Minty

... the outcome being that you still think Guly is crap...?!

Which way though?

Gotta love the use of 'sandal wearer' as some kind of derogatory term... what exactly do people think they mean when using it? IMO, a bit like any name calling, it only seems to reflect on those who try to use such terms. What happened to good old fashioned debate?

ELT clearly doesn't mean that, and it's a bit silly to suggest it IMO. There is no benefit in helping someone if there is an equally detrimental effect to someone else. However, measured steps can (and should, IMO) be taken to gradually reduce the gap between those who 'have' and those who do not in whatever country they come from. We are generally very fortunate and it would actually only need a small amount of assistance from our country to assist those with far greater medical/educational needs than ourselves, but what comes across from so many is that they are more concerned about maintaining and increasing their own personal wealth and that of our country, than being able to reasonably help those less fortunate. And I'm not talking about on an individual basis here, but by supporting measures that the country as a whole could take collectively, or indeed any group of people who 'have', to help those who do not. Ultimately, it all comes down to personal ethics, and I'm with ELT... wealth (not just financial either) should be shared as reasonably as possible, for the benefit of everyone, especially where it simply helps people to achieve and maintain basic human needs.

I've said it for several years now, his role is becoming very similar to that which Teddy Sheringham had - intelligent link play, good touch, able to read the game, perfect weight of pass, and of course good finisher too. In the right team, with the right players around him, he has got a good few years left in the top flight IMO.

And if you read this, then it clearly is: http://www.doncasterroversfc.co.uk/news/article/rovers-sign-louis-for-bluebell-wood-960041.aspx

It is of course entirely Sports Directs choice, but I would personally question the wisdom of basing my companies success on such a workforce. Frankly it doesn't matter what my companies do, I would want the majority of the workforce to be engaged with the company, to feel valued and fairly rewarded, and my brand will gain the benefit of those staff also being my ambassadors.

Actually I think it's mainly for charity, which is absolutely fine.

Yeah but revenue to Pompey is like crack to an addict... they want it, need it, can't do without it, but no sooner do they get some, it's gone. And it ****s them up.

I'd say about 70/30... there clearly have been some the other way. Before I get all uppity about the umpires though, I wouldn't mind knowing the exact rules under these circumstances. As I understand it, if the on-field umpire gives it out, the third umpire must find clear evidence of a wrong decision, is that right? And if there is any doubt, the on-field decision is upheld. So it then becomes a question of what constitutes 'clear evidence' and what might give rise to any doubt? It clearly looks like a terrible decision, but as always with these things, sometimes the devil is in the detail and I wonder what the exact ICC rules state, and if, as is often the case, they put umpires into difficult situations?

S'funny - there are some decent skills in that video, which we saw virtually nothing of here.

6th, but to lose in the play-offs.

Is now a good time to say I thought his goal against Reading was more hit-and-hope, than power and placement?! I half expected it to fly over the bar. Just me? Ok. Anyway, thanks Steve and good luck. Just never had the composure and ability to make it beyond the Championship.

Why are you going so overboard with this pointless angle now? Have some conviction, give your opinion, back it up, and stick to it. If you think we'll finish 17th again this season, say so... I'm happy to consider anyone's prediction if they back it up with a clear reasoning, but he hasn't done so, and given the clear consensus (amongst NON Saints fans) it clearly sticks out as a strange one, hence I'll be interested to read his blog (if he ever updates it) to see why he thinks that way.

190/3 off our 20 overs - i thought we should win comfortably. Denly with some big hitting (67 off 44) meant they made it a bit closer than it probably should've been at the end (55 struck off overs 16 to 19!), but a victory by 8 runs in the end. Well done Hampshire.

At the risk of repeating myself, I think everything acknowledges that there are times and places where it is (more) appropriate - the issue is with 20,000 employees at Sports Direct being on them, or all of Cineworld part-time employees, for example...

Let's hope so, would love to see Beatts and co beat them and recreate his cupped-ear celebration in front of their fans... wishful thinking perhaps, but how funny would that be?

Demand may account for a small % of workforce flexibility, but not the majority... that was the point that was made earlier. This wouldn't be the issue it is if it were only a small % of a workforce, but in some places it is a large proportion. 20,000 at Sports Direct, 'all of Cineworlds part-time employees'... those are the major issues. I'm not quite sure how the Fire Service are a relevant example either, but happy to hear more as to why you think so...?

I never actually knew that - quite interesting.

Those needn't be the choices. Decent companies know that staff productivity increases in line with staff engagement and morale. Rather than looking at the short term bottom-line, companies should be planning more long term and creating jobs accordingly - it will usually actually be financially better for them to do so, but requires a bit of long term thinking, which many aren't capable of. It's a bit like austerity measures... short-term cost cutting is actually worse in the long term too IMO.

Yeah, but you can be a voice of reason without being dour and pedantic - I'd like to think I was never that bad!

Clearly I didn't mean all of them, but I do believe *some* of them do indeed come because - and you could say it's an extension of the 'tolerance' that you yourself mention - of the way we tolerate those who seem to only want to exist on the basis of entitlement. I have met and worked with some really great people who have come to the UK from other countries. In my personal experience, many of them have been far harder working than some of my British colleagues. But my point was that whatever the culture, there will always be those who try to get something for nothing - and our country makes that easier than many others.

Has he signed yet? *sigh*

... which is a founding principle of any messageboard...

Fair enough - but I think we are still talking about significantly different situations... these contracts are being used by and large for unskilled, casual labour, and the employer tends to not care much about who that person is, just that they can do a simple, unskilled job. Your clients want to use you, hence have entered into a contract with you, because they value your work, your portfolio and probably other specific architecture-type stuff! With many zero hours contracts, especially those highlighted where a large % of the workforce are on them, as opposed to just a few people, I believe companies are effectively exploiting people who want work, need work, and feel that any contract, even a zero hours one, is 'better than nothing' in the search for meaningful employment. Others are right - there are times and places where a mutually agreed zero hours contract is fine and fits both the employee and the employer, but there are other situations where they are being used for more selfish corporate reasons IMO.