Stop voting for fucking Tories

Where goats go to escape
User avatar
tabascoboy
Posts: 6815
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:22 am
Location: 曇りの街

Dinsdale Piranha wrote: Thu Jan 12, 2023 5:22 pm
tabascoboy wrote: Thu Jan 12, 2023 2:19 pm
over 50s who are economically inactive
That's me, and through choice of being able to support myself in early retirement through occupational pension. Nothing short of impending absolute penury would force me back into work now - 35 years of commuting and the daily grind were quite enough, thanks.

How many employers want to welcome back over 50s, who will reasonably expect to be paid competitively for their age and experience? I can see some work environments being open to solving short term needs in this way, where skilled workers are in short supply and applicants have recent work experience and no doubt there will be takers but it also risks being a kick in the teeth for people with aspiring careers looking to progress and finding their way blocked by returnees?
I have been approached by colleagues at 2 companies saying they are desperate for experienced people and I should apply and return to work. In both cases the expression 'you could do the job with your eyes shut' came up :)

One of these companies has a reputation for being pretty ruthless and there's no way they'd be seeking out older people unless they were missing some particular set of skills that their younger folks don't have.
I'm sure there are some sectors where they are crying out for that. It's reported that skills shortages are highest in in the care, science, engineering and hospitality sectors. Question is enabling flexible working and working from home, especially if declining health is a factor.

According to the ONS
Among those who would consider returning to work (58%), the most important factors when choosing a paid job were flexible working hours (32%), good pay (23%), and being able to work from home (12%).
User avatar
Paddington Bear
Posts: 6660
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:29 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Intrigued to see how many 50 somethings really can afford to retire as compared to thought they could. A lot of them will live for 40ish years.

Not directly relevant but my parents’ friends are starting to retire and it seems to be either the absolute best or worst thing to happen to them with little in between
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot, But he'll remember with advantages, What feats he did that day
Dinsdale Piranha
Posts: 1021
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 10:08 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Thu Jan 12, 2023 8:29 pm Intrigued to see how many 50 somethings really can afford to retire as compared to thought they could. A lot of them will live for 40ish years.

Not directly relevant but my parents’ friends are starting to retire and it seems to be either the absolute best or worst thing to happen to them with little in between
I ran the numbers on whether I could afford to retire and "computer said yes" Everything getting really expensive in the last 18 months has definitely reduced the wiggle room.

Also, 2 years of lockdowns wasn't much fun as a single guy and has made me more inclined to look for a job again.
User avatar
mat the expat
Posts: 1557
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 11:12 pm

I'm 48 - not looking to fully retire as such but definitely easing off

Sold our Unit in Sydney and renting for a bit before buying outside the major cities to have no Mortgage
Blackmac
Posts: 3760
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:04 pm

Tichtheid wrote: Thu Jan 12, 2023 1:55 pm
Biffer wrote: Thu Jan 12, 2023 1:48 pm
Tichtheid wrote: Thu Jan 12, 2023 1:39 pm Apparently a fair whack of people in the 50+ age group threw in their cards during the pandemic, thinking, "Fuck this, I can get by, stuff working"
Yeah, we had a number of senior project managers, mechanical engineers etc retire a few years early.

It's a lot of collective experience that has gone, it's like when the Tories made a whole tranche of the civil service redundant at mid to senior level in the late 80s and 90s and then realised that they had no one left that knew how to run the country.

Oops!

Even worse in the Police Service. The governments resolution to the court defeat to their pension changes proved to be far too tempting. About 70% of officers over the rank of Inspector have gone or are about to go, leaving a huge gulf in experience and knowledge.
User avatar
C69
Posts: 3414
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:42 pm

In the NHS there is a pension consultation to address the early retirement issue.
Loads of GPs and NHS staff on the 1995 pension scheme can in the next few years retire at 55.
It's a real issue which may be addressed with some of the new plans. However working conditions mean that tempting people to stay in a failing toxic environment where pay has been eroded will be the main issue.
One of the plans is for returning staff to be able to work more than 16 hours and to introduce partial retirement schemes and allowing people to pay into the new pension scheme on retirement.
I will certainly be looking into the outcome of the consultation.
I think If I can afford it I will be looking at partial retirement in a couple of years and retire fully at 60 at the latest
Blackmac
Posts: 3760
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:04 pm

