SeanMacGabhann

I'm with Marmora Man and PeckhamRose on this one too Going to see a play just because it has a name in it is symptomatic of something I'm sure Either they enjoyed the play anyway and just want a way to claw back cash (which counts against them) or they genuinely don't like plays that don't have a name they like on that evening (which also counts against them) It's not like paying for a ticket to see Madonna in concert and getting La Roux instead (although that would make me happier in this instance) - the components of a play are many, and the names of the actors come way down that list

The Mash scores again

You don't usually say more. Why start now. Y'know... As long as we are being judgmental and stuff

Pires to Henry. Asenal 1 up Oops sorry. Wilshire to walcott. It was that similar

but that said I take your point about needing to introduce changes which may be unpopular with staff. I'm not against that as a principle I can only refer you to the track record of this union and the changes they have accepted over the last decade. It's not a bad track record. It's not one which suggest militants. So when I say "more to this than meets the eye" I mean no skullduggery, merely given the track record, that you and I may not be aware of all the facts

sales is not the same as fighting fires jesus

Interesting that H's examples were all objects, and then he compared that to the Ffs situation Using legalB as an example is also instructive - a manager who knows she has to treat staff both with discipline AND keeping them on board has led to one of the Lane's success stories. But that experience when applied to the FFs counts for naught DJ - that was the most self-congratulatory post I've read on this forum, much less this thread. As a taxpayer I want efficiency and value for money too but as I've asked you many times just what kind of value you expect to get from this isn't clear. Push these proposals through all you like - I doubt the proposed efficiencies will materialise with a pissed off workforce - THAT is a management failing

oh FFS (see what I did there?) however it's normally used in your world, I'm using that phrase to make the same point I have made already, and others have also made - ie you and I don't know all the facts so what meets the eye is the propoganda put out by both sides And you are offended I have accused you of making stuff up? Well you are making up stuff about what I've said because i don't recall accusing you of making stuff up. I have said many times the fact you repeat facts which seem reasonable (from the FFB) don't amount to the whole story Unlike many of the ffs I don't believe management are out to try and deceive them (but I wouldn't rule it out completely to be fair). But I am saying this management team (not management as a function in an organisation) have fumbled badly and are on a face saving excercise at this point. But I'm reluctant to bother anymore as you appear to be taking offence willy-nilly, as well as putting words into my mouth and reading implications that were not there (see more to it than meets the eye) Yours in jaysus

now you are joking surely? Me pointing out this managements deficiencies doesn't make me anti-management. I have repeated this exact point many times. I have backed it up with my experiences in management. I just disagree with THIS lot. Not hard to get is it? But you don't have to extrapolate to a false conclusion from there I don't even know if you are deliberately winding people up anymore You have ignored anything I have said that doesn't suit your argument And why do I think I have an upper-hand? Or I'm twisting a knife? How so? You are just getting personal and flouncy now - so used to you getting your own way in an argument. And what long memories are you talking about?

I blame Murdoch - putting a paywall around his newspapers sites has meant a lot of people looking for a new home

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:YTOR7wQnke9kFM:http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s293/lcrayton/smiley_guy_sticking_out_tongue_lg_c.gif

I tried saying that a few times - didn't get me anywhere

No problem lady nor wood. But perhaps the original thread was the place for an apology, rather than start another thread to apologise for starting an unnecessary thread ? Not that an apology is needed i would suggest

You have provided lots of good debate. And then you make up thinks like "imagined capitalist plot"

Again with the over emetic, words in mouth smears. Give it up

Just over a week to go, so a reminder to everyone interested If it's half as good as the last Phoenix drinks it'll be a corker

Except my tongue was in my cheek h. Can you see such a case happening? I can't. Absence of provable facts being one of the main reasons

I'll agree with that last post dj. We don't disagree on everythIng

I'll agree with that last post dj. We don't disagree on everyth

You cherry picked the quote again. You specifically left out the bit about hundreds of people dying "The thousands of fires that didn't happen this year, the hundreds of people that are consequently alive this year should have burnt and died because the general public didn't specifically ask the firefighters to do a better job ten years ago?" I'm not suggesting that more fire prevention won't reduce fires at all. I don't think the ffs are saying that either and their rejection of THESE proposals is no contradiction of that What I asked you was, given that it saved 100s of lives in the last decade, is the refusal of the ffs this time, tantamount to them condemning hundreds more to death. That seems to be what you are saying - which makes it either a smear to surpass smears, OR you or the FFB have a solid case for prosection, much less dismissal of the ffs

They are facts up to a point - given those facts I'm surprised we have any fires put out at all. How DO they manage it eh? And those facts aren't the sum total of facts and lack context. I'm not dismissing them (and I've agreed with many of them) but they aren't, in and of themselves, enough for me Firefighters have more than smear and innuendo. they have years of experience on the job that you and I don't have for a start I'm more equivocal than my recent posts have suggested on the whole rights and wrongs of the dispute. But the manner in which people have laid into firefighters has been rather alarming to me. I don't subscribe to them being angels and I don't subscribe to management bashing for the sake of it But presumably previous changes to work patterns and job losses had similar reasoning to the current dispute? And in those instances the union accomodated them. this time they aren't. So I don't think JUST THOSE facts alone are enough for us to decide one way or another.

Sorry to quote you again, but I want to understand correctly. Are you (question) suggesting that if these changes don't go through hundreds of people will die because of outmoded practices?

Again with the words in my mouth. At this rate I'll be as angry as you I am not management bashing. I am criticising this lot for their stance in this dispute You present that list of proposals as if they are all facts and will happen. They are targets. When you type above "I struggle to accept.. Why not step back and think maybe there is more to this than meets the eye. Why discount the unions behaviour in previous changes? Why not even allow the possibility? Why take the view firefighters are jobsworths not interested in impoving firefighting just because they're not accepting these specific changes?

How many people, having been rescued froma fire look at the fighter and think with disgust "this person is a zombie! Their shift patterns put my life at risk!!!" Maybe people should sue firefighters more for being so irresponsible

The public have not been even wondering idly, much less debating furiously, about how they need 15% more firefighting bang for buck for example. And if these changes do or dont go through without the publicity nobody would be any the wiser or give a flying fuck And then you put words in my mouth. Effectively.