Brillo calls out BoJo

[Trophy Husband]

Agammemnon said:

Trophy Husband said:

There are lies, more lies and damned statistics.
It is piece work by another name and probably worse.
Perhaps, please go with me on this, the 'statistics' reflect the fact that people on zero hours contracts are just happy to have work? Any work?

In some cases perhaps- not in mine. If you have anything to support this theory then please go ahead.

Trophy Husband said:

It is a massive subjugation of rights foregone by the employee, sorry, worker.

I think of myself as a contractor.

Trophy Husband said:

I have no idea of what you do or your personal situation or motivations for choosing a ZH contract, or if indeed it was a choice you made or an imposition by your employer if they are indeed an employer in the sense I understand that to be in my world.

I'm a contractor of my own free will & work for various clients (note not employers).

Trophy Husband said:

ZH contracts in essence are a vehicle created by companies to maximise profit and minimise wages.

I wasn't aware of this- where do you get that information?

Trophy Husband said:

Companies that use them have a greater sense of duty to faceless shareholders than they do to their slaves.

I'm sure the companies are obeying the law in their obligations to both shareholders & ZH employees/contractors.

Trophy Husband said:

They should be illegal and they are in my mind.

Why illegal if everyone is happy? I don't accept your presumed right to dictate my conditions of earning a living. Have you ever got a decorator/handyman/gardener/babysitter, etc? Many people do. Do you feel that babysitters should be on employment contracts with fixed hours & remuneration?

Trophy Husband said:

I'm guessing you may be earning some pin money to augment a pension?
Forgive me if my assumption is off the mark.

Completely wrong but no apology necessary.

Trophy Husband said:

You could of course explain why, personally, for you they/it are/is good?

I work when I want & for whom I want. The trade-off for not having employee rights is better payscales. I disagree with anyone wishing to remove my conditions of employment due to some presumed morality.

Thanks for that.

From your info I'm assuming that you are a high earner and thus in a different bracket to the general ZH contract worker?

I'd ask you to take it down to the £8.50/hr level and then have a think?

This is not a personal attack upon you it is merely my view on the vast majority of ZH contracts, if indeed they are contracts at all for the majority.

I am amused by the latest Amazon advert for instance. Why do they feel the need to interview workers, obviously only the happy ones and make it an advert?

Perhaps because theyre5trying to justify bad corporate behaviour?

[98elise]

Red 4 said:

Ayahuasca said:

Red 4 said:

Most people would prefer a steady job with full employments rights.

Any research to back that assertion?

Silly me. You're right. Most people prefer sporadic work with fewer rights in law. What was I thinking ?
Note to self - must try harder.

CIPD surveys consistently say people on zero hours contracts are happier with their T&C's than those on fixed hours.

I'm on ZHC,so was my wife, and so is my son. My wife and I have no complaints, but my son would like less hours. He's only supposed to do 20 hours, but ends up doing more like 30.

That's the difference between a political sound bite, and facts.

[ChocolateFrog]

Keoparakolo said:

ChocolateFrog said:

Those are the options.

We can bh and moan but the option is Boris or Corbyn.

And fk Corbyn.

Do people actually understand how a general election works? The amount who seem to think it’s purely a referendum on Johnson or Corbyn astounds me. I wonder how many will be completely bamboozled when they get their voting slip and it has more than two options and none of them are Johnson or Corbyn.

Even the profoundly dumb understand how a general election works yes.

Like I said Corbyn or Boris, take your pick.

[anonymous-user]

bhstewie said:

Cantaloupe said:

I doubt his no-show will lose Boris much votes, most of the population know the BBC is keen to give left leaning parties an easy time..

Bit of a odd thing to say.

Did he give Corbyn an easy time?

Neil must have missed that memo.

Not aimed at the original comment, but I think saying 'the BBC is left' etc is something parroted by a lot of dim people who want to sound clever and savvy.

[ChocolateFrog]

greygoose said:

ChocolateFrog said:

chow pan toon said:

Cantaloupe said:

I doubt his no-show will lose Boris much votes, most of the population know the BBC is keen to give left leaning parties an easy time..

Although the BBC hating SNP would dispute this.

