# Jezza Does It Again!!!



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Jeremy Clarkson dropped another cracker on the One Show last night and now the Unions are baying for his blood.

Jeremy Clarkson: Unison Is Taking Legal Action Over Comments Made About Public Sector Strikes | UK News | Sky News

I'm not passing comment on what he said as it is not relevant.

What is relevant is that people are entitled to their opinions and this is his.

We fought Two World wars, and family members gave up their lives, to make sure we always had this right.

In the words of Voltaire:

*I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.*


----------



## Tigerneko (Jan 2, 2009)

I think he only does it for the backlash and controversy! He's intelligent enough to know the kind of reaction those comments would get.

I do actually admire him for voicing such strong opinions though, why not? He should be entitled to it.


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

he says he has to work for a living..........b.....s...
yes he's entitled to his opinion but was that really the way to go about expressing it,hmmmm would the prime minister defend me if i came out with a comment like that on tv..........no me thinks not


----------



## sarelis (Aug 29, 2011)

Lol he has to be the most non-PC person in tv! He sure comes out with some crackers!


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

He just does it to cause controversy and heated debate - like this thread, LOL LOL!!

Edited to add - I used to have those wise words from Voltaire as me Siggy on another forum, lol!


----------



## LisaZonda (Oct 14, 2011)

He is such a bugger!  he completely does it on purpose though, he is an intelligent man and knows what controversy it will stir up.

I've recently finished reading 'The World According to Clarkson" and just finished (last night strangely) his other one "For Crying Out Loud" and must say he has me in stitches...I was laid there laughing so much I had tears streaming down my face.
I know many won't agree but I actually find his humour in this PC gone mad world quite amusing.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

I think he's very much a Marmite person - you either like him or loathe him. 

Personally I think he is very funny and I take much of what he says with a pinch of salt. If he doesn't take himself seriously, then why should we. 

He's one of those people that has the potential to be offensive so if you don't want to hear it, don't watch him.


----------



## sarelis (Aug 29, 2011)

I like that he picks on various random groups of people, not the usual muslims, blacks gays etc, I think his most recent ones that have caused a furore are Mexicans, 'lorryists' & strikers. That's true equality, taking the p!ss out of everyone equally!


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

LisaZonda said:


> He is such a bugger!  he completely does it on purpose though, he is an intelligent man and knows what controversy it will stir up.
> 
> I've recently finished reading 'The World According to Clarkson" and just finished (last night strangely) his other one "For Crying Out Loud" and must say he has me in stitches...I was laid there laughing so much I had tears streaming down my face.
> I know many won't agree but I actually find his humour in this PC gone mad world quite amusing.


He certainly provides a 'breath of fresh air' sometimes, if thats the right way of saying it, lol lol!!! I might not agree, but I dont think he does half the time, its just plain old 'devils advocate'!! :devil:

My OH and best mate say I am like him a bit, in that I can open my big gob and say such things someitmes without thinking!! They are probs right but I dont give a chuff anymore, I am what I am, same as everybody else is unique, I am too!! :ciappa:


----------



## bigdaddy (Feb 5, 2011)

fair play to him top bloke :thumbup1:


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Good Old Jezza, at least he says what he thinks, not like all these mamby pamby got to be PC Lot afraid to open their Mouths. Go Jezza I say:thumbup1


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

I like him, I love his sense humour a little annoying at times but that's Jezza :biggrin:, my Hubby say's he's ********************** but he still watches him all the same. ut:


I'm sorry if they have taken offence at that  it was said tongue in cheek for gods sake.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Love his books, don't necessarily agree with everything he says but he says what he thinks & I've always admired those that do


----------



## Mr Gizmo (Jul 1, 2009)

I like the way this comment is getting all the puclicity but nothing is being said regarding his comments about trains should not stop if they hit someone.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Some of the Clarkson classics if anyone has missed them before...

Top Gaffe: Jeremy Clarkson Causing Controversy Down The Years | UK News | Sky News


----------



## Honey Bee (Mar 29, 2011)

Ok maybe he shouldn't have said it quite like that but I do have to defend his right to have his own opinion. I personally think it is no worse than some of the stuff Prince Phillip has said over the years. As a high level representative of the country he really should know better.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

I must be confused then...I thought the article quoted him as saying public sector workers who strike should be executed in front of their families!!!
And now everyone is saying what a great bloke he is??, seriously???

I didnt think that was tongue in cheek or amusing in the slightest, it was stupid, irresponsible and a totally evil thing to say. You cant just say, "oh, Jeremy...you wag!!" and let him get away with it!! I think he should be sacked, why the hell should someone who advocates execution in front of family members be given a public platform!!


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

catz4m8z said:


> I must be confused then...I thought the article quoted him as saying public sector workers who strike should be executed in front of their families!!!
> And now everyone is saying what a great bloke he is??, seriously???
> 
> I didnt think that was tongue in cheek or amusing in the slightest, it was stupid, irresponsible and a totally evil thing to say. You cant just say, "oh, Jeremy...you wag!!" and let him get away with it!! I think he should be sacked, why the hell should someone who advocates execution in front of family members be given a public platform!!


Public Sector Workers exercised their democratic right to strike.

Jezza exercised HIS democratic right to voice his opinion.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

MoggyBaby said:


> Public Sector Workers exercised their democratic right to strike.
> 
> Jezza exercised HIS democratic right to voice his opinion.


Im not saying he shouldnt have a democratic right to voice his opinion....Im saying if he is going to continuing with his hate mongering he shouldnt be allowed to do so on public telly!!
I still dont see how anyone can think that his comments are acceptable??
I dont even think mass murderers should be executed in front of their families NM my local practice nurse!!!


----------



## foxiesummer (Feb 4, 2009)

Beats me how anyone who judges a person by the car he drives can be taken seriously. One saving grace is he likes dogs.


----------



## XxZoexX (Sep 8, 2010)

I love Jezza.. He would be my ultimate Dinner guest - him and Stephen Fry.

Of course sometimes he says things for effect but theres not many with the kahunas to say what they think on tv any more.. too namby pamby and scared. 

Tho i havent seen the clip yet i would imagine like most of his comments that it was said more in jest, a bit of Satire if you like. 

Tho i may not agree with everything he says i think hes fab and so entertaining.. Your right the books are fab :thumbup:


----------



## Pointermum (Jul 2, 2010)

catz4m8z said:


> I must be confused then...I thought the article quoted him as saying public sector workers who strike should be executed in front of their families!!!
> And now everyone is saying what a great bloke he is??, seriously???
> 
> I didnt think that was tongue in cheek or amusing in the slightest, it was stupid, irresponsible and a totally evil thing to say. You cant just say, "oh, Jeremy...you wag!!" and let him get away with it!! I think he should be sacked, why the hell should someone who advocates execution in front of family members be given a public platform!!


Have you seen the clip, he was JOKING  As for the Unison women saying he was incitment to hatred and it's very frightening to the strikers  she's funnier than Clarkson :lol: except i think she was trying to be serous :skep: :skep: :skep:


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Well he has a bloody point! Wouldnt go to that extreme tho! Doctors, surgeons and people who povide life saving service, ie 999 call centers and paramedics etc have already a pension coming thats a guarantee! Others have to save for theirs and often no pension is provided or offered through the employer!
Sooooo imho the doctors, surgeons and the like who go on strike should loose their jobs or be at a picket like NOT feckin out xmas shopping! Those people shouldnt have had a job to go back to today!


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

I admit I havent seen the clip, only seen the direct quote on the article. TBH Im still struggling to see how you could make a comment like that in a jokey way.....even with a comedy accent I still dont think I would be amused....


----------



## Pointermum (Jul 2, 2010)

catz4m8z said:


> I admit I havent seen the clip, only seen the direct quote on the article. TBH Im still struggling to see how you could make a comment like that in a jokey way.....even with a comedy accent I still dont think I would be amused....


Well judge for yourself BBC News - Sack Jeremy Clarkson over strike comments, Unison urges


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Pointermum said:


> Well judge for yourself BBC News - Sack Jeremy Clarkson over strike comments, Unison urges


I cant watch it coz my speakers are broken... Im waiting for it to come on Virgin on demand!!
I dont think Drs were involved coz they are with a different union. Def nurses arent striking (we never strike and just get to eat whatever **** the government comes up with!!). I dont think it affected frontline services, at least not in my hospital...


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Mr Gizmo said:


> I like the way this comment is getting all the puclicity but nothing is being said regarding his comments about trains should not stop if they hit someone.


I almost agree with him, if it wasn't for the affect on the driver, they shouldn't be there in the first place.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Honey Bee said:


> Ok maybe he shouldn't have said it quite like that but I do have to defend his right to have his own opinion. I personally think it is *no worse than some of the stuff Prince Phillip has said over the years. As a high level representative of the country he really should know better*.


Totally agree, I really don't like him


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

MoggyBaby said:


> In the words of Voltaire:
> 
> *I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.*


Voltaire didn't say that... it was Evelyn Hall


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

This is getting out of control, I think the unions have more to worry about than what Jezza said, he has said his sorry.

So they should put it behind them and get on with the job of sorting out more pressing problems and not get side tracked.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Have I drifted into the KKK meets Jeremy Kyle outcast forum?

Why don't you start a paedophile joke section as well... I mean that's nearly as funny as suggesting people should be executed in front of their families isn't it ?


----------



## Pointermum (Jul 2, 2010)

Happy Paws said:


> This is getting out of control, I think the unions have more to worry about than what Jezza said, he has said his sorry.
> 
> So they should put it behind them and get on with the job of sorting out more pressing problems and not get side tracked.


isn't that the job of a union though :confused5: to make a mountain out of a molehill :lol:


----------



## Pointermum (Jul 2, 2010)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Have I drifted into the KKK meets Jeremy Kyle outcast forum?
> 
> Why don't you start a paedophile joke section as well... I mean that's nearly as funny as suggesting people should be executed in front of their families isn't it ?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Pointermum said:


> isn't that the job of a union though :confused5: to make a mountain out of a molehill :lol:


The job of a Trade Union is to defend and promote the terms offered to its members and the working population at large. We also promote issues of social concern and equality.

If you think poverty, child labour, labour deregulation, discrimination, low pay, exploitation of UK and immigrant workers, corporate manslaughter, pay, pensions, job creation etc etc are molehills . . I'll happily continue to make mountains out of them


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Pointermum said:


>


I'm not sure which one of the two you found funny there?:001_huh:


----------



## ClaireLouise (Oct 11, 2009)

IMO Clarkson is funny. While I dont agree with what he said I not silly enough to take it that he ment it literally. Clarkson says things he finds amusing. He doesnt mean he actually wants them executing  90% of what he says is rubbish, often said for effect or an attempt at being funny.


----------



## Pointermum (Jul 2, 2010)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Have I drifted into the KKK meets Jeremy Kyle outcast forum?
> 
> Why don't you start a paedophile joke section as well... I mean that's nearly as funny as suggesting people should be executed in front of their families isn't it ?


becuase paedophiles would do xyz to a child, where as Jemery Clarkson would not shoot strikers.............or are they REALLY scared he would


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Pointermum said:


>


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2011)

I can't stand him


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Honey Bee said:


> Ok maybe he shouldn't have said it quite like that but I do have to defend his right to have his own opinion. I personally think it is no worse than some of the stuff Prince Phillip has said over the years. As a high level representative of the country he really should know better.


Hee Hee Prince P. really has made some giant gaffs over the years:frown2:
Poor old liz bet they have had some right domestics over him embarrasing her!!:biggrin:


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Pointermum said:


> becuase paedophiles would do xyz to a child, where as Jemery Clarkson would not shoot strikers.............or are they REALLY scared he would


So you're OK with jokes about execution and jokes about paedophiles as long as no one actually does anything?


----------



## Pointermum (Jul 2, 2010)

Elmo the Bear said:


> So you're OK with jokes about execution and jokes about paedophiles as long as no one actually does anything?


oh get a life 

Strange how most people think it's a joke , yet you don't life must be all fun fun fun at yours NO joking you might offend someone


----------



## LisaZonda (Oct 14, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> So you're OK with jokes about execution and jokes about paedophiles as long as no one actually does anything?


Thats a ridiculous thing to say...if it needs explaining why jokes on those two subjects are on completely different levels then there is something sadly wrong!


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2011)

Peronally I don't think either are jokes but thats just my opinion.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

LisaZonda said:


> Thats a ridiculous thing to say...if it needs explaining why jokes on those two subjects are on completely different levels then there is something sadly wrong!


Sorry I misunderstood. So execution in front of you're family is OK on here but paedophilia isn't?

