I am not convinced that strike action will be effective.

I agree with you, actually.

A strict work to rule would be a far more effective measure – and one that the Sir Humphreys of this world really fear, as it is sustainable over a long period and exposes the extent to which the whole structure of public services depends on the goodwill and flexibility of those who work in them at operational level.

Unscrupulous employers take advantage of the jobs market to pay poor wages and offer poor terms and conditions. Unions exist to protect the workers from these sort of employers.

Absolutely correct.

Sadly, Government – both local and national – has, over the past decade or so, increasingly become one of “that sort of employer” itself.

You haven’t read any of the article have you?

Does he ever? :rolleyes:

The answer is perfectly simple, and I’m amazed that no-one has suggested it.

Simply move Brize Norton to where Lyneham is now, and everyone will live happily ever after.

Won’t they?

i’ve worked in both public and private

So have I, and JT442’s analysis seems reasonable and accurate to me. It certainly bears out my own experience under the last couple of governments.

You, on the other hand, are doing your usual trick of totally disregarding what other people say and spewing forth an ill-informed sub-Daily Mail soapbox rant regardless.

The whole point of a discussion is to share opinions with others, and especially with those whose opinions challenge your own.

Why not try it for yourself? You never know – you might actually learn something.

Hello everybody, by the way. 🙂

Moderator Message

If anyone has any comments to make regarding my actions as a moderator, they should make them directly to the Webmaster by email or PM in line with item 3 from the site owners’ Code of Conduct.

Back on-topic, please.

Thanks

GA

I believe you are one of those people who use semantics and what I consider are superficial arguements when you feel your intellectual superiority is somehow in question.

I see. And you think that I’m patronising…… :rolleyes:

I note that you have carefully avoided actually answering the points I raised, preferring instead to indulge in ad hominen attacks. A classic diversionary tactic.

Speaking of which, you’ll find that your rather lengthy personal diatribe against me has mysteriously vanished.

Personal attacks on other members are not tolerated here, and moderators enjoy the same protection in that respect as any other member.

Please refrain from them in future.

Ominous signs?

There’s a mention at the end of this article that his health is starting to deteriorate.

I’d call that fairly ominous. How about you?

…..but with this guys ‘get-up-and-go’ we’ll probably be buying our next gadget from his company in a few years!

Unless his remaining kidney packs in. (Apparently there are already ominous signs in that respect.)

In which case, we won’t.

Making technical philosophical points about what ‘Theory’ is or what the acronym UFO stands for doesn’t impress me much.

What makes you think that anyone was trying impress you?

Help you to become better-informed, perhaps, but impress you?

I think not.

Science should be about investigating that which we don’t know about and that which is a mystery..

This^^^ is what science does.

….not about maintaining the status quo of a set of beliefs.

And this^^^ is what religion does.

How interesting that you conflate the two in this way.