Jump to content





ckn

Member Since 19 Apr 2004
Offline Last Active Today, 12:32 AM
***--

#3038180 Plebgate (redux)

Posted by ckn on Yesterday, 04:17 PM

Andrew Mitchell lost his libel case today after the judge said he did use the word "pleb" against the police, he also said that the policeman was too thick to have made the story up (paraphrased). :P

 

Something about that just tickled me...




#3038053 Privatised vs Nationalised Rail

Posted by ckn on Yesterday, 12:02 PM

You would imagine it would be a vote winner; there seems an appetite for re-nationalisation with the public. According to this you gov poll 66% of people are in favour, and not just traditional Labour voters. 

It could be 98% and it still wouldn't happen because the other 2% are those who the party leaders want to keep happy.




#3037533 The Lib Dems

Posted by ckn on 25 November 2014 - 10:00 PM

Typing on phone so can't edit easily. If you don't raise the band by inflation then new starters in a role are being paid less each year, an effective pay cut for a role.


#3037531 The Lib Dems

Posted by ckn on 25 November 2014 - 09:59 PM

An inflation pay rise is to keep your wage on track with inflation so that your job has the same real-terms salary at the bottom, middle and top of the band each year. An increment in public sector or pay rise in private sector reflects the advancement through the pay grade from inexperienced to experienced to top of grade. If your company doesn't do this then you're being exploited.


#3036733 The Lib Dems

Posted by ckn on 23 November 2014 - 10:42 PM

The rich should pay more because they tend to take from the poor and get rich by keeping them poor.

If you want to become worth millions by paying minimum wage then you should be charged for that at the other end so that when the people you have treated like $H!t are ill (often from having a rubbish diet because they are on low wages) they can get free health care.

My idea is that if you are a director of a company, or hold more than 10% of its shares, where any full time employee is entitled to income based benefits then you're subjected to an extra compulsory 25% tax on your earnings.


#3036514 Dave Whelan thread

Posted by ckn on 23 November 2014 - 05:42 PM

No point putting a detailed explanation.  Those who get it will understand why, those who don't never will.

 

In a word though, no.  Just no.




#3036070 The Lib Dems

Posted by ckn on 22 November 2014 - 04:17 PM

The bit that's being made less of in the recent by-election is the Lib Dems.  They went from getting 16.8% in 2010 to 0.9% in 2014, failing to get their deposit back and getting 1/5th of the votes the Greens did.  I saw a bit of head-in-the-sand thinking from one Lib Dem on telly who said the Lib Dems voted Tory to keep UKIP out, so 7500 of the 7800 Lib Dems who voted in 2010 voted Tory instead.  Hmmm, stinks a bit that one.  I can see a good few doing the tactical thinking but not that many.




#3035831 Ed Miliband

Posted by ckn on 21 November 2014 - 01:31 PM

Dear Mr Miliband,

 

I'd like to ask you sincerely to recognise that when your party does something slightly silly that you shouldn't just fill your mouth with your feet at the first opportunity.  There's a lot of wisdom in the old saying of "A closed mouth gathers no feet".

 

So, when you said you felt respect when you saw a white van and England flags outside of someone's house and that you're "angrier than you've ever been", do you not get a slight tinge of guilt that you're being more dramatic than a Premiership footballer when a feather touches them in an opponent's penalty area?  If that's made you angrier than you've ever been, it just says to me that you couldn't care less about the dismantling of the NHS, the benefits outrages of the last few years, the Personal Independence Payment fiasco where disabled people have to wait over a year to get assessed and everything else that the current government have done to penalise those who earn under the national average wage.

 

Your credibility drops even more by the minute and, contrary to your desire to appear as a strong leader, it's done nothing but make you look weak, over-dramatic and just a little more silly than you were yesterday.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Someone who really wants to vote Labour but is getting more disheartened with every weak and vacuous statement you give.




#3035627 a heated haka

Posted by ckn on 20 November 2014 - 09:49 PM

Keep the cross-code dross off this forum please.  7 posts deleted.




#3035144 Ched Evans

Posted by ckn on 19 November 2014 - 06:50 PM

I think some people miss the point...  If I, when relatively sober, am all over someone, we're looking like we're going to go off and do things then we both get absolutely sloshed then there's a hint of implied consent there, enough to put reasonable doubt in the jury's mind, i.e. the acquittal for the other person.  Evans didn't have that prior implied consent, he just did his bit while the victim had no capacity to give any consent be it implicit or explicit.  For me, even with the tiny snippet of evidence that's been reported officially, I can see why a jury would convict.




