Whitey Grandad

Has it moved?

Yes, I saw that. It struck me as an early example of spin doctoring, and who can blame them?. There are lots of place names ending in 'by' and they all tend to be in the northern 'Danelaw' part of England, such as Rugby, Whitby. We in the south have the saxon 'burgh's. (Grimsby is, of course, in Lincolnshire and not Yorkshire but is far enough oop north to count as being virtually the same thing) (This offering is intended solely to stimulate discussion and no offence is meant either by accident or otherwise)

This is an absolutely crazy suggestion. How can that possibly be a subsidy? The employer does not get the money. I was talking about investing in roads, rail, regional airports, bridges, and not discouraging small businesses by taxing them when they invest in new machinery. The extra money spent on the Health Service has almost all been wasted. And before anybody starts, you do not subsidise an activity by not taxing it. You might just as well say that the government is subsidising the air that you breathe by not charging you for it.

Doesn't 'Grimsby' originate from 'devil's village'? (no offence meant)

Samhain seems right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween Apparently it's a celtic thing and the name is from Old Irish and means 'summers end'. Most of these festivals seem to be christian conversions of old pagan festivities. e.g Easter for Eostre, (or Astarte/Ishtar which go back to the Babylonians), and Christ was almost certainly not born on the 25th December. Historically there have been periods of 11 days or so of feasting at the end of the year. http://romanology.blogspot.com/

I don't use them. I find that having grapes lowered into my mouth by a Nubian slave whilst reclining on a couch in my triclinium far more appealing, to be honest.

A parisian colleague of mine once said: "I like italians. They're like a frenchman but with a sense of humour".

Yorkshire? Pah! They're welcome to it. Not enough trees.

Reasonable debate is perfectly ok. I cannot understand why some people find it necessary to resort to pointless name-calling, the miserable little sh!ts. (only joking!)

I'm not wishing to get into a political slanging match because as far as I'm concerned they are al pretty much as bad as each other, but the gap between 'rich' and 'poor' has become wider since Tony Blair came to power.

This is a fair point, but there has to be a proper balance. What the previous lot did wrong was to pay subsidies and call it 'investment'. 'Investment' in Health, 'investment' in schools, 'investment' in the Police, do me a favour! If a fraction of the money that was poured down the gullets of the public services had been spent on our infrastructure and manufacturing base then at least we would have had something long-lasting and worthwhile for our money.

Not at all, this is fundamental. There is no point producing goods at a price that will not sell. The punters will merely buy those goods from a cheaper supplier. Forcing an employer to pay a higher wage will increase the price of the products and lead to a drop in sales, and in many cases it only takes a small price rise to lead to a complete loss of market.

My friend Keith and I used to receive funny looks in Toronto when we ate hamburgers with a knife and fork. I can't think why. We even left the knife and fork in the 12 o'clock position when we had finished eating.

But the employer does not receive the money, and if they had to pay more there would not be a job anyway. You are not subsidising the employer, you (we) are subsidising the individual person.

Not actually being french, but expressing a subconscious desire to be french.

The job does not belong to you. The employer offers work for which you will get paid at an agreed rate. The alternative is not to do the work. You are not subsidising the employer unless you are paying them for you to work there.

Photoshop mask?

Good point. Maybe all the other promotion candidates can get an advance on future PL payments? After all, it's their money, they just haven't received it yet.

One has to be careful with young ladies who may appear to be pregnant. There may be other explanations for their swelling.

That's very convoluted logic. Employers will only pay what they have to. If the cost of labour is too high then the product that they offer may be uncompetitive. You cannot force any enterprise to pay more than the operation will bear or there will be no jobs at all. Employers already pay a big wallop directly in NI contributions. Add to that sick pay, maternity pay and all the other job-related benefits and it is quite a considerable sum. It is not the job of an employer to provide jobs.

There's more than one colour in there. Do you mean 'in this pattern'?

The only way to tell is to look at the books. Incidentally, in the US many companies have found that they prefer working with smaller workforces, even if it's with a smaller turnover. But whoever you sre, if you've been stung badly you will be very slow to take people on again.

It's not an excuse. I know many small businesses who only kept going because the owners took no salary. Some even put in their life savings to keep going rather than lose staff but eventually the money runs out.

These have been very difficult times for most businesses. If you employ 30 people then a 3% pay rise equals one job and sometimes the decision is between paying more or losing some workers.

Thanks for that, much appreciated.