C69 wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 7:51 am In the NHS there is a pension consultation to address the early retirement issue.
Loads of GPs and NHS staff on the 1995 pension scheme can in the next few years retire at 55.
It's a real issue which may be addressed with some of the new plans. However working conditions mean that tempting people to stay in a failing toxic environment where pay has been eroded will be the main issue.
One of the plans is for returning staff to be able to work more than 16 hours and to introduce partial retirement schemes and allowing people to pay into the new pension scheme on retirement.
I will certainly be looking into the outcome of the consultation.
I think If I can afford it I will be looking at partial retirement in a couple of years and retire fully at 60 at the latest
My wife is going next year at 55. Taking a couple of months off and returning to her post at 20 hours, which is what she works now. Likely for another 3 years. If she can start paying into the Cares scheme she likely will as it builds quite quickly. It would depend on how the treat them when they go after only a few year's contributions to the new scheme.
User avatar
Sandstorm
Posts: 11712
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:05 pm
Location: England

C69 wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 7:51 am In the NHS there is a pension consultation to address the early retirement issue.
Loads of GPs and NHS staff on the 1995 pension scheme can in the next few years retire at 55.
It's a real issue which may be addressed with some of the new plans.
It's going to be a huge car-crash for patients. I reckon the only way out of it is selling it off to the Yanks unfortunately. Probably what those Tory donors wanted all along. :mad:
dpedin
Posts: 3338
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 8:35 am

Blackmac wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 9:20 am
C69 wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 7:51 am In the NHS there is a pension consultation to address the early retirement issue.
Loads of GPs and NHS staff on the 1995 pension scheme can in the next few years retire at 55.
It's a real issue which may be addressed with some of the new plans. However working conditions mean that tempting people to stay in a failing toxic environment where pay has been eroded will be the main issue.
One of the plans is for returning staff to be able to work more than 16 hours and to introduce partial retirement schemes and allowing people to pay into the new pension scheme on retirement.
I will certainly be looking into the outcome of the consultation.
I think If I can afford it I will be looking at partial retirement in a couple of years and retire fully at 60 at the latest
My wife is going next year at 55. Taking a couple of months off and returning to her post at 20 hours, which is what she works now. Likely for another 3 years. If she can start paying into the Cares scheme she likely will as it builds quite quickly. It would depend on how the treat them when they go after only a few year's contributions to the new scheme.
Only a few folk can retire at 55 ie mental health nurses and medics, in old scheme without incurring an actuarial reduction to their pension. On the old scheme it was retire at 60 without any reductions although you could work on to almost any age you wanted to subject to a ceiling. Subject to employer agreement even those retiring at 60 or older and taking their pension can return to work subject to an earnings limit on pension + salary. However as a retired person superannuation contributions are reduced to 4% to pay into a NEST pension, your employer will also pay 4% - this is a salary sacrifice saving scheme in effect. The main drawback with the new scheme is that it is aligned to the state pension age so although you might build up quicker any amount taken out prior to your state pension age will be subject to an actuarial reduction. It is ok if you plan to work to 66 or 67 or can leave it frozen and don't need the cash in the interim period.

Given the 'baby boom' within the nursing demographic many nurses have already decided to retire on old scheme when they could and to top up wages by working on the internal nurse banks which means they can pick and choose when to work and where they work, avoiding many of the high pressure or physically demanding areas - its hard work for a 60+ nurse! It is known that absence rate goes up by about 1/3% pa once nurses pass the age of 50. This is due to long term health issues mainly due to stress and exhaustion, musculoskeletal and other chronic diseases like diabetes, etc. Many just need a hip of knee replacement due to 30-40 years of walking, bending and lifting every working day = we in effect have run them into the ground. Increasingly thy are working for nurse and doctor agencies such as the biggest in the sector Medacs - which funnily enough is chaired by one Lord Ashcroft a tax exile, a major Tory donor and good mate of the Blonde Bumblecunt.

The problem for GPs and Consultants is the taxation thresholds for both annual and lifetime pension allowances. Given their pension is final salary they have little control over how both increase ie years worked and salary earned. In many cases just by continuing to work full time in the NHS they can exceed either or both and will then get big bills from HMRC. Taking on additional duties or responsibilities will just bring a bigger tax bill. I know of one case where a senior doctor who had worked all his life for NHS was asked to take on a Director role which in turn meant an additional payment - his HMRC bill that year was for in excess of £150k. He retired. The only way for these guys is to reduce tax bills is to reduce their NHS hours and thus reducing their pension years (ie working only 3 days a week = 60% of a pension year). Another way is to volunteer for a wage cut by coming out of scheme and losing the employers contribution to the pension scheme which for these guys is c15% - this would be on top of the real term 11%+ cut in their wages since 2010 . Given many have been in the NHS their whole career then they reach this point about the age of 55, sometimes earlier. The Gov is in effect making these guys pay to come to work for the NHS!

