Powerful. It helped that the blond lady was the perfect pantomime villain. Loathsome Leavers.....
Some people will cry when Brexit does not happen too, will it be powerful to see them weep and should that mean we should leave after all?
WE WILL DRINK DEEP OF THEIR DELICIOUS SALTY TEARS.
Whatever you think is a good time I guess. But as sad as it might be for people, that people will cry about something is not, in itself, an argument, however powerful it is emotionally.
Her argument was that they didn’t have enough workers for her husbands company. She could try paying them more.
It's almost like supply of workers is price elastic.
It hasn't been since about 2005. Badly run businesses have gotten used to having an almost unlimited pool of unskilled cheap labourers. It has held back investment in staff, machinery and efficient allocation of resources. I know how you loathe the productivity discussion, however, EU labour market is, IMO, the primary reason why UK productivity is so poor as it is coupled with generally poor short termist management we've always suffered from.
How many of the kind of businesses you describe couldn't employ labour more cheaply outside the UK?
Starbucks?
And you think the UK's low productivity is down to the lack of automation in coffee shops?
It isn't such a daft point. Hospitality industries are labour intensive because the customer experience is reliant on human interaction. Sitting by a vending machine isn't a great customer experience.
The Transport Secretary Chris Grayling yesterday assured this programme that his department had done “detailed work” on the financial and operational plans of the British company Seabourne Freight, which has been contracted to supply ferries between Ramsgate and Ostend in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
But we have been told that Chief Executive Ben Sharp once ran a shipping company that ceased trading – owing more than a million pounds to multiple shipping companies.
Mr Sharp has denied the allegations.
I hope for Channel 4's sake that that is a more reliable source than the lies told about the Bamfords yesterday in many places. A quick look at Ben Sharp's resume suggests he's quite happy to litigate.
The Transport Secretary Chris Grayling yesterday assured this programme that his department had done “detailed work” on the financial and operational plans of the British company Seabourne Freight, which has been contracted to supply ferries between Ramsgate and Ostend in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
But we have been told that Chief Executive Ben Sharp once ran a shipping company that ceased trading – owing more than a million pounds to multiple shipping companies.
Mr Sharp has denied the allegations.
I think that’s inappropriate of Channel 4 to run a story like that.
Your description (or it could be their’s) is loose but there are two possible interpretations:
(1) he (ran vs did not run) a company that ceased trading etc
(2) a company that he ran ceased trading but (did or did not owe more than a million) etc
Either of those are simple questions of fact
But they’ve run an unproven allegation when they could have checked the facts relatively easily. And in so doing have damaged his reputation if he is innocent
That is poor and unethical journalism
...and we are going to be seeing a lot more of it in the coming months.
I think that’s inappropriate of Channel 4 to run a story like that.
Your description (or it could be their’s) is loose but there are two possible interpretations:
(1) he (ran vs did not run) a company that ceased trading etc
(2) a company that he ran ceased trading but (did or did not owe more than a million) etc
Either of those are simple questions of fact
But they’ve run an unproven allegation when they could have checked the facts relatively easily. And in so doing have damaged his reputation if he is innocent
The Transport Secretary Chris Grayling yesterday assured this programme that his department had done “detailed work” on the financial and operational plans of the British company Seabourne Freight, which has been contracted to supply ferries between Ramsgate and Ostend in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
But we have been told that Chief Executive Ben Sharp once ran a shipping company that ceased trading – owing more than a million pounds to multiple shipping companies.
Mr Sharp has denied the allegations.
I am always disappointed at British attitudes to a business ceasing trading as long as it is not due to fraud. People risk their cash, reputation in starting businesses providing employment etc and if they fail they are mocked here as failures. We need to get the US view that as long as the person has learnt the lesson of the failure then they are a better person for the next start up than a novice. We send people to jail and say the slate must be wiped clean, but be a failed entrepreneur end of story.
Powerful. It helped that the blond lady was the perfect pantomime villain. Loathsome Leavers.....
Some people will cry when Brexit does not happen too, will it be powerful to see them weep and should that mean we should leave after all?
WE WILL DRINK DEEP OF THEIR DELICIOUS SALTY TEARS.
Whatever you think is a good time I guess. But as sad as it might be for people, that people will cry about something is not, in itself, an argument, however powerful it is emotionally.
Her argument was that they didn’t have enough workers for her husbands company. She could try paying them more.
It's almost like supply of workers is price elastic.
It hasn't been since about 2005. Badly run businesses have gotten used to having an almost unlimited pool of unskilled cheap labourers. It has held back investment in staff, machinery and efficient allocation of resources. I know how you loathe the productivity discussion, however, EU labour market is, IMO, the primary reason why UK productivity is so poor as it is coupled with generally poor short termist management we've always suffered from.
How many of the kind of businesses you describe couldn't employ labour more cheaply outside the UK?
Starbucks?
And you think the UK's low productivity is down to the lack of automation in coffee shops?
No, but having 25 low wage workers do the job that 15 higher wage ones could do with a more efficient allocation of resources contributes to why productivity is shite.
Also 15 Albanians and Romanians working in a carwash instead of a machine in a forecourt.
Yes, and eating in restaurants is an inefficient use of resources compared with eating microwave meals.
I am always disappointed at British attitudes to a business ceasing trading as long as it is not due to fraud. People risk their cash, reputation in starting businesses providing employment etc and if they fail they are mocked here as failures. We need to get the US view that as long as the person has learnt the lesson of the failure then they are a better person for the next start up than a novice. We send people to jail and say the slate must be wiped clean, but be a failed entrepreneur end of story.
Lots of successful entrepreneurs have had failed starts before they find a winner.
In tech, about 50% of companies that get angel investment fail.
The question is whether the LDs would support a Corbyn-led government.
On those figures, Labour would only need support from SNP, Plaid and the Green to take them to 325. With no SF taking their seats only 323 would be needed. In reality, I would expect Labour to be on circa 295 with SNP on circa 25.
Where do you think the left wing Pro EU Scottish voters are going to go after Corbyn betrays them?
I think it unlikely that voters in Scotland are any more obsessed with Brexit than is the case elsewhere in the UK. Much more likely that they are sick to death of the subject.
Edinburgh voters voted 74% Remain, they only voted 61% No.
I do not believe Brexit to be a very salient issue - whether in Scotland or GB as a whole.
Powerful. It helped that the blond lady was the perfect pantomime villain. Loathsome Leavers.....
Some people will cry when Brexit does not happen too, will it be powerful to see them weep and should that mean we should leave after all?
WE WILL DRINK DEEP OF THEIR DELICIOUS SALTY TEARS.
Whatever you think is a good time I guess. But as sad as it might be for people, that people will cry about something is not, in itself, an argument, however powerful it is emotionally.
Her argument was that they didn’t have enough workers for her husbands company. She could try paying them more.
It's almost like supply of workers is price elastic.
It hasn't been since about 2005. Badly run businesses have gotten used to having an almost unlimited pool of unskilled cheap labourers. It has held back investment in staff, machinery and efficient allocation of resources. I know how you loathe the productivity discussion, however, EU labour market is, IMO, the primary reason why UK productivity is so poor as it is coupled with generally poor short termist management we've always suffered from.
How many of the kind of businesses you describe couldn't employ labour more cheaply outside the UK?
Starbucks?
And you think the UK's low productivity is down to the lack of automation in coffee shops?
It isn't such a daft point. Hospitality industries are labour intensive because the customer experience is reliant on human interaction. Sitting by a vending machine isn't a great customer experience.
True in part, but a huge amount of staff time is taken up with stock-taking, which can be done electronically.
Powerful. It helped that the blond lady was the perfect pantomime villain. Loathsome Leavers.....
Some people will cry when Brexit does not happen too, will it be powerful to see them weep and should that mean we should leave after all?
WE WILL DRINK DEEP OF THEIR DELICIOUS SALTY TEARS.
Whatever you think is a good time I guess. But as sad as it might be for people, that people will cry about something is not, in itself, an argument, however powerful it is emotionally.
Her argument was that they didn’t have enough workers for her husbands company. She could try paying them more.
It's almost like supply of workers is price elastic.
It hasn't been since about 2005. Badly run businesses have gotten used to having an almost unlimited pool of unskilled cheap labourers. It has held back investment in staff, machinery and efficient allocation of resources. I know how you loathe the productivity discussion, however, EU labour market is, IMO, the primary reason why UK productivity is so poor as it is coupled with generally poor short termist management we've always suffered from.
How many of the kind of businesses you describe couldn't employ labour more cheaply outside the UK?
Starbucks?
And you think the UK's low productivity is down to the lack of automation in coffee shops?
No, but having 25 low wage workers do the job that 15 higher wage ones could do with a more efficient allocation of resources contributes to why productivity is shite.
Also 15 Albanians and Romanians working in a carwash instead of a machine in a forecourt.
Yes, and eating in restaurants is an inefficient use of resources compared with eating microwave meals.
Depends who is eating in the restaurant, if the restaurant is full of City Traders that make 1 million per hour and they save 2 hours by not cooking, then it is a very efficient use of resources. The old argument of why high flyers used Concorde.
Powerful. It helped that the blond lady was the perfect pantomime villain. Loathsome Leavers.....
Some people will cry when Brexit does not happen too, will it be powerful to see them weep and should that mean we should leave after all?
WE WILL DRINK DEEP OF THEIR DELICIOUS SALTY TEARS.