Explain to me then - I'm obviously thick... why is murder better than abuse?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Pointermum said:


> oh get a life
> 
> Strange how most people think it's a joke , yet you don't life must be all fun fun fun at yours NO joking you might offend someone


Most people don't think either execution of child abuse is a joke or something to be joked about... don't lump everyone into your way of thinking.

If you can only have a laugh over such things then maybe the sense of humour failure is not with me.


----------



## LisaZonda (Oct 14, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Sorry I misunderstood. So execution in front of you're family is OK on here but paedophilia isn't?
> 
> Explain to me then - I'm obviously thick... why is murder better than abuse?


I would explain but quite honestly I don't think you need it explaining to you....that and the fact that I really can't be bothered getting into a discussion with someone who takes everything to extremes and twists things in their favour just to try to be right.
If you don't like the guy thats fine...each to their own.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

I suppose all these Jezza quotes were serious as well

Some say that his ears aren't exactly where you'd expect them to be, and that once, preposterously, he had an affair with John Prescott... all we know is, he's called the Stig. 

Some say that he knows 2 facts about ducks, and both of them are wrong. And that 61 years ago he accidentally introduced Her Majesty The Queen to a Greek racialist. All we know is, I'm going to the tower now to have my head cut off, and he is called the Stig.

Some say that he gets terrible eczema on his helmet, and that if he'd been the video referee at the World Cup Rugby Final, he'd have seen 'of course it was a try you blind Australian half-wit'! All we know is, he's called the Stig. 

Some say that to unlock him, you have to run your finger down his face, and that if he was getting divorced from Paul McCartney, he'd keep his stupid whiny mouth shut! All we know is, he's called the Stig. 

Think its what might be called a sense of humour or satire!!


----------



## Pointermum (Jul 2, 2010)

LisaZonda said:


> I would explain but quite honestly I don't think you need it explaining to you....that and the fact that I really can't be bothered getting into a discussion with someone who takes everything to extremes and twists things in their favour just to try to be right.
> If you don't like the guy thats fine...each to their own.


this ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Elmo the Bear said:


> Most people don't think either execution of child abuse is a joke or something to be joked about... don't lump everyone into your way of thinking.
> 
> If you can only have a laugh over such things then maybe the sense of humour failure is not with me.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Thanks ... that was the answer I was expecting


----------



## LisaZonda (Oct 14, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Thanks ... that was the answer I was expecting


Good we're all happy people then!....well some of us are anyway


----------



## Cinnebar (Nov 8, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> *Most* people don't think either execution of child abuse is a joke or something to be joked about... don't lump everyone into your way of thinking.
> 
> If you can only have a laugh over such things then maybe the sense of humour failure is not with me.


Without doing a poll we can't be certain, but I would imagine that there are more people take his comments in the spirit that he intends them, than the ones who take them over seriously and find them offensive.
He is a showman and says things for effect. His comments are far too outragous to be taken seriously and I find some of the pictures that he conjures up in my mind extremely funny.
Of course he is contraversial, it is expected of him and that is why he is funny. I think some people just take the whole of life too seriously - smile, it doesn't hurt and might even become a habit :thumbup1::thumbup1:


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2011)

I hate everything he says since I can't stand the smug ***. Personally TV will be better when he is no longer on it


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

LisaZonda said:


> Good we're all happy people then!....well some of us are anyway


I'm happy, I'm almost always happy


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Well ive just seen the original interview on tv this morning, ime a public sector worker, i was on strike and support it 100% ime not particulary a fan of jeremy clarkson for no other reason that i live in a house where everyone is top gear mad and ime sick of seeing all the re-runs, am i offended NO!! not at all. 
I think people are making far too much of a comment that had no more intention of upsetting anyone as he has of actually shooting anyone, i think people need to lighten up a bit. Ime sure we have all been called worse or equally as bad over the last week, just because he made a comment on tv in front of thousands of viewers doesnt make it any more offensive to me.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*I for one think what he said was funny,and yes it was a joke.The times i've said "they should shoot the lot of them".But hey i'm not a celebrity so they can't put it in the papers and all over the telly.This country is getting pathetic.*


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

I cant stand him tbo! he is a pompous git and I dont find him funny in the slightest - that said I do think what he said has been hyped up a bit .......personally I dont agree with the strikers and I kind of agree with his reasoning behind what he said BUT I also think he could have used a less damaging phrase to explain it - he likes being contraversial but its backfired on him this time.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

I can't stand the man - well, child, really, because he's never grown up. He is a complete @rsehole and he says things for effect, not because he believes them - he just does it for the publicity. He was making what, in his book, passes for a joke.

Now, I would defend his right to say it - but I would also defend the rights of those who were offended by his "joke" to voice their opinion and take any action they deemed appropriate.

But what *really *amuses me is the people who, on other threads, object that their taxes are going towards paying the poorest members of society their due pensions - and yet on this thread seem quite happy for their taxes and their licence fees to be paid to this millionaire so that he can continue to play with cars on TV.

Methinks some people need to get their priorities right!


----------



## suzy93074 (Sep 3, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> I can't stand the man - well, child, really, because he's never grown up. He is a complete @rsehole and he says things for effect, not because he believes them - he just does it for the publicity. He was making what, in his book, passes for a joke.
> 
> Now, I would defend his right to say it - but I would also defend the rights of those who were offended by his "joke" to voice their opinion and take any action they deemed appropriate.
> 
> ...


Yes when he said it my OH was watching as was I and he said how the fook can that ****** say anything when he gets paid huge amounts to chat ****  kind of ironic really - maybe thats why people were so outraged as well because really who the hell is he to talk for the normal people of this world when he clearly makes more money than most lol


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> But what *really *amuses me is the people who, on other threads, object that their taxes are going towards paying the poorest members of society their due pensions - and yet on this thread *seem quite happy for their taxes and their licence fees to be paid to this millionair*e so that he can continue to play with cars on TV.
> 
> Methinks some people need to get their priorities right!


So what taxes of mine are going to Jezza? Please expand on this coz I am not aware of them. License fee, yes. Taxes???? 

I find Jezza & the Top Gear programme highly entertaining so I am happy for MY license fee going in his pocket.

There are BBC programmes that I don't like, but you may well do, so think of it as being that your payments go towards them!!

We all pay the license fee and that will go towards the costs of programmes we like AND don't like. One mans meat and all that!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

MoggyBaby said:


> So what taxes of mine are going to Jezza? Please expand on this coz I am not aware of them. License fee, yes. Taxes????
> !


As well as the licence fee, the BBC receives money from the government. In 2009-2010, for example, it received £293 million from government grants - and where do you think that money comes from, if not from taxes 

The license fee is also set by the government - and the less money they are going to give the BBC in grants, the more the license fee goes up.

_According to the BBC's 2009-2010 Annual Report[47] its income can be broken down, as follows:

£3,446.8 million in licence fees collected from householders;
£888.3 million from BBC Commercial Businesses;
£293 million from government grants;
£112.9 million from other income, such as providing content to overseas broadcasters and concert ticket sales_

BBC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



MoggyBaby said:


> I find Jezza & the Top Gear programme highly entertaining so I am happy for MY license fee going in his pocket.


I know you are - that was my point, that I found it amusing that some people don't obect to their taxes going towards paying a millionaire "comedian" but do object to its going towards paying some of the poorest members of society their due pensions.


----------



## Magnus (Oct 9, 2008)

catz4m8z said:


> I still dont see how anyone can think that his comments are acceptable??


Err, I do.

I agree with him and what's more I'd like to volunteer to shoot them.

I think it would be even better if some strikers were made to drive around Salisbury Plain in open top old Citroen 2CV's whilst I got to chase them in a Land Rover with a machine gun mounted on the bonnet. It would be a Top Gear classic! :biggrin:

Get a life, get a sense of humour.


----------



## MoggyBaby (Mar 8, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> I know you are - that was my point, that I found it amusing that some people don't obect to their taxes going towards paying a millionaire "comedian" but do object to its going towards paying some of the poorest members of society their due pensions.


At least they'll be getting a pension - it's more than many in the private sector will get. Although it's those in the private sector paying for them! And that includes the 'millionaire comedian' you are referring to as his taxes will be even higher again!


----------



## Magnus (Oct 9, 2008)

Poorest members of society my ar$e!


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

clarkson for pm!


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

MoggyBaby said:


> At least they'll be getting a pension - it's more than many in the private sector will get. Although it's those in the private sector paying for them!


Why won't people in the private sector be getting a pension?


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Why won't people in the private sector be getting a pension?


You should if you and your employer are paying into one, it's works the same. If you don't pay in you don't get one, unless you do your own.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

MoggyBaby said:


> At least they'll be getting a pension - it's more than many in the private sector will get. Although it's those in the private sector paying for them! And that includes the 'millionaire comedian' you are referring to as his taxes will be even higher again!


Don't forget, people in the public sector are also tax payers -you seem to be somehow fixated on the untrue fact that private sector workers are the sole providers of public sector pensions. And as for private sector pensions - my OH's private sector pension is far and away better than the public sector pension, which is why I opted out of the public sector pension and have a private one instead. That doesn't preclude me from seeing how unfair the government is acting, or supporting my colleagues, however.

And one more thing - private sector pension contributoins are taken out of wages before tax - so people with a private sector pension are paying less tax - so tax-payers are shouldering that bill. Not complaining about that though, are you?

If people in the private sector have not had the foresight to provide themselves with a pension, it is not the fault of the public sector workers. Even if they are too poor to provide themselves with anything other than the state pension, it is still not the fault of the public sector workers. It is the fault of the government.

And if the Tories under Thatcher had not made striking for other causes illegal, there would be plenty in the public sector who would strike to help those in the private sector - just look back at the seventies.

So instead of blaming everything on the public sector workers, why don't you put the blame squarely where it belongs - on the shoulders of the successive Tory governments who have taken away so many of our rights?


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

MoggyBaby said:


> At least they'll be getting a pension - it's more than many in the private sector will get. Although it's those in the private sector paying for them! And that includes the 'millionaire comedian' you are referring to as his taxes will be even higher again!


mu hubby works for the public sector(council)he wont be getting a pension only the ordinary state pension because his wages are crap and he cannot afford to contribute so alot are in the same boat as the private sector and he is contributing paying his taxes and national insurance so its not just those in the private sector paying for them at all,and as for that arrogant wind bag i dont care i'd like to see him clean up other peoples disgusting crap and work outside doing 12 hour shifts in the snow


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*Jezza might be rich and i for one don't mind my licence money going towards paying him.I love all the top gear team,they at least give us a good laugh.(something we all need).
And i for one didn't mind the people that went on strike.Something has to be done to sort this goverment out.So lets have Jezza in place of muppet face Cammeron.:thumbup::thumbup:*


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

I cant believe how bloody minded some people *cough*(sheep) are being towards public sector workers!! They have the opportunity to opt out of their pension scheme, but why shouldnt they be rightly annoyed if after being promised a certain amount the government tries to screw them out of it! Surely all those in the private sector would be rightly annoyed if it happened to them?? But god forbid that asking for justice should put a crimp in their day!!

As to those who have said how great that enormous tit Clarkson is (or even suggested they want to join him on his execution spree!), what the ****ing **** is wrong with you people??? You scare the beejesus out of me!!
I would probably have found his comments funny too if it had been after 9pm and he was on a comedy show but it is totally inappropriate and wrong on many levels to say it on a topical show at 7pm!!


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Ok so what are the thought about the people who went christmas shopping or stayed at home when they were on strike and were not at a picket line?

I personally think if they didnt go to a picket line or stay at work then they should loose their jobs because its one thing standing up for whats 'right' and another inconveniencing hundreds of thousands of people who have nothing to do with these strikes and sit on their @rses all day.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

I wouldnt have a problem if they chose not to picket TBH. I think the whole point of a strike is to inconvenience the public thereby putting pressure on the government...its part of living in a democracy.
More power to them I say!


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

harley bear said:


> I personally think if they didnt go to a picket line or stay at work then they should loose their jobs because its one thing standing up for whats 'right' and another inconveniencing hundreds of thousands of people who have nothing to do with these strikes and sit on their @rses all day.


It's a good job you're not a member of a Trade Union and aren't prepared to stand up for yourself then. Legislation limits a picket to 20 and even 6 in some circumstances.

I also have no issue inconveniencing _"hundreds of thousands of people who have nothing to do with these strikes and sit on their @rses all day"_


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Elmo the Bear said:


> It's a good job you're not a member of a Trade Union and aren't prepared to stand up for yourself then. Legislation limits a picket to 20 and even 6 in some circumstances.
> 
> I also have no issue inconveniencing _"hundreds of thousands of people who have nothing to do with these strikes and sit on their @rses all day"_


Sorry that was worded incorrectly..i meant inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people so they can sit on their @rse all day!

