You’ve met him, haven’t you? A man who has made up opinions for money and is defended by his mates in the establishment because it’s ‘just a joke’. Content free.
I don't believe anyone is fooled into believing his media persona is put on. You see the real Jeremy Clarkson. People remember he chinned a tv producer! But he's a brilliant dry-humoured comic writer and is viewed as a wonderful antidote to Harry and Meghan type woke world of permanent victimhood and thin skinned offence taking that increasingly we live in.
Funnily enough, Gordon Ramsey, who comes over on TV as a loud bully…is actually very charming, friendly and a pleasure to spend time with. I liked him a lot.
Sunak has just made an important statement. It says he is going to make everything better. Not much detail about how he is going to do it....but hey-ho I'm convinced
That Sunak is a clever s@d. Just realised he said nothing about sorting out the current NHS crisis, which is dependent on increasing social care to get people out of hospital, staffing, which depends on training, and pay and conditions or having more a and e facilities which depends on building and developing new facilities. He is going to cut waiting times for procedures. There will be lot more putting surgery and certain treatments out to private firms...depleting the finances of the NHS further. He has just promised to further privatise the NHS, and we are suppose to be happy
This, the bloke who redirected leveling up funds from poor areas to more affluent areas, the guy who says he doesn't have 'working class' friends as if it's a slur on him. He's a greasy little weasel, more Roland rat than weasel actually. He won't give a flying **** about whether he can make these promises happen or not.
Mick Lynch on James O'Brien this morning (from 1 hour in)... Global Player | James O'Brien Lynch is hugely impressive, but O'Brien (who I think genuinely likes and admires Lynch) gives him a hard time about the Brexit he supported, giving the Tories free rein to dismantle hard won rights protected under the EU (this from about 1hr 43mins). Their differences over Brexit mirror those between you and me, Stainesy. Workers' rights in a UK outside the EU are under mortal threat from a Tory government.
Fair enough Strolls.....I’m a firm believer in the Trade Union movement and their power to protect workers rights...without the EU, who in fact are, as I’ve stated many times before, are in no way supportive of workers rights. A prime example would be the case of Viking Ferries and the rights of workers to strike. In fact many of our workers rights are far in excess of what happens in many countries in the EU.....and were many years BEFORE the EU. I’m sure that will stand the test of time for years to come
Of course many of the rights that UK workers currently enjoy were in place before the EU, but there are also rights that were introduced by the EU, such as the right to holiday pay or protections for agency workers. The point is that all of these rights are no longer protected by EU minimum standards and are therefore under threat from a Thatcherite Tory government. It's not just me saying this, it's the TUC. Not sure what you mean about the right to strike. This is from Article 28 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights..... Workers and employers, or their respective organisations, have, in accordance with Union law and national laws and practices, the right to negotiate and conclude collective agreements at the appropriate levels and, in cases of conflicts of interest, to take collective action to defend their interests, including strike action.
Copy and Pasted from Wiki The judgment of the European Court of Justice was met with widespread condemnation by labour law experts on the basis that it failed to give due regard for the respect of human rights and places business freedom above the interests of working people. It was one of the triggers for the UK's 2009 Lindsey Oil Refinery strikes. The ILO's Committee of Experts found severe breaches of the ILO Convention 87 on the freedom of association and protection of the right to organise. Thus it is generally viewed as being characterised by poor quality reasoning and is regarded by most commentaries as wrong.[7]
It was only down to the EU…….apparently or maybe not…… The Holidays with Pay Act 1938 was legislation of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which provided for paid holidays for working class employees,[1] and was the result of a twenty-year campaign.[2] The Act was repealed by the Statute Laws Repeals Act 2004.[a][3] It led to the popularity of holiday camps such as those run by Butlins[4] The provisions of the Act have largely been replaced by the European Working Time Directiveenacted by statutory instrument 1998/1833 - Working Time Regulations 1998 ^
Just to question your “rights for agency workers” comment……do you not feel that in certain disputes, such as the Postal Workers dispute, that agency workers are being used as pawns and in effect, to scab while actual Royal Mail Workers are being ousted out of their jobs ? Do you not feel this is a subverted way for the employer to essentially bring in a lower paid workforce ? I mean, that’s what I’m being told by postal workers I know, who are actually involved in the dispute…..are they wrong to feel like this ?
Seems more like a flawed judgment by the Court in that case than evidence of the EU denying workers the right to strike.
Again, that's not how I read it. I took it to mean giving agency workers rights to holiday and sick pay.
More from Wiki The Rosella or International Transport Workers Federation v Viking Line ABP (2007) C-438/05 is an EU law case, relevant to all labour law within the European Union, including UK labour law, which held that there is a positive right to strike. However, it also held that the right to strike could infringe a business's freedom of establishment under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union article 49 (ex Article 43 TEC). The decision has been criticised for the Court's inarticulate line of reasoning, and its disregard of fundamental human rights Im guessing things can be interpreted in different ways, however in my eye, if many on the left are saying that judgements such as this are giving employers then chance of bringing in cheaper labour, thus being detrimental to said employers current workers, it’s plain wrong and morally corrupt.
