Quantcast
Strike Action - Page 28 - GF - General Forum - The Liverpool Way Jump to content
Sugar Ape

Strike Action

Recommended Posts

They are calling for his head, because the Daily Mail calls for other people Heads on a weekly basis, Jonathan Ross is fine now he is on ITV, but anybody on the BBC steps out of line then the Mail want them sacked. And all the left wing press demand freedom to say what they want and ask for a little context in dealing with these situations. Now the left win press are demanding Clarkson is sacked and the Mail is demanding freedom to say what you want and asking for a little context in this situation!

 

The only consistent factor is that he is a grade A boring cunt. As are most people whose hobby is Cars!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So they've shot themselves in the foot to score a point off the Daily Mail? Smart move.

 

Agree about Clarkson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So they've shot themselves in the foot to score a point off the Daily Mail? Smart move.

 

Agree about Clarkson.

 

Yes! Rather than a dismissive shake of the head, they have as usually acted like a shower of po faced liberals!

 

It would be quite funny if Mark Steel wrote about wishing Thatcher's death, and then claims it is 'Political Correctness gone mad' when he is called on it. That should have been the response. As I posted earlier, Stuart Lee nails it better than I could ever hope to, ond this also!

 

Jeremy Clarkson: the right, the left and deathwish jokes | Liberal Conspiracy

 

Jeremy Clarkson: the right, the left and deathwish jokes

 

by Dave Osler

December 2, 2011 at 2:54 pm

 

 

Three quarters of Telegraph readers back Jeremy Clarkson in the row over his ‘execute strikers’ outburst. The Top Gear presenter’s remarks should not have been taken seriously, because he was only joking, they insist.

 

As Freud explained over a hundred years ago, tendentious jokes are a mask for socially unacceptable feelings, not least hostility. There is presumably some level at which Britain’s most famous petrolhead meant exactly what he said.

 

And if a joke is defined as amusing story with punchline, or even just a clever witticism, then Clarkson’s ugly little rant doesn’t deserve that designation. He is hardly in a position to plead exoneration on account of his exquisite wordplay.

 

Yet as a leftie who believes in freedom of speech, I reluctantly find myself agreeing that an apology probably suffices here. Nobody can seriously contend that Clarkson was actually calling for public sector employees to be rounded up at dawn and made to face banker-led firing squads.

 

Even so, some 21,000 people – and counting – have lodged complaints with the BBC, which broadcast the diatribe. Unison general secretary Dave Prentis said that he is taking urgent legal advice as to whether the he should be referred to the police.

 

By way of context, let me offer one further observation. Remember the outrage directed at BBC Scotland radio comedian Brian Limond a few weeks back, after a couple of Tweets in which he expressed his impatience for the death of certain former Conservative prime minister?

 

The reaction of the right was apoplectic. Tory MP Louise Mensch pointedly asked – and in the pages of the Telegraph, come to that – ‘why is the BBC using licence fee money to pay a man who wishes Margaret Thatcher dead?’

 

I do hope that both Ms Mensch and the newspaper she writes for will be consistent in opposition to deathwish wisecracks, especially given the respective body counts involved. They might like to note Mr Clarkson reportedly pockets £400,000 a year from Auntie. I suspect that is rather more than Limmy gets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there seems to be an assumption in some of these posts that the Guardian is the voice of the left, it might pretend to be but it's not really, not when push comes to shove - the Unions made their statement amongst several other more important statements - the Guardian had the option to cover the massive significance of the strike - they chose not to - the unions may have shot themselves in the foot hoping the they would report properly - but the Guardian haven't made any misteps - behaving completely to form - there's a story about a celebrity, it's light politics, cheap riskless point scoring, their editors couldn't give two shits if the real story has been lost. they aren't responsible citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Numero Veinticinco

The Guardian did cover the strike and its significance in great detail. It's not the voice of the working class left, that much we can agree on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes! Rather than a dismissive shake of the head, they have as usually acted like a shower of po faced liberals!

 

It would be quite funny if Mark Steel wrote about wishing Thatcher's death, and then claims it is 'Political Correctness gone mad' when he is called on it. That should have been the response. As I posted earlier, Stuart Lee nails it better than I could ever hope to, ond this also!

 

Jeremy Clarkson: the right, the left and deathwish jokes | Liberal Conspiracy

 

Jeremy Clarkson: the right, the left and deathwish jokes

 

by Dave Osler

December 2, 2011 at 2:54 pm

 

 

Three quarters of Telegraph readers back Jeremy Clarkson in the row over his ‘execute strikers’ outburst. The Top Gear presenter’s remarks should not have been taken seriously, because he was only joking, they insist.

 

As Freud explained over a hundred years ago, tendentious jokes are a mask for socially unacceptable feelings, not least hostility. There is presumably some level at which Britain’s most famous petrolhead meant exactly what he said.

 

And if a joke is defined as amusing story with punchline, or even just a clever witticism, then Clarkson’s ugly little rant doesn’t deserve that designation. He is hardly in a position to plead exoneration on account of his exquisite wordplay.

 

Yet as a leftie who believes in freedom of speech, I reluctantly find myself agreeing that an apology probably suffices here. Nobody can seriously contend that Clarkson was actually calling for public sector employees to be rounded up at dawn and made to face banker-led firing squads.

 

Even so, some 21,000 people – and counting – have lodged complaints with the BBC, which broadcast the diatribe. Unison general secretary Dave Prentis said that he is taking urgent legal advice as to whether the he should be referred to the police.

 

By way of context, let me offer one further observation. Remember the outrage directed at BBC Scotland radio comedian Brian Limond a few weeks back, after a couple of Tweets in which he expressed his impatience for the death of certain former Conservative prime minister?

 

The reaction of the right was apoplectic. Tory MP Louise Mensch pointedly asked – and in the pages of the Telegraph, come to that – ‘why is the BBC using licence fee money to pay a man who wishes Margaret Thatcher dead?’

 

I do hope that both Ms Mensch and the newspaper she writes for will be consistent in opposition to deathwish wisecracks, especially given the respective body counts involved. They might like to note Mr Clarkson reportedly pockets £400,000 a year from Auntie. I suspect that is rather more than Limmy gets.

 

What an idiot that Prentis is. Are there any modern trade union leaders who know what they're doing? Lions led by donkeys etc.

 

The likes of Jack Jones, Scanlan, Gormley (assuming they're actually dead) would be turning in their graves at the lack of political nous of the current lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What an idiot that Prentis is. Are there any modern trade union leaders who know what they're doing? Lions led by donkeys etc.

 

The likes of Jack Jones, Scanlan, Gormley (assuming they're actually dead) would be turning in their graves at the lack of political nous of the current lot.

 

They are idiots, the last section regarding that fucking walking Chin Louise Mensch should have been the approach, particularly as it could have enabled them to defend the BBC in future, because as sure as night follows day the Tories will be doing their damdest to quieten the BBC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back into work after the strike, and I always find it slightly surreal how everybody seems to feel it should be just simply back to business as usual; no repercussions or ramifications, just a colossol fucking bump under the carpet.

 

I was in a meeting on Thursday morning, and around the conference table were 10 of us : 3 strikers and 7 scabs.

 

The "manager" (a scab herself) admirably attempted to play it with a straight bat, but the unease was palpable.

 

Some of the scabs were clearly uncomfortable, (perhaps their conscience's had been pricked ?), but some of them were quite brazen and seemingly unaffected. "Cunts" is a fair description of this last bunch.

 

As a striker and as a picket, I know there are certain standards of behaviour which are imposed upon me, and I indeed followed these standards, but some of the brazen / guilt ridden scabs are clearly having trouble justifying their own actions unto themselves; as evidenced by a couple of women scabs coming out with some real whoppers, and spreading some really pernicious shit about myself and the other pickets.

 

One of my best mates at work, (with many more years service than me, and much, much more to lose), also (fully predictably) crossed the picket line.

 

At dinner yesterday we sort of discussed this and he tried (futilely) to justify his actions. I countered that at times a man must stand up for what he believes in, and if he and other scabs decide not to stand up to this government on this point of principle, then they might as well take their pants down, bend over the nearest desk and submissively take one right up the shit pipe. And then say "Thankyou Sir".

 

And where does it stop ?

 

When the next round of equalisation excercises comes round and staff are ask if there are any "volunteers" willing to transfer to offices 10 or 20 miles away (for no extra pay), will the scabs lay down then ? Will they be quite so submissive then ? Fucked if I'll be shunted down the motorway without a murmur.

 

Now that Osborne announced that a further 710,000 staff are to go, will the scabs mind at all if I volunteer each and every one of them to be the first out the door ? These cowards don't seem to mind themselves, so fuck 'em, eh ?

 

As we were asking these blacklegs as they were crossing the picket line, "Will you write a letter to Robert Devereux (our Chief Exec) declining any possible future pay rise or pension compromise because you're clearly happy and content with the offer this government already has on the table ?"

 

No. Will they fuck. Because they are all lazy, fucking, greedy cowards who are only to happy to see other colleagues suffer for them, on their behalf, yet they decline to stand against it.

 

How fucking weak has this nation become ?

