So as I say again - you are expected to respect the views of others but they are not expected to respect yours?

Unions know this and use it as means of getting people to strike against their wishes.

If that is what happened in your workplace and you were party to it - shame on you.

The collection of tax is a trade off - in order to increase the overall tax takes you have to leave some loop holes through which a few will find a way to avoid the tax. If you apply dreaconian measures everywhere it is very likely the overall tax take will fall.

I have always believed that we should be able to to do that. However, as long as there is a whip I have no faith in that.

My MP has an impressive track record of ignoring questions raised by his constituents. However, since this is a ludicrously safe Tory seat, he will be re-elected by huge majority if he stands again regardless of his stance on any issues or his (near zero) engagement with constituents outside his own party.

Perhaps not directly but the sector they operate in was on a global scale and they will have benefitted greatly from that.

Economies don't stand alone. UK based banks - amongst other things - lend money to overseas banks, they lend money to their countries citizens, those citizens buy our exports, we all to some extent rely on each other in the global economy.

Huh ?

No, the individual involved was fully supportive of the proposed industrial action, indeed was a ring-leader. Then, without telling anyone, the perosn back tracked, went into work, and helped management keep the key operations ticking over. If the person had said "No, I don't support a strike, and am working" I think everyone would have respected that standpoint. That's why I said 'Reneged' - understand ?

I think the point Sal is making is that the person has the right to have their decision respected regardless of the timing and circumstances it was made in. People frequently change their minds to take almost a polar opposite view for a variety of reason, but shouldn't be ostracized as a result.

Until you walk a mile in another man's shoes, you simply can't expect to understand their logic and reasoning.

I do not follow your logic that says if some of your competitors have been bailed out with public money this somehow greatly benefits you? Surely the opposite is true ie: had these bailed out banks been allowed to go bust then those banks that were left would then greatly benefit!

will labour mps cross a picket line next wednesday if there was one in front of parliment?

comrade Kirkstaller rise up against the opressive Bourgeois if you have a just claim to keep the bloated pension structure that i should all be equal for every citizen

or have the day off to spend in the lovely peak district or yorkshire moors

or go to work

It would have been a great thril ride to see the banks collapse in stoke no one would have noticed any difference

This is wise. Before you judge a man, you should walk a mile in his shoes.

That way, when he hears your judgement, you'll be a mile away. And you'll have his shoes.

The only other time I've seen the word Wise used in reference to Batley Rhino was when someone said his short, fat hairy legs were reminiscent of Ernies.





[sizeLadies and gentlemen, this 1970s Morecambe and Wise reference is brought to you by the pending repeats of Christmas Specials on UK gold this coming month.[/size

hmmmm, the words pot, kettle and black spring easily to mind......

I do hope the "The Guns of Navarone" is on that Christmas list as well!

as well as She wore a yellow ribbon ,and The great Escape

How dare you, I waxmy legs.

I'm hoping for Scrooged, with Bill Murray.

OK fair point Andy I accept that there were overall benefits

But in the case of HSBC, Barclays etc they also had to raise private capital, at some cost, to cover their exposure to the above bad debts, which balanced out much of the general overall benefits. They have also since been hit hard with extra taxes and charges to help the government pay back the bailout money which they did not receive in the first place.

So it is wrong to demonise all the banks as though they are all equally guilty of causing the problem. The public has bought the politicians line that it is all the fault of the banks which they have put out to divert attention from their responsibilty in this mess. The banks in the main were playing within the rules laid down by the politicians. IMO regulators and governments were equally to blame with the bad banks.