rendelharris

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > They took their time bit it was worth waiting for. > Sean O'Brien has been cited for I think a straight > arm tackle. Hearing is this morning. Think it was a swinging arm as he joined the ruck - as far as I can recall it looked careless rather than malicious, a yellow if the ref had seen it. Great match and well done Lions - still think that last penalty was a bit harsh though, if the person receiving a pass jumps a few inches in the air when you're already committed to the tackle it's hardly the same as upending a catcher under a high ball. If I were still playing I'd jump in the air every time I took a pass, secure in the knowledge that anyone who hit me would be penalised! Still, makes for a cracking match next weekend. Wonder what it means for Sonny Bill? I was watching with a Kiwi former teammate who played at a good level over there, he reckoned that would be it, he'll be seen as having let the shirt down and won't be asked again, might have to go back to league. First Kiwi sent off since 1967, first ever on New Zealand soil, apparently. Thought it was a bit harsh initially but multiple replays made it pretty clear...good to see a ref with the strength to go straight red instead of yellow and a citing.

That's a clear explanation, thank you - I was aware the "printed" money was used to buy assets but didn't realise they are held for use as later payback. But what if, in the case for example of infrastructure spending, the credit were assessed not by assets but by a lack of debits, e.g. every person employed would be one less for whom benefits were provided, every person employed would be paying tax & NI, they would all be spending more in the economy and so on. Not to mention the general effect on the nation's wellbeing - more regular employment easing crime problems, mental health problems etc? Not everything can be quantified on a balance sheet.

Likewise. Long felt a condition of a pub licence should be that the lavatories are free to use for the public - Richmond council, I think, had quite a successful "community toilet" scheme encouraging businesses to allow the public to use their facilities free of charge - a good idea.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > That happens to women too, rendel, either through > childbirth or later in life, but, as Saffron said, > it doesn't often translate into women dropping > their pants and squatting in the street. I know, and in 99% of cases I'm sure it's just men who've had a few too many and/or have filthy manners! Of course it might help sufferers (and beer drinkers!) if all public conveniences hadn't been closed, but that's a whole other discussion...

It does sound very dodgy I agree, but bear in mind there might be a medical cause: a friend had prostate cancer which left him unable to leave the house as he got to a stage where the desire to relive himself would be followed literally a second later by the act. Fortunately all cured now. May well not be the case in a majority of instances but just one to bear in mind.

Has anyone ever seen uncleglen and Donald Trump in the same room? It's becoming increasingly difficult to tell the difference between the two in terms of peculiar pronouncements.

JohnL Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just in Time philosophy - otherwise you are > wasting time of course a really important date is > different. > > The guy sitting next to me at work often says > "Just to Late" In my brief and inglorious time as a motorcycle courier, many years ago, we had a motto always wheeled out to exasperated clients, controllers etc: "Better late in this world than early in the next."

macutd Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How condescending uncleglen. Must stop the Riff > Raff coming up Court Lane > > > uncleglen Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I second the hedge suggestion- some of you lazy > > whatsnames deserve to get burgled. > > Thieves and chancers soon respond when they > know > > an area is well off. I remember when the P4 was > > diverted to run down Court Lane- there was a > rise > > in burglary- the locals said it was because the > > people on the bus going from Brixton to > Lewisham > > were casing the joints. Aye, don't let 'em get a glimpse of rich white people's houses, it sets 'em off you know...well down to uncle's usual standard I fear...

And if you read the whole article, ASLEF have stated that they never asked for the safety issue to be bundled with pay talks, and they have rejected the attempt to have them accept a generous pay offer as a trade-off for dropping their safety concerns. Which is quite principled, really.

Ah seen. Thanks.

The Bank of England does effectively print money, albeit electronically, and uses it to buy assets. From the BofE's own website: "This policy is designed to inject money directly into the economy."

