pap

I have some messages to all the numpties who were going on about "couldn't get near Celtic's first team". 1) Trust in Nige. Chaplow couldn't get near the Preston team either. 2) WAAAAANNNNGEERS Really pleased Jos is on the bus.

German joke, circa 1941. Q: "What happened to the Frenchman who went on strike?" A: "They executed him in front of his family". Good German joke, ja?* (*not entirely sure what my point is here. I'll get back to you)

Minty - that is really good advice. Thanks for that. FWIW, think the landlord will either come good with the paperwork or resolve the issue through a cheque. They've always been sound as a pound, and they wouldn't want the bother. Plus I've got a couple of mates who are still in the building and they haven't paid a penny for rates - they've been there longer than me too. The amount of money isn't an issue really - only about £265 - but it's crap timing for Chrimbo and I'm just bloody incensed with the council for not performing a very simple check that anyone in business would be able to do. But you're right mate. Always do everything yourself. It's the only way to be sure.

Yeah, the one helpful person I spoke to at the Council said that rates were cut. Weirdly enough, landlord has actually been most helpful so far. Just find it amazing that it could have all got so far without someone just looking up my company. Registered address is my home address and all that. *sigh*

I bet they are too. In a sense, I'm with you on this one Phil - we all know that Clarkson is a nob, and it's difficult to assess how many people would take his comments seriously. The problem is that there probably are people out there who are behind those comments 100%. Clarkson has enough money. If, as you've said, this is a massive publicity stunt, then he could at least pick a better target for his manufactured ire than public sector workers. Still, wouldn't go down as well with his target demographic, I suppose.

Hoping someone on here is a bit more clued up about this sort of lark than I am. Sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin. Once upon a time, a small business owner moved into a set of offices in town. On signing the contract, said small business owner was delighted to read that his rent was "fully inclusive of rent, business rates, service charge ...". Some time later, our plucky small business owner receives a letter from the local council, stating that he owes them business rates for the property. Helpfully, the local council have already got a nice bailiff involved, which was far easier than say, typing the business owner's company name into Google and sending a bill to the first address that popped up. The small business owner duly paid the bill ( hey, there's a bailiff monster around - you gotta ) and contacted the council to moan about their lack of due diligence, the fact bailiffs were involved, and the fact that according to his contract, he was already paying business rates through monies paid to the landlord. The council was unrepentant, saying that the business owner has to chase his landlord for the money and that they always invoice the occupier, irrespective of any agreement between landlord and tenant. So questions for the more legally aware of SaintsWeb. a) Who is actually liable for this? b) What is the best option to retrieve the money? c) Should I trot down to the town hall and do a dirty protest? ( kebab and big poo in staff toilets )

Jeremy 'finger on the pulse' Clarkson has weighed into the debate, with predictably amusing/tragic results. I like Clarkson, but what a nob. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/30/jeremy-clarkson-one-show-apology

I did my public sector work for Ordnance Survey. Without a doubt, THE most interesting job I've ever had, and if money was no object, I'd be back there now playing with map data. Still, my side-interests of keeping the family fed, homed and clothed got in the way of that ambition

Charlie - enjoy your posts, mate - but as I said in another thread, I wouldn't work in the public sector. I can't believe people do it for the money. Fair play to them for doing so.

Plenty of memories to draw on, dune?

Or alternatively, doesn't want people to know how much time he spends on here. At least, that's why I'm invisible.

The poor salary was why I left the public sector. Got a 6K pay-rise just by joining the private sector. Plus, my salary increases were negotiated between myself and my review manager, taking performance into consideration. Public sector wage increases are decided nationally. Oddly enough, my old firm gives considerably more than 1% to people with average performance. Public sector workers have sacrificed enough, I feel. The one thing I will pull you up on is the plight of public sector workers in the South East. Their money doesn't go as far because people believe their houses are worth a lot more than in the North. Everyone else believes it too. Rent/mortgage is based on the perceived value of the property, and it's the biggest outgoing expense for anyone still ploughing through it. Not sure we should be paying southern public sector workers more just so we can perpetuate that belief.

Just seen this on Twitter. Sums up my feelings about the Unions too. "Unions: the people who brought you the weekend, capped working hours, employment rights, fair wages, pensions and ended child labour."

I suspect a big difference is that :- a) your bosses have probably been in their jobs for more than 2 years b) they know what they're doing c) they know the value of having a happy workforce Every policy the Crapalition has implemented or tried to implement has been an utter shambles. They haven't got control over the economy and their policies are based on naive fantasy.

There's a lot of bitterness on here. Misdirected in my opinion. Still, abandoning sense and perspective seems to be a hallmark of those on the right. I'd suggest that the vitriol would be better directed at the people who put us in the situation where we (supposedly) cannot afford the public sector. Not the people who are striking today.

Ah, you're just unhappy because this deluge of private sector tub-thumpers has failed to materialise. Still, I'm sure you get over it. You're in the unique position of forming your own views just to wind up other people. You could well believe something different tomorrow (depending on who you're unhappy with then).

