As for cycling, yes, there may be an uptick in usage if air pollution is reduced but the facts remain that you still turn up sweaty wherever you're going, you're still vulnerable to other road-users wielding heavy, fast metal boxes, and you're still at the mercy of the weather.
I looked into a pushbike or a moped a few years ago as an alternative to the Tube, and concluded I'd end up paying for both.
If I have to go to a 9am meeting at someone else's office I am not going to cycle in to arrive at mine at 7.30, change, and commute over to their office. I'm going to Tube it straight there, which means I'll Tube it home again. So either I pay the maximum daily whack for a Tube ticket or I buy a season ticket and under-use it while also paying for the two wheels.
I think it only really works for people who work flexi hours in one place all the time.
I looked at this. For me, an travelling to work 4 days a week and the occasional bus ride is cheaper as pay-as-you-go than a rolling monthly travel card, especially when vacation time is taken into consideration.
Season tickets for the tube are for mugs or a few edge cases.
Not if you work five days a week (as most people do) and/or can get an annual travelcard either interest free from work or from CommuterClub.
I think some combination of home working, attending meetings or doing work at different sites plus holidays is very common. I've recently started train commuting after 20 years mainly in cars (note: a pretty typical mix for living in a metropolitan borough in the north and working in and around different cities) and am not yet sure if I will beat the season ticket cost with day/week/month. Currently running at 7% above annual ticket price, missed chance to get to around 4% above by guessing wrong, but a couple of anticipated trips and I could be up.
I've started working out on a pure cost per calendar day basis over the period ahead and the discovery that you can specify custom length season tickets to run exactly between anticipated holidays/trips is a boon. If I save just £1 on the annual ticket price over the year, I'll still be well pleased.
Do you get any benefit from it on a day you don't work? Most people in London do, I suspect, since zonal tickets allow a much wider range of journeys.
The judgement is absolutely scathing, once the measured terms of Supreme Court justices are taken into account. Paragraph 67 is nothing less than a Guide to the Law for Stupid People in government:
It may be helpful to begin by explaining briefly the importance of the rule of law, and the role of access to the courts in maintaining the rule of law. It may also be helpful to explain why the idea that bringing a claim before a court or a tribunal is a purely private activity, and the related idea that such claims provide no broader social benefit, are demonstrably untenable
As for cycling, yes, there may be an uptick in usage if air pollution is reduced but the facts remain that you still turn up sweaty wherever you're going, you're still vulnerable to other road-users wielding heavy, fast metal boxes, and you're still at the mercy of the weather.
I looked into a pushbike or a moped a few years ago as an alternative to the Tube, and concluded I'd end up paying for both.
If I have to go to a 9am meeting at someone else's office I am not going to cycle in to arrive at mine at 7.30, change, and commute over to their office. I'm going to Tube it straight there, which means I'll Tube it home again. So either I pay the maximum daily whack for a Tube ticket or I buy a season ticket and under-use it while also paying for the two wheels.
I think it only really works for people who work flexi hours in one place all the time.
I looked at this. For me, an travelling to work 4 days a week and the occasional bus ride is cheaper as pay-as-you-go than a rolling monthly travel card, especially when vacation time is taken into consideration.
Season tickets for the tube are for mugs or a few edge cases.
Not if you work five days a week (as most people do) and/or can get an annual travelcard either interest free from work or from CommuterClub.
I think some combination of home working, attending meetings or doing work at different sites plus holidays is very common. I've recently started train commuting after 20 years mainly in cars (note: a pretty typical mix for living in a metropolitan borough in the north and working in and around different cities) and am not yet sure if I will beat the season ticket cost with day/week/month. Currently running at 7% above annual ticket price, missed chance to get to around 4% above by guessing wrong, but a couple of anticipated trips and I could be up.
I've started working out on a pure cost per calendar day basis over the period ahead and the discovery that you can specify custom length season tickets to run exactly between anticipated holidays/trips is a boon. If I save just £1 on the annual ticket price over the year, I'll still be well pleased.
Do you get any benefit from it on a day you don't work? Most people in London do, I suspect, since zonal tickets allow a much wider range of journeys.
Not much, it"s more or less point to point, with not too much of interest in between, so good for the very odd major shopping / day trip into Manchester and has allowed me to add Plusbus on the odd day, but 98% of my usage so far has been regular commuting.
I haven't driven a car since 1997 (and not with any regularity since 1990). So I find it very hard to get how interesting most people seem to find this subject.
We are going on holiday to the Western Isles next month. Driving our own car makes that sort of trip not simply easier but outright possible. It would be a very dull life if we were restricted to cities, towns and the public transport network.
Driving in the Highlands is a genuine pleasure, unlike most places in the UK. Enjoy your holiday!
Season tickets for the tube are for mugs or a few edge cases.
Not if you work five days a week (as most people do) and/or can get an annual travelcard either interest free from work or from CommuterClub.
I think some combination of home working, attending meetings or doing work at different sites plus holidays is very common. I've recently started train commuting after 20 years mainly in cars (note: a pretty typical mix for living in a metropolitan borough in the north and working in and around different cities) and am not yet sure if I will beat the season ticket cost with day/week/month. Currently running at 7% above annual ticket price, missed chance to get to around 4% above by guessing wrong, but a couple of anticipated trips and I could be up.
I've started working out on a pure cost per calendar day basis over the period ahead and the discovery that you can specify custom length season tickets to run exactly between anticipated holidays/trips is a boon. If I save just £1 on the annual ticket price over the year, I'll still be well pleased.
Do you get any benefit from it on a day you don't work? Most people in London do, I suspect, since zonal tickets allow a much wider range of journeys.
Not much, it"s more or less point to point, with not too much of interest in between, so good for the very odd major shopping / day trip into Manchester and has allowed me to add Plusbus on the odd day, but 98% of my usage so far has been regular commuting.
Yes, that's rather what I thought. I was specifically referring to London commuting (the post I replied to specifically mentioned "season tickets for the tube").
"The problem is that we've got about 35 people who want to be leader of the party, but no one from any faction will start sending their no confidence letters until they're sure that they have any support to make it to the final two, which makes it safer for her."
The judgement is absolutely scathing, once the measured terms of Supreme Court justices are taken into account. Paragraph 67 is nothing less than a Guide to the Law for Stupid People in government:
It may be helpful to begin by explaining briefly the importance of the rule of law, and the role of access to the courts in maintaining the rule of law. It may also be helpful to explain why the idea that bringing a claim before a court or a tribunal is a purely private activity, and the related idea that such claims provide no broader social benefit, are demonstrably untenable
Paragraph 74 is powerful too, in the series you identify on the right of access to justice, going back to Magna Carta (did she die in vain?): In English law, the right of access to the courts has long been recognised. The central idea is expressed in chapter 40 of the Magna Carta of 1215 (“Nulli vendemus, nulli negabimus aut differemus rectum aut justiciam”), which remains on the statute book in the closing words of chapter 29 of the version issued by Edward I in 1297: “We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.”
