Verbal

Oh good. You mentioned heart surgeon. I thought for a minute I was going to be left out of all the people you admire. And what do you mean you can't comment on hacking? Not even that the Dowler incident was wrong?

You know this how? Voicemail?

Do you mean moron? Because you can grade these things you know. Moron was a term invented to slip in between idiot and imbecile by eugenicists in the US, who were interested in racial categories based on IQ. So I'm not going to answer it until all the spelling (better this time) and the racial-supremacist undertones have been removed, along with any suggestion that you've been tainted by Murdoch dosh.

The argument is clearly implied. Sorry, I forgot. You need things spelled out in big letters.

You equate racist abuse (alleged) with spitting. Brilliant.

Not a political issue: a criminal one. How many other laws do you consider you're entitled to break?

You're sleeping with the Dalai Lama?

I'll just wait while you to consult your dictionary, so that it might be third time lucky. I thought you were going for Delia Lama.

It was a spelling mistake? I had no idea. If so, an 'a' wouldn't fix it.

The what? A hummus-selling Peruvian sheep?

What's actually funny is all the swivel-eyed shiny-uniform admirers on here claiming Clarkson's been so damned hilarious, then foaming at the mouth in true 'outraged of Tunbridge Wells' fashion when someone calls the cops on him. Calling the police sounds like a perfect joke-response. I'm sure he'll see the funny side of community service.

This is BRILLIANT! I can't imagine a single idea that would hand trade unions such colossal power. As newly created pension funds, under the Duckhunter Plan, they would have a sway over government policy at the highest level, using their investment power to wreak havoc on anything they didn't like. The revolution starts here - thanks Ducky!

You're being disingenuous trousers. You were certainly not asking 'basic facts' of the headteacher; you were asking highly detailed ones to which he/she could not possibly know the answers without asking some pretty intimidating, and quite possibly illegal questions of staff. You were asking for specific figures on the following: a) the percentage of school staff that voted in the strike ballot - The Head would not be entitled to ask individual staff to find out b) the percentage of school staff that voted to strike (including those who didn't vote in the ballot) The Head would not be entitled to ask individual staff to find out c) the percentage of school staff who, in light of the strike vote, have decided to go on strike on Wednesday (including those who originally voted against strike action and those that didn't vote) Same as above - in spades, when you consider the actual implications of what you place in brackets! d) how many staff you are short of in order to provide a "safe site" The Head was clearly making a 'best guess' based on the sentiment in the school; this was his/her call and you are not entitled to second-guess, because you have no legal responsibility for playing God in this way. You may not have intended it, but your questions would have appeared to the Head as intimidating and not a little sinister. I think you spend too much time on here - it can be corrosive.

It's because I'm busy. Unlike you. So how did you get someone to pay you a salary, given that you do no work?

You've now gone through THREE avatars in the last five minutes. Assuming, as you claim, that you earn a salary, who the hell is paying your wages? And do they know you do sweet FA?

I didn't read them as legitimate questions. Taken for what they were - and not knowing the mild if confused manner of trousers - they could be seen as fishing for information that could be used to intimidate or make political capital out of at the expense of the school.

Not really. Those who vote for a strike do not equal those who go on strike. Many union members adopt the understandable principle of collective responsibility, whichever way they voted.

Well one answer might be that trousers looks like he's angling for ammunition. In which case he should follow the proper channels: make a FOI request. But it should be made to the appropriate body, which isn't necessarily the school. The Head is not necessarily the person in the know. The union conducts the ballot nationally, and it's not permissible for the Head to demand information on who among the staff personally did and who didn't vote for the strike in his or her school alone. That route lies the potential for intimidation.

So the current balance is: dune owes you three questions and me two answers. I think we're both going to be left bitterly disappointed.

I'm sorry to hear that VW. So interlinked are the private and public sectors (contrary to some dinosaurs on here) that the severity of the cuts will inevitably destroy jobs - and a few people's lives. So yes, there are large issues, aside from pensions. However, the pensions battle is part of a wider struggle that's gone on since the capitalistic year dot. Reasonable terms and conditions of employment, where they exist, are usually there because someone has fought for them, not because some altruistic magnate has thought 'ooh, I have way too much money, I'll distribute it among the people who created the wealth in the first place.' The pensions fight is just one more skirmish in that tradition.

Turkish isn't much of an expert on what he said five minutes ago, so I doubt you should take that as gospel. But let's talk about you. Striking or shirking?

Not me guv'nor - although I did recommend that someone on here see one. You know how helpful I try to be.

I've been charitable and left your medication out of it. But I'm curious - are you on strike? Because you seem to have an awful lot of free time today. Or are you - again - secretly wasting your employer's time and money?

So why do you want to know?

Ah, so this thread has followed its inevitable course, now that it turns out to be about you.