Whatever you think is a good time I guess. But as sad as it might be for people, that people will cry about something is not, in itself, an argument, however powerful it is emotionally.
Her argument was that they didn’t have enough workers for her husbands company. She could try paying them more.
It's almost like supply of workers is price elastic.
It hasn't been since about 2005. Badly run businesses have gotten used to having an almost unlimited pool of unskilled cheap labourers. It has held back investment in staff, machinery and efficient allocation of resources. I know how you loathe the productivity discussion, however, EU labour market is, IMO, the primary reason why UK productivity is so poor as it is coupled with generally poor short termist management we've always suffered from.
How many of the kind of businesses you describe couldn't employ labour more cheaply outside the UK?
Starbucks?
And you think the UK's low productivity is down to the lack of automation in coffee shops?
No, but having 25 low wage workers do the job that 15 higher wage ones could do with a more efficient allocation of resources contributes to why productivity is shite.
Also 15 Albanians and Romanians working in a carwash instead of a machine in a forecourt.
Yes, and eating in restaurants is an inefficient use of resources compared with eating microwave meals.
No because eating in restaurants has much higher value than a microwave meal. 15 Albanians working in a carwash for £1.70 per hour doesn't create value for anyone.
Powerful. It helped that the blond lady was the perfect pantomime villain. Loathsome Leavers.....
Some people will cry when Brexit does not happen too, will it be powerful to see them weep and should that mean we should leave after all?
WE WILL DRINK DEEP OF THEIR DELICIOUS SALTY TEARS.
Whatever you think is a good time I guess. But as sad as it might be for people, that people will cry about something is not, in itself, an argument, however powerful it is emotionally.
Her argument was that they didn’t have enough workers for her husbands company. She could try paying them more.
It's almost like supply of workers is price elastic.
It hasn't been since about 2005. Badly run businesses have gotten used to having an almost unlimited pool of unskilled cheap labourers. It has held back investment in staff, machinery and efficient allocation of resources. I know how you loathe the productivity discussion, however, EU labour market is, IMO, the primary reason why UK productivity is so poor as it is coupled with generally poor short termist management we've always suffered from.
How many of the kind of businesses you describe couldn't employ labour more cheaply outside the UK?
Starbucks?
And you think the UK's low productivity is down to the lack of automation in coffee shops?
No, but having 25 low wage workers do the job that 15 higher wage ones could do with a more efficient allocation of resources contributes to why productivity is shite.
Also 15 Albanians and Romanians working in a carwash instead of a machine in a forecourt.
Yes, and eating in restaurants is an inefficient use of resources compared with eating microwave meals.
Especially when the restaurant serves microwave meals anyway.
The Transport Secretary Chris Grayling yesterday assured this programme that his department had done “detailed work” on the financial and operational plans of the British company Seabourne Freight, which has been contracted to supply ferries between Ramsgate and Ostend in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
But we have been told that Chief Executive Ben Sharp once ran a shipping company that ceased trading – owing more than a million pounds to multiple shipping companies.
Mr Sharp has denied the allegations.
I am always disappointed at British attitudes to a business ceasing trading as long as it is not due to fraud. People risk their cash, reputation in starting businesses providing employment etc and if they fail they are mocked here as failures. We need to get the US view that as long as the person has learnt the lesson of the failure then they are a better person for the next start up than a novice. We send people to jail and say the slate must be wiped clean, but be a failed entrepreneur end of story.
Insolvency has always been a bigger personal shame here than across the pond. It has been for centuries. Debt prisoners lasted into the 20th Century.
If Fiona Onasanya is given a custodial sentence of more than 12 months, who moves the writ for a by-election?
Amazing how quick the Labour party's internal disciplinary processes can be. When they want to be, that is.
To be fair (why?) this situation is surely different.
In many other cases, people have been accused of things that are often not illegal, or sometimes even immoral. There is no criminal investigation, and therefore the party itself has to undertake a formal process to examine what went on. This takes time, especially if the process is to be fair to all parties.
In this case, there has been a criminal investigation, a prosecution, and she has been found guilty. They probably hoped she would stand down, and have given her time to do so. As she has not, they have expelled her.
If you say that Labour's internal processes appear to have been poor in the past, and applied unequally and unfairly, then I would agree with you. But this case is an extreme and easy one for Labour - at least from a process POV.
She hasn't been sentenced yet. In fairness, they could have waited for that. Plus there was no urgency to take the action they did precisely because the law was taking its course.
In other cases, the disciplinary process was the only means available, the reputational harm was to the party rather than to one individual and the longer it went on, unaddressed, the worse it got.
While I take your point that there needs to be an adequate and fair investigation, the disparity in the time taken and the urgency with which this case has been addressed by comparison with others, suggests in the latter cases something more than simply a desire to do a proper investigation. A cynic might think that there was the hope that dragging one's feet might enable the whole mess to go away without anything at all needing to be done.
Powerful. It helped that the blond lady was the perfect pantomime villain. Loathsome Leavers.....
Some people will cry when Brexit does not happen too, will it be powerful to see them weep and should that mean we should leave after all?
WE WILL DRINK DEEP OF THEIR DELICIOUS SALTY TEARS.
Whatever you think is a good time I guess. But as sad as it might be for people, that people will cry about something is not, in itself, an argument, however powerful it is emotionally.
Her argument was that they didn’t have enough workers for her husbands company. She could try paying them more.
It's almost like supply of workers is price elastic.
It hasn't been since about 2005. Badly run businesses have gotten used to having an almost unlimited pool of unskilled cheap labourers. It has held back investment in staff, machinery and efficient allocation of resources. I know how you loathe the productivity discussion, however, EU labour market is, IMO, the primary reason why UK productivity is so poor as it is coupled with generally poor short termist management we've always suffered from.
How many of the kind of businesses you describe couldn't employ labour more cheaply outside the UK?
Starbucks?
And you think the UK's low productivity is down to the lack of automation in coffee shops?
No, but having 25 low wage workers do the job that 15 higher wage ones could do with a more efficient allocation of resources contributes to why productivity is shite.
Also 15 Albanians and Romanians working in a carwash instead of a machine in a forecourt.
Yes, and eating in restaurants is an inefficient use of resources compared with eating microwave meals.
No because eating in restaurants has much higher value than a microwave meal. 15 Albanians working in a carwash for £1.70 per hour doesn't create value for anyone.
No because eating in restaurants has much higher value than a microwave meal. 15 Albanians working in a carwash for £1.70 per hour doesn't create value for anyone.
Firstly, that's below the minimum wage. Secondly, Albania is not part of the single market and workers are not in the scope of free movement. Thirdly, many people do place a higher value on having their cars hand-cleaned instead of driving through a machine that does a worse job.
Powerful. It helped that the blond lady was the perfect pantomime villain. Loathsome Leavers.....
Some people will cry when Brexit does not happen too, will it be powerful to see them weep and should that mean we should leave after all?
WE WILL DRINK DEEP OF THEIR DELICIOUS SALTY TEARS.
Whatever you think is a good time I guess. But as sad as it might be for people, that people will cry about something is not, in itself, an argument, however powerful it is emotionally.
Her argument was that they didn’t have enough workers for her husbands company. She could try paying them more.
It's almost like supply of workers is price elastic.
It hasn't been since about 2005. Badly run businesses have gotten used to having an almost unlimited pool of unskilled cheap labourers. It has held back investment in staff, machinery and efficient allocation of resources. I know how you loathe the productivity discussion, however, EU labour market is, IMO, the primary reason why UK productivity is so poor as it is coupled with generally poor short termist management we've always suffered from.
How many of the kind of businesses you describe couldn't employ labour more cheaply outside the UK?
Starbucks?
And you think the UK's low productivity is down to the lack of automation in coffee shops?
It isn't such a daft point. Hospitality industries are labour intensive because the customer experience is reliant on human interaction. Sitting by a vending machine isn't a great customer experience.
My sister in law runs catering establishments as a regional boss for a FTSE company and they could pay Barrista's 250K a year and still make a very large profit margin. Do they, of course not because the supply of labour has been an ever constant stream.
No because eating in restaurants has much higher value than a microwave meal. 15 Albanians working in a carwash for £1.70 per hour doesn't create value for anyone.
Firstly, that's below the minimum wage. Secondly, Albania is not part of the single market and workers are not in the scope of free movement. Thirdly, many people do place a higher value on having their cars hand-cleaned instead of driving through a machine that does a worse job.
Place a higher value doesn't mean having a higher value, £5 on a machine wash vs £5 on a hand car wash is the same value creation, if anything there will be more for the machine wash as it will create supply chain and manufacturing jobs in making the machines, well more than it does making hosepipes and sponges anyway.
The Transport Secretary Chris Grayling yesterday assured this programme that his department had done “detailed work” on the financial and operational plans of the British company Seabourne Freight, which has been contracted to supply ferries between Ramsgate and Ostend in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
But we have been told that Chief Executive Ben Sharp once ran a shipping company that ceased trading – owing more than a million pounds to multiple shipping companies.
Mr Sharp has denied the allegations.
I am always disappointed at British attitudes to a business ceasing trading as long as it is not due to fraud. People risk their cash, reputation in starting businesses providing employment etc and if they fail they are mocked here as failures. We need to get the US view that as long as the person has learnt the lesson of the failure then they are a better person for the next start up than a novice. We send people to jail and say the slate must be wiped clean, but be a failed entrepreneur end of story.
Insolvency has always been a bigger personal shame here than across the pond. It has been for centuries. Debt prisoners lasted into the 20th Century.
Yes agreed... although part of me wishes the US Constition barred from the Presidency anyone who has led multiple companies to bankruptcy.
I think that’s inappropriate of Channel 4 to run a story like that.
Your description (or it could be their’s) is loose but there are two possible interpretations:
(1) he (ran vs did not run) a company that ceased trading etc
(2) a company that he ran ceased trading but (did or did not owe more than a million) etc
Either of those are simple questions of fact
But they’ve run an unproven allegation when they could have checked the facts relatively easily. And in so doing have damaged his reputation if he is innocent
The Transport Secretary Chris Grayling yesterday assured this programme that his department had done “detailed work” on the financial and operational plans of the British company Seabourne Freight, which has been contracted to supply ferries between Ramsgate and Ostend in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
But we have been told that Chief Executive Ben Sharp once ran a shipping company that ceased trading – owing more than a million pounds to multiple shipping companies.
Mr Sharp has denied the allegations.
I think that’s inappropriate of Channel 4 to run a story like that.
Your description (or it could be their’s) is loose but there are two possible interpretations:
(1) he (ran vs did not run) a company that ceased trading etc
(2) a company that he ran ceased trading but (did or did not owe more than a million) etc
Either of those are simple questions of fact
But they’ve run an unproven allegation when they could have checked the facts relatively easily. And in so doing have damaged his reputation if he is innocent
That is poor and unethical journalism
Channel 4 News found two companies who claimed this company owed them large sums of money for services they had rendered. Mr Sharp disputes that his company was liable because the companies concerned didn't provide what they had contracted. It appears to be agreed fact that Mr Sharp's company didn't pay the other companies the contacted amount. The dispute is over whether it was liable.
Powerful. It helped that the blond lady was the perfect pantomime villain. Loathsome Leavers.....
Some people will cry when Brexit does not happen too, will it be powerful to see them weep and should that mean we should leave after all?
WE WILL DRINK DEEP OF THEIR DELICIOUS SALTY TEARS.
Whatever you think is a good time I guess. But as sad as it might be for people, that people will cry about something is not, in itself, an argument, however powerful it is emotionally.
Her argument was that they didn’t have enough workers for her husbands company. She could try paying them more.
It's almost like supply of workers is price elastic.
It hasn't been since about 2005. Badly run businesses have gotten used to having an almost unlimited pool of unskilled cheap labourers. It has held back investment in staff, machinery and efficient allocation of resources. I know how you loathe the productivity discussion, however, EU labour market is, IMO, the primary reason why UK productivity is so poor as it is coupled with generally poor short termist management we've always suffered from.
How many of the kind of businesses you describe couldn't employ labour more cheaply outside the UK?
Starbucks?
And you think the UK's low productivity is down to the lack of automation in coffee shops?
It isn't such a daft point. Hospitality industries are labour intensive because the customer experience is reliant on human interaction. Sitting by a vending machine isn't a great customer experience.
My sister in law runs catering establishments as a regional boss for a FTSE company and they could pay Barrista's 250K a year and still make a very large profit margin. Do they, of course not because the supply of labour has been an ever constant stream.
Starbucks' global revenue per employee is about $75k. Please explain how they can pay everyone 250k and make a profit.
No because eating in restaurants has much higher value than a microwave meal. 15 Albanians working in a carwash for £1.70 per hour doesn't create value for anyone.
Firstly, that's below the minimum wage. Secondly, Albania is not part of the single market and workers are not in the scope of free movement. Thirdly, many people do place a higher value on having their cars hand-cleaned instead of driving through a machine that does a worse job.
1) A continuing, ongoing problem is that the minimum wage is being ignored in such industries, and is unfortunately especially easy to ignore for those workers here illegally and therefore without NI numbers;
2) Is correct, of course;
3) Depends what you want. I used to live by the sea and it was more useful to have a machine that would hose down the undertrained as well to get rid of the salt I kept splashing on it.
The Transport Secretary Chris Grayling yesterday assured this programme that his department had done “detailed work” on the financial and operational plans of the British company Seabourne Freight, which has been contracted to supply ferries between Ramsgate and Ostend in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
But we have been told that Chief Executive Ben Sharp once ran a shipping company that ceased trading – owing more than a million pounds to multiple shipping companies.
Mr Sharp has denied the allegations.
I am always disappointed at British attitudes to a business ceasing trading as long as it is not due to fraud. People risk their cash, reputation in starting businesses providing employment etc and if they fail they are mocked here as failures. We need to get the US view that as long as the person has learnt the lesson of the failure then they are a better person for the next start up than a novice. We send people to jail and say the slate must be wiped clean, but be a failed entrepreneur end of story.
Insolvency has always been a bigger personal shame here than across the pond. It has been for centuries. Debt prisoners lasted into the 20th Century.
It's a fairly recent culture shift in the US. They were pretty brutal in their attitudes towards debtors in the past.
No because eating in restaurants has much higher value than a microwave meal. 15 Albanians working in a carwash for £1.70 per hour doesn't create value for anyone.
Firstly, that's below the minimum wage. Secondly, Albania is not part of the single market and workers are not in the scope of free movement. Thirdly, many people do place a higher value on having their cars hand-cleaned instead of driving through a machine that does a worse job.
Place a higher value doesn't mean having a higher value, £5 on a machine wash vs £5 on a hand car wash is the same value creation, if anything there will be more for the machine wash as it will create supply chain and manufacturing jobs in making the machines, well more than it does making hosepipes and sponges anyway.
Machines used to be the norm up and down the country. Any displacement has been driven by consumer demand, and a machine can never offer a full valet service.
The Transport Secretary Chris Grayling yesterday assured this programme that his department had done “detailed work” on the financial and operational plans of the British company Seabourne Freight, which has been contracted to supply ferries between Ramsgate and Ostend in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
But we have been told that Chief Executive Ben Sharp once ran a shipping company that ceased trading – owing more than a million pounds to multiple shipping companies.
Mr Sharp has denied the allegations.
I think that’s inappropriate of Channel 4 to run a story like that.
Your description (or it could be their’s) is loose but there are two possible interpretations:
(1) he (ran vs did not run) a company that ceased trading etc
(2) a company that he ran ceased trading but (did or did not owe more than a million) etc
Either of those are simple questions of fact
But they’ve run an unproven allegation when they could have checked the facts relatively easily. And in so doing have damaged his reputation if he is innocent
That is poor and unethical journalism
Channel 4 News found two companies who claimed this company owed them large sums of money for services they had rendered. Mr Sharp disputes that his company was liable because the companies concerned didn't provide what they had contracted. It appears to be agreed fact that Mr Sharp's company didn't pay the other companies the contacted amount. The dispute is over whether it was liable.
I think that’s inappropriate of Channel 4 to run a story like that.
Your description (or it could be their’s) is loose but there are two possible interpretations:
(1) he (ran vs did not run) a company that ceased trading etc
(2) a company that he ran ceased trading but (did or did not owe more than a million) etc
Either of those are simple questions of fact
But they’ve run an unproven allegation when they could have checked the facts relatively easily. And in so doing have damaged his reputation if he is innocent
That is poor and unethical journalism
Channel 4 News found two companies who claimed this company owed them large sums of money for services they had rendered. Mr Sharp disputes that his company was liable because the companies concerned didn't provide what they had contracted. It appears to be agreed fact that Mr Sharp's company didn't pay the other companies the contacted amount. The dispute is over whether it was liable.
It would raise alarm bells with me.
No - he's specifically saying that payments to one company ceased over a contractual dispute, therefore he account given is incorrect. He says that the other company is not telling the truth at all.
Without more information I'm surprised Channel 4 ran this. I think unless they have seen solid documentation to support their case - which to judge from the report, they haven't - they could easily be toast in a libel action. Certainly they offer nothing that would begin to stand up as proof or even reasonable evidence.
I'm bewildered by how much sheer hate is being directed at this company. First we had lies about its links to the Bamfords, then claims it is a shell company out to embezzle public funds, now this. It's even more bizarre given he majority of the contracts went to DFDS and Brittany Ferries. It's almost as though a clique of media has decided that they want to get somebody or something and don't care about minor things like facts or the truth.
I'll stop there before I start sounding like that Fascist nutter Aaron Bastani.
The Transport Secretary Chris Grayling yesterday assured this programme that his department had done “detailed work” on the financial and operational plans of the British company Seabourne Freight, which has been contracted to supply ferries between Ramsgate and Ostend in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
But we have been told that Chief Executive Ben Sharp once ran a shipping company that ceased trading – owing more than a million pounds to multiple shipping companies.
Mr Sharp has denied the allegations.
I am always disappointed at British attitudes to a business ceasing trading as long as it is not due to fraud. People risk their cash, reputation in starting businesses providing employment etc and if they fail they are mocked here as failures. We need to get the US view that as long as the person has learnt the lesson of the failure then they are a better person for the next start up than a novice. We send people to jail and say the slate must be wiped clean, but be a failed entrepreneur end of story.
Insolvency has always been a bigger personal shame here than across the pond. It has been for centuries. Debt prisoners lasted into the 20th Century.
It's a fairly recent culture shift in the US. They were pretty brutal in their attitudes towards debtors in the past.