Funny how picket lines are limited to 20 when there have been pics on here with tons of people with banners and the like.

I do stand up for what i believe is right but i think these people are just taking the p1ss who go shopping when they are supposed to be fighting for what they want!


----------



## Magnus (Oct 9, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> And if the Tories under Thatcher had not made striking for other causes illegal, there would be plenty in the public sector who would strike to help those in the private sector - just look back at the seventies.
> 
> So instead of blaming everything on the public sector workers, why don't you put the blame squarely where it belongs - on the shoulders of the successive Tory governments who have taken away so many of our rights?


Ok, as you insist let's look back at the seventies. The Labour government reduced us to the poor man of Europe, we had the three day week, dead remaining unburied, rubbish piled up in the streets, strikes and flying pickets a weekly occurrence, industry was strangled by powerful unions that rendered our production cost unviable by indulging in mass walk outs for any reason they could think of - Red Robbo and his ilk.

Then as now, whenever you have consecutive terms of Labour government the following government inherits chaos and financial breakdown after excessive borrowing and financial mismanagement. That government is inevitably unpopular with the ovine hard-of-thinking because the new government has to start mopping up the mess; this means cuts and austerity.

So, thirteen years of Labour results in financial meltdown and after 18 months of the coalition we have such luminaries as yourself stirring the pot because it hasn't been fixed yet. Remember Labour had three successive terms of office so got to inflict even more damage this time; this will take more than one government term to fix.


----------



## Plebob (Apr 11, 2011)

harley bear said:


> Ok so what are the thought about the people who went christmas shopping or stayed at home when they were on strike and were not at a picket line?
> 
> I personally think if they didnt go to a picket line or stay at work then they should loose their jobs because its one thing standing up for whats 'right' and another inconveniencing hundreds of thousands of people who have nothing to do with these strikes and sit on their @rses all day.


What a great idea - let's sack all the teachers who went on strike who were not on a picket line. The result? You'll be looking after your own kids EVERY day!


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Plebob said:


> What a great idea - let's sack all the teachers who went on strike who were not on a picket line. The result? You'll be looking after your own kids EVERY day!


I dont mind looking after my own kids actually..as a matter of fact i would prefer to look after them then leave them with a bunch of complete strangers all day 
Imo there would be plenty of people willing to take on their roles who are coming out of uni looking for teaching jobs...so yeah they would actually be greatfull for what they get! Win, win all round!


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

harley bear said:


> Sorry that was worded incorrectly..i meant inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people so they can sit on their @rse all day!
> 
> Funny how picket lines are limited to 20 when there have been pics on here with tons of people with banners and the like.
> 
> I do stand up for what i believe is right but i think these people are just taking the p1ss who go shopping when they are supposed to be fighting for what they want!


OK...

"picket" line is outside of the employer premises.... limited to 20 / 6.

"Demonstration" or "march" is something people do to protest a point = lots of people. There is no limit on numbers.

"Atmosphere" is a mixture of gas that consists of free molecules in the ratio of about 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.3% carbon dioxide and traces of helium, neon, other gases and water vapour and is something we have here on earth, in case you ever decide to visit


----------



## Plebob (Apr 11, 2011)

harley bear said:


> I dont mind looking after my own kids actually..as a matter of fact i would prefer to look after them then leave them with a bunch of complete strangers all day
> Imo there would be plenty of people willing to take on their roles who are coming out of uni looking for teaching jobs...so yeah they would actually be greatfull for what they get! Win, win all round!


1. First I would hope your children's teachers are not strangers - have you never been to a Parents Evening?
2. So if you are happy to educate your own children have you got a degree and PGCE and a thorough knowledge and understanding of the National Curriculum?
3. Yes, let's get rid of all the experienced teachers and replace the whole system with a set of NQTs who would have no mentoring or guidance/ observations by experienced coordinators with no headteachers to run the system. 
Your argument is ill informed and shows a complete lack of understanding of the realities of how the education system works.
P.S I doubt that enough students would want to be a teacher - it takes a dedicated, skilled, compassionate person to make a successful teacher.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Plebob said:


> 1. First I would hope your children's teachers are not strangers - have you never been to a Parents Evening?
> 2. So if you are happy to educate your own children have you got a degree and PGCE and a thorough knowledge and understanding of the National Curriculum?
> 3. Yes, let's get rid of all the experienced teachers and replace the whole system with a set of NQTs who would have no mentoring or guidance/ observations by experienced coordinators with no headteachers to run the system.
> Your argument is ill informed and shows a complete lack of understanding of the realities of how the education system works.
> P.S I doubt that enough students would want to be a teacher - it takes a dedicated, skilled, compassionate person to make a successful teacher.


Teachers are strangers, i do not know them personally! And my son has only been in nursery since september so only had one parents evening!
The jobs of the people who decided to strike imo should be on the line! I think people are missing the point and i do not know why teachers are only brought up and not the rest of the public sector!
At the end of the day they are winging about not having a payrise and having to pay more for a pension! Well in sorry but im not gonna sit here and say i support the strikes because i dont! they have a wage coming in and have a guaranteed pension at the end of their working life!

There are people who work their backsides off for the whole of their working like and only have enough to get by each month never mind the LUXURY of having a pension when they retire...they pay into the system does that mean they should all strike till they are entitled to a pension and all the trimmings?

People need to wake up and get a grip, realise what situation the country is in and realise they are lucky to be in a bloody job never mind the added extras!


----------



## Plebob (Apr 11, 2011)

harley bear said:


> Teachers are strangers, i do not know them personally! And my son has only been in nursery since september so only had one parents evening!
> The jobs of the people who decided to strike imo should be on the line! I think people are missing the point and i do not know why teachers are only brought up and not the rest of the public sector!
> At the end of the day they are winging about not having a payrise and having to pay more for a pension! Well in sorry but im not gonna sit here and say i support the strikes because i dont! they have a wage coming in and have a guaranteed pension at the end of their working life!
> 
> ...


Why should I be grateful for a job?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

I've always asked the same question... to whom, exactly, should I be grateful for having a job?


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

Plebob said:


> OMG the government must just love people like you
> Why should I be grateful for a job? The parents of the children I teach should be grateful ( and they are btw) that they have a hard working dedicated caring and intelligent person to teach their child every day. The fear of unemployment shouldn't mean workers can be treated like dirt in any sector; we should all pull together to stand up for our rights not snipe at other people because we think they are getting something more. The fault lies with the government which is corrupt, the bankers who are immoral and the unthinking masses who believe the propaganda of a right wing press.
> Also, your child's teacher is not a stranger if you have met them at Parents Evening.


My point is there are so many people out of work that anyone who has a job should be greatfull..considering the state of this country people who are in work are lucky!
Again you mention teachers...how about surgeons and doctors..dont tell me they are not already paid enough and yet they are also walking out on strike!

I agree the government and the bankers are to blame for the mess but it dont mean im gonna sit back and agree with the strikes..people knew these cuts were coming its been on the cards for a long time and no doubt be going on for a long time to come!

Oh and to me a teacher is a stranger, i have not known them long enough to call them anything else.. just because have met someone a couple of times does not make them any less a stranger. Although i do hope to get to know them in the years to come as my children are at the school longer.


----------



## Guest (Dec 2, 2011)

I can't blame them for striking and I will continue to support any strikes they do, if that means losing a days money to look after my child then so be it.


----------



## Plebob (Apr 11, 2011)

harley bear said:


> My point is there are so many people out of work that anyone who has a job should be greatfull..considering the state of this country people who are in work are lucky!
> Again you mention teachers...how about surgeons and doctors..dont tell me they are not already paid enough and yet they are also walking out on strike!
> 
> I agree the government and the bankers are to blame for the mess but it dont mean im gonna sit back and agree with the strikes..people knew these cuts were coming its been on the cards for a long time and no doubt be going on for a long time to come!
> ...


I do not begrudge public workers from binmen to doctors a penny of their money or their rights.
If you saw your child's teacher in the street you would know who they are; they are therefore an acquantaince rather than a stranger.
I notice you had no answer to my points about you teaching your own children? Or how you are going to fill the vast number of vacancies that you have created by sacking everyone ( or indeed shooting them if Jeremy Ckarkson got his way  )?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

harley bear said:


> My point is there are so many people out of work that anyone who has a job should be greatfull..considering the state of this country people who are in work are lucky!
> Again you mention teachers...how about surgeons and doctors..dont tell me they are not already paid enough and yet they are also walking out on strike!
> 
> I agree the government and the bankers are to blame for the mess but it dont mean im gonna sit back and agree with the strikes..people knew these cuts were coming its been on the cards for a long time and no doubt be going on for a long time to come!


The people in work are not lucky, the people out of work have been abandoned by their country. Their is enough wealth in this country for everyone to have a job and to have a job that is productive.

The corruption has been coming a long time (quite why you think cuts are the only solution is beyond me.. a little too much Telegraph perhaps), this Government and the last. Some groups stood up against the last Government and other have joined now but the issue is not the colour of Government, it is the corrupt system they are all part of.

If you agree the banks and Government are to blame but you won't do anything about it, surely you should at least support those who are doing something about it.... maybe you should "think yourself lucky" we are standing up, meaning you can stop in and watch the telly

You're not going to sit back and support the strikes...... you're going to sit back and do nothing.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> The people in work are not lucky, the people out of work have been abandoned by their country. Their is enough wealth in this country for everyone to have a job and to have a job that is productive.
> 
> The corruption has been coming a long time (quite why you think cuts are the only solution is beyond me.. a little too much Telegraph perhaps), this Government and the last. Some groups stood up against the last Government and other have joined now but the issue is not the colour of Government, it is the corrupt system they are all part of.
> 
> ...


Surely there's the choice to not support the strikes?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Surely there's the choice to not support the strikes?


If you agree people should have their pensions taken away then you would not support the strikes.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> If you agree people should have their pensions taken away then you would not support the strikes.


I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but people do not have to actively support the strikes, and your assumption that sitting on their arse as a non-supporter is quite wrong, is your assumption, according to your opinion(s).


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'm not saying I agree or disagree, but people do not have to actively support the strikes, and your assumption that sitting on their arse as a non-supporter is quite wrong, is your assumption, according to your opinion(s).


Not 100% sure that's a sentence, but, I think you're saying that my view is that sitting on their arse and not supporting the strike is the wrong thing to do, then you are correct. By sitting on your arse and not supporting the strikes you are doing nothing, de facto, so clearly agree that people should lose their pensions.

If on the other hand (or cheek) you sit on your arse but do support the strikes, then you clearly don't agree people should lose their pensions, but don't want to do anything about it.

So of course you have a choice - you can not support the strikes and agree people should lose their pensions, or support the strikes and agree people should get to keep their pensions.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Not 100% sure that's a sentence, but, I think you're saying that my view is that sitting on their arse and not supporting the strike is the wrong thing to do, then you are correct. By sitting on your arse and not supporting the strikes you are doing nothing, de facto, so clearly agree that people should lose their pensions.
> 
> If on the other hand (or cheek) you sit on your arse but do support the strikes, then you clearly don't agree people should lose their pensions, but don't want to do anything about it.
> 
> So of course you have a choice - you can not support the strikes and agree people should lose their pensions, or support the strikes and agree people should get to keep their pensions.


I'm not sure your grammar has been 100% correct throughout this thread either, but then again, that's not what this thread is about.

B*llocks, to your interpretation, to be quite honest. I have my own private pension, I've worked very hard to get a private pension, I don't rely on the government, and also have business plans in place to ensure I don't, or try not to, rely on the state when I'm of pensionable age, which will be past state retirement I might add.

I don't agree with the strikes, I agree with the unions negotiating, but I don't agree with a freebie day off for folks to do their Christmas shopping, which you can bet your bottom dollar is what most of them did, rather than stand on the picket line! Just because I don't agree with a strike does not make my opinion any less valid than yours!!

PS, you might want to look at the difference between 'there' and 'their'


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'm not sure your grammar has been 100% correct throughout this thread either, but then again, that's not what this thread is about.
> 
> B*llocks, to your interpretation, to be quite honest. I have my own private pension, I've worked very hard to get a private pension, I don't rely on the government, and also have business plans in place to ensure I don't, or try not to, rely on the state when I'm of pensionable age, which will be past state retirement I might add.
> 
> ...


