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.
I would actually be very interested to see how many people have been sacked by the BBC for hitting a colleague. It is fairly difficult to get sack someone from a big company these days even for something as straightforward as that. The lawyers and HR get all up tight about the possibility the assaulter might make some costly counter claim through the courts for unfair dismissal based on poor management of the situation prior to the incident. It happens regularly and there are employment lawyers just lining up to take these sorts of cases as very few companies have the comprehensive HR programmes in place that they would claim were necessary to ensure a harmonious workplace.
I would love to see how many similar incidents have been dealt with by the BBC through internal disciplinary procedures and 'retraining'.
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.
As I posted earlier, Clarkson wasn't compared to Savile, the way in which the BBC has dealt with Clarkson has been compared to the way in which the BBC dealt with Savile.
The executive likened 36-year-old Tymon’s position to that of Savile’s victims, who feared they would not be believed while he was alive. ‘The pressure this guy [Tymon] is under is so Savilesque in a way,’ he said, adding that Clarkson’s support from high-level politicians recalled the way Savile was once defended. ‘If you look at what David Cameron says or what [former Culture and Media Secretary] Maria Miller says and you swap Clarkson for Savile, you get this: David Cameron is effectively saying that Savile’s a real talent, Maria Miller saying Savile will be Savile.’ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2995106/Astonishing-remarks-Gear-affair-senior-BBC-boss-claims-Clarkson-like-Savile.html
Having said that it's a dangerous analogy to make because the Mail headline at least grossly simplifies it (the BBC guy never said Clarkson was "like savile" as far as I can see) and the readers are not going to even try to understand the analogy.
You are right about keeping shtum though, it would be better for the BBC and its staff to make no comment until the affair is over, and "the BBC Executive" (who is unnamed but may or may not be Danny Cohen the Director of Television) should be the subject of his own investigation and disciplinary proceedings.
" 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.
I have never said that! All I pointed out was that investigations need to be thorough and unpredjudiced and that there may be options for rehabilitation.
Some people on the left seem to be willing to forgive traitors and crimes against the state yet want lynch mob justice for much more minor fracases.
" 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.
Thumping someone is gross misconduct which you can instantly dismiss for. No investigation needed.
Wouldn't expect the NHS to do that or any large corp but a medium to small business would ask his supervisor 'Is he worth keeping?" if No, then he is on his way.
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.
Monica , just because you cannot afford 8 pints on your JSA, it is sad to be so bitter and twisted and envious. Get a job , work hard , make something of yourself and one day you will be able to have a good life like me. Envy is bad for you and a sin.
" 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.
Although you might take a different view when he claims previous good character and asks to be let off with a final warning.
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.
Sentences are a poor indicator. The unfortunate DLT was given a four month suspended sentence for a brief (affectionate) touch of an underlings fully clothed breasts. By these rules an agressive punch to the face should warrant several years.
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.
If I am dense, JackW you are a black hole.
In return for AV, a policy they were against, the LDs negotiated a coalition deal that not only failed to implement their tuition fees policy but actively went in the other direction.
IMO that was avoidable. You disagree.
Either way the electorate have made their mind up on the LDs.
" 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.
If it had been "acceptable practice” at one place where I worked there’d have been a queue to “hang one on” one individual.
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.
No, it's not acceptabl;e for Scots MPs to vote on England-only matters, the more so when they are Nationalists and will be clearly voting in such a way as to promote purely Scottish interests (at least with Scottish Labour MPs you could say they are voting on party lines and claiming it is the best for the UK as a whole). If the SNP does prop up a minority Labour government I could see this becoming an increasingly politicised issue. At least I hope it would, although everything seems to have gone quiet on the post-Indyref settlement and EVEL and Osborne's offer of devolution to Greater Manchester suggests he will be happy to be complicit in the cantonisation of England.
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.
If I am dense, JackW you are a black hole.
In return for AV, a policy they were against, the LDs negotiated a coalition deal that not only failed to implement their tuition fees policy but actively went in the other direction.
IMO that was avoidable. You disagree.
Either way the electorate have made their mind up on the LDs.
It is not you that is dense Jonathan. He does not understand choice.
Choice involves mentally making a decision: judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one or more of them.
" 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.
I have never said that! All I pointed out was that investigations need to be thorough and unpredjudiced and that there may be options for rehabilitation.
Some people on the left seem to be willing to forgive traitors and crimes against the state yet want lynch mob justice for much more minor fracases.
It should be cut and dried, this was no "let's go outside and settle this" matter where it is hard to place blame. Only one person was alleged to have been assaulted so unless misrepresented it should be a simple matter and the assailant should be out. Stressful , high pressure , etc are no excuse whatsoever for assaulting someone.
" 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.
Although you might take a different view when he claims previous good character and asks to be let off with a final warning.
I am not saying that I would never recommend dismissal for striking a colleague, just that there are other options that should be explored.
Sacking Clarkson makes victims of a whole production team, closes down the top selling BBC show in the world and adds a tenner or so to everyone in the countries licence fee.
If true, such behaviour must not be tolerated, but other sanctions can be applied.
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.
He will no doubt be terribly disappointed, nay heartbroken, to take the £10m that ITV are offering to continue his show on their channel. When is a punishment not a punishment...
Hm? I was wondering if Farage, having noticed that the green shots of UKIP's growth have been held back by the cold winds of February and March, is fearful that they would be nipped back by the early May frosts.
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"
Oh look - a squirrel.
Merit is completely relevant for selecting a national sports team. There is virtually nothing that selecting worse black players over better white ones would do for reducing inequalities of training or equipment between communities or races; it was simply a (racist) PR policy. To produce more top-quality black players, you need to do something at school and club level.
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.
Yes, and that's a perfectly rational choice which would be inconvenient for taxpayers - it's not that you'd be indulging in crazy wildness as Fox implies, but that you'd be maximising your lifetime income with an emphasis on your more active early retirement. The annuity rules are based on a hard-headed assessment of what will minimise the number of cases that the State has to intervene to prevent destitution, and it's in my opinion risky to chuck that away.
Even if someone at 65 signs a document promising never to claim any benefits, if he then spends his money by 85, do we then accept that he's made homeless? I had a great-great-uncle who expected to live to mid-eighties and settled in a nice hotel for his retirement years. He lived to past 90 and simply ran out of money. Obviously he was an idiot, but should he have ended up on the street? (Before my time so I'm not sure exactly what did happen to him.)
Q1) Any thoughts on the Chinese PM reducing GDP-growth expectations down from 7.4 to 7.0%? And his comment that this new target may be difficult to meet? [Src.: Al-Beeb, so may be unreliable.]
