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.

R F

!?.....all possibles......

There are possibles that are impossible, and impossibles that are possible but we don't know what is possible or impossible .......

The suggested target is the Petronas Towers in Malaysia. The pilot seems to be a supporter of an extreme Malaysian polital party.

Another poll showing UKIP doing well........ Looks like the momentum is behind them and the Tories sweating on just 30%.

electionista ‏@electionista
UK - Opinium/Observer poll:

CON 30%
LAB 35%
LDEM 10%
UKIP 16%
Expand

16% is NO MPs. Even 30% will not get them an MP.

The usual Daily Express nonsense

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/465126/Missing-Malaysia-Airlines-plane-may-have-been-cyber-hijacked-using-mobile-phone

I think before there is a change of the English flag, there should be a debate and referendum in Wales and N.I. and as to whether there is any wish to be included in the flag.

Also, if the answer is yes, then they have to consider whether they will allow a Red Dragon at the centre of the flag and how big it should be.

Of course that will need another referendum or two.

I think before there is a change of the English flag, there should be a debate and referendum in Wales and N.I. and as to whether there is any wish to be included in the flag.

Also, if the answer is yes, then they have to consider whether they will allow a Red Dragon at the centre of the flag and how big it should be.

Of course that will need another referendum or two.

Published: March 16, 2014




Luke de Pulford: Why are our leaders cheering on unelected ones abroad?


By Luke de Pulford

Last updated: March 15, 2014 at 5:13 pm





International relations nerds must be wondering whatever happened to Democratic Peace Theory. For the uninitiated, this is the simple idea that democracies tend not to go to war with one another, and so the best way to solve global conflict is to ensure that as many nations as possible are democratically organised.

As a piece of political spin, it has been uncommonly enduring. Woodrow Wilson invoked it first to advocate for America’s involvement in the First World War on the grounds that ”a steadfast concert for peace can never be maintained except by a partnership of democratic nations”. Nearly a century later you could barely get a cigarette paper between this and George Bush’s “Global Democratic Revolution” rhetoric prior to the intervention in Iraq.

Now the international community seems to have exchanged the zealous language of democracy evangelisation for pom-poms to cheer in unelected leaders from Italy to the Ukraine.

It’s a dramatic shift in consensus, demoting democracy from its status as the most hallowed and unimpeachable weapon in the diplomatic arsenal, to something about which the international community seemingly couldn’t give a hoot, and all in the space of a few years.

Glancing at the Middle East, it’s not hard to see why. Few would argue that the imposition of democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan had succeeded in bringing about a “democratic peace”. Tragically far from it, as president Hamid Karzai confirmed recently.

But there’s another, perhaps more pertinent explanation. People are increasingly sceptical about whether or not Western concern for other governments has anything to do with the democratic credentials of their leaders. Rather than being the principle employed to avert crises, democracy has successively been relegated to a bureaucratic box reluctantly ticked after the event.

The example par excellence is technocrat Mario Monti of Italy, Prime Minister for 18 months despite the fact that no one ever voted for him. He was imposed by a European community who liked the look of him and judged that he could probably do the job. Perhaps more revealing of the general trend is the Ukraine, and the fascinating obstinacy of certain commenters on the left in calling Yanukovych’s government a regime. Reprehensibly bad it may have been, but a regime it was not.




More: http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2014/03/luke-de-pulford-why-are-our-leaders-cheering-on-unelected-ones-abroad.html

zero hour contracts
does the employee still qualify for holiday pay?
if not, then there's even less difference between that and being self-employed than has been purported

Zero hours workers are entitled to annual leave, the National Minimum Wage and pay for work-related travel in the same way as regular

cynic
No obligation to pay holiday pay, but some do.

Very rare indeed.

HOW EMPLOYERS ABUSE ZERO-HOURS CONTRACT WORKERS
16/03/2014 · by skwalker1964

Recently I’ve had a few people commenting to me that zero-hours contracts (ZHCs) are not malignant or exploitative, but rather vital to business and employment. Just a few minutes ago I watched a business owner, on BBC Programme “The Big Questions”, completely misrepresent ZHCs as giving flexibility to one of his older workers who doesn’t want to work full-time and great for young people, when the reality is that a ZHC puts the employee completely at the convenience of the employer.

The following was posted as a comment to my first blog article about ZHCs. It tells its own story, which I won’t embellish except to say that it shows perfectly how these abhorrent contracts are being exploited by unscrupulous companies to put the people under them in an invidious position:

Hi Steve, I recently moved from a Relief (casual) to zero-hour contract along with every other Relief staff member of my national social care employer. Here is a slightly redacted copy of my submission to the ‘consultation’. This move followed the removal of TUPE rights for all contracted staff and the loss of sick pay for the first three days of absence for contracted employees.

