desensitized43

14 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Hire the person you think will do the job the best.

It's as simple as that. To me that means that experience isn't the be all and end all. I wouldn't necessarily hire the person most qualified/experienced. But I wouldn't JUST hire the other person because I liked them.

It's a combination. If someone is slightly less qualified but you think they'd fit in better then it is completely legitimate to hire them.

If they're going to be shit at the job but you hire them because you like them then that's a problem

I look at a number of things in addition to who's best qualified. How well they fit, attitude to work, drive to succeed, what they're looking for in the job.

I do also look at their history of changing jobs. There's loads of people who only stay at places for 6-12 months. If they tend to move around alot, that's a red flag for me that they might not be committed or might be just purely financially motivated and I'll be back to recruiting again in a matter of months.

https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uk-minister-returns-cop28-rwanda-vote-parliament-2023-12-12/
 

Quote

LONDON, Dec 12 (Reuters) - The British minister at the COP28 climate summit in Dubai flew back to London to vote on Tuesday on sending asylum seekers to Rwanda, a move campaigners said sent a damaging message about Britain's priorities at a crucial time for climate talks.

When you’re at a climate summit but need to fly back for a quick vote to save Sunaks skin before getting flown back out again…

Embarrassing 

Even if he manages to get this through today it's going to get the arsehole amended out of it by both wings of his own party, let alone what Labour will try to do, then the Lords as well.

We're back to where we were in 2018/2019 where the Tories can't govern at all trying to put out todays fire while knowing tomorrow there'll be another.

We need an election now.

3 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

What have you read? I'm forever looking for actual evidence of this alleged doping. 

Nothing official. Just chatter online about how the Saudi's run a quite sophisticated program, the mysterious turnaround in results with the same exact players, which magically occured the moment the takeover went through, the premier leagues very shoddy rules, particularly around asthma medication.

It could all be conspiracy nonsense admittedly.

13 minutes ago, Jareth said:

They’ll chop Howe faster than you can say Khashoggi.

It’s time for them to knock the financial doping into overdrive…

and maybe the actual doping from what I’ve read.

12 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Just imagine the boost to the economy if we gave those millions to the people in the small boats.

I mean, it wouldn’t be a popular policy I know, but the boost to the economy would be incredible. 

Or spent it on actual immigration officials to process them properly, admit the ones that have a claim and deport the ones that don’t. Radical idea, I know.

He’ll surely get at least the January window to try and make some changes to the squad.

By that time they could be well in the mire…you can hope

1 hour ago, tomav84 said:

joey barton going full andrew tate/kevin keegan on twitter

imagine the GB news job offer is already in the post

Yep if his objective for the day was to light his own career on fire and dance around it, mission accomplished.

5 minutes ago, omariqy said:

Can we just clarify that intifada means to fight oppression by all different methods including boycotts and non violent protests. Including the great march of return. It’s resistance or shaking off oppression. Not sure why it’s been hijacked to mean what people think it means now. 

Words change their meaning all the time depending on the context of who is using them and why. Take the word “gay” for example…my 96 year old grandmother uses the word all the time to mean something entirely different than what a right wing skinhead would.

I don’t see why that applies any less to Arabic words than it would to say English and French.

17 hours ago, Spoony said:

Producer: an enormous panda in dungarees with an annoying whiney stupid baby voice. He has a sort of rabbit looking brown thing that’s either his friend or parole officer in a horrifying dystopian universe. We want you to play the brown rabbit thing.

Sir Mark Rylance, academy award winning actor: I’m in. 

The question I want answered is why can’t Pando keep his trousers on? Is he some kind of sexual deviant?

58 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Meanwhile Braverman in her 'I've been sacked' speech was calling for concentration camps so all is well on good old Blighty.

The very recently former home secretary. Big on conversation camps. The word removed.

In her defence, we did invent concentration camps. You can’t get more British than something we did to the boars. If it was good enough for the empire, it’ll do for now.

20 minutes ago, BleedClaretAndBlue said:

bloody hell, the smiles on their faces as they answer the questions wtf

I really don’t understand what’s so hard about this at all. Calling for violence against any people is surely wrong whatever the context.

