JoeLeg

Brulysses Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So what did they think the original tweet would > do, Mark? I am not 'stirring up disrespect', I am > calling out a commercial organisation for a > sh*tty, tasteless tweet about something which is a > serious problem, which is exactly what this forum > is for...idiot. Did you speak to them directly before making your decision to boycott? Because I reckon the responsible thing to do would be to give them the chance to speak in their own defence before condemning them for something it seems (note I say 'seems') for which they are not to blame.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Having been personally involved in Left wing > groups from far left to left of centre (the > 'fence' as it is termed by the far left) I know > there are hidden agendas -must read this book > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blai > r/12175813/Tony-Blair-accused-of-conspiracy-over-m > ass-immigration.html > I view Blair's attitude as akin to Tony Crosland's > quote about destroying grammar schools- another > great betrayal of the working classes of this > country- after all it is a lot easier to brainwash > the uneducated isn't it! Right, ok, sorry...um, is that what you're using to back up your earlier claim?

I appreciate the help Otta and Rendell, but I have no intention of googling Uncleglens quotes. I'm much more interested to see how he actually backs up an argument. He's apparently a teacher. All I can say is that if that's how he teaches young people to debate then, well, oh dear... Anyway, back on topic, I doubt Ken can harm Labour in real terms any more than its already harming itself. He's gone beyond parody and anything he says can safely be disowned by Labour.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > uncleglen Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > Blair has admitted that his policies were > designed > > to 'rub the establishment nose into > > multiculturalism'..... > > No he hasn't, stop making things up. Hang on, I'm interested to know if this point is true. Source please Uncleglen? Something verifiable on Snopes preferably. I wouldn't put anything past Blair, but seeing as it's you I'd appreciate some proof otherwise I'll assume you've just pulled your usual stunt of dropping into a thread and making random bigoted assertions before running away from having to defend your position.

oddlycurious Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Given the level of social media > engagement elsewhere, one can only assume they > don't take well to query or criticism. Sorry, genuinely confused - have they been more active elsewhere? I haven't noticed much.

If Le Pen wins the Presidency France isn't going to remain in the EU either, I suspect. There's a lot of popular/populist support for a Leave vote over there.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So who do we want to win tomorrow for the best > final? I quite fancy an Arsenal Chelsea final. > > Torn in a way. Don't really want Arsenal winning > things, but would like Wenger to be able to go out > on a high... Can't really see Arsenal beating Chelsea in the final, if they get past Man City which I'm not convinced they will. I think the other teams just want it more.

Blanche Cameron Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dear Admin - I?ve been trying to avoid arguments. No, you've been avoiding any discussion or debate whatsoever. You have refused to address the issues raised, instead using the EDF as your personal press release, which admin seems to have tired of. > I?ve been posting for anyone who is interested in > what?s going on in the cemeteries. That's be quite a lot of us, not all of whom agree with you. The future of > the cemeteries is an important issue. I think this > is helping the debate. No, debate is a two way street. You refuse to debate, instead stating that anyone who wants to ask you questions should email directly. That's not debate.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Most of the Labour MPs standing down are decent > ones and meanwhile the rumours (Telegraph) are > Corbyn's son is going to be given a safe seat! If > true, so much for fighting against a rigged system > and elites and the other Spartist student nonsense > he was spouting this morning! Our MP, Jim Dowd is going, which is a shame. He's a good guy, and I'll be interested to see if they parachute someone into what is (or should be) a pretty safe Labour seat. I'm be annoyed if we get some Momentum-mouthpiece.

stringvest Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I won't miss that man. I'm glad there's peace in > NI but still remember being caught up in central > london bombings and scares. Harrods, Hyde park > .... my friend from Belfast would stop at the > entrances of shops unnecessarily to be frisked by > the security guards. > > If a convicted murderer learns the piano are they > now a pianist and not a murderer anymore? I am > still a bit surprised that Nelson Mandela is > treated like a diety as HE WAS ACTUALLY IN A > TERRORIST organisation that blew up school buees > and wasn't jailed for no reason. I was speaking > to some twenty somethings who thought he should > have a plinth at trafalgar square, they were very > shocked to hear about the ANC and thought he was > locked up for being black .....????? You honestly, seriously cannot see how Nelson Mandela genuinely turned his back on violence and with FW de Klerk guided South Africa through an incredibly dangerous time when it could've literally descended into civil war? You cannot see that? Wow...

