DaveR

"bejam"

Coffee (espresso) before leaving the house. Coffee (crap instant) at work except more espresso after lunch. Tea (mint) before bed. Tea (normal) whenever eating bacon sandwiches or biscuits.

"the cost of rent in Ireland..." ?? Co Durham is in the NE of England. North of Yorkshire, south of Newcastle. You should get out more - seriously.

"market forces. lol" Not much demand for your words of wisdom - a reflection of their value?

By way of comparison, for lawyers in private(ly funded) practice salaries in London are anywhere between 50% more and three times more than salaries in cheaper regions. Legal aid rates are set nationally though, so lawyers (or at least partners) in firms doing publicly funded work have vastly different standards of living between London and the regions. And to be clear, I am not suggesting that overall NHS costs would necessarily fall if there was a proper market for jobs, but you'd definitely end up with a more efficient system and I suspect a happier workforce.

"The starting salary (in England) for a Nurse is ?21,692. For a Doctor ?22,636 (rising to ?28,076 in year 2). I can't think of anywhere in England where either of those starting salaries could be described as overpaid" You ought to get out more. The starting salary for a nurse quoted above equates to ?1500/month net. Current average rent for a 1 bed flat in SE22 is ?1300/month (or ?1250 if you take the median). Current average rent for a 1 bed flat in Crook, in Co Durham is ?320/month. In what universe is it fair, or a sensible use of taxpayers money, to pay the same salary for a job in those two places. It may turn out that in fact nurses in Co Durham are not overpaid at all, but the only way to find out is to have an effective market. What we'll definitely find out is that the market rate in London is higher, and hopefully as a consequence the NHS in London won't rely on hiring from overseas and agency staff. "If you want to talk about market rates, you'll find that actually, most NHS staff should be paid more according to their experience and skills, compared to those working comparably in the private sector." This just doesn't make any sense at all. NHS staff can take better paid jobs in private hospitals if they want to - it's the one area where there is some kind of market. And some do, and some go overseas for better paid jobs. It entirely misses the point, which is that national pay scales are inherently unfair and inefficient. "This is one of the biggest arguments against wholesale privatisation of the NHS. It would increase the cost of healthcare by five times." It would be good to see some evidence for this claim. "That's how the market really works. So you might want to re-think your position on that DaveR?" On the evidence to date, you have no idea how markets work. And you're a patronising tw@t.

"All that would do is create a doctor shortage elsewhere in the country as everyone flocks back to the South East. No one wants to be a GP or A&E doc in Middlesborough. I should think a bit-better-than-necessary salary makes an essential service worthwhile" You pay the market rate - that's how markets work. Plenty of people want to be GPs in Middlesborough if they earn enough to live somewhere nicer. Are you Jeremy Corbyn in disguise?

Get rid of national wage scales and let employers negotiate pay locally. Most NHS staff in London are underpaid, many in the regions are overpaid, by reference to local cost of living.

"Deciding on a conclusion and then looking for the evidence to back up your conclusion isn't good practice you know just saying" If you have an actual opinion on anything, feel free to share it. Whether you have any evidence or not.

"Why people feel the need to resort to violence is > beyond me, especially when it's aimed at a private > individual who's just trying to create a business > for themselves. I fear these people are using > gentrification as a justification for mindless > violence, however, it still doesn't detract from > the wider argument that gentrification is causing > a culture of 'them and us' to develop around the > inner London boroughs. Abject poverty siting cheek > by jowl with wealth, in traditionally working > class neighbourhoods." This is the thought a lot of people have, but its a bit more complicated than that. Apart from anything else, most of the 'protesters' are not local in the sense of the word that most people understand - the two I have seen quoted are an artist who moved to Shoreditch 15 years ago (when it was cheap) and an American professor. There was a thread on here a while back about 'regeneration' in Brixton, and the opposition to that. Local newspapers quoted local families saying they were in favour of regeneration - it was bringing better jobs and generally more money to the area - and the protesters were largely incomers, albeit those who had moved to Brixton 15 years ago (when it was cheap). And I remember the same divide when Spitalfields market was being redeveloped, and I was living nearby. There was almost complete disagreement between the artists/traders etc who had moved into the area (when it was cheap) and the local, largely Bangladeshi families who were quite keen on seeing the City and associated employment) spreading east. And let's not forget that the communities that are now considered local in Brixton (Afro-Caribbean) and the East End (Bangladeshi) were not themselves made exactly welcome back in the early days. The fact is that London changes all the time, and the pattern of gentrification has often been the same. Cheap inner london areas are 'discovered' first by young cool types, and once the area has a buzz about it more (and more mainstream) businesses come in, property prices rise, and so on. The people who shout the loudest are usually the initial pioneers who are priced out - real long term residents are often happy to sell up, take the cash and move to the suburbs, or stay on in the knowledge that even if their kids are priced out, gentrification always brings more money into the area and that's likely to be a good thing overall. It's certainly the case that a house owned by a high earning family who employ a childminder and a cleaner, use local tradesmen to do up their house and a local garage to service their car, will contribute more to the local economy than a houseful of artists who bought the place for peanuts when no one wanted to live there. None of this is intended to suggest that gentrification doesn't cause problems, but when you say this: "Abject poverty siting cheek > by jowl with wealth, in traditionally working > class neighbourhoods. " it's as well to remember that before the wealth arrived there was poverty sitting cheek by jowl with more poverty - not something that many people want to preserve. The focus should be on spreading the wealth, not chasing it away.

Chrome browser keeps crashing. I've done virus/malware scan, checked extensions, and tried to uninstall, but keep getting the message 'close all windows and try again', though no chrome windows open (visible). Any advice?

