Nor would I expect you to.

However, it does render your £3500 p.a. figure [umeaningless [/uwouldn't you agree?

It certainly is my character.

If someone in the UK thinks they are affected by poverty to the extent that they want to commit suicide then that's their issue.

There are NO people in the UK who experience real poverty (unless you define poverty as not being to be able to afford the Movies as well as Sports on Sky)

Compare the whinging scroungers in the UK to people around the world in REAL poverty (who often do not complain at all in my experience) and I rest my case.

Why is it meaningless? My point is you said you would revise public sector pensions and I was pointing out they are not as good as you think so by cutting them you would put more people in poverty but thats your typical tory tack anyway.

You still haven't given us the figures for benefit underpayments yet either like I asked. Again typical tories, half truths and spin.

I did and this is what it said:

[iJob Details
Associate - HR Diversity Consultant


Ref O00070
Location
Directorate Operations
Job Family Human Resources
Division HR

Unfortunately, the job you are looking for is no longer being advertised.[/i

And?

Have you discovered how much wasteful labour spending there was yet? Or are you just going to spout more reactionary Daily Mail headlines whilst knowing f all about it?

I'm willing to accept people have different views on how a country should be run, I don't agree with them but accept people have different views. You, however, are just heartless, thoughtless scum. The fact you categorically state there are no people in poverty in the UK and your comments on suicide and disability shows all that anyone needs to know about you.

Oh deary deary me.



It's meaningless since without knowing what his salary was, we cannot ascertain the relative worth of the pensionable earnings that you quoted.

I'm sorry but I can't make it any clearer.

Oh and for the record I haven't disclosed if and who I support politically.

I made it easy for you read again. Are you going to tell us the under payments figure from the dwp or are you going to stick your head in the sand?

I made it easy for you read again. Are you going to tell us the under payments figure from the dwp or are you going to stick your head in the sand?

What on earth are you babbling on about?

What a ridiculous question.

The only people who truly know that are government officials.

Yes, its an expired post but from the scant details that remain it was for an HR post in the FSA, thats the FSA that are an independent non-governmental body financed by the financial services industry as a controlling body and given statutory powers.

Quite WTF that has to do with your argument I don't know, but maybe you could enlighten us as to why you think £60k is a lot of money for an HR post in a private company ?


But hey, you know better, after all you have "personal experience" of at least 50% of all the jobs in local authorities being occupied by wasters with IQs of less than 100 - again quite how much money you;d save by getting rid of those people and replacing them with other people I don't really know - maybe you could enlighten us all as to how this financial formula works - maybe its time to write to George Osborne and give him a few pointers ?

Read the document you quoted.

Awww you think the FSA wasn't controlled by the Government. How quaint......

I don't quite know how to break this to you other than to click your expired link, then click the "Home" button and read the bit that says "About Us" - the FSA are a private company, privately funded but with legal powers to control their own industry, they go to great lengths to distance themselves from any form of government and make that very clear in their "About Us" page.

So,

WTF has an HR job advertised on a private company's web site got to do with your argument that public servants are overpaid ?

Admit it, you went fishing for more of your "Facts" and you dredged up a duff one, again.

Haha it gets better!

You truly believe that the FSA is a standalone private company with no government influence?

e.g. appointing board members maybe?

Yes it was funded via what is effectively a tax, but if you think ............nevermind. Join the queue with the rest of the sheep.

If it was a threat then yes, it would be against the AUP.
It isn't a threat though.

I do hope you are not going to be one of these lilly-livered right-wingers who goes off crying that everyone has ganged up on him when he displays his vile right-wing views.

So far you are showing all the hallmarks.

It wasn't a threat? Hmm I could have sworn that the poster wanted to "slit my throat".

An expected reply from you as head of the clique though.

I suspect your reply is tinged with alcohol? "Vile"? Emotive language..............

Nah, don't worry, it will take more than a bunch of illiterate Left Wingers, who believe that numbers translate into reality, to make me cry.

I suggest you read the post again then.
If you disagree with that decision you can contact a member of admin who will review the decision.









Stone cold sober mate, next.

Didn't Cod'ead reply to ajw?

Can anyone remember what AUP 2.2 states? I can't quite remember but for some reason I feel it may be relevant.

2.2. Public criticism of the moderation process is prohibited.

It seems it was aimed at me. For what reason, I don't know.

Seems strange that someone would randomly want to cut my throat, but anyway each to their own.

I've reported said post.

He did.

My mistake.

Go and read your link, go and do 30 seconds of research, it was your link, it was supposed to back up your opinion that all government funded public service companies employed fanciful, invented job titles at outrageous salaries that would never be tolerated in the private sector.

And you gave us a link to a privately registered, privately funded company, and told us that there, there was an example of a fanciful, invented job at an outrageous salary, a typical example of wasted public funds that could easily be cut.

Except that it wasn't, because you didn't do your research and rather foolishly grabbed for the first link in a Google search - your evidence perfectly counters your own argument and I'm not sure where you go from here other than to slink away and pop up again next week with some other ridiculous viewpoint and a box of tissues.





And incidently, £60K for an HR position at a large London based business is not excessive, its to be expected when a private company go searching the job markets for a prime candidate in an important position.

Given your excitement over the Pussy Riot sentencing, I'm surprised you are not aware of the outcome of the recent Twitter joke trial appeal.

Try and keep up with what is being discussed.
I asked in which areas Labour had "wasted" money.
So far, there hasn't been much coherence in reply, just vague references and ideological bollox.

FWIW, I wouldn't have started cutting straight after the election,.
As I have said many times on this forum, cutting deep and cutting early is economic madness, socially divisive and grossly unfair.
However, I would be looking at the enormous sums that are not being paid in tax, the Vodafone issue of £6bn being a good example but probably only the tip of a huge iceberg of cash.

The economy should be for the good of the people, not the other way round.

I am utterly astonished at the lack of sympathy, empathy, humanity or imagination in this response.


I strongly suspect that you haven't, not as a participant on the luckless side anyway.


So, because it's worse somewhere else, that makes it fine here?
We should driving the lower-paid even further down in order to further enrich the already wealthy should we?
I mean, "true" poverty is non-existent in the UK so there's plenty of room for further exploitation isn't there?


If only everyone were as tough as you, eh?

Tell me, do you have any compassion in you at all?
If so, please tell us what it takes to elicit your sympathy.