Now you're being utterly idiotic which is unusual. Cameron has regularly and rightly personified the attack on McCluskey rather than union members
The distinction is not being clearly made. And his government is going out of its way to attack the entire movement and not just McCluskey (spending tens of thousands of taxpayers money to try to end check-off in civil service departments, the ridiculous provisions of the lobbying bill etc..). Cameron clearly leads a party is the trying to undermine trade unions' abilities to represent millions of ordinary workers. And one that is happy to have rhetoric that matches that policy line. I'm surprised you dont see that.
Well, when you have the leader of the UK's largest union (by far) proclaiming his advocacy of the disgusting, bullying, intimidating practice of 'leveraging' (that's an Orwellian euphemism if ever there were one), without any other union leader apparently dissenting publicly, then is it any wonder that the public at large are unlikely to rally to their defence? I'm surprised you don't see that.
(FWIW - I am no union basher as my posts over the years have demonstrated but the antics of Serwotka in the civil service to name but just one provide so much ammunition to those in the party who are).
Unionist lapdogs were always unlikely to take their blinkers off, just regurgitated crap that we will be poor if we continue to spend as per current UK , whether in it or independent. No shit Sherlock.
Paul Flowers may have fled to THAILAND after his sleazy past caught up with him http://mirr.im/1ejnpD3
You can't trust the right left wing press.....
West Yorkshire Police said: "Officers have... arrested a 63-year-old man in the Merseyside area in connection with an ongoing drugs supply investigation.
"He has been taken to a police station in West Yorkshire where detectives will continue their enquiries
I dont think it particularly matters why the Tories have set themselves up as the anti-trade union party (though I note the measures I mentioned below all happened before anyone even heard the latest definition of the word leverage and the Trade Union Reform Campaign amongst a group of Tory MPs also predates that) - I just think it is bad politics on their part. We'll never know whether it was or wasnt but I see very little upside and lots of potential downside so it's not something I would have advocated myself.
Surely we need the creation of a proper public bank in this country. They're very common around the rest of the world. If you read Deborah Orr in the Graun today, it's clear there are people out there looking for an ethical alternative to what is currently on offer. It amazes none of the 3 main parties wants to propose such a thing which would surely be an election winner.
This paper from the UK government pretty much rules out any formal currency union twixt Scotland and rUK, except on terms which would be highly unpalatable to Scots: i.e. rUK unilaterally deciding Scottish tax rates, etc
Sean, will read that in depth later but a few points from the initial pages. If it is so good for UK just now , why would they want to be obtuse and not keep sterling together. Current deal does not just suit Scotland, it greatly suits UK in general. Also key point is that NO UK politician has categorically said it will not happen. They use lots of obfuscation and weasly words but NOT one has actually said NO. It is obvious that from an economy point of view it suits everybody for a sterling agreement to be in place.
Arguing with you is pointless. You simply say "it's obvious that" or 'everyone agrees with this" or "no sensible person would dispute" without ever adducing any evidence whatsoever. It's like arguing with an answerphone. I've given you the government paper, go away and read it.
Until then, it seems to me the only way the Nats are gonna win the referendum is if most Scots have an IQ lower than 60, and will simply believe assertions like yours, like children told there is always honey for tea. Now, I know Scotland has an average IQ considerably lower than England
but I do not believe the retardation north of the Border is THAT great.
The Nats are gonna lose.
When losing you always revert to your oafish best. I have read your paper and it clearly states it is in both sides interests to retain the status quo, all the benefits and risks apply to both sides. Unlike you I do not need to resort to childish puerile insults. It is a pity you are not representative of your vaunted English IQ.
It amazes none of the 3 main parties wants to propose such a thing which would surely be an election winner
I'm not sure this is correct but that may qualify as unfair competition in a private industry in EU law.
I seem to remember the Germans had problems with their landesbanks because they were able to use the state guarantee to borrow more cheaply than private sector rivals.
F1: I may not offer a qualifying tip, but for those wanting an early bet then Rosberg for pole with Ladbrokes at 10 seems like the best one. If it's dry, it'll be Vettel. If it's wet, it could be Vettel for Rosberg (barring calamity or serious intermittent rain making it a lottery).
