You couldn't make It up...

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 11:01 am

I think you're a jackass but is this the appropriate place to say so? Yes, yes it is.

Post by **Betty Boop** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 11:08 am

spot;1399087 wrote: Ah, is that the problem.

I think you're wrong, I think the two things are identical in all but scale.

If you think you are right, you are the only one that does! How about you convince your audience properly rather than making statements that everyone should just 'accept'.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 11:11 am

SnoozeAgain;1399088 wrote: I think you're a jackass but is this the appropriate place to say so? Yes, yes it is. You know what gets me?

There are 4 members and 17 guests watching this thread.... there's been about 12 all day.

Some of those 'Guests' come here for nothing more than to rubber neck a spat. Some of Spot's posts are appalling but those 'guests' don't have the balls to post and say so.

This forum Is dying a death again. Oh yeah plenty of 'guests' looking for the spat but very few new threads or posts.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 11:36 am

oscar;1399090 wrote: You know what gets me?

There are 4 members and 17 guests watching this thread.... there's been about 12 all day.

Some of those 'Guests' come here for nothing more than to rubber neck a spat. Some of Spot's posts are appalling but those 'guests' don't have the balls to post and say so.

This forum Is dying a death again. Oh yeah plenty of 'guests' looking for the spat but very few new threads or posts.

So spot is actually doing the forum a favor by attracting an audience that might join?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Jul 21, 2012 12:17 pm

SnoozeAgain;1399092 wrote: So spot is actually doing the forum a favor by attracting an audience that might join? Oh they join... they just don't come back very often.

You'll find that the guests ' are actually members who haven't logged In because they don't want to be seen.... rubber neckers.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 8:56 am

gmc;1399047 wrote: What is ironic is that the wages offered are above the minimum wage yet there are not enough takers - in London there is no real unemployment and that's just one of the reasons politicians think anyone long term unemployed is not trying to get a job. Drive around any industrial estate in the north of England and you will fond thousands of people who would like to be paid £8 an hour - it would be a welcome pay rise.

What else you couldn't make up is the fact that G4s will NOT be refunding any of the management fees they have received but never mind the Govt. is going to sort out all the benefit scroungers and those families who do not take responsibility for their mistakes and have too many kids so that's OK then, much easier to take money off the unemployed and disabled and let's have a go at the chavs while they're at it than get it back from a big international company that hasn't delivered what it was paid for.

I would like to give more money to the banks - after all they need it to get the economy going again. Maybe oscar could organise a whip round, given spot's predilection for misunderstanding and deliberate misinterpretation the prospect of oscar having a whip round should really liven things up a bit. :sneaky:

Getting back to topic ( Thanks for doing that btw )

I think I read somewhere that the loss of the Olympic revenue was only 12% of G4 annual net profits. My surprise Is that given the enormous scale of the operation .ie. the contract of a lifetime, why were they allowed to balls up to that extent without some sort of over seeing by the government? After all, the National Security was at stake.

But then, I remember reading about all manner of balls up's with G4 ie prisoners escaping from vans on route.

As for not being able to employ enough security... I can understand that fully If the paltry sum of £8 an hour was being paid. You are right that there Is no real unemployment In London but you are talking about the City. There Is high unemployment In the suberbs and the East End but for anyone to take the job at £8 an hour, you are talking about a huge outlay In travel costs and even congestion charges just to get on site. If they are on late shifts, they may be looking at shelling out for accommodation also. Take all that out of £8 an hour and they really are better off on benefit. Take Into account also the higher cost of living In the City where a sandwich Is as much as £4... It's just not worth It.... G4 needed to pay realistic rates.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 12:55 pm

SnoozeAgain;1399069 wrote: This explains so very, very much.

Perhaps you now you have a better understanding of where monty python came from, they grew up watching that stuff along with muffin the mule and the woodentops. Brits of a certain age can still do the spotty dog walk at the least provocation and sing the postman pat song when suitably inebriated then there was the magic roundabout.

The Woodentops (9th September 1955) - YouTube

about six minutes in. It's a wonder any of us ended up normal.

Anyone remember the singing ringing tree?

posted by oscar

Take Into account also the higher cost of living In the City where a sandwich Is as much as £4... It's just not worth It.... G4 needed to pay realistic rates.

Then there was the genius move in cutting the number of immigration staff while pissing off the remainder by refusing to negotiate with them and surprise surprise they aren't just taking it any more.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 1:13 pm

This is the weird kind of stuff I grew up with: Gumby - Rain Spirits Cartoon Episode Video - YouTube

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 2:13 pm

SnoozeAgain;1399152 wrote: This is the weird kind of stuff I grew up with: Gumby - Rain Spirits Cartoon Episode Video - YouTube

What no mickey mouse and all that stuff?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 2:48 pm

I was discouraged from watching The Flower Pot men and other such programmes...

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 3:35 pm

oscar;1399163 wrote: I was discouraged from watching The Flower Pot men and other such programmes...

A little Weed? Definitely appropriate for the 60's

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jul 22, 2012 4:16 pm

Bryn Mawr;1399169 wrote: A little Weed? Definitely appropriate for the 60's

No seriously... I was discouraged from watching them. Father thought a good cricket commentary more appropriate training of the English language.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Mon Jul 23, 2012 2:03 pm

oscar;1399180 wrote: No seriously... I was discouraged from watching them. Father thought a good cricket commentary more appropriate training of the English language.

This may explain a few things. Traumatised childhood listening to cricketing commentaries I'm surprised you are still sane.

The Goodies - Cricket - YouTube

Post by **spot** » Wed Aug 15, 2012 5:08 am

Schneier on Security: Overreaction and Overly Specific Reactions to Rare Risks is a fine and relevant on-topic reed, if anyone would like a go.