would make him the most likely next Prime Minister.
And that's a much bigger prize than a slightly different relationship with our neighbours.
Farage does not have a 35% voting block. Not even reliably half of that.
He will be lucky to get a seat in parliament let alone the keys to number 10.
The SNP did not have a 48% voting block until the referendum.
There is now a massive surge to the LibDems based on the 33% infuriated by losing the AV referendum too, I suppose?
I thought LibDems thought AV was a "miserable little compromise"?
Which is all the more puzzling why they sold their soul to get it.
The LibDems had no choice but to enter a coalition with the Conservative Party. It has destroyed them, but it was their only option.
But they didn't have to prioritise AV over their position on, say, tuition fees.
You forget the Conservative side of the equation. The Tories were prepared to offer the AV referendum but not the tuition fees policy.
I dont believe for a second that the Tories would have junked the coalition if the LDs had held true to their key policy.
"So a BBC insider is equating Clarkson to Jimmy Saville. I hope he takes the BBC for every penny he can get out of the bastards.
Its about time the BBC really got its come uppance."
You're such a clown! It's the licence payers who'd end up paying. Anyway not an unreasonable comparison. Both have been accused of physically abusing underlings whilst working for the BBC
You are a perfect example of a hypocritical left wing luvvie with no idea of the real world. Yours is the sort of smear tim would have been proud of. I am not proud of what Clarkson is alleged to have done but the BBC are hopeless in managing their stars. If they knew he was difficult wtf was going on >?? its almost as tho it was contrived..
Two kitchens? I reckon there's a third one for the nanny on the top floor.
Apparently not
No kitchen since the Borgias has ever produced anything so toxic.
And now the tale of Ed Miliband’s two kitchens has taken a new twist - with claims that one of them is reserved for his family’s live-in nanny.
ITV is due to begin filming at the house on Sunday for a prime-time half-hour documentary on the Labour leader, to be screened in the run-up to the election.
Mr Miliband has already agreed to give programme-makers access to his home and he will now have to decide in which kitchen to allow filming to take place.
One assumes it wasn't the "snack preparation area" that his journo friend described as "“Ed Miliband’s kitchen is lovely," on Twitter which started the whole fuss. Its also unlikely to be the one the nanny uses. Something doesn't smell right - is there some hasty redecoration taking place this weekend ?
The interesting thing about Farage's line is that it seems like something that would be quite hard for Cameron to accept, but much easier for Ed Miliband.
I have a theory. UKIP wants there to be a referendum, and they want it lost.
They want to be the SNP of the UK. Losing the referendum enables them to secure the vote of the third of the UK that want "out under any circumstances".
And therefore increases the chance that Farage gets what he really wants, i.e. the keys to number 10.
Your theory is bonkers rcs. You have a bad night perhaps?
Losing the referendum has been manna from heaven for the SNP.
And why would Farage not want real political power?
A 35% voting block would make him the most likely next Prime Minister.
And that's a much bigger prize than a slightly different relationship with our neighbours.
Farage does not have a 35% voting block. Not even reliably half of that.
He will be lucky to get a seat in parliament let alone the keys to number 10.
The SNP did not have a 48% voting block until the referendum.
There is now a massive surge to the LibDems based on the 33% infuriated by losing the AV referendum too, I suppose?
I thought LibDems thought AV was a "miserable little compromise"?
Which is all the more puzzling why they sold their soul to get it.
The LibDems had no choice but to enter a coalition with the Conservative Party. It has destroyed them, but it was their only option.
But they didn't have to prioritise AV over their position on, say, tuition fees.
You forget the Conservative side of the equation. The Tories were prepared to offer the AV referendum but not the tuition fees policy.
I dont believe for a second that the Tories would have junked the coalition if the LDs had held true to their key policy.
Accordingly you believe the Conservatives would have adopted the entire LibDem manifesto to keep Cameron as Prime Minister.
Alternatively Farage was is saying it because a minority UKIP+CON government wont get a referendum bill through parliament, and it highlights at the earliest opportunity how pro-EU the liblabcon continuum really is. It's part of the 2020 plan imo.
Really?
Which Tory MP would commit electoral suicide by opposing it?
They wouldn't have to, if CON + UKIP is a minority government, then by definition the other parties outnumber them. Plus Clark/Heseltine and a few other grandees would at the very least abstain.
Don't worry, there would be more than enough Labour rebels to ensure the referendum bill passed. Once we have got to the point of presenting legislation then opposing it on principle would become a dead duck. Diehard eurofanatics would do that, but the majority would ensure the issue was put to the people, if for no other reason than to secure a renewal of consent for EU membership, which IMO is now necessary.
If he had offered a pact BEFORE the election with the weaker party standing down in seats he could have helped Dave perhaps scrape an undeserved second term as a unelected PM
As it stands hes going to offer his three or four MPs to Daves 250 to 260.AFTER the GE?
Milibands weekend just gets better and better..Rotherham and Great Grimsby now safe Labour holds as the "more Tory than the Tories" message has been vindicated by UKIPS own leader
There's a vast yawning chasm between allegedly throwing a punch and sexually abusing a huge number of people of both genders and all ages, Mr. Roger. The comparison is ridiculous to the point of madness.
Bullying, racist petrolhead dinosaurs may get 800k muppets to support him but for the rest of us 60 million Brits..hes not our kind of people
Laughable when you consider how many viewers top gear gets, and how many countries it is syndicated to. Its the most widely syndicated factual show in the world ffs. He might not be your leftie cup of tea, but I imagine its mandatory viewing in most WWC households. But there again we can see in a nutshell how Labour has lost the working class vote, never to be seen again.
The envious creeps running the BBC remind me of those mismanaging the England cricket team. Pietersen and Clarkson are both victims of the enemies of talent.
I have a theory. UKIP wants there to be a referendum, and they want it lost.
[snip].
Your theory is bonkers rcs. You have a bad night perhaps?
Losing the referendum has been manna from heaven for the SNP.
And why would Farage not want real political power?
A 35% voting block would make him the most likely next Prime Minister.
And that's a much bigger prize than a slightly different relationship with our neighbours.
Farage does not have a 35% voting block. Not even reliably half of that.
He will be lucky to get a seat in parliament let alone the keys to number 10.
The SNP did not have a 48% voting block until the referendum.
There is now a massive surge to the LibDems based on the 33% infuriated by losing the AV referendum too, I suppose?
I thought LibDems thought AV was a "miserable little compromise"?
Which is all the more puzzling why they sold their soul to get it.
The LibDems had no choice but to enter a coalition with the Conservative Party. It has destroyed them, but it was their only option.
They did have other choices. Two stand out.
They could have not done a deal and propped up a Con minority government on a vote-by-vote basis, to maximise concessions from the Tories while minimising their own damage, and also retaining the option of bringing down the government at a time of their choosing. Given the LD support in May 2010 - and particularly in April 2010 - a Lib Dem party that stayed out of government might have been leading in the polls by 2012 against a EdM-led Labour (of course, EdM might not have won were there a perpetual prospect of an imminent election but then a DavidM-led Labour would have faced other difficulties, such as his lack of connection with Labour's core).
They could have done a different deal with the Tories. It always struck me as lunacy to have as your top priority something you don't want and something which might not have been delivered. I'm quite sure that the Conservatives would have accepted reform of the Lords as the LD constitutional priority, fully- or overwhelmingly-elected, chosen by PR, and with boosted powers. That would have given the LDs a powerful and sustained role in legislation, as well as delivering a (very) longstanding priority. As it was, they got sod all.
The interesting thing about Farage's line is that it seems like something that would be quite hard for Cameron to accept, but much easier for Ed Miliband.
I have a theory. UKIP wants there to be a referendum, and they want it lost.
They want to be the SNP of the UK. Losing the referendum enables them to secure the vote of the third of the UK that want "out under any circumstances".
And therefore increases the chance that Farage gets what he really wants, i.e. the keys to number 10.
Your theory is bonkers rcs. You have a bad night perhaps?
Losing the referendum has been manna from heaven for the SNP.
And why would Farage not want real political power?
A 35% voting block would make him the most likely next Prime Minister.
And that's a much bigger prize than a slightly different relationship with our neighbours.
Farage does not have a 35% voting block. Not even reliably half of that.
He will be lucky to get a seat in parliament let alone the keys to number 10.
The SNP did not have a 48% voting block until the referendum.
There is now a massive surge to the LibDems based on the 33% infuriated by losing the AV referendum too, I suppose?
I thought LibDems thought AV was a "miserable little compromise"?
Which is all the more puzzling why they sold their soul to get it.
The LibDems had no choice but to enter a coalition with the Conservative Party. It has destroyed them, but it was their only option.
But they didn't have to prioritise AV over their position on, say, tuition fees.
