Try this one….

Not many people know how x and y met… it was in fact while x was decorating….. y walked into the room hitting the steps that x was standing on with the door….. the steps went over and there x lay motionless…. y ran to help him shaking hom gently and saying "x whats the matter? x are you alright?" Eventually x opens one eye, looks striaght into y's eyes and says "you walked into the room and the next thing I can remember is lying her all overcome with emulsion"….. and the rest as they say is history

Pad it out as you see fit, works every time!

the City was giving them huge amounts of tax. So the government didn't want to tell the City to stop cos then they couldn't have delivered on the things they wanted to deliver on.

Surely the reality is more a case of once Thatcher and and her mate slick Ron removed the controls from the Financial sector at the end of the eighties (Predictably overheating the economy so she got re-elected and at the same time precipitating the last recession!), and having completely fecked up anything that looked remotely like manufacturing in this country. It was not going to be possible to reclose the Pandoras box that had been opened whereby our major "export" was financial services.

I can see the reaction now where any government tried to take control of the actions of our only real overseas money earner, to a chorus of accusations from the main beneficiaries of this bizarre action (on the right of the house). Simply put once globalisation had set in it was never possible for the UK alone to reign in the bankers. That is the brilliance of what Brown has achieved in this crisis. A G20 wide approach to dealing with the problem, plus getting the dosh spent back with interest!!

Sorry … wrong thread, 😳 read the title and assumed it was a euphemism

we were based upon christian values

What ???? State approved paedophilia ?

Remember, every catholic priest is hung like a bull allegedley

Good, and while they are at it lets have the cardinals too!

So thats everyone slating the Pm for spending taxpayers money to bail the banks out, then slating him because its made the taxpayers a profit, or have I missed something?

I think in the vein of seeking forgiveness by doing penance I'd like to see him taking it up the poop chute with a scaled up artificial penis so its a Child bum to Adult todger relationship for each and every child ever abused by a member of the Catholic church. Once thats over perhaps he might like to review the churchs policy on such matters.

So a total income tax burden of 30 – 33% is not reasonable for a very wealthy individual? Most of whom would not pay anything like that due to employing slick accountants to assist them in avoiding it in every way possible.

Who should pay this instead? Given that raising a similar amount elsewhere would almost automatically mean that those lower done the earnings scale and less able to pay would have to pay more?

"new money" is so vulgar isn't it.

As before, the simple fact is that the old money seems to stay put and not get spent somehow. So in short Junkyards theory above is worsened by the fact that the influence/financial might/power is in fundamentally the same hands that it was in 1000 years ago. Personally, I have no issue with wealth or who has it beyond the simple desire that everyone on day one starts off with a reasonably flat playing field. Regretably for the vast majority of us this is simply not the case.

There was a series on the box recently about the Norman conquest. At the end of it they showed how William had divvied up the spoils between himself, the church and his nobles. That was a thousand years ago….. Unfortunately, the fact is that those spoils to a great extent remain in those self same hands or those of their direct descendants.

Like it or not, conservative with a small c means "One favoring traditional views and values." So a vote for Dave is likely to favour those at the top of the heap rather than the rest of us IMHO. Being Baronet Dave does suggest that he may have a vested interest in that view don't you think?

Thatcher reduced the top rate of income tax from 83%

Why? You a Murdoch or someone?

This thread and others like it have cheered me up no end. There I was thinking oh bugger here we go again, when all of a sudden DC and the Bullingdon Boot Boys seem to have cocked it right up and made it deeply uncool to be a tory boy once more….. Hurrah!!

Not to mention the fact that both the last recession and this one were caused by the removal of Banking controls at the end of the 80's

I found it interesting last night that GB was uanble to nail Dave with the Euro sceptic/Banking Crisis tie up. It is a simple fact that since Reagan/Thatcher internationalisation has created a situation where pretty much all the worlds economies are interdependant. That being the case it is not possible to simply restrict our domestic banking system. Everyone has to do it otherwise the bankers just hop on a flight or use the internet to carry out their scheming in a different jursidiction.

The significance of Browns G20 success was that he got all parties to agree to the same process, and although I am sceptiocal it just may be that he has been instrumental in closing the unfettered capitalist pandoras box opened by Thatchers lot.

"I know a bloke who did the C2C in 24 hours non stop" (although there may now be one)

They were fully behind it, and any claims that they would've opposed it if they'd known all the facts – which they almost certainly did anyway – are simply political opportunism of the worst kind.

Plus one for that comment, because.

a) If they didn't know the facts, they have then supported going to war without knowing the facts, which is automatically wrong.
b) If they did know the facts they are automatically lying.

Either way round arse is exposed. There is no other viable position on this.

The only good thing I can remember is the fact that they stopped road works on Bank Holiday weekends.

That apart a total cluster **** which we are still paying for.

Personally I went for the registry office option. I wanted to get married because I was making a committment to my Mrs. Knowing both of us, an easy-out realtionship would not have lasted, so instead we've opted for plenty of making up over the years, once we've got over the intital issue whatever it might have been.

