INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.

For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

We are not accepting any new registrations.

Jeremy Clarkson

Enter here to talk about books, art, literature, film, TV and anything else to do with popular culture.
Message
Author
User avatar
jaywhat
Posts: 15807
Joined: July 5th, 2007, 5:53 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#41 Post by jaywhat » December 8th, 2011, 4:54 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

You are not on your own, Emma, I agree with your viewpoint, but it wears me out getting into all this so I switch off. Very irresponsible I guess.

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#42 Post by thundril » December 8th, 2011, 4:58 pm

In many cases, (eg the one I cited) it may well be cheaper for the local council to hire a specialist firm, rather than emploing its own workforce full-time, with all the admin, machinery standing idle half the year, economies of scale, etc. In other cases it may be cheaper and/or politically necessary, for the govt, local regional or national, to employ people directly. .
The point is, as you say, it is still the tax-payer who coughs up. The debate about which is more efficient or which is politically desirable is an open one, and will vary from case to case (except for the political ideologists on one side or the other, with whom there is no arguing).
As Emma points out above, we as workers still have to pay our taxes, spend our wages, save for our pensions, either through an employers' scheme or through some other. (eg a private finance company) Whether we work directly for the govt or indirectly for a contractor, none of this, (or from another POV all of this) is at the cost of the private sector particularly, AFAICS.

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#43 Post by thundril » December 8th, 2011, 8:32 pm

Solidair; You must be a John Martyn fan, right? (Me too)

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 9306
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#44 Post by Maria Mac » December 11th, 2011, 1:01 am

This thread is temporarily locked until I've had time to review it. :)

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 9306
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#45 Post by Maria Mac » December 11th, 2011, 4:59 pm

I've re-opened this thread and have moved several posts to the dump. I'm not blaming any individual poster for turning the thread bad but it was after solidair joined the thread that tempers started to get frayed so, if anyone would like to continue squabbling, the split off posts are here.

stevenw888
Posts: 694
Joined: July 16th, 2010, 12:48 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#46 Post by stevenw888 » December 12th, 2011, 11:35 am

Emma said:
No, I didn't. I thought it was around 27.5% (BBC News, September 2010). Can you provide a source for your figure?
Sorry Emma, you are absolutely right. I've searched and searched on the internet, but cannot find any evidence to back up my "50%" figure. I am sure that I read it somewhere (The Western Mail, possibly) but cannot now find anything anywhere to back it up. Perhaps this will teach me not to read newspapers in the pub!
"There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots." - From the film "Top Gun"

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#47 Post by Alan H » December 12th, 2011, 11:58 am

stevenw888 wrote:Perhaps this will teach me not to read newspapers in the pub!
The location of where you read isn't important, it's what you're doing at the same time... :D
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

thundril
Posts: 3607
Joined: July 4th, 2008, 5:02 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#48 Post by thundril » December 12th, 2011, 1:45 pm

stevenw888 wrote:Emma said:
No, I didn't. I thought it was around 27.5% (BBC News, September 2010). Can you provide a source for your figure?
Sorry Emma, you are absolutely right. I've searched and searched on the internet, but cannot find any evidence to back up my "50%" figure. I am sure that I read it somewhere (The Western Mail, possibly) but cannot now find anything anywhere to back it up. Perhaps this will teach me not to read newspapers in the pub!
Maybe this?

stevenw888
Posts: 694
Joined: July 16th, 2010, 12:48 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#49 Post by stevenw888 » December 23rd, 2011, 11:40 am

stevenw888 wrote:
The bloated public sector is just that - bloated. It needs to be trimmed as soon as humanly possible.