You forget the Conservative side of the equation. The Tories were prepared to offer the AV referendum but not the tuition fees policy.
I dont believe for a second that the Tories would have junked the coalition if the LDs had held true to their key policy.
Accordingly you believe the Conservative would have adopted the entire LibDem manifesto to keep Cameron as Prime Minister.
It's a view.
What a weak argument. The LDs could have chosen different priorities. Bizarrely they chose AV, which they were against, over everything else including their defining policy. This is now why they are facing a catastrophe.
" You are a perfect example of a hypocritical left wing luvvie with no idea of the real world. Yours is the sort of smear tim would have been proud of. I am not proud of what Clarkson is alleged to have done but the BBC are hopeless in managing their stars. If they knew he was difficult wtf was going on >?? its almost as tho it was contrived.. "
Do you mean why did they leave him in a room within punching distance of a producer?
"Companies will be forced to share their profits with employees under plans being considered by Ed Miliband’s Labour party. Any firm with more than 50 staff members would be obliged to set up a profit-sharing scheme, with workers being handed a cash sum based on their employers’ financial position.
There are schemes like that already in banks. They're known as bonuses. I thought Labour were against them. Or only when they can't be taxed. It's very confusing keeping up.
Bullying, racist petrolhead dinosaurs may get 800k muppets to support him but for the rest of us 60 million Brits..hes not our kind of people
Laughable when you consider how many viewers top gear gets, and how many countries it is syndicated to. Its the most widely syndicated factual show in the world ffs. He might not be your leftie cup of tea, but I imagine its mandatory viewing in most WWC households. But there again we can see in a nutshell how Labour has lost the working class vote, never to be seen again.
The envious creeps running the BBC remind me of those mismanaging the England cricket team. Pietersen and Clarkson are both victims of the enemies of talent.
Pietersen...another big headed racist tw*t with far less talent than his own ego believes
England should never have even accepted him in the team after the way he attacked the promotion of black players in his native country for his own selfish reasons
Meanwhile #kick Cameron out.... continues to trend
There are schemes like that already in banks. They're known as bonuses. I thought Labour were against them. Or only when they can't be taxed. It's very confusing keeping up.
I suspect ideally they only want them for companies with a majority of Labour voters, but are not sure how to phrase the act
But its another bit of idiotic legislation, it will encourage large companies to move more of their profits offshore so they don't have to pay out so much. Medium sized companies will see a reduced profit line and look harder at moving offshore or outsourcing.
@JGForsyth: That interview demonstrated Labour really do need a better line on this SNP Q. However unfair Labour think it is, it isn’t going to go away
But there are two striking anecdotes, one from an informed Lib Dem (Vince Cable?) about the budget and one from an anonymous Scottish Labour MP. I'm on an iPad so quoting is too hard work, and in any case the Scottish Labour MP contains language that is not fit for a respectable website. So follow the link for yourself.
I have to laugh at the attempts of UKIP and the Lib Dems to pretend that they will be in a position of power after the next election.UKIP may have 2 seats and the Lib Dems will be an irrelevant rump.The only party with any influence will be the SNP.
"Companies will be forced to share their profits with employees under plans being considered by Ed Miliband’s Labour party. Any firm with more than 50 staff members would be obliged to set up a profit-sharing scheme, with workers being handed a cash sum based on their employers’ financial position
In the public sector, can we get a bonus based on the share of unspent budget at the end of the Financial Year? It would do wonders for public spending figures.
" You are a perfect example of a hypocritical left wing luvvie with no idea of the real world. Yours is the sort of smear tim would have been proud of. I am not proud of what Clarkson is alleged to have done but the BBC are hopeless in managing their stars. If they knew he was difficult wtf was going on >?? its almost as tho it was contrived.. "
Do you mean why did they leave him in a room within punching distance of a producer?
Roger you clear have never had to manage difficult people. You make sure they are fed if that's what they want.. Cold food for supper.. were they offering gruel as well.
But then of course as a luvvie advert director you are no doubt one of those difficult people...
Just listened to Ed Balls on Andrew Marr and he was totally evasive on the SNP and defence spending. It is so depressing - any politician who answered questions honestly and directly no matter how difficult would be a breath of fresh air - no wonder voters are disengaged
If Gideon does change the law so that existing pensioners can trade their annuities for cash. Can he please ensure that they are forced to sign an indemnity to the treasury waiving all rights to any social security benefits over and above the state pension if the p*ss it up the wall?
Agreed.
We shouldn't allow Nigel Farage or Charles Kennedy to go on a huge pub crawl and then live the life of riley on means tested benefits and food banks.
Disgraceful.
I always understood that a compulsory annuity was the quid pro quo for pension contributions being tax exempt. The government absolved you from paying tax on pension contributions because you would be making yourself financially independent in retirement and not be a drain on the public purse.
If the requirement for annunity goes, then as night follows day the taxpayer is entitled to collect tax on pension contributions. Expect pension tax relief to go the way of MIRAS in the next parliament once the treasury needs money - and not just for higher rate taxpayers, although they will be hit first.
Nonsense. There is no tax on pension contributions because they are deferred salary.
The money is taxed in retirement as either an annuity or another form of drawdown. If it is all taken at one go, then a lot of it will be taxed at higher rate. The Treasury gains (at least in the short term).
Ok, so you are happy to have future tax rises to pay for housing benefit, council tax benefit and pension credit for these people once they have spent it all on cars, luxuruies and holidays?
Just listened to Ed Balls on Andrew Marr and he was totally evasive on the SNP and defence spending. [b]It is so depressing - any politician who answered questions honestly and directly no matter how difficult would be a breath of fresh air - no wonder voters are disengaged[/b]
" You are a perfect example of a hypocritical left wing luvvie with no idea of the real world. Yours is the sort of smear tim would have been proud of. I am not proud of what Clarkson is alleged to have done but the BBC are hopeless in managing their stars. If they knew he was difficult wtf was going on >?? its almost as tho it was contrived.. "
Do you mean why did they leave him in a room within punching distance of a producer?
Roger you clear have never had to manage difficult people. You make sure they are fed if that's what they want.. Cold food for supper.. were they offering gruel as well.
That's not quite the point though. You should never hit a work colleague no matter how pissed off you are. Clarkson needs to be hung out to dry. The producer would have been if he had tw@tted Clarkson.
Pietersen...another [potentially defamatory words redacted]
Meanwhile #kick Cameron out.... continues to trend
Have you heard of Defamation Law.You might not have any assets so can feel free to attack who you want, but OGH as publisher could also cop it?
Lol..are you serious?
Get off your knees man and stop doffing your cap so cravenly to celebrities and the powerful in general
What on earth is defamatory about saying Pietersen has an ego far bigger than his talent...the great Boycott and millions of our fellow proud Brits agree
Pietersen...another [potentially defamatory words redacted]
Meanwhile #kick Cameron out.... continues to trend
Have you heard of Defamation Law.You might not have any assets so can feel free to attack who you want, but OGH as publisher could also cop it?
Lol..are you serious?
Get off your knees man and stop doffing your cap so cravenly to celebrities and the powerful in general
Theres plenty of scope for defamation claims if you go round naming people and calling them racist, and the person making the allegation has the obligation to prove their claim is correct if sued.
I think you completely fail to understand the nature of Coalition government. Neither party gets all its' policies through - how can they ?!? and one part of the Coalition may have a red line against a policy they will not agree too.
Both Coalition parties have got significant manifesto policies through, that in the absence of the other would never have been implemented and the same would have been true if there had been a viable Lab/LibDem coalition in 2010.
If Gideon does change the law so that existing pensioners can trade their annuities for cash. Can he please ensure that they are forced to sign an indemnity to the treasury waiving all rights to any social security benefits over and above the state pension if the p*ss it up the wall?
Agreed.
We shouldn't allow Nigel Farage or Charles Kennedy to go on a huge pub crawl and then live the life of riley on means tested benefits and food banks.
Disgraceful.
I always understood that a compulsory annuity was the quid pro quo for pension contributions being tax exempt. The government absolved you from paying tax on pension contributions because you would be making yourself financially independent in retirement and not be a drain on the public purse.
If the requirement for annunity goes, then as night follows day the taxpayer is entitled to collect tax on pension contributions. Expect pension tax relief to go the way of MIRAS in the next parliament once the treasury needs money - and not just for higher rate taxpayers, although they will be hit first.
Nonsense. There is no tax on pension contributions because they are deferred salary.
The money is taxed in retirement as either an annuity or another form of drawdown. If it is all taken at one go, then a lot of it will be taxed at higher rate. The Treasury gains (at least in the short term).
Ok, so you are happy to have future tax rises to pay for housing benefit, council tax benefit and pension credit for these people once they have spent it all on cars, luxuruies and holidays?
