Wes Tender

:smt036

Personally, I prefer Cha Am next door, which the Thais prefer too. Hua Hin is more commercialised, but each to their own. If you can, hire a car and explore the coast to the South of Hua Hin, which is really beautiful and unspoilt. Mile after mile of beautiful gplden sand and clearer water, some national parks, lovely resorts, etc.

Ah, but you're not French, I presume, so you can see where the analogy breaks down, eh? Furthermore, you said partner, not wife. There is a difference when you're married, as the wife shrugs her shoulders (the gallic, or is that garlic shrug) as she has captured her man and reasons that although her guy has strayed, he is her guy and the floosie only has him on loan.

So here is anecdotal evidence that a creditor of the football club did receive payment from Markus Liebherr after he had bought the club. I sincerely hope that there weren't many more, or it might start to fuel an urban myth.

As the details of the sale are subject to confidentiality, then there is no evidence either way as to whether the unsecured creditors were paid or not. I must confess that I had the impression that those unsecured creditors, local suppliers of goods and services to the club were paid. I don't know what gave me that impression, but perhaps somebody who posts on here who falls into that category can confirm whether their company was paid after the takeover.

Chiang Mai's a fabulous place, but I like the smaller Chiang Rai too. CL, did you go further up the hill from the temple to see the Karan Hill tribe village? Also good excursions to Thailand's highest mountain, Doi Inthanon and Bamboo rafting is a great experience too, as well as the Elephant trekking. Johnnyboy. A little mixed up there. A Gik is the toyboy/gigalo that wealthy Thai women have (see, it works both ways). What you are talking about is the Mia Noi, or minor wife that is the bit on the side for the men. Much as the French guys have a bit of skirt that the French wives tolerate.

Thai festival in Southampton this year is 4th July. http://www.visit-southampton.co.uk/site/southampton-events/thai-festival-p587371

Glad you loved your trip to Thailand, CL. Although you were there when the troubles spilled over in Bangkok, you will undoubtedly agree that in ChiangMai or Koh Samet or anywhere else a bit off the beaten track, you would have been hard pressed to know that there was anything untoward going on out there. I liken it to the Yanks being afraid to come here during the time of the Brixton riots, when they would have been totally unaffected in the Cotswolds, Cornwall, the Lake District, etc. So although the FO advice was not to go there, in fact I personally would deem it a great time to go for many reasons, some of which you probably encountered without realising it. Yes, the people are very friendly. But perhaps they were very pleased to see a farang tourist when tourist numbers will have been devastated by the troubles there. You will have found that the hotels were not full and you could haggle for very good deals. In any event, your experiences seem to have captivated you to the country, much as I would expect them to have done and I assure you that it becomes a drug, so that you cannot wait to get back there. There is so much to see and perhaps your next trip could include some of the following:- Koh Samui, Krabbi, Koh Chang, Chiang Rai, Phuket as some of the better known places, or there are plenty of lesser known places to explore when you want a bit more variety. Do I take it that you a single bloke? Head turned by the gracious and lovely ladies? Well, you could do a lot worse than returning there for your bride in one year's time. Would this be Faa by any chance? And if you get withdrawal symptons, there are Thai festivals every year here in Southampton, Southsea, Salisbury, Bournemouth, Godalming, etc. usually around about July/August.

These are not facts. They might be figures, because that is what statistics are. The statistics show that pupils achieve more passes at certain levels of these exams called GCSEs and A levels. Whether it is a fact that educational standards have improved since I was sitting the O levels of the 60s is not proven by your statistics, so there is nothing factual to debate. What I pointed out, which you have not chosen to respond to, is the simple irrefutable fact that employers will make up their own minds as to whether their job applicants are as clever as those from earlier times. As that is really the only true gauge that matters for a person's future career path, it is largely irrelevant whether the statistics show an improvement unless the employers believe it to be true. If as you say, the real measure of success is the number of passes at grades A* to C, then a C grade is the equivalent to an O level grade 6. That was the lowest pass grade for O levels and there was none of this nonsense of saying that there was a 98.6% pass rate at O levels, as the percentage that managed to get 5 grade 6 O Levels or above was very much lower than it is for GCSEs, probably at just 30% or so. Here is an excellent article which argues the toss over all of this ground, but which does acknlowlegde that standards have probably fallen. http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/the-healthy-upside-to-falling-standards-gcse-and-alevel-exams-probably-are-less-tough-to-pass-than-in-the-old-days-but-that-is-no-bad-thing-argues-judith-judd-1378723.html That was written back in 1994, but I would suggest that the general thrust of it still applies, but even more so, as pass rates increase their climb each year. And I still stand by my assertion that 11 year old pupils in this day and age would have less chance of passing the 11+ in greater numbers than they did in the 50s/60s.