Sorry, for a minute there/there/they're I thought you'd grown up. B*llocks to your opinion too... you look after yourself and we'll look after each other. I worked very hard to get where I am as well and I assume (as you don't rely on the Government) you are completely self sufficient, use no services and have no children. :cornut:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Sorry, for a minute there/there/they're I thought you'd grown up. B*llocks to your opinion too... you look after yourself and we'll look after each other. I worked very hard to get where I am as well and I assume (as you don't rely on the Government) you are completely self sufficient, use no services and have no children. :cornut:


No I don't, I pay for any services, my one child died, any more questions, I'd be happy to help with grammar :cornut:


----------



## Plebob (Apr 11, 2011)

The loss of income is not a "free" day off by any means. Not all strikers are obliged to picket or march as not turning up for work is a protest in itself.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Plebob said:


> The loss of income is not a "free" day off by any means. Not all strikers are obliged to picket or march as not turning up for work is a protest in itself. i have 2 children so I spent the day caring for them as their damn teachers were on strike!


There are plenty who did see it as a day to do what they like, there are a few I know who said they've gone Christmas shopping.

I've absolutely no qualms there's an issue that needs resolving, but there are plenty who also take advantage of the situation, and the unions seem to do a good job as it is, why not allow them to just resolve the issues on your behalf without the need for disruption? That seems to be the winning situation all round to me?

Edited for grammar, just to appease the thread goblins


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> and the unions seem to do a good job as it is, why not allow them to just resolve the issues on your behalf without the need for disruption? That seems to be the winning situation all round to me?


Because only one party is turning up to the meetings. I can talk to myself but not negotiate 

The ballots were called by the unions involved because of this.

You don't pay for all your services, the cost is spread collectively.. sorry


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Because only one party is turning up to the meetings. I can talk to myself but not negotiate
> 
> The ballots were called by the unions involved because of this.
> 
> You don't pay for all your services, the cost is spread collectively.. sorry


If only one party is turning up to the meetings, how come the court ruling was made today? Surely there must be more than one side involved for this to happen??

I do pay for all my services, I can assure you, I'd love for you to pay for *something*, *anything* to do with my lifestyle, but it just doesn't happen, I pay full council tax, always have done, I pay full bills, full tax, so really, collectively speaking, perhaps I support others, which I don't begrudge, in fact I count myself lucky, after all, I've got a full time job, full time business, private pensions, who am I to complain and rock the boat


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> If only one party is turning up to the meetings, how come the court ruling was made today? Surely there must be more than one side involved for this to happen??
> 
> I do pay for all my services, I can assure you, I'd love for you to pay for *something*, *anything* to do with my lifestyle, but it just doesn't happen, I pay full council tax, always have done, I pay full bills, full tax, so really, collectively speaking, perhaps I support others, which I don't begrudge, in fact I count myself lucky, after all, I've got a full time job, full time business, private pensions, who am I to complain and rock the boat


Well said!


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

If you really think the money you pay covers the cost of all the services the Government has to provide to you and the rest of the country, that'll be the national debt all sorted then 

The court ruling was about the Government's arbitrary switch from RPI to CPI. They made the decision to do it on their own, they didn't negotiate it, not in a meeting....also, we don't normally hold negotiations in the high court :biggrin:


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> If you really think the money you pay covers the cost of all the services the Government has to provide to you and the rest of the country, that'll be the national debt all sorted then
> 
> The court ruling was about the Government's arbitrary switch from RPI to CPI. They made the decision to do it on their own, they didn't negotiate it, not in a meeting....also, we don't normally hold negotiations in the high court :biggrin:


Hence they've gone to appeal.

So now I have to pay for the rest of the country? Wow, and there I thought I was doing ok just ensuring I wasn't a burden to others!!


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Hence they've gone to appeal.
> 
> So now I have to pay for the rest of the country? Wow, and there I thought I was doing ok just ensuring I wasn't a burden to others!!


So you suggest we conduct negotiations through the courts?

The tax and rates system isn't complicated. You don't pay directly for (among other things) the entire water and drainage system to and from your house, the cost is shared. The same with roads, education etc etc etc etc. Everyone cross subsidises everyone else... but you know that.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> So you suggest we conduct negotiations through the courts?
> 
> The tax and rates system isn't complicated. You don't pay directly for (among other things) the entire water and drainage system to and from your house, the cost is shared. The same with roads, education etc etc etc etc. Everyone cross subsidises everyone else... but you know that.


No, I suggest we allow the unions to negotiate, which is what I said before, or did you miss that with my poor grammar.

Roads are paid for by road tax, and are nothing to do with income tax, nor council tax. I don't have children, or perhaps you'd like to point that out to me one more time, however, I probably do contribute towards the education of the children of others. I don't have a waste water system, we are on mains electricity only, so no, I don't see how my full contributions, are any less than anyone else thank you.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> So you suggest we conduct negotiations through the courts?
> 
> The tax and rates system isn't complicated. You don't pay directly for (among other things) the entire water and drainage system to and from your house, the cost is shared. The same with roads, education etc etc etc etc. Everyone cross subsidises everyone else... but you know that.


Ah, but the problem is that not everybody TAKES their fair share, isn't it?


----------



## Plebob (Apr 11, 2011)

Roads are not paid for by vehicle tax but through general taxation - everybody pays for roads whether they have a car or not.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

What Does Road Tax Pay For? - The Tax Guide


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> No, I suggest we allow the unions to negotiate, which is what I said before, or did you miss that with my poor grammar.


Whatever on the tax... if you're right we have no national debt so I'm happy.

How can we negotiate if the other side don't turn up? I think I mentioned that earlier. You said they are turning up and that the court decision showed that in some way? I really don't understand, the Government are not turning up to meetings so we can't negotiate.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

terencesmum said:


> Ah, but the problem is that not everybody TAKES their fair share, isn't it?


You're right... and not everyone pays their fair share either.... Ashcroft et al


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Whatever on the tax... if you're right we have no national debt so I'm happy.
> 
> How can we negotiate if the other side don't turn up? I think I mentioned that earlier. You said they are turning up and that the court decision showed that in some way? I really don't understand, the Government are not turning up to meetings so we can't negotiate.


Wow, so because I pay for myself, we have no national debt, so you're assuming that I'm responsible for everyone else paying for themselves too, that's a bit of an enormous step to take??

If the government aren't turning up, surely that's a good thing, the court decisions aren't bound to be favourable on their behalf in that instance.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> If the government aren't turning up, surely that's a good thing, the court decisions aren't bound to be favourable on their behalf in that instance.


The court ruled in favour of the Government's imposed (not negotiated) detrimental change from RPI to CPI..... that's only one small part of the negotiations and we can't negotiate if they don't turn up to the meetings. The courts do not decide the outcome of negotiations if one party doesn't turn up.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> You're right... and not everyone pays their fair share either.... Ashcroft et al


This is why we have national debt.  On top of the ridiculous spending on unnecessary nuclear missiles and other such follies. If the whole system was fair, we'd all be a lot better off. But, alas, it isn't.


----------



## Plebob (Apr 11, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> What Does Road Tax Pay For? - The Tax Guide


Thanks for the link - if you read it, it backs up what I said.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> The court ruled in favour of the Government's imposed (not negotiated) detrimental change from RPI to CPI..... that's only one small part of the negotiations and we can't negotiate if they don't turn up to the meetings. The courts do not decide the outcome of negotiations if one party doesn't turn up.


So, am I responsible for national debt or not?

Regardless, the decision by the courts is obviously welcomed, and possibly a way forward for negotiation, however you see it. All of us want an assured future, that's not always going to be possible, but the ridiculous acceptance of strikes by some, where the obvious misuse of time has occurred, just seems to point towards complete naievity to me. I spent my morning track walking, dodging live traffic, to ensure structures on the network rail infrastructure are viewed within their 12 month timescale, ie they don't pose a risk, but I risk my life doing so, I have no sympathy for those who tag along on the end of an industrial dispute to do a bit of Christmas shopping!!


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

terencesmum said:


> This is why we have national debt.  On top of the ridiculous spending on unnecessary nuclear missiles and other such follies. If the whole system was fair, we'd all be a lot better off. But, alas, it isn't.


There's lots of ridiculous spending and the spending on Trident is not the cause of the national debt. The big folly is the system itself and the reliance on private money to provide jobs, which it doesn't... it doesn't because it doesn't want to.. it doesn't because if there were lots of jobs wages would go up and the greedy would have to share their profits. The result of letting private capital run the system is high unemployment forcing down terms and conditions = cheap labour = labour deregulations=higher unemployment costs = cuts to benefits (same money shared among more people) etc etc


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> There's lots of ridiculous spending and the spending on Trident is not the cause of the national debt. The big folly is the system itself and the reliance on private money to provide jobs, which it doesn't... it doesn't because it doesn't want to.. it doesn't because if there were lots of jobs wages would go up and the greedy would have to share their profits. The result of letting private capital run the system is high unemployment forcing down terms and conditions = cheap labour = labour deregulations=higher unemployment costs = cuts to benefits (same money shared among more people) etc etc


Well perhaps instead of relying on jobs to come to them, people should look at ways to increase their skills, and make their own jobs, I've done it, so it can't be THAT difficult!


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> So you suggest we conduct negotiations through the courts?
> 
> The tax and rates system isn't complicated. You don't pay directly for (among other things) the entire water and drainage system to and from your house, the cost is shared. The same with roads, education etc etc etc etc. Everyone cross subsidises everyone else... but you know that.


Not so! the water and drainage system is based in the rateable value of the house! (for those not on a meter) those is a larrger house paying considerably more then those in a smaller house, and of course we then have to take into account the area at rates do vary considerably!


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Regardless, the decision by the courts is obviously welcomed, and possibly a way forward for negotiation, however you see it. All of us want an assured future, that's not always going to be possible, but the ridiculous acceptance of strikes by some, where the obvious misuse of time has occurred, just seems to point towards complete naievity to me. I spent my morning track walking, dodging live traffic, to ensure structures on the network rail infrastructure are viewed within their 12 month timescale, ie they don't pose a risk, but I risk my life doing so, I have no sympathy for those who tag along on the end of an industrial dispute to do a bit of Christmas shopping!!


Then you clearly have no concept of what the people on strike actually do. You are clearly fantastic, do the most worthy job in the world and are completely faultless, self sufficient and beyond the rest of us.

For your information, many of those on strike do jobs that make track walking look more like a walk in the park.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

DT said:


> Not so! the water and drainage system is based in the rateable value of the house! (for those not on a meter) those is a larrger house paying considerably more then those in a smaller house, and of course we then have to take into account the area at rates do vary considerably!


Not so - sorry.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Then you clearly have no concept of what the people on strike actually do. You are clearly fantastic, do the most worthy job in the world and are completely faultless, self sufficient and beyond the rest of us.
> 
> For your information, many of those on strike do jobs that make track walking look more like a walk in the park.


I take it you know why the cess is named so on track?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I take it you know why the cess is named so on track?


Nope.. cos this is just about you (as usual) and as you aren't bothered about anyone else (those of course that your very generation donation to society doesn't directly support) I'm not bothered about you. I' m not going to talk about how dangerous your job is... I can assure you many of those on strike do exceptionally dangerous work.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Then you clearly have no concept of what the people on strike actually do. You are clearly fantastic, do the most worthy job in the world and are completely faultless, self sufficient and beyond the rest of us.
> 
> For your information, many of those on strike do jobs that make track walking look more like a walk in the park.


Really? The teachers? Lecturers? All risking their lives every day? Hmm, you obviously live somewhere a lot rougher than I do.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

terencesmum said:


> Really? The teachers? Lecturers? All risking their lives every day? Hmm, you obviously live somewhere a lot rougher than I do.


Nuclear workers, health workers, HSE inspectors, Police staff, defence workers (including front line) etc


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I take it you know why the cess is named so on track?


Or possibly you've gone off to google.

Let me enlighten you. I wade through, literally, other people's detritus to ensure that I view structures on the railway infrastructure, and report on their condition. I also make my way through hazardous situations, closed subways etc, where druggies leave their paraphernalia, to ensure that the track above is safe, ie I wait until a train passes over, view the deck of the structure, and ensure all is safe.

The cess is the space at the side of the track, where, unless there is a designated safe route to walk, that's where you walk, often coming across toilet paper etc. Ballast, is what you walk on in the cess mainly, it shifts, so you can lose your footing at any point, the maximum therefore is six miles per day on ballast, although that's not to mention the topside of structures.

I literally walk through sh*t for my job, I haven't got a great pension, I rely on my own, so to receive such derogatory comments for having an opinion, well, I ask you, are they well placed? Most likely not, but you'd be the last person to own up to that!


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Or possibly you've gone off to google.
> 
> Let me enlighten you.


