david_carnell

Ummm... So, for over two years a project has been underway to substantially renovate a Grade II historic building. Patience people. So that petition is worthless since it's happening anyway. And that's not a criticism of Otta or whoever else has signed it but just to alert you to the fact that it'll amount to a hill of beans. As for the other stations mentioned, the same problems apply. Often old or listed buildings with limited space that would cost extortionate amounts of money to refurb with disabled access (which is essentially what you'd need for buggies too). This cost would have to passed on to the passengers who are already paying hefty fares. Not to mention the inconvenience caused by the work. I'm afraid, given that the vast number of train users are non-buggy/able bodied and at peak hours, the economics don't add up.

Didn't you once bagel a ball-boy Ted? Or was that just the same as the Boris Becker rumour. Carnell (mixed-doubles with some Eastern European sort who grunts a lot) is just here for the ride. And maybe some tennis.

katie1997 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Crisp white shirts....with black bra showing > through underneath. Horrible. There is a time and a place for everything! > Hunter wellies worn in the city. (Pleased for > Hunter's sales figures and its given me many a > laugh so shouldn't really complain). Guilty - although not Hunters (very 2009 darling - all about the Chameau this year). But in mitigating circumstances the weather was rather inclement.

God - it's like a Robert Elms show. Although I do like the idea of a bar on the underground.

I'd rather neither of you tried to tell me what I wanted this to be about.

I don't cycle in the rain if I can help it - not much fun to be had in an otherwise enjoyable mode of transport. But thanks for the advice.

Well quite Loz....and that Conservative administration had no intention of achieving it in my opinion. I don't believe full employment was a political or pragmatic aim for them. And whilst Huguenot can point out they reduced unemployment from 11.3% to 6.7% he still fails to acknowledge that they were responsible for the rise to that 11.3% in the first place and never managed to bring unemployment down to the level they inherited. It's a small point and one I'm loathed to focus on given the more important narrative in this thread but deserves to be recognised.

A reflective yellow vest guarantees high visibility, but who would wish to be seen in such a garment? In Summer I think there is no need to wear such things. In winter I have lights. This is sufficient. I never wear a helmet. These are my choices and I take my chances as does everyone who crosses a road who has chosen not to don an American Football suit for protection. Making laws on such things shows a contempt for individual liberty and an incessant appetite for clogging the parliamentary timetable with yet more unnecessary legislation. I expect you to drive as carefully as I cycle; and as to how you can see me - use your eyes, like you do for every other road user. I shall do the same. Together we may, just may, get along famously.

I'd go for: Best War film : Apocalypse Now. Best Action film: possibly Heat Best Martial Arts film: 36th Chamber of Shaolin Best Thriller: Usual Suspects....maybe Best Gangster film: has to be Godfather I & II Best Horror: Halloween

You are Piers - but that's ok. And as for the Rock - Nic Cage again who is appearing on this thread with some regularity - is hilariously camp and silly but also has Ed Harris who rescues most films. But also Michael Biehn who doesn't. "Winners go home and fuck the prom queen" And *Bob* - how can you overlook Mel Gibson in Gallipoli?! Run!

Back to Seagal, the urban myth (or not) has always been that his career was essentially a bet by his agent, Michael Ovitz, with another studio exec that he "could make anyone a star" and chose his akido instructor (Seagal) as the project. Whilst the guy looks a bit of a loser these days I still wouldn't want to mess with a certified 7th dan in akido who owned his own dojo and taught CIA agents. And there already are definitive WW1 films - just not all of them have become that "big". The two versions of All Quiet on the Western Front would be up there (although really only the original b&w 1930s one) along with the Blue Max. Under the radar, worth looking at "La Grande Illusion" and "Black and White in Colour". But Bob is correct for the general reasons why WW2 is much more suitable for great cinema.

Seconded for Heat. The street gun-battle is what surround sound systems were made for.

Gowlett quiz is grand - last Sunday of the month with Phil Nice and chocolate. Lots of chocolate.

Con Air. Daft, silly, and with explosions. But a good cast (Malkovich, Cusack, Cage, Rhames, Buscemi, err...Colm Meeny) and some OTT dialogue make it hugely enjoyable.

You don't get to do that as opposition. Waiting for the govt to screw up is not a tactic. I'm a fan of Miliband but I want to hear more about what he stands for and what sort of society he wants to aim for. And scoring on a few of these open goals when the govt is in trouble. DCLG questions in the House today should be interesting given the recent "bins" fiasco.

Otta/DJKQ - I used "graduates" without really meaning to. I just meant "best" and my own prejudices came out. We should want the "best" people in public sector roles given their importance, be it social care, town planning, reforming welfare, deciding arts grants or reviewing our defence industry. And yet seemingly the public sector is seen as a weak touch for those that couldn't "hack it" in the private sphere. The home for slackers and the work-shy. And an easy target for those seeking to reduce government spending without looking beyond the horizon. Decimate this sector now and you'll regret it forever.

As a hypothetical, surely if the t&c in the public sector were THAT good you would be attracting the best and the brightest to run the govt depts that govern the country? Whilst politicians come and go, 'tis really the mandarins on Whitehall who run the show. For eg Spelman at Defra got screwed over bin collections because the civil servants there were resolutely opposed to her policies. In this case for a bloody good cause. By watering down the t&c you cease to attract those top quality calibre employees. Ditto teaching, nursing, policing etc. I'd rather my public servants were paid well and hose jobs were seen to be the real plum ones for graduates rather than Deloittes or KPMG. Pay peanuts, get monkeys?

