pap

Well, if he goes, the RDM rumour mill will start spinning up. Sounds like he's saying "make me an offer I can't refuse". Chelsea definitely a club willing to do that.

I take it you mean Chelsea?

When are you getting around to Eastleigh coverage, dune? I know you can make the step up from Gibraltar. I know Eastleigh has many more British citizens living in it, and that may be scary, but I believe you can do it.

You're going to have fun on your holidays, Dubai Phil. I've started re-reading the books and am enjoying them immensely. They have a lot of detail about the war leading up to Robert becoming King, which I think is going to be crucial in the overall scheme of things. The series maintains its ability to shock throughout. What's really cool about the re-read is seeing characters introduced for the first time and knowing what a big part they're going to play later on. I'm swimming in the details at the moment and am loving it. There is a huge internet theory about one of the characters doing the rounds at the moment. There is plenty of evidence in the books to back it up too. If true, it's going to violate one of the fundamental truths of the series, and will be just about the coolest thing ever.

Just a reminder, kids. Adam Beecroft is head honcho of Wonga, the loan sharks who prey on the skint. I'm not sure he has the requisite moral perspective to be making recommendations on the rights of workers. To him, they're little people too. EDIT: (for accuracy fans) He chairs Dawn Capital, which lists Wonga amongst its portfolio.

One of the stupidest sayings ever, an oft-remembered sentiment in the fictive capitalist dream. It has not always been so. If you'd have said that to one of our hunter-gatherer forebears, he'd have laughed at you in the face, and possibly burned you for being a witch The world might not have owed them a living, but it certainly gave them life and the means to continue living it. Anyway, who are you talking about when you say "the world does not owe them a living"?

Your argument is predicated on the premise that people want to work. I'll grant you, some genuinely do and I'm lucky enough to count myself among them. For most people though, it's a means to an end, nothing more.

I think he's referring to the complete package, which would include housing benefit, council tax relief, child benefit and whatever else. I'm still interested in the answer to Fuengirola's question. Why do (some) business owners moan so much?

Anyone ever heard of this? Came across it this week whilst trawling through Wiki, and has definitely piqued my interest. Very big in the "Leave No Trace" camping movement, apparently. So what is it? Instead of putting a tent on the ground, you whack a hammock between two trees and bung a tarp over it. Opens up a ton of new camping spots that wouldn't be feasible otherwise. Just read an Amazon review of one of the commercial hammocks - bloke pitched his hammock over a stream! As you are sleeping off the ground, you get a better night's kip and are less likely to be accosted by crawling beasties. Anyone ever done it?

EU money to Southampton seems like the best solution to me. That'd level the playing field quite nicely. I'd laugh if the Liverpool decision acted as some sort or precedent or catalyst for Southampton getting a boatload of free EU cash. Scousers chancing their arm indirectly benefits Southampton. Oh, the irony.

There's a lot that won't make sense because this year has diverged quite a bit. They've merged quite a few characters together, changed up the timeline a little. Also, there's a big difference in Daenery's story. The TV show is based on the books, sure - and I'm sure they'll keep all the big beats of the story - but they're slightly different beasts now. Best to keep them in separate pens, I feel.

The characters in the book are a lot younger. Ned Stark is 35 at the start of the books, Robb and Jon are about fourteen and Daenerys is thirteen when she marries the horse lord. I guess the reason that they made the characters older was so they could call it "Game of Thrones" instead of "Paedos with Swords". I think you are being slightly unfair, Bearsy. Girl's been sold by her brother, miscarried, lost a husband and her precious dragons. She does like to play the naive girl, though. No spoilers, but I reckon her story is probably the best in the third book.

Lord Phil of House Dubai. Let me reassure you - the vast majority of this season's "wow budget" will be spunked in the next two episodes. There are three events in particular I'm thinking of, all ready to pop. The second book is a bit of a transition book, which this series is based on. First book was all about the fall of honourable men. This one's more about the rise of characters with significantly fewer scruples, from the Lannisters to the iron-born (Theon's lot - the dudes on the islands). Most of Daenerys' stuff is actually more boring in the book from a televisual perspective. She and her gang spend a considerable amount of time in a dead city, which doesn't really make for great TV. Stick with it though - as next year is immense, especially for your favourite "dragon Khaleesi".

