kevinjohnsonmbe

I'm all up for a row Mr S but can't think why that would be contentious..... ???

First time I’ve been back to the motherland since lock-down ?

So here comes 24 hrs of news reporting interviews with Donna and Liam of the Benidorm brigade expressing horror, disbelief, shock and outrage because their £235 + 10 vouchers from the Daily Mirror 2 weeks in Spain has been “ruined” and “how can they afford 2 weeks self isolation” shocker because they thought it was a good idea to have a foreign holiday after the stress of 3 months on furlough. What sort of moron would actually think a foreign holiday would be a good idea at the moment? What sort of government would actually encourage / facilitate recreational foreign travel with things the way they are? Really tapped into that rich seam of “common sense!”

Tamar bridge was a hoot on Thursday. Haven’t been across the river to England for ages. Doris in the kiosk had a little stainless steel cup on a pole to collect the shekels. Almost wee’d a drop when she poked it at me ?

That's the Q!

It's a credibility issue for me Mark - like there ain't none... I suspect we will find, with the benefit of hindsight, that poor "mask discipline" (cleanliness, disposal frequency, storage between uses etc) will create more problems than it is supposed to solve. I don't buy it because I feel it being peddled as a false narrative in order to get people out and about again rather than as a real and tangible aid to infection control. It's the perceived dishonesty behind it and the belief that the general public are so gullible as to believe it that really tugs my sack.

These would be valid points but for the glaring omission. Seat belts, chainsaw safety gear, drink driving, smoking ban... All of these comparisons have been made but none of them are really appropriate or relevant to the face covering discussion. Example: The seat belt law - it is the responsibility of the driver to ensure every passenger in a car is suitably belted (unless medically exempt) For the comparison between seat belts and face coverings to be valid it would have to be like, the driver has to wear a seatbelt but the passenger doesn't if they are getting out in a minute, on their way to work, eating a sandwich or having a pint. Clearly, totally ?ing bonkers and would rightly draw derision for the inability to enforce and police it and the obvious illogical nature of the "guidance." Same with chainsaw PPE, same with drink driving etc etc.... The issue with the "guidance" for face coverings is that it is too late, too random, ineffective and not supported by factual data. It is a question of credibility and on this matter the government has none - in my estimation. As for giving confidence to those that may have been shielding - I'd suggest it would be much more efficient and effective if those that feel vulnerable take proper measures to protect themselves rather than seeking to impose improper measures on everyone else. I know that might be seen as more of a self centred position (and it is) but it is also a much more logical position IMHO. Better to properly protect the vulnerable than to improperly fail to protect everyone. I still maintain that this has nothing to do with personal discomfort, inconvenience or awkwardness (well, maybe a bit of awkwardness) but it is entirely an issue of the lack of credibility to support the requirement. The net result of this poorly conceived, delayed implementation will be that morons rely upon bad advice to implement unnecessary measures in an inappropriate manner such that risk will likely be increased through bad practice in relation to face coverings and an increasing apathy towards other, better, countermeasures such as hand washing and distancing. Think about it - what's next? All the lemmings will be piling into airplanes and ?ing off to Marmaris to get sunburned and marinaded in Watney's Red Barrel - it'll all be OK though even though they are packed in like sardines they'll be perfectly 'safe' because they've been wearing gran's crusty nicks on their head for the past 3 weeks....

That would likely be considered to be a very reasonable approach to take if the matter were considered at SCC. On the other hand, justifying a final invoice at 2x the estimate would be a very difficult case to argue (assuming you've presented us with a full and accurate scenario....)

Unreasonable might be a better term.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/29/section/15 Estimates and Quotes If you haven't come to a fixed agreement with a contractor about the cost of the work (and in this case there is nothing in writing unfortunately, and no fixed quote, just a rough estimate) then if the price the contractor charges you is unreasonable, it puts them in breach of contract according to the law. In this case, your compensation for this breach of contract would be a reduction in the amount charged. Usually, an estimate is not legally binding, although if the final price you are asked to pay is significantly higher than the estimate you were given, you can still claim a breach of the ‘reasonable cost’ term.

Did your Arb have dispute resolution detailed in their terms and conditions? If yes: invoke them. If no, do you want to pass any future work to them - (i) if yes, talk it out, ask why it’s so far off the mark, say what you’re peeved with, listen to the explanation and agree a mutually agreeable way forward. (ii) if no, tell them why you’re not happy, tell them what you are going to pay, tell them there’s always small claims if they fancy arguing their case.

There’s a complete lack of credibility associated with this. Go to Waitrose for groceries and you’re expected to wear a face covering whilst staff don’t, and if you’re having a sit down snack you don’t need to, but if you’re buying a sandwich to take out you do.... WHO guidance changed 5 June (but still didn’t make a conclusive case) and dotgov “guidance” didn’t change until 24 Jul. There’s just no credibility in it and listening to the talking heads trying to justify it is laughable. This is a balls up!

En masse, no. Some turnover is necessary, healthy and inevitable. Is there any evidence of mass defection in any particular sector? I don’t know. If people are leaving in droves then measures such as retention bonuses can be used. If people aren’t leaving in droves it makes no sense to increase pay. We’re all whoring out our time and energy in return for money. In commercial practice pay goes up when the economy and productivity are on the up. I’d suggest people don’t leave public sector jobs in times of economic uncertainty. Someone is prob gonna find a reliable data set to prove staff are leaving secure jobs - thinking about it, maybe prison guards are a good single sector example.

Exactly the point. Private sector is pay rise tied to performance or output. Increase performance / output (hopefully) get a pay rise. Public sector is annual incremental increase (every year for 12 years then start again if promoted) + annual pay rise (+/-) + bonus payments... Smoke and mirrors....