Yeah, he really soft pedalled Corbyn.

Those of a moderate left wing persuasion hate his ideologies too.

Do you mean that you think Andrew Neil is of a moderate left wing persuasion?

I've no idea. My comment was aimed at the BBC in general.

ETA I'm only saying that to appear 'clever and savvy', hope it works

Edited by ChocolateFrog on Friday 6th December 18:48

[Keoparakolo]

ChocolateFrog said:

Keoparakolo said:

ChocolateFrog said:

Those are the options.

We can bh and moan but the option is Boris or Corbyn.

And fk Corbyn.

Do people actually understand how a general election works? The amount who seem to think it’s purely a referendum on Johnson or Corbyn astounds me. I wonder how many will be completely bamboozled when they get their voting slip and it has more than two options and none of them are Johnson or Corbyn.

Even the profoundly dumb understand how a general election works yes.

Like I said Corbyn or Boris, take your pick.

You still seem to have failed to understand how a general election works.

[anonymous-user]

La Liga said:

bhstewie said:

Cantaloupe said:

I doubt his no-show will lose Boris much votes, most of the population know the BBC is keen to give left leaning parties an easy time..

Bit of a odd thing to say.

Did he give Corbyn an easy time?

Neil must have missed that memo.

Not aimed at the original comment, but I think saying 'the BBC is left' etc is something parroted by a lot of dim people who want to sound clever and savvy.

Well, that must include some well respected ex employees of the BBC.

As for Neil, I don’t think he treats any party with more or less disdain or favour. For him it’s about showing how smart he is; he gives them all a hard time.

Some of the other ‘journalists’ aren’t so clever. I heard Farage being ‘grilled’ by one of them yesterday. All he had to do after each question was lunch into some vague ‘setting the scene’ preamble and sure enough, before any answer was reached he’d been asked the next question.

He actually came out unscathed but having answered nothing.

Let’s face it. Boris is a nightmare. He’s just the least frightening nightmare.......

[Agammemnon]

Trophy Husband said:

Thanks for that.

From your info I'm assuming that you are a high earner and thus in a different bracket to the general ZH contract worker?

You're welcome. I've no idea what 'general' ZH contract workers earn - I get about the going rate for my profession, maybe a fraction more.

Trophy Husband said:

I'd ask you to take it down to the £8.50/hr level and then have a think?

I can only speak for myself- a ZH contract works fine for all involved & I therefore do not want anyne to legislate against it, especially on 'moral' grounds.

Trophy Husband said:

This is not a personal attack upon you it is merely my view on the vast majority of ZH contracts, if indeed they are contracts at all for the majority.

Not taken personally. ZH contracts are definitely contracts- if people don't want them then they can better themselves & get better employments. You seem to forget that business needs workers just as much as people need jobs, btw.

Trophy Husband said:

I am amused by the latest Amazon advert for instance. Why do they feel the need to interview workers, obviously only the happy ones and make it an advert?

Perhaps because theyre trying to justify bad corporate behaviour?

You might think it bad behaviour- that doesn't necessarily make it so.

[glazbagun]

Stussy said:

You’ve got to be pretty desperate to voluntarily choose to be grilled by someone who has obviously sat for hours thinking up some way of tripping you up

Or know that you're full of st and see no need to tell the world by demonstrating your inability to asnswer straight questions.

Parliament is fked. We've a choice between no-hopers and scum.

[Trophy Husband]

Agammemnon said:

Trophy Husband said:

Thanks for that.

From your info I'm assuming that you are a high earner and thus in a different bracket to the general ZH contract worker?

You're welcome. I've no idea what 'general' ZH contract workers earn - I get about the going rate for my profession, maybe a fraction more.

Trophy Husband said:

I'd ask you to take it down to the £8.50/hr level and then have a think?

I can only speak for myself- a ZH contract works fine for all involved & I therefore do not want anyne to legislate against it, especially on 'moral' grounds.

Trophy Husband said:

This is not a personal attack upon you it is merely my view on the vast majority of ZH contracts, if indeed they are contracts at all for the majority.

Not taken personally. ZH contracts are definitely contracts- if people don't want them then they can better themselves & get better employments. You seem to forget that business needs workers just as much as people need jobs, btw.

