On 22/02/2018 10:54, whisky-dave wrote:

SO you see you don't have a right to have a skip outside your front door.

*You* never did.

Yes I know.

The council has, though, and will sell you that right for
a limited time. Is that really too difficult for you to understand?

can you prove that, can you show me or at least how much it costs and for how long, what form you need to fill out as I've never seen one and don't know anyone that has.



Don't know what area you are in but readily available for Wiltshire see

http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/licences-permits-building

Down towards the bottom of the page you can print off a skip licence
application (The licence will cost £56 or £67)




--
Chris B (News)

On Thursday, 22 February 2018 11:57:21 UTC, Chris B wrote:
On 22/02/2018 10:54, whisky-dave wrote:

SO you see you don't have a right to have a skip outside your front door.

*You* never did.

Yes I know.

The council has, though, and will sell you that right for
a limited time. Is that really too difficult for you to understand?

can you prove that, can you show me or at least how much it costs and for how long, what form you need to fill out as I've never seen one and don't know anyone that has.



Don't know what area you are in but readily available for Wiltshire see

http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/licences-permits-building

Down towards the bottom of the page you can print off a skip licence
application (The licence will cost £56 or £67)

see you don't have a right you have to apply for a licence.
Wiltshire Council issue licences to skip operating companies who wish to place skips on the highway.

I as an individual can not put a skip on the highway. That is why the company as to apply.







--
Chris B (News)

On 19/02/2018 18:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
Perhaps they're just worth more in pension than you are? Or, more
likely, you are just cowed by the bosses into accepting considerably
less than you deserve in pension. Why should others copy you because
you don't insist on what you are worth?


-- Roger Hayter

Nobody 'deserves' anything that they have not made any effort
towards.

Public service pensions and closed-shop jobs-for-the-boys are
classic examples.

For years the unions bullied BSC into pay rises that just
exponentially increased the pension black hole. No-one
considered this back in the black years of the 1970's when
12 million person-days were lost to strikes. The actuaries still
thought that men would retire at 65 and be mostly dead by 73
when now the figure is far higher. Someone has to pay for all those
extra years. Free lunches don't exist.

In article ,
T i m wrote:
I'm not sure it was at that time. This wasn't an independent Co, it
was 'The Post Office' and therefore little in the way of direct
commercial competition for most of it's services. If it took 2 weeks
to fix a phone line, what are you gonna do?

Far far better to have market forces. That way you get superb service in
large towns, and those in the sticks can whistle for it.

--
*If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
If I'm going to the West End of an evening, I'll sometimes drive to
Clapham Junction and park near the back entrance to the station.
Usually easy to do, as it's not a popular place to park of an evening.

I wonder why that is ?

It's not a residential area, and not close to restaurants, etc. Plenty
will use it during the day, but easy to park there at that time of the
early evening.

--
*I used to be a banker, but then I lost interest.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
SO you see you don't have a right to have a skip outside your front door.

*You* never did.

Yes I know.

The council has, though, and will sell you that right for
a limited time. Is that really too difficult for you to understand?

can you prove that, can you show me or at least how much it costs and
for how long, what form you need to fill out as I've never seen one and
don't know anyone that has.

Then I suggest you go to your local council offices and ask to see one. Or
look it up online.

And you must walk around with your eyes closed if you've never seen 'bay
suspended' notices on a lamppost etc, with the reason for it on the notice.

--
*When a man opens a car door for his wife, it's either a new car or a new

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Don't know what area you are in but readily available for Wiltshire see

http://www.wiltshire.gov.uk/licences-permits-building

Down towards the bottom of the page you can print off a skip licence
application (The licence will cost £56 or £67)

see you don't have a right you have to apply for a licence. Wiltshire
Council issue licences to skip operating companies who wish to place
skips on the highway.

I as an individual can not put a skip on the highway. That is why the
company as to apply.

So try reading a little further down that page. For storing building
materials on the road in front of your house. Also check for booking a
space for removal purposes.

Of course knowing the way your mind works you'll think the skip firm pays
that licence out of its own pocket...