And before anyone starts lobbing turnips at James Kanagasooriam as an English jessie who doesn't know anything about Scotland.....
James Kanagasooriam is head of analytics at Populus, which works for the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party on voter targeting and campaign analytics, most recently on the 2016 Holyrood election and this year’s local council and general elections.
And before anyone starts lobbing turnips at James Kanagasooriam as an English jessie who doesn't know anything about Scotland.....
James Kanagasooriam is head of analytics at Populus, which works for the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party on voter targeting and campaign analytics, most recently on the 2016 Holyrood election and this year’s local council and general elections.
"The problem is that we've got about 35 people who want to be leader of the party, but no one from any faction will start sending their no confidence letters until they're sure that they have any support to make it to the final two, which makes it safer for her."
Roughly 30 need to be grabbed by the lapels and told not to be so bloody stupid.
"The problem is that we've got about 35 people who want to be leader of the party, but no one from any faction will start sending their no confidence letters until they're sure that they have any support to make it to the final two, which makes it safer for her."
Roughly 30 need to be grabbed by the lapels and told not to be so bloody stupid.
But that would ensure there would be a challenge. As far as May is concerned, the more people dreaming of being PM, the better.
We banned unleaded petrol. Did all EU countries do so exactly at the same time ? They are not bringing new vehicle standards. All they are saying is that certain vehicles are not permitted.
I'm struggling to see why you think that's not a new vehicle standard. It seems to be 100% the definition of a vehicle standard.
More generally, the implication of the French policy would be that a car can be legally sold in Germany but not just across the border in France. That would explode the entire rationale and legal basis of the Single Market.
Surely the question is about what can be driven on public roads, not what can be sold per se.
Good luck with that argument in a court!
In any case, that makes it even worse. Are they saying a German who owns a shiny new petrol BMW won't be able to drive through France?
The last time large numbers of Germans drove through France didn't end well for France.
"The problem is that we've got about 35 people who want to be leader of the party, but no one from any faction will start sending their no confidence letters until they're sure that they have any support to make it to the final two, which makes it safer for her."
Roughly 30 need to be grabbed by the lapels and told not to be so bloody stupid.
Everyone thinks they are a David Cameron/Margaret Thatcher/Michael Howard de nos jours.
Reality is they are more the John Redwood de nos jours.
Whilst I think the Supreme Court were right to strike down the current fee regime, it was brought in because of the number of highly speculative (not vexatious) cases that were being taken to Employment Tribunals, each of which caused a lot of expense to the business concerned (and also stress, in the case of small businesses without dedicated HR functions).
So what should the right policy response be (assuming you think that some degree of policy is legitimate here, rather than it being entirely a judicial matter)? There has to be some small amount of jeopardy for claimants. Would it be reasonable to get the employment tribunal to assess lost cases as either "reasonably brought" or "overly speculative" and then demand a retrospective fee on that basis?
"The problem is that we've got about 35 people who want to be leader of the party, but no one from any faction will start sending their no confidence letters until they're sure that they have any support to make it to the final two, which makes it safer for her."
Roughly 30 need to be grabbed by the lapels and told not to be so bloody stupid.
Well that's true, but I think the more important point is that the letters won't be sent until a credible candidate, with a good chunk of support, chooses to fire the starting gun and get his or her supporters to send those letters in a coordinated attack on Theresa May. In other words, I don't think there is much chance of an accidental leadership challenge as a result of letters arriving in dribs and drabs from MPs on their own initiatives.
I haven't driven a car since 1997 (and not with any regularity since 1990). So I find it very hard to get how interesting most people seem to find this subject.
We are going on holiday to the Western Isles next month. Driving our own car makes that sort of trip not simply easier but outright possible. It would be a very dull life if we were restricted to cities, towns and the public transport network.
Driving in the Highlands is a genuine pleasure, unlike most places in the UK. Enjoy your holiday!
Thank you! My only concern is the distance with a young kid in the car and no services north of Hamilton. Fingers crossed particularly for the section north of Fort William! Fingers also crossed for good weather - virtually the entire trip passes through stunning scenery (M60 and M74/M8 through Glasgow excepted), and it'd be nice to see it this time (last time, when heading to the Orkneys, we travelled in fog from the Pennines to roughly Glasgow).
We banned unleaded petrol. Did all EU countries do so exactly at the same time ? They are not bringing new vehicle standards. All they are saying is that certain vehicles are not permitted.
I'm struggling to see why you think that's not a new vehicle standard. It seems to be 100% the definition of a vehicle standard.
More generally, the implication of the French policy would be that a car can be legally sold in Germany but not just across the border in France. That would explode the entire rationale and legal basis of the Single Market.
Surely the question is about what can be driven on public roads, not what can be sold per se.
Good luck with that argument in a court!
In any case, that makes it even worse. Are they saying a German who owns a shiny new petrol BMW won't be able to drive through France?
The last time large numbers of Germans drove through France didn't end well for France.
"The problem is that we've got about 35 people who want to be leader of the party, but no one from any faction will start sending their no confidence letters until they're sure that they have any support to make it to the final two, which makes it safer for her."
Roughly 30 need to be grabbed by the lapels and told not to be so bloody stupid.
Everyone thinks they are a David Cameron/Margaret Thatcher/Michael Howard de nos jours.
Reality is they are more the John Redwood de nos jours.
At least John Redwood had Teresa Gorman and Tony Marlow by his side. These days Gorman would have fancied her chances of being PM herself.
"The problem is that we've got about 35 people who want to be leader of the party, but no one from any faction will start sending their no confidence letters until they're sure that they have any support to make it to the final two, which makes it safer for her."
Roughly 30 need to be grabbed by the lapels and told not to be so bloody stupid.
Everyone thinks they are a David Cameron/Margaret Thatcher/Michael Howard de nos jours.
Reality is they are more the John Redwood de nos jours.
At least John Redwood had Teresa Gorman and Tony Marlow by his side. These days Gorman would have fancied her chances of being PM herself.
I'm still traumatised by Tony Marlow's jacket from that day
The version of the software in Tony Blair's driverless car will, of course, be different to the version in those that carry us proles.
Suppose Mr. Blair's driverless car is pottering along a road which has a sheer precipice on the left, and on the right a pavement with a bus stop and queue. Just ahead, the road bends to the right.
