Work and happiness: There are two well-known companies in this area which do not routinely have help-wanted signs. even after months of a shortage of workers here; Chick-fil-A and Trader Joe's. And when I go into them, I almost always see workers who appear to be happy with what they are doing.
Chick-fil-A's success is, I believe, because their management tries to treat everyone with Christian love. (And the sheer niceness of the people who work there can be a little startling to those who aren't used to it.)
From what i can tell, Trader Joe's tries to do something similar, without being explicitly religious.
All this is just my reminder that whether we are happy working very often depends on who we are working with -- and how they treat us.
Just seen that Ros Atkins piece on Qatar. I do love the dry language of official reports and newscasting.
A Fifa inquiry concluded votes weren't sold, but it also found "potentially problematic conduct of specific individuals" as part of Qatar's bid. What we can be sure of, is most of the Committee which took this decision have since been accused, banned, or indicted over allegations of corruption or wrongdoing
most football fans can turn a blind eye to corruption and non-woke politics by hosts but making it into a winter tournament is a big own goal by FIFA
Dominic Raab behaved so badly in a meeting with the Home Office during his first stint as justice secretary that his department’s top official had to personally apologise to counterparts afterwards, the Guardian has been told.
Whitehall sources said the deputy prime minister, who is facing two official complaints over alleged bullying, had acted “so badly and inappropriately” at a high-level meeting earlier this year that the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) was forced to call senior officials of the then home secretary, Priti Patel, to express regret.
One insider suggested the top MoJ official, Antonia Romeo, had taken the highly unusual step of apologising on her minister’s behalf to prevent the incident escalating into a formal complaint. However, it is unclear whether Raab was aware of her actions at the time.
Neither department denied that the apology call had taken place. An MoJ spokesperson said: “The Ministry of Justice works hand in glove with the Home Office and calls between officials to follow up cross-departmental meetings are standard procedure.”
Still not really seeing a silver bullet for Raab in all this, just indications he is a difficult and unpleasant person, which a lot of people probably already believed.
Not often that the clock reaches 100 minutes in regular time.
Something is clearly going on with the timekeeping. The England game had 14 mins and 10 mins. The first half one fair enough - the was a long stoppage for the keeper and then again, but the second half? I suspect the refs are being told to clamp down on all time wasting.
It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.
That may be just you - I’ve never found Galloway charismatic. Ed Balls has emerged as a far nicer human being than he ever seemed when at the tribal heart beat of labour. Not sure on Hancock. I’m not generally a fan of people who have affairs, and I think he did some stuff over covid that was pretty close to being caddish.
When you say you've never found his charismatic, how are you defining it? I've never found him likeable, but he definitely knew how to draw attention.
Yes, I guess I’m going for likeable, but that is how I interpret charismatic. Dictionary may disagree…
It literally means the ability to attract followers. From that point of view I'd say Galloway qualifies.
Even though when he asked a colleague 'why do people take an instant dislike to me?' he got the unhesitating response, 'well, it saves time.'
For me Galloway is hard to assess - He is interesting and reckless which to me is good but he does have a sinister side that goes beyond mere panto villain . Meeting with Saddam for instance
Not often that the clock reaches 100 minutes in regular time.
Something is clearly going on with the timekeeping. The England game had 14 mins and 10 mins. The first half one fair enough - the was a long stoppage for the keeper and then again, but the second half? I suspect the refs are being told to clamp down on all time wasting.
If Rugby Union starting timing like this a match would last several days.
Dominic Raab behaved so badly in a meeting with the Home Office during his first stint as justice secretary that his department’s top official had to personally apologise to counterparts afterwards, the Guardian has been told.
Whitehall sources said the deputy prime minister, who is facing two official complaints over alleged bullying, had acted “so badly and inappropriately” at a high-level meeting earlier this year that the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) was forced to call senior officials of the then home secretary, Priti Patel, to express regret.
One insider suggested the top MoJ official, Antonia Romeo, had taken the highly unusual step of apologising on her minister’s behalf to prevent the incident escalating into a formal complaint. However, it is unclear whether Raab was aware of her actions at the time.
Neither department denied that the apology call had taken place. An MoJ spokesperson said: “The Ministry of Justice works hand in glove with the Home Office and calls between officials to follow up cross-departmental meetings are standard procedure.”
Still not really seeing a silver bullet for Raab in all this, just indications he is a difficult and unpleasant person, which a lot of people probably already believed.
