JoeLeg

Well, GG is hardly a model of reasoned debate all the time - but then again neither am I. He's pretty, shall we say, outspoken in his negative opinion of the PH staff, so I reckon there's a bit of 'reap what you sow'. However, if that's me you're directing that against, I'd only counter that I believe firmly that he's not considering the future implications of wages in this city; I've said all throughout this thread that we need to have a debate about how much we should be paying people in London and how much we're willing to pay for services. I don't agree with the proviso that PH staff somehow aren't menial or grubby enough to be asking for LLW. Is the LLW moral? Ethical? Is it reflective of the true price of living in London? Can businesses actually afford it, and as customers are we willing to pay the increases that will inevitably follow if it were imposed? Should it be imposed? These are all questions that I think should be asked and discussed. Saying that PH staff simply have no right to make the argument is something I reject, and I will defend that point. Whether they can persuade Cineworld is a matter for their negotiations, but I certainly support their right to have the debate and I fully support bringing this into wider public discussion. These days I hear a lot about making things better from politicians, but don't see a lot of it happening. I want London to continue being a successful, vibrant city, and cannot see how pretending wages aren't stagnating helps that.

There will always be utter bastards like this in the world, but we should remember that not one single terrorist organisation has ever succeeded in its stated aims through the use of violence and murder alone. Israel is still there, Northern Ireland is still there, capitalism is still flourishing. America got past McVey. For decades people have thought that killing a few innocents would show how seriously they should be taken. Ultimately, as long as all they do is kill and maim, we will continue to go on with out lives, never giving in to these people. Manchester joins the sad group of places scarred by savage hatred, but it will pick itself up and show the world what it - and the rest of us - think of those who believe this is a path to getting what they want. And though it's a horrible way to look at it, it says volumes about how they've been curtailed that something like a pop concert is the only type of target they have any realistic chance of attacking.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Green Goose Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > > > Brexit was a majority decision taken via a > > national referendum. Blame the referendum on > > UKIP. > > Yeah, I remember that UKIP government who decided > to have a referendum on Europe...hang on, no I > don't. Well, both him and Villager voted for UKIP, so want I think he means is "blame me".

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeLeg Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > I wonder if they have shareholders, > > because if they do there's your answer - I have > a > > hard time imagining that any shareholders will > > tolerate lower dividends; they don't tend to! > > Just to let you know, The PictureHouse operation > is owned by Cineworld plc which has other > entertainment franchises. Cineworld has > shareholders and is quoted on the London Stocke > Exchange. Market Cap is ?1.99Bn and turnover is > ?797M pa. > It provides shareholders with a dividend yield of > 2.59% - which is below average. > > Cineworld has active competitors which keeps > profits down. Longer term its profitability could > deteriorate rapidly with the likes of Netflix > providing streaming video on line. Other on-line > streamers have been entering the market so the > impact on Picturehouse could be quite severe. > > It could end up with a situation where technology > creates a sea change. Remember when everyone used > to rent videos from BlockBuster? And where are > Blockbuster now? Hmmm, Cineworld operates in a competitive, capitalistic environment shocker. Also today, the Pope is Catholic and a bear was seen running off to the woods muuterring that he's 'touching fur'. Wages motivate staff. More money tends to motivate better and attract better staff. I'm a stuck record I know, but how do we attract high quality staff to this city is wages aren't competitive. Maybe it will be a technological change, though take-away hasn't killed the restaurant trade so I'm sceptical but, who knows?

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeLeg Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Leaving aside for a moment the issue of whether > > this analysis of current wages is accurate (it > is > > another debate entirely), if the position that > > wages will rise post-Brexit is true, surely the > > workers at Picturehouse are, in fact, ahead of > the > > curve in demanding higher wages? > > Hey, hey, this thread IS about wages at > Picturehouse. It not as you say "another debate > entirely". It is the debate! You just want to > divert it into a debate on Brexit. No, I don't. I was trying to place the PH dispute in the wider context of what is possibly going to happen to the debate on wages in this country in the future. Brexit is a part of this because I believe (as do many Leave voters) that there will be an expectation that wages will rise as freedom of movement is curtailed. > > The staff there with their demands is akin to > Arsenal supporters yesterday shouting "Kroenke > Out!" Kronke owns around 70% of Arsenal shares. > He is the majority shareholder so he can do with > the business what he wants. They didn't object > when he bought in and they didnt object when they > had 20 years of Champions League football. > > It's just laughable that people demand "rights" > they have no legal right to have. Women didn't used to have the legal right to vote, not did black people. There's no law against them asking for higher pay. You're free to disagree with them, but I think you're going to be surprised in a couple of years when this starts happening more. But what do I know...?