A truck now approaches on the opposite side of the road, and as it does so, a lunatic overtakes it around the blind bend. Head-on collision is imminent, and the Blairmobile must decide what to do to avoid it.
The best decision would be to swerve left and send Tony Blair alone to oblivion over the precipice. Cost: one life.
The next best would be to swerve into the oncoming truck. Although Mr. Blair will die, the truck driver will probably survive as he's above the impact point. Cost: one life, one injured.
Mr. Blair's version of the software will instead choose to swerve into the bus queue. The multiple small impacts bring his car to a gentle stop, and he then emerges uninjured. Cost: ten to fifteen total nobodies.
For Blair read Juncker, or the Koch brothers, or a prominent Leaver, or anybody you hate or despise. But the idea that VIPs and slebs will take their chances with the same software as the plebs is for the birds.
They'll just have cars with drivers. Much less easy to hack.
But you make a good point: AIUI there is a great deal of debate over what the control laws for cars should be. I expect it would vary from country to country: in Holland they'll probably try to save cyclists over drivers, in Holland they'll want to save their beautiful car, and in the US it'll be "what the **** is that thing doing on my road?"
One other interesting legal issue, whose fault will it be / who can be sued....Surprisingly and rather frankly, I heard one of the top people in this say it will ultimately be the company who coded the software.
Whilst I think the Supreme Court were right to strike down the current fee regime, it was brought in because of the number of highly speculative (not vexatious) cases that were being taken to Employment Tribunals, each of which caused a lot of expense to the business concerned (and also stress, in the case of small businesses without dedicated HR functions).
So what should the right policy response be (assuming you think that some degree of policy is legitimate here, rather than it being entirely a judicial matter)? There has to be some small amount of jeopardy for claimants. Would it be reasonable to get the employment tribunal to assess lost cases as either "reasonably brought" or "overly speculative" and then demand a retrospective fee on that basis?
The big problem was that it was 'Tails you win, Heads I lose' as far as the employer was concerned. I don't know what the answer is, but I do find it a bit odd that their Lordships haven't noticed that access to ordinary courts is prohibitively expensive for anyone who's not mega rich or sufficiently poor to get legal aid.
Whilst I think the Supreme Court were right to strike down the current fee regime, it was brought in because of the number of highly speculative (not vexatious) cases that were being taken to Employment Tribunals, each of which caused a lot of expense to the business concerned (and also stress, in the case of small businesses without dedicated HR functions).
So what should the right policy response be (assuming you think that some degree of policy is legitimate here, rather than it being entirely a judicial matter)? There has to be some small amount of jeopardy for claimants. Would it be reasonable to get the employment tribunal to assess lost cases as either "reasonably brought" or "overly speculative" and then demand a retrospective fee on that basis?
The big problem was that it was 'Tails you win, Heads I lose' as far as the employer was concerned. I don't know what the answer is, but I do find it a bit odd that their Lordships haven't noticed that access to ordinary courts is prohibitively expensive for anyone who's not mega rich or sufficiently poor to get legal aid.
Employers always had the upper hand. Basically, they can sack any employee at any time for any reason. Having done so, they might later be required to hand over some cash but the employee is still sacked.
The judgement is absolutely scathing, once the measured terms of Supreme Court justices are taken into account. Paragraph 67 is nothing less than a Guide to the Law for Stupid People in government:
It may be helpful to begin by explaining briefly the importance of the rule of law, and the role of access to the courts in maintaining the rule of law. It may also be helpful to explain why the idea that bringing a claim before a court or a tribunal is a purely private activity, and the related idea that such claims provide no broader social benefit, are demonstrably untenable
Paragraph 74 is powerful too, in the series you identify on the right of access to justice, going back to Magna Carta (did she die in vain?): In English law, the right of access to the courts has long been recognised. The central idea is expressed in chapter 40 of the Magna Carta of 1215 (“Nulli vendemus, nulli negabimus aut differemus rectum aut justiciam”), which remains on the statute book in the closing words of chapter 29 of the version issued by Edward I in 1297: “We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.”
Yes, in that case it's not powerful because of the words (which are not the SC's and are over 700 years old) but because they felt the need to reiterate them at all. It flies in the face of the Yes Minister Good Chap rule.
Employers always had the upper hand. Basically, they can sack any employee at any time for any reason. Having done so, they might later be required to hand over some cash but the employee is still sacked.
In other words, the disgruntled employee has a risk-free chance of extorting money from the employer, not to mention wasting massive amounts of the employer's time and legal costs to boot - a real disaster for a small employer even if the extortion is unsuccessful.
Whilst I think the Supreme Court were right to strike down the current fee regime, it was brought in because of the number of highly speculative (not vexatious) cases that were being taken to Employment Tribunals, each of which caused a lot of expense to the business concerned (and also stress, in the case of small businesses without dedicated HR functions).
So what should the right policy response be (assuming you think that some degree of policy is legitimate here, rather than it being entirely a judicial matter)? There has to be some small amount of jeopardy for claimants. Would it be reasonable to get the employment tribunal to assess lost cases as either "reasonably brought" or "overly speculative" and then demand a retrospective fee on that basis?
The big problem was that it was 'Tails you win, Heads I lose' as far as the employer was concerned. I don't know what the answer is, but I do find it a bit odd that their Lordships haven't noticed that access to ordinary courts is prohibitively expensive for anyone who's not mega rich or sufficiently poor to get legal aid.
Quite so. When they were at the Bar, how affordable did they think their own fees looked? This Magna Carta stuff is pure fustian, and plain wrong - a moment's googling confirms that nobody thinks that bit still represents the law.
Whilst I think the Supreme Court were right to strike down the current fee regime, it was brought in because of the number of highly speculative (not vexatious) cases that were being taken to Employment Tribunals, each of which caused a lot of expense to the business concerned (and also stress, in the case of small businesses without dedicated HR functions).
So what should the right policy response be (assuming you think that some degree of policy is legitimate here, rather than it being entirely a judicial matter)? There has to be some small amount of jeopardy for claimants. Would it be reasonable to get the employment tribunal to assess lost cases as either "reasonably brought" or "overly speculative" and then demand a retrospective fee on that basis?
Yes.
People shouldn't be encouraged to play the system simply because it's a free shot. As you say, there does need to be some deterrent to claims being brought that really don't have any merit. A fee in these cases doesn't seem unreasonable.
Whilst I think the Supreme Court were right to strike down the current fee regime, it was brought in because of the number of highly speculative (not vexatious) cases that were being taken to Employment Tribunals, each of which caused a lot of expense to the business concerned (and also stress, in the case of small businesses without dedicated HR functions).
