Frank Sidney

I'm surprised Marks and Sparks are involved in such a shady enterprise, but then again I'm not...They'd roll their granny down the tip for two bob....

There might be somebody else who they want, somebody better or the next door neighbours daughter or whoever.....Its the threat of being able to be got rid off easily that will ensure everybody puts up with a little more dodgy dealings from dodgy employers. It may ba a surprise to you, but they do exist..

I think they're being taken advantage of, as are the young people that work there...

I don't know. Hopefully someone on here will know and save me the trouble of wading through employment law, of which, I know nothing about....

Well of course it does that wasn't my point at all. Those who do pull their weight will be worse off because they'll be easier to get rid of. Then there's the point that who actually says someone is pulling their weight? People who are pulling their weight will be got rid of, for whatever reason, using this as an excuse... You're not thinking it through....

I've just discovered how this company operates, which is, frankly, a little bit iffy... One thing is that the night staff can be told at any time their shift is over. They do not have set hours. So at 2.30am the order can be given that the shift is over, so the pay stops....This ensures that the company do not have to pay the hourly rate for the rest of the shift which should end at 6.30am. That's bad enough but the location of the bakery make it difficult for any of the staff to hike it home, the person I was talking to said it would take her 3 hours. She can't afford a taxi and the first bus is not while 6.30am. So basically there's a dozen or so, mainly young boys and girls and immigrant workers hanging about for hours before they can get home... I thought slavery was illegal. I understand they supply M & S with food, I won't be buying anything from M & S food dept again...

I don't know why any employee would support a scheme like this. All it will ensure, for them, is that, because of fear of unemployment, they will have to put up with lower pay and a reduction in conditions... The same thing can be said for all those supporting the benefit cuts, it'll just ensure you have to work harder, for less or starve....

Nope wrong wording, it was out of context..I've withdrawn the misquoting accussation...It does happen quite frequently and I was confused for a minute... Please don't say report it to the help desk...because its a waste of time...

Nope wrong again, its throws...

Perhaps quoting out of context would have been a more accurate description. Therefore, I withdraw the misquoting point but replace it with an out of context one... I don't know why it is such a big issue that I have a different point of view. Plenty of people do.....Its no big deal, its called a debate. I think I'm right and you think you are, nothing is black and white.. I know what I think and have heard nothing that changes my point of view as yet, if I do, I will alter my opinion.

I feel the death throws of my forum life....

If it was born a chicken then yes, it would be a chicken leading its life as a duck. If you ate it what would it taste of?....

To say to a disabled person that he or she is disabled at birth would not be offensive, if they were born disabled, so you have no need to be offended...because it would be a fact.. I clearly said that a woman born with abnormalities to her reproductive organs is excluded from my point that women have to have the ability to give birth.....

Re Esme....As per my previous posts, I disagree and am quite entitled to my opinion...You've also misquoted me a couple of times re disabled and the ability to have children, which is a bit naughty..

Okay sorry I must have misunderstood....I thought you were agreeing with this....

Eh, what in the name of Sweet Mary are you on about....?

As I said earlier, I disagree and will not be pursuaded otherwise...Its my opinion and I'm quite happy with it, its not offensive and anyone who is offended by it is looking to be a victim. Didabled people have to accept how they are born, which is difficult and not a choice. We can't change the race we are or our natural hair colour. Sometimes nature messes up.... I don't know why you have to see it as offensive because as I've said, numerous times, I'm quite happy with men becoming women, in appearance, and if they so wish to be looked upon as women, legally and in a social setting, that's fine, this should be respected. But they are still men who have adapted their body to look like a woman... There is more to being a woman than a pair of breasts. A woman would need, apart from physical abnormalities, the ability to bear children and its not possible to become a woman overnight, those things are learnt over a lifetime...

No I'm not...men born men are men. Women born women are women..Ginger haired people born ginger will always be ginger, even when they dye it blonde.. I think its wrong to be offended on behalf of someone else, as well.

Oh well I'm not going to change your opinion just yet...So we will agree to differ, although I'm obviously right...

Blimey, imagine walking into work the day after you'd dropped that clanger...Hope they didn't get in too much trouble...Football means nowt to some people and they just didn't understand the outrage it would cause... They probably have an unapproachable boss who scares them all, so they don't ask for guidance...

I don't think you do. You seem to think a different opinion to your theory is offensive. Its not, its a different opinion. A man born a man, will always be a man. It is possible to adapt the body to look like a woman, but you do not become a woman, you become a man who looks like a woman. Its not such an outrageous thing to claim, as you seem to infer. If someone has gone through the process and wants to be referred to as a woman then they should be referred to as a woman. I don't have a problem with that.. Its not nasty and selfish as you seem to claim to think the above. I notice you critisize me for using the term "men" but then you use the term, "them"...Which is obviously a worse reference....

I think biologically they still are men... Can you provide some evidence that I haven't been anything but supportive, on a personal level, of people with this issue? Because I may disagree with the theory you present doesn't make me any less considerate towards the people involved....So yes you do misunderstand me..

Ok thanks.... I don't see the significance on the outcome of the trial though, for people like me and you, discussing the matter on a forum. I don't think the jury will be logging on to see what Frank has said about the matter..Is is also not allowed to discuss the matter in a pub or over the garden fence...? I'd understand a ban of newspapers giving an opinion though because they carry more influence....

Can I just show my ignorance by stating I don't know what sub-justice is...?..

That's basically what I was trying to say, but you are obviously, more eloquent than me... But what I said is not something that I have made up, or read in some rubbish sociology book, its what I've gleamed from someone I know who has been through the experience. I do wish you would stop trying to claim a superior knowledge about a subject you know very little about...You just look silly, or sillier... I refer Halibut to my signature, again....