I'll see how P3 goes. Other things I have in mind are Kovalainen (to get into Q3 and then go backwards in the race), and perhaps Grosjean not to make Q3.
I think modern UK trade unions are a huge failure and completely dysfunctional
If what I read is correct they have allowed slavery in the UK to flourish on their watch, something their forebears would never have countenanced.
The good trade union men of the past would have been picketing the houses of the slavers and the trafficker gangs, and offering help to the victims.
McKluskey and his gang are hounding the families of executives.
Unions do work well in many industries; the modern car industry being an important case. Management, unions and the workers all pulling together in the same direction, to achieve the best for all concerned. It is difficult to do, but is to the advantage to all concerned.
It is a shame the unions and management do not publicise it more when it does happen.
And the problems are not always the unions fault; in some cases, employers are taking advantage, and I can understand why members feel the need to take action.
Unions are not the enemy. But unions and union members need to understand that abusing their power (as happened at Grangemouth and Falkirk) is destructive to all unions. And we get to hear about it at very high volume.
It amazes none of the 3 main parties wants to propose such a thing which would surely be an election winner
I'm not sure this is correct but that may qualify as unfair competition in a private industry in EU law.
I seem to remember the Germans had problems with their landesbanks because they were able to use the state guarantee to borrow more cheaply than private sector rivals.
They wouldn't need anymore state guarantees than the private banks currently get on deposit insurance.
You appear to have forgotten what you told this morning.
Did you forbid me from replying to a poster who was raised the issue of whether it was the left or right wing press who were reporting on Flowers?
I told the poster it was of no consequence and I found the story amusing because Cameron, Osborne and tories on PB were fixated on it. Issues like immigration and UKIP are of far more consequence as most of my posts today have been about.
You appear to be trying to read malice and a subject I simply have not mentioned or intended to mention in every post I make. I cannot be responsible for your mistaken interpretation of my posts or I would be unable to post anything.
This paper from the UK government pretty much rules out any formal currency union twixt Scotland and rUK, except on terms which would be highly unpalatable to Scots: i.e. rUK unilaterally deciding Scottish tax rates, etc
Sean, will read that in depth later but a few points from the initial pages. If it is so good for UK just now , why would they want to be obtuse and not keep sterling together. Current deal does not just suit Scotland, it greatly suits UK in general. Also key point is that NO UK politician has categorically said it will not happen. They use lots of obfuscation and weasly words but NOT one has actually said NO. It is obvious that from an economy point of view it suits everybody for a sterling agreement to be in place.
Arguing with you is pointless. You simply say "it's obvious that" or 'everyone agrees with this" or "no sensible person would dispute" without ever adducing any evidence whatsoever. It's like arguing with an answerphone. I've given you the government paper, go away and read it.
Until then, it seems to me the only way the Nats are gonna win the referendum is if most Scots have an IQ lower than 60, and will simply believe assertions like yours, like children told there is always honey for tea. Now, I know Scotland has an average IQ considerably lower than England
but I do not believe the retardation north of the Border is THAT great.
The Nats are gonna lose.
I have read your paper and it clearly states it is in both sides interests to retain the status quo
It also says this:
An independent Scottish state would therefore need to agree a negotiated set of constraints on its economic and fiscal policies. In practice this would be likely to require rigorous oversight of Scotland’s economic and fiscal plans by both the new Scottish and the continuing UK authorities.
Is that really what you want?
And while we are at it, why is the White Paper not being presented in Parliament, but at a Press Conference?
I dont think it particularly matters why the Tories have set themselves up as the anti-trade union party (though I note the measures I mentioned below all happened before anyone even heard the latest definition of the word leverage and the Trade Union Reform Campaign amongst a group of Tory MPs also predates that) - I just think it is bad politics on their part. We'll never know whether it was or wasnt but I see very little upside and lots of potential downside so it's not something I would have advocated myself.
We've had a similar kind of discussion a little while back. I do believe that the paucity (doubtless accentuated through merger mania) of outspoken 'moderate' trades union leaders willing to confront the Crowes, Serwotkas, McCluskeys, Blowers etc has served to strengthen the hands of Tory hardliners, and that IS good politics with the public at large.