Fraud, insider trading and ramping on twitter seem to be taken more seriously than bankruptcy which is very minor in the US
Fraud, insider trading and ramping on twitter seem to be taken more seriously than bankruptcy which is very minor in the US
Well, bankruptcy isn't a bar from the highest office now (sadly)...
Edit - @El_Capitano please never EVER use blockquote function for quotes within a post again as it epically buggers up the thread. Please just use italics like the rest of us.
No because eating in restaurants has much higher value than a microwave meal. 15 Albanians working in a carwash for £1.70 per hour doesn't create value for anyone.
Firstly, that's below the minimum wage. Secondly, Albania is not part of the single market and workers are not in the scope of free movement. Thirdly, many people do place a higher value on having their cars hand-cleaned instead of driving through a machine that does a worse job.
1) A continuing, ongoing problem is that the minimum wage is being ignored in such industries, and is unfortunately especially easy to ignore for those workers here illegally and therefore without NI numbers;
2) Is correct, of course;
3) Depends what you want. I used to live by the sea and it was more useful to have a machine that would hose down the undertrained as well to get rid of the salt I kept splashing on it.
'hose down the undertrained'
One way to deal with the oversupply of unskilled workers!
I think that’s inappropriate of Channel 4 to run a story like that.
Your description (or it could be their’s) is loose but there are two possible interpretations:
(1) he (ran vs did not run) a company that ceased trading etc
(2) a company that he ran ceased trading but (did or did not owe more than a million) etc
Either of those are simple questions of fact
But they’ve run an unproven allegation when they could have checked the facts relatively easily. And in so doing have damaged his reputation if he is innocent
That is poor and unethical journalism
Channel 4 News found two companies who claimed this company owed them large sums of money for services they had rendered. Mr Sharp disputes that his company was liable because the companies concerned didn't provide what they had contracted. It appears to be agreed fact that Mr Sharp's company didn't pay the other companies the contacted amount. The dispute is over whether it was liable.
It would raise alarm bells with me.
No - he's specifically saying that payments to one company ceased over a contractual dispute, therefore he account given is incorrect. He says that the other company is not telling the truth at all.
Without more information I'm surprised Channel 4 ran this. I think unless they have seen solid documentation to support their case - which to judge from the report, they haven't - they could easily be toast in a libel action. Certainly they offer nothing that would begin to stand up as proof or even reasonable evidence.
I'm bewildered by how much sheer hate is being directed at this company. First we had lies about its links to the Bamfords, then claims it is a shell company out to embezzle public funds, now this. It's even more bizarre given he majority of the contracts went to DFDS and Brittany Ferries. It's almost as though a clique of media has decided that they want to get somebody or something and don't care about minor things like facts or the truth.
I'll stop there before I start sounding like that Fascist nutter Aaron Bastani.
Its not the first time some parts of the media lose any objectiveness over something Brexit related contracts. Remember all the bullshit spin about new blue passports going to cost £500 million.
No because eating in restaurants has much higher value than a microwave meal. 15 Albanians working in a carwash for £1.70 per hour doesn't create value for anyone.
Firstly, that's below the minimum wage. Secondly, Albania is not part of the single market and workers are not in the scope of free movement. Thirdly, many people do place a higher value on having their cars hand-cleaned instead of driving through a machine that does a worse job.
1) A continuing, ongoing problem is that the minimum wage is being ignored in such industries, and is unfortunately especially easy to ignore for those workers here illegally and therefore without NI numbers;
2) Is correct, of course;
3) Depends what you want. I used to live by the sea and it was more useful to have a machine that would hose down the undertrained as well to get rid of the salt I kept splashing on it.
'hose down the undertrained'
One way to deal with the oversupply of unskilled workers!
I hate autocorrect. The only thing in the known universe more useless than Richard Burgon.
The Transport Secretary Chris Grayling yesterday assured this programme that his department had done “detailed work” on the financial and operational plans of the British company Seabourne Freight, which has been contracted to supply ferries between Ramsgate and Ostend in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
But we have been told that Chief Executive Ben Sharp once ran a shipping company that ceased trading – owing more than a million pounds to multiple shipping companies.
Mr Sharp has denied the allegations.
I think that’s inappropriate of Channel 4 to run a story like that.
Your description (or it could be their’s) is loose but there are two possible interpretations:
(1) he (ran vs did not run) a company that ceased trading etc
(2) a company that he ran ceased trading but (did or did not owe more than a million) etc
Either of those are simple questions of fact
But they’ve run an unproven allegation when they could have checked the facts relatively easily. And in so doing have damaged his reputation if he is innocent
That is poor and unethical journalism
Channel 4 News found two companies who claimed this company owed them large sums of money for services they had rendered. Mr Sharp disputes that his company was liable because the companies concerned didn't provide what they had contracted. It appears to be agreed fact that Mr Sharp's company didn't pay the other companies the contacted amount. The dispute is over whether it was liable.
It would raise alarm bells with me.
That’s not the way they presented it
“His company went bust owing two companies a lot of money (and by the way he denies it and says it was a complex commercial dispute but don’t worry about it IT’S A SCANDAL!”
I think that’s inappropriate of Channel 4 to run a story like that.
Your description (or it could be their’s) is loose but there are two possible interpretations:
(1) he (ran vs did not run) a company that ceased trading etc
(2) a company that he ran ceased trading but (did or did not owe more than a million) etc
Either of those are simple questions of fact
But they’ve run an unproven allegation when they could have checked the facts relatively easily. And in so doing have damaged his reputation if he is innocent
That is poor and unethical journalism
Channel 4 News found two companies who claimed this company owed them large sums of money for services they had rendered. Mr Sharp disputes that his company was liable because the companies concerned didn't provide what they had contracted. It appears to be agreed fact that Mr Sharp's company didn't pay the other companies the contacted amount. The dispute is over whether it was liable.
It would raise alarm bells with me.
No - he's specifically saying that payments to one company ceased over a contractual dispute, therefore he account given is incorrect. He says that the other company is not telling the truth at all.
Without more information I'm surprised Channel 4 ran this. I think unless they have seen solid documentation to support their case - which to judge from the report, they haven't - they could easily be toast in a libel action. Certainly they offer nothing that would begin to stand up as proof or even reasonable evidence.
I'm bewildered by how much sheer hate is being directed at this company. First we had lies about its links to the Bamfords, then claims it is a shell company out to embezzle public funds, now this. It's even more bizarre given he majority of the contracts went to DFDS and Brittany Ferries. It's almost as though a clique of media has decided that they want to get somebody or something and don't care about minor things like facts or the truth.
I'll stop there before I start sounding like that Fascist nutter Aaron Bastani.
Its not the first time some parts of the media lose any objectiveness over something Brexit related contracts. Remember all the bullshit spin about new blue passports going to cost £500 million.
It's going to be potentially extremely profitable for a large number of legal firms, certain Tory donors and the bosses of Seabourne, should they choose to make an issue of it.
But equally, it would be a distraction at a time when the latter two groups should be a leetle busy.
Fraud, insider trading and ramping on twitter seem to be taken more seriously than bankruptcy which is very minor in the US
Well, bankruptcy isn't a bar from the highest office now (sadly)...
Edit - @El_Capitano please never EVER use blockquote function for quotes within a post again as it epically buggers up the thread. Please just use italics like the rest of us.
Don't use the "quote" function for... quotes? Well, you learn something new every day.
(But yeah, I don't really need any convincing of Vanilla's epically bad HTML handling, particularly wrt quotes.)
No because eating in restaurants has much higher value than a microwave meal. 15 Albanians working in a carwash for £1.70 per hour doesn't create value for anyone.
Firstly, that's below the minimum wage. Secondly, Albania is not part of the single market and workers are not in the scope of free movement. Thirdly, many people do place a higher value on having their cars hand-cleaned instead of driving through a machine that does a worse job.
1) A continuing, ongoing problem is that the minimum wage is being ignored in such industries, and is unfortunately especially easy to ignore for those workers here illegally and therefore without NI numbers;
2) Is correct, of course;
3) Depends what you want. I used to live by the sea and it was more useful to have a machine that would hose down the undertrained as well to get rid of the salt I kept splashing on it.
'hose down the undertrained'
One way to deal with the oversupply of unskilled workers!
I hate autocorrect. The only thing in the known universe more useless than Richard Burgon.
Fraud, insider trading and ramping on twitter seem to be taken more seriously than bankruptcy which is very minor in the US
Well, bankruptcy isn't a bar from the highest office now (sadly)...
Edit - @El_Capitano please never EVER use blockquote function for quotes within a post again as it epically buggers up the thread. Please just use italics like the rest of us.
Don't use the "quote" function for... quotes? Well, you learn something new every day.
(But yeah, I don't really need any convincing of Vanilla's epically bad HTML handling, particularly wrt quotes.)
Think of it as like Ankh Morpork, where, famously, arresting criminals was against the law.
Powerful. It helped that the blond lady was the perfect pantomime villain. Loathsome Leavers.....
Some people will cry when Brexit does not happen too, will it be powerful to see them weep and should that mean we should leave after all?
WE WILL DRINK DEEP OF THEIR DELICIOUS SALTY TEARS.
Whatever you think is a good time I guess. But as sad as it might be for people, that people will cry about something is not, in itself, an argument, however powerful it is emotionally.
Her argument was that they didn’t have enough workers for her husbands company. She could try paying them more.
It's almost like supply of workers is price elastic.
It hasn't been since about 2005. Badly run businesses have gotten used to having an almost unlimited pool of unskilled cheap labourers. It has held back investment in staff, machinery and efficient allocation of resources. I know how you loathe the productivity discussion, however, EU labour market is, IMO, the primary reason why UK productivity is so poor as it is coupled with generally poor short termist management we've always suffered from.
How many of the kind of businesses you describe couldn't employ labour more cheaply outside the UK?
Starbucks?
And you think the UK's low productivity is down to the lack of automation in coffee shops?
It isn't such a daft point. Hospitality industries are labour intensive because the customer experience is reliant on human interaction. Sitting by a vending machine isn't a great customer experience.
My sister in law runs catering establishments as a regional boss for a FTSE company and they could pay Barrista's 250K a year and still make a very large profit margin. Do they, of course not because the supply of labour has been an ever constant stream.
Starbucks' global revenue per employee is about $75k. Please explain how they can pay everyone 250k and make a profit.
I did not say everyone I said Barista's. You can do the maths. Hoe many 3 quid coffee's are Barista's making per minute/per hour per day in a busy store?
No because eating in restaurants has much higher value than a microwave meal. 15 Albanians working in a carwash for £1.70 per hour doesn't create value for anyone.
Firstly, that's below the minimum wage. Secondly, Albania is not part of the single market and workers are not in the scope of free movement. Thirdly, many people do place a higher value on having their cars hand-cleaned instead of driving through a machine that does a worse job.
1) A continuing, ongoing problem is that the minimum wage is being ignored in such industries, and is unfortunately especially easy to ignore for those workers here illegally and therefore without NI numbers;
2) Is correct, of course;
3) Depends what you want. I used to live by the sea and it was more useful to have a machine that would hose down the undertrained as well to get rid of the salt I kept splashing on it.
'hose down the undertrained'
One way to deal with the oversupply of unskilled workers!
I hate autocorrect. The only thing in the known universe more useless than Richard Burgon.
That should, of course, have read 'undertray.'
Well it gave me an LOL just before bedtime.
Night night comrades.
So it's goodnight from him, and it's goodnight from me.
I think it unlikely that voters in Scotland are any more obsessed with Brexit than is the case elsewhere in the UK. Much more likely that they are sick to death of the subject.
Edinburgh voters voted 74% Remain, they only voted 61% No.
At the risk of being hit over the head by certain parties on here, it may just be that Brexit (however well or badly it goes) doesn't prove to be an unalloyed good for the cause of Scottish independence.
For the UK, extricating itself from a common market that accounts for 45% of its exports has proven challenging enough, and has been seen to be so (in the end, of course, it might still not happen.) However, Scotland has to contend with decoupling itself from a fully-integrated sovereign state of which it has been part for three centuries, with which it shares a common currency, from which it receives the necessary funds to compensate for a government budget deficit of 8% of GDP, and which would account, post-independence, for 60% of all its external trade - which might, or might not, be subject to all manner of tariff and non-tariff barriers, depending upon the circumstances in which the two parties then find themselves.
All of this is doable (and, as I've stated before, the very fact that the United Kingdom - unlike many other states such as Germany, Spain and the US - permits the secession of its constituent parts makes it temporary, and arguably renders its eventual dissolution a mere matter of time,) but all the same it's one Hell of a challenge.
We ought also not to assume that everybody who voted Yes to independence also supported staying in the EU, or that there was a large swing in opinion from No to Yes amongst disgruntled Remainers post-June 2016. The major features of the 2017 General Election in Scotland were the haemorrhage of pro-independence Leavers from the SNP to the Tories and Labour, and a significant net movement amongst all anti-independence voters from Labour to the Tories. There was no evidence of a mass migration of No/Remain voters to the SNP, which would be what we would expect if Brexit were acting as a driver of pro-independence sentiment, and AFAIK there's been little sign of such a movement happening since.
There is also the somewhat more than trivial issue of very large numbers of Westminster politicians advocating that people be told to vote again in a second referendum on something, because they have given an answer of which they don't approve in the first one. Even if Indyref2 is held and it produces a Yes vote, the Scottish Government may then have to endure a carrot-and-stick negotiation strategy from London: hardball in the divorce talks, coupled with a less-than-subtle campaign aimed at Scottish voters asking them if they're really sure they want to go through with this.
Brexit has probably made the SNP's ultimate aim harder, not easier, to achieve.
The Transport Secretary Chris Grayling yesterday assured this programme that his department had done “detailed work” on the financial and operational plans of the British company Seabourne Freight, which has been contracted to supply ferries between Ramsgate and Ostend in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
But we have been told that Chief Executive Ben Sharp once ran a shipping company that ceased trading – owing more than a million pounds to multiple shipping companies.
Mr Sharp has denied the allegations.
I think that’s inappropriate of Channel 4 to run a story like that.
Your description (or it could be their’s) is loose but there are two possible interpretations:
(1) he (ran vs did not run) a company that ceased trading etc
(2) a company that he ran ceased trading but (did or did not owe more than a million) etc
Either of those are simple questions of fact
But they’ve run an unproven allegation when they could have checked the facts relatively easily. And in so doing have damaged his reputation if he is innocent
That is poor and unethical journalism
Channel 4 News found two companies who claimed this company owed them large sums of money for services they had rendered. Mr Sharp disputes that his company was liable because the companies concerned didn't provide what they had contracted. It appears to be agreed fact that Mr Sharp's company didn't pay the other companies the contacted amount. The dispute is over whether it was liable.
It would raise alarm bells with me.
That’s not the way they presented it
“His company went bust owing two companies a lot of money (and by the way he denies it and says it was a complex commercial dispute but don’t worry about it IT’S A SCANDAL!”
Quality journalism should do better than that
My concern would be over Mr Sharp's response to the allegations. B2B customers do usually pay their bills in my experience. If the delivery falls short you aim to settle the compensation by negotiation and if that doesn't work you litigate. Instead Mr Sharp effectively says he didn't pay the fee in the contract because in his view the other side didn't deserve it .And then he went out of business.
This ‘Seaborne’ lark looks as murky as hell. Why is the government dishing out vital, multi-million pound contracts to shady ‘startups’ whose websites are put together by infants? At best crocodiles are emerging from the Brexit swamp and Grayling was a poor dupe.
The Transport Secretary Chris Grayling yesterday assured this programme that his department had done “detailed work” on the financial and operational plans of the British company Seabourne Freight, which has been contracted to supply ferries between Ramsgate and Ostend in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
But we have been told that Chief Executive Ben Sharp once ran a shipping company that ceased trading – owing more than a million pounds to multiple shipping companies.
Mr Sharp has denied the allegations.
I think that’s inappropriate of Channel 4 to run a story like that.
Your description (or it could be their’s) is loose but there are two possible interpretations:
(1) he (ran vs did not run) a company that ceased trading etc
(2) a company that he ran ceased trading but (did or did not owe more than a million) etc
Either of those are simple questions of fact
But they’ve run an unproven allegation when they could have checked the facts relatively easily. And in so doing have damaged his reputation if he is innocent
That is poor and unethical journalism
Channel 4 News found two companies who claimed this company owed them large sums of money for services they had rendered. Mr Sharp disputes that his company was liable because the companies concerned didn't provide what they had contracted. It appears to be agreed fact that Mr Sharp's company didn't pay the other companies the contacted amount. The dispute is over whether it was liable.
It would raise alarm bells with me.
That’s not the way they presented it
“His company went bust owing two companies a lot of money (and by the way he denies it and says it was a complex commercial dispute but don’t worry about it IT’S A SCANDAL!”
Quality journalism should do better than that
My concern would be over Mr Sharp's response to the allegations. B2B customers do usually pay their bills in my experience. If the delivery falls short you aim to settle the compensation by negotiation and if that doesn't work you litigate. Instead Mr Sharp effectively says he didn't pay the fee in the contract because in his view the other side didn't deserve it .And then he went out of business.
That shouts "Avoid!" to me. To you?
To be fair, the Seaborne Freight company has proven great value, £14 million of added gaiety for the nation.
This ‘Seaborne’ lark looks as murky as hell. Why is the government dishing out vital, multi-million pound contracts to shady ‘startups’ whose websites are put together by infants?
Either (a) as part of a sophisticated PR campaign to terrify wavering Labour backbenchers into voting for Theresa May's deal to avert Hard Brexit, or (b) through rank incompetence. Hmmm, I wonder which...
If Fiona Onasanya is given a custodial sentence of more than 12 months, who moves the writ for a by-election?
Amazing how quick the Labour party's internal disciplinary processes can be. When they want to be, that is.
To be fair (why?) this situation is surely different.
In many other cases, people have been accused of things that are often not illegal, or sometimes even immoral. There is no criminal investigation, and therefore the party itself has to undertake a formal process to examine what went on. This takes time, especially if the process is to be fair to all parties.
In this case, there has been a criminal investigation, a prosecution, and she has been found guilty. They probably hoped she would stand down, and have given her time to do so. As she has not, they have expelled her.
If you say that Labour's internal processes appear to have been poor in the past, and applied unequally and unfairly, then I would agree with you. But this case is an extreme and easy one for Labour - at least from a process POV.
She hasn't been sentenced yet. In fairness, they could have waited for that. Plus there was no urgency to take the action they did precisely because the law was taking its course.
