pap

Not really a defence, TDD. spyinthesky is on the money with a lot of things he says. Loads of areas need urgent attention.

To be fair, most of the cultural attractions pre-date EU Objective One funding, although I'll happily admit that the cash has transformed large areas of the city. There's also a lot of truth to what you say about the priorities of respective councils. The Capital of Culture thing was a prime example. Tons of money splashed on the city centre. In our area, the council spent money on new flagstones for pavements, a boulevard effect on the main road and they painted the boarded up windows - a nice mix of unneeded improvement and slapdash resolution to an ongoing eyesore. That all said, tourists coming to Liverpool won't be planning on kipping in a council house on the Boot estate. The prioritisation of the city centre over everything else doesn't mean that other areas don't benefit. A thriving centre creates jobs for the entire city. More jobs means more tax take, and to be fair to the council, they are slowly starting to make improvements in the outlying areas too (new health centre opening around here soon). The other thing I've noticed is that companies like Tesco, who wouldn't have gone near some of the dodgier areas ten years ago, are now firmly implanted in them.

Paid back over 15 years, £12.6 million with interest. EU not making any noises about getting their £9M back. http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2012/05/22/liverpool-council-to-pay-back-8-8m-to-allow-cruises-from-river-mersey-terminal-100252-31020330/

So you say, although I wouldn't necessarily agree with you. Why should someone have fewer employment rights if they happen to work for a micro-firm? Indeed, why would anyone willingly join a micro-firm knowing that they could be sacked for no reason at any point in their careers? Wouldn't this legislation instantly make smaller firms less attractive to work for? Business owners take the risk and get to reap the rewards. Salaried staff should be entitled to a bit of stability. I know that existing employment law may seem like red tape to you, but you're not really taking in any of the counter-arguments. I completely agree with Lord D. If you're unable to determine whether someone has the right stuff in 11 months ( or 23 months if the unfair dismissal process really has gone up to two years ) then it's a failure of management. Why should anyone working for a firm with less than 10 people lose their existing rights because of poor management? It's a really poor idea. You want to create more jobs? Fine, put some demand in the economy. You don't do that when you introduce legislation that has anyone working for a small firm worrying about their jobs and future income.

All the management in a previous firm had to take a Belbin personality test. That particular piece of advice came top of my list. Good advice for any walk of life - pick your battles, and try not to fight more than one at a time.

I think we do enough for business owners already. In fact, when "business interest" comes up against "public interest", business wins 9 times out of 10. A good example of this is the UK's membership of the EU. It's reckoned that a majority of private individuals want out, yet business wants us in. Therefore, we're in - screw public opinion. No-one is forced to start their own business. Of those that do, no-one is forced to employ people. Seems to me that business owners have massive potential rewards if their plans go well. This proposal would make the arrangement between employer and employee even more one-sided.

That's a weak argument, Whitey Grandad. You don't look at employing people unless you're reasonably sure that they will have something for them to do and that you'll see a return on your investment. New positions are normally created because your existing staff can't handle the collective workload. In that scenario, the bigger risk is not addressing your resource requirement. In short, you either need someone or you don't. Why take the risk? Well, existing staff could burn out or leave. Quality of work might not be up to scratch because people don't have enough time, which can ultimately result in loss of residual sales and tarnish your firm's reputation. Employment law is not the hurdle. As others have pointed out, UK employment law is already more flexible than many of our competitors. We shouldn't legislate against our citizens to paper over cracks in firms' hiring and assessment practices.

I've no doubt that it happens, but I disagree that it happens "all the time". In truth, most people do a decent job. Some don't. We're talking about a tiny subset of people here. i.e. People who do a good job for 11 months and then decide to be a hellion afterwards. Happens all the time? Please. Given the tiny scale of this problem in context, removing rights from the vast majority of decent workers because of the calculated actions of a few is completely unjustifiable - especially since most firms already have instant dismissal for gross misconduct and can use existing employment law to issue warnings. If a firm genuinely can't sniff out a blagger in eleven months, that's their problem.