These are people who have saved for retirement. They should be able to spend their money how they choose, and not be penalised for being prudent. It is their own money, not anyone elses, not even the taxpayers.
The sort of people who save for their retirement are unlikely to blow it on fripperies. Worry more about those that never saved at all.
There's a vast yawning chasm between allegedly throwing a punch and sexually abusing a huge number of people of both genders and all ages, Mr. Roger. The comparison is ridiculous to the point of madness.
Just listened to Ed Balls on Andrew Marr and he was totally evasive on the SNP and defence spending. It is so depressing - any politician who answered questions honestly and directly no matter how difficult would be a breath of fresh air - no wonder voters are disengaged
As it is likely to be Labour's only hope of being in power , why would he rule it out, he may be useless but he is not stupid. Just as Cameron would jump at the same chance if it kept him in power, these losers would sup with the devil if it was required.
When atheists start putting on rucksacks and blowing up public transport in the name of their lack of a god, then I'll be worried. When atheists think its acceptable to gun down the writers of a satirical magazine, for making fun of atheism, then i'll be worried. When atheist teenagers run away to join a terrorist group of atheists who are enforcing an atheism across the middle east, which involves the stoning to death of rape victims, the beheading of homosexuals and journalists. Then i'll be worried.
I was pointing out that the study found 4m more people who said they were not religious in the last ten years, against 1m more people who said they were Muslim.
The study basically said "if 4m Christians keep become atheists and we get 1m more Muslims every decade, then in 30 years we'll have more Muslims than Christians."
Ignoring for a fact that going from 8m Christians to 4m is much, much harder than going from 26m to 22m, the point remains that the study didn't show Britain becoming a Muslim country, it showed it becoming an atheist one, with 60+% of the population not believing in God.
There's a vast yawning chasm between allegedly throwing a punch and sexually abusing a huge number of people of both genders and all ages, Mr. Roger. The comparison is ridiculous to the point of madness.
Not just ridiculous but libellous.
The similarity is that the basic rules of life only apply to little people while the "talent" can do as it pleases.
If Gideon does change the law so that existing pensioners can trade their annuities for cash. Can he please ensure that they are forced to sign an indemnity to the treasury waiving all rights to any social security benefits over and above the state pension if the p*ss it up the wall?
Agreed.
We shouldn't allow Nigel Farage or Charles Kennedy to go on a huge pub crawl and then live the life of riley on means tested benefits and food banks.
Disgraceful.
I always understood that a compulsory annuity was the quid pro quo for pension contributions being tax exempt. The government absolved you from paying tax on pension contributions because you would be making yourself financially independent in retirement and not be a drain on the public purse.
If the requirement for annunity goes, then as night follows day the taxpayer is entitled to collect tax on pension contributions. Expect pension tax relief to go the way of MIRAS in the next parliament once the treasury needs money - and not just for higher rate taxpayers, although they will be hit first.
Nonsense. There is no tax on pension contributions because they are deferred salary.
The money is taxed in retirement as either an annuity or another form of drawdown. If it is all taken at one go, then a lot of it will be taxed at higher rate. The Treasury gains (at least in the short term).
Ok, so you are happy to have future tax rises to pay for housing benefit, council tax benefit and pension credit for these people once they have spent it all on cars, luxuruies and holidays?
These are people who have saved for retirement. They should be able to spend their money how they choose, and not be penalised for being prudent. It is their own money, not anyone elses, not even the taxpayers.
The sort of people who save for their retirement are unlikely to blow it on fripperies. Worry more about those that never saved at all.
Abolish state welfare and you would have a point. Mind you I wouldnt put that past Osborne if tories get a majority. I reckon Beecrofts no fault sacking which the libdems vetoed would be law within 18 months if they do.
Mr. G, because (leaving aside the madness of forming a coalition with a party to govern a country that party does not believe should exist) it would most likely cripple Labour in England.
" You are a perfect example of a hypocritical left wing luvvie with no idea of the real world. Yours is the sort of smear tim would have been proud of. I am not proud of what Clarkson is alleged to have done but the BBC are hopeless in managing their stars. If they knew he was difficult wtf was going on >?? its almost as tho it was contrived.. "
Do you mean why did they leave him in a room within punching distance of a producer?
Roger you clear have never had to manage difficult people. You make sure they are fed if that's what they want.. Cold food for supper.. were they offering gruel as well.
That's not quite the point though. You should never hit a work colleague no matter how pissed off you are. Clarkson needs to be hung out to dry. The producer would have been if he had tw@tted Clarkson.
Striking a colleague is unacceptable in most workplaces, the issue is how to address it. Should it be instant suspension with the prospect of dismissal? Or could a better way be found to resolve the issue.
As someone who deals with disciplinary issues like this at work, I favour a more restorative justice type approach. Much more effective in a workplace setting than a punitive approach.
There's a vast yawning chasm between allegedly throwing a punch and sexually abusing a huge number of people of both genders and all ages, Mr. Roger. The comparison is ridiculous to the point of madness.
Not just ridiculous but libellous.
I think the original comment was more about how the BBC has dealt with both presenters. Savile was allowed to get away with stuff, covered up for, rumours ignored, accusations not investigated. Clarkson has also arguably been allowed to get away with a lot of stuff, given warnings etc and is still there. The main difference is that his misdemeanours have largely been public because they comprise what the tabloid press likes to call "gaffes". On the other hand, what we don't know is if there is any history of misconduct like the current one - I don't think there is any evidence that there is (although I haven't read the Mail story) but if there was it would make the analogy with Savile a better one.
If Gideon does change the law so that existing pensioners can trade their annuities for cash. Can he please ensure that they are forced to sign an indemnity to the treasury waiving all rights to any social security benefits over and above the state pension if the p*ss it up the wall?
Agreed.
We shouldn't allow Nigel Farage or Charles Kennedy to go on a huge pub crawl and then live the life of riley on means tested benefits and food banks.
Disgraceful.
I always understood that a compulsory annuity was the quid pro quo for pension contributions being tax exempt. The government absolved you from paying tax on pension contributions because you would be making yourself financially independent in retirement and not be a drain on the public purse.
If the requirement for annunity goes, then as night follows day the taxpayer is entitled to collect tax on pension contributions. Expect pension tax relief to go the way of MIRAS in the next parliament once the treasury needs money - and not just for higher rate taxpayers, although they will be hit first.
Nonsense. There is no tax on pension contributions because they are deferred salary.
The money is taxed in retirement as either an annuity or another form of drawdown. If it is all taken at one go, then a lot of it will be taxed at higher rate. The Treasury gains (at least in the short term).
Ok, so you are happy to have future tax rises to pay for housing benefit, council tax benefit and pension credit for these people once they have spent it all on cars, luxuruies and holidays?
These are people who have saved for retirement. They should be able to spend their money how they choose, and not be penalised for being prudent. It is their own money, not anyone elses, not even the taxpayers.
The sort of people who save for their retirement are unlikely to blow it on fripperies. Worry more about those that never saved at all.
Abolish state welfare and you would have a point. Mind you I wouldnt put that past Osborne if tories get a majority. I reckon Beecrofts no fault sacking which the libdems vetoed would be law within 18 months if they do.
You should be allowed to take your full pension pot and not have to pay tax on any of it , not just 25% as at present.
There's a vast yawning chasm between allegedly throwing a punch and sexually abusing a huge number of people of both genders and all ages, Mr. Roger. The comparison is ridiculous to the point of madness.
Not just ridiculous but libellous.
The similarity is that the basic rules of life only apply to little people while the "talent" can do as it pleases.
I agree with that. I don't think that - even if your producer has failed to provide food you should be abusive or violent.
But we don't know the facts: reportedly Clarkson himself reported his behaviour to the BBC and there is to be a disciplinary panel. And he has been suspended. So there are three quite distinct differences to how Saville was treated right there.
Iain Mckie @Iainmckie_UKIP 9m9 minutes ago UKIP referendum question “Do you wish to be a free, independent sovereign democracy?”
And free owls? Do you want free owls?
UKIP will have no say over the referendum question unless they more seats than the LibDems. Because the Conservative Party will say the the LDs: "vote for our referendum question, or you'll get UKIP's one". And UKIP can complain all they like about the question, but they'll look like idiots if they've just been given what they've long asked for.
This will be the question
"Do you support government's negotiation plans with the EU, and do you think we should remain a member of the EU after a successful renegotiation."
There's a vast yawning chasm between allegedly throwing a punch and sexually abusing a huge number of people of both genders and all ages, Mr. Roger. The comparison is ridiculous to the point of madness.
Not just ridiculous but libellous.
The similarity is that the basic rules of life only apply to little people while the "talent" can do as it pleases.
