• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Grays_1890 said:
My point being, you can say you are not going to do it and no, and you would never know. People can say they are taking their lunch outside so unless you are running a state styled sweet shop then its got to be impossible to police
Click to expand...
And I wouldn't police it. If they told me they weren't going to eat or drink from 4am until 11pm then I wouldn't let them put people at risk.
 
monkeybarry said:
You've circumnavigated my question - unsurprisingly.

What is the action taken if someone choses not to eat or drink at work?
It's a very simple question. No added context to aid narrative (no performance issue, no arbitrary "timing" issue), purely X employee chooses not to eat or drink during their shift. What action do you take and on what basis?
Click to expand...
As I've said, not eating between 8 and 4 is fine, nobody has ever suggested that's a problem.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
Maybe I have this wrong but I thought you were the CFO. Are you the owner of the company?
I remember you saying there was no HR department because it was a small company and senior management covered everything themselves. But you have factories in the UK and abroad so not that small?
If you are setting company policy based on what people say that sounds very dodgy. No HR personnel worth their salt would go along with that. All a bit confusing.
Click to expand...
It's a relatively small company. I own it now but was just a director at the time.

That policy was set with advice from both Croner and Make UK. They both have access to a large number of experts in employment law and that's good enough for me.
 
glorygloryeze said:
Sorry, but that's a bs excuse. Israel have enough control of the are and access to enough technology and weaponry not to have to do what they've been doing. What they've been doing has been deliberately genocidal and cannot be compared to what happened over those decades in NI (if it did, the number of Catholics in NI would barely be 10% of the population now)
Click to expand...
This idea about advanced tech meaning they don't have to do what they're doing is baloney. Now I agree they don't have to do what they're doing in that, they could have sat around a table with Hamas and others and done a deal for a two-state solution (Hamas have to be willing to do that deal too).

But once you've decided (largely accepted as legitimate by many in international community post Oct 7th) to send in the troops the realities of modern warfare and modern military doctrine mean its a f***ing bloodbath.

I keep saying this but if you're advancing down a road and you suddenly start taking fire from a residential building or hospital or school, then the "advanced military technology" is basically designed to reduce said building to f**king rubble from over a km away following radio calls of "enemy contact". Nothing about modern military equipment is about accurately picking out combatants from civilians in a nice and neat international law compliant manner.....its about blowing the sh*t out of an enemy from a safe distance so as to minimise losses to your own side.

I am into my military history and modern military doctrine and I have these sort of misconception arguments with people about modern military hardware design and doctrine. There are buffs I argue with about the ability of the F35 because in tests it gets outperformed in "dogfight" situations by older aircraft. It isnt designed to dogfight, because it doesnt need to. It has complex targeting and electronic warfare systems that allow it to lock onto and destroy multiple targets from miles away while jamming the enemy's ability to lock onto it and (if they get through all that) presenting a target the size of a golf ball.

You'll never see the F35 that blows you out the sky or obliterates the building you are in. It was likely f***ing miles away and at best looked like a migrating goose on your radar
 
Last edited:
Silly McSilly Face said:
This idea about advanced tech meaning they don't have to do what they're doing is baloney. Now I agree they don't have to do what they're doing in that, they could have sat around a table with Hamas and others and done a deal for a two-state solution (Hamas have to be willing to do that deal too).

But once you've decided (largely accepted as legitimate by many in international community post Oct 7th) to send in the troops the realities of modern warfare and modern military doctrine mean its a f***ing bloodbath.

I keep saying this but if you're advancing down a road and you suddenly start taking fire from a residential building or hospital or school, then the "advanced military technology" is basically designed to reduce said building to f**king rubble from over a km away following radio calls of "enemy contact". Nothing about modern military equipment is about accurately picking out combatants from civilians in a nice and neat international law compliant manner.....its about blowing the sh*t out of an enemy from a safe distance so as to minimise losses to your own side.

I am into my military history and modern military doctrine and I have these sort of misconception arguments with people about modern military hardware design and doctrine. There are buffs I argue with about the ability of the F35 because in tests it gets outperformed in "dogfight" situations by older aircraft. It isnt designed to dogfight, because it doesnt need to. It has complex targeting and electronic warfare systems that allow it to lock onto and destroy multiple targets from miles away while jamming the enemy's ability to lock onto it and (if they get through all that) presenting a target the size of a golf ball.