Which trades?

I accept that some jobs are more involved than others, but I don't accept that people that are experienced in all the fields you mention would take three months to get up to speed. You may have a point with manufacturing processes that are regulated by an external body, like the FAA - but generally not. The people I generally employ are computer programmers, which I think we can both agree, is a reasonably involved and technical profession. Whatever. None of that justifies stripping people of their employment rights just because you're unable to make a decision in 11 months (or 23).

Bless ya, Whitey Grandad - you never let a lack of hard facts deter you from posting. I love the way that you address the 10% of my post you feel you can answer with vague assertions like "It takes several months to get a new employee trained up to speed". The only time I've ever spent that amount of time inducting a new hire into a business is when they've come straight out of University - and in those circumstances - that's perfectly understandable. Even then, most of my post-grad padawans were delivering work inside a month. See, the trick is to employ people that you're reasonably sure are going to do a decent job. That's where interviews and reference checking come in. I simply don't accept that 3 months is the norm for assimilating a new hire into the business.

Thanks for pointing that out. Would never have worked that out unaided.

You could say something similar about what ends up going into your "special sock". Don't know why such primacy is being placed on the human right to live. Anyone reading this is a massive accident of chance ( at least from your Dad's side ).

Shouldn't be illegal, as the alternatives are worse.

I'm not confused. Sounds like you could be. Are you saying that it is impossible to have a well run company that is also a good place to work? You seem to be making out that the two are mutually exclusive, which isn't really the case. If the current conditions aren't prohibitive, why do small firms need more flexibility?

I think I've been reasonably balanced in my views on small companies. Some are good places to work. Some aren't. Your first post on this thread was to charge every opponent of "no fault dismissals" with knowing very little about small companies, along with a fairy story about how small businesses are well-run. And you ask me to be more balanced in my views I do not think that employees should have less rights because they happen to work for a firm of 10 people or less. I also do not agree with universal implementation of a "fire at will" culture. I also don't buy that our current employment law is to blame for people not being hired. The problem is demand. The government's policies have so far failed to create enough of it. This policy will just exacerbate it.

I said that I'd rather work for a well-run small firm than a large corporate. Doesn't that give you a clue as to the value I place on well-run small firms? My career has been on the go since 1996/97. I've worked for a number of small firms - longest job in a small company was three years. Was promoted until I got to the level where the only people above me owned part of the company. Left to form my own small company afterward, which runs to this day.

Fairly wrong on this front, Special K - at least with me anyway. I've worked for companies ranging from 3 people to 9K employees. I've worked for family run businesses, 30 people companies, government agencies and multinationals. I appreciate that you are speaking from your own experience, but it's a fallacy to weigh in on all the positives of small firms without touching on the problems that smaller firms present for employees when they don't fit your model. I'd actually say that people were more at risk of being treated badly in a small firm than they are in a large org. Far more personalities, far less process and power invested in far fewer people. When it works, it's amazing - and I'd take being a hero in a well-run small company over being a cog in a corporation anyday. However, I suspect that you're doing a similar thing you're accusing others of doing here - commenting on the characteristics of working for a small business without having worked for enough to really qualify your opinion. When it doesn't work, small businesses can be hell for anyone who doesn't have a stake in the company - and if you are presenting your own experiences of small companies as overwhelmingly positive, I'd say you've been very lucky. Mileage varies a lot, and the notion that small companies are all cuddly and altruistic outfits is a bit of a nonsense one.

Louis van Gaal being lined up for senior management role at Liverpool, probably sporting director. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/may/22/louis-van-gaal-liverpool Increases the likelihood of Liverpool going for a young and hungry manager, imo.

Round of applause.