Jump to content

Recommended Posts

i may have to give up on the independent online, when did it become reddit? (yeah yeah, when arseholes like me stopped paying for the print version, i geddit)


http://www.independent.co.uk/ leads with oooh look, a dog dressed up as a spider dressedup as news


*see what i did there?

All the online versions of newspapers are descending into the same fight for 'clicks' shite - I really can't tell that much difference between the mail/indie/telegraph*/guardian online comments bit. The derrangemnet just swings about a bit politically.


*maybe a bit better as it has a subscription business model

All the papers were losing money hand over fist, then the Mail online suddenly becomes the world's most viewed website by essentially being Heat.

So now the rest of them are attempting to get a share of the pie without quiiiiiite stooping to kim kardashian (except when they stoop to kim kardashian)

I can't say I've ever been part of a religious (or any other) cult, but surely, after being given the orders "you are going to storm a school, kill all the children and then commit suicide" your last remaining functional brain cell would kick in and try to revive your lost humanity?
  • 1 month later...

Interesting piece in the Indy today. Jasmine Alibi-Brown discussing if political satire is a good thing keeping the politicians feet on the ground, or something that is just causing more people to withdraw from the political process.


http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/political-satire-is-funny-but-it-also-causes-cynicism-and-apathy-10016819.html


I always considered political satire as a healthy part of democracy, but I can see the point she's making.

Another article on the same issue(ish) but from a US perspective:


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b4e08c58-ae0a-11e4-919e-00144feab7de.html#axzz3RKmHesUo


Worth it just for the quote from H L Mencken:


?Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.?

Also today - the GMB found to have unlawfully discriminated against one of their members on the basis of his left wing socialist views.


From the Times:


The bizarre chain of events began on November 30, 2011, when Keith Henderson, 29, a GMB worker, led a picket line outside parliament on the day of prime minister?s questions. He wrote an article that appeared in two national newspapers asking Labour MPs not to cross the picket line and to stand in solidarity with union members in their action against public sector pension cuts.

His comradely call to arms ?embarrassed? Mr Miliband after the Labour leader was mocked by David Cameron in their weekly joust in the Commons. Mr Miliband?s office phoned Paul Kenny, the GMB general secretary, to convey the Labour leader?s ?displeasure?......


?That was the start of the discrimination I received from the union,? he claimed.

Mr Henderson was sacked from the union after a long-running dispute with his superiors. The report that led to his dismissal was compiled by Warren Kenny, son of the GMB chief and a senior organiser at the union.

Mr Henderson lost his claim for unfair dismissal and unjustified discipline by the union. However, the tribunal judge did find that he had been discriminated against because of his left-wing beliefs. Judge Nigel Mahoney found that ?left-wing democratic socialism is a philosophical belief for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010?.

Well, if he was a drunken twat then the RMT would have backed him.


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/london-tube-strike-millions-face-disruption-in-latest-walkout-over-driver-who-failed-breath-test-10036316.html


If the RMT think he was unlawfully dismissed, take LU to a tribunal or court. Don't bloody well inconvenience the rest of us.

It seems they did, Loz, if you read the whole article. And LU lost. But yet are still sacking the bloke.


"Last year at ACAS (the conciliation service) the RMT offered to call off any strike action if LU agreed to reinstate Alex following an Employment Tribunal ruling that he was dismissed unfairly.


"LU refused even this most reasonable of offers and were unable to give a cogent reason for their refusal."


He said the type of machine used for the alcohol test ?has been known to fail. Indeed a failure was recorded last year at Acton depot when a manager tested positive but the machine was deemed to be faulty.?


So you've got an employer acting unreasonably and with double standards for workers and management.

I can see why you read it that way, DC - it's a terribly written article. But the case has yet to go before a Employment Tribunal and no ruling has yet been made.


If he had won a tribunal case and LU refused to reinstate him, surely that is against the law anyway?

Oh I see....it's all a big "IF"?


Lummy - seemingly its one where both sides need to step back from the brink. An all-out strike seems disproportionate in the circumstances.


Interesting to note how low the voting figures were too. Just around 500 members voting on industrial action of this scale.


"Power corrupts but absolute power corrupts absolutely."


