Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2017 21:26:30 GMT
I suspect you'd end up with no true freinds if you carried on with that behaviour....or worse...Money is no good to anyone if you have nobody left who wants to share time with you. Work life / home life, total separation. A warm friendly genuine person with 4 kids, work seldom mentioned at home. She did go totally bonkers though so maybe it did prey on her mind really. I mean regressed to a 4 year old bonkers. She's a maths teacher now, putting something back. Funny old world. I don't believe anyone can truly segregate work life from home life. Most families and freinds take on the stress dumping of those who are trying to deal with the consequences of their decisions at work. Since I retired from mainstream work and tried to 'escape' and live on the boat, I'm still affected indirectly by shit decisions made by selfish individuals on a daily basis. The stress caused reaches far and wide, On a plus side, so does kindness and good will...
|
|
|
Post by lollygagger on Oct 15, 2017 21:38:44 GMT
Work life / home life, total separation. A warm friendly genuine person with 4 kids, work seldom mentioned at home. She did go totally bonkers though so maybe it did prey on her mind really. I mean regressed to a 4 year old bonkers. She's a maths teacher now, putting something back. Funny old world. I don't believe anyone can truly segregate work life from home life. Most families and freinds take on the stress dumping of those who are trying to deal with the consequences of their decisions at work. Since I retired from mainstream work and tried to 'escape' and live on the boat, I'm still affected indirectly by shit decisions made by selfish individuals on a daily basis. The stress caused reaches far and wide, On a plus side, so does kindness and good will... She didn't dump her stress, she didn't seem to have any, it was all black and white to her, she worked for her employers and did the job as asked and that was enough justification. So it seemed anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2017 21:41:19 GMT
I don't believe anyone can truly segregate work life from home life. Most families and freinds take on the stress dumping of those who are trying to deal with the consequences of their decisions at work. Since I retired from mainstream work and tried to 'escape' and live on the boat, I'm still affected indirectly by shit decisions made by selfish individuals on a daily basis. The stress caused reaches far and wide, On a plus side, so does kindness and good will... She didn't dump her stress, she didn't seem to have any, it was all black and white to her, she worked for her employers and did the job as asked and that was enough justification. So it seemed anyway. Well I suppose it's true that some of us are more thick skinned than others. However the output of their actions on others goes somewhere. and who knows, maybe full circle many years later.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2017 22:12:47 GMT
I didn't know who he was but Google reveals that Quote from Google search result. From website called "third sector" " He has a strong record of leading organisations through change " Google Ajit Chambers and Twitter, you'll find a lot more. I thought he was a useless windbag when the trustees took him on. It didn't take long for him to prove me right. I sincerely believe he will be the death of the canal system.
|
|
|
Post by JohnV on Oct 16, 2017 7:25:59 GMT
I didn't know who he was but Google reveals that Quote from Google search result. From website called "third sector" " He has a strong record of leading organisations through change " A friend of mine leapt to the top by doing that. She'd just sack everyone without hesitation or any guilt. Business is business. Streamline, computerise, sack, make less dependent on human beans, control. Fear of being stuck with employees in a falling market. Not even about profit really. Shifting responsibility away another big driver, itself driven by fear. Get rid of employees, outsource your responsibilities as only way to be able to sack without payoffs if something goes wrong. Our goverments have organised the conditions to encourage these behaviours. This succinctly encapsulates the attitude of many companies and organisations.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 16, 2017 10:14:24 GMT
As a counterpoint to what I have said respecting the expansion of the definition of boats subject to entry and exit tolls, I offer this little curiosity -
1894 Order
Special Sections Applicable only to the Bridgewater Canals Undertaking of the Manchester Ship Canal Company
(i) “Where merchandise is conveyed by a bye-trader in a boat which passes through one or more locks on the canal, the Company may charge a minimum toll of five shillings.
For an empty boat which passes through one or more locks on the canal, or which passes on to or from the canal from or on to the canal of any other Company, the Company may charge the sum of five shillings . . .”
“If two or more narrowboats (whether carrying cargo or empty) capable of passing through a lock alongside one another, pass through a lock at the same time, they shall be reckoned, for the purposes of this section, as one boat.”
1960 Act
s.6 “In the schedule to the Order of 1894 the special sections applicable only to the Bridgewater undertaking shall have effect as if – ( b ) the following definition was added at the end of paragraph (vi) of those sections:- “the term ‘vessel’ includes any vessel ship lighter keel barge boat raft pontoon and craft of any kind howsoever navigated propelled or moved”.”
That the ‘special section’ was to be distinct from the ‘general section’ in respect of relevant craft is evidenced by that addition, because the general section had already defined “boat” as including “all vessels, barges, keels, sloops, steam vessels, compartment boats, and other craft of every description, however propelled or moved, using the canal”, although expressly excluding pleasure boats.
BUT – whether through carelessness or some other reason, whereas in the general section the word “boat” is used throughout, and the definition of “boat” applies [with the exclusion of pleasure boats] and that includes “vessels”, in the special section [which also uses the term “boat” throughout, and the context refers solely to cargo carrying boats] “boat” is not defined, “vessel” is [without the pleasure boat exemption] – and yet the word “vessel” appears nowhere in that section, so the added definition could be read as utterly without meaning, having no application to any wording in the special section!
So although I would not myself wish to hinge an argument based on this disparity, I can see where a professional tasked with the job of proving that pleasure boats were excluded from the provisions of the special section as with the general section, could see a loophole in the obviously intended import of the 1960 addition, and argue for the application of the ambiguity rule against the Company, in favour of the public!
From my experience they would have a fat chance of succeeding, but at least it is a plausible argument.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Oct 17, 2017 19:56:06 GMT
Another interesting facet of charging history, which I had overlooked – the 2012 Order will have overturned the liberty granted under s.52 of the 1962 Transport Act to charge whatever they liked! From 2012 the charges must be reasonable. That turns the clock back to the same situation as obtained with the British Transport Commission back in the fifties.
|
|