Put it another way. When the coalition was formed in 2010, I don't recall - correct me if I'm wrong - any anti union provisions being considered, let alone promised. So something has happened and my feeling is that the various restrictions you cite (ablout which I personally care little) have been the consequences of intemperate and questionable activities of union leaderships more intent on a political than industrial agenda. And that I regret.
This paper from the UK government pretty much rules out any formal currency union twixt Scotland and rUK, except on terms which would be highly unpalatable to Scots: i.e. rUK unilaterally deciding Scottish tax rates, etc
Sean, will read that in depth later but a few points from the initial pages. If it is so good for UK just now , why would they want to be obtuse and not keep sterling together. Current deal does not just suit Scotland, it greatly suits UK in general. Also key point is that NO UK politician has categorically said it will not happen. They use lots of obfuscation and weasly words but NOT one has actually said NO. It is obvious that from an economy point of view it suits everybody for a sterling agreement to be in place.
but I do not believe the retardation north of the Border is THAT great.
The Nats are gonna lose.
When losing you always revert to your oafish best. I have read your paper and it clearly states it is in both sides interests to retain the status quo, all the benefits and risks apply to both sides. Unlike you I do not need to resort to childish puerile insults. It is a pity you are not representative of your vaunted English IQ.
Quote me the line where it says it is in the interests of rUK to establish a currency zone as desired by the SNP (seat on BoE etc) - which is as close to the status quo as you could get with an Indy Scotland using the £.
Tell you what, I'll save you time, it doesn't say that. You're lying. So when you are asked for actual evidence, rather than assertion, you lie.
Impressive. As I say, you have to hope that most Scots are at least as stupid as you, if you want to win. A rather poignant requirement.
No point trying to debate with an oafish moron, go away and bother someone else. Moderator any chance you can put same ban that you did on Mick , re this halfwit commenting on my posts.
I think modern UK trade unions are a huge failure and completely dysfunctional
If what I read is correct they have allowed slavery in the UK to flourish on their watch, something their forebears would never have countenanced.
The good trade union men of the past would have been picketing the houses of the slavers and the trafficker gangs, and offering help to the victims.
McKluskey and his gang are hounding the families of executives.
Unions are not the enemy. But unions and union members need to understand that abusing their power (as happened at Grangemouth and Falkirk) is destructive to all unions.
But point that out and you are 'an enemy of the Union'......
''They wouldn't need anymore state guarantees than the private banks currently get on deposit insurance''
|Yes but all banks use the open markets to fund themselves. Big time. A 'Britain bank' would carry the rating of the British government, enabling it to fund far more cheaply and in much greater size than HSBC, Lloyds and the rest (not to mention other European banks). Thus it could offer better and cheaper deals to retail and corporate clients, every time.
I think a Britain Bank would be a non-starter in EU competition law if it was competing with private banks.
This paper from the UK government pretty much rules out any formal currency union twixt Scotland and rUK, except on terms which would be highly unpalatable to Scots: i.e. rUK unilaterally deciding Scottish tax rates, etc
but I do not believe the retardation north of the Border is THAT great.
The Nats are gonna lose.
When losing you always revert to your oafish best. I have read your paper and it clearly states it is in both sides interests to retain the status quo, all the benefits and risks apply to both sides. Unlike you I do not need to resort to childish puerile insults. It is a pity you are not representative of your vaunted English IQ.
Quote me the line where it says it is in the interests of rUK to establish a currency zone as desired by the SNP (seat on BoE etc) - which is as close to the status quo as you could get with an Indy Scotland using the £.
Tell you what, I'll save you time, it doesn't say that. You're lying. So when you are asked for actual evidence, rather than assertion, you lie.
Impressive. As I say, you have to hope that most Scots are at least as stupid as you, if you want to win. A rather poignant requirement.
No point trying to debate with an oafish moron, go away and bother someone else. Moderator any chance you can put same ban that you did on Mick , re this halfwit commenting on my posts.
Malcolm - this is easily resolved - just cut n'paste the segment you claim supports your case.
If you don't you'll lend weight to SeanT's allegation.
You appear to have forgotten what you told this morning.
Did you forbid me from replying to a poster who was raised the issue of whether it was the left or right wing press who were reporting on Flowers?
I told the poster it was of no consequence and I found the story amusing because Cameron, Osborne and tories on PB were fixated on it. Issues like immigration and UKIP are of far more consequence as most of my posts today have been about.
