Otta

Agree with David there. Both Quids and Loz, have said something like "well that's what happened in my company". I ughl efforts should be made to improve that, rather than dragging everyone else in to the same shitty hole. Please dont get me wrong, I dot support ever strike by a long shot, but when people have goalposts moved on them, they have every right to shout about it. Whether or not you think they should've been given their T&Cs in the first place, is really a separate issue altogether.

I'll see what I can do, although I've not actually seen them for a while.

Watch it here

Another nice thing is to just blend them with cold milk. Nicer than any milkshake, and healthy too.

It is a shame to see 2 forumites clash like this... I suspect others have looked at my posts and thought the same. David, I am with you on this subject (Go team Otta_Carnell) but it's your tone man, it leaves jaws well and truly dropped at times. And Quids, sometimes you come across as a caricature of yourself. Anyway, I'm right on this ojne, just agree with me, and we'll all go for a pint.

Loz Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It happens in the private sector. In our company > people were weaned off the final salary scheme and > onto the money purchase scheme. This is the point really. The fact it happened to you is rubbish. That doesn't mean however that everyone else should roll over and let it happen to them. If people have a voice, and an opportunity to stand up for something, then why shouldn't they? As Quids says, "we can't afford it". This may be true, and continuing to give out these pensions may not be sustainable (I don't know enough about the figures to be honest, but I'm interested in David's point that the pension funds actually make money). As I said before though, I can understand rewriting T&Cs for new recruits, who will go in to something knowing the score. I can't however agree that a persons T&Cs should just be changed, to me that is totally wrong, whether they work in Private or Public Sector.

Allowing myself to get wound right up by people.

I have a friend who has home schooled his daughter, and a chat with him dispelled all the reservations I would've had, such as "won't they miss out on the social side?". Apparently she has loads of friends through the sorts of tutoring groups you're interested in. Best of luck, and keep us informed, as it's something that we're already considering for the future.

Dark chocolate sauce, it's the way of the future!

I think they should change the T&Cs for new employees, but leave existing T&Cs alone. And for the record, that would not benefit me directly.

I haven't paid in to a ps pension in over 2 years. As and when I go back to a permanent contract with a LA, I will expect my pension not to be as good as it would've been in the past. However, if I'd never left my job, and someone announced they were changing my pension conditions, I'd be pissed off. Whether or not the pensions are "fair" is not really the point. The fact is, you go for a job based on the salary, pension package, leave entitlemen, and so on. If you apply in good faith, based on a set of terms & conditions, why shouldn't you complain if suddenly it's all going to change?

I regret becoming addicted. Also, I regret the loss of some of the stronger ones who left, and didn't come back.

Problem is, you'd end up tapping your foot, or even getting lost in the music, and standing up todance. You could of course claim it's a miracle, but people might not buy it.

Ha ha, fair point. Seriously though, I know the BBC, like anyone else, has it's own agenda, but I personally prefer to get my news that way. To be honest, most of my news comes from the radio (still BBC though), rather than reading it.

Absolutely. I'd just rather avoid the noise all together.

[quote name=Really? You don't care if I criticise your personal choices/purchases? Hmmm....I somehow doubt that.] Okay, you clearly know me better than I know myself. But am I really that shallow? Fine, we'll draw a line under this then. Never have bought the Sunday People as it goes. We are in fact a guardian household, as my wife reads it (and believe it or not, I don't hate her... most of the time). I just don't agree with you about the spin. But that's fine, we can disagree.

Now, you keep putting words in to my mouth. I never said all newspapers were equally as bad, but all papers come from a standpoint which comes over in the print IMO. And come on, I wouldn't give even the slightest toss if you slated my chosen guitar, or what I chose to read. To each their own I say. If you said "all people who play such and such guitars are wankers" I'd take that personally, but I've never said anything like that. It's a product David, surely you can separate yourself from a brand.

I've got no interest in trying to prove you wrong. I just voiced an opinion, that I think one paper is as bad as another, and that I don't really like papers anyway. You've chosen to read it as an attack on all readers, thats down to you. I note w8 never jumped on Quids when he made that comment. Lucky I'm not paranoid.

Regarding non biased online reporting, I never said that such a thing existed. I just feel that reading the bbc website gives me more straight forward news, and less opinion. Obviously nothing is completely non biased, because it's all reported by a human. I only really posted on this thread to offer an opinion, I never said anything about people's reading choices, or what sort of person that makes them. There really is no need to try and pick everything apart, just accept that it's a different opinion to your own. There is no right or wrong here.

That was a quids quote, not my words. I said I tended to agree with it, but I read it as talking about the paper, not it's readers. I cant tell you for sure what quids meant when he typed it. Thanks for the benefit of the doubt though, it's very gracious of you.

I certainly never said I disliked any readers of anything, just that I prefered something different. I agree that the facts are accurate, but in my opinion, tore facts are usually coloured with a certain stance, depending on which paper.

I never said there was no agenda, but I prefer to just watch, listen to, or read (on the internet) the news. I just want straight reporting, not one sided debate, which is what I feel like I get when I read a paper.

I'd be interested to know if those parents with "concerns" actually support the teachers, even if it does mean inconvenience for themselves.

I don't really like it either, and tend to agree with I don't really like reading newspapers, because they are just so judgemental, whatever standpoint they're coming from. I like to just get the facts about something, and make my own mind up, without being force fed any opinions.

Coming to this rather late. ???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > and (Jeremy's rule broken note) in the old days I > expect they were tossers too but there were some > genuine intellects, visionaries and even some > great men and women. Now they are just a bunch of > vapid, idiot, soundbite driven, professional > politician, shisters...Obama being another prime > example of the c raters who rule us nowadays. I basically agree (although I think there are a few good people left). The reason for this though, is the fault of the public. Tony Blair won a load of votes by having Oasis round for tea, and then polotics became about being "young(ish)", and being down with the kids. There are so many taboos, that politicians are scared stiff of talking about lotrs of subjects. This is a great example. KC had to come out and apologise for basically making a fair, and good point, because people can't wait to jump on the slightest thing that can be twisted. PK saying he didn't think all rape was serious is just astonishing to me. Why in the name of God wouold you take that from what he said, rather than just listening to the point that he was OBVIOUSLY making?