I know of plenty of incidents of colleagues fighting in the lower end of the engineering industry. Unless it is serious enough to involve Knacker it often dosent result in sackings unless it provides a convenient excuse to be rid of a troublemaker and often isnt even reported. Less often now but very common 20-30 years ago.
If Gideon does change the law so that existing pensioners can trade their annuities for cash. Can he please ensure that they are forced to sign an indemnity to the treasury waiving all rights to any social security benefits over and above the state pension if the p*ss it up the wall?
Agreed.
We shouldn't allow Nigel Farage or Charles Kennedy to go on a huge pub crawl and then live the life of riley on means tested benefits and food banks.
Disgraceful.
I always understood that a compulsory annuity was the quid pro quo for pension contributions being tax exempt. The government absolved you from paying tax on pension contributions because you would be making yourself financially independent in retirement and not be a drain on the public purse.
If the requirement for annunity goes, then as night follows day the taxpayer is entitled to collect tax on pension contributions. Expect pension tax relief to go the way of MIRAS in the next parliament once the treasury needs money - and not just for higher rate taxpayers, although they will be hit first.
Nonsense. There is no tax on pension contributions because they are deferred salary.
The money is taxed in retirement as either an annuity or another form of drawdown. If it is all taken at one go, then a lot of it will be taxed at higher rate. The Treasury gains (at least in the short term).
Ok, so you are happy to have future tax rises to pay for housing benefit, council tax benefit and pension credit for these people once they have spent it all on cars, luxuruies and holidays?
These are people who have saved for retirement. They should be able to spend their money how they choose, and not be penalised for being prudent. It is their own money, not anyone elses, not even the taxpayers.
The sort of people who save for their retirement are unlikely to blow it on fripperies. Worry more about those that never saved at all.
I'm hoping to spend the first ten years of my retirement travelling, maybe even living abroad, drinking interesting beer and visiting interesting countries. The temptation would be to spend all the money (including the house) and then when I am old and decrepit to rent somewhere, live on my state pension and charge the rent to Housing Benefit. I have no children so feel no need to leave any behind.
When atheists start putting on rucksacks and blowing up public transport in the name of their lack of a god, then I'll be worried. When atheists think its acceptable to gun down the writers of a satirical magazine, for making fun of atheism, then i'll be worried. When atheist teenagers run away to join a terrorist group of atheists who are enforcing an atheism across the middle east, which involves the stoning to death of rape victims, the beheading of homosexuals and journalists. Then i'll be worried.
I was pointing out that the study found 4m more people who said they were not religious in the last ten years, against 1m more people who said they were Muslim.
The study basically said "if 4m Christians keep become atheists and we get 1m more Muslims every decade, then in 30 years we'll have more Muslims than Christians."
Ignoring for a fact that going from 8m Christians to 4m is much, much harder than going from 26m to 22m, the point remains that the study didn't show Britain becoming a Muslim country, it showed it becoming an atheist one, with 60+% of the population not believing in God.
I think you underestimate the fact that even a small religious minority believing strongly in things can affect the cultural and wider environment quite out of proportion to their number, in a way that a much larger group of atheists are less likely to.
I have to laugh at the attempts of UKIP and the Lib Dems to pretend that they will be in a position of power after the next election.UKIP may have 2 seats and the Lib Dems will be an irrelevant rump.The only party with any influence will be the SNP.
Another sensible realistic post on here from your good self
You are like a fish out of water here though im afraid in amongst all the Fantasy Island and lets go back to the 80s/30s posts on this blog
I say lets get back to the values of 45 to 79 instead..when all Governments red or blue were to the left of any post 79
There's a vast yawning chasm between allegedly throwing a punch and sexually abusing a huge number of people of both genders and all ages, Mr. Roger. The comparison is ridiculous to the point of madness.
Not just ridiculous but libellous.
I think the original comment was more about how the BBC has dealt with both presenters. Savile was allowed to get away with stuff, covered up for, rumours ignored, accusations not investigated. Clarkson has also arguably been allowed to get away with a lot of stuff, given warnings etc and is still there. The main difference is that his misdemeanours have largely been public because they comprise what the tabloid press likes to call "gaffes". On the other hand, what we don't know is if there is any history of misconduct like the current one - I don't think there is any evidence that there is (although I haven't read the Mail story) but if there was it would make the analogy with Savile a better one.
No, the comparison is ridiculous because of the nature of the alleged offenses. Savile, were he still alive, would be looking at 15+ years in jail. Someone involved in a minor affray would be looking at a caution or, if with previous, a fine or similar.
I think you completely fail to understand the nature of Coalition government. Neither party gets all its' policies through - how can they ?!? and one part of the Coalition may have a red line against a policy they will not agree too.
Both Coalition parties have got significant manifesto policies through, that in the absence of the other would never have been implemented and the same would have been true if there had been a viable Lab/LibDem coalition in 2010.
I think I understand it better than you.
Both coalition parties were against AV before the election. It was neither party's policy. Nevertheless LDs negotiated that over tuition fees, which was not only in their manifesto but was their defining policy and something their leader had signed a pledge to defend.
Mr. Antifrank, that's a nonsense of a comparison. That's like me saying genocide and petty theft are both wrong because they're both against the law.
Allegedly throwing a single punch and sexually abusing large numbers of people over half a century are not the same thing.
Any other BBC employee would be sacked for racial abuse and throwing punches. If you treat Mr Clarkson differently (assuming the allegations to be true), you are treating the talent as outside the normal rules.
Individuals, and sometimes organisations, get away with things they ought not. But there are different degrees of wrongdoing, and the claim against Clarkson is leagues less serious than what Savile did.
If Gideon does change the law so that existing pensioners can trade their annuities for cash. Can he please ensure that they are forced to sign an indemnity to the treasury waiving all rights to any social security benefits over and above the state pension if the p*ss it up the wall?
Agreed.
We shouldn't allow Nigel Farage or Charles Kennedy to go on a huge pub crawl and then live the life of riley on means tested benefits and food banks.
Disgraceful.
I always understood that a compulsory annuity was the quid pro quo for pension contributions being tax exempt. The government absolved you from paying tax on pension contributions because you would be making yourself financially independent in retirement and not be a drain on the public purse.
If the requirement for annunity goes, then as night follows day the taxpayer is entitled to collect tax on pension contributions. Expect pension tax relief to go the way of MIRAS in the next parliament once the treasury needs money - and not just for higher rate taxpayers, although they will be hit first.
Nonsense. There is no tax on pension contributions because they are deferred salary.
The money is taxed in retirement as either an annuity or another form of drawdown. If it is all taken at one go, then a lot of it will be taxed at higher rate. The Treasury gains (at least in the short term).
Ok, so you are happy to have future tax rises to pay for housing benefit, council tax benefit and pension credit for these people once they have spent it all on cars, luxuruies and holidays?
These are people who have saved for retirement. They should be able to spend their money how they choose, and not be penalised for being prudent. It is their own money, not anyone elses, not even the taxpayers.
The sort of people who save for their retirement are unlikely to blow it on fripperies. Worry more about those that never saved at all.
Abolish state welfare and you would have a point. Mind you I wouldnt put that past Osborne if tories get a majority. I reckon Beecrofts no fault sacking which the libdems vetoed would be law within 18 months if they do.
You should be allowed to take your full pension pot and not have to pay tax on any of it , not just 25% as at present.
If you sign a legally binding document waiving all future rights to state benefits other than the state pension for the rest of you and your spouses lives, I wouldnt have a problem with that.
Iain Mckie @Iainmckie_UKIP 9m9 minutes ago UKIP referendum question “Do you wish to be a free, independent sovereign democracy?”
And free owls? Do you want free owls?
UKIP will have no say over the referendum question unless they more seats than the LibDems. Because the Conservative Party will say the the LDs: "vote for our referendum question, or you'll get UKIP's one". And UKIP can complain all they like about the question, but they'll look like idiots if they've just been given what they've long asked for.
This will be the question
"Do you support government's negotiation plans with the EU, and do you think we should remain a member of the EU after a successful renegotiation."
Nope. The question should be simple and straightforward.
"Do you think the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union"
No fudge about renegotiation. Simple In/Out question.
I have renamed my second kitchen the Nelson Mandela Room, Rog. Saves any amount of confusion and give me a lovely warm feeling.
Incidentally Shadsy has "two kitchens" in his buzzword bingo for the budget at 11. I know these are suckers markets but couldnt resist a couple of quid!
Mr. G, because (leaving aside the madness of forming a coalition with a party to govern a country that party does not believe should exist) it would most likely cripple Labour in England.
