OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[Chipmunk]

TBH I just can't see how all else being pretty much the same, how adding a profit margin for shareholders ends up at around the same cost.

Not to mention you have now added whatever costs are involved in managing that system from the government's side.

I tend to agree on the surface, but there are 'added-costs' for a public service employee, and it's different for each Department. In most instances, non-ongoing public service employees on the Governments books have the same benefits as ongoing (e.g. permanent) public servants, just for a finite period of time.

I know that Departments have a value for what it costs to have someone employed on their books, and that is then compared to what is charged for a labour hire contractor..

The difference being that the labour hire contractor is only a per hour cost, whereas the non-ongoing employee is a yearly cost.

What I mean as the overall cost is that it is probably about the same amount of money each year to have 50,000 people employed through labour hire as what it is to have 50,000 people on non-ongoing contracts on the Governments books.

The Departments are now able to employ more people on their books, but they still engage people through labour hire. Why is that?

 

[Bandwagon]

The Departments are now able to employ more people on their books, but they still engage people through labour hire. Why is that?

On that it'll take time to fill the positions they want to fill, it's not like right now we have an excess of unemployed folks with skills.

 

[Chipmunk]

On that it'll take time to fill the positions they want to fill, it's not like right now we have an excess of unemployed folks with skills.

It's the same people...they just move them from labour hire to non-ongoing/ongoing.

You can swap someone over from one to the other pretty easily.

 

[Gronk]

 

[Gronk]

What does this mean ? In that country his popularity will probably go up 10 points.

 

[the phantom menace]

It was a US civil case, so all about the level of $$$ and not a definitive criminal prosecution. The burden of proof is a little less - balance of probablilities versus reasonable doubt. And they seem to have a distinction between 'rape' and 'sexual assault' over there where we don't have a separate 'rape' charge here?

 

[Gronk]

It was a US civil case, so all about the level of $$$ and not a definitive criminal prosecution. The burden of proof is a little less - balance of probablilities versus reasonable doubt. And they seem to have a distinction between 'rape' and 'sexual assault' over there where we don't have a separate 'rape' charge here?

Agree all it proves is that the jury reckons that, on the balance of probability, Trump does in fact grab women by the pussy.

 

[the phantom menace]

 

[Gronk]

 

[Chipmunk]

View attachment 73980

What is your intended point of this post?

 

[Gronk]

What is your intended point of this post?

Headlines are songs ?

 

[hindy111]

Agree all it proves is that the jury reckons that, on the balance of probability, Trump does in fact grab women by the pussy.

Cash grab.

 

[Gronk]

You know my left ball hangs lower than my right, but who wrote this and who put the video montage together?

Im not going to argue over the bu$ine$$ case for nuclear because it’s clear that it’s super expensive and the only reason why the right like it is because it’s not renewable. Yes we could argue baseload, but that will be resolved in due course.

However ^^^ to say that we don’t have troops who are trained to handle nuclear technology when we just signed a deal for subs and to show pics of yellow drums strewn across the desert is pretty stupid. Do better labor.

 

[strider]

I get that Trump is an enormous f**kwit, but its amazing the effort they go to to try and bring him down.

 

[Gronk]

I get that Trump is an enormous f**kwit, but its amazing the effort they go to to try and bring him down.

Nah it was a defamation case. That bloke is on crack. The jury held that he defamed her because they decided that he did sexually assault her.

The suit for defamation was made with the time set by the statute of limitations.

That's what I understood it to be anyway.

 

[the phantom menace]

I get that Trump is an enormous f**kwit, but its amazing the effort they go to to try and bring him down.

Trump does a pretty good job of bringing himself down imo, just by being a ginormous f**kwit.

 

[strider]

Nah it was a defamation case. That bloke is on crack. The jury held that he defamed her because they decided that he did sexually assault her.

The suit for defamation was made with the time set by the statute of limitations.

That's what I understood it to be anyway.

Tell the woman and her lawyer that. They went on CNN patting themselves on the back that they helped get the one year amnesty on the statute of limitations brought in .... just in time to get it in before 2024 lol

 

[Gronk]

Tell the woman and her lawyer that. They went on CNN patting themselves on the back that they helped get the one year amnesty on the statute of limitations brought in .... just in time to get it in before 2024 lol

So what do you think happened ? You reckon it was some sort of dodgy goings on ? Cos I actually googled it last night and found out that you were right, there was a civil claim along with defamation. So how did they do it ? Was it dodgy or within the law ?

 

[strider]

oh I thought you knew it was part "sexual abuse" and part "defamation" and were just being a dick like normal - lol

I mean the tweet you first posted literally said "found guilty of sexual assault [its actually called abuse, dunno if/how different] and defamation" ...... so maybe you are the one on crack after all


what do I think happened? Exactly what that guy said - they rushed in a 1 year amnesty on the statute of limitations so they could try and get a rape charge on him in the hope that would stop him running again in 2024 and at the very least try and smear him ...... cos no one gives any f**ks about defamation - thats just a daily nothing burger in the USA

I mean, he is a f**kwit and should get charged - I don't entirely understand why they have a limitation on how far back you can go to sue someone - I guess their civil court is flimsy and any f**ker might sue anyone???

Mind you, all their presidents seem to have an array of skeletons in their closets ...... Biden was also accused by a woman of sexual assault, but the puppet masters pulling his strings for their benefit made sure that got swept away and out of the media

 

[T-Boon]

It is hard to interpret it any other way.