Q2) What is the current Sterling price of a barrel of Brent?
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"
Two points. Being opposed to a particular method of addressing racial discrimination doesn't make you a racist. And even if you supported the quota system, it might still be the case that you found limited opportunities to progress, and might seek opportunities elsewhere. I have heard a lot of lurid things about Pietersen as an England cricketer but none suggesting racism.
" 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.
Thumping someone is gross misconduct which you can instantly dismiss for. No investigation needed.
Wouldn't expect the NHS to do that or any large corp but a medium to small business would ask his supervisor 'Is he worth keeping?" if No, then he is on his way.
Problem is its usually someone's word against another, no evidence, no witnesses...
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.
No, it's not acceptabl;e for Scots MPs to vote on England-only matters, the more so when they are Nationalists and will be clearly voting in such a way as to promote purely Scottish interests (at least with Scottish Labour MPs you could say they are voting on party lines and claiming it is the best for the UK as a whole). If the SNP does prop up a minority Labour government I could see this becoming an increasingly politicised issue. At least I hope it would, although everything seems to have gone quiet on the post-Indyref settlement and EVEL and Osborne's offer of devolution to Greater Manchester suggests he will be happy to be complicit in the cantonisation of England.
There are NO England only matters. Take off your despots hat and understand that we are talking about the UK here , every single matter in Westminster is integrated and has some bearing on Scotland. What you and Westminster want is to continue to have England rule Scotland to give you some semblance of having a bit of your empire left. Westminster has 100% control of Scotland at all times.
" 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.
Although you might take a different view when he claims previous good character and asks to be let off with a final warning.
I am not saying that I would never recommend dismissal for striking a colleague, just that there are other options that should be explored.
Sacking Clarkson makes victims of a whole production team, closes down the top selling BBC show in the world and adds a tenner or so to everyone in the countries licence fee.
If true, such behaviour must not be tolerated, but other sanctions can be applied.
Very Tory view there, let the rich person off , only peasants can be sacked instantly but if you are rich , chum of Cameron , etc then just give a slap on the wrist.
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.
If I am dense, JackW you are a black hole.
In return for AV, a policy they were against, the LDs negotiated a coalition deal that not only failed to implement their tuition fees policy but actively went in the other direction.
IMO that was avoidable. You disagree.
Either way the electorate have made their mind up on the LDs.
You are clearly entitled to your own deluded view but not your own facts.
The AV referendum was not a sop for tuition fees policy.
The tuition policy was vacated early on in the discussions as it was a red line for the Tories.
The last segment of the Coalition Agreement was the Conservative final offer of a AV referendum which the LibDems agreed to probably on the basis that it was better than nothing and might provide a stepping stone to electoral reform as well the principle of such a referendum for a future STV vote.
On a personal basis I voted against the AV referendum.
Ed Balls will not rule out coalition with the SNP - BBC Marr.
SLAB should put Miliband on the spot, tell him is he does a deal with the SNP they will disassociate from the national party and take their own whip.
But there would be hardly any SLAB MPs anyway in that position - so ...
PS Some evidence of SLAB preparing for just that in the reportedly recet registration of 'Scottish Labour Party' trademark by a couple of members (not the Party in London).
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.
He will no doubt be terribly disappointed, nay heartbroken, to take the £10m that ITV are offering to continue his show on their channel. When is a punishment not a punishment...
Given the BBC own Top Gear I hardly think he could do that. He may do another naff show elsewhere but it would not be Top Gear.
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.
Yes, and that's a perfectly rational choice which would be inconvenient for taxpayers - it's not that you'd be indulging in crazy wildness as Fox implies, but that you'd be maximising your lifetime income with an emphasis on your more active early retirement. The annuity rules are based on a hard-headed assessment of what will minimise the number of cases that the State has to intervene to prevent destitution, and it's in my opinion risky to chuck that away.
Even if someone at 65 signs a document promising never to claim any benefits, if he then spends his money by 85, do we then accept that he's made homeless? I had a great-great-uncle who expected to live to mid-eighties and settled in a nice hotel for his retirement years. He lived to past 90 and simply ran out of money. Obviously he was an idiot, but should he have ended up on the street? (Before my time so I'm not sure exactly what did happen to him.)
I would suggest that withdrawal of funds should be subject to reasonable limits of say 10% of the pot per annum or £25 000, whichever is larger.
The real problem though is low annuity rates, which in turn reflect low bond yields due to QE. In some ways the reforms are just redressing the balance. QE fleeces savers so they run out of money, need to withdraw at a higher rate, then wind up a burden on the exchequer.
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.
Although you might take a different view when he claims previous good character and asks to be let off with a final warning.
I am not saying that I would never recommend dismissal for striking a colleague, just that there are other options that should be explored.
Sacking Clarkson makes victims of a whole production team, closes down the top selling BBC show in the world and adds a tenner or so to everyone in the countries licence fee.
If true, such behaviour must not be tolerated, but other sanctions can be applied.
Is he actually an employee of the BBC, or a contractor through his own or another Limited Company? Largely external contractors or consultants are outside the clients disciplinary framework and the clients options usually come down to putting up with it, or cancelling the contract. That can get awkward if the person in question is either essential to the business (very hard to find skills/specialist domain knowledge etc) or would cost the company an arm and a leg to replace because of lost revenue.
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.
If I am dense, JackW you are a black hole.
In return for AV, a policy they were against, the LDs negotiated a coalition deal that not only failed to implement their tuition fees policy but actively went in the other direction.
IMO that was avoidable. You disagree.
Either way the electorate have made their mind up on the LDs.
You are clearly entitled to your own deluded view but not your own facts.
The AV referendum was not a sop for tuition fees policy.
The tuition policy was vacated early on in the discussions as it was a red line for the Tories.
The last segment of the Coalition Agreement was the Conservative final offer of a AV referendum which the LibDems agreed to probably on the basis that it was better than nothing and might provide a stepping stone to electoral reform as well the principle of such a referendum for a future STV vote.
On a personal basis I voted against the AV referendum.
Many thanks: but it's not there, and I've gone out and logged back in again just in case. Will try again later. (Er, is it possible you typed the address in the way you put it? It's actually Carnyx with the n and y transposed from your spelling.)
Mr. G, it might have a new name, but it'd be basically the same programme.
May and Hammond's contracts come up for renewal pretty shortly. They might well jump ship with Clarkson.
Mr. G [part 2], the Vow will end that.