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For all the good it will do, I've emailed > Southwark on the address within the link sally > buying posted above. The ongoing closure of the > bridge has turned the adjacent roads into a > nightmare at times. They have to reopen it to > cars (but keep the restriction on HGVs. How can they reopen it to cars when the report linked to above says "This assessment work was carried out in summer last year. It was of a much more stringent nature based on the latest national standards and resulted in a determination that the bridge could not sustain any sort of motor vehicle loading." Not having a go, but if it's been determined to be unsafe for any motor vehicles and needs a ?1M repair, how can it be reopened until that's done?

d.b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It beggars belief. How is 8am-9am "overtime" for > anyone? The answer is basically, it's not. The > line through ED is clearly the least important for > Southern, so any time they have an excuse, they > cancel trains. > > Our trains are already DOO. These services are not > running on staff overtime. There is nothing about > this strike or dispute that directly affects our > morning commuter services, but we always end up > with these massive reductions in service. Certainly shouldn't be, but as mentioned on another thread, in order to maximise profits Southern have chosen for years to run down staff numbers (some estimates put them at 80% of proper capacity) and rely on staff overtime instead (in which employees were to an extent complicit as it meant a better weekly pay packet). A ridiculous model which was bound to go wrong as soon as goodwill between company and unions soured (abetted by petty removal of staff privileges such as free carparking and family travel).

Drivel from start to finish.

(ETA in reply to Kid Kruger) I have no idea of the rights and wrongs of the DOO debate, any more than I daresay you do - although I see today that the Association of British Commuters has unearthed a report commissioned by the rail industry, "On Track For 2020? The Future Of Accessible Rail Travel" which specifically recommended not having driver only trains because of the impact on elderly and disabled passengers wishing to board/alight at unstaffed stations (e.g. East Dulwich for a lot of the time, it seems). This report has not been released despite having been received two years ago. On the face of it DOO would not seem to be a problem, given that it operates elsewhere, providing a guard is retained to assist elderly and disabled passengers, help those who are unwell etc etc. However, the unions suspect, and given Southern's single-minded pursuit of profit above all else one can't blame them, that this is merely a precursor to making trains single person operated in the near future. The terms of the union action also need to be clear: they are not striking, they are simply refusing to take up offered overtime as any employee has a right to do. If Southern weren't running their network at 80% of the required staffing level - in order to save money, i.e. enhance profits - they would be able to cover the hours required. Perhaps, as also noted above, if they hadn't introduced a series of penny pinching - again, profit enhancing - measures to the detriment of their staff they would now have more goodwill. Remember, this is a company which made ?100M profit last year, whose boss was paid ?2.2M in 2015 and ?1.4M last year. If they'd invested some of your hard-earned ticket money in proper staffing levels, the cancellations wouldn't be necessary. It's worth noting also that in refusing overtime union members are doing themselves out of hundreds and hundreds of pounds a week in wages, which doesn't quite sit with the lazy bastards out for money narrative peddled in certain quarters. Nor does the "unions trying to get power" argument hold water - as someone noted above, ASLEF actually recommended that its members accept a deal offered by Southern but they - the workers on the ground, who one presumes are well placed to know the realities of the situation - rejected it. Now, they may be right or wrong, but none of this fits with the portrayal of them "messing about" commuters for the hell of it.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Answer: I don't make ratings about who's more > entitled than who, if you want to do that it's not > my obligation to join in That's something of an absurd statement for someone who accuses the unions of having "a bewildering sense of self-entitlement." How have you not made a "rating" or judgement by saying that? >I think people who pay for goods or services have the right to them By definition then you must oppose any strike action which prevents you receiving the goods or services for which you've paid, ergo if you've paid for a season ticket you must believe that unions shouldn't strike because that prevents you enjoying your "right" to what you've paid for. It's a defensible position - though obviously one on which we will not agree - just be honest about it.

Instead of trying to be clever (ironically your heavy-handed attempts at humour rather fall down as both the words you cite as quotes are words I didn't use, never mind) why not simply answer the simple question, which is as follows: you accuse the unions of having "a bewildering sense of self-entitlement" for taking industrial action. Do you believe that your entitlement to travel is more important than that, and if so do you believe the unions should be banned from striking? If you can't, or don't want to, answer, no problem, just say so rather than indulging in the tiresomely leaden persiflage above.

Good answer, I always find writing LOL at the end of a post in which one's refused to address an argument really seals the point. Well done. If you don't want people to respond to what you say, don't post. Job done. If you are going to post and accuse others of having "a bewildering sense of self-entitlement" then don't spit your dummy if people reply.

