Coun John Marshall The Headland

katcha · **Posted:** Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:12 pm

thats a normal bunker post innit?

townendtimmy · **Posted:** Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:21 pm

katcha wrote:

thats a normal bunker post innit?

yep

Jonny · **Posted:** Sun Jun 03, 2007 9:37 pm

katcha wrote:

jonny - what are you?

barker didnt get paid 200k it was no more than 75 and her wage got split tween the other bods who were taking on extra responaibilities

i may a huge amount of council tax and dont care too much - the wheels keep turning - yes people take the piss with the sick and the amount of work they do and the skiving etc but a massive overview of how the council works is needed and as another said they aint gonna bin a load of jobs off - bad pr etc etc etc - the overview would need to be independent professionals and could run up a bill of £1000000 or so to save us £10 a month the next year of the tax - is it worth it - yes if it reduces waste if resources, yes if it saves money in the long run, yes if it is better for the long term stability of the authority. but no coz the current bods there will not allow it to happen. scared of what they will find - by the way the bird works for the council as do other high ranking council bods who read this board and most of the salaries and pay structures there are under review and salaries will probably go up a lot for some (hopefully the missus as she at the top of her scale!!).

what the council also needs to address is the position in relation to benefits they dish out re housing allowance, council tax benefit and all the other bollocks people get - if you're that fookin arsed about council tax this, councillors that - then help them out - report the bastads who claim to be livin alone, who claim for this, who claim for that - there's only us fookin paying for it and i work damn hard for my poke and so does the bird so why the fook should i subsidise some lazy cheating silly boy

There is shitloads that needs doing to make the council more efficient. I don't see what the big deal is about losing a few jobs. Many organisations restructure to make things more cost effective. Unfortinutly as council tax payers we are seen as having a bottomless pit of cash to pay the council tax.

As for people fiddling the system, I am aware it goes on but I do not really mix in those sort of circles. Surely there are people investigating this type of behaviour...?

katcha · **Posted:** Sun Jun 03, 2007 10:36 pm

Jonny wrote:

katcha wrote:

jonny - what are you?

barker didnt get paid 200k it was no more than 75 and her wage got split tween the other bods who were taking on extra responaibilities

i may a huge amount of council tax and dont care too much - the wheels keep turning - yes people take the piss with the sick and the amount of work they do and the skiving etc but a massive overview of how the council works is needed and as another said they aint gonna bin a load of jobs off - bad pr etc etc etc - the overview would need to be independent professionals and could run up a bill of £1000000 or so to save us £10 a month the next year of the tax - is it worth it - yes if it reduces waste if resources, yes if it saves money in the long run, yes if it is better for the long term stability of the authority. but no coz the current bods there will not allow it to happen. scared of what they will find - by the way the bird works for the council as do other high ranking council bods who read this board and most of the salaries and pay structures there are under review and salaries will probably go up a lot for some (hopefully the missus as she at the top of her scale!!).

what the council also needs to address is the position in relation to benefits they dish out re housing allowance, council tax benefit and all the other bollocks people get - if you're that fookin arsed about council tax this, councillors that - then help them out - report the bastads who claim to be livin alone, who claim for this, who claim for that - there's only us fookin paying for it and i work damn hard for my poke and so does the bird so why the fook should i subsidise some lazy cheating silly boy

There is shitloads that needs doing to make the council more efficient. I don't see what the big deal is about losing a few jobs. Many organisations restructure to make things more cost effective. Unfortinutly as council tax payers we are seen as having a bottomless pit of cash to pay the council tax.

As for people fiddling the system, I am aware it goes on but I do not really mix in those sort of circles. Surely there are people investigating this type of behaviour...?

not fookin enough clearly

Spender · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:46 am

Jonny wrote:

There is shitloads that needs doing to make the council more efficient. I don't see what the big deal is about losing a few jobs. Many organisations restructure to make things more cost effective. Unfortinutly as council tax payers we are seen as having a bottomless pit of cash to pay the council tax.

As for people fiddling the system, I am aware it goes on but I do not really mix in those sort of circles. Surely there are people investigating this type of behaviour...?

Well like what?? We're back on 'mega-bucks' and 'huge' again aren't we?? And surely it was you that was making a big deal out of losing jobs?? Or one specific one at least. Then you want a team of investigators. Who's paying them??

This is starting to sound like a Sun fuelled pub moan this is...... stpid

Jonny · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:05 am

There is no point getting shot of someone if they are going to get a massive redundancy / glorious pension and then have their salery divided amongst people who are still there.

And they all think that they can retire when they are 60...... rage

Anyway I don't want to think about it anymore I'm giving myself negative vibes.....

Spender · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:34 am

Jonny wrote:

There is no point getting shot of someone if they are going to get a massive redundancy / glorious pension and then have their salery divided amongst people who are still there.

And they all think that they can retire when they are 60...... rage

Anyway I don't want to think about it anymore I'm giving myself negative vibes.....

Well yes there is. I thought 'd already explained that. Pensions don't come out of future funding, they come out of existing ringfenced self generating funds. How do you think a pension works?? It seems that you think that they have to take pensions into consideration when they set the level of Council Tax. They don't. And the earlier they retire, the more opportunity to a. Lose the post b. Restructure as a cost saving c. Create job opportunities further down the scale for younger people.

Even if they do re-distribute the salary, they save the cost of employing that person which is about 15% of the said salary.