Either substantial powers shift and English-only matters become of significant political importance, or they don't, and the SNP would claim legitimate (in their eyes) grounds for Referendum 2: Refer Harder.
There are NO England only matters. Take off your despots hat and understand that we are talking about the UK here , every single matter in Westminster is integrated and has some bearing on Scotland. What you and Westminster want is to continue to have England rule Scotland to give you some semblance of having a bit of your empire left. Westminster has 100% control of Scotland at all times.
That's bullshit. Revenue-neutral changes can be England-only. But to make you happy I think we should get rid of the Barnett formula. That means there will be England-only matters.
I think it is borderline corrupt for there to be an incentive for Scottish MPs to vote for additional public spending in England we don't want (or against savings) because it will increase the Scottish budget.
Mr. G, it might have a new name, but it'd be basically the same programme.
May and Hammond's contracts come up for renewal pretty shortly. They might well jump ship with Clarkson.
Mr. G [part 2], the Vow will end that.
Either substantial powers shift and English-only matters become of significant political importance, or they don't, and the SNP would claim legitimate (in their eyes) grounds for Referendum 2: Refer Harder.
MD, It will still be naff show by 3 middle aged sad turnips. Part 2 , the Vow is not in existence , it was made up by daily Record as we see from Smith Commission and consists of them making up a number for income tax ( HMRC cannot even manage that )and then deducting that number from Barnett number and claiming that is a transfer of powers. Only a fool will be happy with that, troubles ahead I am afraid.
PS: hence panic by unionists re SNP holding balance of power after May 7th, they may actually have to keep their imaginary promises. Best outcome for Scotland is Tory minority government and 50+ SNP MP's, but unlikely. Looks like Ed will be a sock puppet for SNP instead.
Q1) Any thoughts on the Chinese PM reducing GDP-growth expectations down from 7.4 to 7.0%? And his comment that this new target may be difficult to meet? [Src.: Al-Beeb, so may be unreliable.]
Q2) What is the current Sterling price of a barrel of Brent?
£30 a barrel: Will never happen, hey....
:smug-face:
Re China: right now gross capital formation (i.e. building things like roads, and houses, and investing in productive capacity) is close to 50% of GDP. That is clearly unsustainable, and the government needs to reduce it. However, this process - moving to towards a more domestic consumption oriented economy - is a difficult. It should not surprise us to see the China growth rate slowing over the next few years still further - with the risk of a major recession during the transition. This is not to say that China is not a global economic powerhouse, it is and will remain so.
Spot Brent is $54.57; GBPUSD is about 1.5 at the moment, so a barrel of Brent is about £36. Personally, I think we are in a decade long bear market for oil, so I don't think £30 (or even £20) is out the question for Brent.
The Labour/SNP hypocrites calling for Clarkson's head never demanded Alex Ferguson's dismissal after the Beckham boot to face incident. They found it funny and admirable.They're full of it.
"There are NO England only matters. Take off your despots hat and understand that we are talking about the UK here , every single matter in Westminster is integrated and has some bearing on Scotland. What you and Westminster want is to continue to have England rule Scotland to give you some semblance of having a bit of your empire left. Westminster has 100% control of Scotland at all times."
In that case there are No Scotland only matters either. As long as devolution is reciprocal the English will support it. Some Scots resent what they see as English rule, why are you surprised that some English will resent Scottish rule?
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.
That may very well be true. But the point I keep trying to make was that the Tweet was "Britain to become majority Muslim country in 30 years", when the actuality was that "Assuming all current trends continue, which is ridiculous, then Britain will become a majority atheist country in 30 years."
MG It s not my money..and you are the one who has opted to keep working in your old job instead of emigrating... for more money..in your pension. Most people seem happy to have some more money and Clarkson should whup the fella who made that appalling comment.
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 wholeheartedly.
However, a referendum in 2015 will be framed by Cameron as "a vote for a renegotiation" without him having to go through the tedious process of actually trying to renegotiate. For that reason, I suspect it would be more easily won by "in" than by a post renegotiation election.
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.
He will no doubt be terribly disappointed, nay heartbroken, to take the £10m that ITV are offering to continue his show on their channel. When is a punishment not a punishment...
Given the BBC own Top Gear I hardly think he could do that. He may do another naff show elsewhere but it would not be Top Gear.
Clarkson IS Top Gear.
Without him the programme is nothing, yet another 'Fifth Gear', watched by almost no one.
" 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...
Food is a good way to maintain discipline: But not for Wodger. The Soho-sewer rat probably enjoys being caned by his Dominatrix/some Arab Dictator.
He also thinks that the 2011 London riots were a good thing: "Kill the Tories". Of all the murdered victims I believe none has been identified as Tories.
MG It s not my money..and you are the one who has opted to keep working in your old job instead of emigrating... for more money..in your pension. Most people seem happy to have some more money and Clarkson should whup the fella who made that appalling comment.
RD, when you read it properly it is far from bad and the comparison is to the BBC and its processes not him. Why would he drag himself through the bad publicity that would result just for money he does not need. BBC have bottomless pockets.
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 wholeheartedly.
However, a referendum in 2015 will be framed by Cameron as "a vote for a renegotiation" without him having to go through the tedious process of actually trying to renegotiate. For that reason, I suspect it would be more easily won by "in" than by a post renegotiation election.
Which will be sold as a stitch up by every eurosceptic around, a fair chunk of the right side of the Tory party will peel off, and UKIP will get 25-30% in the next election, not sure that is going to be a step forward.
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.
He will no doubt be terribly disappointed, nay heartbroken, to take the £10m that ITV are offering to continue his show on their channel. When is a punishment not a punishment...
Given the BBC own Top Gear I hardly think he could do that. He may do another naff show elsewhere but it would not be Top Gear.
Clarkson IS Top Gear.
Without him the programme is nothing, yet another 'Fifth Gear', watched by almost no one.
Top Gear is
Clarkson + Hammond + May
Without Clarkson it would be much diminished. Likewise a show without Hammond and May would be less good.
I suspect that right now, as we speak, Sky, Amazon, Netflix, ITV, Disney and a whole host of other media giants are trying to persuade the three of them to start a whole new show which will be very similar to Top Gear.
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.
He will no doubt be terribly disappointed, nay heartbroken, to take the £10m that ITV are offering to continue his show on their channel. When is a punishment not a punishment...
Given the BBC own Top Gear I hardly think he could do that. He may do another naff show elsewhere but it would not be Top Gear.
Clarkson IS Top Gear.
Without him the programme is nothing, yet another 'Fifth Gear', watched by almost no one.