So what should the right policy response be (assuming you think that some degree of policy is legitimate here, rather than it being entirely a judicial matter)? There has to be some small amount of jeopardy for claimants. Would it be reasonable to get the employment tribunal to assess lost cases as either "reasonably brought" or "overly speculative" and then demand a retrospective fee on that basis?
The big problem was that it was 'Tails you win, Heads I lose' as far as the employer was concerned. I don't know what the answer is, but I do find it a bit odd that their Lordships haven't noticed that access to ordinary courts is prohibitively expensive for anyone who's not mega rich or sufficiently poor to get legal aid.
They may have noticed. They may, however, feel that they've said as much as they can say on the issue, given the bounds of the case before them.
Whilst I think the Supreme Court were right to strike down the current fee regime, it was brought in because of the number of highly speculative (not vexatious) cases that were being taken to Employment Tribunals, each of which caused a lot of expense to the business concerned (and also stress, in the case of small businesses without dedicated HR functions).
So what should the right policy response be (assuming you think that some degree of policy is legitimate here, rather than it being entirely a judicial matter)? There has to be some small amount of jeopardy for claimants. Would it be reasonable to get the employment tribunal to assess lost cases as either "reasonably brought" or "overly speculative" and then demand a retrospective fee on that basis?
The big problem was that it was 'Tails you win, Heads I lose' as far as the employer was concerned. I don't know what the answer is, but I do find it a bit odd that their Lordships haven't noticed that access to ordinary courts is prohibitively expensive for anyone who's not mega rich or sufficiently poor to get legal aid.
They may have noticed. They may, however, feel that they've said as much as they can say on the issue, given the bounds of the case before them.
They don't seem to do much about it in the way they conduct cases. They pay a lot of lip-service to efficiency, but the actual operation of the court system is quite absurdly inefficient.
About the only thing that can be said in its favour is that most other countries' legal systems seem to be even worse.
Employers always had the upper hand. Basically, they can sack any employee at any time for any reason. Having done so, they might later be required to hand over some cash but the employee is still sacked.
In other words, the disgruntled employee has a risk-free chance of extorting money from the employer, not to mention wasting massive amounts of the employer's time and legal costs to boot - a real disaster for a small employer even if the extortion is unsuccessful.
In other words, an unscrupulous employer has a risk-free chance of screwing an employee by sacking them arbitrarily and/or without due compensation. I've seen it three times (admittedly in as many decades) with megasquillion companies, not struggling small businesses.
They don't seem to do much about it in the way they conduct cases. They pay a lot of lip-service to efficiency, but the actual operation of the court system is quite absurdly inefficient.
The courts seek to be very "fair" to debtors who seek to delay any sort of judgement against themselves in matters of insolvency, winding-up, freezing of assets etc etc (Only in for a hundred quid on this particular loan) but its interesting to see just how willing the court system is to acquiesce with delays
Whilst I think the Supreme Court were right to strike down the current fee regime, it was brought in because of the number of highly speculative (not vexatious) cases that were being taken to Employment Tribunals, each of which caused a lot of expense to the business concerned (and also stress, in the case of small businesses without dedicated HR functions).
So what should the right policy response be (assuming you think that some degree of policy is legitimate here, rather than it being entirely a judicial matter)? There has to be some small amount of jeopardy for claimants. Would it be reasonable to get the employment tribunal to assess lost cases as either "reasonably brought" or "overly speculative" and then demand a retrospective fee on that basis?
The big problem was that it was 'Tails you win, Heads I lose' as far as the employer was concerned. I don't know what the answer is, but I do find it a bit odd that their Lordships haven't noticed that access to ordinary courts is prohibitively expensive for anyone who's not mega rich or sufficiently poor to get legal aid.
They may have noticed. They may, however, feel that they've said as much as they can say on the issue, given the bounds of the case before them.
They don't seem to do much about it in the way they conduct cases. They pay a lot of lip-service to efficiency, but the actual operation of the court system is quite absurdly inefficient.
About the only thing that can be said in its favour is that most other countries' legal systems seem to be even worse.
It's good at what it's designed to do. But it was designed by lawyers, so...
Employers always had the upper hand. Basically, they can sack any employee at any time for any reason. Having done so, they might later be required to hand over some cash but the employee is still sacked.
In other words, the disgruntled employee has a risk-free chance of extorting money from the employer, not to mention wasting massive amounts of the employer's time and legal costs to boot - a real disaster for a small employer even if the extortion is unsuccessful.
In other words, an unscrupulous employer has a risk-free chance of screwing an employee by sacking them arbitrarily and/or without due compensation. I've seen it three times (admittedly in as many decades) with megasquillion companies, not struggling small businesses.
Well, first of all, why on earth would an employer sack a worker arbitrarily? In my thirty years experience, you move heaven and earth to hang on to good employees. Secondly, it's far from risk free - quite the opposite, it's a bloody nightmare, to the ludicrous extent that even a harmless and honest procedural mistake automatically means the employer loses the case, and if there's even the faintest chance of the case being dressed up as discrimination, your liability can be huge. So you absolutely have to spend a lot of money with lawyers to hand-hold your way through the maze, even if your are 100% in the right. The employee, on the other hand, has no disincentive against bringing a spurious case. Is that fair, or a sensible way to conduct industrial relations?
Leave need to abandon all claims that Brexit will result in any economic benefit, at least for the foreseeable future. Otherwise it could kill their brand. Better to proclaim that Brexit was always going to result in suffering and strife, but the very process will act as a kind of national spiritual cleansing. We may end up poorer but will ultimately be happier, purer. Brexit should be hailed as the end to a prosperous and decadent age.
I haven't driven a car since 1997 (and not with any regularity since 1990). So I find it very hard to get how interesting most people seem to find this subject.
We are going on holiday to the Western Isles next month. Driving our own car makes that sort of trip not simply easier but outright possible. It would be a very dull life if we were restricted to cities, towns and the public transport network.
Driving in the Highlands is a genuine pleasure, unlike most places in the UK. Enjoy your holiday!
Thank you! My only concern is the distance with a young kid in the car and no services north of Hamilton. Fingers crossed particularly for the section north of Fort William! Fingers also crossed for good weather - virtually the entire trip passes through stunning scenery (M60 and M74/M8 through Glasgow excepted), and it'd be nice to see it this time (last time, when heading to the Orkneys, we travelled in fog from the Pennines to roughly Glasgow).
You should be OK. There are a fair few cafes for a comfort stop. Much nicer than petrol stations. Once thing to be aware of is that petrol stations often close in the evening so you should plan your fuel stops accordingly.
"Film production in the UK, plus box-office receipts from cinemas, was one of the best performing parts of the economy during the period.
