• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.

SteveWD40

Member
how we need to support 'wealth creators' like the Murdochs

Sort of unrelated but it was nice to see Branson in the press the other day pointing out that the true wealth / job creators are the SME's and we need to support them, with cashflow funding, start-up assistance and easier understanding of employment law (most cases could be avoided with proper training).

As an SME (I put the S in Small, just me, myself and I) I find this refreshing, the more start-ups there are the more jobs that get created and I wouldn't be so terrified of actually hiring anyone.
 

Omikaru

Member
Louise Mensch has taken the Comical Ali role.

Despicable woman with zero integrity.

Mensch is the most insufferable MP in Parliament right now. Moreso than even Dorries. Whenever she opens her mouth, all she does is further cement the view that:

1) She's not very intelligent.
2) She's an attention seeker.
3) She's just an all around vile individual.

I really hope she's out after the next election. I think I'd enjoy that sight more than watching Dorries lose her seat, which with the boundary changes coming in is looking increasingly likely.
 

SteveWD40

Member
I am now convinced that Mensch is just a mouthpiece who will say whatever Cameron and co tell her to make them look less vile. She is angling for a cabinet spot (or shadow cabinet after the next election at this rate) and is sucking off the right people to get it.

That and the attention won't hurt her book sales when she goes back to writing Chick-Shit.
 
I am not so much peturbed by the fact that Hunt and his office had ongoing, inappropriate contact with News Corp officials - I think it was obvious that was going to happen... I am more perturbed that someone put him in the "quasi-judicial" roleto begin with. I agree with those who've suggested Osborne now needs to be called. Anyone involved with the decision of appointing Hunt, or anyone with knowledge of it.
 

Dambrosi

Banned
I agree, but only so I can finally see that scumfuck Osbourne squirm on oath.

And then, Cameron himself. I'd set that day aside, turn off my phone, buy popcorn and everything. My evil schadenfreude laugh would be heard all the way down the street.

As for Mensch, I'm surprised she can say anything with Cameron's
austerity
lodged so far down her throat.
 

Bo-Locks

Member
I am not so much peturbed by the fact that Hunt and his office had ongoing, inappropriate contact with News Corp officials - I think it was obvious that was going to happen... I am more perturbed that someone put him in the "quasi-judicial" roleto begin with. I agree with those who've suggested Osborne now needs to be called. Anyone involved with the decision of appointing Hunt, or anyone with knowledge of it.

I'm not really bothered that Hunt was given a "quasi-judicial" role, as the culture secretary he was best placed to oversee this issue. My main concern is that nobody (the government, civil service, Hunt, Leveson or the public) has any idea what a "quasi-judicial" role entails.
 

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
I'm not really bothered that Hunt was given a "quasi-judicial" role, as the culture secretary he was best placed to oversee this issue. My main concern is that nobody (the government, civil service, Hunt, Leveson or the public) has any idea what a "quasi-judicial" role entails.

Well, as far as I know, there's no part of the judicial process where the judge is in cahoots with the accused.
 

ruttyboy

Member
Just been listening to Radio 5. Some small business owner was on there talking about those “solutions” that Beecroft came up with. She actually said, “We’re not in a time of Oliver Twist style employers any more” completely missing the irony that that’s only the case because of the type of legislation she was railing against...

Also, something I’m starting to get sick of is business owners in the media saying things like, “we are the job creators” as if it’s a moral position. As if they would have created the jobs solely for the benefit of their employees even if they didn’t need to, when the only reason they created the jobs is to make themselves more money.
 

SteveWD40

Member
Also, something I’m starting to get sick of is business owners in the media saying things like, “we are the job creators” as if it’s a moral position. As if they would have created the jobs solely for the benefit of their employees even if they didn’t need to, when the only reason they created the jobs is to make themselves more money.

Indeed. My comments about SME's stand, the people getting made redundant and choosing to start their own business are creating jobs, they don't demand tax breaks.

It's another sound-bite for the ultra rich to cling on to, as if to say "don't tax us or we won't create more jobs peasants!", fine, fuck you then, we will make our own.
 

Dambrosi

Banned
Well, as far as I know, there's no part of the judicial process where the judge is in cahoots with the accused.
You know what they call countries that allow such corrupt practices? Banana Republics.

But we're not even a republic, so maybe it should be "Banana Monarchy"? No - "Banana Kingdom" sounds cooler, let's go with that.
 

Bo-Locks

Member
I think I posted before in this thread I was summoned for jury duty. I deferred it and it was rescheduled for 25th June at Manchester Crown Court, the same date that the trial of the killer of the Indian student Anuj Bidve starts.

So yeah, there's a big chance that I could be selected as a juror on one of the most high profile cases in the country.
 
I think I posted before in this thread I was summoned for jury duty. I deferred it and it was rescheduled for 25th June at Manchester Crown Court, the same date that the trial of the killer of the Indian student Anuj Bidve starts.

So yeah, there's a big chance that I could be selected as a juror on one of the most high profile cases in the country.

BEST POST ABOUT IT ON THE INTERNET, THAT WON'T RUIN YOUR CHANCES.
 
I think I posted before in this thread I was summoned for jury duty. I deferred it and it was rescheduled for 25th June at Manchester Crown Court, the same date that the trial of the killer of the Indian student Anuj Bidve starts.

So yeah, there's a big chance that I could be selected as a juror on one of the most high profile cases in the country.

well if they saw you describe the accused as the killer before his trial, im sure you'll not be picked ;)

EDIT

ah i see he admitted to it. still.
 

Bo-Locks

Member
well if they saw you describe the accused as the killer before his trial, im sure you'll not be picked ;)

EDIT

ah i see he admitted to it. still.

I was very careful in my wording. I haven't said anything biased or compromising. All I've said is that my jury service is on the same date as the Anuj Bidve trial. The other potential jurors will have figured this out by now, too.
 

Yen

Member
I was very careful in my wording. I haven't said anything biased or compromising. All I've said is that my jury service is on the same date as the Anuj Bidve trial. The other potential jurors will have figured this out by now, too.

Yeah, you could be presiding over his "killer." Way to be impartial and unbiased.
 
I was very careful in my wording. I haven't said anything biased or compromising. All I've said is that my jury service is on the same date as the Anuj Bidve trial. The other potential jurors will have figured this out by now, too.

YOU'RE EVERYTHING THAT'S WRONG WITH THE JUSTICE SYSTEM! BOOOOOOOOOO!

But seriously, what's the trial for? To decide if he's guilty of murder, not just manslaughter? I guess referring to him as the killer is factually accurate, you didn't call him a murderer at least!
 

Dambrosi

Banned
And if turpentine is too expensive, how about some crystal meth? Bath Salts? Krokodil?

Minimum alcohol pricing is a stupid idea, just like Prohibition was in its day.
 

Dambrosi

Banned
You mean "democratic", as in representing two factions out of three instead of just one, and I disagree - even if the two parties have enough MPs to make up a majority together, neither one has a mandate on its own. And the way that the Tories have been taking the lion's share of policies for themselves, as if they're ruling on their own...well.

As you said, the Coalition Agreement was never voted for, and does not have the public's mandate (perhaps necessarily so, but still).

The Tories would never be able to get away with their more neo-liberal bullshit if they had to hoof it alone as a minority government. The Lib-Dems are allowing them that leverage. That's the bitterest pill to swallow, when you really think about it.
 
The reason the lib dems are "letting the get away with it" is because they're getting to implement quite a few of their policies, the kind of policies that right wing voters would usually hate. It's called coalition politics.
 
I have to question whether any party would not be pursuing austerity right now. I happen to have more affinity with the Conservatives, but will happily agree that they're ballsing up the economy right now. I just wonder whether the situation would have been exactly the same if the Tories were in power from 1997 to 2010, and then Labour took over. I suspect it would be.
 

Protome

Member
Didn't see this posted in here yet but Lib Dems suffer plunge in party membership.

Apparently Lib dems thought the coalition would make them more credible in some way, but in actuality everyone is jumping ship because of all the betrayals they've been making.

The loss of thousands of members will leave a hole in the party's finances. To join the Lib Dems costs a minimum of £12 a year, or £6 for students, under-25s and those on benefits. The financial accounts of all local parties with an income of more than £25,000 paint a grim picture for the Lib Dems.
 

Dambrosi

Banned
The reason the lib dems are "letting the get away with it" is because they're getting to implement quite a few of their policies, the kind of policies that right wing voters would usually hate. It's called coalition politics.
So, I guess that the Lib-Dems are partially responsible for this, then?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/04/jubilee-pageant-unemployed

A group of long-term unemployed jobseekers were bussed into London to work as unpaid stewards during the diamond jubilee celebrations and told to sleep under London Bridge before working on the river pageant.

Up to 30 jobseekers and another 50 people on apprentice wages were taken to London by coach from Bristol, Bath and Plymouth as part of the government's Work Programme.

Two jobseekers, who did not want to be identified in case they lost their benefits, said they had to camp under London Bridge the night before the pageant. They told the Guardian they had to change into security gear in public, had no access to toilets for 24 hours, and were taken to a swampy campsite outside London after working a 14-hour shift in the pouring rain on the banks of the Thames on Sunday.

One young worker said she was on duty between London Bridge and Tower Bridge during the £12m river spectacle of a 1,000-boat flotilla and members of the Royal family sail by . She said that the security firm Close Protection UK, which won a stewarding contract for the jubilee events, gave her a plastic see-through poncho and a high-visibility jacket for protection against the rain.

Close Protection UK confirmed that it was using up to 30 unpaid staff and 50 apprentices, who were paid £2.80 an hour, for the three-day event in London. A spokesman said the unpaid work was a trial for paid roles at the Olympics, which it had also won a contract to staff. Unpaid staff were expected to work two days out of the three-day holiday.
jubilee-pageant-unemploye-008.jpg

I mean, even for "policies that right-wingers would hate", this seems unusually evil. :p
 

Songbird

Prodigal Son
I mean, even for "policies that right-wingers would hate", this seems unusually evil. :p
I wonder when all this official work experience will come for me. Yuck. I'd rather organise my own before I'm roped into that or Poundland, something else that will hopefully get me a job.
 