Oh, I'm well versed in arcane parliamentary procedure to know some random back bench amendment or early day motion has as much chance of becoming law as I do of becoming PM. And I'm aware that amongst Labour MPs there are some proper nut-jobs as well (step forward Jeremy Corbyn, your time is up). There is a nagging...."but" in there somewhere though.

And I don't want to keep buggering on about the contempt this government (and wider Conservative Party) show for working people but two in a day is just too much. First we had the "let's allow people to opt out of the minimum wage" clap trap earlier and now this: It truly beggars belief. I am in no way equating either of these standpoints with the mature debate Quids has posted in these halls, for the record. I just wanted to point out where we are heading.

Ok. We are both in agreement that private pensions are a pretty poor deal. And I'm pleased you recognise the role the financial sector had to play in the failure of large numbers of private sector pensions. I'd likewise applaud the sentiment that large sections of society are either ignorant or apathetic to their long term financial futures. And I think that's something that determination could rectify. And I agree that the scale of contribution for public sector workers is less than their private sector brethren. My small amount of financial acumen would tell me that the reason for this is two-fold but I suspect, and would be interested in other reasons. Firstly, scale. With millions of workers paying into central pools the scale of return on investments can obviously be higher. Secondly, profit. The public sector doesn't have shareholders demanding dividends. Money diverted by a private sector firm into a pension fund will, by necessity, take money away from the bottom line and affect share price. But here we are talking about fundamental economic principles. The building blocks. Not something you can tinker with without the whole house of cards collapsing. Your anecdote is also interesting for similar reasons. It highlights some truths but doesn't really give answers. Your self-employed brickie friend: his lack of saving (only a few grand over 40 years?!) could be a sign of penury or just of being a bit of a dolt when it came to saving for retirement. Such is the choice you make when becoming self employed. Then again, and without tarring all builders or attempting to insult your friend, I'm sure there were more than a few cash-in-hand jobs over those 40 years that escaped the attention of Her Majesty's tax inspectors. Swings and roundabouts. The soldier/copper has clearly worked in two of the most demanding public sector roles which pretty much ensure burn-out by your mid-fifties and, rightly in my opinion, enforced retirement. I think he's lucky to get such a good deal but I don't begrudge it. However, your generation is one of the last to enjoy such high levels of pension. Final salary schemes are a thing of the past for new civil servants. As I've previously highlighted, changes in 2007 put our retirement in line with all other workers and contributions have increased. I think these are significant enough to not endanger the economy or future government pay-outs. I don't believe that I should be penalised further because I've decided to work in the public sector. We are currently bearing a burden through redundancies and wage freezes (whilst inflation rockets, private sector pay has risen by 3% and general unemployment falls) and paying the price for an economic crisis we didn't create. I repeat again that I don't think these battles are being fought by the government over fiscal necessity but instead through political zeal; to see a traditional enemy and thorn in the side of privatisation and outsourcing beaten into submission.

*badoom tish*

Fine - then I apologise for suggesting otherwise. And I mean that. But I'm not sure it takes a great leap of imagination to understand why it may come across otherwise as SJ points out. You have history. As, to be fair, do I. Yet your second paragraph highlights my fustration. You look at the raw deal some private sector workers get, and in that I am in complete agreement with you, and then say you want everyone else to get that too. It just seems so....negative. Why not look at ways of increasing private sector job security (i.e. tightening rules on temporary workers for eg) or ways to improve those pensions. Instead you seem (and I know you'll feel free to correct me if this is another assumption) to want all the public sector workers to have the same bum deal.

Rosie - my admiration for Sun sub-editors has no equal. Accompanying a picture of a Kestrel and a Barn Owl spotted fighting over food: ?Hawk Kestrel maneuvres in the park? Classic The rest of the content of the articles on the other hand.....

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As Quids says, "we can't afford it". This may be > true, and continuing to give out these pensions > may not be sustainable (I don't know enough about > the figures to be honest, but I'm interested in > David's point that the pension funds actually make > money). As I said before though, I can understand > rewriting T&Cs for new recruits, who will go in to > something knowing the score. I can't however agree > that a persons T&Cs should just be changed, to me > that is totally wrong, whether they work in > Private or Public Sector. Don't take my word for it Otta. Read the report by the cross-party Public Accounts Select Committee who this year, in conclusion, found the following: A saving on ?67 billion clearly isn't significant enough. To turn the old adage on its head.....squeeze 'em till the pips burst. How the National Audit Office? What do they have to say on the matter: So we are seeing a large reduction (in financial terms a drop of 0.5% of GDP is huge) in the cost of public sector pensions already. Yet this government wants to go further. I repeat that it is not driven by financial necessity but ideological vindictiveness. When it comes to teachers I would presume you would want to recruit the highest calibre of graduates. Whilst pay is currently (and has been for two years) frozen, a decent pension has long been an atrractive proposition. No longer.

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > D-C "J'accuse" - GODWIN's LAW Guilty. Tbh - I'm staying out of this one. I've got my hands full in the Drawing Room. :-)