MD , they will still take it if it means power. You just need to look at how pathetic Cameron is with his short termism just to hurt labour. Only a few months ago he was wittering on about our one big happy family and how valued a part of it Scotland was, now he is casting Scotland as being full of devils desperate to ruin England. The man is not very bright , aka Labour , and it is this very short termism that threatens the union , not the SNP. Naked greed to hold on to power or to get power.
There's a vast yawning chasm between allegedly throwing a punch and sexually abusing a huge number of people of both genders and all ages, Mr. Roger. The comparison is ridiculous to the point of madness.
Not just ridiculous but libellous.
I think the original comment was more about how the BBC has dealt with both presenters. Savile was allowed to get away with stuff, covered up for, rumours ignored, accusations not investigated. Clarkson has also arguably been allowed to get away with a lot of stuff, given warnings etc and is still there. The main difference is that his misdemeanours have largely been public because they comprise what the tabloid press likes to call "gaffes". On the other hand, what we don't know is if there is any history of misconduct like the current one - I don't think there is any evidence that there is (although I haven't read the Mail story) but if there was it would make the analogy with Savile a better one.
The BBC still refuses to admit to itself that there was any "stuff" of Savile they needed to be aware of.
Comparing Savile and Clarkson is just odious beyond belief. That anyone in senior management to think it a fair comparison - and not themselves to be suspended and on course for ejection towards the sun from a giant space cannon - shows there is a need for a massive clear-out at the top of the Beeb.
Miss Cyclefree, also, atheists aren't really bound together the way other religious categories are, because it's a negative belief.
Mr. Antifrank, you're the lawyer, but last I checked an allegation does not constitute proof. We don't know the truth of the matter, or the background (mitigating/exacerbating factors).
" You are a perfect example of a hypocritical left wing luvvie with no idea of the real world. Yours is the sort of smear tim would have been proud of. I am not proud of what Clarkson is alleged to have done but the BBC are hopeless in managing their stars. If they knew he was difficult wtf was going on >?? its almost as tho it was contrived.. "
Do you mean why did they leave him in a room within punching distance of a producer?
Roger you clear have never had to manage difficult people. You make sure they are fed if that's what they want.. Cold food for supper.. were they offering gruel as well.
That's not quite the point though. You should never hit a work colleague no matter how pissed off you are. Clarkson needs to be hung out to dry. The producer would have been if he had tw@tted Clarkson.
Striking a colleague is unacceptable in most workplaces, the issue is how to address it. Should it be instant suspension with the prospect of dismissal? Or could a better way be found to resolve the issue.
As someone who deals with disciplinary issues like this at work, I favour a more restorative justice type approach. Much more effective in a workplace setting than a punitive approach.
Blimey, remind me never to work in the NHS again. Are you really saying that you don't regard punching a colleague to be gross misconduct?
Edited to add: I find it hard to believe in an organisation where nurses have been sacked for theft for eating toast left over from the patients' breakfast.
There's a vast yawning chasm between allegedly throwing a punch and sexually abusing a huge number of people of both genders and all ages, Mr. Roger. The comparison is ridiculous to the point of madness.
Not just ridiculous but libellous.
I think the original comment was more about how the BBC has dealt with both presenters. Savile was allowed to get away with stuff, covered up for, rumours ignored, accusations not investigated. Clarkson has also arguably been allowed to get away with a lot of stuff, given warnings etc and is still there. The main difference is that his misdemeanours have largely been public because they comprise what the tabloid press likes to call "gaffes". On the other hand, what we don't know is if there is any history of misconduct like the current one - I don't think there is any evidence that there is (although I haven't read the Mail story) but if there was it would make the analogy with Savile a better one.
Its garbage. Clarkson has not 'got away with' anything. He has been hounded by the BBC management and the moronic PC crowd over every tiny comment or supposed infraction for years.
I really do hope he leaves the BBC and takes his colleagues with him to Sky. It would leave the BBC facing a large bill for breach of contract with lots of other countries and would strip them of one of their most popular and profitable programmes.
There's a vast yawning chasm between allegedly throwing a punch and sexually abusing a huge number of people of both genders and all ages, Mr. Roger. The comparison is ridiculous to the point of madness.
Not just ridiculous but libellous.
The similarity is that the basic rules of life only apply to little people while the "talent" can do as it pleases.
I know of plenty of incidents of colleagues fighting in the lower end of the engineering industry. Unless it is serious enough to involve Knacker it often dosent result in sackings unless it provides a convenient excuse to be rid of a troublemaker and often isnt even reported. Less often now but very common 20-30 years ago.
30 years ago it was acceptable to go out and have 4-8 pints at lunchtime, times have changed.
Mr. G, because (leaving aside the madness of forming a coalition with a party to govern a country that party does not believe should exist) it would most likely cripple Labour in England.
MD , they will still take it if it means power. You just need to look at how pathetic Cameron is with his short termism just to hurt labour. Only a few months ago he was wittering on about our one big happy family and how valued a part of it Scotland was, now he is casting Scotland as being full of devils desperate to ruin England. The man is not very bright , aka Labour , and it is this very short termism that threatens the union , not the SNP. Naked greed to hold on to power or to get power.
No, he's casting the SNP as full of devils who want to break up the union. Not unreasonably. But then Nats have long equated SNP with the only legitimate representatives of Scotland, so I can understand the error.
" You are a perfect example of a hypocritical left wing luvvie with no idea of the real world. Yours is the sort of smear tim would have been proud of. I am not proud of what Clarkson is alleged to have done but the BBC are hopeless in managing their stars. If they knew he was difficult wtf was going on >?? its almost as tho it was contrived.. "
Do you mean why did they leave him in a room within punching distance of a producer?
Roger you clear have never had to manage difficult people. You make sure they are fed if that's what they want.. Cold food for supper.. were they offering gruel as well.
That's not quite the point though. You should never hit a work colleague no matter how pissed off you are. Clarkson needs to be hung out to dry. The producer would have been if he had tw@tted Clarkson.
Striking a colleague is unacceptable in most workplaces, the issue is how to address it. Should it be instant suspension with the prospect of dismissal? Or could a better way be found to resolve the issue.
As someone who deals with disciplinary issues like this at work, I favour a more restorative justice type approach. Much more effective in a workplace setting than a punitive approach.
Unless the assailant is a known nuisance in which case he has just given you a free pass to sack him without any payoff.
Mr. Antifrank, that's a nonsense of a comparison. That's like me saying genocide and petty theft are both wrong because they're both against the law.
Allegedly throwing a single punch and sexually abusing large numbers of people over half a century are not the same thing.
Any other BBC employee would be sacked for racial abuse and throwing punches. If you treat Mr Clarkson differently (assuming the allegations to be true), you are treating the talent as outside the normal rules.
Usually after a disciplinary proceeding. Which is happening in this case. So far they seem to be playing it by the book.
But comparing the suspended employee to one of this country's worst paedophiles - IF that is what is has happened - is not on. And any employer doing something similar to a suspended employee before the investigation has concluded and any independent disciplinary panel has determined the matter needs their head examining.
Iain Mckie @Iainmckie_UKIP 9m9 minutes ago UKIP referendum question “Do you wish to be a free, independent sovereign democracy?”
And free owls? Do you want free owls?
UKIP will have no say over the referendum question unless they more seats than the LibDems. Because the Conservative Party will say the the LDs: "vote for our referendum question, or you'll get UKIP's one". And UKIP can complain all they like about the question, but they'll look like idiots if they've just been given what they've long asked for.
This will be the question
"Do you support government's negotiation plans with the EU, and do you think we should remain a member of the EU after a successful renegotiation."
Nope. The question should be simple and straightforward.
"Do you think the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union"
No fudge about renegotiation. Simple In/Out question.
I agree. And, more relevantly, I suspect the Electoral Commission would be far happier with your formation than with a two-part question, one part of which is wide open to (mis)interpretation.
I have to laugh at the attempts of UKIP and the Lib Dems to pretend that they will be in a position of power after the next election.UKIP may have 2 seats and the Lib Dems will be an irrelevant rump.The only party with any influence will be the SNP.
Another sensible realistic post on here from your good self
You are like a fish out of water here though im afraid in amongst all the Fantasy Island and lets go back to the 80s/30s posts on this blog
I say lets get back to the values of 45 to 79 instead..when all Governments red or blue were to the left of any post 79
And that all ended sooo well for the country didn't it. Lunacy.
There's a vast yawning chasm between allegedly throwing a punch and sexually abusing a huge number of people of both genders and all ages, Mr. Roger. The comparison is ridiculous to the point of madness.
Not just ridiculous but libellous.
The similarity is that the basic rules of life only apply to little people while the "talent" can do as it pleases.