Difficult and unpleasant are general terms. Raab is a bully and his thuggishness indicates that he doesn't believe that normal rules of behaviour apply to him. Interesting career he's had. I reckon he will stay as justice secretary and lord chancellor for longer. When it's him against Starmer, even if Starmer is making a technically good speech while Raab is literally calling him a "w*nker", that makes a pair of Oxford-graduate former civil service lawyers who have turned into senior politicians.
That said, how will the "W*nker" probe go, and will it give rise to "W*nkergate"? It's possible. Sadly Hoyle isn't a patch on Bercow. Bercow used to stand up to most frontbenchers on both sides of the Commons, with the exception of JRM who he crawled to for some reason.
We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
It's also entirely understandable. Most people want to give up dragging themselves to work as soon as they can, and working (full-time, at least) becomes increasingly exhausting as we age. And an awful lot of jobs are shit anyway, of course.
Now consider what most people's main expenses are:
*Housing (whether renting or paying off a mortgage) *Transport (whether maintaining a car and buying petrol, or exorbitant train fares) *Supporting dependent children *Food *Utilities
If you're, say, a 55 year old empty nester couple then you may very well have paid off your mortgage, the kids have either moved out or are working and making a net positive contribution to your finances, and giving up work then allows you to cease commuting and get rid of a lot of your transport costs. That only leaves food and utilities to pay for. Under such circumstances, and especially if you have some savings or investment income to help you get by and/or you're starting to suffer from chronic health complaints, the temptation to find some way to cut your working hours must be enormous.
I'm now 46 and am aiming to go part time in another few years myself. If it gets to the point that you can live comfortably off half your income and shovel the other half into the bank, then working fewer hours is a perfectly legitimate lifestyle choice. I mean, if you have something better to do with the limited time left before you drop off your perch than working your arse off, why on Earth wouldn't you?
The point I am making is not that people above a certain age should "work their arse off", just that it would be a good thing if there wasn't a culture that suggested doing nothing after a certain age is something that should be aspired to. Being economically inactive when you are still fit in mind and body is just laziness in my book. I have no intention of ever retiring unless I am ill.
It would be a boring world if we were all the same…
FWIW I hate working. I’ve hated working since my first Saturday job. I’ve done shitty jobs and cushy jobs. I’ve worked at height on scaffolding through cold winters. I’ve worked in supermarkets, stacking shelves and on the tills. I’ve had public facing jobs and back office jobs. I’ve worked with dangerous chemicals. I’ve topped frozen pizzas. I made the metal plates that go in record presses and press the groove into vinyl records. I’ve sorted mail. I’ve worked with politicians. I’ve washed pots. I’ve led teams and had to do appraisals. I’ve worked in pubs. I signed people on for their dole and benefits. I’ve been in the public and private sector. I got some degrees and now I largely work from home, a couple of days a week in an office, in a job where I have to use my brain.
They’ve all been shit in different ways.
In shitty jobs you often work with nicer, funnier people.
In offices you often work with brittle. status obsessed wankers.
They’re all, in my inconsequential opinion, terrible ways of spending the limited time I have on this planet.
Bring on UBI! Or a nice inheritance. I have no kids. As soon as I can stop, I’m done.
I think the least worst job was working in the warehouse of an international drivetrain company, packing and dispatching gearbox parts around the globe. No one bothered me, i wasn’t responsible for anyone, I could listen to whatever music I liked, I was chatting to different people all day long, having a laugh. Great job. Shame the pay was shite.
One of the funniest posts I've seen on here!
I like work some of the time, when I'm doing interesting stuff for people I like to my rules.
But, of course, it's rare that people pay you for that all the time.
We are all different! Which is great. I have worked for 42 years, always based at home, but with lots of people interaction and moving around, and loved every bit of it, now over pension age and still doing it, will slow down next year but hopefully not stop.
But if I had been non home based I would have stopped the first moment I could, or earlier.
Not often that the clock reaches 100 minutes in regular time.
Something is clearly going on with the timekeeping. The England game had 14 mins and 10 mins. The first half one fair enough - the was a long stoppage for the keeper and then again, but the second half? I suspect the refs are being told to clamp down on all time wasting.
What’s the record FT length for an international match? These games are all feature-length
Not often that the clock reaches 100 minutes in regular time.
