revolution saint

Haven't really looked into this so I'm speaking from a position of relative ignorance but it looks fair on face value. I seem to recall the CBI and their ilk predicting small business closures and unemployment rises when the minimum wage was introduced and that didn't happen. At a time when wages have been hit hard and aren't increasing despite economic growth I'd say anything like this should be welcomed.

World Health Organisation? They should stick to worrying about ebola and stuff.

Typical "filler" type article. I used to think he was fairly good as a journalist but if this is what he's being asked to produce then he's fallen some way - it's the kind of article you ask the YTS kid to do in order to postpone that inevitable moment when he realises his lack of flair and imagination will form the backbone of a dull, unremarkable and pointless career. Indeed the last few times Jim White has appeared on TV he's looked more inclined to scan the floor in search of dog ends than capable of writing anything of note. Interestingly I'd make him 3rd worst journalist in my list of people I couldn't care less about.

Jeremy Clarkson may or may not be an intentional / unintentional racist but he's still a tw*t though, right?

Well, was as rubbish as I expected it to be. I deliberately engineered my answers towards a desired outcome and got it so these things really aren't that hard to manipulate at all. In the course of my research on these types of things I did come across the Forer Effect which was both interesting and relevant.

Currency union with an independent Scotland just wouldn't work, and wouldn't be in the interests of rUK. Why would we choose to saddle ourselves with a country over which we had no control? More importantly the markets would react badly and both economies would suffer because of the uncertainty and risk. There's simply no benefit for rUK in a currency union and trying to establish a working framework for it would be a nightmare. There will be some areas where working with Scotland would be mutually beneficial - there would be no point in imposing trade tariffs whilst they were waiting for EU membership. The same with work permits and many other things but a currency union isn't one of those things.

To be fair we elect politicians to represent us and politicians wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't secure the best deal for rUK - in a lot of cases that would mean hammering Scotland not out of spite but out of self-interest. Scotland and the SNP don't seem to have any problems trying to get the best deal for themselves and there's no reason rUK should feel guilty about doing the same. I'd agree it'll go down with the electorate pretty well but there's still legitimate reasons for making deals at the detriment to Scotland besides just popularity.

Regardless of which way the vote goes I can see there being a backlash afterwards from rUK. I'd imagine for the majority of non-Scots the union has always been a bit of an irrelevance. Certainly I've never really felt much distinction between saying I'm English or I'm British but I think that will change as a result of the benefits the scots have been promised and the sight of desperate politicians prostrating themselves in front of the Scottish public. Up till now I don't think there's been much questioning of the free HE tuition they receive or free prescriptions etc but hopefully rUK will start to question why we're not entitled to similar (and rightly so). I seriously doubt that a Yes vote will be delivered but I reckon there will be a hell of a lot of political capital to be made if politicians engage in some Scots bashing after the vote (whatever the outcome), and proclaiming / championing "Englishness" will probably be seen as less xenophobic and toxic than it currently is.

They'll probably get some sort of favour returned at some point, or maybe Dave is just calling his favours in. Either that or a knighthood. Normally the way things work.

Thanks for the info - I managed to download the paper and very good it is too. I've only had a quick read through and will give it another read later but it is interesting. Even better is one of the companies practising MBTI and mentioned in the paper is actually delivering the test to our department. I wonder if the practitioners we meet will be aware of it's roots? This could be quite good fun..... Oh and hope you get something accepted soon.

Thank you Bath Saint - I knew there was a reason I don't like these things.

Oh and for the record I was ISTP which I suppose makes me Chewbacca or Harry Potter type. I wonder if it's only us logic type people fiercely driven to see if we can break the test?

Thanks for responses so far. I agree that they're not entirely without merit and can be quite accurate (to an extent at least). I've still got an underlying dislike of them but that's probably because they shouldn't really be telling you anything you don't already know - I'd expect managers to also have some awareness of how to manage different personality types as well. It also smacks a little of managing and dealing with people by rote - so the book says if I'm dealing with personality type X then my response to them should be this etc. Obviously this type of information can be helpful and improve people but I think sometimes people can look at it a bit prescriptively and resulting attitudes can come across as a bit false. I'll bear in mind the potential downside but I'm still going to have a bit of fun with it. I'll probably still do the completely random responses just to see what happens.

I'll be taking a psychometric test at work in the near future, although it's not linked to career progression or the job exactly. I suppose it could be linked with development but personally I think it's probably just an exercise in spending money on something that someone finds vaguely interesting. For background I work in a fairly large organisation and in a department particularly dominated by management types with soft skills - there's a lot of meetings, BS, blue sky thinking, run-it-up-a-flagpole-and-see-if-it-flies f*ckaboutery. Anyway, I've done a couple before (I think they were Briggs-Myers or variations on that) so I'm comfortable enough doing them and it doesn't really bother me. However, I know pretty much what the results will be and I thought for a laugh I'd try and fake the test. I'm not looking to create a completely different personality result, or one that I desire, but rather to create something completely undefinable which veers all over the place. I was thinking of not even reading the questions and multiple choice answers and instead just randomly picking my responses so I wouldn't be aware of what I was answering either consciously or sub-consciously. Anyone got any better ideas though? The whole department will be doing this so it's not just me and frankly I don't expect any kind of action to arise from the exercise. Hence my cavalier attitude towards it. Anyway, would be interested in other peoples thoughts on these types of tests and any anecdotal tales of people faking them as well. Funnily enough (and boringly enough) when I did the tests previously in another organisation I came back with an almost perfect profile for the work I do - suppose that's good but it was also a bit dull.

