Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35406651)

Or maybe you could accept that the local didn't get the story untill after the print deadline or they just didn't think it was newsworthy or they just didn't know about it instead of jumping to conclusions that the government are blocking the free press

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35406651)

seriously??? you have no idea why the government using exceptional powers for such a trivial story ,or any story other than ones involving national security would cause a scandal

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35406663)

Well I got no idea if DA notices were issued or not i have never said that.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35406678)

No you haven't have you ,but if you had bothered to read instead of jumping in and waffling on about nonsense just so you could have a dig at me then maybe now you wouldn't look so foolish

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35404948)

And by any means you have made it quite clear what you mean....violence, rioting, terrorism, and murder!

I see your facebook page has also been shut down, probably due to your extremist posts.

Now stop tring to move all the topics towards your political agenda, and let us get back on topic.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35405359)

the main one been its anti growth.

---------- Post added at 09:59 ---------- Previous post was at 09:54 ----------



by increase the private sector pay rates?

adding a postcode lottery to job pay in the public sector is bad for growth but I do also agree with the point its bad as well for other reasons already stated such as.

attracting decent staff to poor areas, like good GPs and teachers.
people doing the same work but for different levels of pay based on where they live. I think its more likely to be based on the companys address tho, so it may be possible someone will live in an expensive area but travel to a poor located workplace. So it may force people to move to poorer areas.

So in affect it will make rundown areas even worse and good areas better widening poor/rich gap.

---------- Post added at 10:00 ---------- Previous post was at 09:59 ----------



I think the way they acting now they expecting to not be reelected so as such dont care about their public image and are just pushing through everything the tory donaters want (the rich want).


---------- Post added at 10:05 ---------- Previous post was at 10:01 ----------



people can be easily manipulated when the media backs government.

also proven with the voting referendum.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35405397)

The trouble is that they are unlikely to increase anybodys pay, and it is just a costcutting excercise.

In my profession, if I worked 20 miles down the road I would earn an extra £6000 London weighting. If I worked 10 miles down the road I would earn and extra £550 as fringe London weighting. If I worked in my old home town in West Yorkshire I would earn the same as I do now, but I would be better off due to the cost of living, by anything between £4000 and £6000. The area where I work is an extremely expensive part of the country, yet in real terms we are probably in the worst financial position....but do you think the wages would go up in my area to compensate?....I don't think so.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35405445)

the variations in the private sector however could also be accounted for different jobs for different companies tho.

with GPs, teachers etc. they working for the same employer doing the same work.

its nothing to do with subsidies but more to do with the private sector changing its priorities from salary levels to profit.

the only reasonings for this policy is probably company owners using their joke of a minister hotlines ringing up to complain their employees want pay rises (how dare they) and its harder to turn them down when the public sector pays better. Also the good old saving money as I suspect there will be a net saving from it.

Its funny how you consider it a subsidy, I wonder how much cash is going to the private sector from the NHS contracts and th high speed rail work.

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35405472)

I used doctors and teachers because their jobs are more or less the same in the private and public sectors. I could also add firefighters and nurses to the list if you want, with the same results. In fact the only direct private comparrison to public sector firefighters would be airport firefighters, who I believe on average earn roughly 25% more.

Many public sector jobs have now gone to private contractors, who make a profit, and then pay very low wages. But this now puts those workers in the private sector.

You have to remember that many statistics are manipulated to fit in with the governments agenda, so don't take them too seriously. An example is how they reduced the number of fire death statistics. Now someone who dies in a fire that was started through arson, is not listed as a fire death, but as a murder. And someone who gets drunk, then passes out leaving their chip pan on, is listed as alocohol related, and not a fire death. Then someone who has a fire, and calls the fire service, but manages to knock the fire down themselves. If there are no visible flames on arrival of the fire service (even if it is still smoldering), this isn't put down as a fire.

There may be exceptions, but in general for long term employment it is well known that public sector jobs pay less. Although during a recession, businesses whos profits are down, may pay lower wages. But this usually changes as the economy improves, and unemployment drops.

By the way, it is illegal to pay men and women different pay rates just based on sex.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35405473)

so if the vote goes one way, it's democracy in action - if it goes the other way, it's manipulation.....;)

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35405482)

Sort of yes!

Don't you remember that the Sun was a tory paper in the 80's, spouting tory propoganda. Then when the tories started to lose popularity, the Sun switched to Labour, spouting Labour propoganda.

Many peole will believe what they read in the papers.

All governments manipulate the press when it suits them. An example is in the fire service pay dispute in 2003. The government put a block on the press reporting anything that put firefighters in a good light. When you think that normally local papers will report on a bin fire. But during the dispute, a 2 year old boy and his mother were rescued from a house fire in Stevenage. They both only just survived by the skin of their teeth, but this didn't even get a mention in the local press.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35414563)

Strange, how your comments/answers very rarely relate to what was actually posted - you seem to reply to the statements you think the CF'ers should have posted (or are not related at all), rather than what they actually posted.....

Originally Posted by Tim Deegan (Post 35406132)

It's not a legal block. But when a government minister says that they don't want you to report something, then believe me, unless it is a huge news story it would be in the business interest to follow their withes. Otherwise investigations may start into dodgy reporting practices, that may otherwise be ignored.

If it is a big story of national interest, and it came out that the government had tried to hush it up, then the poo could really hit the fan. But with a story about a mother and child being rescued from a fire, then nobody cares if it isn't reported.

And if you don't believe me, then do a bit of research. It was during the pay dispute in 2003 (if I remember right). And see if you can find any story about a mother and a two year old child being saved in Stevenage.

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35414554)

How can you explain people voting for a lower standard of living?

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35414554)

How can you explain people voting for a lower standard of living?

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35414554)

For god sake, you keep on callling me an extremist,

Originally Posted by LexDiamond (Post 35414612)

It really is amazing how between Tony Blair coming to office and Gordon Brown leaving office that this country forgot how to live within its means.

There are people like Alan that think luxury is a right and doesn't need to be earnt.

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35414565)

<Snip twaddle>

Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35414586)

And when the credit fuelled boom hit the buffers everybody has to tighten their belts and pay off the debts. The country is no different. The higher standard of living was an illusion that it was convenient for the previous government to keep going as long as possible. Then when it was clear thet it could not be sustained they resorted to scorched earth tactics and budget time bombs in order to say "I told you so, look at the nasty Torys" when they were rightly kicked in the gonads.

Originally Posted by Alan Fry (Post 35414565)

Why can't the Levison investigation deal with this?

Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35414589)

Sorry but you are, Your twitter page backs that up and your facebook page did as well