The ONS said ticket receipts from Wonder Woman and the latest Pirates of the Caribbean film were among the items that had boosted the sector it calls motion picture activities"
Truly GREAT Britain. Now Wonder Woman drives the economy !
"Film production in the UK, plus box-office receipts from cinemas, was one of the best performing parts of the economy during the period.
The ONS said ticket receipts from Wonder Woman and the latest Pirates of the Caribbean film were among the items that had boosted the sector it calls motion picture activities"
Truly GREAT Britain. Now Wonder Woman drives the economy !
I haven't driven a car since 1997 (and not with any regularity since 1990). So I find it very hard to get how interesting most people seem to find this subject.
We are going on holiday to the Western Isles next month. Driving our own car makes that sort of trip not simply easier but outright possible. It would be a very dull life if we were restricted to cities, towns and the public transport network.
Driving in the Highlands is a genuine pleasure, unlike most places in the UK. Enjoy your holiday!
Thank you! My only concern is the distance with a young kid in the car and no services north of Hamilton. Fingers crossed particularly for the section north of Fort William! Fingers also crossed for good weather - virtually the entire trip passes through stunning scenery (M60 and M74/M8 through Glasgow excepted), and it'd be nice to see it this time (last time, when heading to the Orkneys, we travelled in fog from the Pennines to roughly Glasgow).
You should be OK. There are a fair few cafes for a comfort stop. Much nicer than petrol stations. Once thing to be aware of is that petrol stations often close in the evening so you should plan your fuel stops accordingly.
It should be a good drive. I like Glasgow too. The city centre only though.
"Film production in the UK, plus box-office receipts from cinemas, was one of the best performing parts of the economy during the period.
The ONS said ticket receipts from Wonder Woman and the latest Pirates of the Caribbean film were among the items that had boosted the sector it calls motion picture activities"
Truly GREAT Britain. Now Wonder Woman drives the economy !
"Film production in the UK, plus box-office receipts from cinemas, was one of the best performing parts of the economy during the period.
The ONS said ticket receipts from Wonder Woman and the latest Pirates of the Caribbean film were among the items that had boosted the sector it calls motion picture activities"
Truly GREAT Britain. Now Wonder Woman drives the economy !
Whilst I think the Supreme Court were right to strike down the current fee regime, it was brought in because of the number of highly speculative (not vexatious) cases that were being taken to Employment Tribunals, each of which caused a lot of expense to the business concerned (and also stress, in the case of small businesses without dedicated HR functions).
So what should the right policy response be (assuming you think that some degree of policy is legitimate here, rather than it being entirely a judicial matter)? There has to be some small amount of jeopardy for claimants. Would it be reasonable to get the employment tribunal to assess lost cases as either "reasonably brought" or "overly speculative" and then demand a retrospective fee on that basis?
The big problem was that it was 'Tails you win, Heads I lose' as far as the employer was concerned. I don't know what the answer is, but I do find it a bit odd that their Lordships haven't noticed that access to ordinary courts is prohibitively expensive for anyone who's not mega rich or sufficiently poor to get legal aid.
That's why I'd treat litigation in Employment Tribunals in the same way as litigation in the County Courts. Unless the sums involved are very small, the winner should be entitled to their costs from the loser.
"Film production in the UK, plus box-office receipts from cinemas, was one of the best performing parts of the economy during the period.
The ONS said ticket receipts from Wonder Woman and the latest Pirates of the Caribbean film were among the items that had boosted the sector it calls motion picture activities"
Truly GREAT Britain. Now Wonder Woman drives the economy !
Employers always had the upper hand. Basically, they can sack any employee at any time for any reason. Having done so, they might later be required to hand over some cash but the employee is still sacked.
In other words, the disgruntled employee has a risk-free chance of extorting money from the employer, not to mention wasting massive amounts of the employer's time and legal costs to boot - a real disaster for a small employer even if the extortion is unsuccessful.
In other words, an unscrupulous employer has a risk-free chance of screwing an employee by sacking them arbitrarily and/or without due compensation. I've seen it three times (admittedly in as many decades) with megasquillion companies, not struggling small businesses.
Well, first of all, why on earth would an employer sack a worker arbitrarily? In my thirty years experience, you move heaven and earth to hang on to good employees. Secondly, it's far from risk free - quite the opposite, it's a bloody nightmare, to the ludicrous extent that even a harmless and honest procedural mistake automatically means the employer loses the case, and if there's even the faintest chance of the case being dressed up as discrimination, your liability can be huge. So you absolutely have to spend a lot of money with lawyers to hand-hold your way through the maze, even if your are 100% in the right. The employee, on the other hand, has no disincentive against bringing a spurious case. Is that fair, or a sensible way to conduct industrial relations?
I'm going to hazard a guess that exactly one of the two of you has ever owned/run a business?
Employers always had the upper hand. Basically, they can sack any employee at any time for any reason. Having done so, they might later be required to hand over some cash but the employee is still sacked.
In other words, the disgruntled employee has a risk-free chance of extorting money from the employer, not to mention wasting massive amounts of the employer's time and legal costs to boot - a real disaster for a small employer even if the extortion is unsuccessful.
In other words, an unscrupulous employer has a risk-free chance of screwing an employee by sacking them arbitrarily and/or without due compensation. I've seen it three times (admittedly in as many decades) with megasquillion companies, not struggling small businesses.
Well, first of all, why on earth would an employer sack a worker arbitrarily? In my thirty years experience, you move heaven and earth to hang on to good employees. Secondly, it's far from risk free - quite the opposite, it's a bloody nightmare, to the ludicrous extent that even a harmless and honest procedural mistake automatically means the employer loses the case, and if there's even the faintest chance of the case being dressed up as discrimination, your liability can be huge. So you absolutely have to spend a lot of money with lawyers to hand-hold your way through the maze, even if your are 100% in the right. The employee, on the other hand, has no disincentive against bringing a spurious case. Is that fair, or a sensible way to conduct industrial relations?
I'm going to hazard a guess that exactly one of the two of you has ever owned/run a business?
I haven't driven a car since 1997 (and not with any regularity since 1990). So I find it very hard to get how interesting most people seem to find this subject.
We are going on holiday to the Western Isles next month. Driving our own car makes that sort of trip not simply easier but outright possible. It would be a very dull life if we were restricted to cities, towns and the public transport network.
Driving in the Highlands is a genuine pleasure, unlike most places in the UK. Enjoy your holiday!
Thank you! My only concern is the distance with a young kid in the car and no services north of Hamilton. Fingers crossed particularly for the section north of Fort William! Fingers also crossed for good weather - virtually the entire trip passes through stunning scenery (M60 and M74/M8 through Glasgow excepted), and it'd be nice to see it this time (last time, when heading to the Orkneys, we travelled in fog from the Pennines to roughly Glasgow).