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > rendelharris Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Green Goose Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > > > Now, as for Picturehouse sharing their ?93.8 > > > million post-tax profit with you, this is > > totally > > > absurd and laughable. The shareholders are > the > > > only ones who are entitled to share the > profits > > of > > > a company. > > > > You regard it as a laughable concept that when > a > > company makes huge profits any of that profit > > should be utilized to improve the terms and > > conditions of its workers? > > It's laughable how staff can make demands on an > employer who is not obliged to even consider these > demands and who has no legal obligation to do so > whatsoever. > > It's laughable that employees demand a share of > the business's profits. Worker's utopia maybe? > > If the employers consider it might bring benefits > to the company ( eg effeciency) if they paid more, > then that's their decision. > > It's also laughable how you extrapolate matters to > fit your weird prejudices. > > RH,You never let me down. One little tweak and you > are up there straining on the leash. LOL. > > Do try and get out more and try to find a job > rather than hanging around the EDF all day. GG - you've previously admitted that you are, or were, a UKIP voter (in both your GG and Villager guises, so I'm guessing it's a firmly-held position. Given that, I could be forgiven for believing you voted Leave. Again, if that is correct, consider this. It is a commonly held position amongst Leave voters that the end of freedom of movement will result in higher wages for British workers, as employers will no longer be able to offer low wages to migrant workers in an effort to keep costs down. Leaving aside for a moment the issue of whether this analysis of current wages is accurate (it is another debate entirely), if the position that wages will rise post-Brexit is true, surely the workers at Picturehouse are, in fact, ahead of the curve in demanding higher wages? We can debate whether the specific role concerned is entitled to those wages until the sun rises, but the fact is that, in a city where cost of living is currently rising faster than wages (and was already high), it is not beyond imagination that workers will demand more money. Of course no business can be compelled to pay more than it wants to, and no one is compelled to take the work. But I fail to see why anyone would stick their head in the sand over the coming storm. Very soon we will - if it is a 'hard' Brexit of some kind - be losing foreign workers and replacing them with British. So far, so good - assuming they can do the job - but there is a definite perception that they will be able to command higher wages. Issues like those faces at Picturehouse will likely become more common. I can think of no reason why a business would not want to be ahead of the curve on this. Wages will have to rise. Why is LLW a bad thing? If we are to attract talent to London, we have to be able to pay for it. Soon this won't just be about Picturehouse.

"JoeLeg: It's a shame you didn't come over and say hello." If you think I'm giving Lewis another opportunity to insult me and threaten me, you've another thing coming. He thinks he's pretty hard, doesn't he? Likes to try and intimidate people, eh? Swear at them? Call them names? He chucks his aggression around pretty freely, he wants to be careful with that.

deleted - double post.

That's near total support amongst those who told you they support you. You'd make a terrible statistician. ETA: that's also support from those who only heard your version of events, known by others as lies and aggressive denial.

Blanche Cameron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yes, the cemeteries are becoming less beautiful. > > BTW It?s a bit cheeky to slag off Lewis when he's > not allowed to reply. > Hello Pot? Hi, it's Kettle here. You're black. Lewis lost his right to be involved when he demonstrated he can't handle people disagreeing with him.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The top 1% of tax payers pay 27% of income tax - > that's 320,000 people (based on 32 million in > employment); many of them will have highly > portable skills alot of them won't be UK citizen - > if the spread of international workers in say > banking in London is anything to go by - and very > many of them work for big, international financial > services with plenty of offices overseas (that > will be exacerbated by Brexit) and easily > transferable within their companies; many won't > share Left wing views on sharing half of their > income for the greater good either; - not hard to > say a 100,000 of these moving off the UK payroll > with devastating results for tax take. This > combined with the anti-business crap that Labour > spouts will see an exodus of high vale employees > and employers. Stone age economics but at least > we'll be more equal in our squalor. Anyone but > Labour for me now is the clear cut decision which > here in SE22 probably means voting Conservative > for the first time in my life - i can feel my dad > spinning in his grave. I'm still suspecting that Corbyn et al know - absolutely know - that they aren't going to get elected. They've been outmanuevered by May on the timing of the GE, and figure that they may as well go down in glorious socialist flames on this one, shoring up support with their core vote. I'd bet money that if this was an election they actually had a chance on winning they'd be running a much more middle of the road platform, as it is they have nothing to lose by running to the left. They'll never have to deliver on any of this, and the battleground for the next election will be the aftermath of whatever Brexit turns out to be, so none of this will matter.