In other cases, the disciplinary process was the only means available, the reputational harm was to the party rather than to one individual and the longer it went on, unaddressed, the worse it got.
While I take your point that there needs to be an adequate and fair investigation, the disparity in the time taken and the urgency with which this case has been addressed by comparison with others, suggests in the latter cases something more than simply a desire to do a proper investigation. A cynic might think that there was the hope that dragging one's feet might enable the whole mess to go away without anything at all needing to be done.
I think it unlikely that voters in Scotland are any more obsessed with Brexit than is the case elsewhere in the UK. Much more likely that they are sick to death of the subject.
Edinburgh voters voted 74% Remain, they only voted 61% No.
Brexit has probably made the SNP's ultimate aim harder, not easier, to achieve.
If there could be an upside to, unfortunately, Brexit not going particularly well, then please let that be it. May they choke like a Liverpool team with a shot at the title. (This is your fault, TSE)
Grayling needs to be summoned to the House. How can Seaborne possible have submitted a convincing prospectus when the legal stipulations on its website were lifted from a fast-food outlet?
Grayling needs to be summoned to the House. How can Seaborne possible have submitted a convincing prospectus when the legal stipulations on its website were lifted from a fast-food outlet?
There was no tender, so it didn't submit a prospectus.
I think it unlikely that voters in Scotland are any more obsessed with Brexit than is the case elsewhere in the UK. Much more likely that they are sick to death of the subject.
Edinburgh voters voted 74% Remain, they only voted 61% No.
At the risk of being hit over the head by certain parties on here, it may just be that Brexit (however well or badly it goes) doesn't prove to be an unalloyed good for the cause of Scottish independence.
For the UK, extricating itself from a bject to all manner of tariff and non-tariff barriers, depending upon the circumstances in which the two parties then find themselves.
All of this is doable (and, as I'ame it's one Hell of a challenge.
We ought also not to assume that everybody who voted Yes to independence also supported staying in the EU, or that there was a large swing in opinion from No to Yes amongst disgruntled Remainers post-June 2016. The major features of the 2017 General Election in Scotland were the haemorrhage of pro-independence Leavers from the SNP to the Tories and Labour, and a significant net movement amongst all anti-independence voters from Labour to the Tories. There was no evidence of a mass migration of No/Remain voters to the SNP, which would be what we would expect if Brexit were acting as a driver of pro-independence sentiment, and AFAIK there's been little sign of such a movement happening since.
There is also the somewhat more than trivial issue of very large numbers of Westminster politicians advocating that people be told to vote again in a second referendum on something, because they have given an answer of which they don't approve in the first one. Even if Indyref2 is held and it produces a Yes vote, the Scottish Government may then have to endure a carrot-and-stick negotiation strategy from London: hardball in the divorce talks, coupled with a less-than-subtle campaign aimed at Scottish voters asking them if they're really sure they want to go through with this.
Brexit has probably made the SNP's ultimate aim harder, not easier, to achieve.
Not what the polling says, in fact Yes only gets over 50% in some polls with No Deal.
The fact voters voted for Brexit despite the risks also makes it easier for the SNP to say Scots could do the same with independence.
In fact in the event of No Deal the Government might have to go down the Spanish route with the Catalans and suspend Holyrood in order to prevent UDI
No because eating in restaurants has much higher value than a microwave meal. 15 Albanians working in a carwash for £1.70 per hour doesn't create value for anyone.
Firstly, that's below the minimum wage. Secondly, Albania is not part of the single market and workers are not in the scope of free movement. Thirdly, many people do place a higher value on having their cars hand-cleaned instead of driving through a machine that does a worse job.
1) A continuing, ongoing problem is that the minimum wage is being ignored in such industries, and is unfortunately especially easy to ignore for those workers here illegally and therefore without NI numbers;
2) Is correct, of course;
3) Depends what you want. I used to live by the sea and it was more useful to have a machine that would hose down the undertrained as well to get rid of the salt I kept splashing on it.
'hose down the undertrained'
One way to deal with the oversupply of unskilled workers!
I hate autocorrect. The only thing in the known universe more useless than Richard Burgon.
That should, of course, have read 'undertray.'
I’m getting to rather like autocorrect. It’s like having your own private Sheridan.
This ‘Seaborne’ lark looks as murky as hell. Why is the government dishing out vital, multi-million pound contracts to shady ‘startups’ whose websites are put together by infants?
Either (a) as part of a sophisticated PR campaign to terrify wavering Labour backbenchers into voting for Theresa May's deal to avert Hard Brexit, or (b) through rank incompetence. Hmmm, I wonder which...
This is how we will conquer the world post-Brexit. Good old fashioned British governmental incompetence is back in the driving seat. The 1970s - here we come!!!!
This ‘Seaborne’ lark looks as murky as hell. Why is the government dishing out vital, multi-million pound contracts to shady ‘startups’ whose websites are put together by infants?
Either (a) as part of a sophisticated PR campaign to terrify wavering Labour backbenchers into voting for Theresa May's deal to avert Hard Brexit, or (b) through rank incompetence. Hmmm, I wonder which...
This is how we will conquer the world post-Brexit. Good old fashioned British governmental incompetence is back in the driving seat. The 1970s - here we come!!!!
Our politicians seem to positively adore either the 70s or the 80s, I don't see the appeal frankly.
But don't worry, we're not going to Brexit so there won't be a post-Brexit.
Brexit has probably made the SNP's ultimate aim harder, not easier, to achieve.
You mean even harder than the very, very hard thing many on here have repeatedly said it would be (during these admittedly brief pauses in the Br***t talk)? Gosh, that's hard.
Mind you, two years ago some of these coves were saying Brexit would be a bit of a dawdle.
Brexit has probably made the SNP's ultimate aim harder, not easier, to achieve.
You mean even harder than the very, very hard thing many on here have repeatedly said it would be (during these admittedly brief pauses in the Br***t talk)? Gosh, that's hard.
Mind you, two years ago some of these coves were saying Brexit would be a bit of a dawdle.
Personally I think it jolly unsporting of the SNP to not be descending into intra party squabbling or total passive malaise right now like practically every other party out there. Discipline and relative competence? That's hardly playing fair.
This ‘Seaborne’ lark looks as murky as hell. Why is the government dishing out vital, multi-million pound contracts to shady ‘startups’ whose websites are put together by infants?
Either (a) as part of a sophisticated PR campaign to terrify wavering Labour backbenchers into voting for Theresa May's deal to avert Hard Brexit, or (b) through rank incompetence. Hmmm, I wonder which...
This is how we will conquer the world post-Brexit. Good old fashioned British governmental incompetence is back in the driving seat. The 1970s - here we come!!!!
Our politicians seem to positively adore either the 70s or the 80s, I don't see the appeal frankly.
But don't worry, we're not going to Brexit so there won't be a post-Brexit.
The 80s were not too bad, but the 70s were sepia on steroids....
As for Brexit, I cannot wait for the politicians to balls everything up (or not). I have some things I need to sort out on the assumption that Brexit will happen.
The Transport Secretary Chris Grayling yesterday assured this programme that his department had done “detailed work” on the financial and operational plans of the British company Seabourne Freight, which has been contracted to supply ferries between Ramsgate and Ostend in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
But we have been told that Chief Executive Ben Sharp once ran a shipping company that ceased trading – owing more than a million pounds to multiple shipping companies.
Mr Sharp has denied the allegations.
I think that’s inappropriate of Channel 4 to run a story like that.
Your description (or it could be their’s) is loose but there are two possible interpretations:
(1) he (ran vs did not run) a company that ceased trading etc
(2) a company that he ran ceased trading but (did or did not owe more than a million) etc
Either of those are simple questions of fact
But they’ve run an unproven allegation when they could have checked the facts relatively easily. And in so doing have damaged his reputation if he is innocent
That is poor and unethical journalism
Channel 4 News found two companies who claimed this company owed them large sums of money for services they had rendered. Mr Sharp disputes that his company was liable because the companies concerned didn't provide what they had contracted. It appears to be agreed fact that Mr Sharp's company didn't pay the other companies the contacted amount. The dispute is over whether it was liable.
It would raise alarm bells with me.
That’s not the way they presented it
“His company went bust owing two companies a lot of money (and by the way he denies it and says it was a complex commercial dispute but don’t worry about it IT’S A SCANDAL!”
Quality journalism should do better than that
My concern would be over Mr Sharp's response to the allegations. B2B customers do usually pay their bills in my experience. If the delivery falls short you aim to settle the compensation by negotiation and if that doesn't work you litigate. Instead Mr Sharp effectively says he didn't pay the fee in the contract because in his view the other side didn't deserve it .And then he went out of business.
That shouts "Avoid!" to me. To you?
Sounds like Trump's modus operandi. Worth a bet for PM?
Brexit has probably made the SNP's ultimate aim harder, not easier, to achieve.
You mean even harder than the very, very hard thing many on here have repeatedly said it would be (during these admittedly brief pauses in the Br***t talk)? Gosh, that's hard.
Mind you, two years ago some of these coves were saying Brexit would be a bit of a dawdle.
Personally I think it jolly unsporting of the SNP to not be descending into intra party squabbling or total passive malaise right now like practically every other party out there. Discipline and relative competence? That's hardly playing fair.
Fear not, after indy we'll default to good old UK fissiparous SOP.
I think it unlikely that voters in Scotland are any more obsessed with Brexit than is the case elsewhere in the UK. Much more likely that they are sick to death of the subject.
