London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East and have access to Premium Chat. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Mad. Responding to you is like talking to a brick wall. A very THICK! wall. If your a typical CWU member no wonder Rico doesn't bother.
I am not punching above my weight at all. JB quoted the full text which gives the correct perception. You however posted a section of the quote added your own prose which was completely incorrect because you were using that section for your own argument when in fact there was more to it. Punching above my weight indeed and then you turn to the usual not worthy of further response like a scolded child sent to their room. Its debating forum so debate man don't sulk
MadMadMad. The fact that you wrote the same accusation despite me showing the full text from Morningstar. Which is what I posted. Shows again that you are punching above your weight here and are not worthy of further response.
madasaballoon I am not attacking you I am giving an opinion. I am sorry it is your interpretation/opinion. The department quoted would/could look at any issues in major British companies i.e. Thomas Cook etc but as stated twice in the comments it is down to the 2 parties. To me clearly indicating that there cannot be any government intervention/pressure but that is my interpretation. Another could be giving advice if appropriate to Rico to stick to what he is doing and defeat/smash the union and indirectly damage Labour but that's a bit far fetched interpretation. Unless you or I were there that's all you can do is draw conclusions / interpretations. As previously stated it is down to the business to resolve / deal with.
I am actually applauding you JB for using the full citation and still get attacked unbelievable. But there you are It cannot be an interpretation if behind the scenes the Government are involved. Why would they be involved we are a private company after all? You see Red you always turn into this little school girl type person when you are found wanting and get all defensive. All I said was you have not used the full quote and you didn't you selected a part of the quote which distorted what was being said and you were wrong to do so and you know you were so I will accept your apology
JB. Your opinion as usual. A beacon of light in this murky environment.
typo not rom should be is from
madasaballoon the vast majority of what is shared on here rom secondary sources as various reports and outlets. I think it would be worth actually considering what this debate was about it was your interpretation of what was said that from memory (not verbatim)that the government was putting pressure on RMG that is not the case. What would I rather have Redceo quoting honestly from A source or you misrepresenting based on your biased views.
Mad " There will be no apology as you have not cited correctly"
I never expected for one moment that you would do the honourable thing Mad. Suffice to say my conscious is clear.
Then unfortunately you have cited something which is not from a primary source that is very poor research indeed JB was spot on with his citation from a primary source. There will be no apology as you have not cited correctly
I had not seen the further discussion here is the link I viewed and the is no mention as I said https://morningstaronline.co.uk › re...
Rees-Mogg turns down chance to back striking posties ...
Mad as is often the case you resort to your unpleasant ways. I sent the entire text but if you wish me to take the trouble for a third time just say and I shall find it again and provide the link but of course that would mean everyone would see that I was totally honest. I therefore expect you to ignore this offer without an apology.
Yes it's great to see the government provide advice if appropriate but as repeated twice it's between the 2 parties .This is a private company and although parties may give signals about support that is all it is and only the business will resolve this however they choose.
However, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is working with Royal Mail to understand its plans and to provide advice where appropriate. The Government are doing what they can, but it is essentially a matter between the two parties.
That is the key text that is missing from the citation and it tells me a lot, so please when you cite use the whole Citation as JB has provided.
Clearly as stated twice Mr Rees Mogg Iit is a matter between the 2 parties to resolve.
I will supply the verbatim text later on. Of course Rees Mogg doesn't support Postal Workers you are completely missing the point I am making. Your abridged citation was used by you to clearly distort what was said don't try and fool me.
Mad. How can you tell me to quote properly and then add text that you say is not verbatim. Are we to believe you overheard it???
My text was pasted from the original although not in total to save unnecessary reading. There was however NO! Wording remotely similar to that which you posted. I always write with honesty and integrity as it was how I was taught. I am honest in my reporting but for your education I print the entire unedited report as follows :-
Tory rightwinger Jacob Rees-Mogg declined an opportunity today to offer support to Britain’s postal workers.
In a Commons session, Scottish Labour MP and former Parcelforce worker Hugh Gaffney asked Mr Rees-Mogg if he would “stand with the postal workers, who face a threat to their jobs, terms and conditions.”
Mr Gaffney, who said posties’ union CWU had “made history” with its 97 per cent national ballot Yes vote, also asked if the house would accept a debate on the “undemocratic” 2016 Trade Union Act.
Mr Rees-Mogg declined to give any support to Royal Mail staff, saying: “It is essentially a matter between the two parties.”
He added: “I hope that it will be settled, because we all want to get our Christmas cards.”
Dear oh dear.
What part of """"going forward"""" do you find difficult to understand.
You need to read your pro management post that you copied and pasted the other day. Try to understand Mr Backs words.
I fear for your job. Never mind though. You can easily retire, can't you.
And as for your wife?
An admirable job. What bearing does that have on anything to do with RMG?
Are you aware that I give up some sundays to do charity work. For free, in case you don't understand.
Nothing to do with RMG though!
Does that make me hero in your eyes?
Red if you are going to quote then do so properly. He also said (This is not verbatim) that the Government were talking to Royal Mail or words to that effect. Make no mistake about it they do not want industrial unrest during an election period. There is enough bad news around this Government as it is and IA of a National Company is the last thing they want
off now.. so wont see your reply isle .. have a good evening and weekend folks
isle if I am wrong please please show me where royal mail want to erode our t&cs??? and if you do I will walk away from here never to bother the likes of you again...…………..
and isle while im on the subject of t&cs… unison came out on strike some years ago for better pay... as a strong union man did you join them in their fight or carried on because it didn't affect you??? I think the latter...
isle not once have I read anywhere our t&cs are being eroded... only from cwu...
isle your quote "@ wolvesposty.
What planet are you on?
Where did I ever say about pay or conditions being bad?
You're making things up to suit your anti CWU agenda.
The worst thing is, that people actually read what you post and believe it to be true.
For clarity: Potential IA is about our t's and c's going forward. Now that covers a whole myriad of things. But more importantly, it covers you. Remember that!" so if thats the case then why are we talking IA?
isle my mrs is a nurse in the nhs…. she earns less pro rota per annum than a posty..... yes lets protect... please don't be greedy