I know of plenty of incidents of colleagues fighting in the lower end of the engineering industry. Unless it is serious enough to involve Knacker it often dosent result in sackings unless it provides a convenient excuse to be rid of a troublemaker and often isnt even reported. Less often now but very common 20-30 years ago.
30 years ago it was acceptable to go out and have 4-8 pints at lunchtime, times have changed.
Eight pints at lunchtime. Judging by your matinee contributions to PB, you hit that target at breakfast.
If Gideon does change the law so that existing pensioners can trade their annuities for cash. Can he please ensure that they are forced to sign an indemnity to the treasury waiving all rights to any social security benefits over and above the state pension if the p*ss it up the wall?
Agreed.
We shouldn't allow Nigel Farage or Charles Kennedy to go on a huge pub crawl and then live the life of riley on means tested benefits and food banks.
Disgraceful.
I always understood that a compulsory annuity was the quid pro quo for pension contributions being tax exempt. The government absolved you from paying tax on pension contributions because you would be making yourself financially independent in retirement and not be a drain on the public purse.
If the requirement for annunity goes, then as night follows day the taxpayer is entitled to collect tax on pension contributions. Expect pension tax relief to go the way of MIRAS in the next parliament once the treasury needs money - and not just for higher rate taxpayers, although they will be hit first.
Nonsense. There is no tax on pension contributions because they are deferred salary.
The money is taxed in retirement as either an annuity or another form of drawdown. If it is all taken at one go, then a lot of it will be taxed at higher rate. The Treasury gains (at least in the short term).
Ok, so you are happy to have future tax rises to pay for housing benefit, council tax benefit and pension credit for these people once they have spent it all on cars, luxuruies and holidays?
These are people who have saved for retirement. They should be able to spend their money how they choose, and not be penalised for being prudent. It is their own money, not anyone elses, not even the taxpayers.
The sort of people who save for their retirement are unlikely to blow it on fripperies. Worry more about those that never saved at all.
I agree. Its Labour who ruined pensions and annuities. Labour took money off pensioners to give to themselves to waste.
''Effectively, Labour has stolen £5bn a year from our pension funds. And that 1997 legislation really set the tone for things to come.'' ''a 40 year old man planning to retire in 25 years making monthly contributions of £250 to add to his current £60,000 pension pot will eventually lose more than £120,000 on the final value, because of the tax relief reforms.'' http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-1692321/Has-Labour-really-ransacked-our-pensions.html#ixzz3URjymKQM
I think you completely fail to understand the nature of Coalition government. Neither party gets all its' policies through - how can they ?!? and one part of the Coalition may have a red line against a policy they will not agree too.
Both Coalition parties have got significant manifesto policies through, that in the absence of the other would never have been implemented and the same would have been true if there had been a viable Lab/LibDem coalition in 2010.
I think I understand it better than you.
Both coalition parties were against AV before the election. It was neither party's policy. Nevertheless LDs negotiated that over tuition fees, which was not only in their manifesto but was their defining policy and something their leader had signed a pledge to defend.
Forgive me but I'm sure you not trying to be deliberately dense.
There was zero prospect of the LibDem tuition fee policy being introduced within the Coalition whereas a compromise on a referendum on AV was possible.
Coalition is the art of the possible over the brick wall of the impossible.
There's a vast yawning chasm between allegedly throwing a punch and sexually abusing a huge number of people of both genders and all ages, Mr. Roger. The comparison is ridiculous to the point of madness.
Not just ridiculous but libellous.
The similarity is that the basic rules of life only apply to little people while the "talent" can do as it pleases.
I know of plenty of incidents of colleagues fighting in the lower end of the engineering industry. Unless it is serious enough to involve Knacker it often dosent result in sackings unless it provides a convenient excuse to be rid of a troublemaker and often isnt even reported. Less often now but very common 20-30 years ago.
That was probably quite a common attitude 20-30 years ago in male-dominated industries, but not now. In any case, it wasn't a "fight" it seemed to involve a senior employee ("talent") shouting at and, we are told, striking a more junior one. Completely unacceptable. If Tymon had hit Clarkson he would be facing dismissal without notice or pay in lieu. The same should hold true for Clarkson.
" You are a perfect example of a hypocritical left wing luvvie with no idea of the real world. Yours is the sort of smear tim would have been proud of. I am not proud of what Clarkson is alleged to have done but the BBC are hopeless in managing their stars. If they knew he was difficult wtf was going on >?? its almost as tho it was contrived.. "
Do you mean why did they leave him in a room within punching distance of a producer?
Roger you clear have never had to manage difficult people. You make sure they are fed if that's what they want.. Cold food for supper.. were they offering gruel as well.
That's not quite the point though. You should never hit a work colleague no matter how pissed off you are. Clarkson needs to be hung out to dry. The producer would have been if he had tw@tted Clarkson.
Striking a colleague is unacceptable in most workplaces, the issue is how to address it. Should it be instant suspension with the prospect of dismissal? Or could a better way be found to resolve the issue.
As someone who deals with disciplinary issues like this at work, I favour a more restorative justice type approach. Much more effective in a workplace setting than a punitive approach.
Blimey, remind me never to work in the NHS again. Are you really saying that you don't regard punching a colleague to be gross misconduct?
Not without investigating the incident properly. Some of the incidents have looked very different after investigation. I work in a very stressful environment and everyone has a breaking point.
Not all situations are repairable, but if they are then that is a much more constructive approach.
According to Guido, someone has bet £1million on the Tories to win the GE.
Am I the only person who is bored with SKY TV's campaign Stand Up Be Counted to engage teenagers in politics? If they cant be arsed to take an interest without being cajoled, they deserve to be ignored.
Miss Cyclefree, also, atheists aren't really bound together the way other religious categories are, because it's a negative belief.
Mr. Antifrank, you're the lawyer, but last I checked an allegation does not constitute proof. We don't know the truth of the matter, or the background (mitigating/exacerbating factors).
MD, splitting hairs there I think, given suspended, guys lawyers saying he had to visit A&E etc etc make it seem pretty obvious even if still only alleged at this point.
Iain Mckie @Iainmckie_UKIP 9m9 minutes ago UKIP referendum question “Do you wish to be a free, independent sovereign democracy?”
And free owls? Do you want free owls?
UKIP will have no say over the referendum question unless they more seats than the LibDems. Because the Conservative Party will say the the LDs: "vote for our referendum question, or you'll get UKIP's one". And UKIP can complain all they like about the question, but they'll look like idiots if they've just been given what they've long asked for.
This will be the question
"Do you support government's negotiation plans with the EU, and do you think we should remain a member of the EU after a successful renegotiation."
Nope. The question should be simple and straightforward.
"Do you think the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union"
No fudge about renegotiation. Simple In/Out question.
I agree. And, more relevantly, I suspect the Electoral Commission would be far happier with your formation than with a two-part question, one part of which is wide open to (mis)interpretation.
I am sure there will also be lots of argument back and forth from each side about whether the question should include the phrase
"remain a member of"
or the phrase
"leave"
and how it would affect the likelihood of a specific result.
But in the end you should treat the electorate like adults. They know what the question is and they should be allowed to answer it.
Pietersen...another [potentially defamatory words redacted]
Meanwhile #kick Cameron out.... continues to trend
Have you heard of Defamation Law.You might not have any assets so can feel free to attack who you want, but OGH as publisher could also cop it?
Lol..are you serious?
Get off your knees man and stop doffing your cap so cravenly to celebrities and the powerful in general
Theres plenty of scope for defamation claims if you go round naming people and calling them racist, and the person making the allegation has the obligation to prove their claim is correct if sued.
Ok maybe he is maybe he isnt
There are only two reasons why he quit SA to join England because of their policy of trying to get more black players in the team
a) hes racist or b) he was worried one of them may replace him in the team..hampering his image, career and celeb status
Actually the second seems more likely so he probably isnt a racist.
That's still libellous.
In any case, there's a third reason, which is the principle that people should be selected on merit not on quotas.
"Merit" is hardly relevant as because of apartheid black players hadnt had access to the facilities that white players had for decades
Or are you seriously suggesting that in a nation with a majority black population the fact that nearly all the national cricket team were white was down to "merit"
There's a vast yawning chasm between allegedly throwing a punch and sexually abusing a huge number of people of both genders and all ages, Mr. Roger. The comparison is ridiculous to the point of madness.
Not just ridiculous but libellous.
The similarity is that the basic rules of life only apply to little people while the "talent" can do as it pleases.
I know of plenty of incidents of colleagues fighting in the lower end of the engineering industry. Unless it is serious enough to involve Knacker it often dosent result in sackings unless it provides a convenient excuse to be rid of a troublemaker and often isnt even reported. Less often now but very common 20-30 years ago.
Tends/tended to be between equals, though, didn’t it? If an assistant producer had thumped "a major talent” even for the latter calling him what he’s alleged to have called him he’d have been out the door PDQ.