The wider issues within the RMT post Bob Crow are at play here too. There is an internal power struggle going on for the power within the organisation. It's not widely known outside political circles but Bob was a reasonable negotiator and far less militant than the wider membership. He was well aware of the negative publicity tube strikes brought to the RMT.


And then you have the Boris issue. He despises the RMT and is in a pitched battle to drive them out of existence so they are making his last year as mayor as difficult as possible.


The "issue" for the strike is rarely the real reason for it.

Reading between the lines, I guess the RMT have been trying to persuade LU to reinstate the guy pending an ET ruling, as its pretty clear there hasn't already been one. The argument about the machine not working for people with diabetes is a weak one though - my understanding is that this issue was recognised with some types of test kits years ago and different technology adopted.

With 'pink kitchen tables' too!


Harman would have been the first to climb all over the Tories if they tried a stunt like this. I can't believe someone of her political experience can't see just how bad an idea this is.


ETA: A comment on the Guardian report made me laugh: "As a woman I am naturally pulled to garish pink hues. Also, if things are pink then i know they are about women - otherwise I get confused and read about politics and science. Pink helps to signpost me to wimmin's things; like if I see a pink screwdriver I know it's one I can use. Thanks Labour."

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I take back everything I've said about Harriet

> Harman.

>

> She is now electioneering in a pink "Woman to

> Woman" van. Of course I'll vote for her on that

> basis.


I nearly voted for the Conservatives on the strength of that clever poster campaign depicting Blair with the Devil eyes. What a wheeze that was.

  • 3 weeks later...

"Alternative" medicine/health/woo advocate dies after ignoring actual medical advice and treatement instead opting for kilos of fruit juice and coffee-enemas. Mother had previously died after following same treatement plan. Darwinism at work.


http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/mar/01/jessica-ainscough-australia-wellness-warrior-dies-cancer-aged-30


Comment piece:


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/03/what-do-doctors-say-to-alternative-therapists-when-a-patient-dies-nothing-we-never-talk

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Hi - I posted a request for some help with a stuck door and possible leaky roof. I had responses from Lukasz at Look_as.com and Pawel at Sublime Builders. I don't see any/many reviews - has anyone used either person?  Could use a recommendation rather then just being contact by the tradespeople... Many Thanks 
    • I'm a bit worried by your sudden involvement on this Forum.  The former Prince Andrew is now Andrew Mountbatten Windsor Mountbatten in an anglicisation of Von Battenburg adopted by that branch of our Royal Family in 1917 due to anti-German sentiment. Another anglicisation could be simply Battenburg as in the checker board cake.  So I surmise that your are Andrew Battenburg, aka Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and that you have infiltrated social media so that the country can put the emphasis on Mandelson rather than yourself.  Bit of a failure. I don't expect an answer from police custody.  
    • We had John fit our PLYKEA kitchen (IKEA cabinets with custom doors) and would happily recommend him and Gabi to anyone. Gabi handled all communication and was brilliant throughout — responsive and happy to answer questions however detailed. John is meticulous, cares about the small details, and was a pleasure to have in the house. The carpentry required for the custom doors was done to a high standard, and he even refinished the plumbing under the sink to sit better with the new cabinets — a small touch that made a real difference. They were happy to return and tie up a few things that couldn't be finished in the time, which we appreciated. No hesitations recommending them.
    • Not sure about that. Rockets seems to have (rightly in my view) identified two key motivating elements in Mcash's defection: anger at his previous (arguably shabby) treatment and a (linked) desire to trash the Labour party, nationally and locally. The defection, timed for maximum damage, combined with the invective and moral exhibitionism of his statement counts as rather more than a "hissy fit".  I would add a third motivation of political ambition: it's not inconceivable that he has his eye on the Dulwich & West Norwood seat which is predicted to go Green.  James Barber was indulging in typical LibDem sleight of hand, claiming that Blair introduced austerity to *councils* before the coalition. This is a kind of sixth form debating point. From 1997-1999 Labour broadly stuck to Tory spending totals, meaning there was limited growth in departmental spending, including local govt grants. However local government funding rose substantially in the Noughties, especially in education and social care. It is a matter of record that real-terms local authority spending increased in the Blair / Brown years overall. So he's manifestly wrong (or only right if the focus is on 1997-1999, which would be a bizarre focus and one he didn't include in his claim) but he wasn't claiming Blair introduced austerity more widely. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...