#3034042 Ched Evans

Posted by ckn on 16 November 2014 - 11:49 PM

My view is that:

 - the verdict stands until proved otherwise or found unsafe. That's the law.

 - he's allowed to earn any gainful employment that isn't specifically excluded under the terms of his sentence or his parole. That's the law.

 

In a different context, this organised furore about Ched reminds me of the similar organised furore about The Satanic Verses. Most of those protestors hadn't read Salman Rushdie's book and I think that most of those people currently objecting to Ched playing football again haven't read his webpage.

Getting a rape conviction when it's one on one evidence is massively difficult, to do so means that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty.  Just as he was innocent until proven guilty, he's now guilty until proven innocent and that's very unlikely to happen despite the wishful thinking of his family and friends.  The Court of Appeal only overturns jury verdicts when there's a gross miscarriage of justice or a critical error in law, Evans' lawyers put their cases forward for leave to appeal and they were rejected meaning their sole hope is a third party independent review that has no real interest in representing marginal cases, they're looking for real and clear injustices where there is almost irrefutable proof of innocence.

 

On Evans' employability, I wouldn't employ a convicted rapist, regardless of whatever he was protesting.  Most convicted rapists probably live happily in society working away without anyone knowing differently because they're not the subject of the public eye, all it would take is a move to a new town and they're free to do as they see fit within the limits the law puts on them.  Evans may feel hard done to on this but then he was happy to take the high wages and benefits of being in the public eye before he was convicted, unfortunately for him it's a two way street.  My view is that if you're convicted of a crime as serious as rape and life takes an unfair turn for you then, well, that's just unfortunate.




#3033471 Attitude

Posted by ckn on 16 November 2014 - 12:37 AM

Just finished watching Scotland v NZ and the attitude shown was exactly the difference between union and rugby league.  When England play Australia at rugby league, there's always a pessimism that must seep into the players' minds, the fans go there with a sense of defeatism and when England win occasionally it's treated as if it's a fluke.  Scotland genuinely thought they could beat NZ at union today despite not having won for 109 years and it showed in the players' attitudes as well as with the crowd, another loss and next year it'll be the same attitude leading into yet another defeat.




#3032063 Does Matron know about this ?

Posted by ckn on 13 November 2014 - 01:33 PM

Those in glass houses...  I remember discussions a number of years ago (maybe 6-7 years ago now?) here that happened while i was on holiday and were one of the main reasons the cross-code forum was suspended.  The subject was around Kings Cross Steelers, a union openly gay team who play in the union league structure.  I'm not going to go into the meat of the points there but it was truly eye-opening how entrenched homophobia is in sport, nearly 100% from fans not those who actually play.

 

EVERY group of people in EVERY country and EVERY activity has its unacceptable fringe.  To criticise union for this is to ignore the elephant in the room of football where no-one can come out as gay while actively involved in the sport.  Then rugby league has the same group of idiots, probably about the same number as union has as a proportion.  Overall, union and league should be proud of the reputation they have for inclusion THESE DAYS and to harp back to past problems is just counterproductive and wrong.  A gay ethnic minority player can openly be gay and ethnic minority far easier in those two sports than almost any other team sport and the idiots who will abuse them are far easier to spot and manage because it's such a small group of them.  Why do we not see stories about homophobia in football?  It'd be more about where they'd start rather than individual incidents,  Same with racism, a player can be racially harassed all game long in football but if they respond by as much as raising a finger towards the abuse then they're given bans and condemned for inciting the crowd.




#3031930 Letting the side down

Posted by ckn on 12 November 2014 - 11:52 PM

Enough of the faux-outrage.

 

A couple of very strong points:

 

1.  Anyone bringing Vichy into posts where it's nothing to do with the narrow subject will find their cross-code rights removed.  No more warnings, you've been told enough.

2.  Anyone who remembers the time when Gareth Thomas was given abuse will remember that the sensible people said that it was clearly an unrepresentative minority and that it was unfair that rugby league was being tarnished.  The same rules apply here.  This subject could have been discussed sensibly but it's attracted those who want to attack union regardless of the actual story, now it's almost impossible that the subject can be discussed rationally.




#3027894 Ed Miliband

Posted by ckn on 05 November 2014 - 11:55 PM

That old myth
Started years ago by scaremongers Foot,Kinnock and all Labour Leaders since
The problem with the NHS is to many chiefs not enough Indians
Top Managers creaming of top salaries

And you know that for a fact? Or did you get that from the media?

NHS managers typically get paid 2/3 to half of a private sector equivalent plus far more regulation and responsibility. Top that off with a structure that makes it harder to get to the top and you realise that most NHS managers are in the job for those three letters rather than the pay or anything else.