 You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Lock up your homes,bikes and cars, because a lot of police are off to london town, PROTESTING.
Wonder who is going to kettle them.
We need more roads police not less.
Don't kettle them, just line the streets and clap them on. Although the police generally are full of allsorts, and can therefore contain bad eggs, we cannot allow the all too often appalling behaviour of the Met to affect the way we treat serving officers from elsewhere around the country.
One day strikes/marches/etc aren't going to work imo. Got to be a fortnights minimum of national strike to bring the government down to its knees and show them that the 1 in 4 workers in the civil service are a power to be reckoned with where misguided policies protecting their rich friends/lobbyists whilst screwing the citizens are concerned.
I hope the met baton rounds on them.
I hope someone uses baton rounds on them.
At a kill rate of zero point bugger all percent, there's not much point.
I think it's a great opportunity to see how many we actually need. If the country doesn't fall apart while they're striking, I say they must be surplus to requirements and should be sacked.
That'll learn them.
...and show them that the 1 in 4 workers in the civil service are a power to be reckoned with...
I think we all know that already, we're still desperately trying to recover from the previous Government (and I use the term loosely) that they selfishly voted in to get a sweet pension deal. I think everyone who voted them in should have to explain themselves in person to the families of any dead or injured UK military personally and Iraqi or Afghan civilians killed or maimed as a direct result of their greed.
I predict a riot...
...what time are they revolting? only because I've got an 8.30 in Whitehall on Thursday which I don't want to get [i]tear gassed/ kettled/ baton charged/ trampled by a horse/ punched in the stomach for no good reason[/i] on the way to.
I wonder how the police would feel if some animal rights protesters should infiltrate their protest and cause trouble so that it turns into a violent riot. You know, like the police do to many protests.
Oh the ****ing hilarity that would entail.
(for the lawyers I'm not inciting violence)
...what time are they revolting? only because I've got an 8.30 in Whitehall on Thursday which I don't want to get tear gassed/ kettled/ baton charged/ trampled by a horse/ punched in the stomach for no good reason on the way to.
Interesting, I know folks who work in Whitehall who'd happily pay for someone to tie them up and do some of the aforementioned acts. 😯
Whiehall
Where's that then? 😉
More STW drivel - Don, are you able to differentiate between people striking and people protesting on their days off?
More STW drivel
LOL.
If they're not on the job, they're not working. If they're not working, sack the lazy gimps!
Tucker - I think we all know that already, we're still desperately trying to recover from the previous Government (and I use the term loosely) that they selfishly voted in to get a sweet pension deal. I think everyone who voted them in should have to explain themselves in person to the families of any dead or injured UK military personally and Iraqi or Afghan civilians killed or maimed as a direct result of their greed.
First time I heard a pension deal was the reason for conflicts abroad. My own private pensions were decimated. I presume that was to avoid war then.
If they're not on the job, they're not working.
Every single officer attending the march is doing so either on their day off, or they have been allowed to take a days leave (where staffing levels have allowed) but don't let your ill informed opinions get in the way of your drivel. 😉
bless 'em
Every single officer attending the march is doing so either on their day off, or they have been allowed to take a days leave
I suggest that if they've been given the day off that this is the green light to getting rid as they're clearly surplus to requirements. 😯
As for the rest, if they can afford to go galivanting around the streets on some kind of yobbish demo, they can afford a couple of extra hours in the office, which I will imagine will benefit many as costs come down and efficiency improves. Pretty much a win, win. Except for the lazy gimps who want to maintain the culture of laziness.
I think everyone who voted them in should have to explain themselves in person to the families of any dead or injured UK military personally and Iraqi or Afghan civilians killed or maimed as a direct result of their greed.
Yes because the Tory government have shown in the past how anti-war and not at all keen to toady up to the Americans they are, so they definitely wouldn't have got us involved in Iraq/Afghanistan. 😕
edit: don simon 🙄
edit: don simon 🙄
You appear to have confounded me with you intricate retort grum.
I guess you've never experienced job changes where a job previously done by two, and after an enforced change like short staffing is seen to be done by one, resulting in a single job being lost. Come on Einstein, tell me, if all these officers can be spared , how is their work being done?
