hypochondriac

Made me smile which is the important thing. Sent from my SM-G988B using Tapatalk

I want Richard Chorley as chairman.

I'd personally love that.

Nice to have you back alpine.

Watch us sell the players I mentioned in my previous post in the summer now. No one is going to buy Stephens, long vestergaard with the wages they are on and what we would wasn't for them.

Great so trying to lower the wage bill through sales. Only people really worth buying is hojbjerg, ings, Bertrand and maybe redmond.

That's probably the case even with us bejng for sale. No one is going to buy saints for that price. We probably wouldn't get anyone remotely credible for even 100 million. If we do sell it would probably be to someone worse. As I said, cheers kat for ruining your father's legacy. If she truly loved and valued the club as she claimed then she could have easily sold us for something like 50 million to a sensible and credible buyer who was actually interested in investing rather than this setup.

Someone being for sale isn't really good news if no one is available to buy.

Cheers kat.

I think you're wildly exaggerating if you reckon that not doing an interview with Andrew Neil amounts to not being properly scrutinised, particularly because there was loads of media he did do during the campaign. Let's be honest, with all the main leaders it was mostly an excuse to watch them be eviscerated for a laugh and to watch them squirm. I wanted corbyn to do the interview because it was funny and because he got destroyed but if he hadn't gone on I would have understood, it's not exactly a helpful think for a politician to do imo and maybe adversarial grilling with a presenter is more of a thing of the past. I've seen Boris and his comments be scrutinised to death, people keep bringing up the letterbox comment out of context or other quotes from decades past ffs. Dawn Butler brought it up again even this week and still is throwing around silly words like racist.

I've got us below Norwich in 20th

Corbyn believed it which was my point. Corbyn's strategy was to "win the argument" even if that cost him the election whereas Boris' strategy was to win the election. In that respect you could argue that both of them succeeded in their aims- plenty of Corbynistas had little interest in actually winning. Boris won the election and proved that his Andrew Neil snub at worst had very little impact and may have actually been beneficial to his chances.

Did you read the bit where I said he should have done the interview? I criticised him at the time for not doing it but it's undeniable that his strategy paid off.

The aim was to win the election. You may consider it cowardice but its clear that the electorate didn't care about it so from a getting elected standpoint- which was the point of the exercise- it was the right call. I mean otherwise you're in corbyn territory where you supposedly won the argument but got trounced. History will record who won the election, not who got interviewed by Andrew Neil before the election.

I am aware. The specific Disney versions did not originate in books.

But clearly he made the call that most of the electorate weren't bothered if he did the Neil interview or not. He was right wasn't he? Maybe the others were wrong to do it. It's not like he didn't do other ones. I think he should have done it by the way, I can just see why he would have some justification for not doing it.

Because he sae that Neil is pretty skilled at destroying the person opposite him and calculated- rightly as it happens- that there was no reason for him to do the jnterview as it would not improve his chances of getting elected.

World book day and all the children (and some adults) go dressed as Disney characters.

No they felt that corbyn was much worse and they were correct.

Absolutely agree with that. Even better get some people in charge of departments who have experience in the sector they are leading like they do in Germany.

How do you know that accusations of bullying have gone through the correct channels? There isn't always the opportunity to deal with things earlier, it's at least partially up to the attitude of the employee even if that's very much the intention of the employer. Every organisation worth their salt has a whistle blowing procedure and a bullying policy. We have no knowledge about bullying that Patel is directly responsible for that has subsequently been covered up. Hopefully an investigation will see if that is the case but I certainly wouldn't hang someone out to dry on the say of a few disgruntled employees with a differing version of events. We had somebody once who deliberately ignored protocols, caused a major safeguarding incident and we had no choice but to sack her. That certainly wasn't the fault of management, it was the correct and responsible thing to do under the circumstances. How do you know that Patel's behaviour has fallen below and acceptable level? You don't know that and clearly there are different interpretations. You are suggesting she should step down now because you disagree with her ideogically and we know this because you would not be doing the same if it were corbyn or others on the left being accused of similar things.

And he has been. What's your point? You can criticise Patel as much as you like but calling for her to immediately resign based on accusations alone and before any investigation has taken place is something else entirely. You weren't calling for Corbyn to step down were you based on the many accusations against him?

Of course I have abd I never said bullying was the answer but to suggest that disciplinary action is a failure of management is insane. What sort of management course taught you not to use disciplinary action when warranted? Have you never had to manage a member of staff who was fine up until the point they do something that constitutes a stackable offence? If you subsequently sack them, in what universe is that a failure of management?

Imagine thinking that disciplinary action at work means you haven't managed a situation properly. Goodness me.

Well that's just utter nonsense. Skilful management can be effective at avoiding disciplinary action but it's just not the case that having to use disciplinary action means you aren't a good manager. Sometimes disciplinary action is exactly what is required in a situation and it prevents things from escalating further because the employee tends not to take the p*ss if they know there are consequences to their actions.