Something is clearly going on with the timekeeping. The England game had 14 mins and 10 mins. The first half one fair enough - the was a long stoppage for the keeper and then again, but the second half? I suspect the refs are being told to clamp down on all time wasting.
Something was mentioned by a commentator in one of the games to the effect IIRC that the referees have been told to add on time for any stoppages to allow drinks to be taken on by the players.
They should use the Rugby Union approach and a) stop the clock for each stoppage and b) play on after 45' or 90' until the ball goes dead.
Not often that the clock reaches 100 minutes in regular time.
Something is clearly going on with the timekeeping. The England game had 14 mins and 10 mins. The first half one fair enough - the was a long stoppage for the keeper and then again, but the second half? I suspect the refs are being told to clamp down on all time wasting.
Something was mentioned by a commentator in one of the games to the effect IIRC that the referees have been told to add on time for any stoppages to allow drinks to be taken on by the players.
They should use the Rugby Union approach and a) stop the clock for each stoppage and b) play on after 45' or 90' until the ball goes dead.
Would make sense although I fear in that case games would last even longer… I think I read that the ball is only in play for 60 mins on average
We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
It's also entirely understandable. Most people want to give up dragging themselves to work as soon as they can, and working (full-time, at least) becomes increasingly exhausting as we age. And an awful lot of jobs are shit anyway, of course.
Now consider what most people's main expenses are:
*Housing (whether renting or paying off a mortgage) *Transport (whether maintaining a car and buying petrol, or exorbitant train fares) *Supporting dependent children *Food *Utilities
If you're, say, a 55 year old empty nester couple then you may very well have paid off your mortgage, the kids have either moved out or are working and making a net positive contribution to your finances, and giving up work then allows you to cease commuting and get rid of a lot of your transport costs. That only leaves food and utilities to pay for. Under such circumstances, and especially if you have some savings or investment income to help you get by and/or you're starting to suffer from chronic health complaints, the temptation to find some way to cut your working hours must be enormous.
I'm now 46 and am aiming to go part time in another few years myself. If it gets to the point that you can live comfortably off half your income and shovel the other half into the bank, then working fewer hours is a perfectly legitimate lifestyle choice. I mean, if you have something better to do with the limited time left before you drop off your perch than working your arse off, why on Earth wouldn't you?
The point I am making is not that people above a certain age should "work their arse off", just that it would be a good thing if there wasn't a culture that suggested doing nothing after a certain age is something that should be aspired to. Being economically inactive when you are still fit in mind and body is just laziness in my book. I have no intention of ever retiring unless I am ill.
It would be a boring world if we were all the same…
FWIW I hate working. I’ve hated working since my first Saturday job. I’ve done shitty jobs and cushy jobs. I’ve worked at height on scaffolding through cold winters. I’ve worked in supermarkets, stacking shelves and on the tills. I’ve had public facing jobs and back office jobs. I’ve worked with dangerous chemicals. I’ve topped frozen pizzas. I made the metal plates that go in record presses and press the groove into vinyl records. I’ve sorted mail. I’ve worked with politicians. I’ve washed pots. I’ve led teams and had to do appraisals. I’ve worked in pubs. I signed people on for their dole and benefits. I’ve been in the public and private sector. I got some degrees and now I largely work from home, a couple of days a week in an office, in a job where I have to use my brain.
They’ve all been shit in different ways.
In shitty jobs you often work with nicer, funnier people.
In offices you often work with brittle. status obsessed wankers.
They’re all, in my inconsequential opinion, terrible ways of spending the limited time I have on this planet.
Bring on UBI! Or a nice inheritance. I have no kids. As soon as I can stop, I’m done.
I think the least worst job was working in the warehouse of an international drivetrain company, packing and dispatching gearbox parts around the globe. No one bothered me, i wasn’t responsible for anyone, I could listen to whatever music I liked, I was chatting to different people all day long, having a laugh. Great job. Shame the pay was shite.
90 % of the time I love my job. I don’t consider that I am badly paid, although some on pb might think so (PhD and working in relevant area for 25 years). I’m sorry you have not been as lucky as me. Something from radio 5 this week - at some point in life you’ll get stuck in a rut, make sure the rut is one you like. I did…
Ahhhh it’s not that bad really, but thank you. I console myself with Baz Luhrmann’s words:
‘The most interesting people I know Didn't know at 22 what they wanted to do with their lives Some of the most interesting 40-year-olds I know still don't.’
That’s my problem. I still don’t know what I want to do, and I’m now 44!