You appear to be trying to read malice and a subject I simply have not mentioned or intended to mention in every post I make. I cannot be responsible for your mistaken interpretation of my posts or I would be unable to post anything.
Mick, your previous comments, do show an intent to talk about phone hacking, as today as on other days, you say Cameron and Osborne shouldn't come criticise who Ed Miliband and Ed Balls were close to, because it will/might come back to haunt them, usually followed with either a smiley face or LOL.
You can understand why we might view this as a reference to phone hacking.
So going forward, there is a following ruling in place, you are no longer permitted to talk about the following, The Flowers story, Back to basics, and Cameron and Osborne's close links.
There is another option, all your posts can go into the pending folder, and the moderators will review them as and when they visit the site.
Please decide what option you'd like to go for, or the moderating team may make it for you.
So something has happened and my feeling is that the various restrictions you cite (ablout which I personally care little) have been the consequences of intemperate and questionable activities of union leaderships more intent on a political than industrial agenda.
I dont think there's any basis for that statement. But as I said whatever the reason I dont think it's good politics.
...there are other assumptions made by the IFS that flatter the outcome. The most important is that Scotland could borrow at the same rate of interest as the UK. This is highly unlikely. Scotland would be an untried sovereign borrower; its economy would less diversified than the UK’s; its initial deficit position would probably be worse; it would be heavily dependent on volatile oil revenue; and if – as is assumed – Scotland assumed public debt in proportion to its share in population, even its initial debt burden would be little better than that of the UK. For these reasons, Scotland would probably be forced into a significant fiscal tightening from the start. The need not to be too dependent on volatile oil revenues for current spending would reinforce the urgency of such a tightening.
The Toreis are having a field day on the attack on Flowers/Coop/Balls, moving on from Unite and Falkirk.
They might be enjoying it but emphasising the links between the Labour party and the interests of millions of ordinary workers and the interests of millions of ordinary consumers isnt exactly a killer strategy.
I see. Equating Len McCluskey to "millions of ordinary workers" and Rev Flowers/Ed Balls and a demonstrably useless Co-op Bank board to "millions of ordinary consumers" is going to wreak a terrible vengeance on the Conservatives.
I do think the Tories blind trashing of trade unions (seemingly moving on to cooperatives now) is some of the most stupidly counterproductive politics going on right now. If they dont end up regretting it then they should.
Neil, they are trashing the *management* of both organisations, not the members.
It's like trashing Fred Goodwin without extending that blame to all RBS shareholders
So something has happened and my feeling is that the various restrictions you cite (ablout which I personally care little) have been the consequences of intemperate and questionable activities of union leaderships more intent on a political than industrial agenda.
I dont think there's any basis for that statement. But as I said whatever the reason I dont think it's good politics.
BBC 30 September 2012 Last updated at 12:45
The Public and Commercial Services Union general secretary said a march of one million people through London followed by strike action on a "large scale" would force the government to think again on cuts.
Mark Serwotka said "many people were affected by the gloom and despair" and more people would later support industrial action as 80% of the cuts were yet to come.
In the threader, the Co-operative has been abbreviated to 'Co-Op', but I thought that 'Co-op' would be more correct. I have seen it spelt both ways in various places.
Which is correct, and does it matter?
(I will doubtless be along later with yet more pointless, nit-picking questions).
This paper from the UK government pretty much rules out any formal currency union twixt Scotland and rUK, except on terms which would be highly unpalatable to Scots: i.e. rUK unilaterally deciding Scotti
Arguing with you is pointless. You simply say "it's obvious that" or 'everyone agrees with this" or "no sensible person would dispute" without ever adducing any evidence whatsoever. It's like arguing with an answerphone. I've given you the government paper, go away and read it.
but I do not believe the retardation north of the Border is THAT great.
The Nats are gonna lose.
I have read your paper and it clearly states it is in both sides interests to retain the status quo
It also says this:
An independent Scottish state would therefore need to agree a negotiated set of constraints on its economic and fiscal policies. In practice this would be likely to require rigorous oversight of Scotland’s economic and fiscal plans by both the new Scottish and the continuing UK authorities.
Is that really what you want?