There are some good points there - and I'd agree, up to a point. I don't know about teaching so don't want focus too much on that specifically as it may be the exception that doesn't prove the rule. In general, public sector employment is considerably more hierarchical than private sector. There are clearly defined routes, opportunities and mechanisms for advancement in 'grades.' Within each 'grade' there are perhaps 12 'bands' which equate to an automatic incremental annual pay increase based upon gaining another year of experience / seniority. It would be beneficial to first consider the purpose of grades and then the purpose of bands. (In theory) grades provide the mechanism for personal development and career advancement for the most dedicated, diligent, able and ambitious. No problem there, that's meritocracy at its finest - what actually happens in practice might be quite different but that's a whole other subject. Career prospects, advancement, pay rises exist in the public sector as an incentive - again, brilliant, meritocracy and the beginnings of a pyramidical staffing structure. Bands similarly recognise attained experience within that grade but primarily are intended as retention incentives - the longer you stay the more we pay because staff churn is expensive. So if we accept that there are almost unlimited public sector promotion prospects (limited only by ambition / ability) and there are 12 annual bands in most grades where an automatic incremental pay increase is guaranteed, that actually means you have 12 years of pay increases before you need to have achieved a grade promotion which puts you back to band 1 of 12 at the next higher grade and then the process recommences. Also bear in mind, the process loosely described above has continued unabated throughout the entire (so called) austerity period where annual pay rises have been frozen - so it's actually not been any form of stagnation (as the headlines would have us believe) for the majority. Why do organisations have promotion opportunities and why do they recognise and reward experience? Because there is an obvious requirement to retain and promote from within. The harsh reality can be seen that - if you haven't advanced by grade within 12 years, you may have peaked. Suck it up. Alternatively, GOYA and get yourself a promotion. Another harsh reality is that bands are set at or around 12 years because it's most likely that by the 12 year point, if you haven't left the job already, you probably won't because you're tied in with personal financial commitments that mean you need the job more than the job needs you. Net result, there's no need to incentivise someone to stay if they really can't leave. That's life Im afraid. The sort of basic economics and reality that appears so vacant in the Labour / Union / Momentum logic. I speak with 30 years public sector experienced and the equivalent of 11 grade advancements - 1 every 2.7 years if you average it out. There's no sympathy for public sector whining here, try convincing a private sector worker that public sector are hard done by....

Ah yes, “bands” If not absolutely all, the vast majority of public sector pays scales are subject to bands which increase annually in recognition of an additional years experience and seniority gained in post. This was the “hidden” pay rise that (I’m going to say all - pending someone coming up with a random exception) public sector workers received OVER AND ABOVE the very well reported minimal rises during the period of austerity. Whilst the headlines reported zero or minimal % public sector pay rises during austerity, they spectacularly and simultaneously excluded annual incremental band progression from the headlines. The notion that public sector pay has stagnated for a decade is simply inaccurate. Annual (automatic) incremental band progression paints a very different picture to that which is broadly painted.

Lies, damn lies and statistics..... Positive test for C19...... 2 months later..... - hit by a bus, - fell off a moving train, - eaten by a lion at Whipsnade zoo, - run over by a jumbo jet, = C19 death = still only just reaching the figures associated with annual Excess Winter Cold deaths

Not looking for a fight on this one Mark, but the reason they weren’t included this time is because they are still in the timeframe from their last negotiated pay deal. Aren’t we meant to stand by deals?

Fair play if you feel a £ reduction is the right way to go. Id have given a quote when asked and would probably stick with it if the bulk of the time / effort / work still remained. Are you able to say you won’t do an AIA / TCP? Is it a requirement of the validation list that the app be supported by an AIA? If validation requires an AIA and topo predates tree removal, I’d have thought the applicant would still require an AIA? Maybe a very light touch TCP since (Some of?) the trees are alReady removed? If I’d put the a time in the diary, travelled, been prepared to do the task, Id probably stick with the quote but I guess there could be scope for a relative reduction.

Have you got a topo? If trees are recorded on the topo they go in the AIA (plus any that aren't in the topo but are present) - maybe that they are just represented by stumps rather than trees though. Charge quoted rate for AIA. Slight aside, interesting that you mention legitimacy of removal since they are the neighbour's trees. Not withstanding any other restrictions, it would be just as legitimate to remove them even if they were the prospective applicant's trees. Preparing, submitting or awaiting the outcome of a planning submission doesn't prevent a land owner from doing tree work. From the pic, it looks like they are beyond time for removal anyway.

I'll just put this here in case you didn't see it the first time: Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have any issue with someone exercising their personal judgement and wearing a covering if that’s what they want to do. It’s the sanctimonious BS from those that need to be TOLD what to do, and then think they can project their own insecurities onto those that don’t feel the need to be told what to do that grips me.

The new sign of being a complete dickhead will be those that are wearing a covering but not wearing it properly (Top of the head, tucked under chin etc) - just to prove how gullible, stupid and malleable they actually are....

The edit was to include the screenshot extract of the WHO guidance. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have any issue with someone exercising their personal judgement and wearing a covering if that’s what they want to do. It’s the sanctimonious BS from those that need to be TOLD what to do, and then think they can project their own insecurities onto those that don’t feel the need to be told what to do that grips me. It’ll be like clap for the NHS volume / enthusiasm shaming come 24th... ”...you’re not wearing a mask - you bastard!...”

But there is somebody in a hi-viz telling you you you can’t use / access a public asset because they have implemented their interpretation of current “guidelines” They must be better qualified / entitled / empowered than you are to take due care of your family....

Where are you getting your advice from then?