I love my job. I consider myself hugely fortunate to have found myself a job I am interested, my employer treats me well and my colleagues are pleasant. But given the chance I'd retire tomorrow. Pleasant though my office is, I'd far rather be walking in the hills. And there are miles and miles and miles of Britain that all that's stopping me from exploring is the necessity to earn money.
We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
It's also entirely understandable. Most people want to give up dragging themselves to work as soon as they can, and working (full-time, at least) becomes increasingly exhausting as we age. And an awful lot of jobs are shit anyway, of course.
Now consider what most people's main expenses are:
*Housing (whether renting or paying off a mortgage) *Transport (whether maintaining a car and buying petrol, or exorbitant train fares) *Supporting dependent children *Food *Utilities
If you're, say, a 55 year old empty nester couple then you may very well have paid off your mortgage, the kids have either moved out or are working and making a net positive contribution to your finances, and giving up work then allows you to cease commuting and get rid of a lot of your transport costs. That only leaves food and utilities to pay for. Under such circumstances, and especially if you have some savings or investment income to help you get by and/or you're starting to suffer from chronic health complaints, the temptation to find some way to cut your working hours must be enormous.
I'm now 46 and am aiming to go part time in another few years myself. If it gets to the point that you can live comfortably off half your income and shovel the other half into the bank, then working fewer hours is a perfectly legitimate lifestyle choice. I mean, if you have something better to do with the limited time left before you drop off your perch than working your arse off, why on Earth wouldn't you?
The point I am making is not that people above a certain age should "work their arse off", just that it would be a good thing if there wasn't a culture that suggested doing nothing after a certain age is something that should be aspired to. Being economically inactive when you are still fit in mind and body is just laziness in my book. I have no intention of ever retiring unless I am ill.
It would be a boring world if we were all the same…
FWIW I hate working. I’ve hated working since my first Saturday job. I’ve done shitty jobs and cushy jobs. I’ve worked at height on scaffolding through cold winters. I’ve worked in supermarkets, stacking shelves and on the tills. I’ve had public facing jobs and back office jobs. I’ve worked with dangerous chemicals. I’ve topped frozen pizzas. I made the metal plates that go in record presses and press the groove into vinyl records. I’ve sorted mail. I’ve worked with politicians. I’ve washed pots. I’ve led teams and had to do appraisals. I’ve worked in pubs. I signed people on for their dole and benefits. I’ve been in the public and private sector. I got some degrees and now I largely work from home, a couple of days a week in an office, in a job where I have to use my brain.
They’ve all been shit in different ways.
In shitty jobs you often work with nicer, funnier people.
In offices you often work with brittle. status obsessed wankers.
They’re all, in my inconsequential opinion, terrible ways of spending the limited time I have on this planet.
Bring on UBI! Or a nice inheritance. I have no kids. As soon as I can stop, I’m done.
I think the least worst job was working in the warehouse of an international drivetrain company, packing and dispatching gearbox parts around the globe. No one bothered me, i wasn’t responsible for anyone, I could listen to whatever music I liked, I was chatting to different people all day long, having a laugh. Great job. Shame the pay was shite.
90 % of the time I love my job. I don’t consider that I am badly paid, although some on pb might think so (PhD and working in relevant area for 25 years). I’m sorry you have not been as lucky as me. Something from radio 5 this week - at some point in life you’ll get stuck in a rut, make sure the rut is one you like. I did…
Ahhhh it’s not that bad really, but thank you. I console myself with Baz Luhrmann’s words:
‘The most interesting people I know Didn't know at 22 what they wanted to do with their lives Some of the most interesting 40-year-olds I know still don't.’
That’s my problem. I still don’t know what I want to do, and I’m now 44!
I love my job. I consider myself hugely fortunate to have found myself a job I am interested, my employer treats me well and my colleagues are pleasant. But given the chance I'd retire tomorrow. Pleasant though my office is, I'd far rather be walking in the hills. And there are miles and miles and miles of Britain that all that's stopping me from exploring is the necessity to earn money.
Exactly the thinking that drove me to retire at 57 when I could. I only get one life, I don't want to spend it all working. I was lucky enough to have a career that rewarded me well, and to be able pay enough into my pension to fund a (hopefully) long retirement.
If I'd carried on working I would have more money but to what purpose?
Not often that the clock reaches 100 minutes in regular time.