Richard, personally it is nothing and has been for years, well by its sell by date in any event. Bury it as it deserves.
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 wholeheartedly.
However, a referendum in 2015 will be framed by Cameron as "a vote for a renegotiation" without him having to go through the tedious process of actually trying to renegotiate. For that reason, I suspect it would be more easily won by "in" than by a post renegotiation election.
I disagree. It will be obvious to everyone that if In wins, then there will be no meaningful renegotiation at all. Not only will Cameron have no incentive to push for renegotiation but, also, the EU will have absolutely no incentive to grant any concessions. If In wins then renegotiation is dead.
What an early referendum does is to remove the ability of Cameron to pretend he is getting concessions when they are actually meaningless or non existent.
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 wholeheartedly.
However, a referendum in 2015 will be framed by Cameron as "a vote for a renegotiation" without him having to go through the tedious process of actually trying to renegotiate. For that reason, I suspect it would be more easily won by "in" than by a post renegotiation election.
Which will be sold as a stitch up by every eurosceptic around, a fair chunk of the right side of the Tory party will peel off, and UKIP will get 25-30% in the next election, not sure that is going to be a step forward.
I think a 2015 election framed by Cameron as "give me the mandate I need to win concessions from Brussels" would be won 60:40 by "in".
I don't think that would lead to a fissuring of the Conservative Party.
Clarkson must be laughing his socks off today.. must be worth millions in compensation.
Your greed for money is unedyfying. Given he has more millions than he can spend already , what difference would more make to him.
A nice new Ferrari supercar never goes amiss...
You can only drive one at a time. Rich must be really pi**ed off that they only have one stomach.
Surely us rich. You're forever bragging about your wealth and good fortune.
Monica, porkies again , I am far from rich and if you ever read my posts properly you would know that I am reasonably well sorted out ( mortgages apart ) after working hard for many years. I never ever brag and know how lucky I am , and unlike you am not envious of people who are rich.
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.
He will no doubt be terribly disappointed, nay heartbroken, to take the £10m that ITV are offering to continue his show on their channel. When is a punishment not a punishment...
Given the BBC own Top Gear I hardly think he could do that. He may do another naff show elsewhere but it would not be Top Gear.
Clarkson IS Top Gear.
Without him the programme is nothing, yet another 'Fifth Gear', watched by almost no one.
Richard, personally it is nothing and has been for years, well by its sell by date in any event. Bury it as it deserves.
I understand that and that is a matter of personal taste for you. Nor do I say you are wrong. Simply that I have a different opinion.
What is not in doubt is that it is hugely popular and one of the BBC's biggest sellers world wide. So the idea that it is nothing is clearly not a view held by viewers in over 200 countries around the world.
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 wholeheartedly.
However, a referendum in 2015 will be framed by Cameron as "a vote for a renegotiation" without him having to go through the tedious process of actually trying to renegotiate. For that reason, I suspect it would be more easily won by "in" than by a post renegotiation election.
I disagree. It will be obvious to everyone that if In wins, then there will be no meaningful renegotiation at all. Not only will Cameron have no incentive to push for renegotiation but, also, the EU will have absolutely no incentive to grant any concessions. If In wins then renegotiation is dead.
What an early referendum does is to remove the ability of Cameron to pretend he is getting concessions when they are actually meaningless or non existent.
I don't think that's true, Richard. He will say "I will be doing the renegotiation anyway. I'd planned to have the referendum afterwards, but am happy to have it first." And if he promises some referendum down the way (but not nessarily in 2017) on the renegotiated package, it will be very hard for Tory eurosceptics who'd planned to say "this is not enough, i'm voting out", to oppose it.
Nearly all possible tax deductions for individuals are welcome, except reductions in alcohol duty - they are opposed by 50-33, fairly consistently across parties, except that UKIP is evenly divided.
Only 17% want to protect defence from cuts (vs 76% for health and 53% for education). A big party difference here, though, with 38% among Tories and 42% among Kippers.
The BBC is backed in suspending Clarkson, by 66-20. A narrow plurality (48-44) dislike him anyway.
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.
I agree,
Apart from your stupid comment that us bog-trotters are a race. We're not special; just Caucasians.
MG Thats why Clarkson will be laughing... he doesn't need the money but the BBC fella that made the remark should be hung out to dry.. he has just massively maligned a prominent TV performer who is known world wide..and likened him to a pervert..without a shred of evidence.
Clarkson must be laughing his socks off today.. must be worth millions in compensation.
Your greed for money is unedyfying. Given he has more millions than he can spend already , what difference would more make to him.
A nice new Ferrari supercar never goes amiss...
You can only drive one at a time. Rich must be really pi**ed off that they only have one stomach.
Surely us rich. You're forever bragging about your wealth and good fortune.
Monica, porkies again , I am far from rich and if you ever read my posts properly you would know that I am reasonably well sorted out ( mortgages apart ) after working hard for many years. I never ever brag and know how lucky I am , and unlike you am not envious of people who are rich.
It's well you remember that the gods are jealous. Your contempt for the poor, unemployed and unfortunate is on the record in this thread, I think you should drop that line to avoid a nasty comeuppance.
If some clown ever went out for eight-pints forty years-ago then that would equate to 2.666**[recurring] pints per hour (12:00 to 15:00]. Allowing for pishing I call bogus.*
* Have spent a few years behind-the-jump in the late 'Eighties. Albeit in Sarf'-Luhndahn.
** I was educated by a number of Scottish teachers. They cannot bbe blamed for my silly mayhs though.
"Food is a good way to maintain discipline: But not for Wodger. The Soho-sewer rat probably enjoys being caned by his Dominatrix/some Arab Dictator.
He also thinks that the 2011 London riots were a good thing: "Kill the Tories". Of all the murdered victims I believe none has been identified as Tories.
:wodger-a-sick-[MODERATED]:"
And I thought after a difficult few years you were on the mend
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.
He will no doubt be terribly disappointed, nay heartbroken, to take the £10m that ITV are offering to continue his show on their channel. When is a punishment not a punishment...
Given the BBC own Top Gear I hardly think he could do that. He may do another naff show elsewhere but it would not be Top Gear.
Clarkson IS Top Gear.
Without him the programme is nothing, yet another 'Fifth Gear', watched by almost no one.
Top Gear is
Clarkson + Hammond + May
Without Clarkson it would be much diminished. Likewise a show without Hammond and May would be less good.
I suspect that right now, as we speak, Sky, Amazon, Netflix, ITV, Disney and a whole host of other media giants are trying to persuade the three of them to start a whole new show which will be very similar to Top Gear.