In effect if these senior docs reduce their hours but wish to maintain their salaries but avoid their pension tax bills then they need to find work which is not superannuable or not with the NHS. Setting up a small 'personal services company' or suchlike and then working privately is a route many then go down. This is the Gov in effect providing a steady stream of doctors to staff the private sector.

Many will argue that these doctors get paid a lot anyway and why should we change taxes to make it better for them - think about that when you are on the waiting list for an operation or having an operation with a surgeon who hasn't done many of the complex operation you are going to have. In any other industry these guys - who take a minimum of 10-15 years to fully train up would be protected and rewarded as the key earners of the business - currently our Gov just tells them to fuck off!

PS I am not a doctor!
User avatar
Sandstorm
Posts: 11712
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:05 pm
Location: England

dpedin wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 10:47 am
Many will argue that these doctors get paid a lot anyway and why should we change taxes to make it better for them - think about that when you are on the waiting list for an operation or having an operation with a surgeon who hasn't done many of the complex operation you are going to have. In any other industry these guys - who take a minimum of 10-15 years to fully train up would be protected and rewarded as the key earners of the business - currently our Gov just tells them to fuck off!
It's an interesting choice: Govt needs taxes from everyone to pay for the NHS, but taxing doctors just chases them away. If you cut doctors taxes to make them stay in NHS, then surely nurses will want a tax cut next? Then so will the ambulance drivers...............
Blackmac
Posts: 3760
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:04 pm

dpedin wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 10:47 am
Blackmac wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 9:20 am
C69 wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 7:51 am In the NHS there is a pension consultation to address the early retirement issue.
Loads of GPs and NHS staff on the 1995 pension scheme can in the next few years retire at 55.
It's a real issue which may be addressed with some of the new plans. However working conditions mean that tempting people to stay in a failing toxic environment where pay has been eroded will be the main issue.
One of the plans is for returning staff to be able to work more than 16 hours and to introduce partial retirement schemes and allowing people to pay into the new pension scheme on retirement.
I will certainly be looking into the outcome of the consultation.
I think If I can afford it I will be looking at partial retirement in a couple of years and retire fully at 60 at the latest
My wife is going next year at 55. Taking a couple of months off and returning to her post at 20 hours, which is what she works now. Likely for another 3 years. If she can start paying into the Cares scheme she likely will as it builds quite quickly. It would depend on how the treat them when they go after only a few year's contributions to the new scheme.
Only a few folk can retire at 55 ie mental health nurses and medics, in old scheme without incurring an actuarial reduction to their pension. On the old scheme it was retire at 60 without any reductions although you could work on to almost any age you wanted to subject to a ceiling. Subject to employer agreement even those retiring at 60 or older and taking their pension can return to work subject to an earnings limit on pension + salary. However as a retired person superannuation contributions are reduced to 4% to pay into a NEST pension, your employer will also pay 4% - this is a salary sacrifice saving scheme in effect. The main drawback with the new scheme is that it is aligned to the state pension age so although you might build up quicker any amount taken out prior to your state pension age will be subject to an actuarial reduction. It is ok if you plan to work to 66 or 67 or can leave it frozen and don't need the cash in the interim period.

Given the 'baby boom' within the nursing demographic many nurses have already decided to retire on old scheme when they could and to top up wages by working on the internal nurse banks which means they can pick and choose when to work and where they work, avoiding many of the high pressure or physically demanding areas - its hard work for a 60+ nurse! It is known that absence rate goes up by about 1/3% pa once nurses pass the age of 50. This is due to long term health issues mainly due to stress and exhaustion, musculoskeletal and other chronic diseases like diabetes, etc. Many just need a hip of knee replacement due to 30-40 years of walking, bending and lifting every working day = we in effect have run them into the ground. Increasingly thy are working for nurse and doctor agencies such as the biggest in the sector Medacs - which funnily enough is chaired by one Lord Ashcroft a tax exile, a major Tory donor and good mate of the Blonde Bumblecunt.