Mr. G, because (leaving aside the madness of forming a coalition with a party to govern a country that party does not believe should exist) it would most likely cripple Labour in England.
MD , they will still take it if it means power. You just need to look at how pathetic Cameron is with his short termism just to hurt labour. Only a few months ago he was wittering on about our one big happy family and how valued a part of it Scotland was, now he is casting Scotland as being full of devils desperate to ruin England. The man is not very bright , aka Labour , and it is this very short termism that threatens the union , not the SNP. Naked greed to hold on to power or to get power.
No, he's casting the SNP as full of devils who want to break up the union. Not unreasonably. But then Nats have long equated SNP with the only legitimate representatives of Scotland, so I can understand the error.
He is stating that Scots should only be allowed to vote if they vote the way he wants, the standard unionist position in that we are only tolerated when subservient and voting the right way. Democratic deficit in UK is huge and neither Tories or Labour want any change to their cosy club. Zimbabwe is more democratic than the UK.
Pietersen...another [potentially defamatory words redacted]
Meanwhile #kick Cameron out.... continues to trend
Have you heard of Defamation Law.You might not have any assets so can feel free to attack who you want, but OGH as publisher could also cop it?
Lol..are you serious?
Get off your knees man and stop doffing your cap so cravenly to celebrities and the powerful in general
Theres plenty of scope for defamation claims if you go round naming people and calling them racist, and the person making the allegation has the obligation to prove their claim is correct if sued.
Ok maybe he is maybe he isnt
There are only two reasons why he quit SA to join England because of their policy of trying to get more black players in the team
a) hes racist or b) he was worried one of them may replace him in the team..hampering his image, career and celeb status
Actually the second seems more likely so he probably isnt a racist.
That's still libellous.
In any case, there's a third reason, which is the principle that people should be selected on merit not on quotas.
"Merit" is hardly relevant as because of apartheid black players hadnt had access to the facilities that white players had for decades
Or are you seriously suggesting that in a nation with a majority black population the fact that nearly all the national cricket team were white was down to "merit"
The black population mostly preferred football, hence the lack of white players in the SA football team.
" You are a perfect example of a hypocritical left wing luvvie with no idea of the real world. Yours is the sort of smear tim would have been proud of. I am not proud of what Clarkson is alleged to have done but the BBC are hopeless in managing their stars. If they knew he was difficult wtf was going on >?? its almost as tho it was contrived.. "
Do you mean why did they leave him in a room within punching distance of a producer?
Roger you clear have never had to manage difficult people. You make sure they are fed if that's what they want.. Cold food for supper.. were they offering gruel as well.
That's not quite the point though. You should never hit a work colleague no matter how pissed off you are. Clarkson needs to be hung out to dry. The producer would have been if he had tw@tted Clarkson.
Striking a colleague is unacceptable in most workplaces, the issue is how to address it. Should it be instant suspension with the prospect of dismissal? Or could a better way be found to resolve the issue.
As someone who deals with disciplinary issues like this at work, I favour a more restorative justice type approach. Much more effective in a workplace setting than a punitive approach.
Blimey, remind me never to work in the NHS again. Are you really saying that you don't regard punching a colleague to be gross misconduct?
Not without investigating the incident properly. Some of the incidents have looked very different after investigation. I work in a very stressful environment and everyone has a breaking point.
Not all situations are repairable, but if they are then that is a much more constructive approach.
Is it any wonder the NHS is in a mess when it is acceptable practice to beat up any colleague you dislike or disagree with.
The interesting thing about Farage's line is that it seems like something that would be quite hard for Cameron to accept, but much easier for Ed Miliband.
I have a theory. UKIP wants there to be a referendum, and they want it lost.
They want to be the SNP of the UK. Losing the referendum enables them to secure the vote of the third of the UK that want "out under any circumstances".
And therefore increases the chance that Farage gets what he really wants, i.e. the keys to number 10.
Your theory is bonkers rcs. You have a bad night perhaps?
Losing the referendum has been manna from heaven for the SNP.
And why would Farage not want real political power?
A 35% voting block would make him the most likely next Prime Minister.
And that's a much bigger prize than a slightly different relationship with our neighbours.
Farage does not have a 35% voting block. Not even reliably half of that.
He will be lucky to get a seat in parliament let alone the keys to number 10.
The SNP did not have a 48% voting block until the referendum.
There is now a massive surge to the LibDems based on the 33% infuriated by losing the AV referendum too, I suppose?
I thought LibDems thought AV was a "miserable little compromise"?
Which is all the more puzzling why they sold their soul to get it.
The LibDems had no choice but to enter a coalition with the Conservative Party. It has destroyed them, but it was their only option.
What are you smoking ? They had a choice not to enter a formal coalition. Just like they had a choice over tuition fees.
I hope you are not an historian.
Clearly you are not.
The only viable options in 2010 were a unstable minority Conservative government or the Con/LibDem Coalition - Some choice.
The "choice" over tuiton fees is also a false one. In government the Tories would not agree the LibDem policy and out of government the LibDems clearly couldn't implement the policy.
As are you. If you do not know the definition of choice. There was a choice, they decided for their own personal gain to accept cabinet positions. They could have let the Conservative party be a minority administration. It has happened before read some history.
" You are a perfect example of a hypocritical left wing luvvie with no idea of the real world. Yours is the sort of smear tim would have been proud of. I am not proud of what Clarkson is alleged to have done but the BBC are hopeless in managing their stars. If they knew he was difficult wtf was going on >?? its almost as tho it was contrived.. "
Do you mean why did they leave him in a room within punching distance of a producer?
Roger you clear have never had to manage difficult people. You make sure they are fed if that's what they want.. Cold food for supper.. were they offering gruel as well.
That's not quite the point though. You should never hit a work colleague no matter how pissed off you are. Clarkson needs to be hung out to dry. The producer would have been if he had tw@tted Clarkson.
Striking a colleague is unacceptable in most workplaces, the issue is how to address it. Should it be instant suspension with the prospect of dismissal? Or could a better way be found to resolve the issue.
As someone who deals with disciplinary issues like this at work, I favour a more restorative justice type approach. Much more effective in a workplace setting than a punitive approach.
Unless the assailant is a known nuisance in which case he has just given you a free pass to sack him without any payoff.
That would make me rather uncomfortable. A disciplinary investigation should be unpredjudiced and based upon the facts of the case and appropriate mitigating/exacerbating factors.
If someone is a known nuiscance then that should be addressed separately, without waiting for a punch up.
Pietersen...another [potentially defamatory words redacted]
Meanwhile #kick Cameron out.... continues to trend
Have you heard of Defamation Law.You might not have any assets so can feel free to attack who you want, but OGH as publisher could also cop it?
Lol..are you serious?
Get off your knees man and stop doffing your cap so cravenly to celebrities and the powerful in general
Theres plenty of scope for defamation claims if you go round naming people and calling them racist, and the person making the allegation has the obligation to prove their claim is correct if sued.
Ok maybe he is maybe he isnt
There are only two reasons why he quit SA to join England because of their policy of trying to get more black players in the team
a) hes racist or b) he was worried one of them may replace him in the team..hampering his image, career and celeb status
Actually the second seems more likely so he probably isnt a racist.
That's still libellous.
In any case, there's a third reason, which is the principle that people should be selected on merit not on quotas.
"Merit" is hardly relevant as because of apartheid black players hadnt had access to the facilities that white players had for decades
Or are you seriously suggesting that in a nation with a majority black population the fact that nearly all the national cricket team were white was down to "merit"
As a proud anti-racist Brit, you should turn your attention to the gross predominance of non-white sprinters in the British 4 by 100 relay team. Only a racist tw@ would put the ethnic composition down to merit.
Comments
"So a BBC insider is equating Clarkson to Jimmy Saville. I hope he takes the BBC for every penny he can get out of the bastards.
Its about time the BBC really got its come uppance."
You're such a clown! It's the licence payers who'd end up paying. Anyway not an unreasonable comparison. Both have been accused of physically abusing underlings whilst working for the BBC
When atheists think its acceptable to gun down the writers of a satirical magazine, for making fun of atheism, then i'll be worried.
When atheist teenagers run away to join a terrorist group of atheists who are enforcing an atheism across the middle east, which involves the stoning to death of rape victims, the beheading of homosexuals and journalists. Then i'll be worried.
If they knew he was difficult wtf was going on >?? its almost as tho it was contrived..
One assumes it wasn't the "snack preparation area" that his journo friend described as "“Ed Miliband’s kitchen is lovely," on Twitter which started the whole fuss. Its also unlikely to be the one the nanny uses. Something doesn't smell right - is there some hasty redecoration taking place this weekend ?