Don Simon, are you a fully fledged retard or just having a brain fart today?
Don Simon, are you a fully fledged retard or just having a brain fart today?
What's the problem kenny?
Sorry, my apologies, crime is going to decrease on said day, is it?
Well, you appear to be suggesting that any police officer who goes is surplus to requirements, despite having been told that those going are on their days off.
So if we follow your position to it's logical conclusion we can reduce the police force by approximately 75%, extend the 40 hour working week of the 25% that are left to 168 hours, and have them work 24hrs a day every day without ever having any time off.
Which I'm sure will improve things enormously.
🙂
Well, you appear to be suggesting that any police officer who goes is surplus to requirements, despite having been told that those going are on their days off.
😯 You did read it, didn't you? The surplus is those who have been given leave, that is should be working but not needed.
The suggestion I [s]appeared to make[/s] made (I didn't appear to suggest anything, I suggested it!) was that if [s]you and your colleagues[/s] these people can afford to go for a jolly down to London on their days off, that they could also afford to put in a bit of overtime, only a couple of hours, for the good of the team, you know, give a little, take a little.
As for the rest of your post, that's built on the first inaccuracy.
Why do you think it's acceptable to call someone who has a different view to you a retard?
It's not because you have a different view, it's because what you said is stupid.
Do you think police officers shouldn't have days off or annual leave?
If that's what you think, you're daft.
If that's not what you think, why do you object to them going on a march on their day off or annual leave?
Anyway, to get back to the bit that interests me, rather than ds and everybody else slagging each other off 😉 , when is it going to all kick off as I have a meeting that I need to get to in Whitehall on that morning and I need to know whether to take my gas mask, kevlar helmet and stab vest.
Do you think police officers shouldn't have days off or annual leave?
Have I said that? No I haven't, so go away and try and work out what I'm saying.
If that's what you think, you're daft.
If that's what you think that I think, then I've come to a different conclusion.
I have no objections to them going on a march, as I said it'll be a good way to see which positions/people are surplus.
I really don't think that you've understood anything that I've said, and you call me the retard...
Which force are you on?
ds and everybody else slagging each other off
first you pull me up for spelling (when your own isn't perfect) then you wrongly accuse me of slagging people off, this place is getting worse... 🙄 😀
Why do you think it's acceptable to call someone who has a different view to you a retard?[/quoteWhy do you think it's acceptable to say the following?
If they're not on the job, they're not working. If they're not working, sack the lazy gimps!DS. Let me put this Really simply so that you can understand it.
[u]The officers attending the march are doing so in their own time.[/u]
I fail to see what is so hard to understand here. Do you never have a day off from you job then?
Don Simon, are you a fully fledged retard or just having a brain fart today?
i still think hes overtired after a good nap he should improve to merely a bit daft like normal.
Hes still upset that his pension is rubbish and some people came up with the idea of unionism to try and protect theirs.
My sincerest apologies Bregante some retard (for that appears to be word of the day) mentioned earlier that folks were getting time off from duty.
Every single officer attending the march is doing so either on their day off, [b]or they have been allowed to take a days leave (where staffing levels have allowed[/b]) but don't let your ill informed opinions get in the way of your drivel.
Where staffing levels have allowed clearly shows a surplus. How much simpler would you like me to make it for you?
Unionism?
Orange bastards.
Orange bastards.
Scouse birds?
Is this a big hitter thread?
Jesus wept - just come back from a ride, quickly log on and then read the bollox on this thread, mainly from DS.
I'm out.
[IMG] 
[/IMG]
Is this a big hitter thread?
Not quite...but it's certainly bitchin'
Jesus wept - just come back from a ride, quickly log on and then read the bollox on this thread, mainly from DS.
See ya!
EDIT: Not stooping.
I'm out
Being taken out for dinner by an "associate" deluded? 🙂
Be interesting to see if the number of people marching bears any relation to the officially reported number 🙂
Ok is unionisation better captain pedantpants?
🙂
Ok is unionisation better captain pedantpants?
Yep 🙂
(sorry, etc. 😉 )
Excellent Deluded I love it! but this is what we are fighting against! this isn't a strike, as we aren't allowed to strike. This is officers marching in their own time on a rest day! Yes Don Simon I'm sure lots of them would love to work over time .. but there isn't any..... you really have no clue!