Something is clearly going on with the timekeeping. The England game had 14 mins and 10 mins. The first half one fair enough - the was a long stoppage for the keeper and then again, but the second half? I suspect the refs are being told to clamp down on all time wasting.
If Rugby Union starting timing like this a match would last several days.
I’m not sure that’s true. Rugby already officially stops the clock for injuries etc. Where it doesn’t is scrums, including resetting etc and penalty kicks. I actually think football would benefit from a similar system - the ref signals to stop the clock and all can see it. But football hates to take anything from rugby, so it won’t happen.
Not often that the clock reaches 100 minutes in regular time.
Something is clearly going on with the timekeeping. The England game had 14 mins and 10 mins. The first half one fair enough - the was a long stoppage for the keeper and then again, but the second half? I suspect the refs are being told to clamp down on all time wasting.
Something was mentioned by a commentator in one of the games to the effect IIRC that the referees have been told to add on time for any stoppages to allow drinks to be taken on by the players.
They should use the Rugby Union approach and a) stop the clock for each stoppage and b) play on after 45' or 90' until the ball goes dead.
Would make sense although I fear in that case games would last even longer… I think I read that the ball is only in play for 60 mins on average
I assume that like RU, the time would be stopped only if there's an injury, VAR check or other similar issue, not just when the ball goes out and the throw-in/goal-kick/corner is about to be taken.
Not often that the clock reaches 100 minutes in regular time.
Something is clearly going on with the timekeeping. The England game had 14 mins and 10 mins. The first half one fair enough - the was a long stoppage for the keeper and then again, but the second half? I suspect the refs are being told to clamp down on all time wasting.
Something was mentioned by a commentator in one of the games to the effect IIRC that the referees have been told to add on time for any stoppages to allow drinks to be taken on by the players.
They should use the Rugby Union approach and a) stop the clock for each stoppage and b) play on after 45' or 90' until the ball goes dead.
Minor correction. Football explicitly stops during play (hence a goal kick is taken rather than stop when the ball goes out). Rugby is the opposite - it only stops when the ball is dead, or a non penalty offence occurs. This leads to my favourite quiz question, which sport, rugby or football could carry on forever? Rugby - only stops when the ball goes dead… In theory you could play all night.
Not often that the clock reaches 100 minutes in regular time.
Something is clearly going on with the timekeeping. The England game had 14 mins and 10 mins. The first half one fair enough - the was a long stoppage for the keeper and then again, but the second half? I suspect the refs are being told to clamp down on all time wasting.
Something was mentioned by a commentator in one of the games to the effect IIRC that the referees have been told to add on time for any stoppages to allow drinks to be taken on by the players.
They should use the Rugby Union approach and a) stop the clock for each stoppage and b) play on after 45' or 90' until the ball goes dead.
Would make sense although I fear in that case games would last even longer… I think I read that the ball is only in play for 60 mins on average
I assume that like RU, the time would be stopped only if there's an injury, VAR check or other similar issue, not just when the ball goes out and the throw-in/goal-kick/corner is about to be taken.
Yes, as it is now, it’s just that only the ref knows.
Dominic Raab behaved so badly in a meeting with the Home Office during his first stint as justice secretary that his department’s top official had to personally apologise to counterparts afterwards, the Guardian has been told.
Whitehall sources said the deputy prime minister, who is facing two official complaints over alleged bullying, had acted “so badly and inappropriately” at a high-level meeting earlier this year that the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) was forced to call senior officials of the then home secretary, Priti Patel, to express regret.
One insider suggested the top MoJ official, Antonia Romeo, had taken the highly unusual step of apologising on her minister’s behalf to prevent the incident escalating into a formal complaint. However, it is unclear whether Raab was aware of her actions at the time.
Neither department denied that the apology call had taken place. An MoJ spokesperson said: “The Ministry of Justice works hand in glove with the Home Office and calls between officials to follow up cross-departmental meetings are standard procedure.”
Still not really seeing a silver bullet for Raab in all this, just indications he is a difficult and unpleasant person, which a lot of people probably already believed.
Difficult and unpleasant are general terms. Raab is a bully and his thuggishness indicates that he doesn't believe that normal rules of behaviour apply to him. Interesting career he's had. I reckon he will stay as justice secretary and lord chancellor for longer. When it's him against Starmer, even if Starmer is making a technically good speech while Raab is literally calling him a "w*nker", that makes a pair of Oxford-graduate former civil service lawyers who have turned into senior politicians.