 

I looked around that conference table at each one of those people - my colleagues, some friends - and I could feel the anger rising.

 

Shame on you, you disgusting lapdogs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The war has started;

 

BBC News - PM says taxpayer trade union subsidies not sustainable

 

PM says taxpayer trade union subsidies not sustainable

 

Using taxpayers' money to fund trade union activity while at work cannot be justified "morally or economically", the prime minister has said.

 

In a letter to Tory MP Aidan Burley, who is campaigning on the issue, David Cameron said the "public subsidy to the trade unions" could not be sustained.

 

He also said Labour "cannot distance itself from this scandal".

 

TUC general secretary Brendan Barber said employers valued the contribution unions made in the workplace.

 

In his reply to a letter from Mr Burley, Mr Cameron said he was pleased the Tory MP had decided to establish the Trade Union Reform Campaign (TURC), which is carrying out research into the number of trade union activists subsidised by the taxpayer.

 

He said he believed trade unions were "an important part of a free society" and few would take issue with the unions working on behalf of their members in government departments and other public bodies in their own time, or with union funding.

 

But he reiterated his support for moves to stop the practice of government departments and public bodies paying salaries of staff serving as union officials.

 

"At a time when across the private and public sectors people are having to take very difficult decisions in order to save money, it is difficult to justify some people in the public sector being paid not to do the job they are employed for, but instead to undertake full-time trade union activities - much of which should be funded by the unions themselves.

 

"We need to question why the public is paying for so much and whether this is sustainable going forward," he said.

 

 

He added: "I strongly believe the current level of public subsidy to the trade unions cannot be sustained, either morally or economically."

 

Mr Cameron also said Labour "cannot distance itself from this scandal" and is reliant on the unions for 85 per cent of its funding.

 

Labour has disputed this figure, saying the party's biggest donor is its membership.

 

The party said it had gained 65,000 new members since the start of the general election campaign and under Ed Miliband's leadership - so strengthening the party's fund-raising capability.

 

The TUC's Mr Barber said the last government review of the issue in 2007 suggested that union representatives boosted productivity and reduced absenteeism.

 

He said it added that public sector union reps give 100,000 hours of their own time every week to the UK taxpayer.

 

"Successive governments have recognised the moral, legal and economic case for supporting workplace reps - this government would be wise to do likewise and to avoid what appear to be ideologically driven announcements designed to appease right-wing backbenchers."

 

A spokesman for the Public and Commercial Services Union (PCS) said: "It is extraordinary he [Mr Cameron] doesn't appear to understand how the system works, or understand that representatives - far from being a drain on the taxpayer - benefit the economy to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds a year in terms of resolving disputes, organising staff training and being involved in health and safety arrangements."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there seems to be an assumption in some of these posts that the Guardian is the voice of the left, it might pretend to be but it's not really, not when push comes to shove - the Unions made their statement amongst several other more important statements - the Guardian had the option to cover the massive significance of the strike - they chose not to - the unions may have shot themselves in the foot hoping the they would report properly - but the Guardian haven't made any misteps - behaving completely to form - there's a story about a celebrity, it's light politics, cheap riskless point scoring, their editors couldn't give two shits if the real story has been lost. they aren't responsible citizens.

 

Well said - it is and always has been a Liberal newspaper, and therefore indistinguishable at times from the tories. It does however host some writers from the left and that's what creates the confusion.

 

Carvalho Diablo ruling on this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Back into work after the strike, and I always find it slightly surreal how everybody seems to feel it should be just simply back to business as usual; no repercussions or ramifications, just a colossol fucking bump under the carpet.

 

I was in a meeting on Thursday morning, and around the conference table were 10 of us : 3 strikers and 7 scabs.

 

The "manager" (a scab herself) admirably attempted to play it with a straight bat, but the unease was palpable.

 

Some of the scabs were clearly uncomfortable, (perhaps their conscience's had been pricked ?), but some of them were quite brazen and seemingly unaffected. "Cunts" is a fair description of this last bunch.

 

As a striker and as a picket, I know there are certain standards of behaviour which are imposed upon me, and I indeed followed these standards, but some of the brazen / guilt ridden scabs are clearly having trouble justifying their own actions unto themselves; as evidenced by a couple of women scabs coming out with some real whoppers, and spreading some really pernicious shit about myself and the other pickets.

 

One of my best mates at work, (with many more years service than me, and much, much more to lose), also (fully predictably) crossed the picket line.

 

At dinner yesterday we sort of discussed this and he tried (futilely) to justify his actions. I countered that at times a man must stand up for what he believes in, and if he and other scabs decide not to stand up to this government on this point of principle, then they might as well take their pants down, bend over the nearest desk and submissively take one right up the shit pipe. And then say "Thankyou Sir".

