Huguenot

More importantly is RosieH's generosity one of the reasons why we're glad to be here? giggirl, it's kind of important that when you are totally preoccupied with private concerns you put your responsibility to others first. Other people's DVDs shouldn't be in your storage. ;-)

Isn't this a flashmob opportunity? Get the gang, tell the media, get sly and reggie to give you a chant, and go party outside this prick's house?

Is that really the chinese symbol for longevity? *chortles* No really? BTW, how do you say longevity? Do you kind of double pronounce the 'G' by habit?

I guess so katienumbers, but.... it was the taxpayers alliance. There's not an honest bone in their body. I'm not sure it makes sense to rationalise it or draw conclusions (see silverfox and get your milk token withdrawn).

That bloody Bridge club. They've been over here. Killed the Pope as well. I know that a few kids use the forum for everything. One well known lady poster with several usernames (;-)) seems to have a pathological aversion to Facebook and email, but finds comfort and solace in PMs. It doesn't work well - tables like that cripple the forum. With all respect, not due but willing, I think the forum is verging on a new incarnation with different software. We can still make it look the same. 24,000 users in one day? Phorum doesn't do that. With the skills of an adept in proposing anathema, I now take that all back. Just floating it like.

This is ridiculous - is the SNT not on this one?

Maxxi, I think that's a misreading of Godwins Law, which involves the concept of Reductio Ad Absurdum I wasn't trying to compare fazer71 to a serial killer, nor trying to use hyperbole to win a specious argument - I was merely trying to point out that protesting one's innocence was a waste of breath: it's the evidence that counts. I was also joking, which is notoriously absent from Godwin's interpretation.

No it's the combination of that allegation, the repetitive way in which you put it across, the fact that you're a new poster, and the fact that you don't post on any other subject. Ninety nine times out of a hundred thst would make you dodgy.

Never The Vale (NTV)

It points to your credibility fazer71. You look like a first time poster who has come on the forum, anonymously trashed a local business 9 times and not contributed to anything else. This is what people do when they've got an axe to grind It's possible you are honest and open, but in the words of James Riley, "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck." It's also worth pointing out that protesting your innocence doesn't make any difference - that's what serial killers and their mums do. If you want people to perceive you as a generally honest and positive contributor, then start being positive and start contributing somethin of value instead of smearing restaurants.

You possibly didn't recognise it, it's called bolla e squittiscono

Not sure I can see the irony - as Loz pointed out why would anyone turn up to a rally for what they've already got? Chippy looks like he's perfectly capable of stating his own case. However, I'm sure you've already got the point that the latest half yearly results are the first in a run of five to indicate a possible profit. We won't know until the full year results and the disclosure of some of those missing lines on the books, and we're still 3/4 of a billion in the red. The positive results were, as we've discussed ad nauseam, attributed to the restructuring and they didn't pay a dividend, thus negating your Socialist Worker take on the business. In repeating this you are merely reinforcing my point. Please view my unwillingness to send you a sandwich as an act of charity towards your shirt. If your sandwich eating is as accurate as your prose we'll have a little bit of a mess on our hands.

Presumably, if it's leftovers, the materials cost has already been covered in its original incarnation? I prelude this guesstimate with the reassurance that I know sweet FA about the restaurant trade, so any abuse on the margin of my error would be silly ;-) Labour's an interesting one - IIRC there's usually around 5 staff on in Franklins. If we assume they're paid an average of 1,500 per month, then that's a daily wage bill of around 250 quid. If they averaged 40 covers a day, and each cover had an equal split of two dishes and booze that would be around 2 quid contribution to labour per dish. I guess if regular overheads could amount to 350 quid a day, then there would be a contribution of 3 quid per dish to overheads. VAT would be 1.50 on the dish (wow! incredible isn't it!), giving a gross margin of around 1 quid per dish of B&S.

Eh? And your proof of this is a positive interim EBITDA that the CEO attributes to restructuring that the unions were intent on blocking? The implication is that the turnaround could not have happened without the restructuing. With that in mind, the only question is how long investors would or could support an airline losing half a billion a year. Your view is that this is 'indefinitely'. That is however an opinion. You have proved nothing, the data you present supports my own view. There is no admission to make. I make that point without even referencing the glorious self-regard you must have to make pompous demands for people to 'admit' things to you. I mean, how much do you love yourself?

You appear to be trying to win a fight by moving the goalposts. tt3's original premise was that cuts are being championed by shareholders campaigning against reduced dividends. The BA dispute started a couple of years ago when it became apparent the the airline was going to be attracting losses of half a billion a year. The senior management knew a serious restructure was on the cards, demanding increases in efficiency. I have pointed out that within that context, the 'cuts' were hardly demanded by greedy shareholders looking to increase dividends, but by a failing organisation delivering heady losses. tt3 has tried to dispute this by claiming an 'operating profit' figure that has little relevance to the overall corporate picture, and excludes leasing, costs of finance and tax. You've tried to disprove this point by claiming that interim results points out an improving business. However these are EBITDA figures, not net profit (and hence do not reflect upon the 'real' profits of the organisation), and no dividend has been paid. So tt3's assertions are still proved incorrect. What do you want me to admit? I have never asserted anything about the interim results, the only thing I have pointed out is that a characterisation of BA as rich based on 'operating profits' in 2009/10 was invalid. Positive signs in the interim EBITDA figures does not as profitable company define, it isn't a 'healthy profit' since we don't know what the profit is, and reducing a 1 billion overdraft to 900m could hardly characterise BA as 'rich' Unlike yourself I'm not attempting to win a petty battle about whether interim figures show a positive EBITDA or not, I'm trying to illustrate the point that the image of shareholders raping the workforce is incorrect. Let's wait for the full year figures, where the appropriate amortisation of underlying costs, finances and tax are actually calculated before instead of cherry picking a period of your own choosing and then claiming EBITDA as profit. Regarding your enfeebled and snot-nosed final comment on rhetoric, get a life.