The problem for GPs and Consultants is the taxation thresholds for both annual and lifetime pension allowances. Given their pension is final salary they have little control over how both increase ie years worked and salary earned. In many cases just by continuing to work full time in the NHS they can exceed either or both and will then get big bills from HMRC. Taking on additional duties or responsibilities will just bring a bigger tax bill. I know of one case where a senior doctor who had worked all his life for NHS was asked to take on a Director role which in turn meant an additional payment - his HMRC bill that year was for in excess of £150k. He retired. The only way for these guys is to reduce tax bills is to reduce their NHS hours and thus reducing their pension years (ie working only 3 days a week = 60% of a pension year). Another way is to volunteer for a wage cut by coming out of scheme and losing the employers contribution to the pension scheme which for these guys is c15% - this would be on top of the real term 11%+ cut in their wages since 2010 . Given many have been in the NHS their whole career then they reach this point about the age of 55, sometimes earlier. The Gov is in effect making these guys pay to come to work for the NHS!

In effect if these senior docs reduce their hours but wish to maintain their salaries but avoid their pension tax bills then they need to find work which is not superannuable or not with the NHS. Setting up a small 'personal services company' or suchlike and then working privately is a route many then go down. This is the Gov in effect providing a steady stream of doctors to staff the private sector.

Many will argue that these doctors get paid a lot anyway and why should we change taxes to make it better for them - think about that when you are on the waiting list for an operation or having an operation with a surgeon who hasn't done many of the complex operation you are going to have. In any other industry these guys - who take a minimum of 10-15 years to fully train up would be protected and rewarded as the key earners of the business - currently our Gov just tells them to fuck off!

PS I am not a doctor!
Blackmac
Posts: 3760
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:04 pm

dpedin wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 10:47 am
Blackmac wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 9:20 am
C69 wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 7:51 am In the NHS there is a pension consultation to address the early retirement issue.
Loads of GPs and NHS staff on the 1995 pension scheme can in the next few years retire at 55.
It's a real issue which may be addressed with some of the new plans. However working conditions mean that tempting people to stay in a failing toxic environment where pay has been eroded will be the main issue.
One of the plans is for returning staff to be able to work more than 16 hours and to introduce partial retirement schemes and allowing people to pay into the new pension scheme on retirement.
I will certainly be looking into the outcome of the consultation.
I think If I can afford it I will be looking at partial retirement in a couple of years and retire fully at 60 at the latest
My wife is going next year at 55. Taking a couple of months off and returning to her post at 20 hours, which is what she works now. Likely for another 3 years. If she can start paying into the Cares scheme she likely will as it builds quite quickly. It would depend on how the treat them when they go after only a few year's contributions to the new scheme.
Only a few folk can retire at 55 ie mental health nurses and medics, in old scheme without incurring an actuarial reduction to their pension. On the old scheme it was retire at 60 without any reductions although you could work on to almost any age you wanted to subject to a ceiling. Subject to employer agreement even those retiring at 60 or older and taking their pension can return to work subject to an earnings limit on pension + salary. However as a retired person superannuation contributions are reduced to 4% to pay into a NEST pension, your employer will also pay 4% - this is a salary sacrifice saving scheme in effect. The main drawback with the new scheme is that it is aligned to the state pension age so although you might build up quicker any amount taken out prior to your state pension age will be subject to an actuarial reduction. It is ok if you plan to work to 66 or 67 or can leave it frozen and don't need the cash in the interim period.

Given the 'baby boom' within the nursing demographic many nurses have already decided to retire on old scheme when they could and to top up wages by working on the internal nurse banks which means they can pick and choose when to work and where they work, avoiding many of the high pressure or physically demanding areas - its hard work for a 60+ nurse! It is known that absence rate goes up by about 1/3% pa once nurses pass the age of 50. This is due to long term health issues mainly due to stress and exhaustion, musculoskeletal and other chronic diseases like diabetes, etc. Many just need a hip of knee replacement due to 30-40 years of walking, bending and lifting every working day = we in effect have run them into the ground. Increasingly thy are working for nurse and doctor agencies such as the biggest in the sector Medacs - which funnily enough is chaired by one Lord Ashcroft a tax exile, a major Tory donor and good mate of the Blonde Bumblecunt.