Or possibly you've now become irrelevant. It's not all about you.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Or possibly you've now become irrelevant. It's not all about you.


I never said it was, perhaps you have a fixation.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Nuclear workers, health workers, HSE inspectors, Police staff, defence workers (including front line) etc


I'll give you the police worker. And I read somewhere that nurses have to put up with a lot of abuse, so you get those, too.
Nuclear power stations are actually, contrary to popular belief, very safe places to work 
I'm not going to get into HSE but that's not even a seperate post in my department (I work at a university), just a lecturer with a bit of extra "training".


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I never said it was, perhaps you have a fixation.


Perhaps all you've done is talk about you the whole thread. You've not talked about anything else really.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Or possibly you've now become irrelevant. It's not all about you.


But she has a valid opinion, so it is only courteous to treat this opinion with respect. Just like we treat yours with respect, too.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

terencesmum said:


> I'll give you the police worker. And I read somewhere that nurses have to put up with a lot of abuse, so you get those, too.
> Nuclear power stations are actually, contrary to popular belief, very safe places to work
> I'm not going to get into HSE but that's not even a seperate post in my department (I work at a university), just a lecturer with a bit of extra "training".


Nuclear clearance?... safe... ? Waste movements?
Health and Safety Executive do not operate at your university. The HSE is a Government agency and much of their inspection work is highly dangerous.... I'm not talking about a loca safety rep.

Front line defence staff. (who were actually exempted from action but whose pensions are affected)


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Perhaps all you've done is talk about you the whole thread. You've not talked about anything else really.


Perhaps I've given my own experiences as an example, where necessary, I'm not going to post what I haven't experienced after all; although I have actually talked about the wider issue, although my grammar may not have been up to your standards.

Perhaps if you've got nothing better to do than post personal jibes, you might want to go off and watch tele, after all, forums are about debate, not about what you think is right and that's it, everyone else has to accept it.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

terencesmum said:


> But she has a valid opinion, so it is only courteous to treat this opinion with respect. Just like we treat yours with respect, too.


Respect needs to be reciprocal - you'll notice she only came on this thread to have a little dig at me... I'd be flattered but its the same old same old.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Respect needs to be reciprocal - you'll notice she only came on this thread to have a little dig at me... I'd be flattered but its the same old same old.


You truly do flatter yourself, I came on this thread to answer a question about the outcomes following today's court procedings. Now perhaps you need to take a cold shower


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

The thread has gone from Clarkson executing people in front of their families to something far weirder...... should we get back on topic?


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Nuclear clearance?... safe... ? Waste movements?
> *Health and Safety Executive do not operate at your university.* The HSE is a Government agency and much of their inspection work is highly dangerous.... I'm not talking about a loca safety rep.
> 
> Front line defence staff. (who were actually exempted from action but whose pensions are affected)


 Shows how little you know. We do have to have special clearance for our equipment, chemicals etc and all this is dealt with on campus. But hey ho, what do I know.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

No, the thread has gone from Clarkson having his own personal opinion, being executed for said opinion, whether right or wrong, on to something else.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> You truly do flatter yourself, I came on this thread to answer a question about the outcomes following today's court procedings. Now perhaps you need to take a cold shower


You came on and made one line against my post.

My RMT colleague says its called a cess because the water drains there... but what does he know


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> No, the thread has gone from Clarkson having his own personal opinion, being executed for said opinion, whether right or wrong, on to something else.


So you also think that someone having the opinion that striking workers should be executed in front of their families is debatable?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> You came on and made one line against my post.
> 
> My RMT colleague says its called a cess because the water drains there... but what does he know


Nowt, to be honest, the cess is there because it's where trains typically offload detritus, even though they're not supposed to nowadays. Like to tell me differently, after all, I work there, I can post you pics if you like


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Respect needs to be reciprocal - you'll notice she only came on this thread to have a little dig at me... I'd be flattered but its the same old same old.


I get the impression you both like to have a dig at each other  :hand:

I take everything on here with a pinch of salt. And if I think something sounds rude, I tell myself it probably wasn't intended to. Sometimes I wonder if something I wrote sounded a bit rude, but I certainly never intend to offend, so I apply this to everyone else, too.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> So you also think that someone having the opinion that striking workers should be executed in front of their families is debatable?


Do you think that was 100% serious? Get a life, honestly, I despair at the PC world we live in.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Nowt, to be honest, the cess is there because it's where trains typically offload detritus, even though they're not supposed to nowadays. Like to tell me differently, after all, I work there, I can post you pics if you like


He's only been there for about 35 years... obviously an amateur


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> You came on and made one line against my post.
> 
> My RMT colleague says its called a cess because the water drains there... but what does he know


And just to ask, when there's no water, what's it called?


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Not 100% sure that's a sentence, but, I think you're saying that my view is that sitting on their arse and not supporting the strike is the wrong thing to do, then you are correct. By sitting on your arse and not supporting the strikes you are doing nothing, de facto, so clearly agree that people should lose their pensions.
> 
> If on the other hand (or cheek) you sit on your arse but do support the strikes, then you clearly don't agree people should lose their pensions, but don't want to do anything about it.
> 
> So of course you have a choice - you can not support the strikes and agree people should lose their pensions, or support the strikes and agree people should get to keep their pensions.


:001_huh: You befuddle me brain - all I can think of is what about all the bods not sitting on their arses (either supporting or not supporting) but out earning a crust and keeping their side of their contracts - ie working and get paid for working.

Re last paragraph - again theres another option, not support the strike and think yes sorry thought you were going to get £A but because its no longer posssible (as in not enough money to give you £A) so you can have £B. Appreciate you are disappointed/aggrieved but you don't actually realise your £B is still 10 times or more better than everyone else and the only way you can still have £A is if the other poor sods agree to have £zilch and don't mind paying for you to have what they can never dream of. Not much solidarity there.

Maybe the only fair way is if for everyone not already drawing their pension, take the lot of everyone (public & private) and share it out equally between every working person. I know which sector would object most!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> He's only been there for about 35 years... obviously an amateur


A very good friend of mine who'd done the job I do for over 35 years taught me all I know, so what do I know. The cess, you will find is the term given to the section of track adjacent to the running line, it does not at all have to *hold* water, that's a load of ********. But then, as a structures examiner, who has to report scour, what would I know.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

DoodlesRule said:


> :001_huh: You befuddle me brain - all I can think of is what about all the bods not sitting on their arses (either supporting or not supporting) but out earning a crust and keeping their side of their contracts - ie working and get paid for working.
> 
> Re last paragraph - again theres another option, not support the strike and think yes sorry thought you were going to get £A but because its no longer posssible (as in not enough money to give you £A) so you can have £B. Appreciate you are disappointed/aggrieved but you don't actually realise your £B is still 10 times or more better than everyone else and the only way you can still have £A is if the other poor sods agree to have £zilch and don't mind paying for you to have what they can never dream of. Not much solidarity there.
> 
> Maybe the only fair way is if for everyone not already drawing their pension, take the lot of everyone (public & private) and share it out equally between every working person. I know which sector would object most!


The contract breach is with the Government not the strikers. They signed up for a pension (which is still possible and affordable) and the Government is reneging on it.

I do not have a public sector pension but the fact that those in the PS negotiated one and most other places failed to do it, doesn't mean they should give up theirs in a race to the bottom. Many private companies still have final salary schemes, Trade Unions, Collectively bargaining and (shock) make a profit.

Private companies can afford pension schemes but choose not to have them, giving the money instead to the board and shareholders instead. This is not about being able to afford a pension scheme, this is about the Government wanting to shed public sector jobs.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> A very good friend of mine who'd done the job I do for over 35 years taught me all I know, so what do I know. The cess, you will find is the term given to the section of track adjacent to the running line, it does not at all have to *hold* water, that's a load of ********. But then, as a structures examiner, who has to report scour, what would I know.


edited to say - it's all about you again -


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Who said it "holds" water.. are you quoting someone?... its where the water drains.... you said "why" is it called a cess... "its called a cess because that's where the water drains to its lower than the track". (sorry had to copy and paste there)
> 
> You are indeed faultless and a hero. Jog on


Aww shucks, so you have no understanding, phoned a friend, and they have no understanding either, kinda shows you up.

Never mind eh, back to the more important issue, which is why I joined the discussion, so jog on ....


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> edited to say - it's all about you again -


Yeah, cheers, my friend died earlier this year, about two months ago, so jog on....


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Yeah, cheers, my friend died earlier this year, about two months ago, so jog on....


What on earth are you ranting on about. Lots of people die... people I know die. Do you simply try to get sympathy when I lose interest in your rant or to get people on your side.

Your job is dangerous, lots of peoples jobs are dangerous and lots of the people on strike have far more dangerous jobs than you but it's not all about you.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Aww shucks, so you have no understanding, phoned a friend, and they have no understanding either, kinda shows you up.
> 
> Never mind eh, back to the more important issue, which is why I joined the discussion, so jog on ....


A railway worker of 35 years knows less than you about railways.

Well I guess that sums you up - you are indeed an expert on everything.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> What on earth are you ranting on about. Lots of people die... people I know die. Do you simply try to get sympathy when I lose interest in your rant or to get people on your side.
> 
> Your job is dangerous, lots of peoples jobs are dangerous and lots of the people on strike have far more dangerous jobs than you but it's not all about you.





Elmo the Bear said:


> A railway worker of 35 years knows less than you about railways.
> 
> Well I guess that sums you up - you are indeed an expert on everything.


Having a hissy fit perchance?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Having a hissy fit perchance?


Your intention all along no doubt... sorry to disappoint but I don't do temper.... you've become a parody of yourself... which is no mean feat


----------



## sarelis (Aug 29, 2011)

OMG I stumbled into a sh!tfest!!
***backs away slowly***


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Your intention all along no doubt... sorry to disappoint but I don't do temper.... you've become a parody of yourself... which is no mean feat


As if, your own friends' experiences obviously outweigh those of mine, and my own friends, some of whom are no longer with us, although you choose to rub that in my face, how tasteful. Your RMT friend obviously has little or no trackwalking experience for them to summise that the cess involves water, because it doesn't in the majority of cases, or have you just used the phone a friend option, and got that as a first answer? Honestly.....


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

sarelis said:


> OMG I stumbled into a sh!tfest!!
> ***backs away slowly***


Sorry to correct you, but it's actually called a cess. Even when it's dry. Or something. I think.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

sarelis said:


> OMG I stumbled into a sh!tfest!!
> ***backs away slowly***


Trust me, the cess is no place to walk if you want to avoid it 

I could advise you of other places to avoid cr*p, but that may compromise forum rules


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> As if, your own friends' experiences obviously outweigh those of mine, and my own friends, some of whom are no longer with us, although you choose to rub that in my face, how tasteful. Your RMT friend obviously has little or no trackwalking experience for them to summise that the cess involves water, because it doesn't in the majority of cases, or have you just used the phone a friend option, and got that as a first answer? Honestly.....


Former wheeltapper and track maintenance worker.. now a national official of the RMT. "It's called the cess because that's where the water drains" were his exact words.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I could advise you of other places to avoid cr*p, but that may compromise forum rules


I do try to avoid your posts


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> As if, your own friends' experiences obviously outweigh those of mine, and my own friends, some of whom are no longer with us, although you choose to rub that in my face, how tasteful. Your RMT friend obviously has little or no trackwalking experience for them to summise that the cess involves water, because it doesn't in the majority of cases, or have you just used the phone a friend option, and got that as a first answer? Honestly.....


Anyways. Going back to Clarkson. Would it be in order to make jokes about dead friends? Because they're jokes, right? And I wouldn't really mean it.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Former wheeltapper and track maintenance worker.. now a national official of the RMT. "It's called the cess because that's where the water drains" were his exact words.


a wheeltapper has nothing to do with the infrastructure, they literally tap the wheel to assess soundness, in the same way I hit a structure and listen to the sound to assess any defects; sorry to inform you but the cess is named so, because of it's function, ie that's where the cr*p ends up.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Elmo the Bear said:


> I do try to avoid your posts


Then why quote me, there is an ignore function?


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> a wheeltapper has nothing to do with the infrastructure, they literally tap the wheel to assess soundness, in the same way I hit a structure and listen to the sound to assess any defects; sorry to inform you but the cess is named so, because of it's function, ie that's where the cr*p ends up.


... "and track maintenance worker" (and thank you for letting me know a wheel-tapper taps wheels). I trust him, he's TU official.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Then why quote me, there is an ignore function?


I put you on ignore before but people kept quoting you so your posts still showed up.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Seems to have turned into a slanging match so think will bow out of this one. 