And while we are at it, why is the White Paper not being presented in Parliament, but at a Press Conference?
No idea but it is the SNP white paper and so their choice, good to see teh squealing of the unionists though.
For the sake of the sanity of the moderators, stop the insults to each other.
Gladly.
Has ANYONE not got any brilliant thriller plots lying around? Tsk!
I am in urgent need. This is a cri de coeur.
No-one has done a good thriller using the internet as a plot device. Maybe that's because it's intrinsically boring. But a murder taking place on a PB thread could lead in an interesting direction. It has a global element too. More tedious foreign travel.
Mick, your previous comments, do show an intent to talk about phone hacking, as today as on other days, you say Cameron and Osborne shouldn't come criticise who Ed Miliband and Ed Balls were close to, because it will/might come back to haunt them, usually followed with either a smiley face or LOL.
No they do not. You are deliberately choosing to read that intent in them while I have repeatedly stated otherwise with evidence to show they are not. You are simply mistaken in thinking that every post relates to a subject I have not mentioned as there are multiple ways this will backfire and I have already explained why.
Are smiley faces and LOL's also banned in case you misconstrue them?
Or does the fact that I already explained with three explicit examples and the examples of the EU and immigration (backed up by all the posts I've made on the subject) not matter if you decide to interpret my posts in a way I've already clearly stated they are not intended?
You can understand why we might view this as a reference to phone hacking.
No. I cannot understand why you are repeatedly trying to interpret almost any post I make as relating to a subject I have not mentioned and will not mention, unless the purpose is simply to stop me posting regardless of the content of my posts.
So going forward, there is a following ruling in place, you are no longer permitted to talk about the following, The Flowers story, Back to basics, and Cameron and Osborne's close links.
Just to be crystal clear ALL those subject that YOU have interpreted as relating to a subject I simply have not mentioned once are now banned even though the connection to them and that subject is, to say the least, incredibly tenuous. And you're happy to put these draconian restriction on one poster and single them out for this kind of special treatment?
So be it. I will abide by these new rules.
Just as long as everyone on PB is aware of those restrictions and your explanation of why you chose to make them I will abide by them no matter how ridiculous they may seem.
and for complete clarity these new rules only apply to me and me alone? Nobody else in your view has raised those issues in the way you choose to interpret or broke any rules concerning them?
I didnt mean there was no basis for saying Mark Serwotka is prone to doing stupid things! One last point (or I will be late for football) - if Cameron was truly comfortable with the Tory attacks on trade unions then why was removing check-off a Pickles initiative at DCLG rather than government-wide? I suspect it was something they debated doing government wide and saner heads prevailed but they couldnt stop ministers doing it in their own areas. I mean are the FDA really the enemy within?!
In the threader, the Co-operative has been abbreviated to 'Co-Op', but I thought that 'Co-op' would be more correct. I have seen it spelt both ways in various places.
The Co-operative spell their name thus - I assume they've got that right at least:
Carlotta, No idea but it is the SNP white paper and so their choice, good to see the squealing of the unionists though.
Its not the 'Government of Scotland' White Paper?
Interesting. And wrong.
Once again the SNP conflates the Scottish Government and Scotland with itself.....
This is the SNP white paper, the Bitter Together do not have one for their one liner , " Westminster will tell you what to do and what you will get". This is the White paper for the people of Scotland , not for opposition MSP's.
For the sake of the sanity of the moderators, stop the insults to each other.
Gladly.
Has ANYONE not got any brilliant thriller plots lying around? Tsk!
I am in urgent need. This is a cri de coeur.
No-one has done a good thriller using the internet as a plot device. Maybe that's because it's intrinsically boring. But a murder taking place on a PB thread could lead in an interesting direction. It has a global element too. More tedious foreign travel.
Also, few people 'understand' the Internet. I've seen so many TV shows and books where people do the impossible or implausible and wrap it up as "Well, it's t'Internet, so of course it's possible."
I'm hardly an expert, but the glaring plot holes get annoying after a while.
The difficulty will be getting a thrilling plot without getting bogged down in the technical detail. An example might be something I alluded to last week: a trojan that puts illegal material onto people's computers before deleting itself. Have an evil organisation use the trojan to implicate one of their enemies, and you have the basis of a plot. It would be technically feasible, but it would require skill to convert it into a thriller.
