Huguenot

Why do you need to replace it? I've got mates who have had broken screens for years...

I'm not saying that we should go to war over trade disputes DJKQ, although historically Britain goes to war for very few other reasons. I'm saying that the threat to oil supplies threatens the existence of the UK, and this may well lead to war on the basis of national security. If you think that's nonsense then you need to read up on it a bit more. I'm not saying I agree with the decision either. Personally I think the idea of a nation state is a tired 17th century concept that's well past it's sell-by date.

Shall I take it from the repetition of your original unfounded complaint atbnhg that you have no sensible alternative, and have nothing more constructive to propose?

*tired sigh* peterstorm I'm not claiming that the forum fully represents the views of ED. I'm saying that it's as good if not better than all the alternatives. In terms of practicality, timeliness and value for money. WTF is it with some of you guys? What would you prefer? *shakes head*

My understanding is that the forum attracts around 4,000 unique visitors a day, and around 15,000 per month. It would depend on your definition of regular, but a monthly visit seems pretty regular to me. Certainly not enough to call me out on for for 'unfairness'. I don't want to get bogged down in it, if you prefer to define 'regular' as per day, then 4,000 seems a perfectly big figure no? My point is that as a local forum it attracts fifty time more people that you could dream of attracting by having a mail drop or a community meeting. It's not scientific, but certainly not worthy of the rubbishing that atbnhg is trying to apply to it.

DR?

?, an dtuigeann t? Gaelainn?

I think identifying threats to the UK is more complex than asking if they knocked at the door with a gun in their hand. Around 15% of the world's proven oil reserves are estimated to be in Iraq, and 40% more in the countires it borders. If Iraq was considered to be planning activity that would seriously threaten access to those resources, then our absolute dependence upon oil means that it must be considered a threat to the existence of the UK, and hence a primary national security issue. Genocide or mass murder aren't generally considered to be national security issues, and wouldn't attract military involvement. Unfortunately despite the huge primacy of the oil supply concern, the British public is far more likely to buy in to the latter than the former as a reason for war. That's why governments don't tell the truth ;-)

Sorry Lousiana, just to clear up the confusion. The police oversee two national bodies related to crime of this sort, they are Action Fraud, and the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau. The confusion occurs because it is the responsibility of the financial instiution to report the crime to Action Fraud, and upon issuing of a crime reference number, to reimburse the customer. It is down to the financial institution because they can offer far more valuable and relevant information than the customer (who essentially only knows their money has been stolen). It's most definitely a police issue though ;-) So the police aren't 'on record' saying it's a bank issue, they're simply trying to avoid confusion by sending the customer (correctly) back into the appropriate reporting channels.

Oh don't be unrealistic tbnhg, you're talking yourself into a corner. If you don't think we periodically elect politicians to make decisions according to manifesto pledges (and punish them if they fail), then what you do think elections are for? If you don't think public opinion is heavily influenced by energetic, motivated and well connected people then who do you think has the influence? If you don't think that the forum (15,000 regular users) can offer us a cross section of ED (population 5,000) opinion, then who are these cunning sixth column who are invading our environs? Your plea 'just plaing wrong' is just plain silly - it's like stamping your foot about the unfairness of having to breathe oxygen every 5 seconds. If you can think of a better way (in terms of effectiveness, timeliness and value for money) of gauging public opinion I'd be really pleased to hear it, bearing in mind that public meetings typically attract 100 people and mail drops go in the bin. Your despair is a rhetorical flourish, it has nothing to do with the real world. Instead of criticising everyone else, why don't you ask yourself what you've done to improve our world?

The BNP appeal to base instincts of tribalism and violence that are a legacy of an earlier evolutionary stage. People who vote for them are so intellectually stunted that they share the BNP's conviction that these instincts are a cure for all society's challenges. They're a pretty good argument to drop universal suffrage and bring back serfdom.

Islam seemed to get by without a resurrection. I don't think early followers saw Christianity as caring and sharing at all. They saw it is a form of unionisation and gave them a sense of identity that subverted the colonial vacillations of the time. Organised religion remains a political movement with a creation myth and a totalitarian objective.

I've come to the conclusion that none of you have seen him play, so all you've seen is youtube highlights where anyone looks good. ;-)

It means that my partner doesn't have to make the money to cover both his own salary and my sick pay. The money can then be spent on an additional contractor to cover the missing workload and meet the clients requirements.

I pay for insurance against being unable to work. If you're self-employed and you don't you'd have to be a nutjob. I don't believe in paying people for hours, I prefer to pay them for work, and reward them for success. For me that's the only fair exchange. If you're a receptionist then work/hours are fairly indistinguishable, if you're a salesperson they're fundamentally different.

The key, Sean, was 'big' bank. Try paying 6 months of maternity leave if you're a three man band. Try paying someone from your own pocket when they're 'working to rule' and you're working every hour you've got. Try meeting your clients requirements in a two man band when your partner goes on long term sick leave and you have no other source of income. All of them are fine if you've got a staff of 2,000 drones duplicating each others work. My business doesn't suffer because when I have more work, I subcontract.

A moment's weakness?

Pity

You can't take a vote on every decision. It's unworkable. We vote every few years to elect those individuals we want to make these kind of decisions on our behalf. As part of that they may seek some consultation where practical. In that sense they feedback tells James exactly what he needs to hear: that views are polarised, that it's likely to be a contentious proposal, and that there are serious concerns about the impact on other retailers. A formal consultation will tell him nothing different: a 51% vote in favour is still a 'no' vote because that's the nature of politics. This forum is an ideal place to seek those opinions, because as a public forum it attracts opinion formers: those people who will sway public opinion. Regardless of Iceland and the Coop, if there would be one massive benefit to LL, it would be to tear down those awful bloody buildings they're in...

Generosity?

I prize RosieH in a mate :-$

...a 1950s industrial dispute Ladumuck. The balance between employer and employee most definitely is weighted in the employee's favour, and tends to be based on bizarre (1950s?) concepts of business. They assume that the business is perpetual, not subject to market fluctuations, leviathan and that performance is consistent. Succesful modern businesses are quite the opposite: agile, highly responsive to market demands and small - often privately owned. As a result I don't 'employ' anyone, I insist that they take on service contracts as traders. I would like to employ people - to train them and provide working incentives, holiday and healthcare - but the addditional legal restrictions and conditions are too onerous. The people who lose out are the people I don't employ or develop, and the people to blame are the campaigners who created legislation so restrictive that it prevents employment. We need a generation X commercial environment - fleet of foot, quick to respond, well educated and self-reliant. Not bollox 1950s toilet factories.

I think it's likely that a company built on 1950s principles and a head-to-head fight with indentured labour would stuggle to employ many people anyway Steve, so not much to worry about there ;-) This victorian obsession with industry defined as the manufacture of material goods is tired and outdated. People pay for the provision of goods and services. Since the lifetime demand for material goods is limited, and their production is increasingly automated, I would advise any budding entrepreneur to think more creatively about their labours.

Bugger that, it means I'm going to have to be more right wing to fill the gap!