--
*To be intoxicated is to feel sophisticated, but not be able to say it.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

pamela wrote:

On 12:54 22 Feb 2018, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Andrew
wrote:

On 19/02/2018 18:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
Perhaps they're just worth more in pension than you are? Or,
more likely, you are just cowed by the bosses into accepting
considerably less than you deserve in pension. Why should
others copy you because you don't insist on what you are worth?


-- Roger Hayter

Nobody 'deserves' anything that they have not made any effort
towards.

Public service pensions and closed-shop jobs-for-the-boys are
classic examples.

For years the unions bullied BSC into pay rises that just
exponentially increased the pension black hole. No-one
considered this back in the black years of the 1970's when
12 million person-days were lost to strikes. The actuaries still
thought that men would retire at 65 and be mostly dead by 73
when now the figure is far higher. Someone has to pay for all
those extra years. Free lunches don't exist.

And everything I hear about pensions (such as this bull**** strike
by academics over pensions) further confirms my view that *all*
pensions should be *personal* and that only pension companies
should legally be able to manage them.

If the academics want index-linked pensions (worth £10,000 a year) and
there's no more money then let's end security of tenure and sack as
many as needed to provide pensions for those who remain.

Of course, harder work and longer hours will be required from the
rmeaining staff to provide the same level of service.

Those were the days: https://imgur.com/a/NgHeA

The idea of security of tenure for academics was to ensure that people
capable of thinking were in a position to develop new ideas, about
society, literature, science and politics. This is essential to prevent
totalitarianism, but also to prevent the ossification of society and to
allow science to develop without stultification (or more likely the
rapid overtaking of our science by universities in the far east). You
may be jealous that academics are clever than you, but we do need them.
And we need them to be able to express new ideas without being sacked by
jealous middle managers, or hounded out by Mary Whitehouse type ladies
with hats on management committees.



--

Roger Hayter

On Thursday, 22 February 2018 14:10:52 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
SO you see you don't have a right to have a skip outside your front door.

*You* never did.

Yes I know.

The council has, though, and will sell you that right for
a limited time. Is that really too difficult for you to understand?

can you prove that, can you show me or at least how much it costs and
for how long, what form you need to fill out as I've never seen one and
don't know anyone that has.

Then I suggest you go to your local council offices and ask to see one. Or
look it up online.

Have done but there seems no way of me reserving the area oputside my place called the road.


And you must walk around with your eyes closed if you've never seen 'bay
suspended' notices on a lamppost etc, with the reason for it on the notice.

No I've never seen bay suspened with such a notice that is been put up by an individual, if there were such a thing then I could print my own and put them out on the road reserving a place for friends and family when they wish to come over. I've a friend coming from australia next week, he's horing a car so can I put a notice up reserving the space outside for him, I've always been told by the council yuo'r not allowed to do such a thing. When my dad tried it years ago the police turned up to remove the wheelie bins he'd put out.

On Thursday, 22 February 2018 14:10:52 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
If I'm going to the West End of an evening, I'll sometimes drive to
Clapham Junction and park near the back entrance to the station.
Usually easy to do, as it's not a popular place to park of an evening.

I wonder why that is ?

It's not a residential area, and not close to restaurants, etc. Plenty
will use it during the day, but easy to park there at that time of the
early evening.

So not convient for most if using the car for getting to and from work.
Residents would like to charge thier car pretty close to where they live in a residenttaiol area, telling them there's plenty of 2 miles away isn't much use.

In message , at 16:28:58 on Thu,
22 Feb 2018, Roger Hayter remarked:

The idea of security of tenure for academics was to ensure that people
capable of thinking were in a position to develop new ideas, about
society, literature, science and politics. This is essential to prevent
totalitarianism, but also to prevent the ossification of society and to
allow science to develop without stultification (or more likely the
rapid overtaking of our science by universities in the far east).

That may well be true of academics in Russell Group Universities a
generation ago. Now that so many academics are teaching evening classes
in pottery at a former FE college with ideas above its station, that
kind of "one size fits all" approach is no longer sustainable.
--
Roland Perry

Roger Hayter wrote:

pamela wrote:

On 12:54 22 Feb 2018, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Andrew
wrote:

On 19/02/2018 18:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
Perhaps they're just worth more in pension than you are? Or,
more likely, you are just cowed by the bosses into accepting
considerably less than you deserve in pension. Why should
others copy you because you don't insist on what you are worth?


