pedg

Problem is even if they are found guilty they will only be fined about 50K which is small change compares to the kiss and tell scale.

You can also watch it, at least in the UK at least, here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8167000/8167512.stm More fun promised this afternoon with Steve Coogan taking over the baton from Grant.

If there is an obvious route that people can take to do something about it then often they will. Making a complete change to how you purchase everything as a protest at the salaries at the people at the top of companies is not obvious as a) It would not work without lots of other people doing at the same time and b) even if you did manage to organise a group action the people likely to suffer first would be the normal staff that would be laid off well before any executive decided to take a cut in pay.

Interesting to listen to. Think there could be a bit of panic at the Daily Mail this lunchtime... Person representing Daily Mail complained no right to reply to Hugh Grants allegations. Judge says it would be okay for journalists to come and respond? Person for the Daily Mail says that fine but it would not be till January and the damage will have propagated by then. Judge says I can move thing around as I feel fit so fine to get the journalists in to explain where they got the stories in question from in ASAP. So now Daily Mail just about committed to put journo on the stand who will have to explain how they found out various details which at the moment they claim came from 'sources close to' someone who has denied they knew till the article was published.

Too simplistic I fear. The general populous (the infamous "99%") will rarely if ever get coordinated enough to have any effect even if individually they would like to (The one obvious case where it did happen is the NOTW where the publics refusal to buy it after the milly dowler phone hacking came to light). Even then if a large proportion of people say started to boycott tesco say all that would happen is that the current chairman would get fired and they would bring someone else in on an equally high salary to try and 'turn the company round'.

Thing is that initially they could get away with it and now its just got a bit out of control and like the housing market there will almost certainly have to be an adjustment. This is interesting reading: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/22/cut-executive-pay

I am talking about the person who actually owns the shares (even if they are bought via a ISA/pension) I think they have as much right to vote on the renumeration package of a companies bosses as any shareholder. Given that the corporate greed appears to be uncontrollable by the current routes (can anyone justify the increase in the last 20 to 30 years, especially people being given large payrises/bonuses/share options even when their company has performed badly)? There is an interesting video I saw recently (will add link if I can find it) that goes into some research that found that for more than the most trivial of jobs offering to pay someone more actually makes them perform worse.

[h=2]shav·en[/h]   [shey-vuh n] verb1.a past participle of shave. adjective2.closely trimmed.

But we all know the problem is that most of the shares are in managed chunks in pension funds etc. and the people who manage them have little incentive to vote down the pay rises proposed by the bosses themselves as in part it makes the amount the are paid for managing look more competitive. I think some sort of legislation that allows the actual owners of the shares to vote rather than the person who is in charge of buying and selling them would help.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlBiLNN1NhQ

Possibly but I take the view that hitting the wall means a run of bad results and for some teams their losses have been more irregular. Also it should be said that there is no rule that says you have one 'wall' a season. From this point to the end of the season, ignoring all the games that have been played so far, all the teams near the top are equally likely to hit a bad patch, even if one or more of them have already had one.

It's strange how fan's of other clubs say "Everyone hits a wall at some point in the season" whilst failing to acknowledge that if it is inevitable then the same will happen to them.

Possibly but its a bit of a chicken and egg scenario as the government claim to only have seized the bank because of the asset movements. If the assets had not been moved would they have acted, if so what reason would they be able to give before seeing the books.

Would still like to know why this current situation was set off. The take over was started after a large number of assets were moved but why were those assets moved? As I see it there are 3 options 1) Movement of funds was planned but parties involved did not expect the authorities to act as they did. 2) Movement of funds was planned and parties involved expected that the authorities would act at some point but did not care. 3) Movement of funds done in a hurry as parties worried about getting caught and wanted to move out as much funds as they could before that happened. any other possible reasons and idea which is correct?

What a surprise. Bank paperwork more complicated than expected http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-21/snoras-takeover-finances-more-complicated-than-thought-1-.html

I assume those are physical not mental checks

No but from the picture his head is not shaven.

easy for the police as he is probably the easiest member of the EDL to identify!

Report on Snoras being released Thursday apparently. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-21/lithuanian-bank-to-decide-on-snoras-restructuring-on-nov-24.html

Or possibly the 4 years and get out early due to good behaviour plan.

Is that the pompey bucket list?

Interesting that, even with games that are very one sided and with 30 seconds of highlights, they usually show at least one attacking move by the losing side. Don't think there was one Brighton attack shown.

Have an Altea and its generally fine. Definitely a high driving position (and at 6'2" glad to say decent headroom) and can get 3 in the back (though not really for long journeys). You get the advantage of VW quality engineering but not a VW prices and their ecomotion Altea costs something like 20 quid a year in tax. Main drawbacks are that its not small (its not overly large, though you can get an XL longer version) and the the front pillars are quite wide so you have to be that bit extra careful. If we had to change car again soon (hopefully we don't) we would definitely consider another one. Best to sit in one and see how much you dislike the pillar problem.

Glad we visited the wife's Brighton supporting relatives last weekend. Would be difficult trying not to smirk if it was this weekend.

Hope it did not take too long for you to clean up after children in need then.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00lz4gl