trousers

No brainer. Asked a few years back why it didn't happen. I'm a big fan of transparency. Go for it

In answer to the OP question: Money.

+ 1

Actually, that's well spotted but you've highlighted the wrong mistake. Being a Tory toff we obviously have more than one house so it should have read: "the Trousers households are..." You were right about no thanks being required though... ;-))

Cheers. Much quicker than the old lot ;-)

Evenin' meat lovers.... The Trousers household are looking to buy a Christmas Turkey and/or whole ham joint from a local supplier (Hampshire/Surrey/Berkshire/Dorset/Sussex) Any recommendations? Any with an online shop? cheers Edit: Bugger....wrong spelling of meet (sic) in the thread title...will be a good test of how quick and helpful the new mods are.... :-)

Watchers

Every time I come back to this thread there is someone like your good self talking common sense. Most disconcerting. I much prefer the posts that quote 16 Guardian articles at a time. Talking of which...how many trees will the Government's public sector job consolidation programme save? A lighter jobs section in the Guardian could well end up saving the planet....every cloud.... ;-)

Noel Edmonds

*cough* see you there....

Happy days indeed. I can heave a sigh of relief now you've 'come out' as Roman...3 years I've kept that to myself... :-) Be sure to come back for the next takeover.... ;-)

This +1 I pay my fiver to post more than 3 times a day rather than the 'privilege' of starting a thread. What's the harm in giving it a trial run for say a week and see what happens?

...and, yes, as others have mentioned, a reputable company won't insist on 100% payment before the job is complete. If a company asks for 100% before job completion then it's an instant "avoid"

Sounds like a clear cut case of breach of the Trade Descriptions Act to me. An idea: post the name of the company here and we'll all call them for bogus surveys and quotes until they get the message?

This!

I thought they were cheering George Osborne for tackling the debt head on. Why would they be cheering a perfectly reasonable job attrition rate over 4 years?

danroan: Portsmouth on the brink - BBC5Live for all the latest including interview with Ashok Patel, Chainrai's lawyer

danroan: Lawyer for Portsmouth FC owner in waiting Balram Chainrai says "likely the club will now be closed down and liquidated by administrators"

danroan: Lawyer for Portsmouth FC owner in waiting Balram Chainrai say demands of Sacha Gaydamak "puts future of club in jeopardy - club may close"

danroan: Breaking: Portsmouth FC statement: "likely the club will now be closed down and liquidated" - they blame former owner Sacha Gaydamak

ok, thanks....

I wasn't looking for a comparison with anything else. Just an absolute figure to answer the question posed. Perhaps I should ask it another way: "How many people would lose their jobs if no banker received a 6 figure or greater bonus?" Just a rough calculation will suffice. 1? 100? 10,000? 100,000? Thanks.

Genuine Question: How many UK 'shop floor' jobs are reliant on bankers receiving and then spending their large bonuses in the UK?

Interesting, perhaps, to note that Thatcher stuck to 'average' public spending rises in her first half of her reign.

Barclays