It's a false distinction. Good heads and teachers will make sure kids progress and hit targets for basic skills (and basic maths is really important for everything that follows) without sacrificing creativity.

"And I also miss homemade..." who used to buy their croissants and baguettes from Boulangerie Jade!

To be clear, I'm very familiar with TI and their work. I did ask you to take us to the findings of the report that you rely on, but you haven't as yet. Unions represent a mass of people who share a common interest that may or may not coincide with my interest, or the wider public interest. That's the point you consistently fail to address. And it seems to me that you find this provocative precisely because you have a simplistic view of the world that doesn't really equip you to deal with challenge. NB - if the 'average' income is the median then half of people will earn less and half more - by definition. If it is a mean, then given the typical income distribution there will always be more than half earning less than that sum. In every country, and at all times.

Blahhhhhh, I don't read your report because I know it doesn't say what you claim it does i.e. that corruption is widespread in UK parliamentary politics. I don't have a problem with trade unions, but I challenge your tedious and repetitive attempts to draw a false distinction between they way they lobby and fund their political allies and the similar conduct of other. The crux of the matter as I see it is your utter blindness as to any world view but your own, one where 'workers' or 'ordinary people' are victimised by big business and corrupt (Tory) MPs. If that weren't bad enough, you're also laughably patronising without, on the face of it, any grounds to claim any particular expertise or insight. PS - when you say "More than half of people in work do not earn the average wage." it would be helpful to specify whether you are refering to 'mean' or 'median' - otherwise you come across as being mathematically inept as well.

"Was this calculated by comparing average salaries for equivalent roles and qualifications?" They're statisticians - I seriously doubt it was as simple as that. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/public-and-private-sector-earnings/march-2014/rpt---march-2014.html#tab-introduction

Agreed. Driverless trains asap.

I'm trying to understand how a croissant can be patronising, or indeed pointless. What next - an aggressive pork pie? A bashful kebab? Or perhaps a hopelessly misguided strawberry yoghurt? Alternatively, someone is drunk and/or talking out of their....... OK, mystery over.

"So I'd say it's a pretty sweeping statement to say public pays higher than private, when a lot of public sector workers don't have the option to work in the private sector." It's not me - it's the Office of National Statistics. In London the premium of public over private is greater than anywhere else - something like 20% amongst lower paid employees. Again, to be clear, I'm not suggesting that people in the public sector shouldn't be paid decent money, and there's plenty of evidence that lots of workers in health and social care are underpaid in London, which is why there are so many unfilled posts. My problem is with people setting up trade unions as being for 'ordinary people', as a contrast with greedy corporations who don't pay tax, and probably steal people's babies.

"Any evidence for this or just your opinion that every trade union member is over paid?" Trade union members are disproportionately employed in the public sector (and becoming more so all the time), and public sector pay is higher than private sector pay (though the gap has narrowed significantly since 2010). Don't get me wrong - I have no problem with unions pushing their members' interests - but they are no different in principle from any other lobbying organisation.

Take us to the parts where they make findings of corruption. The proposed legislation re union funding for political parties won't stop anybody from donating to any party they want to. And you might also want to explain the difference between a trade union that lobbies for higher wages and shorter hours for its (already overpaid) members, and a business that lobbies for changes that will make it easier for it to do business? They're both self-interested. Unless you call one of them 'workers' or "ordinary people" (in which case you end up sounding as credible as Ed Milliband - and we all know what happened to him)

"Well ,well, is it ok to talk about immigrants now,stupid merkel created this mess,and the defunct e.u .and scottish sturgeon should go back to being a crankie,if she gets what she wishes scotland will be no more but a cultural dustbin Just like london. Soon the gay violin will be playing on this thread, their my fan club really, just like venting their spleen on little old me sad an it." I'd bet serious money that an average Syrian migrant admitted to the UK would be able to come up with something better than the above, in terms of both style and content, within, say, three months of arrival.

Corporate lobbying/donations = corruption Union lobbying/donations = "ordinary working people" Blahblahblah = about as reliable a guide as his/her name would suggest. And with added condescension: "There's plenty of evidence Azira..." "Familiarise yourself with parliamentary procedure Azira..."

This a serious matter, esp as both businesses are v local to me. I like both Barrys and B Jade croissants, but they are different creatures. No criticism of Barrys, but theirs are mass produced items, though of decent quality, and nicely flaky, but the winning point is that in the mornings they are indeed generally still warm from the oven. B Jade croissants are an altogether more substantial and, dare I say, it artisan affair; high quality ingredients and contrasting crispy/chewy textures. An honourable mention to the Blackbird Bakery - more B Jade-like but overall somewhat softer and lighter. Is that poncey enough for everyone?

"however the point is that a business should be informed of the problem or issue directly and allowed to try and resolve it first rather then finding out there was a problem for the first time when they see a negative online review." Obviously a business would prefer it like this, and understandably so, but that's not sufficient reason to criticise people who choose to post honest but negative reviews. The business has the ability to respond directly or indirectly, or to proceed on the basis that they think the criticism is unjustified, or to rely on positive reviews and/or existign customer loyalty etc. "Sadly I think that Tim Berners-Lee has a lot to answer for in terms of people not talking in person anymore and we have lost the art of complaining directly when there is a problem" The problem before was that people didn't complain at all - in Britain, at least. And hence we got the kind of crap service we deserved. Talk of 'bullying' and 'shaming' is inappropriate IMHO. I think there's very little evidence of systematic abuse of the forum, and lots of evidence of a very useful body of information.