Edinburgh voters voted 74% Remain, they only voted 61% No.
At the risk of being hit over the head by certain parties on here, it may just be that Brexit (however well or badly it goes) doesn't prove to be an unalloyed good for the cause of Scottish independence.
For the UK, extricating itself from a bject to all manner of tariff and non-tariff barriers, depending upon the circumstances in which the two parties then find themselves.
All of this is doable (and, as I'ame it's one Hell of a challenge.
We ought also not to assume that everybody who voted Yes to independence also supported staying in the EU, or that there was a large swing in opinion from No to Yes amongst disgruntled Remainers post-June 2016. The major features of the 2017 General Election in Scotland were the haemorrhage of pro-independence Leavers from the SNP to the Tories and Labour, and a significant net movement amongst all anti-independence voters from Labour to the Tories. There was no evidence of a mass migration of No/Remain voters to the SNP, which would be what we would expect if Brexit were acting as a driver of pro-independence sentiment, and AFAIK there's been little sign of such a movement happening since.
There is also the somewhat more than trivial issue of very large numbers of Westminster politicians advocating that people be told to vote again in a second referendum on something, because they have given an answer of which they don't approve in the first one. Even if Indyref2 is held and it produces a Yes vote, the Scottish Government may then have to endure a carrot-and-stick negotiation strategy from London: hardball in the divorce talks, coupled with a less-than-subtle campaign aimed at Scottish voters asking them if they're really sure they want to go through with this.
Brexit has probably made the SNP's ultimate aim harder, not easier, to achieve.
Not what the polling says, in fact Yes only gets over 50% in some polls with No Deal.
The fact voters voted for Brexit despite the risks also makes it easier for the SNP to say Scots could do the same with independence.
In fact in the event of No Deal the Government might have to go down the Spanish route with the Catalans and suspend Holyrood in order to prevent UDI
UDI is hardly an option when so many Scots oppose independence. How would it be enforced in the Borders or Edinburgh?
This ‘Seaborne’ lark looks as murky as hell. Why is the government dishing out vital, multi-million pound contracts to shady ‘startups’ whose websites are put together by infants?
Either (a) as part of a sophisticated PR campaign to terrify wavering Labour backbenchers into voting for Theresa May's deal to avert Hard Brexit, or (b) through rank incompetence. Hmmm, I wonder which...
This is how we will conquer the world post-Brexit. Good old fashioned British governmental incompetence is back in the driving seat. The 1970s - here we come!!!!
Our politicians seem to positively adore either the 70s or the 80s, I don't see the appeal frankly.
But don't worry, we're not going to Brexit so there won't be a post-Brexit.
The 80s were not too bad, but the 70s were sepia on steroids....
As for Brexit, I cannot wait for the politicians to balls everything up (or not). I have some things I need to sort out on the assumption that Brexit will happen.
On reflection the 80s did lead to my own birth, so I should be less hard on it. Unfortunately it is also the period generally considered the starting point for the millenial generation, so it's tough.
The Transport Secretary Chris Grayling yesterday assured this programme that his department had done “detailed work” on the financial and operational plans of the British company Seabourne Freight, which has been contracted to supply ferries between Ramsgate and Ostend in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
But we have been told that Chief Executive Ben Sharp once ran a shipping company that ceased trading – owing more than a million pounds to multiple shipping companies.
Mr Sharp has denied the allegations.
I think that’s inappropriate of Channel 4 to run a story like that.
Your description (or it could be their’s) is loose but there are two possible interpretations:
(1) he (ran vs did not run) a company that ceased trading etc
(2) a company that he ran ceased trading but (did or did not owe more than a million) etc
Either of those are simple questions of fact
But they’ve run an unproven allegation when they could have checked the facts relatively easily. And in so doing have damaged his reputation if he is innocent
That is poor and unethical journalism
Channel 4 News found two companies who claimed this company owed them large sums of money for services they had rendered. Mr Sharp disputes that his company was liable because the companies concerned didn't provide what they had contracted. It appears to be agreed fact that Mr Sharp's company didn't pay the other companies the contacted amount. The dispute is over whether it was liable.
It would raise alarm bells with me.
That’s not the way they presented it
“His company went bust owing two companies a lot of money (and by the way he denies it and says it was a complex commercial dispute but don’t worry about it IT’S A SCANDAL!”
Quality journalism should do better than that
My concern would be over Mr Sharp's response to the allegations. B2B customers do usually pay their bills in my experience. If the delivery falls short you aim to settle the compensation by negotiation and if that doesn't work you litigate. Instead Mr Sharp effectively says he didn't pay the fee in the contract because in his view the other side didn't deserve it .And then he went out of business.
That shouts "Avoid!" to me. To you?
To be fair, the Seaborne Freight company has proven great value, £14 million of added gaiety for the nation.
We ought also not to assume that everybody who voted Yes to independence also supported staying in the EU, or that there was a large swing in opinion from No to Yes amongst disgruntled Remainers post-June 2016. The major features of the 2017 General Election in Scotland were the haemorrhage of pro-independence Leavers from the SNP to the Tories and Labour, and a significant net movement amongst all anti-independence voters from Labour to the Tories. There was no evidence of a mass migration of No/Remain voters to the SNP, which would be what we would expect if Brexit were acting as a driver of pro-independence sentiment, and AFAIK there's been little sign of such a movement happening since.
Not what the polling says, in fact Yes only gets over 50% in some polls with No Deal.
The fact voters voted for Brexit despite the risks also makes it easier for the SNP to say Scots could do the same with independence.
In fact in the event of No Deal the Government might have to go down the Spanish route with the Catalans and suspend Holyrood in order to prevent UDI
1. I was going to say that opinion polls have all the predictive accuracy of Mystic Meg's crystal ball. This is, perhaps, a little harsh. But only a little.
2. The Scottish Government can't decry the Brexit vote as damaging and, in the same breath, use it is an example of an act of boldness to justify voting for independence. That would be an oxymoron.
3. This isn't Spain. The UK Government won't suspend devolution, and the Scottish Parliament is not about to instigate a revolution either. Constitutional issues are not within its legal competence; any attempt to declare them to be so would be liable to referral to the Court of Session, where it would be overturned. If the Scottish Government elects to make another escape attempt then it is most likely to come through winning a further Parliamentary majority (either outright, or with support from the Greens) on an explicitly pro-independence manifesto, and then demanding that Westminster legislate for another referendum (which I would expect it to do, based on the precedent set by David Cameron.) And it is unlikely to advance such a manifesto pledge until it is reasonably sure that such a referendum will be won: the Quebec precedent suggests that defeat in a second consecutive plebiscite would mean that a third would not come for a very long time, if at all.
1. I was going to say that opinion polls have all the predictive accuracy of Mystic Meg's crystal ball. This is, perhaps, a little harsh. But only a little.
2. The Scottish Government can't decry the Brexit vote as damaging and, in the same breath, use it is an example of an act of boldness to justify voting for independence. That would be an oxymoron.
3. This isn't Spain. The UK Government won't suspend devolution, and the Scottish Parliament is not about to instigate a revolution either. Constitutional issues are not within its legal competence; any attempt to declare them to be so would be liable to referral to the Court of Session, where it would be overturned. If the Scottish Government elects to make another escape attempt then it is most likely to come through winning a further Parliamentary majority (either outright, or with support from the Greens) on an explicitly pro-independence manifesto, and then demanding that Westminster legislate for another referendum (which I would expect it to do, based on the precedent set by David Cameron.) And it is unlikely to advance such a manifesto pledge until it is reasonably sure that such a referendum will be won: the Quebec precedent suggests that defeat in a second consecutive plebiscite would mean that a third would not come for a very long time, if at all.
I think your analysis is correct. The principal lessons from Brexit: The Reality are that breaking up is hard to do, the weaker party in the negotiations gets thoroughly stuffed, and there ain't any unicorns at the end of the rainbow. I think it's very unlikely that Scots won't have noticed.
Of course at the moment they are pretending otherwise, as is entirely rational since they don't want Brexit to happen.
I think it unlikely that voters in Scotland are any more obsessed with Brexit than is the case elsewhere in the UK. Much more likely that they are sick to death of the subject.
Edinburgh voters voted 74% Remain, they only voted 61% No.
At the risk of being hit over the head by certain parties on here, it may just be that Brexit (however well or badly it goes) doesn't prove to be an unalloyed good for the cause of Scottish independence.
For the UK, extricating itself from a bject to all manner of tariff and non-tariff barriers, depending upon the circumstances in which the two parties then find themselves.
All of this is doable (and, as I'ame it's one Hell of ovement happening since.
There is also the somewhat more than trivial issue of very large numbers of Westminster politicians advocating that people be told to vote again in a second referendum on something, because they have given an answer of which they don't approve in the first one. Even if Indyref2 is held and it produces a Yes vote, the Scottish Government may then have to endure a carrot-and-stick negotiation strategy from London: hardball in the divorce talks, coupled with a less-than-subtle campaign aimed at Scottish voters asking them if they're really sure they want to go through with this.
Brexit has probably made the SNP's ultimate aim harder, not easier, to achieve.
Not what the polling says, in fact Yes only gets over 50% in some polls with No Deal.
The fact voters voted for Brexit despite the risks also makes it easier for the SNP to say Scots could do the same with independence.
