Forum menu
Its a very good question however they don't elect themselvesto that position, they are voted in and retained there when they deliver the results. When they don't they are booted out. If anyone could do it, the wages would be a lot lower.
do you really believe that? its a small group of people that vote for each other - and there clearly is no link to results otherwise we would not see massive increases in remuneration while profits fall.
do you really believe that?
Yes, that is what happens. Unlike in the Public Sector where if you are crap at your job you just get promoted into some middle management position to keep you out of the way!! 😉
do you think a million a week is ever fair recompense?
Average pay for a FTSE 100 boss is £5m or £100k a week - a 10th of what you are quoting and about the same as John Terry!
these nhs pension reforms are the start of preparing the nhs for privatisation, as myself and many of my colleagues think
Yup - they are definitely softening up the workforce. It's why the likes of Circle are playing a long game...
The NHS isn't perfect by any means - but it is certainly being taken for granted. As for working-in-harness till you fall (permanently) sick, I'm not sure the incumbent political class have the [i]slightest[/i] understanding of the graft, skills and aptitude required to work - day in, day out - on, say, a trauma & ortho' ward with predominantly elderly patients. TBH, I suspect the likes of Gove would pish themselves with fear if they had to work a shift in their local hospital - but walking a mile in somebody else's blood/sh!te/vomit would do 'em a power of good. Double for [i]Daily Fail[/i] journalists, of course. 😈
I've seen a lot of your argumentative posts and refuse to get drawn into the you're wrong, you're an idiot, tedium that you degenerate most threads you touch into, so lets just move on.
Thanks for the gentle ad hominem to try and deflect attention away from your wrongness and inability to accept that wrongness
I dont know why you think this is more credible approach than just accepting the obvious fact that what you cited was self evidently hearsay.
move on means you aint gonna admit the obvious fact that you cited hearsay evidence in defence of the fact your evidence was hersay - it is pretty obvious what you did .
yes I will move on but you shall remain in denial [ not real denial as you are not trying to argue it was not hearsay as you are not that daft ]
Hope you have saved enough face there to remain happy and secure
Hope you have saved enough face there to remain happy and secure
Good one! You really are very frustrated aren't you?
Ok, I will let myself get drawn to just say one thing.
Hearsay, is rumours you hear from unsubstantiated sources. These are good friends of mine so the source is sound however I admit that as you don't know these people then you will, of course, choose not to believe me. So I am not wrong, but can't prove to you I am right so as I said we will just leave it there. What you have done a good job of is deflect away from the real discussion and problems which do exist and need to be changed!
Its hearsay, literally what you have heard said or definition according to Google
(1)Information received from other people that cannot be adequately substantiated; rumor.
(2)The report of another person's words by a witness, usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.
You fall bang into (2) now argue about something interesting.
You fall bang into (2) now argue about something interesting.
I'm not arguing!! 🙄
so you accept you are wrong then 😉
I am really not trying to spoil this thread but you are just wrong your evidence was hearsay
I will watch the programme on catch up tonight
He's not wrong because he can't prove something. It could be true/correct. he's not in a court of law either.
of course, that doesn't mean he's right either. the facts are that it could be either as far as anyone on here is concerned. doesn't help the discussion much but then it seems that not much would.