Dear,

I have read the pack and the intranet guidance on the relief proposals and, frankly, am appalled. I will be in [the office] on Tuesday but here are a few thoughts before I see you.

The zero-hours contract we are being asked to sign is horrid! At the moment, relief work is a two-way understanding: [The company] don’t have to offer work and we don’t have to accept it.

Now the balance of power is all one way. We can’t expect to be offered any work but are expected to be available at all the times we state on the form. We can be pulled part-way through a shift and lose the rest of the hours we were booked to work. We will never be classed as having any service to the company – ten years of regular work would count for nothing as far as length of service goes. We have no employment rights. Finally, the tone of the covering letter makes no pretence that this is a consultation in anything but name – this is clearly going to happen no matter what.

I have 4.5 years service and am writing this after giving advice to a prospective assistant manager, writing up two Mental Capacity Assessments and completing a cost breakdown and support outline for a meeting I’m having with a Social Worker tomorrow. I am a Senior Support Worker until I step down under the restructure, and make myself available at all hours to help out Support Workers and managers by telephone; kind of an unofficial on-call for the day-to-day stuff. Basically I believe I am an important part of the service, not the peripheral throwaway interchangeable body assumed by the new contract. I am not alone in this: many relief staff pull in 40-50 hour weeks in tough times and basically keep the services going; it is wrong to demean their contribution in this way. By the way, I remain on relief for the benefit of the company: as a single Dad who has to be home every night for my two-year old I thought it unfair to the rest of the team to apply for a contract when my hours and availability are restricted.

We have current adverts out for Relief Support Workers for £6.89 per hour under the old contracts, and recent recruits at that wage will not receive a consultation pack [only staff with a minimum length of service and hours worked were sent a pack]. How would you feel if you received a 4% pay cut and a more restrictive contract mere weeks after starting your own job, or while still waiting for your start date? Is it even legal? We rely on regular relief staff as cover and our fallback is an agency where we offer £6.50-£8.29 per hour plus agency fees for. Scrimping on the basic terms and conditions for in-house staff is a false economy in my opinion.

My suggestions in all this?
Increase the pay offer to £6.89 in line with contract support workers, and do the same across the country to show that relief workers are valuable.
Count time working regularly on relief towards length of service, including weeks when nothing can be offered.
Pay a full shift if cancelled within 24 hours of when it is due to start.
Set up a calendar system where we can block times we are unavailable on a real-time basis so managers can see when we have commitments elsewhere such as family or other jobs, rather than the unbalanced proposal where we have to offer everything and you nothing.
Above all, don’t treat us like second-class citizens if you expect any kind of respect for the company. To the people I support and my colleagues; always. But not to [the company].
A final thought: this offer fits in beautifully with the ex-gratia payment made a while back to show how much [the company] valued its staff. Relief workers got a big fat nothing. Now you’re doing it again.

Yours,

CMG

Zero hour contracts = self employed...... in all but name.

But without the tax advantages and perks.

The People have spoken!



Crimea Referendum Poll: 93% Vote For Russia

6:24pm UK, Sunday 16 March 2014




Voters in Crimea have overwhelmingly backed breaking away from Ukraine to join Russia, according to exit polls.

The White House has restated its rejection of the referendum in the southern Black Sea region, and has branded Russia's actions as "dangerous and destabilising".

There was a turnout of more than 80% it is being reported.

People waving Russian flags have already started celebrating in the Crimean capital Simferopol, ahead of the official results being announced.

Russian President Vladimir Putin had already reiterated the referendum complies with international law and promised to "respect" the outcome of the vote on whether to join Russia.



http://news.sky.com/story/1226921/crimea-referendum-poll-93-percent-vote-for-russia

thanks max .... i confess that has always been my impression too, but was told it wasn't quite the fact

Self employed equals running a business in. some form. It means having multiple clients otherwise you have to be on PAYE and get caught by IR35 regs. Most zero hours people cannot work for anyone else while under contract to their employer. The national insurance regs are different. A self employed must produce accounts for tax man. That is just a small sample number of thevdifferences.

No, they call zero hour folk "employed", even though they have no security. and I suppose they pay tax/Ni on a PAYE scheme.

They would be better off, if they set themselves up as self employed. That way they could offset tax against fares, car running expenses etc.

Yes, sorry to miss that, you need several contracts to get around the taxman.

Which is where the contracts themselves try to force you into a single employer status, without the compensation.

Yoiu can only offset tax against expenses if you have varied places of work. If you work at one location for one client then the tax man says you are employed and will refuse expenses. To get expenses, you must show you are running a genuine business.