trekbusterJames May says he may become a teacher…
He is actually very good at getting complex concepts across in a very accessible way, but can he do so in front of 30 excited kids day in day out?
or could the comment be a bit tongue in cheek :rolleyes:
trekbusterJames May says he may become a teacher…
He is actually very good at getting complex concepts across in a very accessible way, but can he do so in front of 30 excited kids day in day out?
or could the comment be a bit tongue in cheek :rolleyes:
trekbusterIs this the same British Social Attitudes survey that showed that 17% of UKIP supporters don’t believe in Britain leaving the EU?
The same survey shows that for the first time fewer than half the UK population believe in reintroducing the death penalty, down from 74% in 1986.
It is not as good a result (from my perspective) as it at first appears, as people who actively support the death penalty still outnumber those who actively oppose it, once those who say they aren’t sure are taken into account. Still, the fall in support is accelerating which is a good thing (from my perspective).
trekbusterIs this the same British Social Attitudes survey that showed that 17% of UKIP supporters don’t believe in Britain leaving the EU?
The same survey shows that for the first time fewer than half the UK population believe in reintroducing the death penalty, down from 74% in 1986.
It is not as good a result (from my perspective) as it at first appears, as people who actively support the death penalty still outnumber those who actively oppose it, once those who say they aren’t sure are taken into account. Still, the fall in support is accelerating which is a good thing (from my perspective).
trekbusterThere is nothing like a failed stitch up to end a parliamentary session. I bet Gove is feeling a bit deflated at the moment. My heart bleeds for him, Hague and Cameron. Not.
It is sad that this has meant that there is now not enough time for long serving (and shorter serving) MP’s to all give leaving speeches. Shame my MP isn’t thinking of standing down.
trekbusterThere is nothing like a failed stitch up to end a parliamentary session. I bet Gove is feeling a bit deflated at the moment. My heart bleeds for him, Hague and Cameron. Not.
It is sad that this has meant that there is now not enough time for long serving (and shorter serving) MP’s to all give leaving speeches. Shame my MP isn’t thinking of standing down.
trekbusterActually I would agree entirely that it was all drawn out too long, but I assume they had to go through the correct proceedures rather than terminate his contract straight away even though there was so little time left on it or people would complain of an unfair process. Damned if they did…..
I am not aware that JC has suggested that it did not happen, so I am assuming the stories are true until there is any contradiction on his part. Didn’t he report the incident himself? I guess, like James May alluded to today, they all assumed/hoped it would be considered a minor incident which in itself is quite revealing.
I have just seen that James May’s agent has ‘clarified’ his client’s position regarding the ‘tragedy’ comment.
trekbusterActually I would agree entirely that it was all drawn out too long, but I assume they had to go through the correct proceedures rather than terminate his contract straight away even though there was so little time left on it or people would complain of an unfair process. Damned if they did…..
I am not aware that JC has suggested that it did not happen, so I am assuming the stories are true until there is any contradiction on his part. Didn’t he report the incident himself? I guess, like James May alluded to today, they all assumed/hoped it would be considered a minor incident which in itself is quite revealing.
I have just seen that James May’s agent has ‘clarified’ his client’s position regarding the ‘tragedy’ comment.
trekbusterNo friend , the only person to blame is Clarkson himself. As a number of employment lawyers have posted (in the DT) to have done anything other than that which the BBC have done would be leaving the them at risk of employment tribunals.
Glenn Hayes an employment partner at national law firm Irwin Mitchell, said: “The BBC did not really have a choice. The suggestion that Jeremy Clarkson allegedly looked to punch one of his producers is very serious and in the workplace would usually be deemed gross misconduct and following a fair disciplinary hearing, would usually result in immediate dismissal without notice.
“Although the BBC had a petition with hundreds of thousands of signatures on it to have him ‘re-instated’ prior to his contract not being renewed, the corporation could have made a ‘rod for its own back’ if they put their demands first. This would mean that it could have left itself open to unfair dismissal claims from other staff in the future if they were dismissed in similar circumstances, or for other perceived gross misconduct offences, and Clarkson was not.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11480416/Jeremy-Clarkson-to-be-sacked-by-BBC-live.html
people elsewhere are suggesting that he will walk into another job. I am not convinced that it will be so straightforward to get another job in the light of the alleged assault, especially if the North Yorks police decide to take the matter further. To be honest I would hope so, but in these days of ‘celebrity culture’ unfortunately I may be proved wrong.
I quite liked a lot of his work, on top form TG was great, for goodness sake even my mother liked watching their specials, but no one should act in this way to others in the workplace (or out if it TBH)
There is a material difference between a playground spat behind the bike sheds and alleged common assault with a 30 minute tirade by a person in a perceived position of power over an employee of the same corporation for whom you are working.
trekbusterNo friend , the only person to blame is Clarkson himself. As a number of employment lawyers have posted (in the DT) to have done anything other than that which the BBC have done would be leaving the them at risk of employment tribunals.