Top gear is Blue Peter updated
Hammond is Noakes Clarkson is Purves May is Singleton
They go on expeditions. They make things. They even used to have a dog.
Lewis Hamilton dominates the Australian Grand Prix to get his world title defence off to the perfect start, as 11 cars finish in Melbourne.
A good Sunday start for Morris.
Hamilton wins driving a Morris ... which model .... Marina or the old Minor ?
I call Morris_Dancer, Morris, for short. Anything wrong with that? Go back to bed, you old fogey, and get up on the right side for once. Your feeble jokes are just that, feeble.
Oh do lighten up. Sound more like you got out of the wrong side of the bed not I.
Mind you I suppose it's a bit crowded in the Ukip bed this morning what with Nigel wanting to jump in the sack with the Conservatives and DUP if Cameron flashes his referendum stockings at Farage.
Farage must be getting worried the tory end of his labour tory coalition of voters is slipping away. I think it shows how useless Farage really is. He can't resist trying to sound clever and influential.
Meantime Miliband has been hobnobbing with 'toxic' Tony Blair on the quiet and with the bloke he went to Hull and back to see. You know the one who clearly never never wanted a bit of help with his property development. The one Ed pulled out of an NHS rally to see? Assem Allam, or as I like to call him The Pharaoh'.
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 wholeheartedly.
However, a referendum in 2015 will be framed by Cameron as "a vote for a renegotiation" without him having to go through the tedious process of actually trying to renegotiate. For that reason, I suspect it would be more easily won by "in" than by a post renegotiation election.
I disagree. It will be obvious to everyone that if In wins, then there will be no meaningful renegotiation at all. Not only will Cameron have no incentive to push for renegotiation but, also, the EU will have absolutely no incentive to grant any concessions. If In wins then renegotiation is dead.
What an early referendum does is to remove the ability of Cameron to pretend he is getting concessions when they are actually meaningless or non existent.
I don't think that's true, Richard. He will say "I will be doing the renegotiation anyway. I'd planned to have the referendum afterwards, but am happy to have it first." And if he promises some referendum down the way (but not nessarily in 2017) on the renegotiated package, it will be very hard for Tory eurosceptics who'd planned to say "this is not enough, i'm voting out", to oppose it.
No it would not. Cameron promising successive referenda based on some spurious renegotiation at some point in the future is not a winning position.
What I do think will happen in the next Parliament is that we will see a final and fundamental split in the Tory party if Cameron's desire for us to remain in the EU at any cost is forced upon his party.
MG Thats why Clarkson will be laughing... he doesn't need the money but the BBC fella that made the remark should be hung out to dry.. he has just massively maligned a prominent TV performer who is known world wide..and likened him to a pervert..without a shred of evidence.
Richard, It all seems to me like a bunch of jessies gossiping and waving handbags at each other. Clarkson if proven to have assaulted a junior employee as was being suggested, deserves to be sacked immediately it is confirmed to be true.
Clarkson must be laughing his socks off today.. must be worth millions in compensation.
Your greed for money is unedyfying. Given he has more millions than he can spend already , what difference would more make to him.
A nice new Ferrari supercar never goes amiss...
You can only drive one at a time. Rich must be really pi**ed off that they only have one stomach.
Surely us rich. You're forever bragging about your wealth and good fortune.
Monica, porkies again , I am far from rich and if you ever read my posts properly you would know that I am reasonably well sorted out ( mortgages apart ) after working hard for many years. I never ever brag and know how lucky I am , and unlike you am not envious of people who are rich.
It's well you remember that the gods are jealous. Your contempt for the poor, unemployed and unfortunate is on the record in this thread, I think you should drop that line to avoid a nasty comeuppance.
Monica your pants must be on fire , you make Billy Liar look truthful. One day your porkies will cause you trouble.
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.
He will no doubt be terribly disappointed, nay heartbroken, to take the £10m that ITV are offering to continue his show on their channel. When is a punishment not a punishment...
Given the BBC own Top Gear I hardly think he could do that. He may do another naff show elsewhere but it would not be Top Gear.
Clarkson IS Top Gear.
Without him the programme is nothing, yet another 'Fifth Gear', watched by almost no one.
Richard, personally it is nothing and has been for years, well by its sell by date in any event. Bury it as it deserves.
I understand that and that is a matter of personal taste for you. Nor do I say you are wrong. Simply that I have a different opinion.
What is not in doubt is that it is hugely popular and one of the BBC's biggest sellers world wide. So the idea that it is nothing is clearly not a view held by viewers in over 200 countries around the world.
Richard, principles and reputation should come above money in the BBC's considerations though.
MG I could not agree more with the sacking..well deserved..It is a clause in my BBC contracts too...but what we are discussing is Clarkson suing some prat in the upper echelons of the BBC for comparing him to a mass sexual predator.Bear in mind that Clarkson is followed by millions on twitter and his show goes out to something like 300 million viewers..who will now see the headline. The so called exec should be fired. he is going to cost us a bloody fortune
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
I agree wholeheartedly.
However, a referendum in 2015 will be framed by Cameron as "a vote for a renegotiation" without him having to go through the tedious process of actually trying to renegotiate. For that reason, I suspect it would be more easily won by "in" than by a post renegotiation election.
I disagree. It will be obvious to everyone that if In wins, then there will be no meaningful renegotiation at all. Not only will Cameron have no incentive to push for renegotiation but, also, the EU will have absolutely no incentive to grant any concessions. If In wins then renegotiation is dead.
What an early referendum does is to remove the ability of Cameron to pretend he is getting concessions when they are actually meaningless or non existent.
I don't think that's true, Richard. He will say "I will be doing the renegotiation anyway. I'd planned to have the referendum afterwards, but am happy to have it first." And if he promises some referendum down the way (but not nessarily in 2017) on the renegotiated package, it will be very hard for Tory eurosceptics who'd planned to say "this is not enough, i'm voting out", to oppose it.
No it would not. Cameron promising successive referenda based on some spurious renegotiation at some point in the future is not a winning position.
What I do think will happen in the next Parliament is that we will see a final and fundamental split in the Tory party if Cameron's desire for us to remain in the EU at any cost is forced upon his party.
I do not think that Cameron wants to stay in the EU at any cost. He is no Ken Clarke. Indeed I am unconvinced that he holds any political view particularly strongly. He is a pragmatist, even an opportunist, and I would not put it past him siding with withdrawal if that was the way the wind was blowing.
