JoeLeg

edphstaff Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > The London Living Wage is what we think should be > the minimum pay to anyone in London. It's > calculated as what you need to live a decent life > here. We think it should be the starting point and > any harder or more demanding work etc after that > should be paid more above this rate. While I entirely agree with the principle behind this statement, the fact is the there are many businesses which would have to either raise prices or find economies in order to afford LLW. The spread of the living was will occur when a cultural shift occurs and people are willing to pay higher prices. As has been pointed out many times in various parts of the media, there are other countries around the world where service charge does not exist and all prices are factored into menu items. People have been fine with this and it creates an equitable system, and there's no reason it can't be extended to other industries such as your own, as well as everyone else. All it requires is for us all to recognise the true cost of things.

Just because Assad would be mad to do this, doesn't mean he didn't do it. I personally see no benefit to using chemical weapons on an enemy that is losing hard, but then Assad may be trying to prove a point. For all I know the whole thing is a total false flag, but like many other 'alternative' theories of major events, it's a rabbit hole of tinfoil beliefs that I'm just not willing to go down. The simplest explanation is usually the right one, and I don't think Assad is above gassing his own people just to make a point. It's also a convenient way to find out what Trump will do in a situation, and now they know; the people controlling Trump are trigger-happy.

Question, because I really don't know. Are Cineworlds profit for their worldwide organisation? Is Curzon a UK-only company? What I'm getting at is that perhaps the total post-tax profits for Cineworld as a whole aren't the figures you need? If Curzon can pay it, you need to prove that it means PH can pay it, and for that I suspect you need to prove that the PH 'section' of Cineworld can afford it, otherwise I wonder if the comparison doesn't hold up? I mention this because if I was in your place, I wouldn't be looking at th whole of Cineworlds finances, as their head office bean counters can easily shift stuff around to 'prove' that they can't afford it. If Curzon is paying it then I would be trying to isolate that part of Cineworld occupied by Picturehouse and comparing only them - financials, size, staffing, turnover, customers etc - to make my case. Every time you mention the profits made by the entirety of Cineworld I think it doesn't help you, because those profits partly come from places that have nothing to do with PH. You need to be focusing just on PH and how it compares to Curzon. That's the way you'll get to what you want.

Peckham Plex surely has lower operating costs though. I think Curzon is a better comparison; I strongly doubt Plex spends the same on all the bells and whistles of PH.

Edited because Blanche and Lewis are just so not worth it. I mean really, getting so wound up by people saying mean things about you that you go on Twitter and try to track them down? So you can what, Lewis? Beat them up? Be a big man by exposing their real names? Think you've won some kind of victory by intimidating them? Wow, you're such a child. I'm going back to laughing at you both now. But I'd be careful with threatening people online - you never know who you're dealing with...

I think at that time there wasn't as much support in the country for more foreign adventures. Plus some were starting to ask who or what would fill the vacuum if Assad left. Certainly Lybia and Eygpt were not seem as resounding successes. Tory MP's had their reservations too. If we were going to hit Assad it should've been at the start, hard. That time has passed and with it our ability to influence the future of Syria. I have no trouble pulverising those responsible for what happened, I just don't think in the grand scheme it will help.

I don't have a problem with the act of bombing the airfields per se. My concern is the escalation of force in the face of such trenchant Russian support for Assad. Turkey and Russia patched it up pretty quick when they shot at each other; I'm not convinced the same would happen if US forces got it wrong and killed Russian servicemen. To say nothing of the fact that it rackets up tension regardless. I don't think nothing should've been done, I think air strikes etc should've been done a long time ago and Russia ha its feet firmly under the table in Damascus now.

With Russia backing them I think it was a foolish move. Any losses can be made good by Russia, and the idea that Assad is deploying nerve gas without the tacit support of Putin is laughable; Putin is plainly ok with it. It's a direct challenge to Russia in the region, and shows that the Defence Secretary and National Security Advisor have been able to advance their viewpoint to the detriment (obviously) of Bannon et al. In other words the alt-right party is over and 'normal service' has resumed. I don't think poking Russia with a stick is a good idea, but then it's the first use of chemical weapons since Trump took office and he plainly thinks he needs to respond. I think this was too much.

I think you mean you condemn the chemical strike, not condone...

I think you've misread Otta's post - understandably as he mistyped the word for, writing fo4 instead. His kid was only out for one day. I guess your question is still valid though.

I'm only amazed that it took such little time for the political establishment in Americacto swallow him up, I thought he'd hold out longer. The spluttering fury of the alt-right really is something to behold though!

Good luck with that Jeremy...