So Blanche, once again CWGC says you're talking rubbish. And that's according to the article you linked to. Have you actually read your own words? These are graves that cannot be indentified. You have no way of knowing who they were or what they did in the war. And they are not buried in Commonwealth Grave sites so stop trying to conflate it with that argument; that really does dishonour the memory of soldiers who died on the battlefield.

tarafitness Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm just sharing the view of another who works a > lot harder, for a lot less. I'm not saying that > either is right or just. I'd dearly love for my > son to work somewhere else, but he likes the > camaraderie and family feel to the place. If your son enjoys working for McDonalds then great, but he shouldn't be surprised at the minimum wage they pay - it's McDonalds. Personally I applaud his work ethic and think he should find somewhere else to ply it; chances are he'll be better paid. But LLW is something that should happen. It will only happen if the paying public gets behind the idea that stuff will cost more if it comes in, but the conversation has to start somewhere. Why shouldn't it be PH staff? Yes, it's a pretty 'middle class hipster' place, but if it was Odeon staff of McDonalds staff would there be the same reaction? I doubt it. I don't buy this idea that you can only complain about LLW if your job reaches some arbitrary standard of appallingness. London is pricey, wages are stagnant, how are we supposed to attract people to this city to work if they all know it's unaffordable? In a post Brexit-Britain where immigrants are less likely to do low-skilled jobs (apparently), this debate becomes even more urgent? So why shouldn't PH staff be the ones to start it?

precious star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Support from many of us from the green party and > ordinary people who care about our green spaces > and wild life . Blanche has done a good job of > making more people on this forum aware of these > issues. Well, the Green Party can't really disagree with SSW on this, though it's a shame because it means they align themselves with a pressure group that is happy to accept support from racists. Many ordinary people care about local spaces and wildlife, but they have different ideas about how to manage it. You seem to agree with Blanche that none of those ideas are worth anything, and that we should all shut up. I would say those that support Blanche and Lewis are unable to think for themselves. Still waiting for those photos from you by the way...

Nice one Lewis, way to totally miss the point. And wilfully misinterpret what was actually written. Your Twitter feed is enlivened by the nice little echo chamber you and Mike have created, very funny to read!

Well, yes, maybe. Lewis is either a complete wind-up merchant or he seriously wants to take on local residents who disagree with him. His Twitter feed speaks for itself. So for the record - because we all know Lewis reads this - I'm not threatening him at all, he's not worth my time. But he should be very careful with what he's doing, and not from the point of view of someone punching him, but more because he could land himself in a fair amount of legal trouble. The law regarding Twitter et al is pretty much being made up as cases go along, and he's skirting around the edges of acceptable online behaviour. I wouldn't be surprised if he got sent solicitors letters if he took this much further. The bit that I think is hilarious is that he says he wants to know who is fighting SSW. Mate, it's no one on here. People here don't like you and think you and Blanche are liars and full of shit, but we aren't the ones 'fighting you'. That's Southwark Council you're thinking of, who are indeed as nasty a bunch as you could hope not to meet. Wasting time and energy trying to locate local residents so you can harass them in person - which I suspect would result in the police being called - is just that; a waste. No one here is the enemy, and it says a lot about SSW that you can't handle the locals disagreeing with you.

Lewis is going postal on Twitter again. It's just pitiful now. Grown man can't deal with being told 'no'. He evidently wants to harass people - myself included - which given that he has no idea who these people are or how they will respond seems pretty dangerous to me.

Wow. Kelvin's still going on about Liverpool? He really can't deal with the fact that he got it so badly wrong all those years ago. That's some powerful rage he's got there.

Lewisham is no better. Just behind the estate on Wood Vale there's a medium sized housing development. A clause in the contract says that a certain percentage must be social housing, but that if the build takes too long they don't have to honour that. Yes, that's right. They can put the brakes on, have no social housing and no one can say a thing. Not as appalling as the Heygate debacle, but just goes to show how bad local government can be. I personally think people should be jailed over what happened at Heygate, but only because keel-hauling has gone out of fashion.

Have you seen how many of those terraced houses are actually divided up internally into flats around here? Quite a lot of them are. I'm not an estate agent, nor have I conducted or read any survey of local properties, but I've lived round here all my life and I would be incredibly surprised if it were not the case that there were many more flats than 'whole houses', as it were.