You should be OK. There are a fair few cafes for a comfort stop. Much nicer than petrol stations. Once thing to be aware of is that petrol stations often close in the evening so you should plan your fuel stops accordingly.
Cheers. Cafes are certainly nicer, though they don't always have the same range of facilities (a baby-changing area, most critically!). We're travelling during the daytime to connect with the evening ferry from Skye so the petrol stations will be open (I'll probably refuel either north of Glasgow, once on the A82, or in Fort William). Heading south, we'll break the journey in Perth, as the ferry doesn't dock at Ullapool until 4.30pm so we'd be travelling through the night otherwise.
Employers always had the upper hand. Basically, they can sack any employee at any time for any reason. Having done so, they might later be required to hand over some cash but the employee is still sacked.
In other words, the disgruntled employee has a risk-free chance of extorting money from the employer, not to mention wasting massive amounts of the employer's time and legal costs to boot - a real disaster for a small employer even if the extortion is unsuccessful.
In other words, an unscrupulous employer has a risk-free chance of screwing an employee by sacking them arbitrarily and/or without due compensation. I've seen it three times (admittedly in as many decades) with megasquillion companies, not struggling small businesses.
Nobody should have to face arbitrary sacking of course.
However, the first thing, in my experience, small employers are thinking when they take someone on is "how do I get rid of you if it goes wrong?". Anything that presents extra hurdles to that process is a brake on taking people on in the first place.
It's a balance between being fair to employees and not bestowing so many rights on them and obligations on the employer that the employer decides to default to just not bothering in the first place.
Employers always had the upper hand. Basically, they can sack any employee at any time for any reason. Having done so, they might later be required to hand over some cash but the employee is still sacked.
In other words, the disgruntled employee has a risk-free chance of extorting money from the employer, not to mention wasting massive amounts of the employer's time and legal costs to boot - a real disaster for a small employer even if the extortion is unsuccessful.
In other words, an unscrupulous employer has a risk-free chance of screwing an employee by sacking them arbitrarily and/or without due compensation. I've seen it three times (admittedly in as many decades) with megasquillion companies, not struggling small businesses.
The real problem for employers s that the cost of representation (and any employer with sense needs representation) very often means that it is better just to make the employee an early offer of a thousand or two in the more trivial cases, just to get rid of it. I have seen many spurious cases get paid off like this over the years, which doubtless partly explains why there are so many in the first place.
I can see that the government's position could be perceived as excessively harsh, but would have hoped for some compromise route, like the employee gets refunded if they win the case.
Employers always had the upper hand. Basically, they can sack any employee at any time for any reason. Having done so, they might later be required to hand over some cash but the employee is still sacked.
In other words, the disgruntled employee has a risk-free chance of extorting money from the employer, not to mention wasting massive amounts of the employer's time and legal costs to boot - a real disaster for a small employer even if the extortion is unsuccessful.
In other words, an unscrupulous employer has a risk-free chance of screwing an employee by sacking them arbitrarily and/or without due compensation. I've seen it three times (admittedly in as many decades) with megasquillion companies, not struggling small businesses.
The real problem for employers s that the cost of representation (and any employer with sense needs representation) very often means that it is better just to make the employee an early offer of a thousand or two in the more trivial cases, just to get rid of it. I have seen many spurious cases get paid off like this over the years, which doubtless partly explains why there are so many in the first place.
I can see that the government's position could be perceived as excessively harsh, but would have hoped for some compromise route, like the employee gets refunded if they win the case.
@BBCNormanS: "Whether we’re in, (single market) whether we’re out, we’re not ruling anything out.” - @johnmcdonnellMP
Labour's position on Brexit, as with Maastricht, is sheer opportunism. They will oppose whatever the government brings back from Brussels, regardless of the substance.
On reflection I think it will be harder for them to pivot to a second referendum. They will lose their Leaver support plus the Remainers who think it needs to delivered. It would also take all the heat off the government and put it on Labour.
@BBCNormanS: "Whether we’re in, (single market) whether we’re out, we’re not ruling anything out.” - @johnmcdonnellMP
Labour's position on Brexit, as with Maastricht, is sheer opportunism. They will oppose whatever the government brings back from Brussels, regardless of the substance.
The logical consequence of which would be them supporting "no deal".
Employers always had the upper hand. Basically, they can sack any employee at any time for any reason. Having done so, they might later be required to hand over some cash but the employee is still sacked.
In other words, the disgruntled employee has a risk-free chance of extorting money from the employer, not to mention wasting massive amounts of the employer's time and legal costs to boot - a real disaster for a small employer even if the extortion is unsuccessful.
In other words, an unscrupulous employer has a risk-free chance of screwing an employee by sacking them arbitrarily and/or without due compensation. I've seen it three times (admittedly in as many decades) with megasquillion companies, not struggling small businesses.
The real problem for employers s that the cost of representation (and any employer with sense needs representation) very often means that it is better just to make the employee an early offer of a thousand or two in the more trivial cases, just to get rid of it. I have seen many spurious cases get paid off like this over the years, which doubtless partly explains why there are so many in the first place.
I can see that the government's position could be perceived as excessively harsh, but would have hoped for some compromise route, like the employee gets refunded if they win the case.
I think it needs to be the other way round. Asking people to stump money up front - potentially thousands - will put people off who do have a good case. Better to have the provision that a fee be applicable where the case is without merit, and a contribution to costs be payable where it's judged vexatious (the difference being around questions of ignorance and intent).
FWIW, we had an employment tribunal case at the school where I was a governor (indeed, I'd chaired the disciplinary), and we'd sacked someone for going on holiday without permission - in fact, after permission had been denied. She had no grounds for the case but it clogged up a huge amount of governor and senior management time over the course of weeks, if not months. Eventually, she withdrew the complaint in return for a reference (though she should really have specified a good reference).
Well, first of all, why on earth would an employer sack a worker arbitrarily? In my thirty years experience, you move heaven and earth to hang on to good employees. Secondly, it's far from risk free - quite the opposite, it's a bloody nightmare, to the ludicrous extent that even a harmless and honest procedural mistake automatically means the employer loses the case, and if there's even the faintest chance of the case being dressed up as discrimination, your liability can be huge. So you absolutely have to spend a lot of money with lawyers to hand-hold your way through the maze, even if your are 100% in the right. The employee, on the other hand, has no disincentive against bringing a spurious case. Is that fair, or a sensible way to conduct industrial relations?
It's definitely in the organization's interests to hang on to good employees. But sadly often management does what's best for them not the organization.
Whistleblowers get shafted in my experience.