-- Roger Hayter

Nobody 'deserves' anything that they have not made any effort
towards.

Public service pensions and closed-shop jobs-for-the-boys are
classic examples.

For years the unions bullied BSC into pay rises that just
exponentially increased the pension black hole. No-one
considered this back in the black years of the 1970's when
12 million person-days were lost to strikes. The actuaries still
thought that men would retire at 65 and be mostly dead by 73
when now the figure is far higher. Someone has to pay for all
those extra years. Free lunches don't exist.

And everything I hear about pensions (such as this bull**** strike
by academics over pensions) further confirms my view that *all*
pensions should be *personal* and that only pension companies
should legally be able to manage them.

If the academics want index-linked pensions (worth £10,000 a year) and
there's no more money then let's end security of tenure and sack as
many as needed to provide pensions for those who remain.

Of course, harder work and longer hours will be required from the
rmeaining staff to provide the same level of service.

Those were the days: https://imgur.com/a/NgHeA

The idea of security of tenure for academics was to ensure that people
capable of thinking were in a position to develop new ideas, about
society, literature, science and politics. This is essential to prevent
totalitarianism, but also to prevent the ossification of society and to
allow science to develop without stultification (or more likely the
rapid overtaking of our science by universities in the far east). You
may be jealous that academics are clever than you, but we do need them.
And we need them to be able to express new ideas without being sacked by
jealous middle managers, or hounded out by Mary Whitehouse type ladies
with hats on management committees.

P.S. a beautiful case in point occurred recently. Some years ago the
University of Exeter appointed (using a grant from Prince Charles'
foundation) a professor of alternative medicine. There was really only
one credible candidate, a European (possibly Austrian) who had done
considerable postgraduate research assessing and tabulating the
scientific evidence for alternative medicine. He started his career
with a strong desire to refine and promote effective alternative
medicine. He moved to the West Country and has since devoted his life
to his career and become a valued member of the local population.
However, once he used the opportunity to develop valid research into
alternative medicine he found that every single study he did, and every
single meta-analysis using other scientifically valid studies (of the
few that have been done in the world) demonstrated that alternative
medicines generally, or at least the various ones he has studied, simply
did not work. Not more than placebo, anyway. The result recently was
that Prince Charles got him sacked, by threatening the University with
loss of patronage if it failed to do this. Not for being a poor
academic (he is probably still the acknowledged world expert on the
*science* of alternative medicine), but for reaching the "wrong"
conclusions as far as the Prince is concerned.

This sort of thing, on a more minor scale, will happen everywhere there
is no security of tenure for people with original ideas, or who support
unpopular causes.




--

Roger Hayter

Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

The idea of security of tenure for academics was to ensure that people
capable of thinking were in a position to develop new ideas, about
society, literature, science and politics. This is essential to prevent
totalitarianism, but also to prevent the ossification of society and to
allow science to develop without stultification (or more likely the
rapid overtaking of our science by universities in the far east).

Best argument I've seen for sacking most of them, then. People are
*not* in a position to dissent from orthodoxy, as we have seen with the
safe spaces and no-platforming bull****. And that if you don't follow
the prescribed line in certain areas, no tenure or research grants for
*you*.

What you describe is how it's *supposed* to work, too bad then that, in
fact, it doesn't. More the reverse actually.

I think you are confusing the work of the University with the activities
of undergraduate clubs and societies and/or public lecture put on by the
universtiy managers to encourage political favours or donations. These
are generally of no great account. The work of the university goes on
mainly by correspondence, but academics tend to have whoever they want
to have at conferences etc.



--

Roger Hayter

Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 16:28:58 on Thu,
22 Feb 2018, Roger Hayter remarked:

The idea of security of tenure for academics was to ensure that people
capable of thinking were in a position to develop new ideas, about
society, literature, science and politics. This is essential to prevent
totalitarianism, but also to prevent the ossification of society and to
allow science to develop without stultification (or more likely the
rapid overtaking of our science by universities in the far east).

That may well be true of academics in Russell Group Universities a
generation ago. Now that so many academics are teaching evening classes
in pottery at a former FE college with ideas above its station, that
kind of "one size fits all" approach is no longer sustainable.