Individual posters in the past (and indeed one in the last week) have been asked not to comment on specific topics, whilst others can.
The site operates on a safety first basis.
This site operates a safety first policy with regards to legal matters which I have always and will always abide by.
Your new restrictions on me are not that. I will abide by them but they have nothing to do with any possible or conceivable legal actions and I would at least appreciate you being forthright about that while I am expected to do so.
Nice try! This argument is like the very weak Ed Burnham defence when he is in the spotlight over bad practice in the NHS under the last Labour Government. Take the Mid Staffs scandal, Burnham attempts to brush over the whole scandal and the appalling care patients received from staff there by trying to drag in and then hide behind a defence of the 'whole' public sector work force in the NHS instead. Its transparent and cowardly.
I do think that this kind of bad practice within a Union or at the Co-op fails does need to be brought out into the open and dealt with properly, brushing it under the carpet doesn't serve anyone but those guilty of wrong doing. And the Tories are not blindly trashing anyone, but someone has to ask the questions that the Labour party are unable or unwilling too because they have such close ties to the organisations involved in these scandals.
Ed Miliband could have taken the lead on this after the Falkirk scandal, but he didn't, instead he is hiding the internal inquiry report from public scrutiny. Both the media and the Conservative party would be failing if they didn't take up any investigations into these bad practices on behalf of those badly served by poor leadership. Who else is going to do it, the Labour party, Oh wait!
The Toreis are having a field day on the attack on Flowers/Coop/Balls, moving on from Unite and Falkirk.
They might be enjoying it but emphasising the links between the Labour party and the interests of millions of ordinary workers and the interests of millions of ordinary consumers isnt exactly a killer strategy.
I see. Equating Len McCluskey to "millions of ordinary workers" and Rev Flowers/Ed Balls and a demonstrably useless Co-op Bank board to "millions of ordinary consumers" is going to wreak a terrible vengeance on the Conservatives.
I do think the Tories blind trashing of trade unions (seemingly moving on to cooperatives now) is some of the most stupidly counterproductive politics going on right now. If they dont end up regretting it then they should.
Mick, your previous comments, do show an intent to talk about phone hacking, as today as on other days, you say Cameron and Osborne shouldn't come criticise who Ed Miliband and Ed Balls were close to, because it will/might come back to haunt them, usually followed with either a smiley face or LOL.
You can understand why we might view this as a reference to phone hacking.
I can't speak on behalf of Mick or anyone else, but speaking for myself I can say that:
(a) I don't know what "Cameron and Osborne shouldn't come criticise who Ed Miliband and Ed Balls were close to is supposed to mean (perhaps there is a mis-typed word somewhere?), and:
(b) I, for one, can not understand why anyone might view that as a reference to phone-hacking.
For the sake of the sanity of the moderators, stop the insults to each other.
You're asking SeanT to stop insulting people? Are you mad? Do you want his brain to freeze due to inactivity? Don't you realise we all enjoy his diatribes?
Comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qjBec3fpBI
*chortle*
(FWIW - I am no union basher as my posts over the years have demonstrated but the antics of Serwotka in the civil service to name but just one provide so much ammunition to those in the party who are).
West Yorkshire Police said: "Officers have... arrested a 63-year-old man in the Merseyside area in connection with an ongoing drugs supply investigation.
"He has been taken to a police station in West Yorkshire where detectives will continue their enquiries
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25047376
I dont think it particularly matters why the Tories have set themselves up as the anti-trade union party (though I note the measures I mentioned below all happened before anyone even heard the latest definition of the word leverage and the Trade Union Reform Campaign amongst a group of Tory MPs also predates that) - I just think it is bad politics on their part. We'll never know whether it was or wasnt but I see very little upside and lots of potential downside so it's not something I would have advocated myself.
If what I read is correct they have allowed slavery in the UK to flourish on their watch, something their forebears would never have countenanced.
The good trade union men of the past would have been picketing the houses of the slavers and the trafficker gangs, and offering help to the victims.
McKluskey and his gang are hounding the families of executives.
Unlike you I do not need to resort to childish puerile insults. It is a pity you are not representative of your vaunted English IQ.
I'm not sure this is correct but that may qualify as unfair competition in a private industry in EU law.
