Chippy Minton

:)) I still haven't got over paying ?18 for a croque-monsieur in Val d'Is?re a few years ago!

Absolutely UDT. However, Huguenot seems to think he is well placed to judge and execute on a situation which he's read about from 8,500 miles away on this forum ;-)

I'll look forward to telling you to move house once your kids approach school age and you start moaning about catchment areas in East Dulwich etc. Choices in life...exactly...everyone calibrates their life differently and I choose my life knowing that a car IS a necessity. Get real car haters +1

"Old bat," "shits," "arseholes" and now "bullshitters." Oh dear. Anymore abuse for the abusers that dare to complain about him?

Otta - here's my situation. Monday-Friday I have to get my youngest to nursery for when it opens at 8.30am. Even if I get there bang on when it opens, by the time I get in, get the coat off and say goodbye it's usually 8.40. Ten minutes later, the other two have to be at school which is two miles from the nursery and with no public transport linking them. I then have to get to work in Biggin Hill for before 10am (a journey that is usually about an hour and half on public transport if I go from dropping them off at school). Explain to me how a car isn't a necessity. Lucky you if a car isn't a necessity. For plenty of others, it is.

I doubt even James Barber would agree with this! Otherwise, what the hell is the point of having a consultation exercise and the community meetings to allow people to "have their say" in the first place?

Errr....read buddbug's previous posts for an explanation of why she thinks he hasn't performed his duty of representing her very well. Obviously it's subjective as to whether he has or hasn't done this, but for buddug, he clearly hasn't and she is perfectly entitled to say as such.

Weird how some people on here can moan about, criticise and generally slag-off local tradesmen, shops, businesses etc and then get loads of "I agree" and "thanks for warning us" type messages, but then if someone has the temerity to complain about their local democratically elected representative not performing their DUTY very well they get accused of being abusive and rude.

O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

There is no place for outright abuse on here...however, just because James Barber posts on here does not make him a good councillor and the fact that he does, doesn't make him "brave" or mean he is putting his "head above the parapet." He, like all the others, is one of our elected representatives - democratically accountable - and is duty bound to the community and its constituents (including those that did not vote for him!). Clearly, James Barber has identified this forum as a good way of honouring his duties, which is great for us forumites, but other councillors obviously find they better serve the needs of their constituents using other mechanisms e.g. ward surgeries etc. If James wants to withdraw from this forum then that's fair enough - it will just be poorer without him.

Edited and reposted on the more appropriate "Controversial" thread in the Lounge

jonsuissy - James Barber contradicts himself. He says 'We avoid using it as much as possible but yes we own a car.' therefore admitting sometimes it is not possible to avoid using a car i.e. it is a necessity! He also notes his kids are old enough to walk places he wants to walk to now - well that's great for him, but there's a hell of a lot of people in East Dulwich with younger kids for which that's not an option. Also, not to mention all the people that already posted on here about the necessity for them to have a car for work etc. BTW, having a car and having a bike aren't mutually exclusive - I know loads of people that have both and will cycle whenever they can, but will say having a car is still a necessity.

Most GPs think the Bill won't result in more cost-effective delivery of care and over 75% of GPs think the Bill won't reduce bureaucracy in the NHS.

What a ridiculous statement. There are plenty of people for whom a car is absolutely a necessity.

How ironic to accuse someone of providing "egregious information" and then in the same sentence accuse Unison or similar organisation of only being interested in "maintaining the status quo." Unison, The Royal College of Nursing and Unite (the 'big three' NHS unions) along with numerous smaller and more specialist ones, have repeatedly stated they recognise the need for the NHS to modernise and become more efficient. Indeed, the Royal College of Nursing actively encourages its members to report NHS waste and inefficiencies as part of its campaign to make the NHS more efficient. The blog identified in OP looks to have been written by an NHS doctor - it's hardly surprising they want the Health and Social Care Bill stopped given almost three quarters of GPs share these fears and agree the Bill should be scrapped.

