Coronavirus

Not just big corporations. A friend of mine's kids climbed a tree in the park the other day; the local council had sprayed the trees with pesticide, and both kids came up in a rash all over their arms and legs.

 

The council pump out loads of chemicals dude......but let's be honest only a few would have any idea that the stuff they are told to use is detrimental to your health

 

Hope Truss gets it instead of Pob

 

like being asked if you would rather be shot or stabbed with the two options.

 

Follow the science init

https://www.ehtrend.com.br/en/pages...-casts-doubt-on-drugs-taken-by-8m-people.html

"The widespread use of antidepressants is “not grounded in science” because depression is not caused by a chemical imbalance, according to a new study.Researcher."

 

There obviously something that causes it but at the same time I think loneliness and isolation would be a big contributor to depression .

 

Covid created by a computer.......I'm shocked lol

https://brandnewtube.com/watch/sars...om-the-jab-poornima-wagh_MJV8nEXkGdhbur1.html

 

There will be some other factors ofcourse including financial 2 name just one

 

Don't know if this will interest you Abe...

https://www.firstpost.com/world/tia...ing-money-from-crisis-hit-banks-10938001.html

Go cashless they say, leave your money in the safe hands of the banks.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/law/202...ntitled-to-full-paid-annual-leave-court-rules

what a load of bollocks

 

I'm not getting it mate, what is the court suggesting? Tell you why I'm confused is because they are talking in weeks, rather than hours and days, so I'd need a bit more clarity on the story.

 

basically people in their position will get full annual leave entitlement instead of a pro rata figure due to the way the law was written .

 

Not sure what you mean by that, I thought everyone got full annual leave, but it depends on the calculation which is the bit I'm not getting?

 

If a person works 40 hours a week then they need 40 hours pay to have the week off

If a person works 14 hours a week then they need 14 hours pay to have the week off

So where is the problem or what is being done in that newspaper scenario?

 

The guardian article wasn't that clear. I went to a different site. maybe not so bollocks after all.

Essentially, the case with this woman is that she had slightly less hours that a teacher (think she did music classes or something) and was only working 32 weeks of the year in her contract. As a result they pro rata'd her holidays (suggestion is that she is more part time than full time teacher). Basically this mandate is to say even though she is working part time, she is still full time employed rather than having hours per week, shes got weeks per year so is entitled to the full minimum holidays that each employee gets.

 

no part time workers traditionally get a pro rata rate so if they did 20 hrs per week when the company norm was 40 hrs they would get 50% of the full annual leave entitlement but these cases are in effect to be treated as FT due to the way the legislation was written .

 

Surely if someone only works 20 hours a week, they only need 20 hours holiday to take a week off and be paid their usual going rate?

 

they were full time but only contracted during term time .

 

The swivel eyed loon vs the Bollywood guy. We're proper ****ed, aren't we?