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I remember Southeastern or another company that > served Denmark Hill had a problem with > understaffing around 2008-9, but nothing even > remotely comparable to this. > > However, as far as I understand it, resorting to > overtime is an arrangement which suits both > parties: the company finds it cheaper than hiring > and training new staff, while unions are happy > because its members get paid more. > > This point seems unregulated - it evidently > shouldn't. I agree (shock). Running something as important as a railway and relying on the goodwill/desire/availability of staff to take overtime, rather than actually having enough staff to cover the timetable on regular roster, is a farce. In passing, it may seem a small point, but Southern lost quite a lot of goodwill amongst staff when last year they banned shift-switching (i.e. say you had a child which needed taking to the doctor, you could swap with a willing colleague), withdrew free staff carpark permits and free family railpasses for staff. Little things, you might say, but possibly inadvisable if relying on the goodwill of staff to fill overtime needs. Still, why should Govia care? They still picked up ?100M profit last year (along with ?20M in "emergency" funding from the government) despite running the five worst performing services in the country. Trebles all round! (but no trains)

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The question was specifically about gentlemen > though. Does a gentlemen wear them? As P.G.Wodehouse said, a gentleman is someone who can play the saxophone, but doesn't. Perhaps the same goes for the exhibition of the lower limbs in public?

I'm glad you note that other parties aren't blameless. A huge amount of the rot on Southern has been taking place on non-strike days because of under-recruitment and congestion on the network. Southern didn't recruit enough drivers to cover overtime if their staff refused, as they are quite permitted to do without industrial action, to take up overtime offers, and so had to cancel huge chunks of timetable. In this current action, Southern say they are going to cancel a quarter of their trains: this is not because staff are on strike, it's simply because they won't be taking up overtime and Southern haven't recruited enough staff to cover their normal timetable sans overtime. And let's not forget the role of the government: they were all lined up to devolve Southern's suburban services to TfL last year, all of a sudden, Labour mayor, oh we've changed our mind.

KidKruger Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > RH you crack me up mate '..I find your sense of > self-entitlement somewhat bewildering..'. > yeah wanting to get a train journey in reasonable > time and frequency, having already paid for the > ticket sold to me by the rail company purporting > to deliver a service. Yeah how fecking entitled > is that ?! Presumably you then feel that the unions should be banned from withdrawing from overtime or taking strike action? You accuse the unions of having a bewildering sense of self-entitlement for working to rule to prevent what they see as detrimental changes, so the only conclusion is that your sense of self-entitlement leads you to believe that nobody should ever go on strike if it inconveniences you, doesn't it?

DulwichLondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > For you it's absolutely OK that rail workers have > been causing so much pain to all these people, > including all those who are way, way worse off > than them? Yes. Yes it absolutely is and that's the only thing I have been trying to convey. In fact, like the unions, I absolutely revel in it and hope no solution is ever reached so we can go on feeding our sadistic desire for everyone to have a shit life, that's the aim.

So there's no truth in anything the unions say, it's all just a big scam got up to protect their power? Not an iota of justification in any argument they put forward? Moving into tinfoil hat territory. Where's your quote from, by the way, if you're going to put it out there as a truism let's at least see the source. ETA oh I see, quoting another poster. Which doesn't really demolish the alternative argument. I find your sense of self-entitlement somewhat bewildering, it appears your right to get to your work in exactly the way you wish should have supremacy over any right (and sorry, it is still a right) a union has to take industrial action.

Penguin68 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So the unions wanting better pay and conditions > makes them first world problem > > It is fair to note that train drivers are actually > quite well paid - by stopping overtime they will > be reducing (some of them) their pay to well below > the ?70k that some are able to earn with overtime. > They are in a very different place than e.g. > Picture House staff. Of course workers should have > the right to earn whatever they can squeeze out of > their employers (which, given the very curious > deal that Southern did with HMG turns out to be > us, if we are taxpayers) but let's not confuse > them with people on the bread-line. I'm not, I was merely pointing out that it's a bit rich to complain that other people's problems are "first world" ? in other words they should man up and get on with it, lots of others have it worse ? while insisting that one's own problems are far more serious. As I understand it, the main dispute with Southern is about the decision to move to single man operation regarding the doors and what the unions regard (probably rightly, as far as I can see) a long-term plan to lay off train guards. While it's true that drivers are very well paid at around 50,000 pounds a year plus overtime, I believe guards receive considerably less ? if anyone knows the actual sum I'd be interested to know. Yes, it's not like a campaign to get people paid a decent living wage, but it's more about fighting staff cuts rather than wages, isn't it?