• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Reply to: PMQ's

Collapse

You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

  • You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
  • You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
  • If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

Previously on "PMQ's"

Collapse

  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by VectraMan View Post
    But how can an employer reasonable ascertain that somebody is innocent rather than "apparently innocent", when there hasn't even been a trial yet? They can't. So you either don't hire someone just because they've been accused of stealing sweets, or you assume they're innocent until proven guilty.
    as I said 'apparently innocent'.

    I don't think he had been charged at the time of hiring?

    Leave a comment:


  • VectraMan
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    he was apparently an innocent man. He was guilty of the offence at the time he was hired, that was proven by the court yesterday.

    Innocent = he had not committed an offence
    Apparently Innocent = he had not been convicted.

    If I steal your sweeties I am guilty.

    If I didn't steal your sweets and you accuse me I'm still innocent.
    But how can an employer reasonable ascertain that somebody is innocent rather than "apparently innocent", when there hasn't even been a trial yet? They can't. So you either don't hire someone just because they've been accused of stealing sweets, or you assume they're innocent until proven guilty.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gittins Gal
    replied
    Anyone else find this whole phone hacking/Leveson business the most long winded, tedious, drawn out news story of all time?

    Sick of hearing about it. A total non story.

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Originally posted by VectraMan View Post
    He was an innocent man. He was only convicted yesterday.
    he was apparently an innocent man. He was guilty of the offence at the time he was hired, that was proven by the court yesterday.

    Innocent = he had not committed an offence
    Apparently Innocent = he had not been convicted.

    If I steal your sweeties I am guilty.

    If I didn't steal your sweets and you accuse me I'm still innocent.

    Leave a comment:


  • VectraMan
    replied
    Originally posted by vetran View Post
    Coulson was vetted and apparently an innocent man.
    He was an innocent man. He was only convicted yesterday.

    Leave a comment:


  • MicrosoftBob
    replied
    Originally posted by Unix View Post
    It's not a criminal offence through and how did he attack him? He stood in a fair election against him.
    In what way was it a fair election ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Unix
    replied
    Originally posted by MicrosoftBob View Post
    In comparison to Millband who attacked his own brother in his lust for power

    Will the electorate trust someone who sinks that low ?
    It's not a criminal offence through and how did he attack him? He stood in a fair election against him.

    Leave a comment:


  • MicrosoftBob
    replied
    In comparison to Millband who attacked his own brother in his lust for power

    Will the electorate trust someone who sinks that low ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Unix
    replied
    Originally posted by d000hg View Post
    Not really. He made the closest thing to an unconditional apology a politician would consider. It'll blow over and I imagine I'm not the only one who finds Milliband's gloating to be rather nauseating.
    Perhaps, but he will get pwned at PMQs today at least.

    Leave a comment:


  • d000hg
    replied
    Not really. He made the closest thing to an unconditional apology a politician would consider. It'll blow over and I imagine I'm not the only one who finds Milliband's gloating to be rather nauseating.

    Leave a comment:


  • Unix
    replied
    Originally posted by kal View Post
    That comment deserves one response only and that is
    Perhaps, but it will at least severely tarnish the rest of his (Short) time as PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • kal
    replied
    Originally posted by Unix View Post
    Cameron will take a battering at PMQ's. I think he will resign and Osborne will take over.
    That comment deserves one response only and that is

    Leave a comment:


  • vetran
    replied
    Doubt he will resign.

    Coulson was vetted and apparently an innocent man.

    He will take heat but he can probably find some Skeletons in Labours closet. Vote fixing, fraud etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • BigTime
    replied
    SFW, http://t.co/rR0hfmFVOo

    Leave a comment:


  • Unix
    started a topic PMQ's

    PMQ's

    Cameron will take a battering at PMQ's. I think he will resign and Osborne will take over.

Working...
X