So I am not alone in thinking that redesignating polytechnics as
universities was largely an attack on the universities?

--

Roger Hayter

pamela wrote:

On 19:04 22 Feb 2018, Roger Hayter wrote:

Roger Hayter wrote:

pamela wrote:

On 12:54 22 Feb 2018, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Andrew
wrote:

On 19/02/2018 18:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
Perhaps they're just worth more in pension than you are?
Or, more likely, you are just cowed by the bosses into
accepting considerably less than you deserve in pension.
Why should others copy you because you don't insist on what
you are worth?


-- Roger Hayter

Nobody 'deserves' anything that they have not made any effort
towards.

Public service pensions and closed-shop jobs-for-the-boys are
classic examples.

For years the unions bullied BSC into pay rises that just
exponentially increased the pension black hole. No-one
considered this back in the black years of the 1970's when
12 million person-days were lost to strikes. The actuaries
still thought that men would retire at 65 and be mostly dead
by 73 when now the figure is far higher. Someone has to pay
for all those extra years. Free lunches don't exist.

And everything I hear about pensions (such as this bull****
strike by academics over pensions) further confirms my view
that *all* pensions should be *personal* and that only
pension companies should legally be able to manage them.

If the academics want index-linked pensions (worth £10,000 a
year) and there's no more money then let's end security of
tenure and sack as many as needed to provide pensions for those
who remain.

Of course, harder work and longer hours will be required from
the rmeaining staff to provide the same level of service.

Those were the days: https://imgur.com/a/NgHeA

The idea of security of tenure for academics was to ensure that
people capable of thinking were in a position to develop new
ideas, about society, literature, science and politics. This is
essential to prevent totalitarianism, but also to prevent the
ossification of society and to allow science to develop without
stultification (or more likely the rapid overtaking of our
science by universities in the far east). You may be jealous
that academics are clever than you, but we do need them. And we
need them to be able to express new ideas without being sacked by
jealous middle managers, or hounded out by Mary Whitehouse type
ladies with hats on management committees.

P.S. a beautiful case in point occurred recently. Some years ago
the University of Exeter appointed (using a grant from Prince
Charles' foundation) a professor of alternative medicine. There
was really only one credible candidate, a European (possibly
Austrian) who had done considerable postgraduate research
assessing and tabulating the scientific evidence for alternative
medicine. He started his career with a strong desire to refine
and promote effective alternative medicine. He moved to the West
Country and has since devoted his life to his career and become a
valued member of the local population. However, once he used the
opportunity to develop valid research into alternative medicine he
found that every single study he did, and every single
meta-analysis using other scientifically valid studies (of the few
that have been done in the world) demonstrated that alternative
medicines generally, or at least the various ones he has studied,
simply did not work. Not more than placebo, anyway. The result
recently was that Prince Charles got him sacked, by threatening
the University with loss of patronage if it failed to do this.
Not for being a poor academic (he is probably still the
acknowledged world expert on the *science* of alternative
medicine), but for reaching the "wrong" conclusions as far as the
Prince is concerned.

Prof Ernst didn't lose his tenure but lost funding after falling out
with his patron, Prince Charles. He was not sacked.

If Ernst had found other sources of funds to pay for his department
then they would still be working.

There's nothing remarkable in this.

Firstly, the University should never have accepted funding for a chair
on the basis that the lay donor could interfere in the academic
programme. This is *not* the same as funding a particular research
study, and once anti-scientiific cranks can choose medical academics at
respectable universities we are long way down the banana republic road.

Secondly, the good professor says it was made plain that his life would
be made a misery and, topically, his pension impaired if he insisted on
staying. And that this behaviour had been forced on the University by a
"major donor".








This sort of thing, on a more minor scale, will happen everywhere
there is no security of tenure for people with original ideas, or
who support unpopular causes.


--

Roger Hayter

pamela wrote:

On 20:37 22 Feb 2018, Roger Hayter wrote:

pamela wrote:

On 19:04 22 Feb 2018, Roger Hayter wrote:

Roger Hayter wrote:

pamela wrote:

On 12:54 22 Feb 2018, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Andrew
wrote:

On 19/02/2018 18:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
Perhaps they're just worth more in pension than you are?
Or, more likely, you are just cowed by the bosses into
accepting considerably less than you deserve in pension.
Why should others copy you because you don't insist on
what you are worth?