Three points on that one. First is that no dividend was paid - so that reinforces the point that tt3's rant on business raping the worker to pay dividends was absolute nonsense. Second is that these interim results are a direct result of forcing throught the changes that the unions were blocking. Here's WW on the issue: "Our concerted efforts to introduce permanent structural change across the airline has led to a reduction in non-fuel costs and a return to profitability. Revenue has increased, driven primarily by yield improvements and, while fuel costs have risen, they are in line with our expectations. "Our focus on permanent structural change will continue. This summer we agreed a new productivity deal with our Heathrow terminal-based staff that will provide a more flexible, cost-efficient and customer focused ground operation. In addition, the first of the cabin crew recruited on new terms and conditions have completed training and start flying on Monday." Thirdly is that one swallow doesn't make a summer, and that figure doesn't include tax - so is not a net profit figure (did you read my point on that?). You'd need four more years of those kind of results to make up the losses of the previous two years.

"I have written on the forum in the past on other subjects." Is that an admission that fazer71 has multiple usernames, or a confession that he created a fake persona in order to pursue this vendetta?

And blow me down if that's due to the implmentation of changes that the unions were trying so hard to block.

I've looked a little deeper into their 'Operating Profit' and discovered it doesn't include the leasing costs of the planes. So BA are saying 'we'd run a really profitable airline if we didn't have to pay for the planes'. With that in mind, don't quote operating profits for BA and expect anything but scorn. Muppet.

I agree with Sue. The chef would probably be humiliated and undoubtedly protest. At this juncture I would tell him how disappointed he must be that his teachers had let him down with so limited an insight into B&S... ;-)

tt3 your lack of insight into company operations has no bounds. You've chosen to quote 'operating profit' which has all the merit of saying 'I'm really rich before I pay my bills'. It's like saying 'I didn't spend a penny this month because I put it all on my credit card'. Idiot. I bet your own salary (assuming you work) would be really big if you didn't have to pay income tax and national insurance. My own company has a gross profit margin approaching 65% of sales. I should be a billionnaire. I'm not, because then I have to pay my bills. You clearly don't have a bloody clue.

Chippy Minton, thanks for your contribution. BA Net loss 2010 - 425m GBP (Four hundred and twenty five million pounds) BA Net loss 2009 - 358m GBP Chippy Minton Net Loss - credibility. If you have data that I'm not familiar with, I'd be pleased to get it. Would that count as insider trading?

So far as I know, Admin takes a great deal of attention to suggestions. That's not the same thing as agreeing with them, having the funds for them, having the resource for them or whether they'll acutally work in practice. There have been many section requests on here, and if they'd all been implementted the forum would be unusuable. I can see the idea in splitting the property section, but by its very nature it only attracts people at very isolated times in their local life, and for relatively short periods. Implementing a major change would probably not attract the growth in usership that the effort would require to justify it.

Is there an organisation called 'Shareholders Against Reduced Dividends'? Really? I don't know if you have a clue how dividends work, but I can assure you that in the current climate shareholders are looking for reinvestment and growth, not paltry and unsatisfying penny dividends. Is this some kind or ironic in-joke? If so, why the shouty capitals? Is there some sort of confusion over 'cuts'? Whilst you may want a campaign to stop cuts the public sector, you really don't have a mandate to campaign over activity in the private sector. I wish private sector unions all the joy in the world in that, but the evidence is they're up against economics not against bad attitudes. BA is losing money, and if they hadn't resolved the conflict, BA would have gone bust, and they'd all be out of a job. Even the NUS knew tuition fees had to come in, they just preferred to pay it back in an unworkable graduate tax, rather than the staged loan system that's been chosen. Over 70% of the private sector revenue and 50% of UK jobs and GDP are in small and medium sized businesses. These guys aren't making cuts to benefit shareholders, they're struggling to make ends meet. It's no good protesting against them, it's like protesting against the fat cats running your local playschool. 35%+ of UK GDP is public sector, leaving really a pretty insiginifcant 10% to 15% in 'big business'. So not only is your campaign against cuts to pay shareholder dividends largely misguided, it's also a bit pointless. My advice is to stop thinking you're a cast member of 80's throwback 'Wall Street' and do something constructive with your life. Honestly tt3, you come across as a poorly informed, rather shouty perpetual stoodent. You're quite prepared to accuse others of 'dishonesty' whilst liberally sprinkling your own posts with propaganda you made up in your own head.

Oh well, I'm sure we can all only dream of your access to 'truth' ;-)