Baked buns safety ban

15 Oct 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
All those Quango's being chopped....
Lovely :thumbup:

Sounds good in theory GnV but will the workforce and roles be incororated into where they originally came from?
Take the HPA for example. They came from the NHS and formed the HPA to make it more central. Now they'll get rid of the quango but the roles are still required so the NHS will have them back again.
In theory it sounds good, in practise it may not be. So at present you have one CCDC in a HPA that covers a whole geographical area. Now if that role reverts back to the NHS then each area the NHS covers will require a CCDC. This doesn't look like job reduction in my eyes but increasing the jobs and having duplication.
At least it looks good on paper but I do hope the people who put these changes in are not pulling the wool over the eyes of the tax payer when they could be costing us more in the long run.
Dave_Notts
Hmmmm bit lost here. HPA? CCDC? I think I know what the NHS is.
Isn't the real point that the quango's were answerable to no-one, very expensive to run and that as accountability is at the heart of the Government's plan, they had to go?
Take for example the one dealing with poverty. If newspaper reports were correct, some senior members of this one were living it up extremely large at the expense of the public purse. Diabolical!

15 Oct 2010

Are you really that suprised GNV?
Quango's............Where the fuck did they all appear from??
How come they were set up, without most peoples knowledge and costing millions of pounds for something most people do not want or need?
I have looked up what some of them do....it is an absolute disgrace how the people who operate these things can waste so much money in running them.
As this article sums it all up with the last Govrnment...

He states clearly that if the Government were a business, it would have gone skint by now....no accountability at all.
The waste is staggering and the incompetence shocking.
Bring it on Cameron....let us have these cuts and starting with the public sector and the councils eh???
Get rid of a lot of these council jobs with fucking wanker titles, paying more money that the PM gets. :twisted: :twisted:

15 Oct 2010

10 TO GO
UK Film Council
Renewables Advisory Board
Consumer Focus
British Waterways
Civil Service Appeal Board
Standards Board for England
General Teaching Council
Human and Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
Legal Services Commission
Cycling England
Read more:

15 Oct 2010

I know you're into purchasing paper professionally for your business kenty and I'm sure you are very good at it but the revelation by Sir Philip Green about the cost of photocopy/laser printer paper was staggering!
I know it's a few years now since I purchased boxes of paper for my office but I seem to recall paying something in the region of or so a ream so that would be less than £10 a box. The paper was perfectly adequate for most if not all our requirements; printing invoices, statements of account, accounts listings, software development listings etc. If our supplier introduced a new range and it didn't work well with our network printer, he'd take it back and replace it with something that did work without question.
Sir Philip Green mentions that Government departments were paying on average £70 per box of paper! That is tax payers money being squandered willy nilly on something as simple as that. The office manager should surely have been seeking value for money but no; they get get massive salaries, gold plated pensions and shit from a very great height on the people who fund their lifestyle.
And then they start crying because they could lose their jobs!
Incredibly, Sir Philip suggests that the departmental reductions could be achieved without reducing staff just by better purchasing. That is the fundamental principle of good business. It's not what you sell at, it's how good you are at buying that gives the best business model.

Quote by And in rant mode GnV
And you can generally tell the difference between those that know that in practice because their livelihood depends on it and those that spout a load of Council culture tosh because they don't care a shit.

15 Oct 2010

I know that paper has increased a bit GNV....but probably the person doing the ordering is ordering it from a " mates " firm....backhanders and dodgy handshakes.
I have said for years with regards to councils, that it is so easy to spend money that is not your own. Now it seems Governments just like the last one, have wasted money on such a massive scale that to be honest must be criminal?
I think a separate body should be set up to investigate obvious criminal activities here.
To think how many millions of people struggle on a day to day basis, on the things they need in their lives and then witness such waste and incompetence from Government departments, is truly shocking and should be investigated with the full force of the law, brought down on those who have done dodgy dealings.....there are many I bet.
Start with Brown and Blare.....oh sorry they are exempt from any charges for doing any wrong, at any time!!

15 Oct 2010

Could be some thing sensible in the pipe line

15 Oct 2010

Quote by Bluefish2009
Could be some thing sensible in the pipe line

There certainly is. He has dispelled a lot of myth and put the record straight.

