JoeLeg

AbDabs Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think there has been some confusion here. The OP

> isn't talking about private negotiations. This

> relates to the statutory entitlement which is 5.6

> weeks per year which equals 28 days based on a

> five day week. Bank holidays are included. The

> legislation expressly sets out that there shall be

> no proportional increase in the number of days

> paid holiday for those working 6 days.

>

> I suspect that when the legislation was written it

> was assumed that the majority of 6th day working

> was overtime ie that you can choose to simply not

> work the 6th without penalty, thereby only needing

> 'holiday' on 5 days to provide a whole week off.

> What the OP is asking is that if the 6th day is

> part of the standard week, then the 5.6 weeks

> entitlement should include the extra day.

Well, no it IS private negotiations that are needed here - if you've agreed to work six days a week at the same holiday allocation that a five day rota would get then that's your problem. If you think you should have more holiday then take it up with your employer - the govt (rightly or wrongly and that's a different conversation) isn't going to be interested. The fact that the legislation is specific demonstrates that.

An employer isn't going to give you more than the law requires unless a) they want to incentivise/reward their staff or b) their staff persuade them to. Either way this explicitly is a situation that will only be resolved through private negotiation because I can't see any major party getting involved. Again, the moral dimension of that is a separate discussion.

You're entitled to an extra 8 days holiday a year if your job requires you to work bank holidays. Thus if you have a 20 day allocation it becomes 28 days. I think he means people who 5 days get more time off relative to hours worked.

Frankly I don't have a lot of sympathy with the OP. I work at least 55 hours a week in a five day a week job that includes bank holidays, evenings and weekends, and I think the 28 days holiday is pretty good. I've been with my job long enough now that I actually get more than that, but 5.6 weeks a year is, IMO, pretty decent.

If you aren't happy with it then is there any reason why you are unable to change job or renegotiate your position? The simple fact is most people don't work a six day schedule; if you feel you're a special case then you need to take that to your boss, but I doubt that the govt is going to be interested.

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> They were indeed closed last night... Very poor

> show when they have people having booked 2 weeks

> previous.

>

> .. and no apology ? Don't deserve any trade..

>

> DulwichFox

That's probably one of the nastiest things I've ever read on here. Why...just why be so unpleasant? They made a mistake, but to say a local business (which you always seem to feel should be supported) needs to fold and have everyone lose their jobs just seems plain...horrible.

Tell you what, why don't you go into the venue and tell them to their face that they don't deserve to be in business? Hey, if you're willing to say it online...

>

> Yes, the petrol bomb thing sounds extremely

> dubious to me. That said, if you're going to

> organise a weekend long rave (which was the

> original intention), there are better places to

> locate it than in a densely populated, residential

> area of central london. Really what did the

> organisers think was going to happen? It was

> always going to be shut down

I don't believe the petrol bomb thing for a moment - it'd be all over the media if it really happened.

Regarding the organisers, if they're anything like the kind of people I used to know (and I readily admit this was in the 90's!), they probably had naive belief that if they behaved themselves they'd be left alone. Back then squat parties etc that were 'sensible' got ignored; I even remember police turning up to the door of some of them just to check there was nothing they were needed for, being very pleasant and then leaving us alone. Varied wildly from borough to borough of course. City of London police were the most open-minded, strangely.

Anyway, that was then. Nowadays? Different story indeed.

uncleglen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And there was an illegal rave or something in

> London where petrol bombs were being thrown- it

> seems that these yobs and anarchists know the

> police are stretched

The police shut that whole thing down, they weren't so stretched they couldn't handle it.

Examples will need to be made of the

> perps that are caught, or

the general public will

> mete out its own justice

What?! Put them in the stocks? Bring back Borstal? Public flogging?

And as for your other opinion...yes, that's just what the police want, people taking the law into their own hands. That'll make their job easier, of course. No need for the niceties of proof, evidence, due process and so on, just kick seven bells out of some youngster that you think isn't being respectful. Which is exactly what would happen.

To judge from LindyLou's posting history she has mental health issues, which she previously admitted to. Might explain her comments.

I agree with all of that. It goes to show how the Chinese truly understand long term thinking. They do things now which will benefit China long after the current leadership is gone, whereas most Western govts do things to benefit themselves straight away.

China has a lot of problems, but an inability to think ahead isn't one of them.

>

> I think you might be implying that their

> engineering/science isn't up to much, but I don't

> want to put words in your mouth. I think that may

> have been true 20 years ago, but not any more.

Yes and no. They have made massive strides in engineering, but their nuclear submarines are still so unsafe that crews can get a lifetime dose of radiation in one six month cruise. Makes me glad it's not a Chinese built reactor we're getting, if that information is correct.

>

> Kim Jong-un has stated his intention to attack the

> West and the UK.

Well, actually South Korea, Japan and the USA are the targets he repeatedly threatens. If you can provide a link to any direct threat to strike the UK I would be interested to see it.

> Whether he currently could or ever would is

> another matter.

Not if he wants to avoid North Korea being turned into a radioactive wasteland, and he knows it. It's all about leverage for sanctions being lifted and aid being sent to them. Dictators tend to want to preserve themselves and their reign more than anything, the latest in the succession being no exception.

> I don't know the range of his missiles and Western

> powers are not sure so Googling would be futile.

Actually that's not true - we have a fairly good idea of how far they can reach. Using purely conventional weapons they can flatten Seoul in minutes, cause havoc to the rest of the country and seriously threaten Japan. Past that is highly debatable, as they have very little luck with test launches of weapons such as the Taepong Do 2 which has a theoretical range of 6,000km.This is before we get to targeting capability and warhead miniaturisation (not much point sending a conventional warhead 6,000km). This indicates that they likely do not have the capability to launch on the US West Coast. They almost certainly can't hit Europe.

That said, there are dissenting voices, such as the Admiral running US Northern Command who reckons they can, but like so much reporting surrounding North Korean capability it's hard to separate rhetoric being used as part of diplomatic manoeuvring from hard fact.

http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/north-korea/delivery-systems/

>

> Certainly China's weapons could reach most parts

> of the Globe, and that was the point of my post.

Actually that wasn't clear but fair enough. Yes, China have far greater capability,so do Russia, America, France, India, Pakistan, Israel and of course us. If we chose not to do business with those who possess nuclear weapons then it'd be tricky.

But if you think they're a military 'ally' of North Korea then you need to read between the lines. China is only obligated to go to war in support of them if they are attacked. If North Korea shoots first China won't do a damn thing to help them, beyond preventing North Korea becoming what it would see as an American ally right on it's border, which it won't tolerate. China doesn't want the massive refugee crisis which would result from North Korea losing a shooting war (and it would lose - the reason South Korean forces are under US command is as much to do with stopping them heading north to settle scores as anything else, plus after the initial terrible onslaught North Korea's supply train would be annihilated).

> That being, why we are trading with a country who

> is an ally of North Korea..?

In short, China is only an ally of North Korea because they don't want a Western leaning state on their border. The moment young Kim starts looking like he's actually going to start some shit on the peninsular the Chinese will reign him in, by force if necessary.

There are many arguments to be made for and against trade with China, but linking them to North Korea like this is naive at best.

>

> Sometimes More Wisdom comes out of some peoples

> ar**s than other peoples mouths..

>

> DF.

Indeed. There's a lot more to the situation on the Korean peninsula than your simplistic (I'm sorry but they are) points indicate. The situation with China and the West is scarily complex, and (personal opinion) anyone who says we're all too economically entangled to let things get bad needs to read some history.

Long time lurker, first time poster etc...