That said, how will the "W*nker" probe go, and will it give rise to "W*nkergate"? It's possible. Sadly Hoyle isn't a patch on Bercow. Bercow used to stand up to most frontbenchers on both sides of the Commons, with the exception of JRM who he crawled to for some reason.
And yet Bercow himself is a nasty bully, as his very response to the investigation and findings into him demonstrated very clearly.
What I don't get about the casualness towards bullies like Bercow or Raab or whoever in senior positions, is not the often used idea that because the victims are grown up professionals it doesn't count somehow, that they should just suck it up. It's that a lot of people, and they themselves, still seem to think being 'tough' or 'demanding' requires acting petty, insulting, demeaning, or just unpleasantly, even though they surely all know plenty of people of equivalent position who do not act in that way.
Not often that the clock reaches 100 minutes in regular time.
Something is clearly going on with the timekeeping. The England game had 14 mins and 10 mins. The first half one fair enough - the was a long stoppage for the keeper and then again, but the second half? I suspect the refs are being told to clamp down on all time wasting.
Something was mentioned by a commentator in one of the games to the effect IIRC that the referees have been told to add on time for any stoppages to allow drinks to be taken on by the players.
They should use the Rugby Union approach and a) stop the clock for each stoppage and b) play on after 45' or 90' until the ball goes dead.
Minor correction. Football explicitly stops during play (hence a goal kick is taken rather than stop when the ball goes out). Rugby is the opposite - it only stops when the ball is dead, or a non penalty offence occurs. This leads to my favourite quiz question, which sport, rugby or football could carry on forever? Rugby - only stops when the ball goes dead…
In theory you could play all night.
I recall a game involving France where it did! - incredible amount of added time as I remember it
Not often that the clock reaches 100 minutes in regular time.
Something is clearly going on with the timekeeping. The England game had 14 mins and 10 mins. The first half one fair enough - the was a long stoppage for the keeper and then again, but the second half? I suspect the refs are being told to clamp down on all time wasting.
Something was mentioned by a commentator in one of the games to the effect IIRC that the referees have been told to add on time for any stoppages to allow drinks to be taken on by the players.
They should use the Rugby Union approach and a) stop the clock for each stoppage and b) play on after 45' or 90' until the ball goes dead.
Minor correction. Football explicitly stops during play (hence a goal kick is taken rather than stop when the ball goes out). Rugby is the opposite - it only stops when the ball is dead, or a non penalty offence occurs. This leads to my favourite quiz question, which sport, rugby or football could carry on forever? Rugby - only stops when the ball goes dead…
In theory you could play all night.
I recall a game involving France where it did! - incredible amount of added time as I remember it
Another huge blow for the @rafredarrows on @ChiefofAirStaff's watch - the commander of the Red Arrows has been removed from post pending an investigation into an alleged relationship with a junior team member, @MarkNicolDM of @DailyMailUK reports
Not often that the clock reaches 100 minutes in regular time.
Something is clearly going on with the timekeeping. The England game had 14 mins and 10 mins. The first half one fair enough - the was a long stoppage for the keeper and then again, but the second half? I suspect the refs are being told to clamp down on all time wasting.
Something was mentioned by a commentator in one of the games to the effect IIRC that the referees have been told to add on time for any stoppages to allow drinks to be taken on by the players.
They should use the Rugby Union approach and a) stop the clock for each stoppage and b) play on after 45' or 90' until the ball goes dead.
Minor correction. Football explicitly stops during play (hence a goal kick is taken rather than stop when the ball goes out). Rugby is the opposite - it only stops when the ball is dead, or a non penalty offence occurs. This leads to my favourite quiz question, which sport, rugby or football could carry on forever? Rugby - only stops when the ball goes dead…
In theory you could play all night.
I recall a game involving France where it did! - incredible amount of added time as I remember it
I'm sure I remember a world cup game involving, I think, the USA, going on to the 100th minute.
We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
It's also entirely understandable. Most people want to give up dragging themselves to work as soon as they can, and working (full-time, at least) becomes increasingly exhausting as we age. And an awful lot of jobs are shit anyway, of course.