Quote by Lord Young
there is no end to the constant stream of misinformation in the media. Again and again "health and safety" is blamed for a variety of decisions, few of which actually have any basis in health and safety legislation at all.

he then goes on to say

Quote by Lord Young
health and safety legislation already places far more emphasis on common sense than is generally percieved

So in effect, those that believed the stories have been gullible.........well thats not new then rotflmao

Dave_Notts

15 Oct 2010

Quote by GnV
All those Quango's being chopped....
Lovely :thumbup:

Sounds good in theory GnV but will the workforce and roles be incororated into where they originally came from?
Take the HPA for example. They came from the NHS and formed the HPA to make it more central. Now they'll get rid of the quango but the roles are still required so the NHS will have them back again.
In theory it sounds good, in practise it may not be. So at present you have one CCDC in a HPA that covers a whole geographical area. Now if that role reverts back to the NHS then each area the NHS covers will require a CCDC. This doesn't look like job reduction in my eyes but increasing the jobs and having duplication.
At least it looks good on paper but I do hope the people who put these changes in are not pulling the wool over the eyes of the tax payer when they could be costing us more in the long run.
Dave_Notts
Hmmmm bit lost here. HPA? CCDC? I think I know what the NHS is.
Isn't the real point that the quango's were answerable to no-one, very expensive to run and that as accountability is at the heart of the Government's plan, they had to go?
Take for example the one dealing with poverty. If newspaper reports were correct, some senior members of this one were living it up extremely large at the expense of the public purse. Diabolical!
HPA = Health Protection Agency.
CCDC = Consultant in Communicable Disease Control
These people were reduced in number to cover the East Midlands for example, by having the HPA. Now with getting rid of the HPA each NHS trust will now have to employ a CCDC, so in effect for this position they have just increased the number of those employed. How many more jobs will have to be duplicated by getting rid of this quango I do not know. I hope this does not end up costing me more money just for a political soundbite.
The job still needs to be done so it will be swallowed up either at local NHS or Local Authority level.....either way it doesn't save money.
Dave_Notts

16 Oct 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
HPA = Health Protection Agency.
CCDC = Consultant in Communicable Disease Control
These people were reduced in number to cover the East Midlands for example, by having the HPA. Now with getting rid of the HPA each NHS trust will now have to employ a CCDC, so in effect for this position they have just increased the number of those employed. How many more jobs will have to be duplicated by getting rid of this quango I do not know. I hope this does not end up costing me more money just for a political soundbite.
The job still needs to be done so it will be swallowed up either at local NHS or Local Authority level.....either way it doesn't save money.
Dave_Notts

Aha! thanks for the HUD on the ANOGA
just so I don't forget, Head Up Display on the Abbreviated Names Of Govt Agencies
They must employ someone full time to come up with those mnemonics - surely a saving there!
However, isn't the point that some of these roles will be contracted out between NHS Trusts with an overall saving?

16 Oct 2010

Quote by GnV
HPA = Health Protection Agency.
CCDC = Consultant in Communicable Disease Control
These people were reduced in number to cover the East Midlands for example, by having the HPA. Now with getting rid of the HPA each NHS trust will now have to employ a CCDC, so in effect for this position they have just increased the number of those employed. How many more jobs will have to be duplicated by getting rid of this quango I do not know. I hope this does not end up costing me more money just for a political soundbite.
The job still needs to be done so it will be swallowed up either at local NHS or Local Authority level.....either way it doesn't save money.
Dave_Notts

Aha! thanks for the HUD on the ANOGA
just so I don't forget, Head Up Display on the Abbreviated Names Of Govt Agencies
They must employ someone full time to come up with those mnemonics - surely a saving there!
However, isn't the point that some of these roles will be contracted out between NHS Trusts with an overall saving?
Sounds a great idea in theory, but will they though. I just hope they haven't gone from few to many and cost us more when they said they would cost us less.
Dave_Notts

16 Oct 2010

Full report by Lord Young. Contrary to popular belief, he has supported the legislation and those that enforce it. He has attacked a number of areas that I agree in principal but could lead to a dangerous precedent by making a job for the boys situation. That I am not in favour of........even though I fall into that club it is unfair to a lot of my colleagues in the same the line of work. I think he has missed a trick to get the cowboys out of the field.
The report was supposed to be thorough but it is full of basic schoolboy errors in understanding the legislation and also where it applies. I wonder who the advisors were who let it be published without checking.
Dave_Notts

17 Oct 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
........even though I fall into that club it is unfair to a lot of my colleagues in the same the line of work. I think he has missed a trick to get the cowboys out of the field.
The report was supposed to be thorough but it is full of basic schoolboy errors in understanding the legislation and also where it applies. I wonder who the advisors were who let it be published without checking.