Emma wrote:
From where? Where do you think the excess fat is?
Emma, are you serious? I work in further education (in the private sector) and in so doing have the misfortune to work with a number of colleges of further education. Many of the people working in them are so idle it surprises me that they they actually turn up for work at all. I know a business development manager who spends 80% of his work time managing his privately owned "woodland area" in Ireland. I know vice principals who never turn up on Fridays as the golf course beckons to them. I once had a phone call from a member of a college admin staff who needed an aim refrence for a document she was completing. I gave her the refence she wanted but pointed out that the relevant reference was in a book on a shelf opposite her (I had visited her office on a mumber of occasions). She explained that she was too lazy to get up, and it was easier to phone me! I have met tutors who earn £75 per hour, whose delivery skills are so poor that I wouldn't employ them to educate my dog. The colleges fall squarely into the public sector, and many of its workers seem to think that they have a job for life, which involves doing as little as possible.

I watched a public sector (council) worker picking up rubbish near my home yesterday. I could have picked up twice the amount of rubbish that he did and in half the time. (I regurlarly pick up rubbish near my home to save the council having to send someone round to do the same). You would think, wouldn't you, that council workers, faced with possible redundancy or a reduction in hours, would work harder to demonstrate to their employer that they are hard working, but it seems that the opposite is the case. This is exactly what separates the private sector from the public sector. In the private sector, if I have ever been faced with the possibilty of redundancy, I have worked harder, stayed over after work to get projects completed, and never asked for extra pay. My reward is that I've always been employed.
"There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots." - From the film "Top Gun"

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#50 Post by Dave B » December 23rd, 2011, 12:28 pm

My experience in Gloucester in 2004-5, on an AHE course, was that the instructors were as varied as possible in terms of their abilities to put things across - but few of them were exactly lazy. I think the college was in some sort of organisation that offered points.

Three real rotters come to mind: the Eng. Lit. teacher who had no idea how to treat students and was not very good at Eng. Lang., the biology teacher who had three adult women in tears from her aggressive response to them not understanding things on the course and the IT instructor who managed to "lose" all our stored course work when he left for another job. He was crap anyway, I knew more about using the bog standard applications than he did and gave little tutorials to the strugglers in the "Learning Centre".

But I do agree that there was some dead weight even at that college, especially those who were really past it, putting in the hours (sometimes) to earn pension credits and being allowed to do so.

Steve, I do feel a bit sad that you had to work beyond the limits of your job spec. to avoid redundancy. Such behaviour on the part of staff gives the bosses leverage for all kinds of things. I have no problem with working unpaid overtime for short periods when a good employer is in a bit of trouble but this can become common practice.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

stevenw888
Posts: 694
Joined: July 16th, 2010, 12:48 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#51 Post by stevenw888 » January 3rd, 2012, 1:36 pm

It's always been common practice with me. My dad said to me, when I was 16 - "Get a job. And when you get one, hold on to it!"
Those words have always followed me throughout my career. Only problem was, when I ran my own business, which I did for 13 years, I often expected others to follow the same maxim! Of course they didn't - so I had to modify my expectations of others. I'm not saying that everyone should always do more than what is expected of them as part of their job-role - I'm just saying, sometimes it's beneficial to both employee and employer (esp. in the public sector).
"There are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots." - From the film "Top Gun"

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#52 Post by Dave B » January 3rd, 2012, 2:33 pm

Now I come to think about it I used to volunteer for weekend work when I knew that a necessary job would not get done in time without my doing to. It was usually for "specials", units modified for the customer's purposes, needed by a specific date. -These were often a bugger to fit and calibrate on the standard rigs but my lab was full of adaptors and the software was more flexible. If there was not an adaptor I made one.

I was always paid for this and by boss allowed me full initiative in such cases - but I made sure that they never grew so secure that this was expected and stuff was left deliberately.

Did not get me anything in terms of upgrades, pay or "rank", though, which was part of one of the complaints that lead to them "buying me off"!
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Val
Posts: 749
Joined: October 6th, 2007, 10:56 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#53 Post by Val » January 4th, 2012, 7:57 pm

Many years ago I had a partner who worked as an artist for a small firm. Our 'dates' were often weekends spent at the workshop with me helping as best I could to get a special job done for no extra pay. The work was there, it got done, the firm flourished, and no extra pay for my lover nor me. The job satisfaction we got helped the monied classes to thrive. I don't regret any of it but sometimes I wonder.....