-- Roger Hayter

Nobody 'deserves' anything that they have not made any
effort towards.

Public service pensions and closed-shop jobs-for-the-boys
are classic examples.

For years the unions bullied BSC into pay rises that just
exponentially increased the pension black hole. No-one
considered this back in the black years of the 1970's when
12 million person-days were lost to strikes. The actuaries
still thought that men would retire at 65 and be mostly
dead by 73 when now the figure is far higher. Someone has
to pay for all those extra years. Free lunches don't
exist.

And everything I hear about pensions (such as this
bull**** strike by academics over pensions) further
confirms my view that *all* pensions should be *personal*
and that only pension companies should legally be able to
manage them.

If the academics want index-linked pensions (worth £10,000 a
year) and there's no more money then let's end security of
tenure and sack as many as needed to provide pensions for
those who remain.

Of course, harder work and longer hours will be required
from the rmeaining staff to provide the same level of
service.

Those were the days: https://imgur.com/a/NgHeA

The idea of security of tenure for academics was to ensure
that people capable of thinking were in a position to develop
new ideas, about society, literature, science and politics.
This is essential to prevent totalitarianism, but also to
prevent the ossification of society and to allow science to
develop without stultification (or more likely the rapid
overtaking of our science by universities in the far east).
You may be jealous that academics are clever than you, but we
do need them. And we need them to be able to express new ideas
without being sacked by jealous middle managers, or hounded
out by Mary Whitehouse type ladies with hats on management
committees.

P.S. a beautiful case in point occurred recently. Some years
ago the University of Exeter appointed (using a grant from
Prince Charles' foundation) a professor of alternative
medicine. There was really only one credible candidate, a
European (possibly Austrian) who had done considerable
postgraduate research assessing and tabulating the scientific
evidence for alternative medicine. He started his career with
a strong desire to refine and promote effective alternative
medicine. He moved to the West Country and has since devoted
his life to his career and become a valued member of the local
population. However, once he used the opportunity to develop
valid research into alternative medicine he found that every
single study he did, and every single meta-analysis using other
scientifically valid studies (of the few that have been done in
the world) demonstrated that alternative medicines generally,
or at least the various ones he has studied, simply did not
work. Not more than placebo, anyway. The result recently
was that Prince Charles got him sacked, by threatening the
University with loss of patronage if it failed to do this.
Not for being a poor academic (he is probably still the
acknowledged world expert on the *science* of alternative
medicine), but for reaching the "wrong" conclusions as far as
the Prince is concerned.

Prof Ernst didn't lose his tenure but lost funding after falling
out with his patron, Prince Charles. He was not sacked.

If Ernst had found other sources of funds to pay for his
department then they would still be working.

There's nothing remarkable in this.

Firstly, the University should never have accepted funding for a
chair on the basis that the lay donor could interfere in the
academic programme. This is *not* the same as funding a
particular research study, and once anti-scientiific cranks can
choose medical academics at respectable universities we are long
way down the banana republic road.

If the university didn't have money for the department's work in its
coffers then there may not have been any funding available in any
other way that what happened here.

If you offer to fund a chair you should at least fund a working
department, if no major research.





Secondly, the good professor says it was made plain that his life
would be made a misery and, topically, his pension impaired if he
insisted on staying. And that this behaviour had been forced on
the University by a "major donor".

Also topically, is Prof Ernst more committed to his work or to his
pension?

At his age, and a family to support, with no other likely funding
source, what do you think? Especially with an employer who wants to
get rid of him and is therefore likely to be creative with disciplinary
issues. There are no other chairs up for grabs, and he is a bit old to
apply anyway. What choice does he have? Do not forget that his
enemies are immensely rich, and have a lot of patronage.



--

Roger Hayter

pamela wrote:

On 23:16 22 Feb 2018, Roger Hayter wrote:

pamela wrote:

On 20:53 22 Feb 2018, Roger Hayter wrote:

pamela wrote:

On 20:37 22 Feb 2018, Roger Hayter wrote:

pamela wrote:

On 19:04 22 Feb 2018, Roger Hayter wrote:

Roger Hayter wrote:

pamela wrote:

On 12:54 22 Feb 2018, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Andrew
wrote:

On 19/02/2018 18:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
Perhaps they're just worth more in pension than
you are?
Or, more likely, you are just cowed by the bosses
into
accepting considerably less than you deserve in
pension. Why should others copy you because you
don't insist on what you are worth?