Interesting comment If you ask them on social media, Labour MPs and activists will all hotly deny that the party signed up to the Conservatives’ plan for £30bn of austerity cuts in the next five years. It’ll be interesting to see whether they try to continue doing so in the light of Ed Balls’ appearance on the Andrew Marr Show this morning.
Specifically challenged by Marr on the SNP’s allegation that Labour and the Tories were as one on what Marr rather tactfully called “£30bn of contraction”, Balls nodded his assent and offered not a word of disagreement or protest, before going on to insist that balancing the books “as soon as possible” was vital to the credible management of the economy and the SNP’s approach was “irresponsible”. (He merely noted that the Tories wanted to subsequently cut more.)
MG I could not agree more with the sacking..well deserved..It is a clause in my BBC contracts too...but what we are discussing is Clarkson suing some prat in the upper echelons of the BBC for comparing him to a mass sexual predator.Bear in mind that Clarkson is followed by millions on twitter and his show goes out to something like 300 million viewers..who will now see the headline. The so called exec should be fired. he is going to cost us a bloody fortune
Richard , I give you that one , mind I could not bring myself to read anything about Clarkson as I consider him such a buffoon.
Clarkson must be laughing his socks off today.. must be worth millions in compensation.
Your greed for money is unedyfying. Given he has more millions than he can spend already , what difference would more make to him.
A nice new Ferrari supercar never goes amiss...
You can only drive one at a time. Rich must be really pi**ed off that they only have one stomach.
Surely us rich. You're forever bragging about your wealth and good fortune.
Monica, porkies again , I am far from rich and if you ever read my posts properly you would know that I am reasonably well sorted out ( mortgages apart ) after working hard for many years. I never ever brag and know how lucky I am , and unlike you am not envious of people who are rich.
It's well you remember that the gods are jealous. Your contempt for the poor, unemployed and unfortunate is on the record in this thread, I think you should drop that line to avoid a nasty comeuppance.
Monica your pants must be on fire , you make Billy Liar look truthful. One day your porkies will cause you trouble.
Your vulgar snobbery is on the record. It's deeply reassuring that someone of your quality is highly paid.
MG I could not agree more with the sacking..well deserved..It is a clause in my BBC contracts too...but what we are discussing is Clarkson suing some prat in the upper echelons of the BBC for comparing him to a mass sexual predator.Bear in mind that Clarkson is followed by millions on twitter and his show goes out to something like 300 million viewers..who will now see the headline. The so called exec should be fired. he is going to cost us a bloody fortune
Why should it cost us any money? BBC Execs don't have 'Parliamentary Privilege'. Sue them personally for any defamation.
"Food is a good way to maintain discipline: But not for Wodger. The Soho-sewer rat probably enjoys being caned by his Dominatrix/some Arab Dictator.
He also thinks that the 2011 London riots were a good thing: "Kill the Tories". Of all the murdered victims I believe none has been identified as Tories.
:wodger-a-sick-[MODERATED]:"
And I thought after a difficult few years you were on the mend
Highlighted your problem there Wodger.
Like you - and many others - change will never happen. We are who we are (and we enjoy the fact).
Depends on how high up the greasy pole he is..if the comment was made by a BBC spokesman then he is probably assumed to be speaking for the organisation..Clarkson is known to be litigious..and in this case he would be justified.
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?
... 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 wholeheartedly.
However, a referendum in 2015 will be framed by Cameron as "a vote for a renegotiation" without him having to go through the tedious process of actually trying to renegotiate. For that reason, I suspect it would be more easily won by "in" than by a post renegotiation election.
I disagree. It will be obvious to everyone that if In wins, then there will be no meaningful renegotiation at all. Not only will Cameron have no incentive to push for renegotiation but, also, the EU will have absolutely no incentive to grant any concessions. If In wins then renegotiation is dead.
What an early referendum does is to remove the ability of Cameron to pretend he is getting concessions when they are actually meaningless or non existent.
I don't think that's true, Richard. He will say "I will be doing the renegotiation anyway. I'd planned to have the referendum afterwards, but am happy to have it first." And if he promises some referendum down the way (but not nessarily in 2017) on the renegotiated package, it will be very hard for Tory eurosceptics who'd planned to say "this is not enough, i'm voting out", to oppose it.
To lose a referendum (ie stay in) before renegotiations would be stupid. And if we stay in we need to secure our position re the Eurozone. Having already voted to stay in that would be difficult. To get the best deal we need negotiations then a referendum. If that could be in 2016 so much the better, but its likely one way or another Cameron would retire after the referendum anyway so he would probably prefer 2017. The point with Cameron and the tories is that there would be a referendum - if you like or dislike negotiations it does not matter, you get a vote with the tories - so what is Farage's problem??
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.
The problems with it from Cameron's point of view are: 1) He has to go back on his promise to do "renegotiation" before a referendum if he's PM. 2) A clean in-out referendum would split the Tory Party. 3) Once the Tories were damaged and they'd had their referendum, UKIP could pull the plug, resulting in either a new election with a split party or Labour taking over instead.
Ed Miliband hasn't made any promises like that, and his main objection to a referendum is that the uncertainty is bad for jobs. If that's right then there's a lot to be said for doing it quick and getting it over with. They have the referendum, "in" probably wins, the Tories fight like ferrets in a sack, Ed Miliband gets to look Prime Ministerial for 6 months then UKIP pull the plug and you have a new election.
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"?
But losing the referendum has killed electoral reform for the forsee-able.
So would losing a EU referendum.
UKIP agree on little else, veering eratically between libertarianism and welfare statism, depending which side of the bed Nigel has got out of.
An early referendum before any renegotiation allows UKIP to call for a second one after the renegotiation (on the grounds that it is not enough)
I think one thing we have learned from the polling lately is that the metropolitan media onslaught from C4 and the BBC has not done UKIP any harm. In fact they seem to be polling better than before, those ill thought out attack "documentaries" may have done more good than harm by re-energising the UKIP base a bit after a couple of months of drift.
More informative would be to ask that 55% if them being allegedy racist would stop them voting for them and also ask people whether they think Tories and Labour are racist
Interesting comment If you ask them on social media, Labour MPs and activists will all hotly deny that the party signed up to the Conservatives’ plan for £30bn of austerity cuts in the next five years. It’ll be interesting to see whether they try to continue doing so in the light of Ed Balls’ appearance on the Andrew Marr Show this morning.
Specifically challenged by Marr on the SNP’s allegation that Labour and the Tories were as one on what Marr rather tactfully called “£30bn of contraction”, Balls nodded his assent and offered not a word of disagreement or protest, before going on to insist that balancing the books “as soon as possible” was vital to the credible management of the economy and the SNP’s approach was “irresponsible”. (He merely noted that the Tories wanted to subsequently cut more.)
