Johnny Bognor

You make a valid point in that none of the systems work perfectly in isolation, it is all about the mix of the isms. Too much socialism, you end up broke. Too much capitalism and you are morally broke, so a balance has to be found. From your choice of isms above, I would like to try the "ism sim..." approach, it's got to be worth a go hasn't it?

Offset the increased employment costs with a reduction in employers NI? Say I employ an extra 9 people on £10 per hour, the employers NI would be £9.90 per hour. So it means that for every 9 people taken into work, I have to pay for 10 in effect. So an employer reduces the burden on the state and has to pay more for the privilege - how is that fair? Surely if the private sector is to take up the slack more could be done to reduce the burden and pass more back to the employee. So increase the min wage and reduce empoyers NI. Everyone is a winner......the employee earns more and people are attracted back into work; the burden on the state is reduced whilst the employer doesn't get royally screwed. You see, some of you may disagree with my views, but you and I know this country would be far better off if I was running it.

We can't discriminate on age, but suffice to say that the pay is way above min wage (so much so that someone is prepared to fly from Spain to work during the week). With this in mind, why have we only had one CV from UK residents of working age? It wasn't that long ago that you would have a queue of poles outside the front door, but they seem to have all gone home. We've now thrown it out to the recruitment agencies and I am sure we will find someone, but I am astounded at the lack of people who are prepared to work. In my mind it highlights a major problem with Britain that needs fixing.

Indeed. Had this been a tory, we would be one 100+ posts and 5+ pages by now.

Rupert, look, how can I put it? It's not your club anymore.......

Semi skilled, no previous experience required, full training given. There is work out there if you want it.

Of course it is. If you want to attract talent, you need to pay more than that too. As I said before, they need to close the dole office in Chichester as it is not needed quite clearly (this would also contribute towards the defecit cuts)

Would you commute to Spain for £5 an hour?

We're advertising a job at the job centre for a machine operator. In one month we have had 4 CV's. Two from over 65's and one from a guy in Spain who is willing to commute from Spain on a weekly basis. So we have 1 CV from people of working age in Chichester and the surrounding areas. They may as well close the dole office in Chichester as no-one cleary needs any.....because they are all working.....aren't they?

This is one of those rare occasions where I totally agree with you. Manners is something that seperates us from the apes. It is not a class thing - there are rude upper class people and polite / well mannered working class people. People with manners display the traits of a good parental upbringing and general respect for others.

You can't buy class, it's in the breeding.

Working in the private sector, I guess you would want that to happen. Turkeys don't vote for Christmas Good for you. There are some 'socialists' on here who don't appear to. Could it be the case that there are two types of socialist? i.e. realist socialists (working in the private sector) and fantasist socialists (working in the public sector) And Labour don't? (1 million people on the scrapheap over the last two years says different). As someone pointed out on here, 8% of people leave public sector jobs every year and so by only re-recruiting 5.5%, the cuts can be made without anyone actually 'losing' their jobs. Granted that those left behind might have to work a bit harder (don't we all), but we didn't have these extra 500,000 people 6 years ago.

You make some fair points. However, can you explain how a union could stop job losses at somewhere like Woolworths or MFI for example? You can't, because public sector organisations don't go bust, therefore those within them are far more 'safe' than their private sector counterparts. Yes, some of the redundancies may have been stopped / reduced where companies have cut back, but there have been tens of thousands of insolvencies along with hundreds of thousands of jobs lost. At the end of the day, you can't 'oppose' bankruptcy.

That is fair enough, but the Unions can't stop companies going bust. I would guess that there were union members at Woolworths and MFI, but a fat lot of good that did them. I was making the point that there have been 1m jobs lost in the private sector and the response was they should have been in a Union. A union can't stop a private business going bust and so those jobs still would have been lost and therefore those 'victims' deserve some sympathy.

So why not start with a normal day and then escalate if necessary? They are just being lazy on the busiest night of the year. The easiest fix is to set fire to fireman's houses while they are on the picket line.

Like Saintsweb Ltd?

Actually, most successful companies maximise their profit through providing better products / services and placing the customer first. So you lack sympathy for them because they aren't in a Union. Most people working in the private sector work for small businesses, where unions are not recognised, so even if people wanted to, they can't. That point aside, there have been tens of thousands of insolvencies and being a member of a union would have made the difference of the square root of **** all. Boss: Sorry Mr worker, we have gone bust and you no longer have a job Worker: If you go bust, I'll go on strike Sometimes I really don't get this socialism lark. One million private sector works lose their jobs over the last two years and the most we hear is "well they're are not in a Union, so tough ****". Maybe they weren't as lucky as you to get the education/opportunity you had, so they end up on the scrap heap. They are the very people that pay your wages (when they are working), so the least they should get is some sympathy, but it looks like they are on their own.