Understandable then why you have written off most of the report it seems?
Seeing as you are obviously such an " expert " in this field.....maybe they should have given it to the " expert " to check...............YOU???
Sounds to me though as though it could be that a person commissioned to do a report for the Government, who obviously DOES know what he is talking about, is being answered by somebody who the changes will affect, of which does not like???
Sorry but on this issue I have to agree with everything I have read in the report......As it is called.... " Common Sense, Common Safety ".
Something a lot of Health and Safety people and the local council operatives fail on in many basic levels.

17 Oct 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
Sounds a great idea in theory, but will they though. I just hope they haven't gone from few to many and cost us more when they said they would cost us less.
Dave_Notts

But again, that's the point. With the public at large in charge, if services don't deliver it is available for them to take people to task.

17 Oct 2010

Quote by GnV
Sounds a great idea in theory, but will they though. I just hope they haven't gone from few to many and cost us more when they said they would cost us less.
Dave_Notts

But again, that's the point. With the public at large in charge, if services don't deliver it is available for them to take people to task.
Really? What would be the mechanism for that? If I don't like what the local council or the government do, what exactly can I do about it? Vote them out - isn't that all we have already?
This is a serious question - not a criticism - please describe what 'the public' (by which I mean ME) can actually do to change or control what the 'powers that be' do.
Obviously I am ignoring voting them out cos a) that is already available theoretically and b) that is rubbish anyway cos it takes tens of thousands of votes to do that and my vote is worth bugger all in that scheme.

17 Oct 2010

You will not I believe get a proper answer, from someone who is a part of that very system.
You have a bunch of muppets which you vote out, but along comes another bunch of muppets, that get voted in.
In councils it really is a case of the blind leading the blind.
The report listed above is common sense.

17 Oct 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
........even though I fall into that club it is unfair to a lot of my colleagues in the same the line of work. I think he has missed a trick to get the cowboys out of the field.
The report was supposed to be thorough but it is full of basic schoolboy errors in understanding the legislation and also where it applies. I wonder who the advisors were who let it be published without checking.

Understandable then why you have written off most of the report it seems?
Seeing as you are obviously such an " expert " in this field.....maybe they should have given it to the " expert " to check...............YOU???
Sounds to me though as though it could be that a person commissioned to do a report for the Government, who obviously DOES know what he is talking about, is being answered by somebody who the changes will affect, of which does not like???
Sorry but on this issue I have to agree with everything I have read in the report......As it is called.... " Common Sense, Common Safety ".
Something a lot of Health and Safety people and the local council operatives fail on in many basic levels.
What a load shite you have just wrote Kenny boy. Did you actually read the report? Have you read anything I have wrote?
He obviously knows what he is talking about? How has he made basic mistakes and assumptions in the report then?
The report changes nothing for my role or the majority of the colleagues I work with, yet it will have an impact on many businesses out there. The majority of his recommendations involving H&S and the enforcement arm has either just been introduced or has been available for years. So "his" recomendations are already available and in being. This information has been freely available for small businessmen to use, unfortunately it is their failure not to use it that is the common sense issue. This is what he is trying to get across to the business out there. Your responsibility to implement the laws in your own workplace. He has already stated that the legislation is fine, it is the implementation by business that has cocked up. That dear Kenny boy is your area and not local councils or central government. Business has to start looking in rather than out at common sense.
His biggest gripe it seems is the insurance and civil side including compensation. That is something that makes me wonder as this is his original area of work. H&S is not interested in this as this is the realms of solicitors.
The reason I broadly accept the recommedations is because they are already available so it means no change at all in my role.
Dave_Notts

17 Oct 2010

Quote by GnV
Sounds a great idea in theory, but will they though. I just hope they haven't gone from few to many and cost us more when they said they would cost us less.
Dave_Notts

But again, that's the point. With the public at large in charge, if services don't deliver it is available for them to take people to task.
We the taxpayer want these services and at less cost. That is great and what I want but if these changes go back to the days when there are extra people doing the same work by bringing it in house, how is that saving me, the taxpayer, money?
I am not saying all quangos are the same but we need to look at what they do now compared to in the past and is there going to be duplication. If there is then that is more staff and not less, hence more waste in taxpayers money.
Dave_Notts