 

And where does it stop ?

 

When the next round of equalisation excercises comes round and staff are ask if there are any "volunteers" willing to transfer to offices 10 or 20 miles away (for no extra pay), will the scabs lay down then ? Will they be quite so submissive then ? Fucked if I'll be shunted down the motorway without a murmur.

 

Now that Osborne announced that a further 710,000 staff are to go, will the scabs mind at all if I volunteer each and every one of them to be the first out the door ? These cowards don't seem to mind themselves, so fuck 'em, eh ?

 

As we were asking these blacklegs as they were crossing the picket line, "Will you write a letter to Robert Devereux (our Chief Exec) declining any possible future pay rise or pension compromise because you're clearly happy and content with the offer this government already has on the table ?"

 

No. Will they fuck. Because they are all lazy, fucking, greedy cowards who are only to happy to see other colleagues suffer for them, on their behalf, yet they decline to stand against it.

 

How fucking weak has this nation become ?

 

I looked around that conference table at each one of those people - my colleagues, some friends - and I could feel the anger rising.

 

Shame on you, you disgusting lapdogs.

 

Assuming the people you refer to are members of your union, I completely agree with everything you've said there. I think people who join a union and then ignore the legally defined opinions of its membership are cunts of the highest order. However, people who aren't in a/the union are entitled to do what they like, supine though they may well appear to be to the likes of you and I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC News - Public pensions: Hutton says agreement needed urgently

The downgrading of Britain's growth forecasts has made the case for public sector pensions reform more urgent, Labour peer Lord Hutton has said.

 

The former minister, who conducted the coalition's review on pensions, said change was now the "order of the day".

 

He also told the BBC the government's offer was a "perfectly credible" one.

 

But unions, who say two million workers went on strike over the issue last week, argue their members will have to work longer and pay more, but get less.

 

The government wants public sector workers to pay more towards their pension schemes, retire later and accept a pension based on a "career average" salary, rather than the current arrangement based on their final salary.

 

On average workers face a 3.2% rise in their contributions.

 

The recommendations from Lord Hutton's independent review are at the heart of these proposals.

 

The former pensions minister told BBC Radio 4's The World This Weekend that his original assessments about the sustainability of future pension arrangements had been too optimistic.

 

He said the savings from an overhauled system should be brought forward as quickly as possible.

 

He was speaking days after the Office for Budget Responsibility said it now expects growth of 0.9% this year, down from the 1.7% predicted in March.

 

The prediction for next year has fallen to 0.7% from 2.5% predicted in March.

 

"Growth is slower. We know that by 2016 on the latest projections the economy is going to be about 3.5% smaller than we thought it would be," Lord Hutton said.

 

"That is going to affect the sustainability of public sector pensions in a negative way.

 

"The ground underneath those estimates has changed radically and I'm afraid in the wrong direction so we cannot be sure that the costs will fall over time and that we get to a more sustainable balance.

 

"The events of the last couple of weeks have confirmed that change is going to be the order of the day now, if we're going to remain competitive, successful as an economy... we could be heading for the rocks unless we make adjustments now."

 

He said the government's offer would give "significant protection" to workers close to retirement as well as "very generous accrual rates".

 

But he also said the unions had raised some genuine concerns, and he agreed with warnings that current plans could force large numbers of people on low or moderate incomes to opt out of their pensions altogether.

 

"I think there is a genuine issue between the unions and ministers about the pension contributions, which I hope is the subject of further discussion," he said.

 

"I don't think you can build long-term reform on forcing people out of saving for pensions, that is a crazy way to do it."

 

He added: "I hope ministers can look again at some aspects of the way they're planning to increase pensions contributions."

 

For Labour, shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper said the government was going further than Lord Hutton's recommendations and had effectively introduced a "3% surcharge" on workers' contributions.

 

"That is not something that was in Lord Hutton's report," she told the BBC's Andrew Marr show.

 

Brian Strutton, from the GMB union, said Lord Hutton had not taken into account that caps on pay rises and job losses in the public sector meant the cost of pensions as a share of overall GDP would still fall despite the drop in economic output.

 

He added: "It is good that Lord Hutton has belatedly agreed with unions that the government's 50% contribution increase on public sector workers is too much and will drive people out of pension saving.

 

"In all the months of talks, the government has made no concessions on this point which is necessary if substantive progress is to be made in the ongoing talks."

MPs' pensions

 

Meanwhile, ministers themselves face a £4,000 rise in their pension contributions in a move aimed at showing they share the financial burden felt elsewhere in the public sector.

