Re: The rise of UKIP : Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:23 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

Yes I have and nowhere does it say ALL rights will be lost as you claim.

And nowhere does it claim what you claimed.

It says that far more rights than just those relating to tribunals would be lost.

Re: The rise of UKIP : Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:27 pm  

What do you mean 'what I claimed' - I haven't claimed anything.

No amount of spin will detract from your post which was misleading sensationalism. Quite ironic considering you are so quick to jump on the 'Wail' when you allege they do the same.

Re: The rise of UKIP : Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:04 pm  

You "claimed" by the use of a specific quote from the article tha you posted.

It suggests that that is the only rights that would be affected.

If you don't mean to 'claim' as much, perhaps you should not just have posted that very selective quote, which does not represent the article as a whole. As you perfectly well know.

Re: The rise of UKIP : Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:26 pm  

I never said it represented the article as a whole. All I had to do was find a right where it is proposed to be limited and not abolished and your statement is proved factually incorrect.

Re: The rise of UKIP : Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:50 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

I never said it represented the article as a whole. All I had to do was find a right where it is proposed to be limited and not abolished and your statement is proved factually incorrect.

Well done. You're at it again.

Your entire approach is not to engage in a discussion, but to try to find ways of rubbishing things, whether my selective quoting, misquoting or simply shifting the goalposts, without ever trying to contribute to a discussion with ideas about the topic at hand.

Have you ever considered trying to grow up?

Re: The rise of UKIP : Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:57 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Well done. You're at it again.

Your entire approach is not to engage in a discussion, but to try to find ways of rubbishing things, whether my selective quoting, misquoting or simply shifting the goalposts, without ever trying to contribute to a discussion with ideas about the topic at hand.

Have you ever considered trying to grow up?

Why don't you just admit that what you wrote was misleading instead of shifting the goalposts yourself.

You brought this topic back from over a month in the wilderness with a statement which is simply not true.

Re: The rise of UKIP : Wed Jul 03, 2013 6:51 am  

on its website, UKIP wrote:

UKIP would put an end to most legislation regarding matters such as weekly working hours, holidays … overtime, redundancy or sick pay ETC . and provide a statutory, standard, very short employment contract template … those employers who offer relatively generous terms would be able to use this in their advertising and might be able to attract better candidates or pay slightly lower salaries, and the reverse would apply to employers who demand longer working hours, or offer fewer holidays or fewer days’ sick pay etc."

[my emphasis and my caps on "etc"]

on its website, UKIP wrote:

“An SME which refuses to offer parental leave will either have to offer young women higher salaries than other businesses which offer a long leave period or they will simply have to recruit from a smaller pool of potential employees.”

In other words, maternity rights will not longer exist as a right, backed by law, but be optional. It is logical to assume that all other parental rights would be treated in the same way.

Re: The rise of UKIP : Wed Jul 03, 2013 7:21 am  

Ajw71 wrote:

Why don't you just admit that what you wrote was misleading instead of shifting the goalposts yourself.

You brought this topic back from over a month in the wilderness with a statement which is simply not true.

Well hello, Mr Transparently-Disingenuous ...
Your spotting of a tiny error in a critique of a large UKIP wishlist which seeks to peel back hard-fought-for employment rights highlights your purpose, which is clearly to shoot the messenger rather than debate the topic ... as per usual.
Tell me, do you agree with it? and, if so, how do you justify such commodification of people?
Or are you going to now disappear as you normally do, having "made your point" when, in fact, all you've done is made yourself look rather petty?

Whilst I don't believe that UKIP will ever be in a position to enact any of this reactionary, ill-thought-out and patently unfair result of bar-room bluster, the danger is that, again, it will appeal to the dimwit amoebae on the right wing of the Conservative party and Cameron won't have the courage to face up to them. He will just package it in with his "re-negotiations" for repatriated powers, rather than come out and say what is wrong with it.

Re: The rise of UKIP : Wed Jul 03, 2013 8:40 am  

Mintball wrote:

In other words, maternity rights will not longer exist as a right, backed by law, but be optional. It is logical to assume that all other parental rights would be treated in the same way.

So basically, it's not just Johnny Foreigner that's the problem with this country, it's also all these dolly-birds with the audacity to work for a living?

"they will simply have to recruit from a smaller pool of potential employees" - Nothing other than an endorsement of discrimination in the recruitment process. In fact, bordering on a recommendation.

Why am I put in mind of Harry Enfield's 'Women - Know Your Limits!'?

Re: The rise of UKIP : Wed Jul 03, 2013 1:03 pm  

carl_spackler wrote:

So basically, it's not just Johnny Foreigner that's the problem with this country, it's also all these dolly-birds with the audacity to work for a living?

"they will simply have to recruit from a smaller pool of potential employees" - Nothing other than an endorsement of discrimination in the recruitment process. In fact, bordering on a recommendation.

Why am I put in mind of Harry Enfield's 'Women - Know Your Limits!'?

Johnny Foreigner, the EU – and women.

Well, and all other 'minorities'. The same party would get rid of most equalities legislation too.