In layman's speak A Private Ltd company means "Limited Liability" (where the owners / directors are not personally responsible for the company's debts). In return for this, you have to publish accounts at Companies House. The reality of a start up is that it is more difficult to get credit as if you go pop, you can walk away. If you take out loans, the bank are likely to want directors guarantees. A PLC is a company where the shares are listed on the stock exchange and the shares can be publicly owned. It is a good way for larger businesses to raise finance (i.e from floatation) That is it in a nutshell. It really depends on what you are looking to do. If you are going to start slowly, a Ltd Co requires statutary accounts and more paperwork (and you would need an accountant to help you, hence more cost). It is probably not worth it until you are established. With regards to VAT, it also requires more effort. You essentially become an unpaid tax collector who doesn't even get a thank you (or an xmas card), but when you get it worng, they'll kick you in the ********. Being VAT registered enables you to claim back VAT on purchases, but you have to charge it on. If your customers are other businesses, it is less of an issue, because they'll caim it back. If you are servicing consumers, it makes your charges more expensive, so if you are small and if you are charging for labour, not registering helps you to keep your price down or make more profit. I can't remember the threshold off the top of my head, but as you are starting slowly, I really wouldn't bother. Anyway what is the big plan?

Very public sector. Sod the product, sod the customer as long as I'm alright jack It may be the case that Thompson isn't to be trusted, but are you? Out of interest, how many people as a proportion of the BBC are in programme making? Obviously there are people behind the scenes who are not left wing as there are on the front line (Jeremy Clarkson, Nick Robinson - political editor who was former Chair of the young conservatives, etc etc) as is the case in any large organisation. There is probably the odd Nazi or too that works in White City. However, with any public sector bureaucracy, there is a tending to lean to the left by the nature of its very existence. Unfortunately that is the way of the world and is no different in the private sector. Goodwin gets a £7m pension, while tens of thousands of RBS bank workers get shown the door. It's not right, but that is the way it is. I didn't see the lefties on here lamenting the 1m+ private sector workers who have lost their jobs over the last two years, especially when most of them are at the lower end of the pay scale. Now the affects are closer to home, you are all getting your knickers in a twist. I thought socialists were to show concern for all working people, not just public sector workers (who already have union protection). Teachers wil be OK, they are well educated (as we are constantly reminded). What about the uneducated or semi skilled staff in retail, construction, manufacuring, etc etc

PM Sent

My mistake, should have slowed down, but the DG seems to think it was a problem in the past. Even if it was in the past, it generally explains why people think it is left wing. A significant amount of recruitment advertising for the BBC is placed in the Guardian. When they advertise in the Times or the Torygraph, then I may begin to believe you. You clearly know what you are talking about here, but the very fact that the importance of HR is placed on a level playing field with programme making (according to you) contradicts the point you are making. An organisation that is heavy into HR, tends to be more left wing in its attitude. If it is not left wing (and I still think it is), it is certainly very liberal in its outlook.

Of course there is something in this. The BBC is a public sector/service which has a disproportionate number of lefties in it, when compared to private organisations. I am surprised anyone is surprised by or denies this......the leftie propaganda machine is counter balanced by Murdoch, so across all media there probably is some sense of balance. Here is a starter for 10: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/is-the-bbc-really-left-wing-552929.html "There was massive left-wing bias at the BBC” says the former Director General of the BBC http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/09/lecture-thompson-bbc-interview The BBC are the biggest Media owner. It is no coincidence that the biggest recruitment advertising for Media is ...............in the Guardian. (Notice that I haven't used right wing media to make my point, so even the leftie media believe it is so) ... and even the BBC have it in their own report http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23400983-bbc-accused-of-institutional-trendy-left-wing-bias.do Can we talk about something else now, perhaps where there is a shade of grey and some room for debate, like "is the Pope a Catholic"?

If Unite can infiltrate the Iranian Airforce, it could well put them in their place

If that is your opinion, fair enough, but you still haven't answered my question. As Bliar is a ****, who fooled you, will you celebrate his death? I will leave Brown out of it for now, as you can't put down to guile, that you can put down to incompetence I have no problem with taxing the banks fairly (neither do the Bully boys). It is just that your definition of fairness is different to mine. You may have allowed Labour to take the **** out of you, but I won't let anyone take the **** out of me

Total ********. I have criticised them over the child benefit fiasco where in principal the rich should not get this benefit, but in execution they have ****ed up. I have also criticised them with regards to university fees, where I believe certain subjects should be ring fenced, making university more affordable, whilst delivering the graduates we need. That is criticism twice in the last week. My politics may be right of centre, but they are the politics of common sense. I have and will criticise the tories where I see fit, as I am not bound by blind loyalty or political dogma. It is slightly different when there are tanks and troops across the Channel, who happend to start bombing our cities first. Not gleeful at all. This cuts could trigger a double dip recession which will affect my business. We have already lost a number of public sector clients (The TDA being one) which has had an impact. So it is not about me, me, me as I am too feeling the pain. It is NOT a laughing matter and I have never suggested it was. I liken it to going to the dentist to have a filling, you don't relish it, but it is necessary and it is going to hurt. Fair play, that makes you less of a hypocrite than many of the other 'socialists' on here. Yet we get 3 CVs for a well paid junior job