I do have to wonder why as a society we’re not challenging what clearly is fascistic language and chanting.

3 hours ago, villa89 said:

No smoke without fire springs to mind. He doesn't seem to be very likeable but you wonder if he is being undermined by Maguire and co. 

Of course he is. The only way those guys stay at the club is if they continue this revolving door of managers and keep getting the slate wiped clean.

I still don't understand how the country can be so broke when the people are literally taxed on everything. Income, NI, Council, VAT, Fuel, Alcohol, Tobacco, Road, Sugar, Gambling, Inheritance, Insurance, Stamp Duty, Excise Duty, Capital Gains, Dividends, Corporations, Rates. The list seems endless. Where's all the money go?

1 hour ago, Zatman said:

Not a recent thing as they hired Bruce before  

 

Thanks mate. I'm trying to repress all memory of that man.

44 minutes ago, villa89 said:

Heckingbottom getting sacked. Feel sorry for him, overachieved last season and gets sacked for it. Would have been better off getting them in the playoffs and losing in the final. 

I don’t know what it is with Sheffield United but they always seem to employ the biggest rocket polishers as their manager. Heckingbottom, Wilder, Warnock…

9 hours ago, fightoffyour said:

The kind of Rodri fouls on the halfway line to prevent a break where you've stopped a clear goalscoring opportunity before it has actually become one. Usually just a trip so they are not violent conduct but they do prevent a high chance of a goal.

But yeah this is the issue isn't. Right now Rodri hardly even gets yellows so how can we trust the refs to implement anything properly, it'll just end up with loads of Wolves players in the sin bin on current evidence.

I still don’t see why it’s needed. I agree the Man City tactical foul situation needs addressing and has done for years tbf but you can easily do that by making it a yellow card offence and instructing the refs to get hot on it. He can only do it twice and he’s done.

I agree with Paul Merson. You’ll kill the game with sin bins. Teams will go full Tony Pulis with everyone behind the ball and wasting even more time than they already do. Plus it adds even more incentive to the players who exaggerate contact to try and get players carded.

I don’t get what problem this is trying to solve. We already have reviews with the VAR if it’s borderline yellow/red. Can someone tell me why we need a punishment stronger than yellow but less than red?

2 hours ago, El-Reacho said:

Selling Ramsey would send a pretty strong message to our academy that it is essentially a separate money making enterprise for the club rather than training young players to play for Aston Villa. As important as it is that the club raise money, young players have to see some pathway to playing for the first team. Can't be great for the culture of the academy knowing you're only there to be trained up to be flogged for FFP reasons.

Ramsey playing for the first team as well as the international team shows academy players that it can be done but also the standards required to make it at Villa these days.

I don't want Ramsey sold but I definitely don't agree it sends the message you think it does.

Aaron Ramsey, Archer and Philogene have been sold but they all went to good clubs and are all playing pretty well. It's really rare to get one club players and the other lads will look at that in the academy and see success stories. They're players that were trained here, loaned out, got time in the first team and ultimately left to play first team football at good clubs. What's the problem there? They're all young and their stories with us might not be over.

Jacob Ramsey is a different case as I no longer see him as a youth player. He's a first team player now.

4 hours ago, blandy said:

This. I heard something a while back that was along those lines, but it seemed that agreeing the wording between the two countries was really difficult. Something like Greece’s starting point was “Uk stole them and we’ve got them back” and the UK’s was “we saved them from destruction and are happy to loan them out” and various folks on each side had different views within themselves and it went nowhere… is it a generous loan or is it a return of stolen goods…

I think as with a lot of things we're not responsible for the actions of those who came before us so but in this case we're still directly benefiting from something that was wrong, although with hindsight definitely protected them from the instability in that region.

They're one of kind and irreplaceable so I get why the inclination is to hold onto them. They remind a lot of people of a time where Britain massively punched above it's weight and they're rightly proud of some of what we did in the world, but when the people of Greece are this upset about it I think this generation has to look to the future. That future is in cooperation and people not seeing us as some kind of imperial master race our ancestors sought to be but rather a partner that can be trusted to act in good faith.

Giving them up would be a massive act of good will that costs us basically nothing.

