Philip Davies is as close to being a human form of actual evil as I think we have in Parliament.
Curiosity wrote:
Philip Davies is as close to being a human form of actual evil as I think we have in Parliament.
But those loveable Tories amirite?
Lonewolves wrote:
You'd make a good Tory, mate. Tories are MaliCoolTM.
That's the exact photo I was thinking of. 
You look like the Authoritarian Leader from a BBC Drama set in a British Dictatorship from the near future.
Lonewolves wrote:
That's the exact photo I was thinking of.
It is the exact photo you posted.
I have so many things I could say about Philip Davies at this current point in time but I would likely be arrested, so let's just leave it at: he's a cunt.
Bobbyaro wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
That's the exact photo I was thinking of.
It is the exact photo you posted.
When?
Squirt wrote:
You look like the Authoritarian Leader from a BBC Drama set in a British Dictatorship from the near future.
Curiosity wrote:
Philip Davies is as close to being a human form of actual evil as I think we have in Parliament.
No, he's just a dick.
text of Istanbul Convention. Article 48 is interesting, ruling out ADR. Legislating for victim welfare is particularly bold, too.
If you're having girl problems I feel bad for you son...
MaliA wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
You'd make a good Tory, mate. Tories are MaliCoolTM.
You've just laid off everyone working there, haven't you?
MaliA wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
You'd make a good Tory, mate. Tories are MaliCoolTM.
All joking aside though, Mali, you'd make an awesome Tory... you're intelligent, you're grounded, pragmatic, practical, non-ideological; you're straight-talking, straight-forward, you know the value of money, you've got a good, responsible job, you're involved with making real stuff, you have a growing family. You're a stakeholder, and you've earned it.
Sounds good to me; chuck in a charming dose of English eccentricity (without the gimballing eyes bit)... shit man, you totes belong with me on these benches. Welcome aboard, son.
See I know Cavey is trying to be nice, but lolz.
Tories being non-ideological for a start.
Tories being non-ideological for a start.
Sure mate, but this Conservative conservative is non-ideological and there are so many others like me besides, at, or close to the centre ground.
Cavey wrote:
:)
Sure mate, but this Conservative conservative is non-ideological and there are so many others like me besides, at, or close to the centre ground.
Sure mate, but this Conservative conservative is non-ideological and there are so many others like me besides, at, or close to the centre ground.
So you are not anti-union then?
Not ideologically (i.e. by *absolute default*); unions have been absolutely essential historically, and without them the likes of you and me would be climbing fecking chimneys somewhere.
But shit, you can outstay your welcome, yeah?
But shit, you can outstay your welcome, yeah?
Cavey wrote:
Not ideologically (i.e. by *absolute default*); unions have been absolutely essential historically, and without them the likes of you and me would be climbing fecking chimneys somewhere.
But shit, you can outstay your welcome, yeah?
But shit, you can outstay your welcome, yeah?
Ok, reasonable answer. I just don't think you can not be ideological unless you have no opinion on anything at all.
Lonewolves wrote:
.
Even the local paper has picked this up!
Quote:
Mr Davies said: "We should be bringing forward neutral legislation that seeks to help all victims of crime, men and women, and to punish all offenders, both men and women."
Earlier, the Tory backbencher also said: "I'm not aware of anybody who wants to argue that people should be violent towards women and girls, of course not.
"Because the title of the Bill is about 'combating violence against women' then it presumes as long as you support that premise you must support this particular Bill, and therefore if you oppose this Bill it means you must be in favour, as it follows, of violence against women and children.
"Now that's the kind of level of debate I'd expect from the morons on Twitter but I still live in hope that we might have better quality debate than that in this House, although my experience is it doesn't actually get much better normally."
Mr Davies said he has a "fundamental objection" to the premise that MPs only need to deal with violence against women.
Earlier, the Tory backbencher also said: "I'm not aware of anybody who wants to argue that people should be violent towards women and girls, of course not.
"Because the title of the Bill is about 'combating violence against women' then it presumes as long as you support that premise you must support this particular Bill, and therefore if you oppose this Bill it means you must be in favour, as it follows, of violence against women and children.
"Now that's the kind of level of debate I'd expect from the morons on Twitter but I still live in hope that we might have better quality debate than that in this House, although my experience is it doesn't actually get much better normally."
Mr Davies said he has a "fundamental objection" to the premise that MPs only need to deal with violence against women.
Cavey wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
You'd make a good Tory, mate. Tories are MaliCoolTM.