-- Roger Hayter

Nobody 'deserves' anything that they have not made
any effort towards.

Public service pensions and closed-shop
jobs-for-the-boys are classic examples.

For years the unions bullied BSC into pay rises that
just exponentially increased the pension black hole.
No-one considered this back in the black years of
the 1970's when 12 million person-days were lost to
strikes. The actuaries still thought that men would
retire at 65 and be mostly dead by 73 when now the
figure is far higher. Someone has to pay for all
those extra years. Free lunches don't exist.

And everything I hear about pensions (such as this
bull**** strike by academics over pensions) further
confirms my view that *all* pensions should be
*personal* and that only pension companies should
legally be able to manage them.

If the academics want index-linked pensions (worth
£10,000 a year) and there's no more money then let's
end security of tenure and sack as many as needed to
provide pensions for those who remain.

Of course, harder work and longer hours will be
required from the rmeaining staff to provide the same
level of service.

Those were the days: https://imgur.com/a/NgHeA

The idea of security of tenure for academics was to
ensure that people capable of thinking were in a
position to develop new ideas, about society,
literature, science and politics. This is essential to
prevent totalitarianism, but also to prevent the
ossification of society and to allow science to develop
without stultification (or more likely the rapid
overtaking of our science by universities in the
far east). You may be jealous that academics are clever
than you, but we do need them. And we need them to be
able to express new ideas without being sacked by
jealous middle managers, or hounded out by Mary
Whitehouse type ladies with hats on management
committees.

P.S. a beautiful case in point occurred recently. Some
years ago the University of Exeter appointed (using a
grant from Prince Charles' foundation) a professor of
alternative medicine. There was really only one
credible candidate, a European (possibly Austrian) who
had done considerable postgraduate research assessing and
tabulating the scientific evidence for alternative
medicine. He started his career with a strong desire to
refine and promote effective alternative medicine. He
moved to the West Country and has since devoted his life
to his career and become a valued member of the local
population. However, once he used the opportunity to
develop valid research into alternative medicine he found
that every single study he did, and every single
meta-analysis using other scientifically valid studies
(of the few that have been done in the world)
demonstrated that alternative medicines generally, or at
least the various ones he has studied, simply did not
work. Not more than placebo, anyway. The result
recently was that Prince Charles got him sacked, by
threatening the University with loss of patronage if it
failed to do this. Not for being a poor academic (he is
probably still the acknowledged world expert on the
*science* of alternative medicine), but for reaching the
"wrong" conclusions as far as the Prince is concerned.

Prof Ernst didn't lose his tenure but lost funding after
falling out with his patron, Prince Charles. He was not
sacked.

If Ernst had found other sources of funds to pay for his
department then they would still be working.

There's nothing remarkable in this.

Firstly, the University should never have accepted funding
for a chair on the basis that the lay donor could interfere
in the academic programme. This is *not* the same as
funding a particular research study, and once
anti-scientiific cranks can choose medical academics at
respectable universities we are long way down the banana
republic road.

If the university didn't have money for the department's work
in its coffers then there may not have been any funding
available in any other way that what happened here.

If you offer to fund a chair you should at least fund a working
department, if no major research.

Secondly, the good professor says it was made plain that his
life would be made a misery and, topically, his pension
impaired if he insisted on staying. And that this behaviour
had been forced on the University by a "major donor".

Also topically, is Prof Ernst more committed to his work or to
his pension?

At his age, and a family to support, with no other likely
funding source, what do you think? Especially with an
employer who wants to get rid of him and is therefore likely to
be creative with disciplinary issues. There are no other
chairs up for grabs, and he is a bit old to apply anyway.
What choice does he have? Do not forget that his enemies are
immensely rich, and have a lot of patronage.