In fact in the event of No Deal the Government might have to go down the Spanish route with the Catalans and suspend Holyrood in order to prevent UDI
UDI is hardly an option when so many Scots oppose independence. How would it be enforced in the Borders or Edinburgh?
Given the Scottish government in Edinburgh is SNP in the event of No Deal the polling clearly suggests over 50% of Scots could back independence so if indyref2 is not granted the SNP could go ahead anyway
We ought also not to assume that everybody who voted Yes to independence also supported staying in the EU, or that there was a large swing in opinion from No to Yes amongst disgruntled Remainers post-June 2016. The major features of the 2017 General Election in Scotland were the haemorrhage of pro-independence Leavers from the SNP to the Tories and Labour, and a significant net movement amongst all anti-independence voters from Labour to the Tories. There was no evidence of a mass migration of No/Remain voters to the SNP, which would be what we would expect if Brexit were acting as a driver of pro-independence sentiment, and AFAIK there's been little sign of such a movement happening since.
Not what the polling says, in fact Yes only gets over 50% in some polls with No Deal.
The fact voters voted for Brexit despite the risks also makes it easier for the SNP to say Scots could do the same with independence.
In fact in the event of No Deal the Government might have to go down the Spanish route with the Catalans and suspend Holyrood in order to prevent UDI
1. I was going to say that opinion polls have all the predictive accuracy of Mystic Meg's crystal ball. This is, perhaps, a little harsh. But only a little.
2. The Scottish Government can't decry the Brexit vote as damaging and, in the same breath, use it is an example of an act of boldness to justify voting for independence. That would be an oxymoron.
3. This isn't Spain. The UK Government won't suspend devolution, and the Scottish Parliament is not about to instigate a revolution either. Constitutional issues are not within its legal competence; any attempt to declare them to be so would be liable to referral to the Court of Session, where it would be overturned. If the Scottish Government elects to make another escape attempt then it is most likely to come through winning a further Parliamentary majority (either outright, or with support from the Greens) on an explicitly pro-independence manifesto, and then demanding that Westminster legislate for another referendum (which I would expect it to do, based on the precedent set by David Cameron.) And it is unlikely to advance such a manifesto pledge until it is reasonably sure that such a referendum will be won: the Quebec precedent suggests that defeat in a second consecutive plebiscite would mean that a third would not come for a very long time, if at all.
No Deal means dicing with death with the Union as all the polling shows and is the only eventuality in which Yes gets over 50% in a number of polls, the SNP would then say the Union relies on the consent of Scots under the Declaration of Arbroath and is then broken
Comments
https://youtu.be/5kbItdZtcjw
Funny that they are reluctant to name names...
We send people to jail and say the slate must be wiped clean, but be a failed entrepreneur end of story.
In tech, about 50% of companies that get angel investment fail.
The old argument of why high flyers used Concorde.
Man City Championes!!
Klopp slips up!!!
We send people to jail and say the slate must be wiped clean, but be a failed entrepreneur end of story.
Insolvency has always been a bigger personal shame here than across the pond. It has been for centuries. Debt prisoners lasted into the 20th Century.
In other cases, the disciplinary process was the only means available, the reputational harm was to the party rather than to one individual and the longer it went on, unaddressed, the worse it got.
While I take your point that there needs to be an adequate and fair investigation, the disparity in the time taken and the urgency with which this case has been addressed by comparison with others, suggests in the latter cases something more than simply a desire to do a proper investigation. A cynic might think that there was the hope that dragging one's feet might enable the whole mess to go away without anything at all needing to be done.
And of course Albanians are not EU workers.
My sister in law runs catering establishments as a regional boss for a FTSE company and they could pay Barrista's 250K a year and still make a very large profit margin. Do they, of course not because the supply of labour has been an ever constant stream.
Yes agreed... although part of me wishes the US Constition barred from the Presidency anyone who has led multiple companies to bankruptcy.
It would raise alarm bells with me.
2) Is correct, of course;
3) Depends what you want. I used to live by the sea and it was more useful to have a machine that would hose down the undertrained as well to get rid of the salt I kept splashing on it.
It's a fairly recent culture shift in the US. They were pretty brutal in their attitudes towards debtors in the past.
https://twitter.com/JeffmHewitt/status/1080568307000971264?s=19
Without more information I'm surprised Channel 4 ran this. I think unless they have seen solid documentation to support their case - which to judge from the report, they haven't - they could easily be toast in a libel action. Certainly they offer nothing that would begin to stand up as proof or even reasonable evidence.
I'm bewildered by how much sheer hate is being directed at this company. First we had lies about its links to the Bamfords, then claims it is a shell company out to embezzle public funds, now this. It's even more bizarre given he majority of the contracts went to DFDS and Brittany Ferries. It's almost as though a clique of media has decided that they want to get somebody or something and don't care about minor things like facts or the truth.
I'll stop there before I start sounding like that Fascist nutter Aaron Bastani.
When it comes to Brexit, Channel 4 seems to regard itself as a political party rather than a news provider.
Edit - @El_Capitano please never EVER use blockquote function for quotes within a post again as it epically buggers up the thread. Please just use italics like the rest of us.
One way to deal with the oversupply of unskilled workers!
That should, of course, have read 'undertray.'
“His company went bust owing two companies a lot of money (and by the way he denies it and says it was a complex commercial dispute but don’t worry about it IT’S A SCANDAL!”
Quality journalism should do better than that
But equally, it would be a distraction at a time when the latter two groups should be a leetle busy.
(But yeah, I don't really need any convincing of Vanilla's epically bad HTML handling, particularly wrt quotes.)
Night night comrades.
https://tinyurl.com/ydxcv8t4
You can do the maths. Hoe many 3 quid coffee's are Barista's making per minute/per hour per day in a busy store?
Good night.
For the UK, extricating itself from a common market that accounts for 45% of its exports has proven challenging enough, and has been seen to be so (in the end, of course, it might still not happen.) However, Scotland has to contend with decoupling itself from a fully-integrated sovereign state of which it has been part for three centuries, with which it shares a common currency, from which it receives the necessary funds to compensate for a government budget deficit of 8% of GDP, and which would account, post-independence, for 60% of all its external trade - which might, or might not, be subject to all manner of tariff and non-tariff barriers, depending upon the circumstances in which the two parties then find themselves.
All of this is doable (and, as I've stated before, the very fact that the United Kingdom - unlike many other states such as Germany, Spain and the US - permits the secession of its constituent parts makes it temporary, and arguably renders its eventual dissolution a mere matter of time,) but all the same it's one Hell of a challenge.
We ought also not to assume that everybody who voted Yes to independence also supported staying in the EU, or that there was a large swing in opinion from No to Yes amongst disgruntled Remainers post-June 2016. The major features of the 2017 General Election in Scotland were the haemorrhage of pro-independence Leavers from the SNP to the Tories and Labour, and a significant net movement amongst all anti-independence voters from Labour to the Tories. There was no evidence of a mass migration of No/Remain voters to the SNP, which would be what we would expect if Brexit were acting as a driver of pro-independence sentiment, and AFAIK there's been little sign of such a movement happening since.
There is also the somewhat more than trivial issue of very large numbers of Westminster politicians advocating that people be told to vote again in a second referendum on something, because they have given an answer of which they don't approve in the first one. Even if Indyref2 is held and it produces a Yes vote, the Scottish Government may then have to endure a carrot-and-stick negotiation strategy from London: hardball in the divorce talks, coupled with a less-than-subtle campaign aimed at Scottish voters asking them if they're really sure they want to go through with this.
Brexit has probably made the SNP's ultimate aim harder, not easier, to achieve.
That shouts "Avoid!" to me. To you?
cue approving comments by, well you know who ..
Lots of plebs wearing fake Burberry takes the lustre away from the brand.
I was dressed in my usual football attire.
Levi Jeans, white D&G trainers, a hoodie, and a North Face jacket.
Why did Liverpool try to play like Leicester tonight..... sit back and try and play on the break.
The fact voters voted for Brexit despite the risks also makes it easier for the SNP to say Scots could do the same with independence.
In fact in the event of No Deal the Government might have to go down the Spanish route with the Catalans and suspend Holyrood in order to prevent UDI
But don't worry, we're not going to Brexit so there won't be a post-Brexit.
Mind you, two years ago some of these coves were saying Brexit would be a bit of a dawdle.
As for Brexit, I cannot wait for the politicians to balls everything up (or not). I have some things I need to sort out on the assumption that Brexit will happen.
2. The Scottish Government can't decry the Brexit vote as damaging and, in the same breath, use it is an example of an act of boldness to justify voting for independence. That would be an oxymoron.
3. This isn't Spain. The UK Government won't suspend devolution, and the Scottish Parliament is not about to instigate a revolution either. Constitutional issues are not within its legal competence; any attempt to declare them to be so would be liable to referral to the Court of Session, where it would be overturned. If the Scottish Government elects to make another escape attempt then it is most likely to come through winning a further Parliamentary majority (either outright, or with support from the Greens) on an explicitly pro-independence manifesto, and then demanding that Westminster legislate for another referendum (which I would expect it to do, based on the precedent set by David Cameron.) And it is unlikely to advance such a manifesto pledge until it is reasonably sure that such a referendum will be won: the Quebec precedent suggests that defeat in a second consecutive plebiscite would mean that a third would not come for a very long time, if at all.
Of course at the moment they are pretending otherwise, as is entirely rational since they don't want Brexit to happen.