It's a view.
If he had offered a pact BEFORE the election with the
weaker party standing down in seats he could have helped
Dave perhaps scrape an undeserved second term as a
unelected PM
As it stands hes going to offer his three or four MPs to Daves
250 to 260.AFTER the GE?
Milibands weekend just gets better and better..Rotherham and
Great Grimsby now safe Labour holds as the "more Tory than
the Tories" message has been vindicated by UKIPS own leader
Ozzie later.
Ed later
They could have not done a deal and propped up a Con minority government on a vote-by-vote basis, to maximise concessions from the Tories while minimising their own damage, and also retaining the option of bringing down the government at a time of their choosing. Given the LD support in May 2010 - and particularly in April 2010 - a Lib Dem party that stayed out of government might have been leading in the polls by 2012 against a EdM-led Labour (of course, EdM might not have won were there a perpetual prospect of an imminent election but then a DavidM-led Labour would have faced other difficulties, such as his lack of connection with Labour's core).
They could have done a different deal with the Tories. It always struck me as lunacy to have as your top priority something you don't want and something which might not have been delivered. I'm quite sure that the Conservatives would have accepted reform of the Lords as the LD constitutional priority, fully- or overwhelmingly-elected, chosen by PR, and with boosted powers. That would have given the LDs a powerful and sustained role in legislation, as well as delivering a (very) longstanding priority. As it was, they got sod all.
" You are a perfect example of a hypocritical left wing luvvie with no idea of the real world. Yours is the sort of smear tim would have been proud of. I am not proud of what Clarkson is alleged to have done but the BBC are hopeless in managing their stars.
If they knew he was difficult wtf was going on >?? its almost as tho it was contrived.. "
Do you mean why did they leave him in a room within punching distance of a producer?
I just saw this from the previous thread:
"Companies will be forced to share their profits with employees under plans being considered by Ed Miliband’s Labour party. Any firm with more than 50 staff members would be obliged to set up a profit-sharing scheme, with workers being handed a cash sum based on their employers’ financial position.
There are schemes like that already in banks. They're known as bonuses. I thought Labour were against them. Or only when they can't be taxed. It's very confusing keeping up.
talent than his own ego believes
England should never have even accepted him in the team after
the way he attacked the promotion of black players in his
native country for his own selfish reasons
Meanwhile #kick Cameron out.... continues to trend
But its another bit of idiotic legislation, it will encourage large companies to move more of their profits offshore so they don't have to pay out so much. Medium sized companies will see a reduced profit line and look harder at moving offshore or outsourcing.
be more usefully spent on health, education and welfare
http://gu.com/p/46jbz/stw
But there are two striking anecdotes, one from an informed Lib Dem (Vince Cable?) about the budget and one from an anonymous Scottish Labour MP. I'm on an iPad so quoting is too hard work, and in any case the Scottish Labour MP contains language that is not fit for a respectable website. So follow the link for yourself.
But then of course as a luvvie advert director you are no doubt one of those difficult people...
"kitchen kitchen kitchen kitchen kitchen kitchen.........."
More on your kitchen obsession
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/03/13/ed-miliband-kitchen-vine_n_6862288.html
Get off your knees man and stop doffing your cap so cravenly
to celebrities and the powerful in general
What on earth is defamatory about saying Pietersen has an
ego far bigger than his talent...the great Boycott and millions
of our fellow proud Brits agree
I think you completely fail to understand the nature of Coalition government. Neither party gets all its' policies through - how can they ?!? and one part of the Coalition may have a red line against a policy they will not agree too.
Both Coalition parties have got significant manifesto policies through, that in the absence of the other would never have been implemented and the same would have been true if there had been a viable Lab/LibDem coalition in 2010.
The sort of people who save for their retirement are unlikely to blow it on fripperies. Worry more about those that never saved at all.
A question I've asked many UKIP supporters and received a direct answer...
We know UKIP want to scrap HS2, given this what investment would they make in the railway?
A direct honest answer would be great, but like other politicians UKIP avoid answering lots of harder questions.
Just as Cameron would jump at the same chance if it kept him in power, these losers would sup with the devil if it was required.
The study basically said "if 4m Christians keep become atheists and we get 1m more Muslims every decade, then in 30 years we'll have more Muslims than Christians."
Ignoring for a fact that going from 8m Christians to 4m is much, much harder than going from 26m to 22m, the point remains that the study didn't show Britain becoming a Muslim country, it showed it becoming an atheist one, with 60+% of the population not believing in God.
As someone who deals with disciplinary issues like this at work, I favour a more restorative justice type approach. Much more effective in a workplace setting than a punitive approach.
But we don't know the facts: reportedly Clarkson himself reported his behaviour to the BBC and there is to be a disciplinary panel. And he has been suspended. So there are three quite distinct differences to how Saville was treated right there.
Allegedly throwing a single punch and sexually abusing large numbers of people over half a century are not the same thing.
UKIP will have no say over the referendum question unless they more seats than the LibDems. Because the Conservative Party will say the the LDs: "vote for our referendum question, or you'll get UKIP's one". And UKIP can complain all they like about the question, but they'll look like idiots if they've just been given what they've long asked for.
This will be the question
"Do you support government's negotiation plans with the EU, and do you think we should remain a member of the EU after a successful renegotiation."
You are like a fish out of water here though im afraid in amongst
all the Fantasy Island and lets go back to the 80s/30s posts on this
blog
I say lets get back to the values of 45 to 79 instead..when all
Governments red or blue were to the left of any post 79
The days of giving the 'Mellors' of this world a good thrashing are long gone I'm afraid. It's just something you'll have to get used to.
Both coalition parties were against AV before the election. It was neither party's policy.
Nevertheless LDs negotiated that over tuition fees, which was not only in their manifesto but was their defining policy and something their leader had signed a pledge to defend.
Individuals, and sometimes organisations, get away with things they ought not. But there are different degrees of wrongdoing, and the claim against Clarkson is leagues less serious than what Savile did.
"Do you think the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union"
No fudge about renegotiation. Simple In/Out question.
Comparing Savile and Clarkson is just odious beyond belief. That anyone in senior management to think it a fair comparison - and not themselves to be suspended and on course for ejection towards the sun from a giant space cannon - shows there is a need for a massive clear-out at the top of the Beeb.
Mr. Antifrank, you're the lawyer, but last I checked an allegation does not constitute proof. We don't know the truth of the matter, or the background (mitigating/exacerbating factors).
Edited to add: I find it hard to believe in an organisation where nurses have been sacked for theft for eating toast left over from the patients' breakfast.
I really do hope he leaves the BBC and takes his colleagues with him to Sky. It would leave the BBC facing a large bill for breach of contract with lots of other countries and would strip them of one of their most popular and profitable programmes.
Mr. Mark, I agree entirely.
It'll just swing sympathy towards Clarkson.
But comparing the suspended employee to one of this country's worst paedophiles - IF that is what is has happened - is not on. And any employer doing something similar to a suspended employee before the investigation has concluded and any independent disciplinary panel has determined the matter needs their head examining.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/top-stories/danny-alexander-asks-tories-to-save-his-skin-1-3719004
Labour took money off pensioners to give to themselves to waste.
''Effectively, Labour has stolen £5bn a year from our pension funds. And that 1997 legislation really set the tone for things to come.''
''a 40 year old man planning to retire in 25 years making monthly contributions of £250 to add to his current £60,000 pension pot will eventually lose more than £120,000 on the final value, because of the tax relief reforms.''
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-1692321/Has-Labour-really-ransacked-our-pensions.html#ixzz3URjymKQM
There was zero prospect of the LibDem tuition fee policy being introduced within the Coalition whereas a compromise on a referendum on AV was possible.
Coalition is the art of the possible over the brick wall of the impossible.
Not all situations are repairable, but if they are then that is a much more constructive approach.
Am I the only person who is bored with SKY TV's campaign Stand Up Be Counted to engage teenagers in politics? If they cant be arsed to take an interest without being cajoled, they deserve to be ignored.
"remain a member of"
or the phrase
"leave"
and how it would affect the likelihood of a specific result.
But in the end you should treat the electorate like adults. They know what the question is and they should be allowed to answer it.
hadnt had access to the facilities that white players had for
decades
Or are you seriously suggesting that in a nation with a majority
black population the fact that nearly all the national cricket team
were white was down to "merit"
Mr. Calum, it seems Schwarznegger was doing the podium interviews after the race. [Didn't watch it, I loathe the podium interviews].
If you do not know the definition of choice.
There was a choice, they decided for their own personal gain to accept cabinet positions.
They could have let the Conservative party be a minority administration.
It has happened before read some history.
If someone is a known nuiscance then that should be addressed separately, without waiting for a punch up.