All joking aside though, Mali, you'd make an awesome Tory... you're intelligent, you're grounded, pragmatic, practical, non-ideological; you're straight-talking, straight-forward, you know the value of money, you've got a good, responsible job, you're involved with making real stuff, you have a growing family. You're a stakeholder, and you've earned it.
Sounds good to me; chuck in a charming dose of English eccentricity (without the gimballing eyes bit)... shit man, you totes belong with me on these benches. Welcome aboard, son.
You are far too kind.
Cavey wrote:
Not ideologically (i.e. by *absolute default*); unions have been absolutely essential historically, and without them the likes of you and me would be climbing fecking chimneys somewhere.
But shit, you can outstay your welcome, yeah?
But shit, you can outstay your welcome, yeah?
Where jobs are stressful, dangerous, or the workers are at risk of exploitation, totally. Train drivers earning good wedge on strike? Looks like protectionism and politics at play here, jog on, institutional dinosaurs.
MaliA wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Not ideologically (i.e. by *absolute default*); unions have been absolutely essential historically, and without them the likes of you and me would be climbing fecking chimneys somewhere.
But shit, you can outstay your welcome, yeah?
But shit, you can outstay your welcome, yeah?
Where jobs are stressful, dangerous, or the workers are at risk of exploitation, totally. Train drivers earning good wedge on strike? Looks like protectionism and politics at play here, jog on, institutional dinosaurs.
See! I told you.
MaliA wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Not ideologically (i.e. by *absolute default*); unions have been absolutely essential historically, and without them the likes of you and me would be climbing fecking chimneys somewhere.
But shit, you can outstay your welcome, yeah?
But shit, you can outstay your welcome, yeah?
Where jobs are stressful, dangerous, or the workers are at risk of exploitation, totally. Train drivers earning good wedge on strike? Looks like protectionism and politics at play here, jog on, institutional dinosaurs.
Even that's a bit more complicated, though - this government set their stall out early to destroy unions, and they've enlisted Govia as their proxies to pick a fight and stick with it. Which is why the specifics of the Southern strike are so weird (e.g. Govia can make more money from not running trains on strike days, because they're just paid to be in charge, while the govt take the fare money when the service is running).
JBR wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Not ideologically (i.e. by *absolute default*); unions have been absolutely essential historically, and without them the likes of you and me would be climbing fecking chimneys somewhere.
But shit, you can outstay your welcome, yeah?
But shit, you can outstay your welcome, yeah?
Where jobs are stressful, dangerous, or the workers are at risk of exploitation, totally. Train drivers earning good wedge on strike? Looks like protectionism and politics at play here, jog on, institutional dinosaurs.
Even that's a bit more complicated, though - this government set their stall out early to destroy unions, and they've enlisted Govia as their proxies to pick a fight and stick with it. Which is why the specifics of the Southern strike are so weird (e.g. Govia can make more money from not running trains on strike days, because they're just paid to be in charge, while the govt take the fare money when the service is running).
You mean it's not black and white and is in fact a lot more nuanced than first thought? You seem like the non-ideological one here.
JBR wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Not ideologically (i.e. by *absolute default*); unions have been absolutely essential historically, and without them the likes of you and me would be climbing fecking chimneys somewhere.
But shit, you can outstay your welcome, yeah?
But shit, you can outstay your welcome, yeah?
Where jobs are stressful, dangerous, or the workers are at risk of exploitation, totally. Train drivers earning good wedge on strike? Looks like protectionism and politics at play here, jog on, institutional dinosaurs.
Even that's a bit more complicated, though - this government set their stall out early to destroy unions, and they've enlisted Govia as their proxies to pick a fight and stick with it. Which is why the specifics of the Southern strike are so weird (e.g. Govia can make more money from not running trains on strike days, because they're just paid to be in charge, while the govt take the fare money when the service is running).
Let's assume that's the case - can you blame them? As Mali notes, naked, blatent, luddite protectionism - and blackmailing commuters/the entire country (with attendant damage to the economy) - are BAD things. It's not a matter of 'ideology' but plain fact, and we should bluntly state it as such, instead of wringing our hands impotently (probably because it makes a few here uncomfortable on ideological grounds, ironically enough).
If the government of the day wants to kick these closed shops and cartels in the bollocks, all for the greater good, then that's all fine and dandy with me. Someone needs to stand up to these arseholes.
Next?
JBR wrote:
Which is why the specifics of the Southern strike are so weird (e.g. Govia can make more money from not running trains on strike days, because they're just paid to be in charge, while the govt take the fare money when the service is running).