But yes- I agree it's very hard to sack poorly performing people and not get into problems. I don't know what the answer is...
Well, first of all, why on earth would an employer sack a worker arbitrarily? In my thirty years experience, you move heaven and earth to hang on to good employees. Secondly, it's far from risk free - quite the opposite, it's a bloody nightmare, to the ludicrous extent that even a harmless and honest procedural mistake automatically means the employer loses the case, and if there's even the faintest chance of the case being dressed up as discrimination, your liability can be huge. So you absolutely have to spend a lot of money with lawyers to hand-hold your way through the maze, even if your are 100% in the right. The employee, on the other hand, has no disincentive against bringing a spurious case. Is that fair, or a sensible way to conduct industrial relations?
It's definitely in the organization's interests to hang on to good employees. But sadly often management does what's best for them not the organization.
Whistleblowers get shafted in my experience.
But yes- I agree it's very hard to sack poorly performing people and not get into problems. I don't know what the answer is...
You can get rid of poorly-performing employees, but you have to do dot every I and cross every t if you want to do it without paying a lot of money.
Alternatively, if you want to just throw someone out the door, you have to be prepared to cough up.
Mr. Quidder, aye. It's obvious to anyone normal, but when you're guaranteed income and would rather hurl public money at people who sit on a chair and read an autocue than pay for programming, that's what happens.
Last F1 rights the BBC had were worth £30m. Entirely possible that they'd save that over the years to the next auction (or more) if they just cut male wages.
Excellent news today regarding Employment Tribunal fees! It reverses one of the most shameful acts of the Coalition Government. Blame the Tories by all means, but never forget that the LibDems were complicit in allowing such a wicked measure to be approved.
In the same way that the cleverest trick the devil pulled off was to persuade the world he didn't exist, so the cleverest trick that the BBC pulled off was to persuade the world that rich employees weren't paid enough.
Increasing the salaries paid to the female stars is solving the wrong problem...
Given the BBCs record on things like reducing head count it was always going to be the way.
£100-200k for a presenter / journalist seems like a very good amount, especially on radio where no other outlet can pay that kind of money eg Laura K on £200k seems like the right amount for somebody in her role.
Excellent news today regarding Employment Tribunal fees! It reverses one of the most shameful acts of the Coalition Government. Blame the Tories by all means, but never forget that the LibDems were complicit in allowing such a wicked measure to be approved.
The decision was right as far as it goes, but there does have to be a means of penalising people who bring claims that are without merit.
The extra electricity needed will be the equivalent of almost 10 times the total power output of the new Hinckley Point C nuclear power station being built in Somerset.
Excellent news today regarding Employment Tribunal fees! It reverses one of the most shameful acts of the Coalition Government. Blame the Tories by all means, but never forget that the LibDems were complicit in allowing such a wicked measure to be approved.
The decision was right as far as it goes, but there does have to be a means of penalising people who bring claims that are without merit.
Yes, the reason for the policy in the first place was because of huge numbers of cases that were dubious at best, and vexatious at worst, were clogging the courts and taking up huge amounts of time for especially small businesses - all at zero risk to the litigant.
The extra electricity needed will be the equivalent of almost 10 times the total power output of the new Hinckley Point C nuclear power station being built in Somerset.
Increasing the salaries paid to the female stars is solving the wrong problem...
Given the BBCs record on things like reducing head count it was always going to be the way.
£100-200k for a presenter / journalist seems like a very good amount, especially on radio where no other outlet can pay that kind of money eg Laura K on £200k seems like the right amount for somebody in her role.
How low on salary would you have to go before you start compromising on quality? I wouldn't be surprised if it was lower than 200k to be honest...
If you're an aspiring journalist/presenter, getting on the BBC means you get known. ITV or whoever can pick you up later for bigger money if you're good, and you can write books etc. to bring in more money.
If you compare to other public sector salaries - running a civil service department with thousands of employees is normally under 200k, senior doctors can break 100k but not by much I think, I think about a quarter of headteachers are over 100k....
The extra electricity needed will be the equivalent of almost 10 times the total power output of the new Hinckley Point C nuclear power station being built in Somerset.
Employers always had the upper hand. Basically, they can sack any employee at any time for any reason. Having done so, they might later be required to hand over some cash but the employee is still sacked.
In other words, the disgruntled employee has a risk-free chance of extorting money from the employer, not to mention wasting massive amounts of the employer's time and legal costs to boot - a real disaster for a small employer even if the extortion is unsuccessful.
In other words, an unscrupulous employer has a risk-free chance of screwing an employee by sacking them arbitrarily and/or without due compensation. I've seen it three times (admittedly in as many decades) with megasquillion companies, not struggling small businesses.
Well, first of all, why on earth would an employer sack a worker arbitrarily? In my thirty years experience, you move heaven and earth to hang on to good employees. Secondly, it's far from risk free - quite the opposite, it's a bloody nightmare, to the ludicrous extent that even a harmless and honest procedural mistake automatically means the employer loses the case, and if there's even the faintest chance of the case being dressed up as discrimination, your liability can be huge. So you absolutely have to spend a lot of money with lawyers to hand-hold your way through the maze, even if your are 100% in the right. The employee, on the other hand, has no disincentive against bringing a spurious case. Is that fair, or a sensible way to conduct industrial relations?
There are a lot of reasons why an employer might get rid of someone unfairly. Employers are people and people do irrational things and can sometimes behave vindictively and/or illegally. There are plenty of Trumps with hiring and firing authority inside businesses and other entities.
All you can do as a business is make sure you have robust, transparent processes. And, yes, sometimes It might be necessary to give someone who does not deserve it money to go away. I have done it a few times and it undoubtedly leaves a sour taste in the mouth. But it has never been a huge amount and it has got rid of a problem quickly and effectively.
...And, yes, sometimes It might be necessary to give someone who does not deserve it money to go away. I have done it a few times and it undoubtedly leaves a sour taste in the mouth. But it has never been a huge amount and it has got rid of a problem quickly and effectively.
Yeah, well paying off the mafia to stop them torching a New York bar might be quick and effective, but I'm not sure that the government should be colluding in such extortion.
...And, yes, sometimes It might be necessary to give someone who does not deserve it money to go away. I have done it a few times and it undoubtedly leaves a sour taste in the mouth. But it has never been a huge amount and it has got rid of a problem quickly and effectively.
Yeah, well paying off the mafia to stop them torching a New York bar might be quick and effective, but I'm not sure that the government should be colluding in such extortion.
Chris Grayling bolloxed it up. That's no-one's fault but Chris Grayling's. The judgment today was eviscerating.
Imagine this is superb politics, plays to the base, gets liberals properly wound up etc.