As Deluded said I'm off too.
but there isn't any..... you really have no clue!
There will be when you get rid of the dead weight. You're forgiven for not reading what I said too.
I have it on good authority that some staff are being given leave to attend, where staffing levels allow. But don't let that stop you in you inaccurate response. Far from it being me that doesn't have a clue.
As people don't appear to able to read or provide sensible answers, I'm out.
As people don't appear to able to read or provide sensible answers, I'm out.
I haven't seen anything from you yet that warrants a sensible answer.
donsimon - Does that work in the private sector too? Whenever an employee goes on holiday I can fire them? What happens when they've all been on holiday and nobody is left who works here? I'm confused.
I haven't seen anything from you yet that warrants a sensible answer.
I can only assume these types of responses are coming from said gimps who are a tad nervous about being found out as being surplus.
[url= http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing001.gi f" target="_blank">
I thought you'd already flounced on page 1?
See, that's the problem with this place - anything you say can and will be used in evidence etc.......
Sorry.
As people don't appear to able to read or provide sensible answers, I'm out.
bye bye xxx
I can only assume these types of responses are coming from said gimps who are a tad nervous about being found out as being surplus.
Everyone is surplus to requirements in one way or another. Was it not you that said that you were surplus to requirements on this thread?
don simple simon - MemberWhich force are you on?
Do you mean police force (evidently nothing you say should be taken to mean what it says)?
If so, none of them.
Never mind ds, I'm sure it will be lots better after G4S have taken over. That nice Mr Cameron seems to think so.
Being allowed leave means they're being allowed to chose to take one of their 25 days annual leave on Thursday.
It's not [u]extra[/u] time off.
Like any organisation or company, staffing levels are set to take account of the fact that each person will be absent for x days a year for their annual leave.
So suppose you need 10 policemen to cover town A every day. That means you'll need to employ 11 so that there are still 10 on duty when each one is on leave. It doesn't make the 11th officer surplus to requirements.
I don't quite see what the problem is?
Do you mean police force (evidently nothing you say should be taken to mean what it says)?
WTF are you on about Kenny? The below is the text where you misrepresented what I said.
Well, you appear to be suggesting that any police officer who goes is surplus to requirements, despite having been told that those going are on their days off.
I wasn't suggesting anything, I came straight out with it.
I certainly didn't suggest that any officer who goes was surplus, but rather that some are.
And I've already shown that the source of the day off info came from someone else here and apologised for it.
Get away with you and your bizarre understandings, what I have said is perfectly clear and only interpreted by those with a strange outlook on life.
I'll repeat, if a job can be done with less people, why should we pay for the dead weight? If the [s]strike[/s] demonstration can show that outputs are not affected (bregante did say that people can go where staffing allows), in the police force or any other job (mine included), shouldn't the dead weight be culled?
😆
I thought you had flounced? Your post seems to be contradictory to me. Feel free not to respond though, you stick to your guns.
Police forces also need surplus capacity so should be over staffed some days nothing happens some days they will have a football match at one end of town a riot at the other and a car crash in the middle.
I have no issue with the police protesting and marching through London they have just as much right to do so as the countryside Alliance the poll tax protestors the anti capitalists and students .
I certainly didn't suggest that any officer who goes was surplus, but rather that some are.
But look what I found...
If the country doesn't fall apart while they're striking [b](they aren't striking by the way, they're either on a day off or on their annual leave. Striking is something altogether different- ask someone to show you how to google 'striking')[/b], I say they must be surplus to requirements and should be sacked.
And
If they're not on the job, they're not working. If they're not working, sack the lazy gimps!
If they're [s]not on the job[/s] on a rest day or on leave they're not working. If they're [s]not working[/s] on a rest day or leave, sack the lazy gimps!
I suggest that if they've been given the day off that this is the green light to getting rid as they're clearly surplus to requirements
If you go to page one of this thread and scroll down you can look and see which star came out with all those gems.
I thought you had flounced?
You see, that's what happens when you think too much, you can be wrong.
Your post seems to be contradictory to me
Where's the contradiction?
