Would you want my job cut?

lostinrates

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Sorry, I read too quickly. My firewall prevents me giving thanks, or viewing who has given me thanks, so sorry if I appeared rude. There would be lots of other costs to business too, and I doubt that many companies could afford to employ a Chemistry PhD at each warehouse. Any extra costs would end up being passed on to customers. The PhD would need to be quite an all rounder, whereas we can consolidate the expertise of many specialists into our regulations.

Apology accepted, its just you've seemed quite brusque today, and it saddened me.

Of course costs would be past on to the customer, the actual consumer of those goods that were being looked at, not those of us not using those goods. I think my answer would still depend on what else your job covers. Sorry

treliac

Sir Humphrey, I can't think anyone with any commonsense would suggest the abolition of the public sector (well, maybe one or two who post on the board :rolleyes: ). I am sure you, and very many others, perform essential and much valued functions within society. Thank you. :T

However, I do think that public sector growth has been unrealistically and unsustainably high. There must be room for cutbacks. Yet again, though, it's been down to government policy and priorities. A sensible balance should be struck and probably will be by a change of govt.

Sir_Humphrey

Zagu wrote: »

So if they had a licence and regs, de Vries couldn't have set fire to the factory? If someone wants to set fire to something, regulations are going to make little difference.

!!!!!!, do I have to write this in crayon? If you do not store dangerous items properly, then they are more likely to cause a big fire and an explosion. If you do store dangerous items properly and there is a fire, there is a smaller fire and no explosion. Therefore, the criminal act would have a less serious consequence. Get it now?

Presumably you think that fighter planes should not have ejector seats, because they get shot down anyway? Good grief, think man!

Sir_Humphrey

treliac wrote: »

Sir Humphrey, I can't think anyone with any commonsense would suggest the abolition of the public sector (well, maybe one or two who post on the board :rolleyes: ). I am sure you, and very many others, perform essential and much valued functions within society. Thank you. :T

However, I do think that public sector growth has been unrealistically and unsustainably high. There must be room for cutbacks. Yet again, though, it's been down to government policy and priorities. A sensible balance should be struck and probably will be by a change of govt.

There are far more people like me, and far fewer people in non-jobs than people realise. There is not as much fat to cut as people may think. All I am saying, is be careful what you wish for, and don't expect some of the pain not be focussed on tax rises. Cutting ID cards (a cut I would agree with BTW) won't cure the public finances!

treliac

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

There are far more people like me, and far fewer people in non-jobs than people realise. There is not as much fat to cut as people may think. All I am saying, is be careful what you wish for, and don't expect some of the pain not be focussed on tax rises.

And, in fact, efficiencies have been being made in many areas for a long time now!

I think that it's some of the 'PC,' funny titled jobs that really wind people up.

Zagu

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

!!!!!!, do I have to write this in crayon? If you do not store dangerous items properly, then they are more likely to cause a big fire and an explosion. If you do store dangerous items properly and there is a fire, there is a smaller fire and no explosion. Therefore, the criminal act would have a less serious consequence. Get it now?

Presumably you think that fighter planes should not have ejector seats, because they get shot down anyway? Good grief, think man!

Wow, that's some response for a thread dedicated to trying justify your job. You sound desperate.

Everyone knows that all public servants are essential, and we would all have chopped off our own heads by now if it wasn't for you lot. Your 24 posts this afternoon have been a landmark in public safety. Congratulations.

JonnyBravo

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

!!!!!!, do I have to write this in crayon? If you do not store dangerous items properly, then they are more likely to cause a big fire and an explosion. If you do store dangerous items properly and there is a fire, there is a smaller fire and no explosion. Therefore, the criminal act would have a less serious consequence. Get it now?

Presumably you think that fighter planes should not have ejector seats, because they get shot down anyway? Good grief, think man!

The article says the people who owned the factory were jailed for storing them illegally anyhow. So once you've written your marvellous law we need someone to enforce it.

Do you want us all to send you a card for your birthday too?

ILW

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

There are far more people like me, and far fewer people in non-jobs than people realise. There is not as much fat to cut as people may think. All I am saying, is be careful what you wish for, and don't expect some of the pain not be focussed on tax rises. Cutting ID cards (a cut I would agree with BTW) won't cure the public finances!

Are you in work this afternoon?

Sir_Humphrey

Zagu wrote: »

Wow, that's some response for a thread dedicated to trying justify your job. You sound desperate.

Everyone knows that all public servants are essential, and we would all have chopped off our own heads by now if it wasn't for you lot. Your 24 posts this afternoon have been a landmark in public safety. Congratulations.

This is the second person today who is not bright enough to realise he lost the argument today.

Sir_Humphrey

JonnyBravo wrote: »

The article says the people who owned the factory were jailed for storing them illegally anyhow. So once you've written your marvellous law we need someone to enforce it anyhow.

Do you want us all to send you a card for your birthday too?

Indeed. Lots more 'non jobs' (sic).