Osborne loses his nerve in the face of Union solidarity

discoass

tartanterra wrote: »

Taken from the AFPRB 30th report 2001.

These were the historical adjustments made to military pay to take account of the pension.

4.10 Since comparisons commenced in 1981, the pay adjustments recommended by
the Review Body have been as follows:
1981 11% of comparator pay
1986 10% of comparator pay
1991 9% of comparator pay
1996 8% of comparator pay
1997 7% of comparator pay

You could have done this research yourself, but as we have seen, you don't research - you just spout off.

ok heres a bit...taken from armed forces pension calculator


The Armed Forces Pension Scheme is a non-contributory pension scheme; this figure, therefore, provides you with an indication of the amount of money the MoD contributes annually on your behalf towards your pension.

Road_Hog

discoass wrote: »

whats this gotta do with bob crow?

He's a union leader and my reply to the RT was about unions. Clear enough?

discoass wrote: »

think you`ll find it was his birthday

Lovely, but who paid for it?

discoass wrote: »

and union members pay his wage

and...

I hope they enjoy paying for his lifestyle, he has a nice time on their subscriptions.

discoass

Road_Hog wrote: »

Lovely, but who paid for it?



I hope they enjoy paying for his lifestyle, he has a nice time on their subscriptions.

I dont care who paid for it and neither should you really.

They can vote him off at the general meetings i would suspect if they aren`t happy .

Road_Hog

Bob_Crow wrote: »

I dont care who paid for it, as long as it wasn't out of my pocket.

I've fixed your quote for you.

discoass

Road_Hog wrote: »

I've fixed your quote for you.

not really ,its non of my business thats all.

tartanterra

discoass wrote: »

ok heres a bit...taken from armed forces pension calculator


The Armed Forces Pension Scheme is a non-contributory pension scheme; this figure, therefore, provides you with an indication of the amount of money the MoD contributes annually on your behalf towards your pension.

OK. you've put your record on, it's stuck in the groove and you can't change it.

You've had your half cocked claims disproved. You've ignored it and carried on trolling.

I've let you win a point, even though you were clearly wrong, just to get you to drop it, and the next thing you're trolling again.

I offered to ignore your posts because you didn't like the answers, and you came straight back trolling.

I've awarded you two gold stars and two new crayons (which I suspect, you would probably eat anyway) just cos' I'm a nice guy, but the trolling has continued.

You asked for evidence of changes in pay due to the abatement. It was provided, and you carry on trolling.

The funny thing is, even after all of that, I still have no idea what point you are actually making.
I think you would argue with yourself in an empty room, and ironically, still lose.

So here's my next olive branch; from this point on I'm just going to completely ignore you. You're simply not worth the oxygen.

Have the thread to yourself for your outlandish claims and poorly researched assumptions, because I'm frankly just bored with you now.

Merry Christmas:santa2:

discoass

tartanterra wrote: »

OK. you've put your record on, it's stuck in the groove and you can't change it.

You've had your half cocked claims disproved. You've ignored it and carried on trolling.

I've let you win a point, even though you were clearly wrong, just to get you to drop it, and the next thing you're trolling again.

I offered to ignore your posts because you didn't like the answers, and you came straight back trolling.

I've awarded you two gold stars and two new crayons (which I suspect, you would probably eat anyway) just cos' I'm a nice guy, but the trolling has continued.

You asked for evidence of changes in pay due to the abatement. It was provided, and you carry on trolling.

The funny thing is, even after all of that, I still have no idea what point you are actually making.
I think you would argue with yourself in an empty room, and ironically, still lose.

So here's my next olive branch; from this point on I'm just going to completely ignore you. You're simply not worth the oxygen.

Have the thread to yourself for your outlandish claims and poorly researched assumptions, because I'm frankly just bored with you now.

Merry Christmas:santa2:

!!!!!! I said u didnt contribute ,pulled a direct quote from the forces pension calculator which u failed to acknowlegde then still say im wrong.

you didnt contribute to your forces pension the hmforces did on your behalf ..not you...the military.
the only thing you proved was how much THEY contributed for u.

ps If it makes you feel any better I didnt contribute either :P

Generali

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Well this thread's turned out nice.

I was hoping someone would have taken up the points about affordability as really that's what this boils down to.

To paraphrase:
Opinion 1. Money can be taken from elsewhere (where?)
Opinion 2. The pension promises are simply too expensive. They were for the private sector which is why they stopped them and they are for the public sector.
3. Option 3. Everyone who works in a different part of the economy to me is an !!!!.

We should have a poll.

StevieJ

bendix wrote: »

Your posts get more and more desperate, Stevie.

What on earth do you mean by this?

How does she know I am not paying her wages unless she is not working and not claiming benefit? for example if she stacks shelves at Tesco and I shop there I consider that I am paying her wages, do you get it ?

No, but you are not paying my wages.

StevieJ

RJP33 wrote: »

Is he costing the taxpayer money? Otherwise it's the private companies issue if someone is incompetent.

No it isn't it is the customers problem as well as I am finding after switching my fuel supply to EDF :eek: