|
baka kaba posted:I'll believe it when I see it. More likely there'll be a few gestures, a lot of vague promises of what's to come after the general election (VOTE TORY) and some general screwing over of Scotland to appease the backbenchers and the braying English masses with their FURY OVER SCOTTISH HANDOUTS *ignores entire statement just given by Cameron about the federalisation of the UK and the plans for Devo max to be in place by November.*
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2014 07:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 21:19 |
|
|
Spooky Hyena posted:They're full of poo poo, it isn't devo max and it's not guaranteed. The question is how far the lies go, will Shetland go independent and take all the oil? The laws will be published in January.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
Spooky Hyena posted:Doesn't even cover my bus fares. And it assumes Labour will keep these promises after winning the election, and they've had trouble recently keeping promises lasting a few days. What currently covers your bus fare?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
Serotonin posted:I love the idea that knowing trivia somehow makes you posh instead of someone who's just watched a lot of daytime quiz shows. Well if you have time to watch daytime tv you're clearly so posh you dont have to work.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2014 12:45
|
|
|
107 people were jailed between 2011 and 2013 for failing to pay the fines given out by the court for not having a tv licence. Saying that they never go after you is a rather silly.Ddraig posted:There's a loving huge group of people who print weird things about how to 'beat' the TV licensing people, using such novel concepts as 'revoking implied consent' and what have you. It's exploded recently because of 'The 45%' and its going to end up with a lot of red faced people in front of a rather annoyed magistrate.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:Yeah basically this. If you don't have a telly phone then and tell them, they'll not bother you for a couple of years. TV licensing is figuratively the only argument which "if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear" applies to. It's not as simple as that. Not having a tv doesn't exempt you. You can't have a smartphone since you can watch Live tv on the BBC iplayer app. Same for your computer and tablets. Having any device capable of viewing live tv means you need a licence. The burden of proof is not on them either, its on you to prove that you do not watch live BBC television.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:How do you prove that exactly? Can you take a quiz about which BBC celebrities you know? It's up to you to go 'look, I don't have any of these apps, heres my store history to prove i never downloaded them. I've also never visited the BBC sport website while a live stream was being shown, I've never used iplayer to watch a live broadcast' etc etc. Its very difficult to prove you havent watched live tv when they eventually get you in front of a magistrate.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Spooky Hyena posted:How are they going to get you in front of a magistrate without evidence of you watching live TV (for example, in the case that you haven't been watching live TV)? The same way they got over 180,000 of them infront of one last year. 'We think you're watching live tv without a licence because you have a laptop connected to the internet, and when interviewed you said you use it to watch catch up tv. We think you are also using it to watch as live broadcasts' Its then on you to prove that that laptop isn't used to watch live tv.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Pasco posted:This is all utter, utter bollocks. Your links are just agreeing with everything I've said? If you watch Live TV on any device you need a licence.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:No they aren't, you outright side the device was what mattered, and it clearly isn't. Read my posts. Live TV is in every one of them.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:
The prison sentences are for people that don't pay the fines. No-ones ever been sent down for not paying a tv licence. I highly expect you're right however, its very difficult to get caught not having a tv licence unless you are rather thick. However something interesting I just read from here https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/45747/response/114020/attach/html/3/RFI20101149%20final%20response.pdf.html quote:I note further however that TV Licence evasion is a
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Spangly A posted:This doesn't mean they don't have burden of proof, it just means "I honestly didn't know" isn't a valid leniency plea and the fines are fixed. I found it interesting because a lot of tablets/consoles come as standard with the iplayer app these days too. 'I didn't know i needed a licence for my xbox.' etc.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
This is a reasonable article on the some of the people that get caught not having a TV licence. Feels a bit sensationalised, but its a decent read. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/24/in-court-non-payment-tv-licence-television-desperate-cases
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
Coohoolin posted:So confident they didn't allow devo max on the ballot and then panicked and brought it up again. Because you continue to post things that are wrong and then finish them with an arrogant 'i know better than you so don't bother talking about it.' way.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Quote-Unquote posted:Well that's bollocks. If you don't understand why someone whos job responsibility is standing on a till taking orders, where getting it wrong means a customer doesn't get the right burger, and someone who's job responsibility involves making decisions that affect the entire company, and where getting it wrong will cost the company millions are paid differently, I think you have some major issues.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Oh I understand that you seem to want everyone to be paid exactly the same, regardless of job responsibility. You also seem to think all jobs are the same difficulty and that people would be just as willing to do the hard jobs for the same money as the easy ones.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Quote-Unquote posted:Have you ever worked in fast food or even retail? It's the hardest, most thankless work I've ever done. I now earn more than twice as much as I did as a retail grunt and my job is so much easier and less stressful, with fewer hours. Yes. I worked in retail for 5 years working as a commission based sales job, probably the hardest form of retail. Started as just a normal worker then moved up the ladder until I was in charge of the entire south coast. I went from working 8 hours a day with an hour commute, to working 12-14 hours a day with up to 6 hours travelling. Now I'm head of marketing for a fashion company. I work even more than I did when I was Sales Manager. More hours, more stress, more effort. Retail work was hard, but I didn't have to think about it after I finished. I didn't have to think about it before I started, and generally speaking, I didn't have to think about it while I was there. Monumentally less effort than I have to put in now. It was definitely less mentally exhausting than everything I've done since.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Spooky Hyena posted:no they bootstraps themselves up by working 20 hours a day like Gaylord I'm sorry that after working an 8 hour day for a year on a till, I don't think its very difficult. I'm sure for some its the hardest thing they've ever done, but for me, it wasnt.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:So loving what? I take calls at 2am that involve actually saving people's lives. I can't take a holiday more than 4 hours travelling time from London at certain times of the year because of my job, and I still have to field work calls and queries all the time when I do manage to get away, and I don't get paid millions. I also get paid a shitload more than many doctors and almost all nurses and they have a level of drive, dedication, and skill way beyond anything I do. If you feel this strongly about it why don't you give everything more than the junior grade nurses salary away to the nurses charity then?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Why aren't you giving all your money to the poor underpaid CEOs? Because I believe they earn what they deserve. You're the one saying you personally earn far more than you should, and that nurses should earn more than you do based on their level of work dedication. You say you fundamentally believe that you don't deserve to be paid more than those junior nurses. So what are you doing to fix it?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