Return them and make a big deal about how it's the right thing to do to own up to the mistakes of Empire. That we've protected and maintained them while the Greeks were occupied by the Ottomans and then the Nazi's but it's time for them to go home.

The greek people have been our friends for a lot of years, we've shed blood together. It'll mean a lot to them and we'll barely notice they've gone. The British museum has made enough money over the years and surely has enough other stuff to put on display.

If they're so bothered by it then return them and do some kind of agreement to have some of them back from the Greeks on a lease. 

2 hours ago, bickster said:

In ten years time, who is voting Tory in significant numbers, who are they voting for now?

The death spiral has been going on since before 1997, there are whole generations that already don't vote for them. It takes time but they've now speeded up the inevitable. In 10 / 15  / 20 years time, which demographic do you see giving them the support they need? Once the baby boomer age bubble has popped where do they get support from? To people of my generation and below, that grew up in the Miners strike and the Thatcher years the brand is utterly toxic. I just can't see them being an electoral force

EDIT: Anyway - wrong thread for all this

We’ve been saying that for years though. That there core vote tends to be older, gods waiting room type folk who’ve got nothing better to do on a cold Thursday than cast a vote for the triple lock with no care for whose taxes are paying for it.

Yet they keep getting in. Why is that?

I do wonder if there’s some truth to the theory that people generally get more conservative leaning as they get older.

If I ever feel tempted I’ll be sure to throw myself from t here nearest cliff and do my bit for the nation!

1 hour ago, bickster said:

 I don't see the Tory Party as a credible election force under FPTP in two election cycles, I don't even think they'll be the opposition in that timeframe. Also in that timeframe Reform, where they will have potentially haemorrhaged votes to, will have pushed PR into the throbbers minds and once it's there you can't get it back. Instinctively the Tories may not want PR but tactically they may have to adopt it as policy

I'm also not sure the Reform backroom deal is on this time, if it is, Reform lose all credibility after stating there'll be a full slate

 

Well the goal with these parties has always been to influence the direction of the Tories more to the right, not to actually cost them seats as they're clearly of the opinion that a Labour would be worse for their goals. It's more the looming threat of annihilation that they've been using rather than the actual practice of them full on going for the Tories.

If that's changed then sure it's possible that would happen, but a threat when the Tories don't really believe they'll follow through on it is surely ineffective. It's a giant game of chicken really, isnt it?

I don't think the Tories necessarily see being out of power for 1 or 2 cycles as a reason to burn the system to the ground and start again. I'm sure they'll just see it as part of the ebb and flow of our system. One that's been massively advantegous to them for a century.

14 hours ago, bickster said:

Already posted about this in the Tory thread but as much as I want PR, I really couldn’t vote for them but being as the LibDems also want PR (and the Greens) it’s unlikely they’d be the only party with it in their manifesto. I do agree though that Labour will not as it currently stands have PR in the manifesto.

I think the interesting aspect in all of this is that it has the Tories shit scared and after a spell in the political wilderness with Reform pushing the throbbers towards PR the Tories might. The flip side to that is that PR might actually put the throbby Tories off from switching to Reform, which I think will be the Tory tactic. As Anderson ably demonstrates, a vote for Reform is a vote for Labour and all that. That will almost certainly be the short term Tory tactic

It's unlikely the Tories, Like Labour are going to voluntarily change the system that's kept one or the other in power for a century.

We all know what's going to happen with Reform etc. There'll be a backroom deal done on deadline day to withdraw their throbby candidates again in exchange for vague promises about how throbby the Tories are willing to be if they get re-elected.

The only difference this time is whether they're willing to talk to the Tories when they're led by someone they hate as much as Sunak...which I'm sure has nothing at all to do with his race...

1 hour ago, omariqy said:

What Palestine don’t need is a stooge government. They need the right to return, ability to control their air space and their coast etc. If you have that then Hamas no longer functions imo. 

I didn’t say anything about a stooge government. Only one that actually wants to bring the conflict to an end. Obviously one side or other can’t feel like they’ve been screwed or it’s a Versailles thing all over again and it’ll just start again.

They do need to accept reality though.