Snowy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:18 pm **Posts:** 41319

Remember how people like jonny used to go on about British Rail ... all the jokes, all the moans, ... " if it was run privately it would be much more efficient and there'd be no need for subsidies" ... so they did it. WANNA GUESS WHAT THE SUBSIDY LEVEL IS FOR THE RAILWAYS, NOW IT'S PRIVATELY AND 'EFFICIENTLY' RUN...? .. an awful lot more, because don't forget that it has things called 'shareholders' who want a 'dividend' :roll:

In the bad old days, you could get a train to all sorts of places at a reasonable price from HARTLEPOOL...try it now!
If you're gonna chunter on about things, get a full grip of all the facts and not just the ramblings of the media,.... have you ever heard the press have an headline praising any Council ... unlikely, as praise doesn't sell papers. :roll:

Jonny · **Posted:** Tue Jun 05, 2007 6:26 pm

Snowy wrote:

Remember how people like jonny used to go on about British Rail ... all the jokes, all the moans, ... " if it was run privately it would be much more efficient and there'd be no need for subsidies" ... so they did it. WANNA GUESS WHAT THE SUBSIDY LEVEL IS FOR THE RAILWAYS, NOW IT'S PRIVATELY AND 'EFFICIENTLY' RUN...? .. an awful lot more, because don't forget that it has things called 'shareholders' who want a 'dividend' :roll:

In the bad old days, you could get a train to all sorts of places at a reasonable price from HARTLEPOOL...try it now!
If you're gonna chunter on about things, get a full grip of all the facts and not just the ramblings of the media,.... have you ever heard the press have an headline praising any Council ... unlikely, as praise doesn't sell papers. :roll:

Whats the point in having services from Hartlepool to just about anywhere if no one is using them?

Why don't you enlighten me on what a fantastic job the council does that I have ovelooked.....?

Snowy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:18 pm **Posts:** 41319

Enlighten yourself.
All organisations have too much deadwood, usually at the management levels, but you see everything as being sooooooo black and white when it isn't.

Jonny · **Posted:** Tue Jun 05, 2007 6:46 pm

Thats different because I'm not funding most other organisations.

Snowy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:18 pm **Posts:** 41319

OK...you get rid of the Council and all it's evil works......then what?
Well, we get the private sector in to run it, those nice people whose role is to provide a service at a price ... this is usually achieved by offering the said services 'efficiently' which means at the most cost effective delivery (cheapest) but charging premium prices...thus we have the champagne expectations for lemonade prices of yourself suddenly becoming lemonade services for champagne prices. The private sector keeps it's profit margins up, by rationalising the workforce (sacking them, who then claim benefits)... :roll:

Jonny · **Posted:** Tue Jun 05, 2007 8:35 pm

I'm not saying get rid of all the council, just get rid of all the waste.

As for those claiming benefits, life should be made a lot tougher to force them into employment. How people can go for long periods of time (months if not years) without earning a bean through working is beyone me.

Hawklord · **Joined:** Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:27 pm **Posts:** 3118

I think you spelt Beyonce wrong.
However, wouldn't the time and effort be better spent catching the tax cheats and closing the loopholes in the law that enable the richest to pay the least. Just my opinion like.

Snowy · **Joined:** Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:18 pm **Posts:** 41319

Jonny wrote:

I'm not saying get rid of all the council, just get rid of all the waste.

As for those claiming benefits, life should be made a lot tougher to force them into employment. How people can go for long periods of time (months if not years) without earning a bean through working is beyone me.

Nothing wrong with getting rid of waste.....as for the benefit system, I pass the D.S.S every day when I come out of work and still wonder how so many young men and women go in and out of there ...and get into a taxi :roll:

..... a country where the claimants can actually afford to do that, needs to review where it's going wrong.

Albatross · **Posted:** Tue Jun 05, 2007 9:56 pm

Jonny wrote:

I'm not saying get rid of all the council, just get rid of all the waste.

As for those claiming benefits, life should be made a lot tougher to force them into employment. How people can go for long periods of time (months if not years) without earning a bean through working is beyone me.

Funny thing. Every time a party is in opposition, they always claim that if they get into power that they will improve things without taxing more by cutting waste. However, when they get into power it's never quite that simple.... whether this is because they don't want to make hemselves unpopular by making a lot of people (who might be voters) unemployed, or whether the fact is that there is actually less waste than they thought is left as an exercise in speculation for the reader. Either way the net result is that there's always less change.

katcha · **Posted:** Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:21 pm

Hawklord wrote:

I think you spelt Beyonce wrong.
However, wouldn't the time and effort be better spent catching the tax cheats and closing the loopholes in the law that enable the richest to pay the least. Just my opinion like.

fair point clappp

Spender · **Posted:** Wed Jun 06, 2007 1:54 am

Jonny wrote:

I'm not saying get rid of all the council, just get rid of all the waste.

As for those claiming benefits, life should be made a lot tougher to force them into employment. How people can go for long periods of time (months if not years) without earning a bean through working is beyone me.

It's a matter of attitude. The Poles (yes them!!) who came to Worksop couldn't believe their luck. The biggest employer in Worksop is Greencore. If you eat a pre-packed sandwich and it's not Marks and Spencers then the chances are it was made in Worksop. The doleys attitude is 'I'm not making fookin' sandwiches all day for minimum wage.' The Poles said, 'You want us to make sandwiches all day for 6 pounds an hour?? And you give me clothes to do it in and free food while I'm doing it?? Piece of piss. When do I start??'

There has always been work in England if you don't care what you do.

The one that does particularly annoy me is the breed of child mother that lays down, gets bunned, has child and immediately gets house, milk, nappies, social care, free nursery place and then spends all day chewing gum in the shopping centre whilst spending a large slice of my earnings on leggings and huge earings in Primark.

I would be a massive advocate of adopting the Chinese system for unmarried mothers.

The Poolie Bunker

Coun John Marshall The Headland

Who is online