I don't particularly support either side, I just know about pensions so thought it may have added something to the "debate" helping each opposing side see the others view point of view

One thing I do have strong views on is I really really hate any one making remarks about whether someone has children or not as some sort of stance in a so called debate. Cruel, tacky & uncalled for as you never know another persons situations is


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

So what's your problem? 

And are you saying I'm wrong about the cess? I'd love to know, since I use it so often to get to my place of work and your personal knowledge will obviously add to my own??!!


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

Having watched the clip, its obvious (to me) that he was joking.
[email protected] joke, but a joke nonetheless.
I didnt find it funny (cant stand the bloke anyway) but it doesnt mean it wasnt a joke.

PS: maybe a new thread should be started about railways, just to keep this one on topic


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2011)

I'm confused.com. Can't we just ask Jeeves what a cess is?


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*So who actualy determines what is a joke and what isn't? Now as i found what Jezza said funny,to me it was a joke.Are people now going to tell me what i can and cannot find funny?
If people didn't take it as a joke why not just dismiss it and move on?*


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

JANICE199 said:


> *So who actualy determines what is a joke and what isn't? Now as i found what Jezza said funny,to me it was a joke.Are people now going to tell me what i can and cannot find funny?
> If people didn't take it as a joke why not just dismiss it and move on?*


It was said yesterday when i saw the clip that within no time i think a couple of hours of him saying what he did,they had had over 500texts complaining, my god 500 people that have nothing else better to do and that cant take a joke. I just think theres always someone bleating on about whats happening in the world today, such hardship, moan, moan, moan, you would think something like this would just have faded into significance.

God i just people would lighten up and then just maybe the state of things might just not seen so bad.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

I took his comments as a joke but found nothing inherently funny in them. There is humour to be found in any subject, even executing people in front of their families or on people throwing themselves under trains. But as usual Clarkson never managed to find that humour, relying with boring regularity on juvenile comments with nothing more than a little shock value. It's really tedious and embarrassing from a 51 year old bloke.

A bit like Seig Heil'ing at a Holocaust memorial service. A joke. But not funny.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

gskinner123 said:


> I took his comments as a joke but found nothing inherently funny in them. There is humour to be found in any subject, even executing people in front of their families or on people throwing themselves under trains. But as usual Clarkson never managed to find that humour, relying with boring regularity on juvenile comments with nothing more than a little shock value. It's really tedious and embarrassing from a 51 year old bloke.
> 
> A bit like Seig Heil'ing at a Holocaust memorial service. A joke. But not funny.


*I'm 61 and as i said in an earlier post,i've said more or less the same as he did.I don't expect everyone to have the same humour but if i don't like a joke i sure as hell wouldn't go out of my way to complain about it.Some people must have real sad lives.*


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2011)

JANICE199 said:


> *I'm 61 and as i said in an earlier post,i've said more or less the same as he did.I don't expect everyone to have the same humour but if i don't like a joke i sure as hell wouldn't go out of my way to complain about it.Some people must have real sad lives.*


I think that some people we're deeply offended by it, the same way the public reacted when a soap does a storyline they don't agree with 
I didn't actually know what he said as I turn my TV over the minute the smug git comes on TV


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

I dont think been 51 has anything to do with been humourous or anything else tbh, other than the older you get, the more experiences you have had, seen more changes, for the good and bad so maybe things like this fades into significance, a humourous quip, seen by him is really nothing on the grand scale of things. Hes very similar in age to me, am i past been humourous? because he can shoot me now if i am.


----------



## harley bear (Feb 20, 2010)

OMG this thread has turned onto a little bitch fest!



Plebob said:


> I mention teachers as it is pertinent to my situation. I do not begrudge other public workers from binmen to doctors a penny of their money or their rights.
> If you saw your child's teacher in the street you would know who they are; they are therefore an acquantaince rather than a stranger.
> I notice you had no answer to my points about you teaching your own children? Or how you are going to fill the vast number of vacancies that you have created by sacking everyone ( or indeed shooting them if Jeremy Ckarkson got his way  )?


Like i said IF workers were told their jobs wouldnt be safe if they went on strike then im sure they would all think twice before going christmas shopping 
Educating my own shildren...well obviously i havent got the relevent qualifications to teach...(even though you dont need them to home school) but IF i planned to educate my own children then i would have done what was needed before having children..as it stands i believe that children should have the opportunity to mix with others their own age and as i pay my taxes towards the education system why should my children miss out on the opportunity to go to school?



Elmo the Bear said:


> Not 100% sure that's a sentence, but, I think you're saying that my view is that sitting on their arse and not supporting the strike is the wrong thing to do, then you are correct. By sitting on your arse and not supporting the strikes you are doing nothing, de facto, so clearly agree that people should lose their pensions.
> 
> If on the other hand (or cheek) you sit on your arse but do support the strikes, then you clearly don't agree people should lose their pensions, but don't want to do anything about it.
> 
> So of course you have a choice - you can not support the strikes and agree people should lose their pensions, or support the strikes and agree people should get to keep their pensions.


They are not loosing their pensions! They will just have to pay more during their employment to get what they wanted.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

malibu said:


> I think that some people we're deeply offended by it, the same way the public reacted when a soap does a storyline they don't agree with
> I didn't actually know what he said as I turn my TV over the minute the smug git comes on TV


I think someone telling you what he said and actually seeing it is very different, as you can imagine. We often say its not what you say but how you say it. Try and watch it its plain to see it was said in the typical Jeremy style.


----------



## poohdog (May 16, 2010)

I believe he was once asked if he would swerve to avoid a fox and answered that he deliberately aimed for them...Whether you find that funny or not it was just an off the cuff comment to shock...
He had a visit from the police shortly afterwards...This country's turning into East Germany.


----------



## Plebob (Apr 11, 2011)

harley bear said:


> I dont mind looking after my own kids actually..as a matter of fact i would prefer to look after them then leave them with a bunch of complete strangers all day
> Imo there would be plenty of people willing to take on their roles who are coming out of uni looking for teaching jobs...so yeah they would actually be greatfull for what they get! Win, win all round!


you've contradicted yourself - of course they should go to school - it was you who suggested otherwise.


----------



## gskinner123 (Mar 10, 2010)

haeveymolly said:


> I dont think been 51 has anything to do with been humourous or anything else tbh, other than the older you get, the more experiences you have had, seen more changes, for the good and bad so maybe things like this fades into significance, a humourous quip, seen by him is really nothing on the grand scale of things. Hes very similar in age to me, am i past been humourous? because he can shoot me now if i am.


I mentioned his age only in relation to how and why I didn't understand the humour in relation to a 51 year man. I thought his comments juvenile. Had I overheard a fifteen year old boy saying "put them up against a wall and execute them in front of their families", I still would have found it humourless but perhaps to be expected from a 15 year old. The same quip from a 7 year old with a vocabulary beyond their years or from a genteel little old lady... then I see the humour...simply because otherwise there is no inherent humour in "put them up against a wall, etc..."


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

harley bear said:


> They are not loosing their pensions! They will just have to pay more during their employment to get what they wanted.


Not quite right - they are having to pay more, and work longer, to get less.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

harley bear said:


> They are not loosing their pensions! They will just have to pay more during their employment to get what they wanted.


Sorry but that's way off the mark. They are losing their final salary pension scheme, will have to pay more and work longer for a poorer scheme in breach of the agreement both sides (the employee and employer) signed up to when they started work.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

As I have already said, I am sure he meant it as a joke, and that he said it, as he always does, to be controversial (it_ is_ the only way the untalented oaf can manage to stay in the public eye, after all). However, I can also understand how people can be offended by his joke because I was offended by it.

I spent all day on Wednesday on a picket line in very cold weather. I lost a whole day's wage. I have been in terrible pain these last two days because of the effect of the cold weather on my arthritis. Now, I know that all that has come about through my own choice. However, I chose to do it because I was fighting for something I truly believed in - I don't even have an NHS pension, but I was supporting my colleagues who do. I was fighting for people's rights.

And then you switch on the TV and have this complete @rsehole pontificating that people who were brave enough to be standing up and fighting for their rights should be executed in front of their families.  Yes, it was a joke, but it was a cheap joke at the expense of some very brave people who were fighting for what they believed in.

Would you be insisting it was a funny joke and people should lighten up if he had chosen to attack a different group of people fighting for rights - our soldiers in Afghanistan, for example? What if he had said that he didn't agree with the war and that any soldier who goes to Afghanistan ought to be executed in front of his entire family? Would you still think it was a funny joke?

It was a joke, but it was a poor joke and in very bad taste, and I'm not surprised he angered so many people.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> As I have already said, I am sure he meant it as a joke, and that he said it, as he always does, to be controversial (it_ is_ the only way the untalented oaf can manage to stay in the public eye, after all). However, I can also understand how people can be offended by his joke because I was offended by it.
> 
> I spent all day on Wednesday on a picket line in very cold weather. I lost a whole day's wage. I have been in terrible pain these last two days because of the effect of the cold weather on my arthritis. Now, I know that all that has come about through my own choice. However, I chose to do it because I was fighting for something I truly believed in - I don't even have an NHS pension, but I was supporting my colleagues who do. I was fighting for people's rights.
> 
> ...


*Honestly Val? Yes i would still laugh.A joke is just that,it isn't meant to offend.I can't think off the top of my head what i wouldn't find funny,said in the right way.But then i have warped sence of humour.*


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Wow, just caught up with this thread!!drama, drama, drama!!!!
I have to say sleeping_lions job sounds alot like what a bin man does, only with train shaped traffic to avoid!! (not being rude, I think bin men dont get nearly enough credit for doing a job very few of us would want!!).

I think the problem with Clarksons 'joke' though is obvious.....CONTEXT!
If your auntie falls over at a drunken wedding its funny, if she falls over at your uncles funeral its not.. (at least I hope you wouldnt find it funny!!).
So what might be funny post water shed is offensive before it. Ofcom and watershed exists to protect people who might be more sensitive to certain subjects, nothing wrong with that!!
If someone doesnt object to Clarksons vastly inappropriate jokes he will just continue to try and shock people until he finally says something totally unforgiveable. Its why you have to take a stand, which is what the strikers are doing!! (awesome linkage there!!LOL:lol.
As a nurse I know what happens when they have you over a barrel and you cant strike..you just get shafted all the time..


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Peoples sense of humour differs wildly anyway (probably stating the obvious I know) I love Billy Connolly always have I literally cry from laughter, but I have a friend who cant abide him and doesnt think he is funny in the least.
A lot of what he says too can be really near the mark and the language is really bad, which is what a lot of people find offensive too.

I hate Ricky Jervaise and have a really over whelming urge to punch him just at the sight of him, but thousands think he is hysterical.

I like Jezza and the top grear 3 personally I think they are all hillarious, Jezza appeals to my personal sense of humour, I do find most of what he says funny and take it with the intention Im sure its meant.

Its just horses for courses and probably the same with most comedians too, what one person finds funny in a comedians brand of comedy others will not.


----------



## Blondie (Feb 27, 2011)

Sled dog hotel said:


> Peoples sense of humour differs wildly anyway (probably stating the obvious I know) I love Billy Connolly always have I literally cry from laughter, but I have a friend who cant abide him and doesnt think he is funny in the least.
> A lot of what he says too can be really near the mark and the language is really bad, which is what a lot of people find offensive too.
> 
> *I hate Ricky Jervaise and have a really over whelming urge to punch him just at the sight of him, but thousands think he is hysterical.*I like Jezza and the top grear 3 personally I think they are all hillarious, Jezza appeals to my personal sense of humour, I do find most of what he says funny and take it with the intention Im sure its meant.
> ...


Me too!!!!!!


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

gskinner123 said:


> I mentioned his age only in relation to how and why I didn't understand the humour in relation to a 51 year man. I thought his comments juvenile. Had I overheard a fifteen year old boy saying "put them up against a wall and execute them in front of their families", I still would have found it humourless but perhaps to be expected from a 15 year old. The same quip from a 7 year old with a vocabulary beyond their years or from a genteel little old lady... then I see the humour...simply because otherwise there is no inherent humour in "put them up against a wall, etc..."


If i thought it had been meant and not a joke i could agree someone at that age should know better unlike a 7yr old but it was said in humour and humour has no expiry date. I find all this so pathetic, 500 texts in no time complaining about it it really makes me wonder what boring lives some people have to either worry or complain about something as silly as this.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

haeveymolly said:


> If i thought it had been meant and not a joke i could agree someone at that age should know better unlike a 7yr old but it was said in humour and humour has no expiry date. I find all this so pathetic, 500 texts in no time complaining about it it really makes me wonder what boring lives some people have to either worry or complain about something as silly as this.