If Ernst's pension is more important to him than his work then
maybe he isn't quite as decidated an academic as he could be.

it isn't necessarily a vocation. I expect my academics to be
clever, imaginative and hard-working. I don't expect them to do
this for nothing, especially when buy-to-let landlords can make
money for nothing just by having a good credit history. In fact
too much emotional investment probably makes it hard to be
objective. I would honestly expect an academic to do something
else and earn more money if no-one is wiling to pay him for his
work, or grant him tenure. I suppose you know that academics are
not particularly well paid?

Not well paid? According to his university's pay scale, he would be
on between £66,000 to £109,000 (in today's money). Let's say
£80,000 plus exceedingly generous holidays. That's well paid.

Don't forget his index-linked pension calculated to be worth £10,000
per annum more than a regular pension.


I really don't think he is well paid compared with people of similar
abilities and initiative in industry or banking. Trouble is, everyone
thinks they could be a professor even though they have neither the
ability nor the dedication to do the job. Most people in professional
jobs spend many or most weekends and evenings studying or writing, for
instance.

--

Roger Hayter

pamela wrote:

On 11:11 23 Feb 2018, Roger Hayter wrote:

pamela wrote:

On 23:16 22 Feb 2018, Roger Hayter wrote:

pamela wrote:

On 20:53 22 Feb 2018, Roger Hayter wrote:

pamela wrote:

On 20:37 22 Feb 2018, Roger Hayter wrote:

pamela wrote:

On 19:04 22 Feb 2018, Roger Hayter wrote:

Roger Hayter wrote:

pamela wrote:

On 12:54 22 Feb 2018, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , Andrew
wrote:

On 19/02/2018 18:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
Perhaps they're just worth more in pension than
you are?
Or, more likely, you are just cowed by the
bosses into
accepting considerably less than you deserve in
pension. Why should others copy you because you
don't insist on what you are worth?


-- Roger Hayter

Nobody 'deserves' anything that they have not
made any effort towards.

Public service pensions and closed-shop
jobs-for-the-boys are classic examples.

For years the unions bullied BSC into pay rises
that just exponentially increased the pension
black hole. No-one considered this back in the
black years of the 1970's when 12 million
person-days were lost to strikes. The actuaries
still thought that men would retire at 65 and be
mostly dead by 73 when now the
figure is far higher. Someone has to pay for all
those extra years. Free lunches don't exist.

And everything I hear about pensions (such as
this bull**** strike by academics over pensions)
further confirms my view that *all* pensions
should be *personal* and that only pension
companies should legally be able to manage them.

If the academics want index-linked pensions (worth
£10,000 a year) and there's no more money then
let's end security of tenure and sack as many as
needed to provide pensions for those who remain.

Of course, harder work and longer hours will be
required from the rmeaining staff to provide the
same level of service.

Those were the days: https://imgur.com/a/NgHeA

The idea of security of tenure for academics was to
ensure that people capable of thinking were in a
position to develop new ideas, about society,
literature, science and politics. This is essential
to prevent totalitarianism, but also to prevent the
ossification of society and to allow science to
develop without stultification (or more likely the
rapid overtaking of our science by universities in
the far east). You may be jealous that academics are
clever than you, but we do need them. And we need
them to be able to express new ideas without being
sacked by jealous middle managers, or hounded out by
Mary Whitehouse type ladies with hats on management
committees.

P.S. a beautiful case in point occurred recently.
Some years ago the University of Exeter appointed
(using a grant from Prince Charles' foundation) a
professor of alternative medicine. There was really
only one credible candidate, a European (possibly
Austrian) who had done considerable postgraduate
research assessing and tabulating the scientific
evidence for alternative medicine. He started his
career with a strong desire to refine and promote
effective alternative medicine. He moved to the West
Country and has since devoted his life to his career
and become a valued member of the local
population. However, once he used the opportunity to
develop valid research into alternative medicine he
found that every single study he did, and every single
meta-analysis using other scientifically valid studies
(of the few that have been done in the world)
demonstrated that alternative medicines generally, or
at least the various ones he has studied, simply did
not work. Not more than placebo, anyway. The
result recently was that Prince Charles got him
sacked, by threatening the University with loss of
patronage if it failed to do this. Not for being a
poor academic (he is probably still the acknowledged
world expert on the *science* of alternative
medicine), but for reaching the "wrong" conclusions as
far as the Prince is concerned.