Now consider what most people's main expenses are:
*Housing (whether renting or paying off a mortgage) *Transport (whether maintaining a car and buying petrol, or exorbitant train fares) *Supporting dependent children *Food *Utilities
If you're, say, a 55 year old empty nester couple then you may very well have paid off your mortgage, the kids have either moved out or are working and making a net positive contribution to your finances, and giving up work then allows you to cease commuting and get rid of a lot of your transport costs. That only leaves food and utilities to pay for. Under such circumstances, and especially if you have some savings or investment income to help you get by and/or you're starting to suffer from chronic health complaints, the temptation to find some way to cut your working hours must be enormous.
I'm now 46 and am aiming to go part time in another few years myself. If it gets to the point that you can live comfortably off half your income and shovel the other half into the bank, then working fewer hours is a perfectly legitimate lifestyle choice. I mean, if you have something better to do with the limited time left before you drop off your perch than working your arse off, why on Earth wouldn't you?
The point I am making is not that people above a certain age should "work their arse off", just that it would be a good thing if there wasn't a culture that suggested doing nothing after a certain age is something that should be aspired to. Being economically inactive when you are still fit in mind and body is just laziness in my book. I have no intention of ever retiring unless I am ill.
It would be a boring world if we were all the same…
FWIW I hate working. I’ve hated working since my first Saturday job. I’ve done shitty jobs and cushy jobs. I’ve worked at height on scaffolding through cold winters. I’ve worked in supermarkets, stacking shelves and on the tills. I’ve had public facing jobs and back office jobs. I’ve worked with dangerous chemicals. I’ve topped frozen pizzas. I made the metal plates that go in record presses and press the groove into vinyl records. I’ve sorted mail. I’ve worked with politicians. I’ve washed pots. I’ve led teams and had to do appraisals. I’ve worked in pubs. I signed people on for their dole and benefits. I’ve been in the public and private sector. I got some degrees and now I largely work from home, a couple of days a week in an office, in a job where I have to use my brain.
They’ve all been shit in different ways.
In shitty jobs you often work with nicer, funnier people.
In offices you often work with brittle. status obsessed wankers.
They’re all, in my inconsequential opinion, terrible ways of spending the limited time I have on this planet.
Bring on UBI! Or a nice inheritance. I have no kids. As soon as I can stop, I’m done.
I think the least worst job was working in the warehouse of an international drivetrain company, packing and dispatching gearbox parts around the globe. No one bothered me, i wasn’t responsible for anyone, I could listen to whatever music I liked, I was chatting to different people all day long, having a laugh. Great job. Shame the pay was shite.
Fantastic post. I have had on the face of it interesting and well paid jobs for 40 years and hated every hour of all of them. Work ethic, schmork ethic.
Another huge blow for the @rafredarrows on @ChiefofAirStaff's watch - the commander of the Red Arrows has been removed from post pending an investigation into an alleged relationship with a junior team member, @MarkNicolDM of @DailyMailUK reports
It's not clear from the article but this is OC RAFAT getting binned not Red 1 so the show can go on... Althought it probably shouldn't.
Getting rid of them would put 7-8 FJ pilots back into the forward fleet, end Hawk T1 support and free up space at Wadders. CAS must be very, very tempted to turn a crisis into an opportunity.
We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
It's also entirely understandable. Most people want to give up dragging themselves to work as soon as they can, and working (full-time, at least) becomes increasingly exhausting as we age. And an awful lot of jobs are shit anyway, of course.
Now consider what most people's main expenses are:
*Housing (whether renting or paying off a mortgage) *Transport (whether maintaining a car and buying petrol, or exorbitant train fares) *Supporting dependent children *Food *Utilities
If you're, say, a 55 year old empty nester couple then you may very well have paid off your mortgage, the kids have either moved out or are working and making a net positive contribution to your finances, and giving up work then allows you to cease commuting and get rid of a lot of your transport costs. That only leaves food and utilities to pay for. Under such circumstances, and especially if you have some savings or investment income to help you get by and/or you're starting to suffer from chronic health complaints, the temptation to find some way to cut your working hours must be enormous.
I'm now 46 and am aiming to go part time in another few years myself. If it gets to the point that you can live comfortably off half your income and shovel the other half into the bank, then working fewer hours is a perfectly legitimate lifestyle choice. I mean, if you have something better to do with the limited time left before you drop off your perch than working your arse off, why on Earth wouldn't you?
The point I am making is not that people above a certain age should "work their arse off", just that it would be a good thing if there wasn't a culture that suggested doing nothing after a certain age is something that should be aspired to. Being economically inactive when you are still fit in mind and body is just laziness in my book. I have no intention of ever retiring unless I am ill.