Ah! The modular part of the curriculum. The part that allows the parents to do the child's homework for them, eh? The written exam is the sure-fired way of assessing what has actually sunk into the grey matter during the terms' teaching. Failure to pass the exams could point to somebody's poor memory retention (not good for future employment) or that they did not do the projects unaided. And surely the best way to apply practical experience to situations as they arise is through having a retentive memory and remembering what worked before.

The Government have a vested interest in giving the impression that educational standards are rising. Naturally teachers would like to believe that they are too. Ultimately though, the judgement that matters most is the employment market which makes its own assessment. Many employers do not consider that improvements have been made, so some have their own entrance exams. I hear much anecdotal evidence from clients of mine that many of their applicants show poor levels of numeracy and literacy, regardless of them having numerous passes at GCSE and A levels at supposedly good grades.

I'm glad that we have some common ground on these things. But IMO we are talking about matters that make a great deal of common sense and which therefore should be embraced by all of the political parties. The hospital matrons ran their wards efficiently and made it unecessary to employ "suits" to manage a lot of the administrative affairs. I've just boned up on the 2000 matrons that have been re-introduced due to public demand and apparently they have the responsibility to ensure that their wards are properly cleaned and have the authority to withhold payment if the work is deemed to be unsatisfactory. Their reintroduction surely means that bureaucracy can be cut elsewhere to compensate and like you, I do not see the need for Area Health Authorities, or indeed Area Educational Authorities for that matter. As with the Matrons, the Head Teachers are given more powers to run their schools, taking on extra executive responsibilities. We agree that the degrees are devalued because so many can attain them. The same applies with the GCSEs and A levels. Ultimately, although it might make the government of the day look good that apparently educational standards have improved during their term, in reality, it is the employers who make the real judgement. What is the point of having a pass rate in GCSE of of 98.6%? Presumably the 1.4% who failed, did not write their own names correctly on the top of the paper. I am concerned that too many pupils are encouraged by the ease of passing these exams into believing that they are really bright and then the disappointment when they learn that their achievements are not really that impressive is all the greater. When I was young (and dinosaurs roamed the Earth) the gold standard was 5 O levels and two A levels. With decent grades, that would have been sufficient to have gained a place at a fairly decent university. Now twice that number of GCSEs and A levels is required and the number of universities has mushroomed as the old Polytechnics are upgraded. The whole thing has been devalued. It is quite an eye-opener to find an 11 plus paper from the 50s and see how even the 16 year olds would fare now.

Fair enough to make a case that the private cleaning companies services have to be monitored. But are you saying that the public sector cleaning service did not? Of course it did and surely that requires the same sort of resources to monitor. But I suspect that the ward staff, the nurses, sisters, matrons, etc, are perfectly capable of assessing whether the cleaners are doing a decent job, in much the same way as an office worker can see whether the office has been cleaned properly. IMO, the contracted cleaning company ought to make a periodic examination of their employees' work to ensure that it is up to standard, as otherwise they might lose the contract if standards fall.

And looking at a contrasting scenario regarding Nurses is enlightening. As employees directly of the NHS, they are often overworked and underpaid. Historically, Governments have relied on their sense of vocation to get away with this. But where there are acute shortages of nurses, agency Nurses are brought in, whose pay levels are higher and whose working hours are more flexible. And so there is an incentive for Nurses to leave NHS employment and to sign on as agency nurses, determining for themselves the hours that they are prepared to work, but surely costing the NHS more than if it had paid their own Nurses a decent wage for shorter hours. I hope that you do indeed gain your university degree and consequently get a better and more secure job. I had paid my taxes from the age of 16, so resented the introduction of tuition fees when my children went to university. At the level of debt that is incurred nowadays, it is a disincentive to go to university if one is to be paying off the debt for several years afterwards. It is incredibly short-sighted of the Labour Government anyway, as it did not take account of the fact that with a decent degree, better jobs would be possible to those with degrees and therefore better pay, therefore higher taxation which would pay for the Country's investment in the university education. Instead, we have a situation whereby it is too easy for people to get into university, too many coming away with degrees in subjects that are considered irrelevant to employers, who also consider the degrees to be devalued currency anyway when there are long lines of applicants with these degrees. The post-graduate students then find that not only is the degree considered to have less value than they hoped, but that they will be paying for it for several years to come.