War Peaceman

You're a big guy.
That stuff is rotten. Horrible as anything.

What's worse is that funding was supposedly provided for people to perform those jobs. Where has that money gone...?
 

Dambrosi

Banned
I wonder when all this official work experience will come for me. Yuck. I'd rather organise my own before I'm roped into that or Poundland, something else that will hopefully get me a job.
I've just got an interview tomorrow, green energy firm looking for sales reps/phone monkeys. Not much, but better than Olympic slavery. Wish me luck, guys :)
 

Songbird

Prodigal Son
I've just got an interview tomorrow, green energy firm looking for sales reps/phone monkeys. Not much, but better than Olympic slavery. Wish me luck, guys :)
I had a similar interview. Sales in Manchester... Carillion Energy..?

Best of luck mate.
 

Dambrosi

Banned
I had a similar interview. Sales in Manchester... Carillion Energy..?

Best of luck mate.
Mine's in Liverpool, but otherwise, that's exactly it, yeah.

I got another interview while I was at Ingeus scrounging haircut money out of them, and that's for Friday morning! That's already more interviews this week than all last month!

Really hoping I can avoid the Olympics chain gang!

Wait, you said "Had". Any tips?

EDIT: Aaaaaaaaaand Channel 4 gets their scoops from Dambrosi once again. Grauniad -> GAF -> C4 -> GAF :p And OMG @ that Kennedy Nettey dude, don't you know your own people's history?!
 

Songbird

Prodigal Son
Wait, you said "Had". Any tips?

Pssh, I wish I had something useful to give you. Be approachable, sit up straight with arms/hands in a comfortable position (don't worry about looking nervous though), have questions ready to ask at the end, think of specific events in your life where you've demonstrated the essential job criteria and refer to those. Just a few things.

Still unemployed but getting new interviews.
 

kitch9

Banned
Just been listening to Radio 5. Some small business owner was on there talking about those “solutions” that Beecroft came up with. She actually said, “We’re not in a time of Oliver Twist style employers any more” completely missing the irony that that’s only the case because of the type of legislation she was railing against...

Also, something I’m starting to get sick of is business owners in the media saying things like, “we are the job creators” as if it’s a moral position. As if they would have created the jobs solely for the benefit of their employees even if they didn’t need to, when the only reason they created the jobs is to make themselves more money.

Small businesses aren't free. They are expensive to set up, expensive to run and usually involve a great deal of personal risk to the owner. If the business does well then great, the risk has paid off, but if the business struggles or just flat lines then the owner runs the risk of losing everything they've invested. The employees just risk losing their job.

Not every business does well, and lots struggle every day to survive with their owners sometimes taking home meagre wages as they ensure their staff are paid.

If it wasn't for those who have a dream and are willing to risk everything the fuckers who don't would not have anywhere to work simple as that as its small business who is the driving force for everything.
 

ruttyboy

Member
You're missing the point.

Their 'dream' is entirely one of self interest (be your own boss/do what you love/make a lot of money). What I'm objecting to is people posturing as though it gives them some moral high ground over the people they employ when it does no such thing.

The only way they could claim some moral brownie points was if they took on people they didn't need (to further their own interests) philanthropically, for the purpose of providing employment. As far as I know, this never happens.
 

kitch9

Banned
You're missing the point.

Their 'dream' is entirely one of self interest (be your own boss/do what you love/make a lot of money). What I'm objecting to is people posturing as though it gives them some moral high ground over the people they employ when it does no such thing.

The only way they could claim some moral brownie points was if they took on people they didn't need (to further their own interests) philanthropically, for the purpose of providing employment. As far as I know, this never happens.

Its their money and their risk, they deserve to be able to have at least some say in how they use THEIR money. If the employee doesn't like not being in control, then I would suggest the employee should grow a pair and think about becoming his own boss too.

If you go up and down the country you will find thousands of examples of small businesses unable to pay their directors for months on end in order for the staff to be paid, or even worse directors loaning their companies large sums of money to keep them afloat in the sometimes vain hope things will pick up.

So, yeah.... "Business" ain't the gravy train you appear to think it is.
 

ruttyboy

Member
What are you talking about? Who’s taken control of their money away from them? You do realise that thousands of people are ‘let go’ every day? Nobody is forced to employ anyone, where does this idea come from?

Also, you seem to think that everybody is in a position where they could start their own business, guess what, most people in the country are poor, which is why legislation to prevent wholesale exploitation by those who aren’t is necessary.
 

SteveWD40

Member
You are both right, essentially, you seem to be having a different argument.

It is correct that many small business owners can risk it all and go without to keep their staff happy, but it is also correct they don't do it for the good of their staff as much as the good of their company, so yes, self interest for the most part.

Fact is most SME owners would never claim to be "job creators", it's the CEO's of huge companies who talk shit like that.
 
Top Bottom