Trophy Husband said:

I am amused by the latest Amazon advert for instance. Why do they feel the need to interview workers, obviously only the happy ones and make it an advert?

Perhaps because theyre trying to justify bad corporate behaviour?

You might think it bad behaviour- that doesn't necessarily make it so.

Nice to have a civilised conversation on here like gentlemen. Good health to you!
I am ruminating!

[Agammemnon]

Trophy Husband said:

Nice to have a civilised conversation on here like gentlemen. Good health to you!
I am ruminating!

It's not common behaviour here, certainly. Equally good health to you.

Ruminate as much as you wish but you'll have to clean up afterwards.

[anonymous-user]

REALIST123 said:

Well, that must include some well respected ex employees of the BBC.

And the well-respected ones who probably claim it's right-leaning etc.

[sugerbear]

98elise said:

Red 4 said:

Ayahuasca said:

Red 4 said:

Most people would prefer a steady job with full employments rights.

Any research to back that assertion?

Silly me. You're right. Most people prefer sporadic work with fewer rights in law. What was I thinking ?
Note to self - must try harder.

CIPD surveys consistently say people on zero hours contracts are happier with their T&C's than those on fixed hours.

I'm on ZHC,so was my wife, and so is my son. My wife and I have no complaints, but my son would like less hours. He's only supposed to do 20 hours, but ends up doing more like 30.

That's the difference between a political sound bite, and facts.

Have you read the report from the CIPD? Or just the summary? Seems to me that of the sample about 50% liked zero hours and 50 % didn’t. 20% had been penalised for not accepting hours and 50% where ok with the hours they worked with 38% wanting more.

It’s not a glowing endorsement of zero hours contracts given they estimated that a million people where working in zero hours contracts in 2017

All very well when things are going well in the economy, not so good when things turn in the economy and the employers start to cut hours and people.

[Gerradi]

Halb said:

...wow...
What was Gove thinking?

Not a lot...wait til he gets home & has to face the wife...Now she is frightening.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Whilst the media are supposed to be impartial, it `seems' that they are not.
I wonder what would happen if it were made a rule, that every interviewer / media outlet (and the courts and judges for that matter) were made to declare where `their' personal interests or preferences actually lie, before asking their questions.
That way people might be able to decide if the questions and their delivery are being made in a fair and impartial manner. Just sayin!

[glazbagun]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Whilst the media are supposed to be impartial, it `seems' that they are not.
I wonder what would happen if it were made a rule, that every interviewer / media outlet (and the courts and judges for that matter) were made to declare where `their' personal interests or preferences actually lie, before asking their questions.
That way people might be able to decide if the questions and their delivery are being made in a fair and impartial manner. Just sayin!

You think Andrew Neil might be a secret lefty plant hiding in plain sight?

The media are not even trying to be as impartial as the BBC. The Mail has been running non-stop anti-Corbyn headlines all election just as the Mirror has been piling into the Conservatives.

I like the idea (Bill Hicks?) of politicians wearing their sponsors logos in parliament when they stand up to recommend a course of action.

Edited by glazbagun on Tuesday 10th December 22:05

[hyphen]

Mobile Chicane said:

Personally I dread the prospect of a BoJo government. When Tory grandees like Heseletine and Major are urging people not to vote Conservative that signals a level of disgust with the type of politics the Conservative Party has descended into.

These grandee's are remainers at all costs.Nothing to do with anything else.

[Pan Pan Pan]

glazbagun said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Whilst the media are supposed to be impartial, it `seems' that they are not.
I wonder what would happen if it were made a rule, that every interviewer / media outlet (and the courts and judges for that matter) were made to declare where `their' personal interests or preferences actually lie, before asking their questions.
That way people might be able to decide if the questions and their delivery are being made in a fair and impartial manner. Just sayin!

You think Andrew Neil might be a secret lefty plant hiding in plain sight?

The media are not even trying to be as impartial as the BBC. The Mail has been running non-stop anti-Corbyn headlines all election just as the Mirror has been piling into the Conservatives.

I like the idea (Bill Hicks?) of politicians wearing their sponsors logos in parliament when they stand up to recommend a course of action.

