DaveR

The staff obviously have a right to push for the best deal they can get, and what they're asking for is not outrageous. On the other hand the current package does not seem terrible and is clearly better than some (perhaps most) similar employers. So it's a pretty normal pay dispute - I'm not going to boycott PH but I'm not going to have a go at the staff either, and tbh I can't really understand how this has generated so much heat. One thing that is rubbish is refusing to deal with a union and having an employer run 'forum' instead. This seems to be an increasingly popular way to bypass union recognition laws. I'm no fan of many trade unions but the answer is not to try and engineer them out of the way.

"One way of reading the attraction of Labour is the profoundly ethical and human non- or even anti-leadership stance of Corbyn. As a socialist he does not believe in the individual leader, but in the community. So he rejects the deployment of charisma and rhetorical plays for imaginary personal identification (strong leader, stable, against chaos, believe me). The media, who thrive on reflecting such imaginaries, can only know contempt for him. Yet, in some sense, he is speaking directly to all of us precisely because he self-negates." That is indeed one way of reading it. But it is one that has no connection whatsoever with reality.

"I read your question - you failed to understand the answer. To make it more simple for your confused mind - A worker is someone who receives earned income to do a job. You can also do a job but not receive earned income such as a landlord might do or a speculator who plays with inherited or previously earned income to make an unearned profit. The Royal Family have jobs but are not 'workers' in the economic sense but they do a lot of good work." I understood your original answer perfectly, and you've now given a different one, that is equally unpersuasive. As noted above, Corbyn uses the word 'worker' in an essentially Marxist context - not surprising in his case, but important for understanding the program that the manifesto is intended to describe, but actually seeks to obfuscate. As an aside, many people earning over ?80k are 'workers' by the Lordship definition, but for Corbyn they are 'the rich'. They are also disproportionately likely to live and work in London or the Southeast so in purchasing power terms far from rich. However, they are more likely to be professional/managerial and not union members so can safely be excluded from the heroic status of 'worker'

"I would say it's a prime example of pretty white priviledge and that the judge probably fancied her" I would say that this says more about you and your prejudices than shedding any light on the case, but there you go.

It's absolutely par for the course to say in mitigation for a young defendant "he/she has a really bright future, this was a one off, please pass a sentence that isn't going to f*ck up their life for ever". Obviously you need no/few previous convictions to stand a chance of getting this off the ground, and to have a realistic prospect you need to have some good evidence, but it's certainly not unknown, and in fact some judges are known to be more open to this sort of argument than others. It's also not limited to academic middle class type stuff - in my experience you can also get a result with 'promising young footballer, on the books of a good pro club' or (in front of the right kind of judge) 'serving soldier, has/will risk his life for his country'. Also absolutely standard to say, where drugs are a factor in the offending, "he/she is now clean so no/little risk of further offending", and similar caveats - judges will have heard that one before a hundred times, at least. So nothing unusual in this case about those elements, but the particular offence and offender make it 'interesting'.

"NB - can someone explain to me the difference > between a 'worker' and someone who has a job? A 'worker' is a supplier of labour services & an 'employer is the 'demander' 'Labour' is the measure of the work done & 'human capital' is the skill that a worker possesses. Another measure is that a worker receives a reward for 'earned income' [wages, salaries, tips, other taxable employee pay and self-employment income] as opposed to 'unearned income' [property income, inheritance, rent, interest & profit]. The unemployed who make themselves available for work are regarded as workers except for those who are classified as unemployable. There is another category is the discouraged worker who has essentially given up on seeking work due to finding it nigh impossible to find work. Self employed are 'workers' & some economies tend to treat their transition to 'employer' differently. It gets complicated according to hours worked & hours available for work etc - economists treat the subject differently to tax people." Any chance of getting an answer from someone who actually read the question? To be clear - I have a job, but in the world according to Corbyn I'm clearly not a 'worker' (to whom only good things must happen and who must be protected at all costs - by unions). So where/how do you draw the line? Is it a money thing, is it public sector vs private sector, is it a North vs South thing (though you don't get much more South than JC)? NB - by the definition according to Mr "I didn't read the question" above I am very clearly a worker, but that just demonstrates that (as expected) he or she is adding nothing useful here.