 

Prime Minister David Cameron has written to colleagues, the Mail on Sunday reported, to say they cannot expect low-paid workers like nurses and dinner ladies to "take on a burden we are not prepared to assume for ourselves".

 

Rises planned over the next three years would see Cabinet ministers contributing 17.9% of their £69,000 salaries to get the same benefits - equivalent to an extra £4,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny. I genuinely hoped that the 'economic downturn' would lead to some kind of worldwide class revoluton, but if anything things have actually gone in the other direction. Greece and Italy have had their governments replaced by non-elected bodies, while Germany is pushing for greater 'fiscal integration'. On the streets of Britain, teenagers are being jailed for four years for making Facebook comments about riots, unions are under attack and the working people who march with them or who took part in the occupy movement are being publically ridiculed by politicians, while the 'opposition' stands by and does nothing.

 

I honestly think the end of western democracy is nigh, and the ruling class are taking us towards the Chinese and Russian model of authoritarian capitalism. Terrifying times indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's funny. I genuinely hoped that the 'economic downturn' would lead to some kind of worldwide class revoluton, but if anything things have actually gone in the other direction. Greece and Italy have had their governments replaced by non-elected bodies, while Germany is pushing for greater 'fiscal integration'. On the streets of Britain, teenagers are being jailed for four years for making Facebook comments about riots, unions are under attack and the working people who march with them or who took part in the occupy movement are being publically ridiculed by politicians, while the 'opposition' stands by and does nothing.

 

I honestly think the end of western democracy is nigh, and the ruling class are taking us towards the Chinese and Russian model of authoritarian capitalism. Terrifying times indeed.

 

All the seeds are there, the main question should be though where do we go if we could take it?

 

The idea that power corrupts is almost held as a cliche, but cliches are based on truisms and truisms by their very definition are true. Who would lead us into a utopian world of fair representation and equality, both wealth, gender and so many more? I can honestly say I don't believe any one person, or collective, could achieve these aims, when the vested interests of 7,000,000,000 people are considered, without becoming the very same ruling class we now deplore.

 

What we should do, in my opinion, is fully harness the power of the internet and technology and have all matters of public and national interest voted on and debated with the whole populous able to take part, to air their grievances and views. Those that don't won't have recourse for how society is run, because they will have been given all the opportunity to take part. Every act of parliament would be an act of consensus, the MP's becoming no more than administrators, ambassadors and envoys of the will of the people, not self serving mercenaries.

 

Utilitarianism for the modern age perhaps, but worth consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've joined a union since the last strike and will be striking next time.

 

I don't have a pension through work but will stand with my fellow colleagues against this current cunt of a government.

 

Personally think a 48 hour strike is needed (midweek) to cripple services as 24 hours is relatively easy to cover for most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've joined a union since the last strike and will be striking next time.

 

I don't have a pension through work but will stand with my fellow colleagues against this current cunt of a government.

 

Personally think a 48 hour strike is needed (midweek) to cripple services as 24 hours is relatively easy to cover for most.

 

I usually vote for action short of a strike. ie a work to rule.

 

I believe that most government departments exist and are completely dependent and reliant upon the good faith of the staff. If this good faith were to be withdrawn, then the shit would most surely hit the fan.

 

However, despite my minor ideological disagreement with the proposed strike action, I am a union member and I did (and will) strike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tell you what, the loss of a day's wages each from Mrs Paul and I at this time of year was no laughing matter either. The pinch will feel even tighter in January.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He's dangerous Cameron, a combination of the childlike and the vile.

 

He reminds me of Reagan, his "big society" was a page straight from Reagan's playbook. That reminds me of a wonderful quote about Reagan which happens to be applicable to Cameron:

 

"His errors glide past unchallenged. At one point...he alleged that almost half the population gets a free meal from the government each day. No one told him he was crazy. The general message of the American press is that, yes, while it is perfectly true that the emperor has no clothes, nudity is actually very acceptable this year."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He reminds me of Reagan, his "big society" was a page straight from Reagan's playbook. That reminds me of a wonderful quote about Reagan which happens to be applicable to Cameron:

 

"His errors glide past unchallenged. At one point...he alleged that almost half the population gets a free meal from the government each day. No one told him he was crazy. The general message of the American press is that, yes, while it is perfectly true that the emperor has no clothes, nudity is actually very acceptable this year."

 

Outstanding point that, you've nailed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm wondering if there's enough material to resurrect spitting image.

 

I've been thinking this for a long time, I think it's ripe for a revival - same type of government as in the 80's, same type of comic characters in said government, the royals are still ripe for a ripping - I think ITV are mugs for not going for it!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×