On this at least myself and quids agree. I just don't buy into this idea that we should tolerate the current Labour leadership just because they 'aren't the Tories'. I really don't know what the Labour Party stands for any more.

You're completely missing the point, but carry on assigning motives to people that demonstrably do not exist. Seems to be working out well for you so far.

Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I listened to R4 today, and Ian Duncan Smith was > on there. > > Did he say "52,000 separate pieces of legislation > to go through" in 2 years? > > He said something to the effect of "If we don't > get distracted and we're disciplined, we can do > it" > > Now in my very simple maths, that's 500 laws a > week to transpose, before the deadline. And > there's the minor point of a country to run. > > > > *plays Chariots of Fire sound track* Also known as "if it doesn't happen then it's everyone else's fault for not letting us do what we want when we want."

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeLeg Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > As I've said many times on here, my personal > > experience is that young Brits deserve the bad > rep > > they get. > > > When I lived in Liverpool (96 - 01) I'd constantly > hear how there were no jobs. I walked around the > town centre going in to every pub asking if they > needed staff and had a job within the hour (whilst > I was at uni). Then when I left I easily found a > job in a betting shop and an agency job at a bank. > The pay was shit (?5 per hour which was I think > minimum at the time), but my rent was only ?45 a > week for a one bed flat. > > Basically there is work out there, but a lot of > people think it's not good enough for them. Sorry, but this is unfortunately very true. Economic migrants go where they can get work. If British people don't want the work others will do it. And don't start on about undercutting and gangsters - I'm not talking about the black economy. I'm talking about basic jobs, these low skilled positions that are the subject of such debate. Why do so many Brits not want those jobs? Why would they prefer to stay unemployed?

miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ???? Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > -skill shortages is the potential issue here so > > that does need addressing. > > or to put a completely OTT positive spin on it, > maybe we'll stop importing fully formed > professionals from abroad and start investing in > technical training here.....maybe. I fully, 100%, totally support any kind of proper schemes which give young people (or any people who want to take them) real supportive and experienced training in trades. We need them, really badly. And they need to go hand in hand with the message that just because you start out doing menial jobs like sweeping the workshop floor or cleaning the toilets, doesn't mean you stay there. Prove you can be relied on, work hard, get promoted.

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > uncleglen Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Obviously johnnie. The well educated, well off, > > are benefiting greatly from free movement, > cheap > > building workers (?20 a day vs ?200 a day for > > 'electricians e.g > > > Worth noting that this started because (well off) > British builders started hiring cheap Polish > labour and paying them peanuts off the books, thus > becoming more wealthy whilst exploiting these > workers. You can't really blame these workers for > eventually thinking "@#$%& this, lets go it alone > and undercut this prick". > > If tradesmen charged more realistic and honest > rates, and actually did a hard days work, they > wouldn't be so easy to undercut or beat on > timescale. > > Let us not forget just how bad a rep the British > builder used to have. You can't blame people for > using a better and cheaper service. > > And ?20 a day is a figure you've just made up, > let's be honest. And this. A hundred times this. I'm so fed up of British people claiming Europeans came over here and took the work just be being cheaper. Let's be clear. British workers have long had a well-deserved reputation for being lazy feckless twats. There's a reason for it. Someone who owns a long-established business in East Dulwich once told me of his time as a youth on the Vauxhall car production line. It was tragic to hear, and made it clear why other countries would get the contracts. As I've said many times on here, my personal experience is that young Brits deserve the bad rep they get.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Obviously johnnie. The well educated, well off, > are benefiting greatly from free movement, cheap > building workers (?20 a day vs ?200 a day for > 'electricians e.g.), Seriously, where can I find these people?! not to mention massive > increase in house prices. Young people are not > affected by queues in the NHS, Except those young people with medical conditions who need the NHS, or those who have accidents or chronic illness. Or like my wife who nearly died after the birth of our first child. lack of school > places etc I don't know, I'm pretty worried about it for my kids. and the well off can pay for health > care if necessary. I earn above the London average wage and support my family off that. So I can't afford private healthcare, not even close. > Just as the well off are not affected by Labour > governments that treat the tax payers' pockets > like bottomless pits, the well educated well off > have NO idea about what is going on in the rest of > the country. What's your criteria for well-educated and well-off? Do out consider yourself educated? You sound increasingly like a Khmer Rouge member, hating on people for getting an education. When Gove said people were tired of experts, I asked myself if he only meant experts who disagree with them. Surely the point of becoming educated is to learn about the world around us? Does an education in others only count if they agree with you? I'm all for recognising the hubris, ignorance and malpractice that successive governments have exhibited in regards to areas outside London, but your view seems to be that anyone who comes to a different conclusion to you is just wrong. Is that how you treat your students?