Which, curiously, implies that just saying 'nationalise it' is not in itself a complete solution, as the government train service (let's call it, oh, I don't know, British Rail) could then insist on the changes the government are asking Govia to make. It would, however, cut out the middle man.
Cavey wrote:
JBR wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Not ideologically (i.e. by *absolute default*); unions have been absolutely essential historically, and without them the likes of you and me would be climbing fecking chimneys somewhere.
But shit, you can outstay your welcome, yeah?
But shit, you can outstay your welcome, yeah?
Where jobs are stressful, dangerous, or the workers are at risk of exploitation, totally. Train drivers earning good wedge on strike? Looks like protectionism and politics at play here, jog on, institutional dinosaurs.
Even that's a bit more complicated, though - this government set their stall out early to destroy unions, and they've enlisted Govia as their proxies to pick a fight and stick with it. Which is why the specifics of the Southern strike are so weird (e.g. Govia can make more money from not running trains on strike days, because they're just paid to be in charge, while the govt take the fare money when the service is running).
Let's assume that's the case - can you blame them? As Mali notes, naked, blatent, luddite protectionism - and blackmailing commuters/the entire country (with attendant damage to the economy) - are BAD things. It's not a matter of 'ideology' but plain fact, and we should bluntly state it as such, instead of wringing our hands impotently (probably because it makes a few here uncomfortable on ideological grounds, ironically enough).
If the government of the day wants to kick these closed shops and cartels in the bollocks, all for the greater good, then that's all fine and dandy with me. Someone needs to stand up to these arseholes.
Next?
But it is Southern and Govia that are by all accounts the absolute bastards here, who are intentionally running their services terribly because they get money from the government anyway, and are trying to be able to screw over the people who do the actual work. If there is a closed shop at all it is the privatised railway operators who rake in the money regardless of whether or not they provide a good service.
Why is it YAY for Southern/Govia and BOO for the workers?
Curiosity wrote:
Cavey wrote:
JBR wrote:
MaliA wrote:
Cavey wrote:
Not ideologically (i.e. by *absolute default*); unions have been absolutely essential historically, and without them the likes of you and me would be climbing fecking chimneys somewhere.
But shit, you can outstay your welcome, yeah?
But shit, you can outstay your welcome, yeah?
Where jobs are stressful, dangerous, or the workers are at risk of exploitation, totally. Train drivers earning good wedge on strike? Looks like protectionism and politics at play here, jog on, institutional dinosaurs.
Even that's a bit more complicated, though - this government set their stall out early to destroy unions, and they've enlisted Govia as their proxies to pick a fight and stick with it. Which is why the specifics of the Southern strike are so weird (e.g. Govia can make more money from not running trains on strike days, because they're just paid to be in charge, while the govt take the fare money when the service is running).
Let's assume that's the case - can you blame them? As Mali notes, naked, blatent, luddite protectionism - and blackmailing commuters/the entire country (with attendant damage to the economy) - are BAD things. It's not a matter of 'ideology' but plain fact, and we should bluntly state it as such, instead of wringing our hands impotently (probably because it makes a few here uncomfortable on ideological grounds, ironically enough).
If the government of the day wants to kick these closed shops and cartels in the bollocks, all for the greater good, then that's all fine and dandy with me. Someone needs to stand up to these arseholes.
Next?
But it is Southern and Govia that are by all accounts the absolute bastards here, who are intentionally running their services terribly because they get money from the government anyway, and are trying to be able to screw over the people who do the actual work. If there is a closed shop at all it is the privatised railway operators who rake in the money regardless of whether or not they provide a good service.
Why is it YAY for Southern/Govia and BOO for the workers?
Because ideologically Cavey is pro-business and anti-worker.
Claiming to be non-ideological is a very ideologically loaded statement, as anyone who has studied political ideologies can attest.
Still angry from earlier that the Tories are brushing off domestic violence towards women as a SJW non-issue.
Still angry from earlier that the Tories are brushing off domestic violence towards women as a SJW non-issue.
Curiosity wrote:
But it is Southern and Govia that are by all accounts the absolute bastards here, who are intentionally running their services terribly because they get money from the government anyway, and are trying to be able to screw over the people who do the actual work. If there is a closed shop at all it is the privatised railway operators who rake in the money regardless of whether or not they provide a good service.
Why is it YAY for Southern/Govia and BOO for the workers?
Why is it YAY for Southern/Govia and BOO for the workers?
But that, as I'm sure you fine well realise Curio, is just very lame whataboutery on your part.