The problem for GPs and Consultants is the taxation thresholds for both annual and lifetime pension allowances. Given their pension is final salary they have little control over how both increase ie years worked and salary earned. In many cases just by continuing to work full time in the NHS they can exceed either or both and will then get big bills from HMRC. Taking on additional duties or responsibilities will just bring a bigger tax bill. I know of one case where a senior doctor who had worked all his life for NHS was asked to take on a Director role which in turn meant an additional payment - his HMRC bill that year was for in excess of £150k. He retired. The only way for these guys is to reduce tax bills is to reduce their NHS hours and thus reducing their pension years (ie working only 3 days a week = 60% of a pension year). Another way is to volunteer for a wage cut by coming out of scheme and losing the employers contribution to the pension scheme which for these guys is c15% - this would be on top of the real term 11%+ cut in their wages since 2010 . Given many have been in the NHS their whole career then they reach this point about the age of 55, sometimes earlier. The Gov is in effect making these guys pay to come to work for the NHS!

In effect if these senior docs reduce their hours but wish to maintain their salaries but avoid their pension tax bills then they need to find work which is not superannuable or not with the NHS. Setting up a small 'personal services company' or suchlike and then working privately is a route many then go down. This is the Gov in effect providing a steady stream of doctors to staff the private sector.

Many will argue that these doctors get paid a lot anyway and why should we change taxes to make it better for them - think about that when you are on the waiting list for an operation or having an operation with a surgeon who hasn't done many of the complex operation you are going to have. In any other industry these guys - who take a minimum of 10-15 years to fully train up would be protected and rewarded as the key earners of the business - currently our Gov just tells them to fuck off!

PS I am not a doctor!
She is in the old scheme and yes, we accept she will have a reduction in her pension, but it is a choice we are making as it's just not possible for her to work much longer, as 37 years as a staff nurse, continually in wards and recovery environments, is enough to destroy the most resilient of people.
User avatar
SaintK
Posts: 7323
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:49 am
Location: Over there somewhere

Blackmac wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 12:19 pm She is in the old scheme and yes, we accept she will have a reduction in her pension, but it is a choice we are making as it's just not possible for her to work much longer, as 37 years as a staff nurse, continually in wards and recovery environments, is enough to destroy the most resilient of people.
Awesome!!!
That is a fair old shift :clap:
User avatar
tabascoboy
Posts: 6815
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:22 am
Location: 曇りの街

Not sure this sends out a positive message to the Tory faithful, if he thinks Uxbridge is no longer a safe seat! And recently given a £1m donation by former Brexit party backer. The twat still thinks he's on the comeback trail with enough backers to be a serious threat

User avatar
SaintK
Posts: 7323
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:49 am
Location: Over there somewhere

Loved this down the thread on that post
Image
User avatar
Tichtheid
Posts: 10479
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2020 11:18 am

SaintK wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 1:32 pm Loved this down the thread on that post
Image


A triumph, if you can call it that, of self-entitled ambition, duplicity and nepotism over talent, honour and conscientiousness
User avatar
Hal Jordan
Posts: 4599
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:48 pm
Location: Sector 2814

Dinsdale Piranha wrote: Thu Jan 12, 2023 5:22 pm
tabascoboy wrote: Thu Jan 12, 2023 2:19 pm
over 50s who are economically inactive
That's me, and through choice of being able to support myself in early retirement through occupational pension. Nothing short of impending absolute penury would force me back into work now - 35 years of commuting and the daily grind were quite enough, thanks.

How many employers want to welcome back over 50s, who will reasonably expect to be paid competitively for their age and experience? I can see some work environments being open to solving short term needs in this way, where skilled workers are in short supply and applicants have recent work experience and no doubt there will be takers but it also risks being a kick in the teeth for people with aspiring careers looking to progress and finding their way blocked by returnees?
I have been approached by colleagues at 2 companies saying they are desperate for experienced people and I should apply and return to work. In both cases the expression 'you could do the job with your eyes shut' came up :)

One of these companies has a reputation for being pretty ruthless and there's no way they'd be seeking out older people unless they were missing some particular set of skills that their younger folks don't have.
Don't go kidnapping Dinsdale's daughter.
User avatar
Hal Jordan
Posts: 4599
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:48 pm
Location: Sector 2814

SaintK wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 1:32 pm Loved this down the thread on that post
Image
The state of his hair.

