Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Yes there is.. once again

"That's beside the point, how can you believe or not in something without having defined it to "yourself" .. or do you just accept what some other people may say about it, in this case the word Utopia?"

do stop being an ass stan
Utopia was the name created by Thomas More for his imaginary island so that by definition is the definition

Modern day Utopia..


http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/german-town-sends-bus-of-refugees-to-merkel/ar-BBodeJ3?li=AAaeUIW

So it's true.. you are a bit of a muppet when it comes for answering a straight forward question.

There is no need to self define Utopia as it is a well well known concept. On the other hand I could come up with a new self definition of the cardinal numbers. It might make for some problems when communicating arithmetic information. While I am at it, I could self define the rules of mathematics just to make life even more difficult. Of course it would be possible to self define all concepts, but that would make conversation impossible.

That's the advantage of using commonly accepted definitions of concepts, especially when the concept is unambiguous and defined specifically by one person. it gives an opportunity for everyone to discuss the same concept. If everyone decided to self define such a concept then discussing it would become very difficult and probably pointless.

Going back to an earlier conversation Jimmy, Stan must be due a new motor. :-))

He'd like that , very modern for Stan .

Did you say the driver looked to young to be Stan? lol

I thought Fred would be in on the action. :-))

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/01/15/german-town-bars-asylum-seekers-from-pool-after-harassment-compl/21297862/

JEREMY CORBYN - The gift to the Tory Party, that just keeps giving! What planet is this guy on?

Jeremy Corbyn: Ban companies from paying shareholders unless staff earn the living wage
The Labour leader will call for companies to be prevented from paying dividends unless their staff are paid above the minimum wage


By Kate McCann, Senior Political Correspondent12:01AM GMT 16 Jan 2016
Companies should be banned from paying their shareholders dividends unless their staff earn the living wage, Jeremy Corbyn has said.
The Labour leader wants to ban chief executives from handing financial returns back to investors if they rely on “cheap labour” for their profits.
But business leaders have warned the policy would mean job losses and could hit pensioners who rely on dividends for their income.

In a key speech today, Mr Corbyn will also propose salary ratios to ensure that executive pay can’t exceed set limits based on how much the lowest paid in the company earn.

In a key speech today, Mr Corbyn will also propose salary ratios to ensure that executive pay can’t exceed set limits based on how much the lowest paid in the company earn.
His comments come after research showed the highest earning workers in the UK had already earnt the UK average annual salary by January 5 this year.
Mr Corbyn will suggest a plan to “bar or restrict companies from distributing dividends until they pay all their workers the living wage.”
He will add: “Only profitable employers will be paying dividends, if they depend on cheap labour for those profits then I think there is a question over whether that is a business model to which we should be turning a blind eye.”


But Simon Walker, the director general at the Institute of Directors said: “This is completely potty. It is hard to believe that any serious politician would suggest something so bizarre and damaging to ordinary people. Paying a dividend is not an immoral act, pensioners are dependent on them for their retirement, and without them, investment in British companies would dry up.”
The Labour leader will also highlight problems of inequality and call for a publicly owned railway; council-owned energy suppliers; universal childcare and more housebuilding.
At a speech at the Fabian Society’s conference in London he will accuse David Cameron of faking his concern for balancing the books and warns Conservative plans to “shrink the state” are responsible for the floods

Oh no.. William Tell's snuffed it http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-35307831

some of corbyn's ideas and spouting are just preposterous and even stupid beyond belief

unfortunately, he also seems to appeal to the idealistic and unworldly younger voters, and this could be dangerous

the idealistic and unworldly younger voters

Just as well they didn't lower the age to vote in the EU to 16

it is in the nature of the young that they tend towards idealism as they do jot have the experience in life to determine where some ideals may lead ..... there have been parallels throughout history

Last night I was talking to a lady friend whose husband is in the big housebuilder building trade:

"Is he managing to keep warm on site?" I enquired. "I suppose they do have heaters this weather?"

"No they don't!" she replied. "They tell the men they want things to 'dry out naturally' otherwise they get cracking. Well, that and 'heating costs money' and building these days is all about money."

So all the internal works are done in utterly freezing cold conditions.

So is this fair to the men, I wonder? Is it the cost of heating or is it the drying out and cracking? Are the workforce being badly treated?

Apparently men are queuing up to get jobs with the big housebuilders so I would infer just from this, that it is the cost of the heating.

Now here and there JC does have a point or two, in that it is immoral to cheat the workforce with pay and conditions just to raise the profits and make it easier to pay higher dividends to shareholders.

Q. Should something be done about it?

Ans. Well, yes. Sorry, YES.

Q. And how would you legislate to, say, control the working temperatures on a building site?

Ans. You really can't! It's damn near impossible. Period!

Natural drying out is necessary. You can speed it up a little by using dehumidifiers but heating does cause cracking. The natural drying is why it takes so long for flooded properties to be habitable again.
Anyone who has worked in extreme cold or heat knows that the answer is not heating or air conditioning when you have to go back out in the elements to get the job done. Better to dress properly and get on with it. Natural body heat keeps you warm.
Capitalism works on the basis of investors risking their money to get a return on the investment. Managers are appointed by boards to do just that but within the law and managers are human also and most try to look after their employees.
To quote Winston Churchill "the inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries".
The ruling elite is both cases do exceedingly well for themselves with their country homes or dachas, but the massive movement from former socialist countries to the UK is not by chance so don't knock it.
Corbyn has lived most of his natural life off the public purse and has no real life experience. Maybe instead of making vague complaints he should come up with examples of what he considers gouging employers. Maybe he will read a 'Fred from Leeds says' letter at the next PMQs.

there is a big difference between gunning for companies who don't pay the legal minimum wage - there's many ways in which companies evade this; eg insisting employees are self-employed as with couriers - and penalising those who don't pay the so-called living wage

corbyn wants to gun for the latter as well

Corbyn also wants to set a maximum multiple for the highest paid in relation to the lowest paid and breaches would mean no dividends to be paid.

It is called socialism. it is on the way to the system in Cuba where a road sweeper, television presenter, actor, doctor, scientist, surgeon all get the same pay.

the concept of the multiple highest/lowest has merits

though the above really makes minimal difference to the bottom line of a company, it is singularly galling when so many CEOs make an absolute pig's ear during their tenure and then walk away with eye-watering pensions and other multi-million£ perks .... and then do it again (and again) at other companies

of course, it happens in the public sector too, as well we all know