Southern and Govia (or whoever they are) may well be "absolute bastards" but that is entirely besides the point, and most importantly does not detract one whit from what Mali and I have said about the unions in this specific case, ergo they are institutional dinosaurs holding a gun to all our heads, foisting their increasingly incongruous, absurdly outmoded working practices upon us all, at our expense.
It's not "whataboutery" if by acting against one side you are actively supporting the other.
Yer man whose name I forget has been very clear that his purpose is to "break the drivers", and is doing so by supporting the worst rail franchise that is the very pinnacle of When Privatisation Goes Bad. By aligning with the guy who just wants to make working conditions progressively worse for the workers, and who is trying to support the massive twats at Govia, that's a clear decision to reward inefficiency and irresponsible government spending.
I saw someone complaining the other day that "My working conditions have got worse and I get paid less but I've not gone on strike".
Well yes, those are clearly bloody related! The massively growing income inequality across the modern world is not fixed by deciding to smash the working and middle classes for the benefit of the richest of the rich.
Yer man whose name I forget has been very clear that his purpose is to "break the drivers", and is doing so by supporting the worst rail franchise that is the very pinnacle of When Privatisation Goes Bad. By aligning with the guy who just wants to make working conditions progressively worse for the workers, and who is trying to support the massive twats at Govia, that's a clear decision to reward inefficiency and irresponsible government spending.
I saw someone complaining the other day that "My working conditions have got worse and I get paid less but I've not gone on strike".
Well yes, those are clearly bloody related! The massively growing income inequality across the modern world is not fixed by deciding to smash the working and middle classes for the benefit of the richest of the rich.
While racing to the bottom is clearly dumb, no matter how pure their reasons for striking are they've been fucked up by previous strikes which fucked over the public and were apparently all about passenger safety but strangely seemed to involve getting more money.
Public opinion is against them, and that's not going to change until they find a way of protesting without ruining the service for members of the public.
Public opinion is against them, and that's not going to change until they find a way of protesting without ruining the service for members of the public.
So in order to promote 'British values', Sajid Javid suggests something that comes across as quite unBritish.
Whilst I do admire the sense of nationhood in the US, to the outsider it always comes across as slightly creepy. And I'm not sure the proposal would do anything anyway.
Whilst I do admire the sense of nationhood in the US, to the outsider it always comes across as slightly creepy. And I'm not sure the proposal would do anything anyway.
Findus Fop wrote:
In between all the frothy ranting, this is a very good read.
Hearthly wrote:
Findus Fop wrote:
In between all the frothy ranting, this is a very good read.
Sorry, man, but if you're painting yourself as Teh Voice of Reason or somesuch then that's a tad rich, don't bother. Your politics make Corbyn's look like a sober, sane option, and frothy ranting's been your sole stock in trade for 15 years.
And That's coming from cavey!
Reading BBC News this morning, look who's striking over Xmas for maximum possible misery:
It's like a Rogues Gallery of Usual Suspects - same people every year, huh.
Anyone know what's happening with junior doctors these days? Haven't heard from that lot for a while.
Quote:
Southern rail
When? Monday 19 December to Tuesday 20 December
Why? Unions say the dispute is about safety, but Southern and the government say it is political
Post Office
When? Crown Post Office workers on Monday 19 December, Tuesday 20 December, and Saturday 24 December. Delivery drivers to rural Post Offices on Thursday 22 December and Friday 23 December.
Why? Jobs, pensions and branch closures at Crown Post Offices - the larger branches usually located on High Streets
British Airways
When? 25 December to 26 December
Why? Pay for about 4,000 staff who joined after 2010 on "Mixed Fleet" contracts
UK airport staff
When? Friday 23 December to Sunday 25 December
Why? A longstanding pay dispute - the Unite union says wages have not kept up with inflation
When? Monday 19 December to Tuesday 20 December
Why? Unions say the dispute is about safety, but Southern and the government say it is political
Post Office
When? Crown Post Office workers on Monday 19 December, Tuesday 20 December, and Saturday 24 December. Delivery drivers to rural Post Offices on Thursday 22 December and Friday 23 December.
Why? Jobs, pensions and branch closures at Crown Post Offices - the larger branches usually located on High Streets
British Airways
When? 25 December to 26 December
Why? Pay for about 4,000 staff who joined after 2010 on "Mixed Fleet" contracts
UK airport staff
When? Friday 23 December to Sunday 25 December
Why? A longstanding pay dispute - the Unite union says wages have not kept up with inflation
It's like a Rogues Gallery of Usual Suspects - same people every year, huh.