I personally have no issue with anything you're doing, I just think you have a much better chance of success by widening your focus to make it not just about you but everyone. As I say I think the time is right for us, as a society, to have this debate about what wages should be (especially within Brexit coming up, and the impending suggestion that this will be better for workers). You stand a better chance of getting widespread public support and media attention. I'm repeating myself, but I really don't think that using Cineworlds profits as a whole is what you want. Focus on PH, and only PH. They paint themselves in a certain way, but from your descriptions behave differently; sounds to me like bad press is the way to get their attention. No one likes bad press.

edphstaff Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > JoeLeg, i should have been clearer about the > maternity/paternity pay, sorry. I don't think it > explains how bad that support is. > I'm not sure I'd agree that statutory maternity/paternity pay is bad; I mean, it's not fantastic, but it's not terrible. However at this point in confused as to what your aims are. Do you seek just the LLW, or are you about better pay and conditions across the board? And before you say 'well, duh, the latter of course', remember that the strikes have always been primarily about the wages. I don't think it helps to dilute it with accusations of poor conditions in the rest of your contract, especially when a lot of those conditions aren't that bad. > As I've said before comparing the pay of one under > paid worker to another isn't of interest to us And here I think you're making a tactical error. Firstly this reads like you don't care about other workers (though I doubt you intend that), and secondly I think you should be bringing other workers into it, you absolutely should be showing what other people get paid. As I say, you're thinking too small. You want to win this fight? You need to be showing not only that PH can afford LLW, but you need to persuade them that it'll be better for them of they pay it. There haven't been many cases of people pushing for LWW, you're trailblazers in that respect, but you aren't hospital cleaners or teachers or another profession that tends to naturally engender public support. You need to be showing why this is good not only for you but for everyone else. but > if you insist one cinema that provides what we are > asking for is the ArtHouse in Crouch End and the > Royal Shakespeare Company front of house staff. > The RSC got these demands by joining the union we > are part of... So what did the RSC do differently?

Ok. I didn't post that in bold! Not sure what's going on here...Admin?

edphstaff Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dbboy: It's telling that under the heading of > "Sick Pay, Holiday, Pension, Maternity and > Paternity " you've copied and pasted there is no > mention of Maternity and Paternity pay. Erm, sorry to be difficult but yes there is, under the paragraph marked 'Pensions Contributions'. As I've > said before sick pay only applies to those that > have worked at the company for more than a year > (about five members of front of house at our > site)and unfortunately people sometimes get sick > before 12 months in their new job has passed. > Yes that doesn't sound great, but again I would ask if you're able to provide examples of other comparable jobs which do provide it; the point being that any evidence you have of others being able to afford it will help your case. This isn't to say you shouldn't be the first of course, but as I understand it full sick pay benefits tend not to kick in until the employee has been with a company for a little while, and I have to say that staying a year isn't a big ask. Doesn't seem that Dickensian to me. > JoeLeg: I completely agree with you about > zero-hour contracts and think anyone who has a job > should be able to afford to raise a family. On > that reason alone would you not support our > strike > I completely support your right to strike, I just think you're coming at this whole issue in the wrong way. The time is ripe for a national discussion about wages, but I think you're thinking too small.

edphstaff Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Also, there is no provision for sick pay. What do > you expect a member of staff to do if they are ill > for three weeks and can't pay rent? Just not get > sick? Is it that PH do not provide sick pay over and above Statuatory Sick Pay? That in itself is a laughable pittance I admit. However I'm not much up on sick pay provision in current employment. Most people I know would be in a lot of trouble if they succumbed to long-term illness; I know the idea terrifies me as I'm the sole earner for our family, though I'm fortunate to have good bosses. However, are you able to provide good comparisons of other company's whose policies are more akin to what you would like to see? Do Curzon have better cover? > > What if they were to have a child? Or do people on > zero-hour contacts, of which there are almost 1m > in the UK, not deserve to have children? I'm afraid I would argue that if you're on a zero-hours contract having a child is not something you want to be doing. Of course no one deserves to be told that economically they are not a fit prospect for parenthood, but the reality is that if you're on a zero-hours contract and considering having kids, the job is the first thing you need to change. For the record I consider zero-hours contracts to be immoral and think they should be outlawed, but I don't make the rules. I certainly will not myself employ anyone on one, and I have people with kids working for me. Maybe a better way of putting it is "Do working people with kids not deserve guaranteed income?", because really that's the key issue.

uptheworkers! Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeLeg Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > the fact is the there are many > > businesses which would have to either raise > prices > > or find economies in order to afford LLW. > > Or make less profits, in the case of Picturehouse > / Cineworld Well yes, but again I would argue that it's worth working out exactly what the Picturehouse profits are. I'm sure no one here needs educating about "Hollywood accounting", and I'm sure Cineworls could use similar tricks to demonstrate that Picturehouse can't afford LLW. It's the Picturehouse accounts that are needed; Cineworlds overall statement won't help here.