Bob Arctor

Codeine is an opioid, hence the potential for dependency.

I was actually asking a genuine question because I want to understand the consequences of a vote either way. Perfectly reasonable behaviour, surely? ---------- Post added 28-02-2016 at 11:47 ---------- Thanks, that's helpful. I tried to find out how easy it is to repeal an SI, because it's easy to get one passed as it doesn't need parliamentary approval, so wondered if it needs parliamentary approval to repeal one. Any idea? ---------- Post added 28-02-2016 at 11:56 ---------- That's case law, i.e. a change to the law made in a court.

So does this mean that the Holidays with Pay Act would now be rewritten as the Holidays with Pay Act 1938 as amended by the Working Time Regulations 1993?

Eric, this is an important issue that will directly affect the majority of Sheffielders. Do you think you can lay off the egotism and grandstanding long enough for us to have a proper discussion about it? Tell me, if you disagree, what will be the legal entitlement to paid holiday and maternity leave immediately after a Brexit.

I've looked at the legislation you mentioned. The 1938 Act only entitles workers to 1 weeks paid annual leave. Regarding maternity leave: So in other words, in the event of a Brexit workers would have a legal entitlement to one week's paid holiday and about half of women would be entitled to maternity leave. That's not reassuring.

OK, I'll have a look at those later thanks. Is there a mechanism by which we would automatically revert to these pieces of legislation or were they effectively repealed when we signed up to the Working Time Directive?

Which legislation do they come from then?

There's nothing in your post that indicates that our rights to paid leave come from anything other than the Working Time Regulations, which is an EU law. The ILO can say what it wants - workers in the USA have no legal right to paid annual leave. ---------- Post added 28-02-2016 at 09:47 ---------- The difference is that now there is a statutory minimum that the contract must at least match - statute always trumps contracts. If the statutory minimum is zero then your contract could be altered to zero days per year. Just think about that - no paid leave from work. Or maybe 1 week a year.

Nearly all of our legal rights to paid holiday from work and paid maternity leave come from EU legislation. If Britain leaves the EU everyone's right to those will end - if you have a contract then you will still have contractual rights to these but there will be nothing to stop your employer from simply changing your contract. In this situation we would be reliant on a Conservative government going out of its way to pass legislation replicating the legal rights we already have, but would you trust them to do that? Why would they want to do it?

It is bizarre how the IRA essentially rescued Manchester city centre, they should have rebranded themselves the Irish Regeneration Agency and hired themselves out to local authorities in run down areas. There was even a regeneration event in Manchester a few years ago called "Every cloud..." They may as well have called it "Hats off to the IRA".

It's not just the public sector. I deal with these private contractors on a regular basis, they are just not very competent, both in terms of frontline staff and organisation. Their profit motive leads them to try to provide the service in the cheapest way possible which leads them to make basic errors which then have to be corrected at our expense by the Tribunal Service.

OK, that makes sense. But the obvious solution to this is to improve the information sharing between different sections of the DWP. Instead the DWP pays our money to idiots to make a hash of it with the disabled person suffering the consequences.

I can submit the gas online but not the electricity, this is one of the frustrations. The electricity bills they send me have the customer reference on them but not the account number but they ask for the account number to submit it online, but not for the gas reading for some reason!

Yeah, it's a service provided for customers. Anyway, have you got any tips on whether any of the other suppliers provide better service for customers?

It was the automated system - smartarse

They already had the evidence for this man from his original claim. It's a waste of public money to pay someone to ask for it again when there is no possible prospect of his condition having changed. Ditto for learning disability, it is a life-long condition. ---------- Post added 23-02-2016 at 21:06 ---------- They do, but they need to be carried out properly. A lot of them are not carried out properly and are therefore a misuse of public funds, would you not agree?

Here's a typical British Gas customer service experience from today, when I was trying to submit an electricity meter reading: "Please enter your customer reference number" [customer reference number] Automated system goes through options; "if you want to submit a meter reading press 4" [presses 4] "Thank you. Now please enter your customer reference number" [What, again? OK, enters it again] "Please enter your customer reference number. If you don't have it please press star" [i do have it, I just entered it. Here, I'll enter it again] "Sorry, please call our customer service line" [i can't, it's closed] All I wanted to do was submit a reading for Christ's sake! This allied with the fact that they send us the gas and electric bills in different names and tried to increase the monthly direct debit by £24 based on an estimated reading. I am aware though that E-on are a nightmare to deal with, and as for Npower, they are one of the worst companies out there. Is there anyone that is any good when it comes to customer service?

Allowing people to go without vital social care services and rationing healthcare so that executives and shareholders can have even more money is extremist. Compared to that, slopping a bit of paint on a shop front is nothing. ---------- Post added 15-12-2015 at 20:34 ---------- Of course we can blame people for making choices that adversely affect other people. Other companies pay corporation tax on their UK profits, avoidance and evasion are not compulsory they are a choice. Otherwise we are arguing for a principle that says it's ok to make any choice as long as it's driven by self interest.

Some stuff to think about, thanks

What could have prevented over-leveraging other than regulation? The problem is that the world of Finance is psychopathic; it cares about profit and nothing else. Regulators are always playing catch-up, and the reason they didn't regulate the securities markets properly was that they didn't understand them because they had become so complex. You are right that the free market wet dream is no regulation at all but that doesn't mean that the presence of regulation stops an economy being capitalist. Nearly all economies are primarily capitalist, they have differing degrees of regulation is all. ---------- Post added 09-12-2015 at 19:30 ---------- Anarchism is collective self-government rather than total lack of government.

2007/8 was very nearly a critical failure. Many investment bankers will tell you that the entire global banking system came very close to disintegrating, some say it was hours away. What saved it was intervention and financial guarantees from governments - the State! Including in the UK and the US. We nearly did run out of food and basic medicine. It would have been horrendous. I would be interested to know which regulations were 'mis-regulations'. From what I've read, the problem was that the investment banks invested in hedge funds and the rest of the shadow banking sector specifically to circumvent the Basel II set of banking regulations, which looks very much like under-regulation. ---------- Post added 09-12-2015 at 18:24 ---------- I don't know where you get that idea from, no-one thinks that. No disrespect, I think you have some basic economics reading to do.

That's such a simplified definition of Socialism as to be not much use. One of the key points of Socialism is 'social ownership' of the means of production and either the removal of the concept of profit or the equal sharing of profit among all. It does involve making the state more powerful, but it is quite possible to have an enlarged state managing a capitalist economy (usually badly). Capitalism, Socialism and Communism are all fundamentally economic models of production and are about the relation of workers to what they produce. It's quite common, particularly in South America, to have Socialists or "Socialists" in office but presiding over an economy that is capitalist. I don't believe there is any Socialist economy anywhere in the world.

Exactly. Everything has to be paid for, it's just that some people think it should only be other people's responsibility. Anyone who doubts the importance of all of us paying enough tax should take a look at Greece. Osborne should be doing all he can to close the loopholes, seems he's too busy taking money off people at the bottom.

The corporation tax rate is 20%. If a company makes £100 million profit in the UK it is supposed to pay £20 million in tax, don't you think?

Yeah, that's what makes it seem such a bad idea.