Glenn Hayes an employment partner at national law firm Irwin Mitchell, said: “The BBC did not really have a choice. The suggestion that Jeremy Clarkson allegedly looked to punch one of his producers is very serious and in the workplace would usually be deemed gross misconduct and following a fair disciplinary hearing, would usually result in immediate dismissal without notice.
“Although the BBC had a petition with hundreds of thousands of signatures on it to have him ‘re-instated’ prior to his contract not being renewed, the corporation could have made a ‘rod for its own back’ if they put their demands first. This would mean that it could have left itself open to unfair dismissal claims from other staff in the future if they were dismissed in similar circumstances, or for other perceived gross misconduct offences, and Clarkson was not.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11480416/Jeremy-Clarkson-to-be-sacked-by-BBC-live.html
people elsewhere are suggesting that he will walk into another job. I am not convinced that it will be so straightforward to get another job in the light of the alleged assault, especially if the North Yorks police decide to take the matter further. To be honest I would hope so, but in these days of ‘celebrity culture’ unfortunately I may be proved wrong.
I quite liked a lot of his work, on top form TG was great, for goodness sake even my mother liked watching their specials, but no one should act in this way to others in the workplace (or out if it TBH)
There is a material difference between a playground spat behind the bike sheds and alleged common assault with a 30 minute tirade by a person in a perceived position of power over an employee of the same corporation for whom you are working.
trekbusterI can see you are not a fan of the SWP and nor am I having read up a bit more about them, but of course for me this is not from direct evidence you have – how have you come across them in the past?
Suggesting a ban simply because they are socialists would be against the democratic principles on which our country is based. Who else should be banned? Britain First? BNP? Monster Raving Loony Party? UKIP? All have political aims, mostly repellent to me, some mildly amusing, some laughably incoherent from my perspective but I wouldn’t advocate bans just because I didn’t much care for them. With any luck they will just fade away as the BNP seems to be at the moment thanks to UKIP, much like the Communist Party Of Great Britain did in the 90’s. No one banned them, even at the height of the cold war.
trekbusterI can see you are not a fan of the SWP and nor am I having read up a bit more about them, but of course for me this is not from direct evidence you have – how have you come across them in the past?
Suggesting a ban simply because they are socialists would be against the democratic principles on which our country is based. Who else should be banned? Britain First? BNP? Monster Raving Loony Party? UKIP? All have political aims, mostly repellent to me, some mildly amusing, some laughably incoherent from my perspective but I wouldn’t advocate bans just because I didn’t much care for them. With any luck they will just fade away as the BNP seems to be at the moment thanks to UKIP, much like the Communist Party Of Great Britain did in the 90’s. No one banned them, even at the height of the cold war.
trekbusterThat seems a bit odd to say the least. If one uses scare tactics to obtain support you’re likely to be disappointed – aren’t you ?.
I entirely agree. They approached her for support, she said she didn’t agree with their policies and tried to move on, and then was harangued. Not the brightest thing to do, but then…….
I have never had any contact with the SWP nor has anyone I know so I couldn’t comment about intimidation on a personal level, although a quick google suggests they seem to be imploding due to accusations of sexual harassment and rape which one could never condone.
Are you suggesting they should be bannned from personal experience of their tactics, what you have read about them in papers or because they are socialists?
trekbusterThat seems a bit odd to say the least. If one uses scare tactics to obtain support you’re likely to be disappointed – aren’t you ?.
I entirely agree. They approached her for support, she said she didn’t agree with their policies and tried to move on, and then was harangued. Not the brightest thing to do, but then…….
I have never had any contact with the SWP nor has anyone I know so I couldn’t comment about intimidation on a personal level, although a quick google suggests they seem to be imploding due to accusations of sexual harassment and rape which one could never condone.
Are you suggesting they should be bannned from personal experience of their tactics, what you have read about them in papers or because they are socialists?
trekbusterHmmm, shows the “activists” up in a good light….
I would not condone any such behavior under any circumstances.
But it is not just anti-UKIP people who can threaten and intimidate. The following is of course second hand ( but from a reliable source!) and perhaps an isolated incident. However….
My parents live in the Eastleigh constituency. When they had the byelection in 2013, my 80 year old mother was accosted on the street by UKIP supporters ‘asking’ for her support. When she replied that she wasn’t interested the vitriol that came her way was appalling. Her comments were to the effect that they were out of area thugs, little more. She also assumed they were desperate to get a win at a byelection as the result was so close in the polls they were willing to go ‘that extra mile’ to get votes.
This is one reason ( but not the only one ) why I will never support them.
Prospective UKIP councillors have also tried scaremongering tactics in the past, but not with the threat of physical violence.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11342000/Disagree-with-Ukip-Get-ready-for-some-angry-mail.html
Sign In
