The most polite invective phrase seen on U75
You plum!
You plum!
You didn't answer my question as to why the question couldn't be asked as well as the ones you asked.
Another question that has puzzled me for a while. This is really just a difference of opinion. I'd like to see the question asked, you wouldn't. Why do you go off into the insults:
Quite a few of your posts on the boards try to make people feel guilty for trivial things, or feel stupid over trivial matters. Why do you do this? What do you gain by making people feel guilty and stupid when a simple post pointing out why you disagree would do?
Well, it was actually the silly question about speeding rules that was one of the parts of that exchange that made me roll my eyes the most.You plum! The hypocrisy that the questioning pointed out was his supposed exceptance of one set of laws (i.e. speed limits) but not others. Why you are trying yourself in knots trying to avoid this all too obvious fact is a bit weird and not very interesting.
Louis MacNeice
By the way, in response to the questions about why can't we talk about the raw economics and also point out the disparity in pay between management and workers, well, I never actually said we couldn't, and I also agree that a few pointed questions might be helpful in setting a context in which people can view things like whether they support union action or legislative change or whatever. But it's the above stupid question that I was initially responding to - which I maintain is a stupid question. Everyone knows why he hasn't sacked himself.Have any of the interviewers asked him why he hasn't sacked himself and reapplied for his job at Ā£3 an hour?
On phone, so I'll limit myself to a short comment: BOLLOCKS.Asking questions like that is stupid and pointless. Everyone knows the answer. This kind of thing is never going to be prevented by the good will of management. It also seems quite delusional to me that the "reputation" of P&O is going to be damaged in a way that has any commercial impact.
These decisions are simply taken in an economic context. They would be taken by whoever was in control. If competitors can massively cut their wage bills, how can it be anything other than inevitable that these actions will be taken, unless the environment the companies work in is changed? If the environment is such that accepting some fines is cheaper than going through the proper process, why would anyone be surprised that that route is taken?
Something has to be done via legislation - or indeed by the unions using whatever economic power they have. Focusing on the morals or lifestyles of executives is dimwitted and a waste of time.
Did see a big red flag in Liverpool today with a weird form of hammer and sickle I'd never seen before, was trying to think if that was likely to be the poster you'd encountered but I've now looked it up and learned that Juche is hammer, sickle, and brush, whereas this thing was like hammer and sickle but not crossing over each other, just arranged vaguely near each other?(weirdly the first tweets I saw on the P&O scandal as it broke a week ago was from a "Juche4UK" type from Liverpool :/ )
Either Hammer Or Sickle But Never Both Together sounds like a particularly proscriptive maximDid see a big red flag in Liverpool today with a weird form of hammer and sickle I'd never seen before, was trying to think if that was likely to be the poster you'd encountered but I've now looked it up and learned that Juche is hammer, sickle, and brush, whereas this thing was like hammer and sickle but not crossing over each other, just arranged vaguely near each other?
This is what will happen under deregulation,
Another Brexit benefit which voters new what they were voting for.
Did see a big red flag in Liverpool today with a weird form of hammer and sickle I'd never seen before, was trying to think if that was likely to be the poster you'd encountered but I've now looked it up and learned that Juche is hammer, sickle, and brush, whereas this thing was like hammer and sickle but not crossing over each other, just arranged vaguely near each other?
Is this a new cheese/beans debate. When designing a revolutionary standard (stained or not with hearts' blood) do you put the hammer or the sickle on first?Either Hammer Or Sickle But Never Both Together sounds like a particularly proscriptive maxim
Forcing his resignation (with a big golden handshake, no doubt) would be a convenient way to dodge prosecuting the company. I hope he sticks to his guns. The whole board, owners and counsel have misread the public mood somewhat.Oh, has Hebblethwaite been left in tatters? I'd missed that, good on whoever did it though.
A second P&O ferry has failed a safety inspection and is in the process of being detained, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) has said. The Pride of Kent is one of eight ships to need inspections before re-entering service, after P&O sacked 800 staff.
Nah, they carry loads of freight.I'm still not 100% clear on where the passenger ferry vs shipping freight distinction lies - does P&O definitely carry both? If it's just a passenger line then it seems much more possible that the government won't rescue them?
It does seem that the decision was taken by someone who knows nothing about ship operations..maybe they kept it secret from the ship technical management side of the business.Not going so well for P&O, is it...
P&O: Second ferry detained over safety concerns
Strong words from Shapps, with promises that measures will be put to parliament before the Easter break starts on Friday.
View attachment 316223View attachment 316224
P&O Ferries given deadline to reemploy sacked workers
Grant Shapps says the firm has "one final opportunity" to bring sacked staff back on previous wages.www.bbc.co.uk
They were obviously in trouble hence the pretty daft manoeuvre of laying everyone off.
So, the Government are unable to prosecute P&O ferries due to an EU Directive (ironic, given earlier attempts by Remain cranks to claim Brexit was to blame for the actions of P&O bosses).
P&O have already told Shapps that theyāll be ignoring his demand for reinstatement. Workers face a choice of either acquiescing to the enhanced redundancy package, and thereby signing away their legal rights to go to ET, or risking it all at an ET.
This is the neo-feudal employment framework that Thatcher always longed for now fully visible. Every route to access to justice for workers closed off or too expensive to pursue.
interesting the government who promised to take back control did not take back control
so it's the EU's fault ok