It would be a boring world if we were all the same…
FWIW I hate working. I’ve hated working since my first Saturday job. I’ve done shitty jobs and cushy jobs. I’ve worked at height on scaffolding through cold winters. I’ve worked in supermarkets, stacking shelves and on the tills. I’ve had public facing jobs and back office jobs. I’ve worked with dangerous chemicals. I’ve topped frozen pizzas. I made the metal plates that go in record presses and press the groove into vinyl records. I’ve sorted mail. I’ve worked with politicians. I’ve washed pots. I’ve led teams and had to do appraisals. I’ve worked in pubs. I signed people on for their dole and benefits. I’ve been in the public and private sector. I got some degrees and now I largely work from home, a couple of days a week in an office, in a job where I have to use my brain.
They’ve all been shit in different ways.
In shitty jobs you often work with nicer, funnier people.
In offices you often work with brittle. status obsessed wankers.
They’re all, in my inconsequential opinion, terrible ways of spending the limited time I have on this planet.
Bring on UBI! Or a nice inheritance. I have no kids. As soon as I can stop, I’m done.
I think the least worst job was working in the warehouse of an international drivetrain company, packing and dispatching gearbox parts around the globe. No one bothered me, i wasn’t responsible for anyone, I could listen to whatever music I liked, I was chatting to different people all day long, having a laugh. Great job. Shame the pay was shite.
Fantastic post. I have had on the face of it interesting and well paid jobs for 40 years and hated every hour of all of them. Work ethic, schmork ethic.
Really interesting discussion. I have the opposite problem - I've had a series of enjoyable jobs, and have become so invested in them that I don't know how to stop. I'm 72, with three paid jobs (charity management, council executive, translation) and an unpaid joblet (CLP chair), all interesting and stimulating. I'm in good health and in principle could do them all for another 5-10 years. I feel they're worthwhile and they enable me to give away lots of money. But at some point they'll stop, I'll be in worse health, and what then? Outside the jobs, I've not really developed any major cultural interests. Do I start taking up walking, theatre, music when I'm 80?
Enjoying your work is a drug if you feel you're doing it well - every day you get another shot of endorphins. The obvious answer is to start cutting back and explore the non-work world, and I'm doing a bit of that. But it's honestly hard.
Comments
LlanfairPG only has one street.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-63708155
Bale denied a goal scoring opportunity at the end there. Surely it should have been a red card?
That said, how will the "W*nker" probe go, and will it give rise to "W*nkergate"? It's possible. Sadly Hoyle isn't a patch on Bercow. Bercow used to stand up to most frontbenchers on both sides of the Commons, with the exception of JRM who he crawled to for some reason.
But if I had been non home based I would have stopped the first moment I could, or earlier.
Iraq has 'lost' $2.3 billion from the tax authority.
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/iraq-theft-century-how-25-billion-public-money-evaporated
Expected balance 3,531,501,702,289 dinars actual 145,050,309,732 dinars.
They should use the Rugby Union approach and a) stop the clock for each stoppage and b) play on after 45' or 90' until the ball goes dead.
But given the chance I'd retire tomorrow. Pleasant though my office is, I'd far rather be walking in the hills. And there are miles and miles and miles of Britain that all that's stopping me from exploring is the necessity to earn money.
If I'd carried on working I would have more money but to what purpose?
I actually think football would benefit from a similar system - the ref signals to stop the clock and all can see it. But football hates to take anything from rugby, so it won’t happen.
This leads to my favourite quiz question, which sport, rugby or football could carry on forever? Rugby - only stops when the ball goes dead… In theory you could play all night.
What I don't get about the casualness towards bullies like Bercow or Raab or whoever in senior positions, is not the often used idea that because the victims are grown up professionals it doesn't count somehow, that they should just suck it up. It's that a lot of people, and they themselves, still seem to think being 'tough' or 'demanding' requires acting petty, insulting, demeaning, or just unpleasantly, even though they surely all know plenty of people of equivalent position who do not act in that way.
https://bit.ly/3OmMX9P
Getting rid of them would put 7-8 FJ pilots back into the forward fleet, end Hawk T1 support and free up space at Wadders. CAS must be very, very tempted to turn a crisis into an opportunity.
Enjoying your work is a drug if you feel you're doing it well - every day you get another shot of endorphins. The obvious answer is to start cutting back and explore the non-work world, and I'm doing a bit of that. But it's honestly hard.