It is indeed a reasonable assumption to make that because we have computers everywhere, there will be less need of paper and therefore paperclips. But this would be a mistaken assumption as paradoxically, there is more paper than ever before, probably because some of us dinosaurs then go and print out the emails and other stuff. But I would advise against applying for a job as a bureaucrat at the moment, as some of the species are due to be culled.

The inference you make is that people who are out of work or who are old, are completely helpless to have done anything to change their position. Whereas there are many for whom that might hold true, conversely there are many who are out of work because they lack skills that employers want or need. If they bunked off school, gained no qualifications and are only capable of doing manual work, then to an extent they are to blame for their own personal circumstances and should accept that competition for work is greater to those who are less qualified, especially against those coming in from Eastern Europe. For the elderly, then again, many could or should have made some provision towards their old age in the form of pensions and savings. Granted that high inflation caused by poor government has often eroded the value of those savings and there is no incentive anyway when the government would attempt to force the elderly to sell their homes to pay for care. The sick or disabled are entirely another matter and a caring government should make provision to help them towards having some comfort and dignity.

The principles of the private sector are sound, that competitive tendering reduces costs and increases competition. But the principle needs to be taken to its natural conclusion; that if a company employed to provide a service does not come up to scratch, then the contract with them should be terminated and put out to tender again. In the case of hospital cleaning, it probably falls down because the bureaucracy is too far removed from the actual wards. We miss having Matrons, who knew what was going on and would have ensured that the wards were properly cleaned. If savings need to be made in the Health Service then IMO you could remove the Area Health Authorities that I believe were introduced by Heath and plough the savings made into employing more doctors and nurses and reinstating Matrons, instead of pen-pushers and paperclip shufflers.

And furthermore, a midwife at Princess Anne's confirmed to me that they have to pay to park there, which in my opinion is a scandal.

Would love to see Labour lurch back towards the left...

Very sensible. The number of students leaving University with poor degrees in feeble subjects like Media Studies just means that employers see degrees as being devalued. I sometimes wonder whether it wouldn't be better for some to leave after their A Levels and gain three years of work experience and seniority with a company rather than find that they have a piece of paper saying that they received an education to a certain standard, but are otherwise an unknown quantity in the employment field.

You really do talk rubbish. If the original idea was to give kids from poor backgrounds a start and something to build on, why wasn't it directed towards them instead of being spread around willy-nilly to all and sundry, regardless of income? And I think that if you had looked up bribery yourself, you would have seen how to spell it. I think that Duckhunter is perfectly reasonable in expressing his opinion that it is a form of bribery by Labour. Unfortunately though, it didn't work.

Positive Pete: So the new owners had supposedly done Due Diligence and yet at the time of the Club being in Court subject to the winding-up order, a statement of affairs was produced by a reputable firm of accountants. A short time afterwards, in administration, the debt miraculously doubles. So from that list, the directors of Pompey had patently been in breach of many of those legal responsibilities. I cannot see how either the courts can allow the debt position to be so different from the statement of accounts, or how the directors can be allowed to escape prosecution for either trading while insolvent or gross incompetence if they deny knowledge of the real debt situation.

If you were a top rate taxpayer over here, none of those rates is as high as our 50%. And if you wish to expand it to include insurance towards health costs, then we have to pay towards that through the NI contribution. Also we have to pay for local Council services through Council tax, so that if one considers those additional costs from other countries, they also need to be brought into the equation here too in the interests of balance. But the figures provided by AndyNorthernSaints illustrate all too clearly that Labour's high tax regime is a disincentive for people with skills to stay here as wealth creators and entrepreneurs.

People fleeing Labour's high tax regime. You produce an argument against yourself. And you didn't say whether Labour like people coming in from abroad. Or is their position the same as that held by the Conservatives, rendering your assertion that the Conservatives dislike people from abroad as pure cant.

Could you be perhaps less vague as to what your point is? Presumably you are referring to the public sector workers who might be made redundant in the event of cuts in public services. But I fail to see how you make the connection with the skilled workers shortage. If those public sector workers have skills which are in demand, then it seems likely that they will be able to find employment in the private sector, or they will retrain. And just to put the opposite spin on your assertion that the Tories dislike more people coming in from other countries, does it conversely follow that the other parties really like having people coming in from other countries? Labour introduced Immigration controls which restrict the inflow to those deemed to be needed by the country for their skills through a points system. Do Labour only dislike those coming in from other countries without skills? I do not see that the policy objectives of the other parties varies much from that position. Whilst you're answering that one, perhaps you'll also answer the question I asked you earlier; do you hold the government partly to blame alongside the bankers for the financial crisis that renders these cuts necessary?