Vladimir Putin Posted December 1, 2011 Report Share Posted December 1, 2011 Sack him! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collins Out! Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 Television is just there to divert you away from the real issues that affect you. Job done in this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 As a trade unionist I would never agitate for another working man to be deprived of his livelihood, so I don't agree that Clarkson should be sacked. Instead, I think he sodomised repeatedly by a pack of syphilitic mountain gorillas and then shot in the head. In front of his family. What have the poor gorillas done to deserve that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamiltonjag Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 I want to put in my tuppenceworth on the Jeremy Clarkson issue: I have heard what the buffoon had to say and I am offended, shocked and sickened by his inane, opinionated and hurtful comments. So for the record Mr Smarty Pant Clarkson: Volvos are GOOD motors! Right? Now shut it! :-p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Quinn Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 i honestly think jeremy clarkson is right. that strike was a shambles, self indulgent nonsense. it's a recession, so people will have to work longer and get paid less. EVERYONE HAS TO. They were acting as if they had been singled out, but they hadnt. everyones hard done by. get over it. whos paying for your hissy fit? the tax payer. you have to work yourself out of a recession. striking just makes it worse. death to the unions, they encourage the apathetic lazy attitude that has grippped scotland in the past 10 yr. where's my brown shirt? god i'm so fascist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 i honestly think jeremy clarkson is right. that strike was a shambles, self indulgent nonsense. it's a recession, so people will have to work longer and get paid less. EVERYONE HAS TO. They were acting as if they had been singled out, but they hadnt. everyones hard done by. get over it. whos paying for your hissy fit? the tax payer. you have to work yourself out of a recession. striking just makes it worse. death to the unions, they encourage the apathetic lazy attitude that has grippped scotland in the past 10 yr. where's my brown shirt? god i'm so fascist Would it be fair to say that you like Capitalism, but not capitals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicofan Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 A more apt title for this thread would have been "Jeremy Clarkson is a sack" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACAB Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 My Union stated in their literature that the cost of striking for one day is the equivilant of one months extra contribution (on average) to the proposed pension scheme, which, for me, is approx. £50. However, when I've popped my details into the calculator I have access to it turns out that I'm actually better off by £3 a month, after tax relief, under the new scheme. My supervisor is £18 a month worse off and I'm not sure at what level the extra monthly contribution exceeds the cost of striking for one day. I'm sure the union literature is accurate but I feel it is very misleading I am beginning to question the morals of the union leaders if they expect the poorly paid to fight for the very much better waged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven H Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 As someone who is about to go and work in the public sector I've been interested in the reasons for the strike and the action the strikers are looking for, yet I'm still not sure if this action was necessary at this point in time. Also, does the end justify the means? Public sector workers will still have a far better pension than most people, but not sure the increase in the retirement age is fair. Anyway, Clarkson is a tube, he isn't funny and his comments on the One Show were not funny, BUT, he meant them to be funny and was actually in support of the strikers. Storm in a teacup imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinny Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 Would it be fair to say that you like Capitalism, but not capitals? Off topic, but I do find it funny that when a socialist/communist state fails, it is the fault of the system and not the people in charge, however this worldwide economic recession is the fault of the people in charge, not the capitalist system. Our economy relies on better off people spending money on luxuries and overinflated property prices and the banks gambling money that isn't really theirs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 As someone who is about to go and work in the public sector I've been interested in the reasons for the strike and the action the strikers are looking for, yet I'm still not sure if this action was necessary at this point in time. Also, does the end justify the means? Public sector workers will still have a far better pension than most people, but not sure the increase in the retirement age is fair. Anyway, Clarkson is a tube, he isn't funny and his comments on the One Show were not funny, BUT, he meant them to be funny and was actually in support of the strikers. Storm in a teacup imo. Agreed. But when you think of The Fortunes that the fat cats are earning, the blood boils. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackpool Jags Posted December 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 The strike was necessary at this point in time because the reforms are due to take place early in the new year, so once they're in and all that. It should also be pointed out that for over six months Trade Union General Secretaries have been attending 'talks' in Whitehall without any dialogue taking place at all; Government ministers refusing to negotiate on the reforms. This, unfortunately, is a corroborated fact. I agree entirely with Twinny's post about the communist and capitalist systems, and the double take on those perceived to be responsible for the breakdown of those systems. Just to be clear, and to debunk the Downing Street lies about us all being in this together: on last Wednesday's BBC News, their political correspondent revealed that in the past 12 months employees' (across both the public and private sectors) pay in the UK fell behind the rate of inflation. In the same 12 months reference period, Directors' pay rose by 49%. Now, from where I'm sitting... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Scruff Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 (edited) Just to be clear, and to debunk the Downing Street lies about us all being in this together: on last Wednesday's BBC News, their political correspondent revealed that in the past 12 months employees' (across both the public and private sectors) pay in the UK fell behind the rate of inflation. In the same 12 months reference period, Directors' pay rose by 49%. Now, from where I'm sitting... No. The quote referred to Executive Directors' pay in FTSE 100 companies. A very narrow, and distorted sample when comparing with 'employees'. In my own company, director's remuneration is down nearly 40% over the last 3 years and is hurting. We've taken much bigger hits to preserve staff and jobs (yes, because the company wouldn't exist otherwise). To suggest that "directors" are both doing well and exploiting is an utter misrepresentation. Though I have to say, BJ, that I am 100% with the sentiment that the remuneration of Executive Directors in FTSE 100 companies is obscene - you only have to look at the comparison between 1979/80 and 2009/10 to see it clearly illustrated. But that doesn't mean that 'management are doing very well thank you' can be presented as the narrative. Edited December 2, 2011 by Mr Scruff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackpool Jags Posted December 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 I accept your definition of the reference group in question, MS, but that is exactly how it was described on the BBC. I think there's no doubt that many managers and some directors have taken a pasting during the recession/downturn, and there is always different ways to include 'managers' and 'directors' when talking about 'bosses', to be fair, but your own description - ie Directors of companies listed in the FTSE 100 companies - still illustrates the widening gulf between those we understand to be the Captains of Industry and the rest of us. As a by the way, Marx commented frequently on the crisis of capitalism dealing very harshly with the 'middle classes' who, he said, were crucial in the transformation of capitalism into a more equitable and productive system: socialism. I think he had a point there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Scruff Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 I accept your definition of the reference group in question, MS, but that is exactly how it was described on the BBC. I think there's no doubt that many managers and some directors have taken a pasting during the recession/downturn, and there is always different ways to include 'managers' and 'directors' when talking about 'bosses', to be fair, but your own description - ie Directors of companies listed in the FTSE 100 companies - still illustrates the widening gulf between those we understand to be the Captains of Industry and the rest of us. As a by the way, Marx commented frequently on the crisis of capitalism dealing very harshly with the 'middle classes' who, he said, were crucial in the transformation of capitalism into a more equitable and productive system: socialism. I think he had a point there. Apologies - my response wasn't meant to suggest it was you who was distorting the facts but I realise it might have come across that way. I'm aware that much of the commentary was leaving out the definition of 'directors' and really distorting the point. 100% agree regarding your point about widening gulf. The remuneration of these ED's doesn't reflect value addition or entrepreneurship; it's almost the definition of a self sustaining closed shop. The crisis of capitalism does exist in there, as it does in those rewarded for gambling with other people's money for no societal benefit for which we're all paying the price. We'll probably disagree over the solution, though - I'm completely against the notion of a state controlled economy; I just don't believe it works without resorting to authoritarianism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 Off topic, but I do find it funny that when a socialist/communist state fails, it is the fault of the system and not the people in charge, however this worldwide economic recession is the fault of the people in charge, not the capitalist system. Our economy relies on better off people spending money on luxuries and overinflated property prices and the banks gambling money that isn't really theirs. A system in which governments bail-out banks and subsidises industries isn't a capitalist system. It's a corporatist one. Much like most countries that claim to be socialist. Daniel Hannan, for all his occasionally off the wall comments surmises this quite well in the following article: Clicky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinny Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 A system in which governments bail-out banks and subsidises industries isn't a capitalist system. It's a corporatist one. Much like most countries that claim to be socialist. Daniel Hannan, for all his occasionally off the wall comments surmises this quite well in the following article: Clicky That was done out of necessity, not because of any ideological beliefs of those who did it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collins Out! Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 This strike was pissing in the wind but what is the alternative? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 (edited) That was done out of necessity, not because of any ideological beliefs of those who did it. Actually no it wasn't. It was a very political position. A capitalist system would have allowed them to crash, get wound-up, their assets sold off, the proceeds given to partially meet obligations to creditors and new banks would have taken their place. The government already had a £50k savings guarantee in place and had absolutely no need whatsoever to bail-out the banks out of economic necessity. It was an overtly ideological position to take and served to bail out bankers and shareholders. If you have the government step in to bail-out shareholders you don't have capitalism. The whole point about capitalism is that just as individuals can profit from taking a risk, so too they can lose out. I suggest you read a little into "moral hazard" as this explains exactly the situation this created. Edited December 2, 2011 by Woodstock Jag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grimlock Posted December 2, 2011 Report Share Posted December 2, 2011 Sigh Clarkson has been presenting Top Gear in his own "inimatable" style for around a quarter of a century. He has written dozens of books. He writes weekly columns and reviews for News International (Sun and Times). This is his vernacular, albeit (like the vast majority of his opinions) it's been spouted for maximum shock effect. I pity the collective IQ of this country Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackpool Jags Posted December 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 The master of self-interference, Clarkson, has now released a CD - albeit with confessional overtones - to the range of Xmas 'goodies' he'll be expecting his followers to purchase. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkqfa-kaRFM&feature=youtu.be Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennythistle Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 Sorry, but the man wears jeans and a suit jacket and anyone who does that has no idea about f**king anything. Oh shit, I better think of something else to wear today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennythistle Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 It seems any who has a go, or a joke, whatever you want to call it about the public sector workers is out of touch and so "out of touch" with reality! Me, I kind of relate the feelings between public and private sector similar to the english and scots over the poll tax. Private sector all got their pensions reduced, asked to pay more, work longer, way before the public sector. Was their a voice of decent from them when the rest got shafted first. Then all hell breaks loose when it effects them. I've had a big falling out with my sister over the very issue this week. I work in Insurance industry, she's a social worker. When I had a go about my local council on Facebook, she went mental. Took the high ground as to public sector workers work through t breaks, stay late during shifts, help people. she basically described the same job I do myself but came across as she is a better person than me because she is a public sector worker. The changes made to pensions effect everyone, I've no sympathy whatsoever for the public sector...they had sod all sympathy for me when my pension was changed a year before theirs were. No doubt plenty of those who took offence with Clarkson and want his head, went home that night and put on the latest Frankie Boyle dvd for a laugh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gianlucatoni Posted December 3, 2011 Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 I've had a big falling out with my sister over the very issue this week. I work in Insurance industry, she's a social worker. When I had a go about my local council on Facebook, she went mental. Took the high ground as to public sector workers work through t breaks, stay late during shifts, help people. she basically described the same job I do myself but came across as she is a better person than me because she is a public sector worker. The changes made to pensions effect everyone, I've no sympathy whatsoever for the public sector...they had sod all sympathy for me when my pension was changed a year before theirs were. You seem to have bought the tory divide and conquer PR claptrap hook, line and sinker. The fact that big businesses started pulling the plug on final salary schemes years ago and shafting their own (in many instances non-unionised workforces) was a total scandal in itself. There should be legislation in place for companies to get decent pension schemes up and running and increase their company level of contributions to their workers pension - no question about it. As for your sister she's right - in no other area of business would you get people giving up their free time to plough it straight back into the company as unpaid overtime. She's not the only one - last month I put in 12 lunchtimes on the way to doing 52 hours extra for nowt ... those 52 hours equating to an extra member of staff in situ for a week and a half. But hey why bother - there are millions of easy target public sector workers out there, doing the jobs nobody else wants, who are ready made cashpoint machines to help the government bail out their illegal wars and occupations, banking ****-ups and FTSE 100 chums - the poor wee peasants won't mind being asked for an extra £100 a month, work 7 years longer all to get a £6800 a year less in pension payments (and some people ask why people are so pissedoff we went on strike). Interesting to note that any increase in my pension payments won't be going to my pension pot at SOPA (Scottish Office Pensions Agency) but will instead go straight to the Treasury. Makes me sad to hear people in the street spouting the tory PR verbatim - repaet something often enough and people will start to believe it eh? Never mind, we're all in this together eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackpool Jags Posted December 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2011 You seem to have bought the tory divide and conquer PR claptrap hook, line and sinker. The fact that big businesses started pulling the plug on final salary schemes years ago and shafting their own (in many instances non-unionised workforces) was a total scandal in itself. There should be legislation in place for companies to get decent pension schemes up and running and increase their company level of contributions to their workers pension - no question about it. As for your sister she's right - in no other area of business would you get people giving up their free time to plough it straight back into the company as unpaid overtime. She's not the only one - last month I put in 12 lunchtimes on the way to doing 52 hours extra for nowt ... those 52 hours equating to an extra member of staff in situ for a week and a half. But hey why bother - there are millions of easy target public sector workers out there, doing the jobs nobody else wants, who are ready made cashpoint machines to help the government bail out their illegal wars and occupations, banking ****-ups and FTSE 100 chums - the poor wee peasants won't mind being asked for an extra £100 a month, work 7 years longer all to get a £6800 a year less in pension payments (and some people ask why people are so pissedoff we went on strike). Interesting to note that any increase in my pension payments won't be going to my pension pot at SOPA (Scottish Office Pensions Agency) but will instead go straight to the Treasury. Makes me sad to hear people in the street spouting the tory PR verbatim - repaet something often enough and people will start to believe it eh? Never mind, we're all in this together eh? Without having a go at Lenny or others, gianlucatoni nails it here for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.