I seem to remember the Germans had problems with their landesbanks because they were able to use the state guarantee to borrow more cheaply than private sector rivals.
I'll see how P3 goes. Other things I have in mind are Kovalainen (to get into Q3 and then go backwards in the race), and perhaps Grosjean not to make Q3.
You appear to have forgotten what you were told this morning.
Whatever you think of the veracity of it, the popular news flow could hardly be more favourable to UKIP - modern slavery/Pakistani corruption....
It is a shame the unions and management do not publicise it more when it does happen.
And the problems are not always the unions fault; in some cases, employers are taking advantage, and I can understand why members feel the need to take action.
Unions are not the enemy. But unions and union members need to understand that abusing their power (as happened at Grangemouth and Falkirk) is destructive to all unions. And we get to hear about it at very high volume.
I told the poster it was of no consequence and I found the story amusing because Cameron, Osborne and tories on PB were fixated on it. Issues like immigration and UKIP are of far more consequence as most of my posts today have been about.
You appear to be trying to read malice and a subject I simply have not mentioned or intended to mention in every post I make. I cannot be responsible for your mistaken interpretation of my posts or I would be unable to post anything.
An independent Scottish state would therefore need to agree a negotiated set of constraints on its economic and fiscal policies. In practice this would be likely to require rigorous oversight of Scotland’s economic and fiscal plans by both the new Scottish and the continuing UK authorities.
Is that really what you want?
And while we are at it, why is the White Paper not being presented in Parliament, but at a Press Conference?
Put it another way. When the coalition was formed in 2010, I don't recall - correct me if I'm wrong - any anti union provisions being considered, let alone promised. So something has happened and my feeling is that the various restrictions you cite (ablout which I personally care little) have been the consequences of intemperate and questionable activities of union leaderships more intent on a political than industrial agenda. And that I regret.
Moderator any chance you can put same ban that you did on Mick , re this halfwit commenting on my posts.
|Yes but all banks use the open markets to fund themselves. Big time. A 'Britain bank' would carry the rating of the British government, enabling it to fund far more cheaply and in much greater size than HSBC, Lloyds and the rest (not to mention other European banks). Thus it could offer better and cheaper deals to retail and corporate clients, every time.
I think a Britain Bank would be a non-starter in EU competition law if it was competing with private banks.
If you don't you'll lend weight to SeanT's allegation.
You can understand why we might view this as a reference to phone hacking.
So going forward, there is a following ruling in place, you are no longer permitted to talk about the following, The Flowers story, Back to basics, and Cameron and Osborne's close links.
There is another option, all your posts can go into the pending folder, and the moderators will review them as and when they visit the site.
Please decide what option you'd like to go for, or the moderating team may make it for you.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/51348232-51f8-11e3-adfa-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2lSfJ2IMe
...there are other assumptions made by the IFS that flatter the outcome. The most important is that Scotland could borrow at the same rate of interest as the UK. This is highly unlikely. Scotland would be an untried sovereign borrower; its economy would less diversified than the UK’s; its initial deficit position would probably be worse; it would be heavily dependent on volatile oil revenue; and if – as is assumed – Scotland assumed public debt in proportion to its share in population, even its initial debt burden would be little better than that of the UK.
For these reasons, Scotland would probably be forced into a significant fiscal tightening from the start. The need not to be too dependent on volatile oil revenues for current spending would reinforce the urgency of such a tightening.
It's like trashing Fred Goodwin without extending that blame to all RBS shareholders
The Public and Commercial Services Union general secretary said a march of one million people through London followed by strike action on a "large scale" would force the government to think again on cuts.
Mark Serwotka said "many people were affected by the gloom and despair" and more people would later support industrial action as 80% of the cuts were yet to come.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19777307
In the threader, the Co-operative has been abbreviated to 'Co-Op', but I thought that 'Co-op' would be more correct. I have seen it spelt both ways in various places.
Which is correct, and does it matter?
(I will doubtless be along later with yet more pointless, nit-picking questions).
For the sake of the sanity of the moderators, stop the insults to each other.
Interesting. And wrong.
Once again the SNP conflates the Scottish Government and Scotland with itself.....
They put their Farringdon HQ on hold and blamed it on the EU.
