Green Goose

Classic RendellHarris. He's got nothing else to do all day so he spends hours (if not days) researching his target list plus searching for posts he finds that don't agree with his views. Then he regurgitates his bile. He's obviously at home all day with nothing better to do although he admits to being a self-styled "free lance writer". He obviously spends all day prowling the EDF and posting abolute drivel. Hang around, just like the P13, he will be back soon. GG

Borky Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you set yourself up as a one man EDF coconut > shy, don't expect any sympathy when people start > throwing balls at you. Well said Borky. Join the club. He certainly is an odd one but what is apparent is that he is an odious, self-opinionated, intolerant, sanctimonious, judgmental bigot. Now just watch, he will respond within minutes with a a bit of vitriol. Guaranteed. GG

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just a general observation rh- do stop trolling > me > http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tro > ll Uncleglen, Join the club. The club is not too exclusive however as RendellHarris has been trolling for ages and targets anyone who doesnt agree with his prejudices and sensitivities. He spends all day on the EDF just looking for new posts from those on his hate list. It's quite sad really but let's hope he grows out of it. Meanwhile, just a little tweak and he bails up like a rabid dog. GG

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- And > he's not being bullied, apart from one comment > above people are simply quite rightly disagreeing > with his hateful and puerile right-wing views and > his bellicose spiteful attitude. Interesting to see that you are still pre-occupied with your dislike of opposing views and that it is still eating away at you, day by day. Your inherent prejudices, sensitivities and intolerance just mean more attempts by you at spewing out more sanctimonious, vitriolic drivel.

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?

jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Green Goose, you should refrain from making ad > hominem remarks of this kind. They are > intolerable. Please Teacher he started it first with his post advising me to "Seek help" QUOTE 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? Seek help. UNQUOTE > You also confuse legality (the power of > directors/shareholders) with ethics. Neither the > proposition (if you obey the law you act > ethically) nor its inverse (if you break the law > you have acted wrongly) are necessarily true. One > can think of many cases in which both are false. I only endeavoured to acquaint readers with the legalities and realities of the Picturehouse situation. The ethical dimension was tabled by you. One man's ethics can be another man's PITA hence a very subjective issue.

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. 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.

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.

My first was a Matchless 350 Trials bike, circa 1962. Single cylinder. Great fun!

edphstaff Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >>Join us from 2.15 right opposite the cinema where there?ll be music, speeches, a whole bunch of people venting their >> anger at a company that made ?93.8 million post-tax profit and refuses to negotiate sharing this fairly. From livingwage.org.uk.... QUOTE ""The Living Wage is a voluntary higher rate of base pay. "" UNQUOTE Based on this fact, Picturehouse has no obligation to pay the living wage or even talk to you about paying it. 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. If you are to secure any sympathy from the public, you need to get a better grip on the legalities involved and a better understanding of what any employer's obligations are under law. Apart from that, you should have good weather for the protest. FORH

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > this Tories government have caused us to crash out > of Europe and with a mother term will no doubt > oversee the break up of the UK. History will judge > how 'strong and stable' they've been for the > country. Our kids are going to be poorer and have > fewer opportunities than we did. If you are going to go totally tribal and blame the Tories for Brexit, then you should give the facts a bit more thought. Brexit was a majority decision taken via a national referendum. Blame the referendum on UKIP. One major factor in the result was the "grey vote" ie older people who remember the UK signing up to the Common Market. This morphed into the European Union with the promise of " ever closer union". It was the prospect of that "ever closer union" concept (driven by France and Germany) that frightened these voters -quite understandable, given the failure of monetary union.

Speculation abounds that Vince Cable will switch sides and join Labour following his interview with Susanna Reid when he says that the LibDems? new public sector pay policy will affect 1 million workers, then 2 million workers, then 5.4 million. Or maybe he is going in for a Darwin awards, politically speaking. GG PS - RH, this was the fruits of my mate's research.

RH, Sounds like you are developing more of conspiracy theories.

Good to see the shadow cabinet members are showing a consistent standard of performance.