Surplus gets sacked, simples.
If people are showing that they are surplus, they can and should be sacked in these austere times.
If they can afford the time on their days off, they can work a bit extra to help Team UK, during these austere times.
I'm out because I'm as bored of repeating it as I'm sure people are of reading it. If you can't get your head round that a_a, is it any wonder the kids have no future?
EDIT:
If you go to page one of this thread and scroll down you can look and see which star came out with all those gems.
It's nice that you went to all that trouble Kenny, and I can only assume that you support the idea of paying salaries to dead weight, good luck to you.
You see DS, what happens in the [s]real[/s] grown up world is this:
Every adult in the u.k who is in paid employment (not self employed) is allowed a certain number of days off a year. Some people call them "holidays" but the emergency services tend to call it "annual leave" and you get a certain number of hours each year to take when staffing levels allow. if I ask for leave when the numbers do not allow it I can't take leave, for example I am not allowed to take leave at all during this years Olympic games (and I have no problem with that whatsoever).
But you see, due to this silly "holiday" or "leave" entitlement, employers have to employ enough people to provide cover to allow for those holidays to take place. Does that make sense to you?
So for the final time.[u] The officers attending the March in London on 10th May have taken a day of their own annual leave entitlement to attend.[/u]
And for what it's worth, I'm not attending as staffing levels do not allow it.
It's nice that you went to all that trouble Kenny
You're welcome. It didn't take me long.
and I can only assume that you support the idea of [s]paying salaries to dead weight[/s] people having days off, good luck to you.
Thanks again, although I don't think I'll need any luck - the majority of the population agree with me that people should have days off from work now and again.
Debates powered by pure sexual frustration, don't you have other half's to drive mad?
Or hamsters to train 😆
You see DS, what happens in the real grown up world is this:Every adult in the u.k who is in paid employment (not self employed) is allowed a certain number of days off a year. Some people call them "holidays" but the emergency services tend to call it "annual leave" and you get a certain number of hours each year to take when staffing levels allow. if I ask for leave when the numbers do not allow it I can't take leave, for example I am not allowed to take leave at all during this years Olympic games (and I have no problem with that whatsoever).
But you see, due to this silly "holiday" or "leave" entitlement, employers have to employ enough people to provide cover to allow for those holidays to take place. Does that make sense to you?
So for the final time. The officers attending the March in London on 10th May have taken a day of their own annual leave entitlement to attend.
And for what it's worth, I'm not attending as staffing levels do not allow it.
And would this be called attempted patronising? If you have forgotten it was you bregnte who said that people would be given leave if staffing levels allow. That to means that if 5 people are on the rosta and the boss feels the work can be done by 4, why should we pay for the fifth, let's experiment. If you want a_a, our resident teacher can help you with the maths, wait a minute, scrap that idea...
Edit all you want kenny boy, it's not going to change my opinion that there is dead weight and this dead weight should be got rid of.
And would this be called attempted patronising? If you have forgotten it was you bregnte who said that people would be given leave if staffing levels allow. That to means that if 5 people are on the rosta and the boss feels the work can be done by 4, why should we pay for the fifth, let's experiment. If you want a_a, our resident teacher can help you with the maths, wait a minute, scrap that idea...
Edit all you want kenny boy, it's not going to change my opinion that there is dead weight and this dead weight should be got rid of.
I'm not attempting to do anything DS. I am patronising you.
I am explaining the term "leave". I honestly thought you were trolling. Obviously not. You clearly are very very stupid.
You clearly are very very stupid.
Clearly. 🙄
And the charge of stupidity, I will lay at your door and I expect you to accept with the grace it is given. I didn't introduce the idea of staff being given free time where staffing levels allow, that was you dear boy (or possibly girl). If staffing levels allow staff to go on a jolly, that is a surplus. End.
it's not going to change my opinion that there is dead weight and this dead weight should be got rid of.
That might well be true.
But you're equating of that with some police officers going on a protest on their day off is some of the most hard-of-thinking reasoning I've ever seen.
Do you work don simon?
I'm not attending as [s]staffing levels do not allow it[/s] I'm happy to let others do my protesting for me.