Money and power are aphrodisiacs and no mistake.
User avatar
Sandstorm
Posts: 11712
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:05 pm
Location: England

tabascoboy wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 1:03 pm Not sure this sends out a positive message to the Tory faithful, if he thinks Uxbridge is no longer a safe seat! And recently given a £1m donation by former Brexit party backer. The twat still thinks he's on the comeback trail with enough backers to be a serious threat

Won't oust Rushi as Leader of the Opposition surely.....
User avatar
Sandstorm
Posts: 11712
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:05 pm
Location: England

Hal Jordan wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 2:12 pm
Don't go kidnapping Dinsdale's daughter.
Good luck
Dinsdale Piranha
Posts: 1021
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 10:08 pm

Sandstorm wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 2:44 pm
Hal Jordan wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 2:12 pm
Don't go kidnapping Dinsdale's daughter.
Good luck
"I will find you and I will bill you"
User avatar
tabascoboy
Posts: 6815
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:22 am
Location: 曇りの街

User avatar
SaintK
Posts: 7323
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:49 am
Location: Over there somewhere

tabascoboy wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 11:13 am
Bloody hell. Thaat's just awful
She has the empathy of a rattlesnake
So godawfully tone deaf in her responses as well.
Never mind, the right wing Tory loons love her to bits
dpedin
Posts: 3338
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 8:35 am

SaintK wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 12:29 pm
Blackmac wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 12:19 pm She is in the old scheme and yes, we accept she will have a reduction in her pension, but it is a choice we are making as it's just not possible for her to work much longer, as 37 years as a staff nurse, continually in wards and recovery environments, is enough to destroy the most resilient of people.
Awesome!!!
That is a fair old shift :clap:
Agreed! NHS really needs a plan to retain these guys experience but away from the stressful and physically demanding ward roles. These are the folk who keep the whole system going.
dpedin
Posts: 3338
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 8:35 am

Sandstorm wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 2:43 pm
tabascoboy wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 1:03 pm Not sure this sends out a positive message to the Tory faithful, if he thinks Uxbridge is no longer a safe seat! And recently given a £1m donation by former Brexit party backer. The twat still thinks he's on the comeback trail with enough backers to be a serious threat

Won't oust Rushi as Leader of the Opposition surely.....
If Sunak was a real politician then he would use this opportunity to kick the Blonde Bumblecunt in the balls and consign him to electoral wastelands by saying no and let him lose his current seat in Uxbridge. He has to kick him when he is down and then kick him again and again. Giving him an out in any way is signing Sunna's death warrant.
User avatar
Tichtheid
Posts: 10479
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2020 11:18 am

dpedin wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 12:00 pm
SaintK wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 12:29 pm
Blackmac wrote: Fri Jan 13, 2023 12:19 pm She is in the old scheme and yes, we accept she will have a reduction in her pension, but it is a choice we are making as it's just not possible for her to work much longer, as 37 years as a staff nurse, continually in wards and recovery environments, is enough to destroy the most resilient of people.
Awesome!!!
That is a fair old shift :clap:
Agreed! NHS really needs a plan to retain these guys experience but away from the stressful and physically demanding ward roles. These are the folk who keep the whole system going.

Thirded.


Nurses are the best of us.
User avatar
Hal Jordan
Posts: 4599
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:48 pm
Location: Sector 2814

SaintK wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 11:37 am
tabascoboy wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 11:13 am
Bloody hell. Thaat's just awful
She has the empathy of a rattlesnake
So godawfully tone deaf in her responses as well.
Never mind, the right wing Tory loons love her to bits
Ladder pulling nonentity promoted above her competency (office junior) compensates by attempting to be more heartless than the voting base, forgetting what happens to useful idiots.
User avatar
tabascoboy
Posts: 6815
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:22 am
Location: 曇りの街

Home Office trying to have that video of Braverman taken down...thing is it was a political constituency event for Braverman and the Conservative Party...





The full unedited version is here, the essence of the reply is the same, no apology for the language she uses

petej
Posts: 2506
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2021 10:41 am
Location: Gwent

tabascoboy wrote: Sat Jan 14, 2023 5:28 pm Home Office trying to have that video of Braverman taken down...thing is it was a political constituency event for Braverman and the Conservative Party...





