C H
Where I live the local growers used to employ a good number of full time workers, last figures I’ve seen gave a figure of 3,000+ with a large number of seasonal and part time workers, go round these local growers now and finding someone with English as a first language is a novelty, many of of these growers look like 4th rate caravan sites housing agency workers, or low cost housing is bought up then filled with immigrant workers, in many cases the growers have simply handed the job of finding staff to agencies and gangmasters and employ very few people direct.

This keeps local wages low, abuses ALL workers and denies even the opportunity for locals to get jobs in the farming/horticultural industry.

Did read one breath of reality from a farmer who was struggling to find full time workers with experience, because as he put it, in the past we have always found people with the ability to learn and progress from our own staff, that simply doesn’t happen now and we (farmers) are to blame, we must employ more local workers to fill full time positions.

The problem there is how many actually believe that the pay rise is tax neutral, I for one do not, plus of course many MPs believe that they are entitled to a rise and would gladly accept it, only the furore is creating hesitation, the point being they obviously see it as a benefit, not as a rise to be paid for by losing elsewhere.

The real problem is this is not just about salaries, but the whole system which needs a total overall.

Certainly compared with many other occupations MPs are not overpaid, whether they are worth it or not is another matter, but how many jobs are out there were it appears that most of normal living costs become expenses and claimable?, how many are in a position were they can hire members of their own family at hefty salaries and the taxpayer picks up the bill? how many because of their position gain consultancy or director positions where ability has little bearing?

With MP’s renumeration I feel the situation is one were salary OK, but the perks brilliant, the revision claims to be a balancing between pay and perks, I for one have little faith in the real outcome.

MPs would be well advised to realise that they are not the best regarded group in the country, preaching austerity and cuts while taking hefty pay rises will not improve their standing.

OK, a so called independant body thinks MPs should get a pay rise, but what do the employers think, hows about adopting the same attitude as so many employers do, yes you can have your pay rise, but the number of MPs must fall to keep within budget, or alternatively the bill for expenses and pensions must be cut again to fall within budget.

Any cut in numbers will not be an orchestrated boundary reshuffle which favours one party or another, but will require axing equally from all parties pro rata to current MPs,individual parties must then make arrangements to cover any area which loses it’s MP, will cause some problems sure, but certainly no more than the present government has achieved by simply axing public service jobs according to financial criteria with no concern for actual need.

Or they can have a pay rise on zero hour contracts, some would actually owe us money.

Come on, somebody has to pay for the services of our “financial experts” and not forgetting the “hard working industrious politicians” who are in dire need of a hefty rise in salary.

You’re right my friend no-one gives a rat’s for working people, there to be used and discarded as required.

This just about sums up all we need to know about how the EU is governed:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10460389/EU-moves-to-end-travelling-circus-but-French-veto-looms.html

This ridiculous situation crops up fairly regularly, big shouting match, France says “non” and everybody bimbles off their sweet way continuing the farce, nothing actually happens.

The latest child killed by a dog is now looking more complicated, evidently the dog is a rehomed dog, initially declared as not suitable for a family with small children, however (according to accounts) it would appear that the rehoming centre staff assured the mum that the dog was no danger to her child and in fact they felt that the dog would be safe with babies but the prefer to err on the side of caution.

The present owner had only had the dog for about 3 months and had not seen any behaviour to alarm up to then.

Even contracts can be worth less than the paper they are written on, friend working on a contract with what appeared to be a growing prosperous company, stage payments met on time no apparent problems, some extra jobs added in to the contract, job finished, last and largest payment not forthcoming as the company goes into administration and subsequent bankruptcy, surprise, surprise when the dust settled the company was bought up by a family member and no debts from the previous company got paid.

As far as what made me angry today, was reading about yet another child killed by a big dog, I know the family had no indication that this dog could act in this way, but why, why why do people feel the need to bring any huge dog into their home?.

Every dog has the potential to attack, the bigger the dog the more likelihood of serious injury or as in this case death.