stingray-man Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 It just goes to show how guliable some people are, believing everything written in the newspaper and havnt got a clue what million and billion means dude your posts are the best things i have read Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny128 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 It's true though isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Most of the articles I read in Newspapers ' are news to me' - I wasn't there, I didn't see it happen, I hadn't heard about it from a friend - All I know is what is written in the paper. Occasionally, I've read an article in a newspaper where I was there, or did see it happen. In those cases, the articles are often wildly inaccurate. If they (the newspapers) get it wrong so frequently on those occasions where I do know what happened, how much trust should I put in the other reports? I'm a cynic. I don't believe much of what I read in newspapers. I do, however, read newspapers sometimes. I prefer 'The Beano' and "Dandy' though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny128 Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 That's why I don't read newspaper, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saunaman Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 I sense a total obfuscation ( real or my own made-up word ?) of Anna B's post . She is rightly trying to draw our attention to the waste and abuse of taxpayers' money , and Forum posters are trying to bring her down with the Sheffield equivalent of a pair of red-neck , fluorescent -jacket losers on an US guys-only hunting party with big guns-type weekend , where the only losers are the forest-dwelling deer ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 I sense a total obfuscation ( real or my own made-up word ?) of Anna B's post Hardly obfuscation; just pointing out that it overestimated the cost by 100,000 per cent. (Not her fault; the blame lies with the newspaper article.) People in work have contracts; those contracts will call for specified payoffs if the job is abolished. (Redundancy money, if nothing else; if the contract was for a fixed length, they will be entitled to the remaining salary on it.) Blaming the existing government for contracts that will have been drawn up under some previous government, is ludicrous. ("Some previous government" doesn't automatically mean Labour. Some of these quangos may date back to before 1997.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Hardly obfuscation; just pointing out that it overestimated the cost by 100,000 per cent. (Not her fault; the blame lies with the newspaper article.) People in work have contracts; those contracts will call for specified payoffs if the job is abolished. (Redundancy money, if nothing else; if the contract was for a fixed length, they will be entitled to the remaining salary on it.) Blaming the existing government for contracts that will have been drawn up under some previous government, is ludicrous. ("Some previous government" doesn't automatically mean Labour. Some of these quangos may date back to before 1997.) Very well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted July 12, 2012 Author Share Posted July 12, 2012 Hardly obfuscation; just pointing out that it overestimated the cost by 100,000 per cent. (Not her fault; the blame lies with the newspaper article.) People in work have contracts; those contracts will call for specified payoffs if the job is abolished. (Redundancy money, if nothing else; if the contract was for a fixed length, they will be entitled to the remaining salary on it.) Blaming the existing government for contracts that will have been drawn up under some previous government, is ludicrous. ("Some previous government" doesn't automatically mean Labour. Some of these quangos may date back to before 1997.) You don't think that redundancy pay of £400,000 is a bit excessive? Especially when the quango sets up again under a different name and takes them straight back on again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickiethecat Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 You don't think that redundancy pay of £400,000 is a bit excessive? Especially when the quango sets up again under a different name and takes them straight back on again? It's the way the system works and there's nothing you can do to change it. Why do you seem to spend most of your time on here getting yourself wound up about things you can't change? Life's not fair. Some people get more money than others without deserving it. Just accept it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 You don't think that redundancy pay of £400,000 is a bit excessive? It will be whatever their contract calls for; opinions on its size will not be relevant at this point. The time to complain was when the contract was being drawn up, not now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.