It may appear as silly to you, but if someone takes the time to complain about it then it obviously does not appear silly to them; it's obviously something very important to them and they have as much right to voice their objections as Clarkson has to utter his nonsense in the first place. It's not pathetic to voice your objection to something that has offended you. Personally, I didn't bother complaining - not because I thought I would be pathetic, but merely because that's exactly the reaction the idiot wanted - it's why he said it in the first place.

I also don't agree that just because it was said in humour then we should all be saying, "oh well, that's ok then".

Suppose Clarkson didn't like cats? Suppose the next time he is on prime time TV he applauds the sickos who are stealing cats to feed live to snakes? Suppose "in humour" he says something like, "Bloody cats - they all ought to be stolen and fed to snakes or used as bait in dog fights" - would that still be funny? If 500 people were angry enough to text and complain would you still think they were pathetic?

I didn't - couldn't - look at the video of the kitten being eaten alive, but it would not surprise me if there were people who thought it was funny. Would they be justified in thinking that anyone who complained about the video was pathetic and should get a life because, after all, they thought it was funny and so everyone else should too?


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> It may appear as silly to you, but if someone takes the time to complain about it then it obviously does not appear silly to them; it's obviously something very important to them and they have as much right to voice their objections as Clarkson has to utter his nonsense in the first place. It's not pathetic to voice your objection to something that has offended you. Personally, I didn't bother complaining - not because I thought I would be pathetic, but merely because that's exactly the reaction the idiot wanted - it's why he said it in the first place.
> 
> I also don't agree that just because it was said in humour then we should all be saying, "oh well, that's ok then".
> 
> ...


Totally agree with you.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Sled dog hotel said:


> Peoples sense of humour differs wildly anyway (probably stating the obvious I know) I love Billy Connolly always have I literally cry from laughter, but I have a friend who cant abide him and doesnt think he is funny in the least.
> A lot of what he says too can be really near the mark and the language is really bad, which is what a lot of people find offensive too.
> 
> *I hate Ricky Jervaise and have a really over whelming urge to punch him* just at the sight of him, but thousands think he is hysterical.
> ...


I don't rate him either, so unfunny, I watched a film he was in, under duress by my mates, called 'The Invention of Lying' or 'The History of Lying' or something, possibly one of the worst films I've ever seen & I've seen some stinkers:frown2:


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

that's exactly the reaction the idiot wanted - it's why he said it in the first plae.

Quoting you here, you saying he said it to get a reaction i agree with you there 100% thats why ime not upset by it, it was nothing more than that.


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

Well hasn't Jezza done an amazing self promotion job running up to christmas. Whatever book dvd or nonsense the man has coming out i'm sure he will be laughing all the way to the bank.

I truly feel he was also just baiting a trap which the unions walked into. We're all talking about Jeremy clarkson not the merits of their case or not.

Many private sector jobs lost their final salary pensions 10 years ago!

Many people in poorly paid private sector jobs had to take the day off unpaid to look after their children regardless of whether they support the action or not. I'm not entirely sure this is the way to garner support.

But I'm just going to sit over here on the fence.


----------



## LyndaDanny (Jan 23, 2011)

Can I just say that when I withdraw my labour and go on strike, I lose a day's reckonable service and lose a day's pay? The whole point is to cause disruption to my employer by being absent without permission (a non sackable offence providing I am a member of a TU that has held a ballot and had an overall result in favour of strike action) As far as I am concerned the fact that I am not getting paid for that day gives me every right to do whatever the heck I want to on that day, be it stand on a picket line, join a demo march, go Christmas shopping or anything else that takes my fancy. As for comments on the amount a pension a Civil Servant gets, please do not mistake those of us at the bottom end of the food chain with the Senior Civil Service, who do get generous pensions. As for Clarkson, the guy is a total pr*ck and I ignore anything that comes out of his mouth.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

*


lyndadanny said:



can i just say that when i withdraw my labour and go on strike, i lose a day's reckonable service and lose a day's pay? The whole point is to cause disruption to my employer by being absent without permission (a non sackable offence providing i am a member of a tu that has held a ballot and had an overall result in favour of strike action) as far as i am concerned the fact that i am not getting paid for that day gives me every right to do whatever the heck i want to on that day, be it stand on a picket line, join a demo march, go christmas shopping or anything else that takes my fancy. As for comments on the amount a pension a civil servant gets, please do not mistake those of us at the bottom end of the food chain[/b] with the senior civil service, who do get generous pensions. as for clarkson, the guy is a total pr*ck and i ignore anything that comes out of his mouth.

Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you say, but not the last bit about Clarkson I always take him with a pinch of salt but I do like him.*


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

moonviolet said:


> Many private sector jobs lost their final salary pensions 10 years ago!


But many got organised, fought and retained their schemes. Just because the CEO's and shareholders are skimming money out of the private sector and sitting on it (the cause of the financial crisis in the first place) doesn't mean this should be a race to the bottom for terms and conditions.


----------



## jay_bird (May 24, 2011)

harley bear said:


> Sorry that was worded incorrectly..i meant inconvenience hundreds of thousands of people so they can sit on their @rse all day!
> 
> Funny how picket lines are limited to 20 when there have been pics on here with tons of people with banners and the like.
> 
> I do stand up for what i believe is right but i think these people are just taking the p1ss who go shopping when they are supposed to be fighting for what they want!


christ, youre really really thick. but thanks for making me laugh. :cornut:


----------



## LisaZonda (Oct 14, 2011)

ooooops can see this one boiling over again having just read the latest about Jezza on MSN *withdraws and hides behind sofa*


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2011)

He is nothing more then a silly little gob **** that doesn't deserve any praise for anything he comes out with. Other's can think what they want but thats my opinion.


----------



## welshjet (Mar 31, 2011)

Moonviolet got it in one, at the end of the hes probably got a new book coming out or perhaps hes touting for viewers for top gear who ratings are sliding

Personally and its my own opinion the man is a knob, and whatever comes out of his mouth is a load of sh$te, hes got is just small man big car syndrome.

Insofar as public sector goes, im in this area. My wage is on the border where they say "for the lowest paid not affected" i will end up paying approximately £40 a month more, however when it comes to my time for leaving i will not see a bean of the extra 40 taken off me. Its going straight into the government coffers. If people look at the pension system, there are different sections of it, from civil servants, teachers, nhs, police and the local government pension, i believe that there is one which is at a profit unlike some of them, i have not had an increase in my wage for at least three years, yet the cost of living has gone up, even people on benefits have had an increase.

As with the milk snatcher previously, all this government wants to do is privatise everything. Look at what has been privatised already and how crappy it is. 

For some reason being a public sector worker these days gives people the right to abuse us, yet in a private company you would never get away with it.

I can see me opting out of the pension system and the £40 which the government want and topping up my gas meter with - at least i will see the benefit of it. If every pub sector worker opted out which is i think what this government want, you can guarantee one thing, your taxes will go up

This of course is my own opinion

Im on my phone so if i apologise for any spelling as i cant be bothered to check it


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

jay_bird said:


> christ, youre really really thick. but thanks for making me laugh. :cornut:


 hoping that was a jezza joke.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Spellweaver said:


> It may appear as silly to you, but if someone takes the time to complain about it then it obviously does not appear silly to them; it's obviously something very important to them and they have as much right to voice their objections as Clarkson has to utter his nonsense in the first place. It's not pathetic to voice your objection to something that has offended you. Personally, I didn't bother complaining - not because I thought I would be pathetic, but merely because that's exactly the reaction the idiot wanted - it's why he said it in the first place.
> 
> I also don't agree that just because it was said in humour then we should all be saying, "oh well, that's ok then".
> 
> ...


*But what that sicko did with the kitten wasn't a joke,it was an evil deed.Whatever happend to the saying," sticks and stones"?*


----------



## poohdog (May 16, 2010)

I think Jezza's ok..much better than Kezza,Prezza and Dezza....but then I didn't go to Yooni or read the Sun to pick up all these ridiculous words.


----------



## Magnus (Oct 9, 2008)

The single most annoying thing about this entire thread is Elmo the Bear stating unfounded, biased and frequently obviously incorrect opinion as fact.


----------



## suewhite (Oct 31, 2009)

How times change about a year ago there was a post on who would you like to go to dinner with and Jeremy Clarkson came out 1st choice for loads:biggrin:


----------



## gorgeous (Jan 14, 2009)

Not read all of this thread.

But I am wondering if Jeremy's outburst coincided with the release of his new dvd? Surely it was not done on purpose, free publicity perhaps?


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

If I remember right in the interview he was asked what he thought of the strike, firstly he said something like, it was great driving round London and had no problem with the strike, then laughed and said as this is the BBC there should be a balanced opinion and then made the remake about shooting them. So in fact he came down on both sides and Jezza been Jezza tried to make a joke out of it, but now we are only hearing the one part of the interview.:mad5:

So all I can say to everyone moaning about him is, there is a lot worse happening around the world,* "so* *GET A LIFE"*


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

suewhite said:


> How times change about a year ago there was a post on who would you like to go to dinner with and Jeremy Clarkson came out 1st choice for loads:biggrin:


I still would


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Happy Paws said:


> If I remember right in the interview he was asked what he thought of the strike, firstly he said something like, it was great driving round London and had no problem with the strike, then laughed and said as this is the BBC there should be a balanced opinion and then made the remake about shooting them. So in fact he came down on both sides and Jezza been Jezza tried to make a joke out of it, but now we are only hearing the one part of the interview.:mad5:
> 
> So all I can say to everyone moaning about him is, there is a lot worse happening around the world,* "so* *GET A LIFE"*


Best post on this thread.:thumbup1:


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

haeveymolly said:


> Best post on this thread.:thumbup1:


Thank You


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

I've not read the thread - I'm far too lazy 

It was a joke !!!!!!!!

It may of not been very funny to some - but I do think the press just hang onto a stupid comment like this and flog it to death


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Magnus said:


> The single most annoying thing about this entire thread is Elmo the Bear stating unfounded, biased and frequently obviously incorrect opinion as fact.


Opinions are biased (that's why they're called opinions) so can't be incorrect. Did you want to point out any of my "incorrect" statements?


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

poohdog said:


> I think Jezza's ok..*much better than Kezza*,Prezza and Dezza....but then I didn't go to Yooni or read the Sun to pick up all these ridiculous words.


:yikes: I sometimes get called Kezza :yikes: :lol:


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

press just hang onto a stupid comment like this and flog it to death 

Bit like on here then


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

haeveymolly said:


> press just hang onto a stupid comment like this and flog it to death
> 
> Bit like on here then


ain't that the truth!

I bet he weren't the only one to say it either, and likely that many of them affected by the strike either said it or thought it! Difference is we, the public don't make headlines and sell papers!

Way to go Clarkson :thumbup: keep our right to free speech!

An afterthough!! if some had their was we would be hung drawn and quartered for 'THINKING' bad of others


----------



## LinznMilly (Jun 24, 2011)

Haven't read all of the replies, simply because I switched off when it turned into a Tory v labour debate around Page 7, nor do I really know what the strikes were about in the first place, but here's my 2 penn'rth.

OK, so Clarkson has threatened to "execute" the strikers. How many of us are actually guilty of saying the same thing about others ourselves? Hmm? How many of us here have actually said "I'm going to kill/strangle/shoot Joe Bloggs". I'd like to bet that we ALL have at some point - yes, even those who are calling for his blood, in the moment of frustration, when someone's annoying us - or even, *shock horror*  - as a JOKE when someone's tormenting or teasing us. Does that mean we're all violent thugs? Of course not! They're empty threats. Clarkson's comment was an empty threat, meant to be taken as a joke. So he's a public figure on TV. Big deal. He's no more likely to shoot the strikers than I am of winning the lottery. Execution/murder - my behind.

I don't know much about what the strikers were on strike for, but about a week before the strikes took place, I got a letter from the hospital saying my consultant's appointment which was due later this month has been put back til May. Now if I find out (probably won't but for the sake of argument) that my consultant has put my much needed appointment back FIVE MONTHS so that he could have a day off in December to go Christmas Shopping, guess who's job I'll be wanting on the line? And it won't be Clarkson's.

*Get's down of soap box, waves politely and grins like the Cheshire Cat*


----------



## LisaZonda (Oct 14, 2011)

Agreeing that the strike should have taken place or not is a different discussion for me, I'm neither going to agree nor disagree with it on this thread...my comments here are regarding Jezza and the fuss it kicked up.

Jeremy Clarkson has an opinion, which would appear to be against striking (I haven't seen the whole interview so I'm taking from it what I saw), in the same way that many people across the UK and also on this forum have an opinion...some of whom are against...the only difference being that Jezza worded his opinion in a way that others wouldn't have done....he took it to extremes and provoked outrage and controversy, he does this on purpose of course!