Edited by glazbagun on Tuesday 10th December 22:05

With regard to AN, no, not really, he seems to be equally aggressive with every politician he interviews, But I do have my doubts about the BBC and some of the other news channels, as they receive funding from the EU, which hardly makes them impartial, I would guess that many in the BBC, are not too keen on Johnsons idea of scrapping license fees either, as that is where their pay comes from.
I am also suspicious of the judges / courts who ruled on various issues related to Brexit. I would like to know where all these peoples sympathies / interests lie, before they pass judgement on any matter.
For example, if a Brexit matter is to be dealt with, each judge should publicly state beforehand, whether they are pro, or anti Brexit, so that an equally balanced panel of judges is appointed, which is not going to be biased towards either leaving or remaining in the EU.

[Keoparakolo]

Pan Pan Pan said:

With regard to AN, no, not really, he seems to be equally aggressive with every politician he interviews, But I do have my doubts about the BBC and some of the other news channels, as they receive funding from the EU, which hardly makes them impartial, I would guess that many in the BBC, are not too keen on Johnsons idea of scrapping license fees either, as that is where their pay comes from.
I am also suspicious of the judges / courts who ruled on various issues related to Brexit. I would like to know where all these peoples sympathies / interests lie, before they pass judgement on any matter.
For example, if a Brexit matter is to be dealt with, each judge should publicly state beforehand, whether they are pro, or anti Brexit, so that an equally balanced panel of judges is appointed, which is not going to be biased towards either leaving or remaining in the EU.

I’m sorry but that’s tinfoil battery gone wild. You’re suggesting that judges are incapable of applying / interpreting the law independently. They’ve spent their whole careers in the legal profession and now somehow they’re going to sacrifice it all because you think they’re a closet lefty.

The BBC are often accused of being lefties by the right and being right wing by the left. Go figure. Off the top of my head the BBC have recently edited Johnson in a debate to remove the audience laughing at him, to remove his gaffe at the Cenotaph by using footage from a few years earlier and just this week tweeting accusations that one of his ministers aides was assaulted by a Labour activist which was proven to be false. I’m sure they’ve also done some stuff to make the other parties look more favourable too

You need to start thinking for yourself and not have your views swayed by confirmation bias.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Keoparakolo said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

With regard to AN, no, not really, he seems to be equally aggressive with every politician he interviews, But I do have my doubts about the BBC and some of the other news channels, as they receive funding from the EU, which hardly makes them impartial, I would guess that many in the BBC, are not too keen on Johnsons idea of scrapping license fees either, as that is where their pay comes from.
I am also suspicious of the judges / courts who ruled on various issues related to Brexit. I would like to know where all these peoples sympathies / interests lie, before they pass judgement on any matter.
For example, if a Brexit matter is to be dealt with, each judge should publicly state beforehand, whether they are pro, or anti Brexit, so that an equally balanced panel of judges is appointed, which is not going to be biased towards either leaving or remaining in the EU.

I’m sorry but that’s tinfoil battery gone wild. You’re suggesting that judges are incapable of applying / interpreting the law independently. They’ve spent their whole careers in the legal profession and now somehow they’re going to sacrifice it all because you think they’re a closet lefty.

The BBC are often accused of being lefties by the right and being right wing by the left. Go figure. Off the top of my head the BBC have recently edited Johnson in a debate to remove the audience laughing at him, to remove his gaffe at the Cenotaph by using footage from a few years earlier and just this week tweeting accusations that one of his ministers aides was assaulted by a Labour activist which was proven to be false. I’m sure they’ve also done some stuff to make the other parties look more favourable too

You need to start thinking for yourself and not have your views swayed by confirmation bias.

No, I am saying that people in the positions they have achieved, should have the honesty to declare if they have any interests / funding etc which might skew their approach/viewpoint. As we have seen (not least with some politicians) this is not always done when it should be.
It does not matter whether they are from the left, or right, pro Brexit or anti Brexit, but they should have the honesty to declare up front their position on a given matter.
I think for myself, which is why I have been saying that anyone who bases their decision on how they will vote on the 12th, on all the bullsh*t coming out of ALL the parties in the run up to the election, probably shouldn't be allowed to vote at all.