Yep, nothing the Republicans would like to see more than the Democrats going big on something that the vast majority don't care about.
Seems to me that a lot of people, liberal or otherwise, at least this side of the pond, have switched on the Trump filter and are just going "Yeah, whatever" at news emanating from Washington. For the amount that is going on, it seems to be generating minimal discussion, either here or on Facebook.
If the US is trending this way as well, could get dangerous. My end conclusion on Trump is that he is a common or garden kleptocrat dealing in family advantageous business deregulation on the qt, a strategy which requires raising enough fascistic tropes and letting liberal outrage provide distraction. If this starts to falter he may have to turn up the dial another notch.
Chris Grayling bolloxed it up. That's no-one's fault but Chris Grayling's. The judgment today was eviscerating.
Not for the first time, one does have to wonder why the government is either not getting proper legal advice, or is not following it. They really shouldn't be getting themselves into a position where they lose cases like this or the Article 50 case.
F1: halo introduction means the time limit for cockpit evacuation will be increased from 5s to 8-10s.
Not sure that'll win over critics (I'm less critical than most, to be honest).
Nope, they shouldn't be making it take longer to get out of a car that's on fire. I've also yet to see what a car with Halo attached looks like upside down, from the point of view of evacuation.
Comments
It may be helpful to begin by explaining briefly the importance of the rule of law, and the role of access to the courts in maintaining the rule of law. It may also be helpful to explain why the idea that bringing a claim before a court or a tribunal is a purely private activity, and the related idea that such claims provide no broader social benefit, are demonstrably untenable
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40714946
https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/wj83zz/an-insiders-guide-to-tory-in-fighting
"The problem is that we've got about 35 people who want to be leader of the party, but no one from any faction will start sending their no confidence letters until they're sure that they have any support to make it to the final two, which makes it safer for her."
In English law, the right of access to the courts has long been recognised. The
central idea is expressed in chapter 40 of the Magna Carta of 1215 (“Nulli vendemus,
nulli negabimus aut differemus rectum aut justiciam”), which remains on the statute
book in the closing words of chapter 29 of the version issued by Edward I in 1297:
“We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.”
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0233-judgment.pdf
James Kanagasooriam is head of analytics at Populus, which works for the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party on voter targeting and campaign analytics, most recently on the 2016 Holyrood election and this year’s local council and general elections.
Reality is they are more the John Redwood de nos jours.
So what should the right policy response be (assuming you think that some degree of policy is legitimate here, rather than it being entirely a judicial matter)? There has to be some small amount of jeopardy for claimants. Would it be reasonable to get the employment tribunal to assess lost cases as either "reasonably brought" or "overly speculative" and then demand a retrospective fee on that basis?
People shouldn't be encouraged to play the system simply because it's a free shot. As you say, there does need to be some deterrent to claims being brought that really don't have any merit. A fee in these cases doesn't seem unreasonable.
https://twitter.com/blakehounshell/status/890168169784123396
Sounds like I will need to go for a Tesla, McLaren or Porsche!!!
About the only thing that can be said in its favour is that most other countries' legal systems seem to be even worse.
The ONS said ticket receipts from Wonder Woman and the latest Pirates of the Caribbean film were among the items that had boosted the sector it calls motion picture activities"
Truly GREAT Britain. Now Wonder Woman drives the economy !
Not Tezza.
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-40726833
@BBCNormanS: "Whether we’re in, (single market) whether we’re out, we’re not ruling anything out.” - @johnmcdonnellMP
https://twitter.com/JohnDalton6011/status/890190842392084481
However, the first thing, in my experience, small employers are thinking when they take someone on is "how do I get rid of you if it goes wrong?". Anything that presents extra hurdles to that process is a brake on taking people on in the first place.
It's a balance between being fair to employees and not bestowing so many rights on them and obligations on the employer that the employer decides to default to just not bothering in the first place.
I can see that the government's position could be perceived as excessively harsh, but would have hoped for some compromise route, like the employee gets refunded if they win the case.
On reflection I think it will be harder for them to pivot to a second referendum. They will lose their Leaver support plus the Remainers who think it needs to delivered. It would also take all the heat off the government and put it on Labour.
FWIW, we had an employment tribunal case at the school where I was a governor (indeed, I'd chaired the disciplinary), and we'd sacked someone for going on holiday without permission - in fact, after permission had been denied. She had no grounds for the case but it clogged up a huge amount of governor and senior management time over the course of weeks, if not months. Eventually, she withdrew the complaint in return for a reference (though she should really have specified a good reference).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4732226/Trump-rules-transgender-people-military.html
But sadly often management does what's best for them not the organization.
Whistleblowers get shafted in my experience.
But yes- I agree it's very hard to sack poorly performing people and not get into problems.
I don't know what the answer is...
Alternatively, if you want to just throw someone out the door, you have to be prepared to cough up.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/26/bbc_to_offshore_hundreds_of_atos_roles/
Last F1 rights the BBC had were worth £30m. Entirely possible that they'd save that over the years to the next auction (or more) if they just cut male wages.
£100-200k for a presenter / journalist seems like a very good amount, especially on radio where no other outlet can pay that kind of money eg Laura K on £200k seems like the right amount for somebody in her role.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/25/new-diesel-petrol-cars-banned-uk-roads-2040-government-unveils/
Better get the Chinese on the blower...
I wouldn't be surprised if it was lower than 200k to be honest...
If you're an aspiring journalist/presenter, getting on the BBC means you get known. ITV or whoever can pick you up later for bigger money if you're good, and you can write books etc. to bring in more money.
If you compare to other public sector salaries - running a civil service department with thousands of employees is normally under 200k, senior doctors can break 100k but not by much I think, I think about a quarter of headteachers are over 100k....
https://twitter.com/europeelects/status/890221360131211264
All you can do as a business is make sure you have robust, transparent processes. And, yes, sometimes It might be necessary to give someone who does not deserve it money to go away. I have done it a few times and it undoubtedly leaves a sour taste in the mouth. But it has never been a huge amount and it has got rid of a problem quickly and effectively.
Not sure that'll win over critics (I'm less critical than most, to be honest).
If the US is trending this way as well, could get dangerous. My end conclusion on Trump is that he is a common or garden kleptocrat dealing in family advantageous business deregulation on the qt, a strategy which requires raising enough fascistic tropes and letting liberal outrage provide distraction. If this starts to falter he may have to turn up the dial another notch.
"Punchy, aggressive… a welcome, much-needed change of tempo…"
https://order-order.com/2017/07/26/paul-harrison-new-press-sec-kirsty-buchanan-no-10-davis-hires-stewart-jackson-tim-smith-dexeu/