Her Mum was a Church Warden and had real issues with our approach. My response was:-

a) If my Mrs wanted me to marry her in Church I would be prepared to do that , but only if she asked me to, and not for anyone else.
b) I did not want to start my married life off with a lie.

Wifey never asked, and we did our thing in the R.O. We are having our 30th anniversary next month, and I highly recommend as a result that anyone planning on getting married thinks it through and makes decisions based on their beliefs and no one elses.

Personally, I think the debate has been the best thing to happen to British Politics in my lifetime.

TJ's early point is not entirely wrong, although I do subscribe to the "you can't have it both ways" view

TandemJeremy – Member
Its actually supranational as it encompasses 4 nations.

Just trying to get you littleminded people to understand why the continual whinge from the SNP – its because the London based parties deliberately squeeze out the sirtime the SNP can get. This has been going on for decades and is really rather tiresome to see.

So it has some validity in that the two main parties have very much had things their own way and stifled change as a result. I think Clegg's point that instituionalised "jobs for life" style politics has led to complacency and corruption. So for that reason alone I would love to see him do well and a fairer more representative system come in as a result. Basically we have become used to a pendulum swing between Tory and Labour policies for far too long.

Face it the vast majority of people in this ocuntry are moderate and frankly need representing properly. On balance I'm left leaning, but not so far as to think that everything that the Tories stand for is wrong or that everything that Labour does is right. So how about I and the millions like me get represented for a change??

Last nights debate result for me

Cameron: (Of the high media expectations) : Disappointed Again
Clegg: (Of the heightened expectations) : Held up well
Brown: (Of the low expectations and difficult incumbent position) : Much better than last time and at least on a par with the other two.

If you go at less than 40% you will probably go bust. Do not get confused between nett and gross profit and or margins. Usually, you will find that operating costs will run somewhere between 20 & 30%, so at that level you are looking to make on the right side of 10% before the Tax man gets his finger in the pie. Much less than that you should be putting your money elsewhere.

Yeah, whatever mate. You've got no ammo left, so you try to turn it into an attack my character. Nice try.

Bored now. Argument done. Finished.

END OF THREAD

PMSL….

au contraire mon petit potiron….

I believe that statement is equivalent to that of which you accuse me.

Thus I shall sleep content knowing that victory, (if indeed that what it is), is mine. 8)

Personally I reckon its such shallow and pathetic reporting that it will actually work in the Cleggsters favour. I would never underestimate the electorates ability to see through the crepe. Always amazes me.

Your argument is based on the fact that you don't like fat people

Out of interest, I have maintained myself comfortably in the Obese segment for the last 35 years 😯 So I think you might be a tad wide of the mark and dare I say stereotyping slightly.

In respect of this:-

1.4 Stating that a certain personal, medical or health-related characteristic is desirable may also lead to discrimination if the characteristic is not necessary for the performance of the job.

You appear to have missed this out, which is the complete statement.

Like a requirement, a preference may be decisive against an otherwise well qualified disabled candidate and may have to be justified in an individual case (page 33,para 5.6.Summarised)

And as stated above the selection criteria must be applied to all candidates equally. So unless you are trying to tell me that a function of disability is automatic obeseness, I fail to see how you can work out that this would be discriminatory towards disabled people.

I am however starting to wonder about your attitude. This is starting to sound a lot like the argument about race which starts with "I've got a mate whose black but…..".

Anyway it depends on the job – the best freelance writer I know and regularly with with is overweight – so what?

Thats not really the point, the OP is about whether it would be reasonable for people not to employ someone because they were overweight. My take on it is that its not unreasonable to have that as a criteria in a selection process. So say for example there are two of your mates, one obese, one not then the BMI obese criteria kicks in as part of an objective selection and decision making process.

And the "so what" is that its not doing him or anyone else any favours pretending that its not a serious health issue. Maybe, just maybe by not pretending otherwise it might help them rather than hinder.

You can have any criteria you like as long as its not discriminatory. Applying something uniformly to all candidates that does not breach any law is not. Simple

Do you actually know what it takes to calculate BMI? Its weight and height. That is not confidential medical information.

I could dig up all sorts of bits of Law to prove my point

No you can't, as you proved yesterday.

'Daily Mail type'?

Yeah, you know the sort, makes stuff up to make a case?

Go and research it.

Oh I think you will find that I'm on very solid ground, and I'm not really sure why I should if you're not prepared to.

You have an employee, that you don't like because they are 'too fat', in your eyes

You don't seem to be able to spot the fundamental difference between an employee and a prospective employee. I have pointed it out, but you seem to have missed it.

You fire them for being 'too fat'

You are probably right, but thats not we are talking about is it?

How about instead I use BMI as a criteria for selection for redundancy, and as an organisation we take the NHS's stats on health issues relating to BMI and then as part of the redundnacy process use BMI being into the Obese or into dangerously low areas as part of a selection process, how do you think that might be?