http://eddiedeguzman.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/cartoon-bang-head-jpg.gif?w=200&h=200 MM - Please reread what I have written - I have never said the Acts weren't "good." For the third time on this thread, I will state again: whether you agree or disagree with the measures introduced by the Tories in the 80s/90s is not my point. I am simply stating IT IS NOT FACTUALLY CORRECT TO SAY WORKPLACE RIGHTS ARE GREATER NOW THAN EVER BEFORE because the Tories made numerous changes to the law that have never been repealed!!!! Perhaps you should lose your prejudices and actually read what I've written before reaching for the keyboard to disagree just because you see my username.

Loz, I not so blinkered that I'd deny that the things Hugo mentioned aren't "good stuff," of course they are. However, on balance taking into account the pluses and minuses, I'd argue that workplace rights are not as strong now as they were pre-Thatcher. This is because the Tories introduced legislation that: - restricted picketing both at your own place of work and secondary action (which is now completely illegal) - restricted closed shops - removed statutory recognition procedure - restricted unfair dismissal and maternity rights - reduced unfair dismissal rights in smaller companies - introduced a tribunal pre-hearing review and deposit - made small employers exempt from providing details of disciplinary procedures - restricted TU facility time - Abolished redundancy rebates - made a written reason for dismissal only required if an employee had two years service - abolished the Training Commission - allowed the dismissal of strikers taking unofficial action - allowed employers to obtain injunctions against unions and sue unions for damages - removed union only labour clauses in commercial contracts - made TU elections every 5 years by secret ballot - introduced political fund ballots every 10 years - introduced secret ballots for industrial action - forced unions to make their finances open to inspection - prevented workers from having fines paid by their union - made post entry closed shop unlawful Now, some might say that many, if not all, of these measures are a good thing. Indeed, the Tories that introduced them obviously did ;-) However, that is not my point - my point is that regardless of whether it was a good thing or not workplace rights are not greater now than they've ever been.

Whether you think the Acts were "good" or not is irrelevant - they still reduced workplace rights. The fact of the matter is 1980, 1982, 1988, 1989, 1990 Employment Acts, the 1984 Trade Union Act and the 1993 Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act all reduced workplace rights in some form. I don't have a warped sense of perspective - I agree workers rights now are far better than they were 50 years ago. I just think it's factually incorrect to state "workplace rights now are greater than they've ever been."

Yes, they brought in the minimum wage (and unfair dismissal protection measures for that matter!) but they didn't repeal any of the six Acts of Parliament made between 1980 and 1993 which reduced workplace rights.

This is not true. The Tory government in the 80s made numerous legislative changes that reduced people's rights in the workplace and the following Labour government didn't repeal any of these.

grislett isn't a local councillor who has been elected by his/her peers! Engaging in a "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" exchange is not approppriate.

BREAKING NEWS: The FA have handed Andy Carroll an eight-game run in the Liverpool first team. The club are set to appeal.

Wrong! Renata Hamvas is on here regularly and Victoria Mills and Gavin Edwards all post here in their capacity as local councillors. With regard to agendas, James, Renata, Victoria, Gavin (and our MP Tessa Jowell who posts on here) are all elected representatives of political parties and, as such, all have agendas!

Someone at work reckons prices are going to be much higher this year because some subsidy (in Norway / Denmark ??) is no longer available. No idea if this is true or not.

Unions obviously believe in collective bargaining, but collective bargaining isn't always national. For example, Fujistu, Rolls Royce, BAE Systems etc all have numerous employment bases throughout the country, but all have regional or workplace bargaining units. In the public sector, unions won't have a national bargaining unit for all the country's local authority workers - for example e.g. the bargaining unit in Southampton will negotiate with Southampton City Council and will be totally separate from, say, the bargaining unit at Newcastle City Council. It seems to me this is a sensible way of doing things. Obviously, the issues faced in, for example, Southampton can be totally different to Newcastle and so should be agreed locally. It also prevents widespread disputes/strikes on issues that are essentially local.