He is not a stupid man and knows exactly the reaction it would create and that is why he does it....he is in the public eye and there is usually no such thing as bad publicity.

He is literally laughing his a**e off at those that got on their high horse over the comments because it worked....we all know he doesn't really want people shot because they went on strike but he is laughing because some didn't take his comment with a pinch of salt in the same way he made the comment in the first place....with a pinch of salt....mission accomplished!

I'm not saying I agree with everything he says but I for one like the guy, I've read some of his books which have me crying with laughter, I've said it before and I'll say it again....this world is PC gone mad in my opinion, I can completely see the game he is playing....which he evidently plays damn well!


----------



## Argent (Oct 18, 2009)

I've finally got around to watching the clip in context and tbh I don't see what the problem is, he was joking. Might've been better received on an evening news panel like Mock the Week or Have I Got News for You...


----------



## Magnus (Oct 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> Opinions are biased (that's why they're called opinions) so can't be incorrect. Did you want to point out any of my "incorrect" statements?


Well having read your inaccurate diatribe once I'm not that keen on ploughing through the tedious repetition of opinion purporting to be fact again but, from memory; you seem to blame national debt purely on overspend against tax. That is incorrect; national debt factors in our trade deficit and the vast amount of interest we pay on the loans that 13 years of Labour built up, not to mention the sell off of our gold reserves at rock bottom prices.

You keep stating (to Sleeping Lion I think) that "the Government haven't turned up at meetings with union representatives". The truth of the matter is that negotiations took place prior to the 2nd November when, after being faced with a blanket refusal to accept that pensions had to change by the unions the government said "this is our best offer". The unions held talks since that date with each other in order to, in their words "make sure they all understood what was being offered". That was not a process the government needed to be involved with at that stage.

The offer continues to support an extremely favourable pension scheme which protects the lower paid. Even that left-wing rag The Guardian understands the facts properly:

_"According to John Wright of consultants Hymans Robertson, those on low pay could do better out of the career average proposals; those with average earnings, such as teachers and nurses, will get about the same; while those with the prospect of earning higher than average salaries over time, such as doctors and high ranking civil servants, will lose out. "_

Also bear in mind that any pension already built up will retain the "final salary rights", it's only future contributions that will be linked to average salary. 
The police, fire service and armed forces will see their pension age rise to only 60 not 65. Everyone will still be allowed to retire early with an adjusted pension. Remember too that the public sector's pension will continue to be protected, to be guaranteed (paid for by everyone) whereas private sector pensions will be dependent on the financial markets performance.

You came out with this belter a few days ago too:-



Elmo the Bear said:


> There's lots of ridiculous spending and the spending on Trident is not the cause of the national debt. The big folly is the system itself and the reliance on private money to provide jobs, which it doesn't... it doesn't because it doesn't want to.. it doesn't because if there were lots of jobs wages would go up and the greedy would have to share their profits. The result of letting private capital run the system is high unemployment forcing down terms and conditions = cheap labour = labour deregulations=higher unemployment costs = cuts to benefits (same money shared among more people) etc etc


That, my friend is a total load of ******! The private sector provides millions more jobs than the public sector (despite Labour inventing 750,000 public sector "non-jobs" in their last few years in office).
In fact SME's alone (that's small and medium sized enterprises i.e. small businesses) employ over 13 million people which in itself is more than twice the public sector. That's before you take into account the large private sector retail and industrial giants!

You won't agree nor will you want to accept it but for far too long the public sector has become fatter while the private sector suffered redundancies and had to cut its cloth. The last government's financial mismanagement has led to an exacerbation of the financial crisis and the job (unpopular though it is) of this government is to start the long process of sorting out the debt. The last thing this country needs is the public sector opting out of any responsibility toward that debt and refusing to accept minor changes to their completely out of proportion pension structure.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Happy Paws said:


> If I remember right in the interview he was asked what he thought of the strike,* firstly he said something like, it was great driving round London and had no problem with the strike, then laughed and said as this is the BBC there should be a balanced opinion and then *[B*]made the remake about shooting **them[*/COLOR].[/B] So in fact he came down on both sides and Jezza been Jezza tried to make a joke out of it, but now we are only hearing the one part of the interview.:mad5:
> 
> So all I can say to everyone moaning about him is, there is a lot worse happening around the world,* "so* *GET A LIFE"*


*He never said he was against the strike for gods sake, it's just the press making a mountain out of a mole hill.*


----------



## poohdog (May 16, 2010)

Magnus said:


> You wont agree nor will you want to accept it.


Nice to read another opinion.

We are all entitled to our opinions..but some posters have a rigid mind set no matter what others might say.That's why I have mostly stayed a reader on this topic.

All I would humbly ask on here is that both sides don't go over the top and descend into insults.


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

poohdog said:


> Nice to read another opinion.
> 
> We are all entitled to our opinions..but some posters have a rigid mind set no matter what others might say.That's why I have mostly stayed a reader on this topic.
> 
> All I would humbly ask on here is that both sides don't go over the top and descend into insults.


Must admit i have mainly just kept reading this,especially as i am no expert,they do say the two subjects that one should avoid are politics and religion


----------



## poohdog (May 16, 2010)

skip said:


> Must admit i have mainly just kept reading this,especially as i am no expert,they do say the two subjects that one should avoid are politics and religion


God bless you!!...


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

poohdog said:


> Nice to read another opinion.
> 
> We are all entitled to our opinions..but some posters have a rigid mind set no matter what others might say.That's why I have mostly stayed a reader on this topic.
> 
> All I would humbly ask on here is that both sides don't go over the top and descend into insults.


That's what I am trying to say, the press are only telling us what they want us to hear, you need to hear the interview before condemning the man.


----------



## Magnus (Oct 9, 2008)

poohdog said:


> Nice to read another opinion.
> 
> We are all entitled to our opinions..but some posters have a rigid mind set no matter what others might say.That's why I have mostly stayed a reader on this topic.
> 
> All I would humbly ask on here is that both sides don't go over the top and descend into insults.


Agreed, but after having read multiple repetition of opinion purporting to be fact I just had to redress the balance.
I will not be posting on this again.

It's back to dogs now


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Magnus said:


> Agreed, but after having read multiple repetition of opinion purporting to be fact I just had to redress the balance.
> I will not be posting on this again.
> 
> It's back to dogs now


You have no idea but a nice theory. If the private sector is creating all these (imaginary jobs) can you point us to them? You haven't redressed the balance, simply put an opinion which is fine but very inaccurate. There are numerous things that you could not know as you've not been involved and the problem with the dispute is the amount of misinformation spread by people like you who have no been involved. The press you read do not always report the facts but two to leave you with 1. There was no offer in any of the meetings - Maude only stated there was to the press. 2. There were no Government attendees at the last meetings which were not on November 2nd.

Guess that just makes you someone else stirring the pot of misinformation that we'll continue to struggle against.


----------



## Elmo the Bear (Oct 3, 2008)

Magnus said:


> You came out with this belter a few days ago too:-
> 
> That, my friend is a total load of ******! The private sector provides millions more jobs than the public sector (despite Labour inventing 750,000 public sector "non-jobs" in their last few years in office).
> In fact SME's alone (that's small and medium sized enterprises i.e. small businesses) employ over 13 million people which in itself is more than twice the public sector. That's before you take into account the large private sector retail and industrial giants!
> ...


The private sector "cuts its cloth" to give profit to the few - it sheds jobs to maintain profit not for any other reason. This was proved (check that word out) by recent admission that CEO salary had risen even in companies with mass redundancies.

The "non-jobs" you talk about that are now being cut are seeing millions of families suffer due to not only the cuts but the failure (deliberately) of the private sector to spend any money creating jobs, choosing instead to retain its profits in the hands a of a few.

No one stated the private sector provide ore jobs but the Government told us they would plug the gap for those sacked in the public sector - the truth is that no even a dent has been made. The private sector will of course, provide McJobs at minimum wage thus driving up the demand for jobs and driving down wages. The profits go up and the CEO's keep their profit.

Private sector retail jobs will not replaced the skilled, long term secure jobs from the private sector but then this is how the private sector makes its money - keep wages low so your margin becomes bigger then you have a bigger buffer when hard time hit.

You believe the private sector was too fat and full of non-jobs..... you omit to mention that those jobs supported families whereas the private sector support profit.

The information you have from various news sources is, of course, what they want you to think is going on..... I thought you might actually start to question it but you're clearly happy to accept and regurgitate what the press feed you.


----------



## poohdog (May 16, 2010)

Elmo the Bear said:


> You believe the private sector was too fat and full of non-jobs..... you omit to mention that those jobs supported families whereas the private sector support profit.


Bit of a cock up on the word front methinks...


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

DT said:


> ain't that the truth!
> 
> I bet he weren't the only one to say it either, and likely that many of them affected by the strike either said it or thought it! Difference is we, the public don't make headlines and sell papers!
> 
> ...


Too true, do you know ive laughed more at the public over this because i cant believe what silly things people will get their knickers in a twist over.


----------



## Magnus (Oct 9, 2008)

Elmo the Bear said:


> The private sector "cuts its cloth" to give profit to the few - it sheds jobs to maintain profit not for any other reason. This was proved (check that word out) by recent admission that CEO salary had risen even in companies with mass redundancies.
> 
> The "non-jobs" you talk about that are now being cut are seeing millions of families suffer due to not only the cuts but the failure (deliberately) of the private sector to spend any money creating jobs, choosing instead to retain its profits in the hands a of a few.
> 
> ...


The private sector employees PEOPLE, many, many more people than the public sector. These people pay taxes and have mortgages and buy food for their families etc. etc. There are many private sector businesses (mine being one) that sacrifices profit to profit share and, when times are bad as they are now, we all cut back to try to keep the team together. Many business owners sacrifice salary and dividend to maintain employees' pay. That's exactly what I'm doing at the moment.

I'm not going to try to change your idea of the private sector being uncaring because, I've learned in life that you shouldn't pee against the wind or try to polish a turd. :frown2: I would add though that the most uncaring thing I've witnessed recently is the attitude of the strikers and purely in the interest of returning to topic, I would happily reload the gun for Jezza.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

I finally got round to watching the interview the other day and Im glad to say I was right!! Not in the least bit funny and wildly inappropriate!
The only amusing thing was watching the faces of the presenters after he made his comments and the fixed, glassy expressions (you could almost see the buttock clenching going on!!LOL). Also the deeply uncomfortable laughter from the audience. Twas a clanger of epic proportions, he should start a support group with Jonathon Ross for celebs that believe their own hype!!


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Elmo the Bear said:


> The private sector "cuts its cloth" to give profit to the few - it sheds jobs to maintain profit not for any other reason. This was proved (check that word out) by recent admission that CEO salary had risen even in companies with mass redundancies.
> 
> The "non-jobs" you talk about that are now being cut are seeing millions of families suffer due to not only the cuts but the failure (deliberately) of the private sector to spend any money creating jobs, choosing instead to retain its profits in the hands a of a few.
> 
> ...


Are you talking about big multi nationals? If so I am unable to comment as not worked for one and don't have dealings with any.

I have however worked for a number of small businesses and through work dealt with a lot of small to medium businesses employing up to a few hundred. These are businesses built up through many years of hard graft of the owners, going without and often mortgaging their homes in the early years - do you really believe they should not make a profit later on?

These type of companies take on more staff when they can/when they need to. They don't have the luxury of "creating" jobs for the sake of it they cannot afford diversity officers/human resources/advertising executives and any other myriad of fancy titled non-jobs. They certainly do not get rid of loads of employees simply to maintain their own salary/profit - how would the business run with no one working in them? I know a lot of business owners who have stopped their own pension contributions so that they do not have to make a staff member redundant


----------



## OctodonDegus (Nov 30, 2011)

BBC pulls QI episode with Clarkson - Yahoo!

wow, bit far?


----------



## poohdog (May 16, 2010)

OctodonDegus said:


> BBC pulls QI episode with Clarkson - Yahoo!
> 
> wow, bit far?


The 'F' word was used on Womans Hour in the 70s...wonder if it's too late to complain?...


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

OctodonDegus said:


> BBC pulls QI episode with Clarkson - Yahoo!
> 
> wow, bit far?


They are still going showing it, but at a later date.


----------



## OctodonDegus (Nov 30, 2011)

Happy Paws said:


> They are still going showing it, but at a later date.


Of course, I know that. I was just wondering if not showing it was a bit far since he never said anything bad on the show itself.


----------

