Eames

A company employs 500 staff on the NMW. So an increase of 19p an hour for one hour costs the company £95. Assume a standard 37 hour working week for all employees thats an extra £351,500 on the weekly wage bill. Across 52 weeks a year increases that companies wage bill by £18,278,000. That I would argue is not an irrelevant increase.

If it's a non LTE S3, it's a "click click click click click done" job. Phone will be wiped though so don't forget a backup. And your warranty will be void. The water damage sticker has tripped anyway so I doubt it would be repaired anyway. Plus its nearly 2 years old. A full back up will be undertaken. Might have a stab at this tonight and will report back on the differences.

Far more damaging to the prosecution case though was the Dr's testimony that he heard a series of bangs, a scream, and then another series of bangs - backs up Oscar's story 100%. The evidence about legs or not is questionable... will be interesting to see if Pistorius himself shows how he hit the door and whether that tallies or not.

Or "Clergy Blower"

I can only assume that there is a typo towards the end of this sentence which would make the tale far more believable of a man of the cloth than one of them playing cricket. Whoops er.....yeah...... Eames. "Clergy Bummer"

I haven't really noticed anything touchwizzy that annoys me that much...... except the forced updates of bloatware i never use. What are the chances that I cock my phone up for good if I use cyanogen mod?

**** hell. Tell them the price was £10k....until you Youtubed his music and now its £20k. And he's from Brizzle, no good has ever come out of Brizzle.

Ok ... I'm a total layman with an S3. Sell it to me. Why should I do this. What benefits will I notice?

Oscar's brief absolutely schooling the Forensic witness this morning.

Not sure how old this is or how m any times its been a former Villa defender in a refuse recepticle but I saw this and lol'd.

Totally unrelated but since we're doing "sports stories related to minor celebrities" I once clean bowled the Bishop of Maidstone. EDIT diocesean inaccuracy

I've been trying to write a sensible response to the Bob Crow news.... and Trent has gone and done it all for me. My thought are with his family.

No. Not at all. The LA in my area is the one with the SMEs not the schools. THe point that I was making (poorly) is that Head Teachers (particularly those running Secondary schools) are not the altuistic superbeings whose sole purpose in life is to care for and nuture the children that the DfE would have us believe.

Its different area to area but a lot of LEAs are transfering services over to Social Enterprise Companies. There is a lot of statutory "stuff" the LAs have to do but the agenda at the DfE is very much giving Head Teachers as much power as possible. This is almost universally a terrible idea.

There is no "test" per say. It's self evaluation. You have to answer questions to show you are suitable. Unless you're uncommonly stupid you can't "fail it"

Colhint - so basically again you wont enter the spirit of debate other than a "ahh but ..." type retort. Is it that you agree that a lot of what is reported as fact is in reality myth? Come on surely there are enough comments being made by supporters of others than the Tory party for you to have a reasonable argument against them. What about the Grud article I posted as a starter for 10, or maybe Burnham's comments, they contain some reasonable statements.they contain reasonable statements of you happen to be of the same political persuasion as he. The Guardian good....Telegraph bad approach to arguements is rather disappointing. Rather than parroting the work of others and passing it off as gospel why not interpret what is being said in the context of that publications news agenda and think for yourself. Who said Grud good, Torygraph bad? - You have, I certainly haven't. I merely used the Grud's article as a starter for a debate, one that I notice the Tory supporters still wont enter into especially against the myth of the history of the two main parties. See my post on the subject a couple of pages back. Sums up my position perfectly. Both parties can be relied on to make at total Horlicks of the situation...they just have their own special ways of doing it.

Evidence? Because I would argue that the private sector is several times more efficient than the public. Presumably you also object to GlaxoSmithKline? Or Elastoplast? Or the bloke that makes sick bags because they too make a profit out of sick people.Or is it profit in general you object to? If the NHS remain free at the point of use but more efficient in its treatment of people where is the problem? :-) - how about a little word called accountability. I suppose all the banking / finance sector were more efficient than any state run sector? I suppose many companies who try and erode workers rights and evade paying a living wage are more efficient? Elastoplast are not a company as far as I know, and some of the pharmaceutical companies are very very good at research and development but the rest of society have to pay a massive price for that, for what is a basic part of a civilised society in the support and welfare of the health at least of each and everyone of us. Unless of course you subscribe that wealth = health? I would absolutely agree that the banking industry is more efficiently managed than the NHS...although clearly I am comparing apples with oranges. And yes those companies that keep wages as low as possible are clearly more efficient. Morally repugnant. But more efficient . Right so your example is that banking / finance industry is more efficient than the state - I suppose we can discount the impact of this well run machine has had on society recently? But at least you are consistent to the Tory ideal of low wages and suppressing the workforce I will give you that Did you not see the bit where i said it was morally repugnant or did it just not suit you to notice it?