Unfortunately for you the problem for the nation is that Blair Brown and Darling, Scotsman all (like oh so many in the Labour 'top echelons', increased government spending in 10 years by 50 % in real terms. Even before the crash the nation could not afford that spending and borrowing rose rapidly despite tax hikes. After the crash another chunk of productive capacity was permanently lost on top of that. Plus we now find a huge drop in North Sea oil - also likely to be permanent. So how you think the nation can afford what you want to spend??
In any event ''Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) predicts that the fall in oil prices and lower gilt (government bond) yields will reduce the budget deficit in each of the next five years compared with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s autumn statement forecast. The cumulative undershoot, £32bn, is not huge but it not to be sneezed at either. Goldman Sachs predicts a deficit undershoot of £8bn for this year alone, followed by £13bn next year, 2015-16. Its prediction of £83bn of borrowing this year would take Osborne close to halving the deficit in cash terms, in addition to as a percentage of gross domestic product. Next year’s £63bn prediction would take us closer to normality; in the five years leading up to the crisis, the last government borrowed an average of £45bn a year in today’s prices.'' http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/ ''As for public spending, and Balls’s “unprecedented” £70bn of cuts, the figures are clear. In cash terms overall public spending will rise by £43bn between now and 2019-20; the duration of the next parliament (assuming it lasts five years). In real terms there is a planned cut, though less than £20bn. To get to £70bn, or anything like it, you have to add up all the areas where the coalition is planning to increase spending, including public investment, and subtract the rest. It is, to say the least, an odd approach.'' ''spending would need to fall to 36% of GDP to generate a small budget surplus; slightly higher than when Gordon Brown was chancellor in 1999-2000''
Eastleigh - Tories were third at the By-Election, there are 40 LibDems and 4 Tories on Eastleigh council. The last Eastleigh poll showed LibDems 15% clear of the Tories.
Comments
I would love to see how many similar incidents have been dealt with by the BBC through internal disciplinary procedures and 'retraining'.
You are right about keeping shtum though, it would be better for the BBC and its staff to make no comment until the affair is over, and "the BBC Executive" (who is unnamed but may or may not be Danny Cohen the Director of Television) should be the subject of his own investigation and disciplinary proceedings.
Some people on the left seem to be willing to forgive traitors and crimes against the state yet want lynch mob justice for much more minor fracases.
Wouldn't expect the NHS to do that or any large corp but a medium to small business would ask his supervisor 'Is he worth keeping?" if No, then he is on his way.
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.
Sentences are a poor indicator. The unfortunate DLT was given a four month suspended sentence for a brief (affectionate) touch of an underlings fully clothed breasts. By these rules an agressive punch to the face should warrant several years.
In return for AV, a policy they were against, the LDs negotiated a coalition deal that not only failed to implement their tuition fees policy but actively went in the other direction.
IMO that was avoidable. You disagree.
Either way the electorate have made their mind up on the LDs.
He does not understand choice.
Choice involves mentally making a decision: judging the merits of multiple options and selecting one or more of them.
Sacking Clarkson makes victims of a whole production team, closes down the top selling BBC show in the world and adds a tenner or so to everyone in the countries licence fee.
If true, such behaviour must not be tolerated, but other sanctions can be applied.
Merit is completely relevant for selecting a national sports team. There is virtually nothing that selecting worse black players over better white ones would do for reducing inequalities of training or equipment between communities or races; it was simply a (racist) PR policy. To produce more top-quality black players, you need to do something at school and club level.
Even if someone at 65 signs a document promising never to claim any benefits, if he then spends his money by 85, do we then accept that he's made homeless? I had a great-great-uncle who expected to live to mid-eighties and settled in a nice hotel for his retirement years. He lived to past 90 and simply ran out of money. Obviously he was an idiot, but should he have ended up on the street? (Before my time so I'm not sure exactly what did happen to him.)
A couple of questions:
Q1) Any thoughts on the Chinese PM reducing GDP-growth expectations down from 7.4 to 7.0%? And his comment that this new target may be difficult to meet? [Src.: Al-Beeb, so may be unreliable.]
Q2) What is the current Sterling price of a barrel of Brent?
£30 a barrel: Will never happen, hey....
:smug-face:
The AV referendum was not a sop for tuition fees policy.
The tuition policy was vacated early on in the discussions as it was a red line for the Tories.
The last segment of the Coalition Agreement was the Conservative final offer of a AV referendum which the LibDems agreed to probably on the basis that it was better than nothing and might provide a stepping stone to electoral reform as well the principle of such a referendum for a future STV vote.
On a personal basis I voted against the AV referendum.
...................................................................................
Laters .....
I'm out to lunch .... as I am quite often according to some PBers.
The real problem though is low annuity rates, which in turn reflect low bond yields due to QE. In some ways the reforms are just redressing the balance. QE fleeces savers so they run out of money, need to withdraw at a higher rate, then wind up a burden on the exchequer.
May and Hammond's contracts come up for renewal pretty shortly. They might well jump ship with Clarkson.
Mr. G [part 2], the Vow will end that.
Either substantial powers shift and English-only matters become of significant political importance, or they don't, and the SNP would claim legitimate (in their eyes) grounds for Referendum 2: Refer Harder.
I think it is borderline corrupt for there to be an incentive for Scottish MPs to vote for additional public spending in England we don't want (or against savings) because it will increase the Scottish budget.
Fiscal autonomy can't happen quickly enough IMO.
PS: hence panic by unionists re SNP holding balance of power after May 7th, they may actually have to keep their imaginary promises. Best outcome for Scotland is Tory minority government and 50+ SNP MP's, but unlikely. Looks like Ed will be a sock puppet for SNP instead.
Spot Brent is $54.57; GBPUSD is about 1.5 at the moment, so a barrel of Brent is about £36. Personally, I think we are in a decade long bear market for oil, so I don't think £30 (or even £20) is out the question for Brent.
Malcomg writes:
"There are NO England only matters. Take off your despots hat and understand that we are talking about the UK here , every single matter in Westminster is integrated and has some bearing on Scotland. What you and Westminster want is to continue to have England rule Scotland to give you some semblance of having a bit of your empire left. Westminster has 100% control of Scotland at all times."
In that case there are No Scotland only matters either. As long as devolution is reciprocal the English will support it. Some Scots resent what they see as English rule, why are you surprised that some English will resent Scottish rule?