Nah, there were only two choices presented to you. Not quite the same thing as there only being two choices. So straightaway mate, you're off to a bad 'un. I've worked in the private sector for the last thirteen years of my life, although I have spent around 2 years either working directly or indirectly for the public sector. I support the strikes, largely because I think the public sector is an essential part of our society, and the two options that the Crapalition came up with are a tiny subset of the choices that are actually available to us. Even if you think you don't use the public sector yourself, it's working for you. Every villain the police lock up, every life that is saved in an accident and emergency situation, every kid taught in school. We take the public sector for granted, yet it is responsible for so much of the fabric of society. And I'm sorry, but there is no way that I feel comfortable with essential services like this being privatised - and there is plenty of evidence to back me up.

That, or the age old trick of saying "oh sh*t - we really did need those people", and ending up hiring the same people back on three times wages. I doubt that any money will be solved in the long run. It's all economic trickery so that we can assure the people that we owe all the money to that we don't have a massive public sector headcount.

No, I was being sarcastic. Rather enjoyed the massive jump to conclusions though. Keep it up.

Just read that 771,000 jobs are going to disappear from the public sector by 2017. Millions will be affected, whether they are current employees, families losing a bread-winner or businesses that benefit from public sector income. Like most of their policies, I suspect that the Conservatives believe that it'll be cheaper to give these people benefits than pay them a wage. It'll be interesting to see how easy it'll be for the newly unemployed to find new jobs, particularly as the Government is supplying free labour to major corporations, such as the teenagers who have to stack shelves or lose their benefits. So who are we going to give money to? To the banks, who'll then give it out to businesses that they were previously refusing to lend to. That's a brilliant use of public money. That whole concept, banks lending to people who they previously wouldn't lend to, worked so well for the housing market, didn't it? All power to the public sector. In the main, they do a fantastic job and should be treasured. They make a massive contribution to society which goes largely unnoticed. Unfortunately, our Governments have a nasty habit of not putting all the options on the table. There are plenty of ways to boost the economy that are just not being pursued for political reasons. I'd rather consider those than lose the valuable work of the public sector.

It is actually pretty tough choosing how to level, and destruction seems particularly underwhelming compared to some of the quick gains you can get in sneak and archery. I've been reliably informed that destruction @ 100 turns you into some kind of arcane cannon

Don't forget 'not very well read'. We all know that everything written by authors and distributed by large corporate publishers is 100% accurate, and should under no circumstances, play second fiddle to critical analysis or primary evidence.

It's rare to see it in public, and it is thankfully, a lot rarer than it used to be. Think that's what makes it all the more shocking when you hear it. I remember one time shortly after my daughter started primary school. She came back home and asked us what a "n*****r" was. She'd heard it from a five year old kid. Still, I don't see how what people have written on the subject of tribalism has over our collective experience of how our country has turned out, subjective as that is bound to be. Most settlements of a certain size or over have one or two large areas that are predominantly occupied by ethnic minorities. In Southampton, it could be argued that Newtown is that area, although it's perhaps even more pronounced in the North. That to me represents a very tangible form of tribalism that we see every day, and affects us every day. Racism's greatest ally is ignorance. People living in separate communities, knowing almost nothing about each other, only fuels that ignorance further. Well, I for one that Pinker's parents paid for a Harvard education so that he could tell us that the world today is a less violent place than it was in the bloody centuries of the past, but it's really a question of perspective. Would Pinker be able to visit places like Oldham or Bradford ( or even Tower Hamlets ) and deny the existence of tribalism? What evidence does he offer up on the US, especially in the Southern states, where entire areas are delineated on skin-tone, where black kids attend one school and whites another? What does he have to say about the US' immigration policy since the end of the Second World War, which saw a seismic shift from White Europeans to people with few, if any cultural ties to the US? Another observation: I was in our corporate HQ in June, again in the US. My client has employed a number of Indian dudes on short-term VISAs. None of the US-born employees would give them the time of day. Now, I'm not saying that Pinker is wrong. I'm not even saying that I'm right. What I am saying is that there is a chasm between what is reported or said in public and the views of private individuals. I'm pointing out that the nations that have adopted multiculturalism haven't done so well on the integration front. I'd find it difficult to disagree with Pinker's assertion that we're less violent in general, but then, knowing human nature, I'd have to ask where all that anger has gone. Personally, I think its still there - and as we saw with the riots, it doesn't require a great deal of movement to get from simmering resentment to a country in flames. Honestly haven't read it. The only non-fiction books I've had time for lately have been very dry and technical in nature.

There's a lot of sense in this. I come from immigrant stock myself, and much further afield than Ireland. That said, I've always had a sneaking suspicion that immigration is little more than a divide and rule tactic. Like it or not, our society has reverted to a form of tribalism. People are that concerned with their petty squabbles and differences that they fail to see the bigger picture, which is largely, a stunningly detailed depiction of the average man getting greased over a barrel to serve corporate interests.

Really shouldn't be an issue in 2011, but racism is passed down like a malign hereditary condition, unfortunately. Doesn't help that our immigration policy, or lack thereof, provides so much ammunition to people as hateful as this.