National Transformation Fund. National Infrastructure Commission. National Education Service. National Investment Bank. National Care Service. Department of Housing. Ministry of Labour. Cultural Capital Fund. Violence Against Women Commissioner. And so on, ad infinitum. Vote for the government, we can and will do anything and everything to make all your lives much better than they could ever be without us. We are Big Brother, and we are watching you, but in a nice way (if you are one of 'the many' and especially if you are a 'worker'). NB - can someone explain to me the difference between a 'worker' and someone who has a job?

"...this site is set up by local residents & free for all to use." Not entirely true, perhaps

The problem with The Corbyn analysis above is that it ignores where we are now and the direction of travel. In relation to utilities, for example, the current position in the UK is that we have privately owned (as opposed to state-owned) providers operating in regulated but competitive markets. Much of the EU now also looks more or less like this, although as expected there are significant variations, but the direction of travel for the last 20 years has been away from state-owned monopoly utilities. Against that background, Labour's manifesto proposals (including compulsory acquisition by the State of shareholder owned plcs) are shockingly radical. In any event, "mainstream of northern European social democratic thinking" means the Socialists in France (just been wiped out) and the SPD in Germany (looking likely to get wiped out by Merkel and the CDU) so perhaps nothing to be happy about.

"I merely sought to explain how government spending actually works in reality." Is that right? Or do you mean 'in theory'? "The effect of this multiplier can be as much as 2.5 times to 5 times the injected amount after an initial lag period of between 6 months & one year for current spend or 1 year to three years for capital spend." I'd like to see some evidence for that - I am aware of recent arguments that in developed economies the evidence for multipliers greater than 1 is pretty thin. The real point about the Corbyn manifesto is not, in any event, about what is the appropriate fiscal multiplier. Trying to implement even a fraction of that manifesto will hit business confidence both in the UK and externally so hard that the negative effects will massively outweigh any benefits. People have talked about 'back to the 70s' but a fair summary of the overall policy platform is 'we think the UK should be more like Cuba'. And we all know how well things are going there. At least it's almost honest (I say almost because the expansion of the State promised is undoubtedly just the beginning in Corbyn's world). Corbyn is offering a socialist government, and despite the constant refrain here about the deluded masses, the electorate can make a choice. I expect them to reject Corbyn's offer decisively, and for this to be blamed on the Murdoch press. Plus ca change...

And on a lighter note, was I the only one who found this line inexplicably hilarious: "....we have worked very closely with Boudicca at Snarll"

I can recommend an agency called musico south; they found a very good violin teacher when my daughter started (also six) and another equally as good when the first got a job with a pro orchestra.

In my experience, never having voted for Blair makes you more likely to take a measured view of the man and his actions. I never voted for him, and always thought his 'Third Way' business was a load of guff, but I never hated him or thought he was evil, and I don't now. The hatred of Blair seems to me to be a combination of the sense of betrayal from all across the Left, particularly for cosying up to G W Bush, plus the general polarisation in contemporary politics (for which see this thread generally)

Not necessarily a scam, bur classic 'claims farming'. The time limit for tort claims (negligence) is three years. Although referral fees are supposed to have been banned, there is still an active trade in details of people who have had accidents. Claims companies buy them and then contact people to see whether there is any potential loss that hasn't already been compensated - provided you're within the three years you can make a claim. Many insurers will pay out a minor claim without challenge where their driver was clearly at fault. The strong suspicion has to be that the vast majority of claims that result from this sort of process are at least a bit fishy, and some (perhaps many) will be outright dishonest.

On the other thread, Corbyn's going to win

"The no sick pay and stuff like that is disgusting." My understanding is that the disputearound sick pay is about company sick pay i.e. what is paid over and above the statutory. At the moment you only get it once you've worked for a year - the staff are asking for it (I guess) from the beginning of employment. It's not that unusual for employers to defer entitlement to full benefits until someone has been there for a while - end of probationary period is common, but longer periods not so rare. Most employers want to get an opportunity to find out whether you're going to be a liability or not and it's easier to get shot of someone during the first year than later. It's unfortunate but true that a minority of people do take the piss and i can understand why any employer might want to delay paying additional sick pay, for example, until someone has a decent record of showing up.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/media/its-just-a-bit-of-fun-says-soulless-hate-filled-editor-of-daily-mail-20170328124953

"The lack of (formal) education on this issue within England, the inability to be objective as a result of decades of media propaganda, and the inability of many people in England to hold their hands up and accept their country's role in instigating and prolonging this problem is shocking and abhorrent. And as regards no one on this thread agreeing with me? Well we are in England. You will find if you ask about this around the world, you will find it's you in the minority." Provocative bullshit of the highest order. Your spiel might go down well in a Boston bar but to suggest that's because you've found a more knowledgeable audience is laughable.