Jaywalker, It's your tendency to divert a thread about swifts with a snide political comment is something you seem to specialise in. This is what is infantile and boring. As for your assessment of my Green credentials and political inclinations, all I can say is you are very wide of the mark. GG

jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And what do all the Conservative voters who read > this forum hope for Barry? > > To be clear, if the Tories win, his country > cousins will be torn apart by packs of dogs. Get a life and spare us your boring politicalisation of every topic you respond to. It's so repetitive, infantile and boring. GG

jaywalker Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > As with bats, we should pay much more attention to > providing shelter for our native fauna. Instead we > have a return to fox-hunting promised by the woman > masquerading as the 'people's' prime minister. > Truly unspeakable. Get a life and spare us your boring politicalisation of every topic you respond to. It's so repetitive, infantile and boring. GG

Quite obviously LoeLeg, you really havn't grasped the basic realities of a free market in employment situation. This and your earlier posts confirm that. You must live in a Socialist dream land. Enjoy. GG

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Duvaller Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > The fact that hundreds of thousands migrate to > the UK every year for work suggests that the > current system ain't all that bad. Many of these folks > make good and good on them for making the best > of the opportunity. They work hard and don't > complain. rendelharris Wrote: > Many of those people migrating here to work do so > because conditions in their own countries are so > poor that working here enables them to provide a > better life for their families back home. That's right! You may have seen the light. Agreed, they remit the money they earn to their native countries. The reality is that this is a drain on the UK balance of payments which in turns adversely affects the exchange rate. This remitted money is also a loss to the UK as it is not recirculated within our economy - a double negative. Back in the 50's and 60's we had exchange control which restricted remittances to protect the economy - but probably you were not aware of that. Now we have a proliferation of Western Union franchises that export that wealth of our country to build villas all the way from Lithuania, Pakistan and Nigeria.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > apbremer is an honest and clear commentator, > her/his admission of the possession of a feeble > brain is absolutely spot on. I feel put out Rendel, as I thought I was the only one you like insulting! You are showing your true colours now. I stand by the view that I expressed but it seems you want to denigrate me and apb because we have opinions that you don't agree with. You are the bigot. GG

Jim1234 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The only conclusion I can draw from green goose's > post is that they must have never have experienced > the hardship of living on a low wage. Incorrect assumption. I have been skint and had to take up low wage employment and it was then that I realised that the system we live with does not owe anyone a well paid job. Market forces dictate that a job only pays for the worth of the work one does. Market realities dictate pay rates. GG

Gotcha again Rendell. You just can't resist can you. GG :)

edphstaff , you come across as a militant bunch of left wing whingers. If you dont like the pay rate, why did you take on the work in the first place? If you have the abilities, skills and work ethic to take on more remunerative employment then why not do so? There are plenty of opportunities out there. Unemploymentt is at its lowest level for years and immigrants are flocking to this country to take up work. Stop whinging and get real. The system we live with does not owe you a well paid job. The system pays you for the worth of the work you do. Market realities dictate pay rates. This is no socialist utopia. Such a thing does not exist. Why try to encite others to join your cause and take up your struggle on May Day when you want to slope off to rub shoulders with the Corbynistas, Solidarity types and other delude leftists?

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Green Goose Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > I was wondering just how long it would take you > RH > > to give us another of your Liberal judgemental > > contributions. > > > > You bang on about the Wild Animals (Protection > > Act), so may we assume you are sufficiently > > motivated to campaign against the humble mouse > > trap that uses a spring to crush the little > > critters? > > > > GG > > Glad I didn't disappoint. It's not actually my > liberal judgemental view though (though unlike > your ilk I don't regard it as an insult to be > called a liberal) but the law of the land. It would be disappointing if you hadn't responded as you just love being judgmental and besides, you always take any bait that passes your nose.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > RRR's suggestion is excellent, should you follow > the rather unpleasant suggestions of GG please > make sure that your insurance is sufficient to > cover third party claims when the milkman, postman > and other visitors get carpet tacks in their feet, > oh and be prepared to take time off to appear in > court for prosecution under the Wild Mammals > (Protection) Act 1996, which makes it illegal to > "inflict unnecessary suffering, to mutilate, kick, > beat, nail or otherwise impale, stab, burn, stone, > crush, drown, drag or asphyxiate any wild > mammal." > I was wondering just how long it would take you RH to give us another of your Liberal judgemental contributions. You bang on about the Wild Animals (Protection Act), so may we assume you are sufficiently motivated to campaign against the humble mouse trap that uses a spring to crush the little critters? GG