The full unedited version is here, the essence of the reply is the same, no apology for the language she uses

Can't see why she wants it removed. Those that voted for her last time won't be put off. They are heartless and shitty to current UK citizens so this is hardly surprising. Trying to get it removed will probably result in more people seeing it.
Rhubarb & Custard
Posts: 2360
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:04 pm

Cruella continues a trend moving away from the position of 'judge me on my actions' to 'please don't take notice of my actions, instead listen to my rhetoric when I'm not being challenged and ideally don't fact check my claims
User avatar
Hal Jordan
Posts: 4599
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:48 pm
Location: Sector 2814

Racist Home Office defends racist Home Secretary shock.
User avatar
tabascoboy
Posts: 6815
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:22 am
Location: 曇りの街

User avatar
Hal Jordan
Posts: 4599
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:48 pm
Location: Sector 2814

Not Tories, but reason 4,000 as to why The Met should be disbanded.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ial-rapist
A Metropolitan police officer has been revealed as a serial rapist who committed more than 71 serious sexual offences, despite the force being told of repeated allegations over two decades that he was a threat to women.

PC David Carrick, an armed officer in the parliamentary and diplomatic protection command, admitted on Monday to 49 counts – some detailing multiple offences, against 12 women.
The force was told about nine incidents from 2000 to 2021, including eight alleged attacks or clashes Carrick had with women before the arrest that led to his convictions.

No action was taken, with the women either refusing to formally complain or withdrawing their cooperation from the police investigation.
Given what we know about The Met, it seems that this cunt's sole mistake was to commit offences in Hertfordshire so they would investigate, since The Met seems completely indifferent to the wrongdoings of its officers.

But, you know, "One bad apple" and all that.
User avatar
SaintK
Posts: 7323
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:49 am
Location: Over there somewhere

Really can't wait for this work of fiction
User avatar
Hal Jordan
Posts: 4599
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:48 pm
Location: Sector 2814

SaintK wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 3:50 pm Really can't wait for this work of fiction
As a wag has put it, the title should be "Lying In State".
Biffer
Posts: 10039
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:43 pm

Hal Jordan wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 2:13 pm Not Tories, but reason 4,000 as to why The Met should be disbanded.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... ial-rapist
A Metropolitan police officer has been revealed as a serial rapist who committed more than 71 serious sexual offences, despite the force being told of repeated allegations over two decades that he was a threat to women.

PC David Carrick, an armed officer in the parliamentary and diplomatic protection command, admitted on Monday to 49 counts – some detailing multiple offences, against 12 women.
The force was told about nine incidents from 2000 to 2021, including eight alleged attacks or clashes Carrick had with women before the arrest that led to his convictions.

No action was taken, with the women either refusing to formally complain or withdrawing their cooperation from the police investigation.
Given what we know about The Met, it seems that this cunt's sole mistake was to commit offences in Hertfordshire so they would investigate, since The Met seems completely indifferent to the wrongdoings of its officers.

But, you know, "One bad apple" and all that.
I hate the way people use the 'one bad apple' thing as describing an exception. The whole point of the saying is that the bad in spoils the whole barrel. So you've got to get rid of it as quickly as possible.
And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
User avatar
fishfoodie
Posts: 8752
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:25 pm

EnergiseR2 wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 6:17 pm Parliamentary protection. Hmmmmmm...hmmmmmm
How much dirt to these guys collect on senior Politicians, & others; & is that why they seem to be immune ?
User avatar
Lobby
Posts: 1874
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2020 7:34 pm

EnergiseR2 wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 6:37 pm
fishfoodie wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 6:34 pm
EnergiseR2 wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 6:17 pm Parliamentary protection. Hmmmmmm...hmmmmmm
How much dirt to these guys collect on senior Politicians, & others; & is that why they seem to be immune ?
This lad was definitely weird. I would have thought a lads bosses being warned he was a risk to.women would lead to his sacking but decades of it
You’d think they would have noticed that these warnings were mounting up after say the fifth or sixth different time he was accused of sexual harassment, but no, they didn’t even see that there was a pattern developing after the ninth warning.
User avatar
C69
Posts: 3414
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:42 pm

Seems like "Line of Duty" was a documentary.


yes I know most of it was actually loosely based on fact with names changed etc
apart from afew high profile cases that were actually called out
Slick
Posts: 13285
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:58 pm

EnergiseR2 wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 6:37 pm
fishfoodie wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 6:34 pm
EnergiseR2 wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 6:17 pm Parliamentary protection. Hmmmmmm...hmmmmmm
How much dirt to these guys collect on senior Politicians, & others; & is that why they seem to be immune ?
This lad was definitely weird. I would have thought a lads bosses being warned he was a risk to.women would lead to his sacking but decades of it
I’d have thought his nickname his colleagues gave him, Dave the Bastard, might have caused someone to look into a bit
All the money you made will never buy back your soul
Post Reply