Colhint - so basically again you wont enter the spirit of debate other than a "ahh but ..." type retort. Is it that you agree that a lot of what is reported as fact is in reality myth? Come on surely there are enough comments being made by supporters of others than the Tory party for you to have a reasonable argument against them. What about the Grud article I posted as a starter for 10, or maybe Burnham's comments, they contain some reasonable statements. they contain reasonable statements of you happen to be of the same political persuasion as he. The Guardian good....Telegraph bad approach to arguements is rather disappointing. Rather than parroting the work of others and passing it off as gospel why not interpret what is being said in the context of that publications news agenda and think for yourself.

Yes it is - well done. So I see that you wont even argue against the comments other than identifying who said it - something I had done anyway. Me thinks you may be struggling a bit for a reasonable answer to the points raised? No because I said in relation to the bedroom tax....what is happening and what Burnham was describing are dramatically different. As long as the NHS remains free at the point of use for all... And the staff are paid a fairnwage for the work they do and with fair conditions in which to work what is the issue with asking private companies to provide services of they can do it better than the government can?

Evidence? Because I would argue that the private sector is several times more efficient than the public. Presumably you also object to GlaxoSmithKline? Or Elastoplast? Or the bloke that makes sick bags because they too make a profit out of sick people.Or is it profit in general you object to? If the NHS remain free at the point of use but more efficient in its treatment of people where is the problem? :-) - how about a little word called accountability. I suppose all the banking / finance sector were more efficient than any state run sector? I suppose many companies who try and erode workers rights and evade paying a living wage are more efficient? Elastoplast are not a company as far as I know, and some of the pharmaceutical companies are very very good at research and development but the rest of society have to pay a massive price for that, for what is a basic part of a civilised society in the support and welfare of the health at least of each and everyone of us. Unless of course you subscribe that wealth = health? I would absolutely agree that the banking industry is more efficiently managed than the NHS...although clearly I am comparing apples with oranges. And yes those companies that keep wages as low as possible are clearly more efficient. Morally repugnant. But more efficient .

Is that the Andy Burnham who is Shadow Health Minister the and Labour front bencher? because he of course has no interest on dressing up what is happening for his own political aims has he?

Evidence? Because I would argue that the private sector is several times more efficient than the public. Presumably you also object to GlaxoSmithKline? Or Elastoplast? Or the bloke that makes sick bags because they too make a profit out of sick people.Or is it profit in general you object to? If the NHS remain free at the point of use but more efficient in its treatment of people where is the problem? In the video I posted the GP, Doctor Gill said efficiency levels have been dropping with privatisation. It doesn't do what it's supposed to do. As for the pharmaceutical industry, well there is a stark advert of the dangers of leaving medicine to the profiteers of the markets. So to repeat colhints point...what has actually been privatised apart from Labour's PFI build hospitals? Or is that to what Dr Gill is referring?

Evidence? Because I would argue that the private sector is several times more efficient than the public. Presumably you also object to GlaxoSmithKline? Or Elastoplast? Or the bloke that makes sick bags because they too make a profit out of sick people.Or is it profit in general you object to? If the NHS remain free at the point of use but more efficient in its treatment of people where is the problem?

Which is lovely and all...except the spin you attribute to the Tories is misplaced. They've been quite honest about what they are doing. Labour have simply given it a misleading strap line. The "bedroom tax" isn't a tax. It just isn't. You are calling an elephant a rhinoceros. You are simply just not right. If I give £10 to Oxfam one week and £5 the next I haven't levied a 50% tax on Oxfam have I? I've reduced the benefit I give them. Asking private companies to do something more efficiently within the NHS isn't intrinsically bad either if it delivers the same service and saves money. That's a different thing to selling the NHS off to a private interest to run for a profit al a the railways or royal mail. I'm not saying either point of view is right or wrong. Simply that of you intend to debate a subject you should understand it before forming an opinion. Simply parroting party policital spin does not a coherant argument make.

I've noticed that thrown around a lot on here. "You've missed the point" with no effort to explain why? Pray enlihnten me. Which point did I miss?