Doctor_Fruitbat posted:If a comfortably well-off gent feels there's no issue with wealth disparity then it must be true! And if someone feels there's unjust wealth inequality, that's clearly their problem! Come on goddamnedtwisto, it's up to you to bootstrap your way to getting those nurses better pay! I don't earn more money than most Doctors, which the poster I was replying to says he does. He earns more money than me. He is the one that believes he doesn't deserve to earn more than doctors, and magnitudes more than nurses so I was asking why, if he felt so strongly about this, he wasn't doing anything about it? He hasn't answered this with anything other than a flippant remark. Leads me to believe that its empty words. Also why are you so quick to say I don't donate to charity? Seems a bit presumptuous there.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
Zohar posted:Perhaps he is doing something about it, namely political activism with the objective of increasing the amount they are being paid. That is an option too you know. Writing letters from his ivory tower while wondering what he can do to help out the serfs toiling in the mud below. I just find it a bit rich that he is railing against such wage disparity while benefiting massively from it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
Zohar posted:Yeah, maybe it is rich, but so what? We all probably agree that children starving in foreign countries is a bad thing, but I doubt any of us has given away all our savings to prevent it even though it would probably be of objectively greater aggregate benefit to mankind if we did so instead of spending it on video games or movie tickets or a night out at a restaurant. We still admire people who do that kind of thing, and that in itself is pretty much an admission of the original point: it's a Bad Thing that those children are starving. It would be good if goddamnedtwisto gave away all his savings to nurses, but you can still make a meaningful difference and hold a sincere and correct belief without being a saint. It was mainly that I didn't take kindly to his 'woe is me, i hate earning so much more than these people that deserve it far more than me' posting. I would truly wonder if he would feel so strongly about it were he earning such 'fair' wage. Its easy to make such sweeping statements from a position of plenty. People are inherently selfish.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
You won't ever get rid of wage disparity. People will always want more money for more responsibility, and companies will pay more for better staff. Any company trying to institute some sort of top down wage squeeze would find their top and middle range staff deserting them. Further, raising the minimum wage will just raise wages further up the chain to compensate. Capitalism. If this is about what could you do to raise the wages of nurses, well that's a whole other kettle of fish.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
KKKlean Energy posted:serious gaylord, do you think there are meaningful steps that could be taken to reduce wage disparity, even if it can't be totally banished from society? Or do you approach it from the "gently caress it, all or nothing, unhindered capitalism forever lololol" angle I'll treat this as a serious question and give you an answer that I believe. As long as people are free to make their own choices about employment, you will never reduce wage disparity in a 1st world nation. If wages are increased at the bottom, they will be matched by increases at the middle and top. Simply due to the human nature of wanting more for 'doing' more. This is the same reason a supervisor in a supermarket is paid more than a basic cashier. Why an office manager is paid more than the receptionist. If you were to pay everyone in a company exactly the same wage, no-one would do the more difficult jobs. People are selfish, why would they do more for nothing extra? Meaningful steps would be a massive overhaul of the tax system to give a much winder band of percentages available, with far more abilities for tax relief based on personal circumstances.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 12:10
|
|
|
Flectarn posted:ahem.. you are retarded Have you got anything constructive to say that dismisses his points?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 12:37
|
|
|
Mr Cuddles posted:You appear to have missed the other post that did dismiss his points. No, I saw a good post from Jedit about why he believes the system is broken, and he is probably right, however nothing was written about the parts that were not quoted as they were added after Jedits reply. Flectarn doesnt agree with it, but cant be bothered to say why. Says a lot.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 12:40
|
|
|
Serotonin posted:What does it say to you? That, and his below reply say to me that he would rather make trite poo poo posts instead of engage with people he disagrees as he doesn't actually have anything useful to say.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 12:43
|
|
|
Serotonin posted:Are you likely to be persuaded otherwise of your current position on this then? If someone could give me a realistic way forward for reducing wage disparity that doesn't consist of having rich people just give up their greed for the sake of the poor as its core principal I would listen.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 12:49
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:Right like how no one became wealthy previous to 1981 in the USA, when the high earner income tax rate was 70%: the lowest in history. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 12:58
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:The income tax doesn't need reform, it's low enough that it's triggered the second gilded age as is. It need to be about 10-15 points higher at least and institute inheritance tax or the rich get terminally richer. Then I dont think you understood my point. I was not saying that income tax needs to be lowered for all, I was saying that it needs to be a much wider, less restrictive band. The rich should pay more, the poor should pay less.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2014 13:09
|
|
|
It's an incredibly dangerous law that she wants to bring in. Hidden under the mask of 'stop the evil preaching turning young people into jihadists' is a very easy way to restrict people they don't want able to move or talk freely.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
How high are the chances of Redwood defecting to Ukip within the next month?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 21:19 |
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Pretty low I think - for all that he's a hardcore eurosceptic, he's a Tory lifer and former Cabinet member. I can't see him abandoning that. The way hes banging on and embarrassing himself I would have thought the chief whip would take him out back to be put down. Oh, Its October now. I've made the new thread here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3668819
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2014 00:00
|
|