There are ways to make an excuse round selling Morgan, and even if there weren't annoying the fanbase for a moment would probably only be a short term problem. Besides which, if this forum is representative of the fanbase, then some leaked rumours painting Morgan in a bad light would soon change opinion. Fans are pretty fickle and very willing to believe anything that is negative towards the club. As for annoying Koeman - I'm sure they'd live with that, or promise him the funds in the next window. As an aside I love how people think they "know" players or managers just from what they see or hear in interviews. Anyway, not really having a pop at you S-Clarke - just the trend for people to see something an interview that they want to see. As an example I'm sure someone commented yesterday that when talking about the Italian winger we're linked with Koeman had a "twinkle in his eye". Talk about clutching at straws but that's not too far away from assuming that Koeman is direct and staunch based on a few bland interviews.

Appreciate it's well meaning but really not sure how many times I have to say I don't want to give up - I like smoking. I'm just looking for a cleaner, cheaper alternative.

Hmmm, although it's always been the same - Churchill was a Liberal. In the main politicians have always been in it to further themselves although there are a few who see it as a vocation. I think a lot of Tories probably do actually believe in at least a UKIP stance and maybe even their policies so possibly it's a disservice to Carswell. No doubt an increase in electoral chances helps make up their minds though.

Oh and as an aside NRT doesn't really work whereas E-cigs have a much, much higher success rate. This is a really good article: http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9197731/vape-alarm/ (read the comments as well). Looks as if Big Pharma and Big Tobacco are getting a bit worried about the success of e-cigs and consequently their loss of revenue. Will do, Saint Billy. I should be getting the starter kit either today or tomorrow.

Thanks for the reply - I'm not too keen on the non-cigarette type inhalers although realise why people use them. I've ordered a starter pack from Green Smoke so will give that a go but more than likely will end up with your suggestion if it doesn't work out. Thanks for the advice though and some useful info there. Thing is I don't want to quit - all I want is a "cleaner" and hopefully cheaper alternative. E-cigarettes are also a bit more socially acceptable so thought I'd give them a try but at the moment I've no interest at all in lowering my nicotine intake.

Thanks for the comments so far. I'm not really interested in whether they're being banned / potential health risks etc though - more interested in which ones to go for, prices, experiences of using them and that sort of thing.

I'm thinking of making the switch to e-cigarettes and wondered if anyone has any recommendations or experience of using them. I'm not really interested because I want to give up smoking but because they're supposed to be cheaper, don't have the smell and it's better health wise. So, what are some good deals around? Did a quick google last night and sky cig (now blu?) and green smoke seem to be quite popular? Anyway, any info would be useful. Thanks

Lens is still available as far as I know. Based on the limited amount I've seen I'd prefer him over any of the other suggestions for the winger we're trying to bring in. Probably wishful thinking though.

This is just typical of you. Way back on page 89 you stated exactly the opposite and liked boring prats arguing with each other - don't deny it because you did. Of course I have you on ignore but people insist on quoting you (people please stop doing this) and it annoys me. Anyway, you also said you thought Koeman was out of his depth. You should be hung for that. Even if you didn't say it you probably thought it. I hate you. Oh and Andros Townsend is not just everything wrong with British football but society in general, except he offers us something different and isn't really that bad. Well, some of the time he's total garbage but not all of the time. Whilst I'm at it Pelle is also completely turd like. Even looks like a turd. I hate him as well. To$$er. Mind you a nickname relating to turds would be better for Tadic so in actual fact Tadic is a Turd - he's Turdic. Pelle can be Pukke instead. Whatever, they are both rubbish, or really, really good. I'm not sure. It depends what Alpine says or whether their FM stats are any good. Anyway, I've had it with all of you lot and especially you Ken Bone (Head). You're all happy clappy, bedwetting, judas-like, myopic, disingenuous silly billies who don't know nuffink bout football. Innit.

Ok, in no particular order Turn on the bright lights - interpol Snap - jam Sea change - beck Victim of geography - billy bragg Seldom seen kid - elbow

Ah well that's a different topic entirely and to be fair I chucked that comment in at the end as a joke. With my username it's hardly surprising which side of that debate I'd fall into. However to answer your question it's not really about money for me and never has been. I notice most republicans always bring up money as a counter argument to something that is inherently undemocratic. So, personally I don't really see the need to replace them with anything. I don't think we need them or a replacement for them. If one was proposed then I'd judge it on it's merits but if it was democratic and accountable then that's far better than the current situation. I find the idea of a heriditary head of state to be frankly ridiculous but that's just my opinion - been round the block on this debate and realise opinions are unlikely to be changed. Thanks for asking though and apologies for going off topic.