Are you honestly saying that an employer can't get a "read" on an employee in eleven months? If they can't do it within that timeframe, then I'd argue that no length of time is long enough.

Hmm, I don't know. First, I suspect that you are probably as gobby as I am in the workplace. Not all people are as confident about expressing their concerns. Plus, mileage does vary considerably. Worked for two firms in Liverpool that did pretty much the same thing, yet the differences in approach could not have been more pronounced. One firm went for the best people it could find, while the other generally has a strategy of "employ recent graduates who don't know any better and work them until they've burned out". Understandably, my opinion of the latter firm is not great - and I'd have to wonder how "setting your stall out" in a firm that is resolutely bent on working a certain way would work in practice.

And that's fair enough - but you'll also know that employees are not alone in taking the mickey. Plenty of firms take their staff for granted, ask too much of them timewise or put em in a "box". I've maintained for some years that the best way to get more money or a better position is to change jobs. Not really taking my own advice, but there you go Whatever - completely agree with you that employees are capable of playing the probation period game. Where we perhaps differ is our proposed solution. I don't think we solve this problem through legislation. Puts people at risk of being fired because of personality clashes.

Thing is Turkish, you can get rid of people in the first year without any fear of unfair dismissal tribunals. A year should be enough time for a business owner to decide whether someone is going to make the cut.

I do wonder who this legislation would actually target, particularly given that there are already incentives to do well at work ( career elevation / better money ). Almost stands to reason that a person you'd ship under these rules wouldn't be interested in either of these things. Are they that difficult to spot? Does seem absolutely mental to downgrade a load of people's rights simply because of the actions of a few.

I've worked with a few "bare minimum" people in my time, those who have managed to get through their probation period, and just enjoying the gravy train - so I understand the other side of this argument. That said, if a firm doesn't have the wherewithal to determine whether someone will fit in within a year, then it's really the firm's fault. And yep, it is counter-productive - particularly for the economy. People tend to spend money when they know there is a good chance of getting more of it. I'd imagine you'd be a lot more cautious with your cash if you were only one disagreement away from your P45.

Yesterday, the coalition was at loggerheads over a proposed new piece of legislation - no fault dismissals. Under the proposals, firms with ten people or less would be able to dismiss staff without providing a reason or justification. The Conservatives hope that less red tape will encourage more small firms to take people on. Vince Cable, the Lib Dem business secretary, has already gone on record:- "British workers are very co-operative and they are very flexible," the business secretary told the BBC. "So we don't need to scare the wits out of workers with threats to dismiss them. It is completely the wrong approach." A chap on the PM show made a couple of good points for the case against last night. First, he stated that it was wrong for people working for small firms ( 10 people or less ) to have worse employment rights than those working for larger firms. Personally, I think the legislation is unnecessary. If I'm not mistaken, current employment law allows for probation periods and any member of staff working for an organisation for less than a year is pretty easy to fire. It's also the sort of thing that once in, would be silently extended to cover more roles. Finally, as Vince Cable points out - we're already pretty flexible when it comes to employment law in the country. Thoughts? http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/may/22/vince-cable-tory-plan-sacking-workers?newsfeed=true

I watched this around three times. Start at around 21:30. Taken in isolation, the Cortese/Adkins handshake looks just about cordial. Watch Kelv approaching Cortese just before Nige arrives and the difference couldn't be more pronounced. Cortese super-happy when he sees Kelv, cold by comparison when he sees Nigel. Nigel's body language is off too. Does a little 180 instead of going straight for Cortese. I'm not subscribing to this "it was the end of a long and emotional day so Nige invented concerns about his job security" theory. More like, it was the end of a long day and Nige let something slip. His guard was down and I don't care how emotional the day was - there is no logical reason for him to mention his job security after securing back to back promotions unless it was in doubt. Didn't hear Allardyce or McDermott talking about the end of their jobs at West Ham and Reading when they got promoted to the Premier League. The club haven't denied the story. That doesn't really say anything apart from they could if they wanted to, and if Nige is an integral part of a New Five Year plan, they'd probably want to.

Nice one, Professor. You haven't made my ignore list, but you have made my "precious flower declaring someone is on his ignore list" list.