In fairness, it seems pretty plausible, given you signed a post made by Villager?

It's the DM, they have an agenda. If the defendant hadn't been white, blond and pretty I doubt very much that this would be covered by them. Having said that, I'm torn between my belief that the independence of the judiciary must be maintained, as results like this are part of that, and my feeling that escaping a custodial sentence because of what it might do to your future is not quite right when you've taken someone's life. Overall I hope there's more to her case than is reported by the DM. On the surface of it this seems dodgy, but the Mail isn't a source I'd trust on issues like this. They like to bash judges.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I still think this entire thing is a live comedy > instalment that will be Lewis'' greatest work. If he is then he's fully in character. I saw him in the cemetery the other evening with some papers in his hand muttering to himself and no doubt plotting the demise of Chancellor Petchey.

Green Goose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > As for your assessment of my Green credentials and > political inclinations, all I can say is you are > very wide of the mark. > GG Well, if you are Villager as well, then weren't you voting UKIP at the last GE?

oddlycurious Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Blanche, it's this sort of thing that doesn't help > your cause: > > That was the only hearing - Chancellor Petchey > threatened us with Southwark's legal costs if we > continued to defend the trees and graves through > the Consistory Court, forcing us to withdraw > > So the chancellor said if you continued to defend > the trees you would have to pay Southwark's legal > costs? or, and I'm guessing this is more likely, > you were told that if you wished to continue your > challenge you would be liable for costs if you > were unsuccessful? That's not a threat, that's > standard practice. This. Very much this. Blanche, you're an idiot if you don't understand how the law works on this matter.

Have you actually read what you posted? It seems to somewhat contradict your argument that there was a problem in the first place. You just want to be angry...

stringvest Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Informed view ??? Oh dear again. Anyway I'm off > to bed with a Hitler book, got to send kids up > t'mill int morning! Great arguments there mate. Pretty much sums you up. Carry on making stuff up that fits your world narrative, and when in five years time nothing has changed and those nasty brown people are all still here, feel free to keep crying.

.

Trust me Penguin, I guarantee you if Blanche ran all this past actual service personnel, she would be given short shrift, to put it mildly. They have a much better understanding of the issues than she does. In acting this way she betrays he inability to comprehend certain views of the military. But then she's never let reality stand in the way of her personal crusade. I really, really wish she'd try this nonsense on ARRSE. They understand the CWGC and how it works. She doesn't.

I ask again Blanche, if you're so concerned about the war graves, which is not exactly what they are, why haven't you tried to enlist the assistance of serving and former personnel? Head on over to ARRSE. See how it works out for you.

" "Show me one post where someone - anyone - has explicitly encouraged the unrestrained destruction of nature." But some of you seem to support some destruction of nature for new burial plots, and that is where we respectfully differ." No Blanche, there's no respect at all on your part. To you this is a zero-sum game; either people agree with you, or you tell them that they are totally wrong. You won't conceive of debate, compromise, other people's points of view. And you still can't show me a post that backs up your assertion that if someone thinks Southwark might have a case for continued maintenance of the cemetery and keeping it in use as a cemetery, that means they support the general destruction of nature. What about people who want to be buried there? You plainly don't give a hoot for them. You claim religious discrimination but your own meetings at the Herne have been witness to some fairly unpleasant comments about religion in general. You claim abuse of soldiers graves but CWGC directly contradicts your assertions. Just because someone doesn't wholesale toe the line with your views, doesn't mean any other views they have should be ridiculed and abused. This is why people don't like you; you're arrogant, offensive and demeaning to others.

"Martin that's one angle of the discussion - some on here clearly do think woods and nature should be cut down and thousands of graves mounded over and thousands more dug up to sell ?new? burial plots over their remains." Now you're putting words in other people's mouths. Show me one post where someone - anyone - has explicitly encouraged the unrestrained destruction of nature. It's true, you aren't very good at this. Feel free to send Lewis back in though, maybe he'll threaten to punch me again?

Blanche, you really, really know how to come across as a fool. I hope you're tactics for challenging Southwark in the courts are better than your tactics for dealing with arguments online. Because you're really bad at that. Good luck in court. You are going to court...aren't you? Otherwise what do you think you can achieve?

Have. You. Taken. Legal. Advice? Really simple question. Because if you have - and it concurs with you - them press on with a legal challenge. If you haven't, then get some. Because unless you intend to challenge Southwark Council in the courts you will achieve absolutely nothing. This is Southwark we're talking about, they're a bunch of barstewards, worse than many. Anything short of legal pressure will. be ignored. All this is of of course assuming you're right. I'm far from convinced of that.