Ta

It was frequently the case in the past that a medical would form part of a recruitment process, and not unreasonably IMHO.

Another way of dealing with this sort of thing, and for that matter criminal records if it concerns an employer is to ask everyone interviewed questions like "have you ever been in trouble with the Police?" or Do you have any existing medical problems?" with simple Yes or No answers. If that answer is subsequently found to be incorrect the employee has in fact committed a criminal offence which is "Gaining pecuniary advantage through deception", if you can prove that you would not have employed them if they had answered correctly. It is also why it is important to have a spec sheet quantifying what you are looking for and to keep that and all application forms from a recruitment against future problems arising.

Thats does get past the rehabilitation of offenders act, and the disability discrimination laws, as long as you apply it uniformly to all applicants.

1) An interviewee is not an employee.
2) Simply being obese is not a disability under the terms of the act.
3) Treating all candidates the same way in an interview process is not discrimantory.

Therefore it is perfectly legitimate to consider the obeseness or otherwise of a candidate, as an issue, perhaps quantifying it by simply requesting or even measuring their BMI, as opposed to a subjective judgement, and setting a target value that you would like to achieve in your recruitment, based on NHS stats for example.

So thats you talking absolute shite yet again then.

Thought so! 8)

(Boils my piss when Daily Mail type mentalities make up laws to defend some issue or other they've made up to project their often flawed views.)

An individual must be judged on their ability to do a job, not on anything unrelated to that task. It's the Law.

Which law is that then ?

Talkemada – Member

Really, so you can you honestly point at a situation where being obese is good for the overall health of any individual?

There are many instances of people being malnourished and underfed. It's just that overweight people are easier to spot…

Answer the question

Really? Do tell how do you work that one out.

Why, are you too thick to work it out yourself?

Nope but apparently you are unable to phrase a reasonable reply for one reason or another. I'm choosing another.

No question that obesity is a terrible issue for many people. However, reverting back to the OP I still fail to see why an employer should not take an individuals health into account as part of a recruitment process. Obesity is just one indicator amongst many that a person may have ongoing health issues. So why should they not take it into consideration as a factor in a reasoned decision making process? That is not to say the sole factor, just one of many.

LOL at MSP: Fine repost there fella.

but not medically proven to be any worse, in any individual case

Really, so you can you honestly point at a situation where being obese is good for the overall health of any individual?

Mental health issues are far more likely to have an impact on an individual's ability to do a job than weight

Really? Do tell how do you work that one out.

It is a fact that obesity carries with it a raft of health issues. That being the case why is it not reasonable for a potential employer to take that into account as part of a recruitment i.e score against fat people on the basis that on balance their health is likley to be less good than a less obese person?

What I said was that it would reduce the democratic representation of the electorate and strengthen the position of the unelected hereditary peers.

The position of hereditary peers is now and has been previously under attack. I believe the only party talking about not reducing them is Camerons lot. So by the act of not reducing their numbers, whilst reducing the number of those that might vote gainst them by 10% is strengthening their position surely?? Or are you assuming that Cameron is intending to preside over getting rid of his buddies??

Cameron was supposedly undemocratic in wanting to get rid of MPs which would give more power to the House of Lords

Where did I say that?

Mefty:

managed independently by the Boundary Commission (so it is can hardly be a Tory plot)

Berm Bandit:

From there it depends how sinister you want to make it.

Mefty:

The proportion of Lords to MPs is irrelevant

Unless of course you consider the perpetuation af an archaic and antiquated system and the lack of a proper degree of oversight, (which recent events clearly indicate is not a necessary feature of our system……right?) to be a bad thing. Or if you think that patronage (Bribery) of the sponsors of political parties corrupt, then you are clearly correct and far better informed than I.

Personally I favour a democratic and vigourous senior chamber with some power to modernise and manage our political system, rather than the current farce which maintains the status quo.

Defintion of Conservative : One favoring traditional views and values

Blimey and I thought it was me being a spanner!

I think perhaps you've misunderstood the Parliament Act

I think you are a bit patronising. Doesn't make either of us right though does it? 😉

I'm not sure how Cameron's proposal would strengthen the Lords

care to expand?

proportionately strengthening

was what I said, and it would increase the proportions of Lords to elected Mp's. From there it depends how sinister you want to make it. Under Thatcher, in my area, which is a uber mariginal and often decided by single figure numbers, they moved a whole council estate into the neighbouring Tory safe seat, thus turning the marginal their way. So I would presume that the 10% to go would obviously be supporters of Dave …. right?

I am literally shocked that he said it. Not even slightly surprised that he might see it as a good diea, but shocked that he would admit to it.

Remember the Rhyl 4

No defence for the RLJ cock, but then there is no defence for cyclists generally apparently !

Just got a bath filler / shower mixer from lidl for £10 if anyone needs one

**** me TJ! For a man of your intellect I am amazed!

Almost as good as that Kylie ad for Agent Provocateur.

Not even close!