Eames

To be fair to everyone here, whatever colour you take your politics, driving around in a van asking illegal immigrants, most of whom can't read, to text the authorities about going home is perhaps the shittest idea I have ever heard.

I'm not sure that it does work perfectly well, though, does it? What we have throughout the civil system is something which affords more opportunities (and more 'justice'?) to those with means and that has only increased with the withdrawal of legal aid for so many types of cases. This would appear to be more of the same though I suppose it also opens up a large 'market' for no win, no fee employment legal services. Fair comments - I suppose I meant it "works" in the sense that the loser pays costs or at least contributes to them. I would agree however that the logistics of accessing "justice" are easier when you're sat on a shit load of cash.

Fair enough if they want to encourage councils to have more free, short term waiting/pick up bays and if they want to encourage them to have, say, the first 30 minutes in a pay and display car park free but this is an utter load of horseshit. My proposal would around these parts would be to issue tickets to all of the bastards who park like they're the only user of a road (or more often a pavement). Where do they think we are, parking like that? France? What an utterly utterly stupid idea. In most cases double yellow lines are their for a reason ie: having some dickhead park there is going to cause mayhem for the every other motorist. You could legislate to compel councils to have a 15 minute "waiting" fee to park for a nominal fee eg. 20p or something but to just say "**** it, park it there for 30mins" is utter madness.

Wrong on quite a few counts Let's start with the last bit. The Unions do feel strongly about this looking at the press reports and are actively involved so it seems in righting the wrong that is occurring here. You don't join a Union retrospectively as a way to get them to fight sackings. (we can ignore the silly comments re Labour - but good to see the "ahh but Labour" is spreading to others). The simple question is do you respect the rights of people based on how wealthy you are (the scheme that is being implemented) or based on them being a person. I agree frivolous claims should be stopped but by pricing them out is not the way, surely? I am aware you don't join a Union retrospectively and never you suggested you c/should hence the quote "footing the bill for their members" You really should read posts more thoroughly before responding. I'm not entirely sure where you got the "ahhh but Labour" bit from either tbh - apart from the fact I used them in to make a tongue in cheek gag about how the Union's could spend the money they aren't sending Labour's way...... I didn't refer to an older Labour policy or to argue that they are in some way inferior. For someone that moans constantly about "deflection" in debate here, you appear to be somewhat skilled in that particular dark art yourself. So, now we've dealt with the bits you a) haven't read properly and deflected we can deal with the substance. As long as (and I admit I don't know it does/doesn't) the costs incurred are recoverable from the employer in the event of successful claim where is the issue with costs? It works perfectly well in the rest of the Court system - if you fight an action and loose you pay the cost. It will naturally deter those who are chancing their arm or those who don't really have a claim, as well as ensuring those who correctly undertake such actions have their rights protected. If any of the above does not apply then I happily concede that it is a poor idea because employees on low incomes will have to make financially difficult decisions that will naturally deter them from claiming rightly or not.

Massive caveat I haven't read any of the details of the change to Employment Tribunals I may be totally off piste But, IMO it is too easy to take these matters to tribunal and they are often used as a speculative wind up by disgruntled employees. In any other comparable situation eg. Small Claims Court, the claimant is required to pay the costs of launching the proceedings, as long as the costs are recoverable if the claim is successful I can't really see whats wrong with the change? Its not an unreasonable decision and the costs suggested don't really appear to me to be excessive. I wholly agree that employees need protection from unscrupulous employers in the case of wrongful dismissal or harassment but I can't see how the fees would make this less likely to happen. Equally, isn't this what people also join Trade Unions for? Surely if the Unions feel so strongly about these changes they could alleviate the misery this terrible changes will make by footing the bill for their members so they can pursue such cases? They'll have all that spare cash they're not giving to Labour to spend on something won't they?

Where in my post did I ever question his work rate? Work ethic so, lets not split hairs! Work rate being how much running he does on a football pitch......work ethic being how much drinking and nightclubbing he does when injured. You're not splitting hairs so much as the scalp, skull and half the carcass. Bottom line is he's not good enough or committed enough for Villa so best all round that he moves on. We show far to much 'loyalty' to academy players that will never make it.

Celtic's Gary Hooper signs for Norwich City anyone bothered? No me neither.

Setting>roaming.toggle off?

I've done that...... Me: Oh that sounds serious..... I'll load up the computer. Me: Oh hang on, Windows is configuring updates. 1 of 3. It'll just take a minute My record is over 23 minutes with the bloke on the phone.

Try Utility Warehouse. Gas, Electric, Phone, Ultd BB and Mrs E's mobile phone contract all for under £175 a month. (We live in a 4 bed house) We get our TV from Virgin so have their XL TiVO package for £33 a month on top. The UW broadband craps all over Virgins as well FWIW.

I pray to McGrath that this is true but of course,sadly, it isn't.

Indeed, the puns so far are only small beer compared to the maize of moon puns that kept hopping up.

Yeah the fact that I noticed Stevo's girlfriend had posh knickers probably says more about me than the rest of you.........

You probably won't. It was just a good excuse to ape our glorious web master.

Holy shit, I didn't even realise that was a victoria secrets bag I thought she'd sent me the pic because of the "Ben's Cookies" bag... You dopey bastard.

I like Okore I'd follow Gabby (he knows where the girls are) I'd let Weimann poke me. Am I doing this right?

In true Limpid style..... If only there was a page on VT with this information

On a serious note....baked goods and lingerie? She's a keeper.

Hmmmm 3 strikers you say......**heads back to FF page

Your move... That is blatantly you in a wig and no 5 oclock shadow. Still would though.

The fact that having spent all day slagging wonga and the pay day loan companies the good old CofE has been outed as one of Wonga's investors.

Was that supposed to be a counter argument?

Criticised by someone in Holland, with no links to club, their training methods/approach....or the player. Prior to his last season at Arsenal and his 1st at Manyoo RvP had a blue plaque on many a physio's bench. Nothing article if you ask me.

Would a far easier option be to for people who feel mutliquote is being abused or used poorly to report those posts to the mods who can tidy/politely request posters to stop as they see fit? Such a system would meet everyone's needs would it not?

Not entirely sure where this belongs but my ego dictates it should be here. Apologies to Limpid if this is in breach of the VT rules but its for a good cause. I am doing the Ride London 100 sportive on 4th August in aid of United Response - a charity that supports adults with learning disabilities to live semi-independent lives. If anyone is able to or feels so inclined - please click the link and sponsor me. THANK YOU