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#54 Post by Nick » March 19th, 2012, 5:47 pm

While reading Clarkson's article in the motoring section of the Sunday Times, I came across an absolute gem. He was complaining about unnecessary complexity in modern life. His mobile phone, he wrote, was now so complicated, that when he tried to switch it off, he found instead he'd taken a photograph of his own nose. :hilarity:

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#55 Post by Alan C. » March 19th, 2012, 8:16 pm

I'd forgotten about this thread, thanks for reigniting it Nick.

It's the Daily Fail but click the link if only to see the pic of the complainant.
The Rev Graeme Anderson said he was 'surprised and upset' after the Top Gear presenter shouted 'Jesus wept' and 'God Almighty' during a show on March 4.
Blasphemy is just part of everyday language': BBC's dismissive response to vicar who complained about Jeremy Clarkson's offensive language
There is no such crime as blasphemy in the UK, or does the Vicar know something I (we) don't?
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#56 Post by Dave B » March 19th, 2012, 8:44 pm

If the expression on JC(!)'s face in the closer up picture is due to the either great wind resistance or considerable G forces - both due to high speed acceleration - I think a bit of an expostulation might have been understandable. And I would guess that JC is well trained into not shouting, "Fucking hell!" in such circumstances.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#57 Post by Nick » March 19th, 2012, 10:54 pm

If the Reverend is upset by such language, then perhaps he will understand how upset I am when Xians talk about Britain being a "Christian country".... Grrr!!!

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#58 Post by Dave B » October 30th, 2012, 9:45 pm

"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
jaywhat
Posts: 15807
Joined: July 5th, 2007, 5:53 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#59 Post by jaywhat » October 31st, 2012, 6:21 am

That link takes me to the Observer article of Dec 2011 !!

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#60 Post by Dave B » October 31st, 2012, 9:55 am

Oops, wrong link, try this one!

[Note to self, do not try to set up links whilst talking on the telephone about something very different!]
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3244
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: Jeremy Clarkson

#61 Post by Tetenterre » October 31st, 2012, 10:55 am

I may need to don armour after saying this :wink: , but there are bits of what Clarkson says that I agree with, and I think Miliband is plain wrong. Perhaps we should look at the message, not the messenger?

I think Clarkson is correct that jumping in front of a train is a pretty selfish way to end one's life. (I also concede that, when someone is suffering from, say, depression, this sort of selfishness is a manifestation of the illness, and arises more from thoughtlessness than an intent to disrupt the lives of other people. However, it is still selfish.) A friend, with whom I have had drinks-and-quiz most weeks for several years often travels back from working in London; several times a year his train is delayed by "jumpers". However, I mention this only to highlight how relatively frequent it is, not because I think the delay to the journeys of thousands of people is the most important issue here.

The father of a former pupil of mine is a train driver. He was off work for months, receiving counselling and therapy, after having hit a "jumper". He still has occasional nightmares. From what I understand, it is something that many train drivers fear and there are lines that have higher incidences of suicide than others, which drivers hope not to be rota'd on. Then there is the emergency services. A human being that has been hit by tons of fast-travelling metal no longer looks like a human being (same applies to high-speed car crashes). Decapitations and limb amputations are commonplace; internal organs can be ripped off their "tubes". They don't always find all the bits. This is the reality of the situation. I don't think anybody enjoys having to deal with the aftermath of this sort of thing. Perhaps more concern should be shown for these people?

Miliband was jumping on a populist anti-Clarkson bandwagon. Clarkson made no comment at all about people who are mentally ill; he commented on dead people who had committed suicide. They obviously had been mentally ill before they killed themselves but, harsh as it may seem, once they are dead it is a fait accompli and it is too late to do anything about it. The time to address the issue of mental illness, from the perspective of both treatment and public attitudes to it, is when people are alive. As far as I can see, Clarkson made no reference at all to that.
Steve

Quantum Theory: The branch of science with which people who know absolutely sod all about quantum theory can explain anything.

Post Reply