The real story is to do with the Diocese of London and taxi ranks. Goldman's thought they could screw the Church. They couldn't.
No they do not. You are deliberately choosing to read that intent in them while I have repeatedly stated otherwise with evidence to show they are not. You are simply mistaken in thinking that every post relates to a subject I have not mentioned as there are multiple ways this will backfire and I have already explained why.
Are smiley faces and LOL's also banned in case you misconstrue them?
Or does the fact that I already explained with three explicit examples and the examples of the EU and immigration (backed up by all the posts I've made on the subject) not matter if you decide to interpret my posts in a way I've already clearly stated they are not intended? No. I cannot understand why you are repeatedly trying to interpret almost any post I make as relating to a subject I have not mentioned and will not mention, unless the purpose is simply to stop me posting regardless of the content of my posts. Just to be crystal clear ALL those subject that YOU have interpreted as relating to a subject I simply have not mentioned once are now banned even though the connection to them and that subject is, to say the least, incredibly tenuous. And you're happy to put these draconian restriction on one poster and single them out for this kind of special treatment?
So be it. I will abide by these new rules.
Just as long as everyone on PB is aware of those restrictions and your explanation of why you chose to make them I will abide by them no matter how ridiculous they may seem.
and for complete clarity these new rules only apply to me and me alone? Nobody else in your view has raised those issues in the way you choose to interpret or broke any rules concerning them?
I didnt mean there was no basis for saying Mark Serwotka is prone to doing stupid things! One last point (or I will be late for football) - if Cameron was truly comfortable with the Tory attacks on trade unions then why was removing check-off a Pickles initiative at DCLG rather than government-wide? I suspect it was something they debated doing government wide and saner heads prevailed but they couldnt stop ministers doing it in their own areas. I mean are the FDA really the enemy within?!
http://www.co-operative.coop
They prefer the lower case 'coop' - but if you want to capitalise the initial letter I can see no reason to do the same to the third.....
Individual posters in the past (and indeed one in the last week) have been asked not to comment on specific topics, whilst others can.
The site operates on a safety first basis.
This is the White paper for the people of Scotland , not for opposition MSP's.
I'm hardly an expert, but the glaring plot holes get annoying after a while.
The difficulty will be getting a thrilling plot without getting bogged down in the technical detail. An example might be something I alluded to last week: a trojan that puts illegal material onto people's computers before deleting itself. Have an evil organisation use the trojan to implicate one of their enemies, and you have the basis of a plot. It would be technically feasible, but it would require skill to convert it into a thriller.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xxgRUyzgs0&list=RDMQcPB1WkISI
Sums most thins up, no...?
Your new restrictions on me are not that. I will abide by them but they have nothing to do with any possible or conceivable legal actions and I would at least appreciate you being forthright about that while I am expected to do so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABfsIInfXgU
On topic:
Al-Beeboid or Labour in-house?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4rmO3ZSpaM
:hoe-how:
Have few ideas - do you have an email I can use?
This argument is like the very weak Ed Burnham defence when he is in the spotlight over bad practice in the NHS under the last Labour Government. Take the Mid Staffs scandal, Burnham attempts to brush over the whole scandal and the appalling care patients received from staff there by trying to drag in and then hide behind a defence of the 'whole' public sector work force in the NHS instead. Its transparent and cowardly.
I do think that this kind of bad practice within a Union or at the Co-op fails does need to be brought out into the open and dealt with properly, brushing it under the carpet doesn't serve anyone but those guilty of wrong doing. And the Tories are not blindly trashing anyone, but someone has to ask the questions that the Labour party are unable or unwilling too because they have such close ties to the organisations involved in these scandals.
Ed Miliband could have taken the lead on this after the Falkirk scandal, but he didn't, instead he is hiding the internal inquiry report from public scrutiny. Both the media and the Conservative party would be failing if they didn't take up any investigations into these bad practices on behalf of those badly served by poor leadership. Who else is going to do it, the Labour party, Oh wait!
(a) I don't know what
"Cameron and Osborne shouldn't come criticise who Ed Miliband and Ed Balls were close to
is supposed to mean (perhaps there is a mis-typed word somewhere?), and:
(b) I, for one, can not understand why anyone might view that as a reference to phone-hacking.