Most people seem happy to have some more money and Clarkson should whup the fella who made that appalling comment.
However, a referendum in 2015 will be framed by Cameron as "a vote for a renegotiation" without him having to go through the tedious process of actually trying to renegotiate. For that reason, I suspect it would be more easily won by "in" than by a post renegotiation election.
Without him the programme is nothing, yet another 'Fifth Gear', watched by almost no one.
He also thinks that the 2011 London riots were a good thing: "Kill the Tories". Of all the murdered victims I believe none has been identified as Tories.
:wodger-a-sick-[MODERATED]:
Clarkson + Hammond + May
Without Clarkson it would be much diminished. Likewise a show without Hammond and May would be less good.
I suspect that right now, as we speak, Sky, Amazon, Netflix, ITV, Disney and a whole host of other media giants are trying to persuade the three of them to start a whole new show which will be very similar to Top Gear.
You are sick, sick as the BBC 'insider'.
What an early referendum does is to remove the ability of Cameron to pretend he is getting concessions when they are actually meaningless or non existent.
I don't think that would lead to a fissuring of the Conservative Party.
apart ) after working hard for many years. I never ever brag and know how lucky I am , and unlike you am not envious of people who are rich.
What is not in doubt is that it is hugely popular and one of the BBC's biggest sellers world wide. So the idea that it is nothing is clearly not a view held by viewers in over 200 countries around the world.
Nearly all possible tax deductions for individuals are welcome, except reductions in alcohol duty - they are opposed by 50-33, fairly consistently across parties, except that UKIP is evenly divided.
Only 17% want to protect defence from cuts (vs 76% for health and 53% for education). A big party difference here, though, with 38% among Tories and 42% among Kippers.
The BBC is backed in suspending Clarkson, by 66-20. A narrow plurality (48-44) dislike him anyway.
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/30utv50vpt/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-130315.pdf
Apart from your stupid comment that us bog-trotters are a race. We're not special; just Caucasians.
It's that time of the week again, ELBOW (Electoral Leader-Board Of the Week) for week-ending 15th March - 11 polls total weighted samples 13,108:
Con 33.2 (-0.1)
Lab 33.2 (-0.3)
UKIP 14.8 (+0.4)
LD 7.4 (+0.1)
Green 5.7 (-0.3)
Lab lead 0.0 (-0.2) - close, but no e-cigarette for Crossover fans!
Greens down to lowest score for three months
Was it all you hoped for?
Worth a read about scientific bias by omission of evidence.
* Have spent a few years behind-the-jump in the late 'Eighties. Albeit in Sarf'-Luhndahn.
** I was educated by a number of Scottish teachers. They cannot bbe blamed for my silly mayhs though.
"Food is a good way to maintain discipline: But not for Wodger. The Soho-sewer rat probably enjoys being caned by his Dominatrix/some Arab Dictator.
He also thinks that the 2011 London riots were a good thing: "Kill the Tories". Of all the murdered victims I believe none has been identified as Tories.
:wodger-a-sick-[MODERATED]:"
And I thought after a difficult few years you were on the mend
Hammond is Noakes
Clarkson is Purves
May is Singleton
They go on expeditions.
They make things.
They even used to have a dog.
Meantime Miliband has been hobnobbing with 'toxic' Tony Blair on the quiet and with the bloke he went to Hull and back to see. You know the one who clearly never never wanted a bit of help with his property development. The one Ed pulled out of an NHS rally to see? Assem Allam, or as I like to call him The Pharaoh'.
EICIPM
What I do think will happen in the next Parliament is that we will see a final and fundamental split in the Tory party if Cameron's desire for us to remain in the EU at any cost is forced upon his party.
The Tories need to start landing some blows.
Andrew Niel tying Caroline Flint in knots. Lovely!
If you ask them on social media, Labour MPs and activists will all hotly deny that the party signed up to the Conservatives’ plan for £30bn of austerity cuts in the next five years. It’ll be interesting to see whether they try to continue doing so in the light of Ed Balls’ appearance on the Andrew Marr Show this morning.
Specifically challenged by Marr on the SNP’s allegation that Labour and the Tories were as one on what Marr rather tactfully called “£30bn of contraction”, Balls nodded his assent and offered not a word of disagreement or protest, before going on to insist that balancing the books “as soon as possible” was vital to the credible management of the economy and the SNP’s approach was “irresponsible”.
(He merely noted that the Tories wanted to subsequently cut more.)
Was the "BBC spokesperson" making the statement in an official capacity then Richard?
Like you - and many others - change will never happen. We are who we are (and we enjoy the fact).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30RX1yi2V9c
:just-for-you:
YouGov (changes since October 2014)
Do you think UKIP is a racist party
Yes 55% (+14)
No 31% (-10)
(From today's Times RedBox)
Did the paper forget to mention the name of this executive then?
The point with Cameron and the tories is that there would be a referendum - if you like or dislike negotiations it does not matter, you get a vote with the tories - so what is Farage's problem??
Con 268
Lab 279
LD 28
UKIP 2
Grn 1
SNP 51
Broxtowe 7% Lab majority
Eastleigh 2% Con majority
Twickenham 8% LD majority
More informative would be to ask that 55% if them being allegedy racist would stop them voting for them and also ask people whether they think Tories and Labour are racist
So how you think the nation can afford what you want to spend??
In any event
''Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) predicts that the fall in oil prices and lower gilt (government bond) yields will reduce the budget deficit in each of the next five years compared with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s autumn statement forecast. The cumulative undershoot, £32bn, is not huge but it not to be sneezed at either.
Goldman Sachs predicts a deficit undershoot of £8bn for this year alone, followed by £13bn next year, 2015-16. Its prediction of £83bn of borrowing this year would take Osborne close to halving the deficit in cash terms, in addition to as a percentage of gross domestic product. Next year’s £63bn prediction would take us closer to normality; in the five years leading up to the crisis, the last government borrowed an average of £45bn a year in today’s prices.''
http://www.economicsuk.com/blog/
''As for public spending, and Balls’s “unprecedented” £70bn of cuts, the figures are clear. In cash terms overall public spending will rise by £43bn between now and 2019-20; the duration of the next parliament (assuming it lasts five years). In real terms there is a planned cut, though less than £20bn. To get to £70bn, or anything like it, you have to add up all the areas where the coalition is planning to increase spending, including public investment, and subtract the rest. It is, to say the least, an odd approach.''
''spending would need to fall to 36% of GDP to generate a small budget surplus; slightly higher than when Gordon Brown was chancellor in 1999-2000''