Bizzies eh? 😆
[u]But you're equating of that[/u] with some police officers going on a protest on their day off is some of the most hard-of-thinking reasoning I've ever seen.
But I haven't done that, have I? I have said that
If staffing levels allow staff to go on a jolly, that is a surplus. End.
Do you work don simon?
I don't see what that has to do with the question or my opinion, so it's an irrelevant comment. Deal with the issue in hand.
Have you ever managed a business?
I'm not attending as staffing levels do not allow it I'm happy to let others do my protesting for me.
Bizzies eh?
Just holding the fort dd 😉
For decades the police have been the enforcement arm of the rich and powerful, whilst they line their pockets and pay working class people as little as possible.
These individuals have gone on strike and protested, the police have then been used to coerce, bully, attack and even hospitalize countless people. All at their masters bidding and all without so much as one question about it being right or wrong to do so.
Now it's your time to be on the receiving end in terms of your quality of life being unfairly lowered and all of a sudden there is a big hoohaaa about it.
Sorry but what goes around comes around, on the bright side at least you now know exactly how it feels, being in the same boat as the rest of us 😆
where you misrepresented what I said.
You've had dealings with the Police in the UK then 😆
I don't see what that has to do with the question or my opinion, so it's an irrelevant [s]comment[/s] question. Deal with the issue in hand.
No I don't suppose you do yet. Are you afraid to answer it?
No I haven't ever managed a business.
If it wasn't for don simon, it'd be curtains for all of us.
😯No I don't suppose you do yet.
If it wasn't for don simon, it'd be curtains for all of us.
😀
8)You've had dealings with the Police in the UK then
If staffing levels allow staff to go on a jolly, that is a surplus. End.
If staffing levels allow some staff to take a days annual leave, out of their legal entitlement, is that a surplus?
😯 isn't an answer. Do you work? Come on now, be brave and answer it.
If staffing levels allow some staff to take a days annual leave, out of their legal entitlement, is that a surplus?
Yes it is.
If their manager believed he needed to employ 5 people to get the work done and then decides that he can actually have the work done with only 4, how can that be anything but a surplus?
Do I work? Yes. Nothing about being brave, I don't see the relevance.
Do you wear black shoes?
What if the manager knows that he needs 4 people to get the work done, and also knows that each of those 4 people will be legitimately absent from work for 25 days a year, leaving him with 3 people to do 4 people's work for those 100 days. Would a competent manager not foresee this problem and recruit accordingly to cover this shortfall?
By your logic, the only way to avoid either a surplus of staff or a shortfall of staff is to employ exactly the number required to do the job then never allow them to take any leave.
Do I work? Yes. Nothing about being brave, I don't see the relevance.
Good. Do you ever take time off, holiday if you like?
Yes I wear black shoes, sometimes.
kaesae,
they are not going to see what its like being on the receiving end though are they? they are not going to get held against their will in a 'kettle'. they are not going to have agent-provocatuer enticing riot police to charge in. they are not going to get murdered in the street with little or no consequence. they are however going to be ignored and screwed over by the ruling elite just like the rest of us though.
Would a competent manager not foresee this problem and recruit accordingly to cover this shortfall?
Yes he would, and he'd probably recognise that having the a 4th person sitting on their ar5e for 265 other days might be considered a waste of resources, which is what you want, isn't it?
Your example only needs to work for 100 days, no?
For 265 days the paid employee that you want is surplus.
That's what I understand from your example.
EDIT: The example isn't so good for the second part, but here goes, forgetting the number of cover days is 265 or 88,33 per person, which is alot. We now have a bit of overtime that Munque was looking for (sorry if it was someone else) to satisfy the shortfall.
Good. Do you ever take time off, holiday if you like?
Not often.
OK, so now I'm going to talk you through it again with some bigger numbers.
Say he needs 15 people there each day to get the work done.
Each of those 15 takes 25 days leave each year.
So for 15 x 25 = 375 days he only has 14 people coming to work.
So he needs to employ a 16th person to give him 15 people at work each day.
Unless he just has 15 and never allows them any leave.
I can't simplify any more for you. It is very basic.
Not often.
Per haps you should.
I'm going to the pub now.
Toodle pip.