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The post was Otta specific. > > But as to the point of my post Joe Leg. Maybe you > could fill us in on what other atrocities the army > admit to internally? > > Most other people have to rely on conventional > sources of information, that's the point. And we > are hostage to that reporting. > > Please expand. Don't hold back. Well I'm happy to tell you what I know, though it's not I suspect what you want to hear. I was part of an infantry battalion in the early 90's, and never deployed on Banner. However I had many conversations with older soldiers about it, and the SNCO's were particularly enlightening. In a nutshell, I would say there was widespread awareness that the British had long been part of the problem rather than the solution, and that the Irish were the only ones with a right to determine their societies future. Pretty much every squaddy out there didn't want to be there, but the more experienced ones knew that they had to stay now until N Ireland had determined it's path forward. It's a complicated spot to put soldiers into. A lesson that has been relearned (or possibly not) with great pain and suffering in the last 15 years is that comventionally trained soldiers are simply not the right tool to use when operating in a counter-insurgency environment. An infantry battalion is designed, if you'll pardon the hyperbole, to close with and kill the enemy. On the late 60's/early 70's they were all designed to meet Soviet hordes. Then they were told to go and be glorified police officers, for which they had neither the temperament nor the understanding. The results were, tragically, inevitable. But the British govt, flush with COIN victories in Malaysia and Borneo, thought they would prevail here, not realising they were marching into a quagmire with striking similarities to Vietnam, in that the opposition were fighting for something intangible, for their rights as human beings, for their home. Atrocities? There were stories, tall tales, furtive insinuations about 14 Int Coy, 22, MI6 getting shady. A lot of that was hard to disseminate from the people trying to make themselves sound important. What was apparent was that by the early 90's it was all such a terrible mess of cyclical vengeance that peace seemed more important than anything else. The guys I spoke to painted a picture of a society sick of the IRA, sick of the soldiers, sick of the accusations and counter-accusations, and just wanting it to be OVER. None of them were fooled by claims that the British only fired in self-defence, or anything else like that. They knew rules were getting broken, lines blurred, and the response was always the same. Don't send soldiers and then tell them they can't do what they were trained to do. I've thought a lot about that over the years, and I still don't know how I feel about it. In an environment where you can't tell friend from foe unless there's literally a gun in their hand, the grey area becomes a huge gaping abyss that swallows everyone. Think about Death On The Rock, think about joyriders in the dark, young men trained to kill without question who don't understand how the senses get blurred when under stress and think they see stuff that isn't there. Everything I heard about told of a lot of people stuck in a situation none of them wanted (civilians as well as soldiers), with no idea how to untangle it. The British did terrible things in Ireland, and then got the strategy wrong and did more terrible things. And then others did it too. And then no one knew how to end it. Was the IRA compromised by MI6? Is that why they came to the table? Did they sense their support slipping? Or did they recognise the opportunity in front of them? Many books will be written on the subject, by people with more knowledge than me. All I know, all I can tell you, is that on the early 90's the squaddies on the bottom rung weren't fooled by the press or the officers. They had no illusions about the world they found themselves in, and most of them just wanted to keep out of trouble and get home.

Mick, you would be astonished at the number of people I met over the years who never, never believed that Bloody Sunday was anything other than a cover-up of titanic proportions. And that includes serving Army personnel who had been shot at by the IRA. They knew the official line was a colossal lie. Do us all a favour and stop assuming that you know what we all think; you plainly don't.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Peace and prosperity, clean air, workers' rights? > ...I missed all that ... You genuinely haven't noticed the increase in workers rights over the last decade or so? Now you're actually trolling. Oops, sorry, forgot it was Uncleglen, the walking talking definition of someone too cowardly to do more than toss personal opinions into a discussion then run before he has to back them up. Wouldn't want him teaching my kids, frankly.

You do make me laugh quids, you do make me laugh... For someone who claims not to care what others think of them...oh deary deary me.

"The past is another country, they do things differently there." Broadly I agree. Learn from it, learn from history, but to relive it constantly or even intermittently is to forget that nothing can be done to change it. Remembering the past is not the same as living in it.

Mick, insults come in many forms. Not just the blunt terms that have been directed at you. Just because you don't openly call someone a name doesn't mean up aren't using language to belittle and disparage them, their experiences and their opinions. You've demonstrated on this that you're a master of that; how clever you must feel. I never did understand this internet insistence on 'play the ball, not the man'. Sometimes people are idiots and should be addressed as such. Apparently this means you lose the argument. Well, Mick, carry on thinking you've won.