You'll never see the F35 that blows you out the sky or obliterates the building you are in. It was likely f***ing miles away and at best looked like a migrating goose on your radar
Click to expand...

Yes, as i say we could have seen the same in NI if the British army intended a similar bloodbath in Northern Ireland, you are again giving Israel's genocidal actions too much leeway.

Israel has asked civillians to evacuate certain areas and go to other areas instead. Then they deliberately bombed those very same areas they asked civilians to escape to: are you REALLY saying that is as as result of 'the realities of urban warfare'??

Are you also REALLY saying that the shooting of civilians trying to collect aid at given allocated collection points is also a result of 'the realities of urban warfare'?

Was the killing of unarmed paramedics in their vans the same? Shall i ask about the multiple journalists, aid workers and on and on??
 
glorygloryeze said:
Yes, as i say we could have seen the same in NI if the British army intended a similar bloodbath in Northern Ireland, you are again giving Israel's genocidal actions too much leeway.

Israel has asked civillians to evacuate certain areas and go to other areas instead. Then they deliberately bombed those very same areas they asked civilians to escape to: are you REALLY saying that is as as result of 'the realities of urban warfare'??

Are you also REALLY saying that the shooting of civilians trying to collect aid at given allocated collection points is also a result of 'the realities of urban warfare'?

Was the killing of unarmed paramedics in their vans the same? Shall i ask about the multiple journalists, aid workers and on and on??
Click to expand...

There is more that could have been done with less damage I am convinced. Considering what they did with Hezbollah mobile phones, given they are neighbours and given that Israel near on invented covert intelligence operations for the world.
 
scaramanga said:
As I've said, not eating between 8 and 4 is fine, nobody has ever suggested that's a problem.
Click to expand...
You stated not eating between dawn and dusk is a problem.
So if you have someone working between dawn and 08.00 and/or 16.00 and dusk, what action do you take if they don't eat or drink?
The question is simple.
 
Grays_1890 said:
There is more that could have been done with less damage I am convinced. Considering what they did with Hezbollah mobile phones, given they are neighbours and given that Israel near on invented covert intelligence operations for the world.
Click to expand...

It's much easier to take over a group of people's land/territory if they are either no longer there or have had their numbers vastly reduced..
 
glorygloryeze said:
It's much easier to take over a group of people's land/territory if they are either no longer there or have had their numbers vastly reduced..
Click to expand...
Exactly, lets be frank about it, Israel want Gaza flattened and them gone, so their tactics serve multiple purposes rather than it being the only viable strategy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
scaramanga said:
It's a relatively small company. I own it now but was just a director at the time.

That policy was set with advice from both Croner and Make UK. They both have access to a large number of experts in employment law and that's good enough for me.
Click to expand...
Ah ok. It was a few years ago I think.

So it’s now a published policy and term of employment (in certain machine operating roles) that not eating /drinking for a specified number of hours is not permitted/must result in annual leave or unpaid leave being taken?
 
monkeybarry said:
You stated not eating between dawn and dusk is a problem.
So if you have someone working between dawn and 08.00 and/or 16.00 and dusk, what action do you take if they don't eat or drink?
The question is simple.
Click to expand...
In the summer there's around 18 or 19 hours between dawn and dusk.

As much as I wish it were so, I can't make people work 18 hour shifts, so it's not really relevant.
 
Glenda's Legs said:
Ah ok. It was a few years ago I think.

So it’s now a published policy and term of employment (in certain machine operating roles) that not eating /drinking for a specified number of hours is not permitted/must result in annual leave or unpaid leave being taken?
Click to expand...
We no longer have any employees that observe Ramadan, it's not an issue.
 
scaramanga said:
We no longer have any employees that observe Ramadan, it's not an issue.
Click to expand...
But if someone just doesn’t eat during the day, is that a problem?
I have my husband in mind as an example who apart from rare occasions only eats 1 meal a day, around 8pm. Not for religious reasons, he has just never eaten during the day. Is it a part of the recruitment process?
 
scaramanga said:
We no longer have any employees that observe Ramadan, it's not an issue.
Click to expand...

In that case I doubt you ever did. Anyway all this desperate whataboutery from you has only come about, in my view, due to you blagging some big man talk on a forum to get some fellow Muslim haters to say wow Scara. You really are a Knight Templar lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back