Agree with the first two paragraphs Joe but the facts suggest it was less of a tipping point than now perceived (and it suits the Republican narrative to keep it that way). The IRA was carrying out armed attacks pretty much daily in the second half of 1971 and that carried on after Bloody Sunday essentially unchanged.

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The truth of the matter is that after Bloody > Sunday there could be no way back. Not for a very > long time. > Its the most extreme act by any advanced western > government on it's own people in the last 50 > years. > > > Lest we forget: 14 men and boys > https://youtu.be/vkOpgr1ElXg Yet more historical selectivity. How many British soldiers had been killed in IRA attacks in the months leading up to Bloody Sunday? Shot by snipers, killed by bombs, kidnapped and executed? Bloody Sunday was a terrible tragedy for which the British Army was wholly responsible but it wasn't the trigger for IRA violence- that was already in full swing.

"A man who spoke out against the abuses of a minority, who took up arms when talking failed, who killed horribly for a purpose he believed to be justified by abhorrent abuses by the state, who risked his life for a fair society" I don't buy for one second that this was intended to 'start a debate', particularly when accompanied by "...and how a UK government abused it's own people arguably to the point of genocide." The opening post represents (at best) the most one-eyed and partisan possible account of the man and his many terrible crimes, with which on the basis of the thread that follows almost every other poster (unsurprisingly) disagrees with, to a greater or lesser extent. My own view is that McGuinness was an unrepentant murderer who saw a chance for political power at the same time as his 'army' was in serious trouble. It may be that what started as opportunism then became something more tangible but he was one of the worst that emerged from a generally terrible period of British history.

"Of course I may be wrong about all this." Yes, you are. A trust is just a legal structure to separate out different rights and responsibilities in relation to property. There are some formalities needed to ensure it is valid and effective in law, and some decisions to be made about what you want to achieve and how best to go about it, but unsurprisingly the more complicated the property and the objectives the greater costs are likely to be. It needn't be very expensive to get initial advice and simple trusts are simple to set up.

"I watch in disbelief as people buy the Sunday Times. What are the values or insights expressed in this newspaper that might be productive to engage with? I fear, as a general rule, none." This is much more old-fashioned and straightforward than virtue-signalling. It's called being a cock.

Centre 70 is a charitable organisation based in West Norwood that provides advice and counselling to local people on debt, housing, welfare and other issues: http://centre70.org.uk/content/looking-help As part of that they have legal clinic on Monday evenings which is staffed by volunteer lawyers, but unfortunately we are currently down on numbers and it is becoming more difficult to help all the clients. It's not particularly important to have legal practice experience in the relevant areas. Please PM me if you may be interested and I will put you in touch with relevant people (I'm just a volunteer) and also happy to chat about what is involved in practice.

I find it quite interesting that plenty of people feel qualified to make a whole bunch of judgments about the Picturehouse (or more accurately Cineworld), from the health of its P&L to the overall quality of its employment terms, without any obvious measurement scale, experience, or comparison exercise, for example. It seems to me that if you are going to have a view it's either a simple personal, essentially impressionistic one - does ?9 odd per hour feel like exploitation wages for this job? - or it's a proper analytical one, which takes a bit of work. Otherwise you just have a shouting match (which may be what everyone wants but is a bit tedious). Mick makes the point about capital investment - worth carrying out a bit of a thought experiment. If PH want to open another cinema, it will have to be financed one way or another from profits. All other things being equal, increased payroll costs = lower profits = reduced likelihood of opening another cinema. So if PH pay their existing staff more it is at the expense of nominal future staff who would have got jobs in the new cinema. those nominal future staff may be happy with ?9 odd per hour, but now they never get the chance. I accept that this is a simplified scenario but it's a lot closer to how business actually operates than most of the stuff o this thread.