Anyone know what's happening with junior doctors these days? Haven't heard from that lot for a while.
Regarding the Post Office strikes, I can see that really biting them in the bum, as they will lose out on a lot of profits over the last minute rush to buy stamps and send parcels this week.
Therefore when they ask for more money for the salaries and pensions the head honchos will go "sorry, for some reason your branch made 5% less than last year, well have to close your branch and make you all redundant instead."
Therefore when they ask for more money for the salaries and pensions the head honchos will go "sorry, for some reason your branch made 5% less than last year, well have to close your branch and make you all redundant instead."
Mr Russell wrote:
Regarding the Post Office strikes, I can see that really biting them in the bum, as they will lose out on a lot of profits over the last minute rush to buy stamps and send parcels this week.
Therefore when they ask for more money for the salaries and pensions the head honchos will go "sorry, for some reason your branch made 5% less than last year, well have to close your branch and make you all redundant instead."
Therefore when they ask for more money for the salaries and pensions the head honchos will go "sorry, for some reason your branch made 5% less than last year, well have to close your branch and make you all redundant instead."
I totally agree with you Russ.
However - I honestly don't think the connection between damaging their business (let alone mere revenues and profits, or their prospects as employees) even crosses the minds of most of these people. After all, they've been in public ownership for most of their existence, so "profit" didn't even enter into the equation... Post Office losses have been partially plugged from hundreds of millions each year to "only" tens of millions, but hey, we'll cut our nose to spite our face etc.
If it was up to unions, letters would still be delivered by horse and bloody cart - probably for "Health and Safety reasons to protect our customers"
Cavey wrote:
Mr Russell wrote:
Regarding the Post Office strikes, I can see that really biting them in the bum, as they will lose out on a lot of profits over the last minute rush to buy stamps and send parcels this week.
Therefore when they ask for more money for the salaries and pensions the head honchos will go "sorry, for some reason your branch made 5% less than last year, well have to close your branch and make you all redundant instead."
Therefore when they ask for more money for the salaries and pensions the head honchos will go "sorry, for some reason your branch made 5% less than last year, well have to close your branch and make you all redundant instead."
I totally agree with you Russ.
However - I honestly don't think the connection between damaging their business (let alone mere revenues and profits, or their prospects as employees) doesn't even cross the minds of most of these people. They've been in public ownership for most of their existence, so "profit" didn't even enter into the equation... Post Office losses have been partially plugged from hundreds of millions each year to "only" tens of millions, but hey, we'll cut our nose to spite our face etc.
If it was up to unions, letters would still be delivered by horse and bloody cart.
I would have thought it would be quite recent in their memory that hundreds of branches in the last decade got closed or sold off to franchise because they were not profitable, but I guess everyone hurts in their own way.
Put it this way, I will not be in any way surprised (disappointed still, but not surprised) if the Post Office announces another small round of branch closures in 2017.
If the unions didn't exist they would likely just close the whole operation and it'd be taken over by everyone's favourite Yodel service.
Yes, you would've thought so, wouldn't you?
But, therein lies the problem - in a nutshell. We ain't exactly dealing with sensible, rational types here, so appealing to common sense and reason generally gives poor results (and is perceived as "weakness")
But, therein lies the problem - in a nutshell.
We ain't exactly dealing with sensible, rational types here, so appealing to common sense and reason generally gives poor results (and is perceived as "weakness") Curiosity wrote:
If the unions didn't exist they would likely just close the whole operation and it'd be taken over by everyone's favourite Yodel service.
Well, yes. I strongly support a public postal system with a universal service obligation, and I couldn't see that lasting long once the Tories finally get to fully privatise the Royal Mail.
Don't confuse the Post Office and Royal Mail.
It's the Post Office that's striking, Royal Mail deliveries are continuing as normal.
It's the Post Office that's striking, Royal Mail deliveries are continuing as normal.
I know... Was talking more generally about keeping the public postal system intact at both ends, so to speak.
Hero of Excellence wrote:
I know... Was talking more generally about keeping the public postal system intact at both ends, so to speak.
Ah yes, I see.
I was saying last night that it'll end up with no delivery service to your house, and instead you'll go to a local 'sorting hut' to collect your mail. Not many years away no doubt.
As I understand it, the actual act of sticking it through your front door is by far the most expensive bit of the whole process - and the hardest to scale / automate / outsource. It's why so many places do Collect From Store and Amazon Lockers and so on.
Page 155 of 289 [ 14415 posts ]