Or alternatively, the journo has a source that he wants to keep. How often do journos name their sources? Aren't they usually massively reluctant to do so?

It's actually a bit more basic than that. If you discuss something that isn't in someone's imagined plans for Saints, there's a good chance someone will shoot you down for it.

Well, possibly. However, the journo hasn't shirked from follow-on questions and there is now more detail in the tweets than there is in the byline in the People.

It depends on what happens afterward, who the replacement is, and other stuff going on at the club. Nige has been great for the team and seems to have built a solid team spirit in which players like Lambert have thrived. That's not for nothing, and if Cortese did decide to sack Adkins, questions would need to be asked if the contingency plans looked half-hearted.

That's why I said if. Anyway, do you definitely know this or are you just basing your opinion on your own expectation? Like I said, depends on what "spend big" means.

One of the best threads I've read on here for a while, even if some of the stuff is potentially going to create some short-term uproar. The journo is being pretty candid with responses, which could come back to haunt him if he's wrong or telling porkies. I think he's probably legit. Stands to lose quite a bit for dishing out bad info, and we've seen other signs or "misspeaks" that would support his claims. Good spot on the close geographical and cultural connections between Cortese and Di Matteo, ZurichSaint and Saint-Armstrong. Superficially, Di Matteo looks the dogs boll*cks with the Champions League win, and he's to be rightly commended for that success. I actually do think that fact alone could tip the balance in many of the players that we might want to sign. If this is actually on the cards, the headlines alone would raise the profile of the club, first because the club has dispensed with the services of a successful manager, and second because the winner of the Champions League has joined lowly Southampton. Cortese gets to add to his reputation, and can point to Di Matteo as proof that he is able to carry out his vision. Di Matteo's future at Chelsea far from certain - largely because they don't know how effective he'll be in the transfer market or how he will perform over a league season. To answer Lord D's point a little bit, "why wouldn't Nige want big players?":- Well, he would. But if Cortese identifies someone Nige doesn't feel he can convince then Nige has a problem, especially if Cortese takes the view that someone with Di Matteo's newly-increased stature could. All comes down to what "spend big" means. If Cortese is looking to make a 30M marquee signing, would the club be more likely to land him with Di Matteo or Adkins in charge?

Ms pap and juvenile unit #1 needed transport to the NEC this weekend. Travel is something that is a little out of the missus's comfort zone, so decided to tag along and get some quality time with juvenile unit #2. As a consequence, got to explore Birmingham for the first time. I've been to the NEC before, but only the exhibition centre - which is something of a bubble. I've also spent hours in the underbelly of Birmingham New Street waiting for train connections, which doesn't really count as it's just a dirty tunnel. Today, we spent around six hours exploring the centre of the second city today. Overall, I'm pretty impressed. Negatives? Far too many chain shops, and far too frequently occurring. Like many city centres, Brum is awash with chain stores. It's always disappointing to walk down a new street full of the same things. They also had signs directing tourists like ourselves to a new Thinktank science museum. Juvenile unit #2 enjoys museums, but she's been to most of the Liverpool ones several times over. Bit crap when we got there and found a building site (advanced state of completion, but still). City centre was an odd mashup of grime and futuristic stuff. The Bullring is really impressive, an architecturally pleasing construction. It's only just dawned on thickie here that it's called the Bullring because it's shaped like one Really liked how cosmopolitan the place was, and am planning a return visit. Will probably time it with a concert I'm interested in, but otherwise, want to spread my wings and see a bit more of the city. What's worth doing?

Actor in the first series was Ben Chaplin, who wanted to leave the show to pursue other acting options. He has done ok, but personally, I think he'd have done well to stay on for a few years and establish an iconic character. Typecasting never did David Jason any harm. Nor did staying on Game On harm Samantha Womack's career. Still, the key f*ck-up here belongs to the writers. They should have gone the Men Behaving Badly route and just created an entirely new character that performed a similar (or better) comedic function. Neil Stukes does a decent job, but he's undermined by a really crap creative decision. Did they have to have an agoraphobic for it all to work?