Prof Ernst didn't lose his tenure but lost funding after
falling out with his patron, Prince Charles. He was not
sacked.

If Ernst had found other sources of funds to pay for his
department then they would still be working.

There's nothing remarkable in this.

Firstly, the University should never have accepted
funding for a chair on the basis that the lay donor could
interfere in the academic programme. This is *not* the
same as funding a particular research study, and once
anti-scientiific cranks can choose medical academics at
respectable universities we are long way down the banana
republic road.

If the university didn't have money for the department's
work in its coffers then there may not have been any
funding available in any other way that what happened here.

If you offer to fund a chair you should at least fund a
working department, if no major research.

Secondly, the good professor says it was made plain that
his life would be made a misery and, topically, his
pension impaired if he insisted on staying. And that
this behaviour had been forced on the University by a
"major donor".

Also topically, is Prof Ernst more committed to his work or
to his pension?

At his age, and a family to support, with no other likely
funding source, what do you think? Especially with an
employer who wants to get rid of him and is therefore likely
to be creative with disciplinary issues. There are no other
chairs up for grabs, and he is a bit old to apply anyway.
What choice does he have? Do not forget that his enemies
are immensely rich, and have a lot of patronage.

If Ernst's pension is more important to him than his work then
maybe he isn't quite as decidated an academic as he could be.

it isn't necessarily a vocation. I expect my academics to be
clever, imaginative and hard-working. I don't expect them to do
this for nothing, especially when buy-to-let landlords can make
money for nothing just by having a good credit history. In
fact too much emotional investment probably makes it hard to be
objective. I would honestly expect an academic to do something
else and earn more money if no-one is wiling to pay him for his
work, or grant him tenure. I suppose you know that academics
are not particularly well paid?

Not well paid? According to his university's pay scale, he would
be on between £66,000 to £109,000 (in today's money). Let's say
£80,000 plus exceedingly generous holidays. That's well paid.

Don't forget his index-linked pension calculated to be worth
£10,000 per annum more than a regular pension.


I really don't think he is well paid compared with people of
similar abilities and initiative in industry or banking. Trouble
is, everyone thinks they could be a professor even though they
have neither the ability nor the dedication to do the job. Most
people in professional jobs spend many or most weekends and
evenings studying or writing, for instance.

Ernst is clearly well paid and if he's underpaid only when compared
to what he could earn in industry then he should go and work there.

There's no point playing the violin and telling me he wasn't well
paid. What buy-to-let landlords generate in business profits has
nothing to do with it.

My point was that Ernst shouldn't tbe focussing on his pension, as
you raised, but make research his priority.

Why? Why do you suppose he should do that??


To that end he needs to
secure funding and if th euniversty won't provide that then should
either be mindful of a patron's requirements or not take the money.

Although acaedemia is on the fringes of the normal world, it is
still subject to ordinary pressures.

Which rather gets us back to the point of academic tenure.




I am not against Ernst's work and it seems worthwhile but he will
not be the only significant specialist who comes a cropper for non-
academic reasons. Look at Fermat whose proof of his Last Theorem
which was lost for posterity because he didn't have enough space on
a sheet of paper to jot it down. It happens.


--

Roger Hayter

In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
Not well paid? According to his university's pay scale, he would be
on between £66,000 to £109,000 (in today's money). Let's say
£80,000 plus exceedingly generous holidays. That's well paid.

Don't forget his index-linked pension calculated to be worth £10,000
per annum more than a regular pension.


I really don't think he is well paid compared with people of similar
abilities and initiative in industry or banking. Trouble is, everyone
thinks they could be a professor even though they have neither the
ability nor the dedication to do the job. Most people in professional
jobs spend many or most weekends and evenings studying or writing, for
instance.

Pamela seems to be on a one person crusade. To drive down the pay of
everyone from lecturers to train drivers.

--
*(on a baby-size shirt) "Party -- my crib -- two a.m

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Friday, 23 February 2018 15:15:48 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
Not well paid? According to his university's pay scale, he would be
on between £66,000 to £109,000 (in today's money). Let's say
£80,000 plus exceedingly generous holidays. That's well paid.

Don't forget his index-linked pension calculated to be worth £10,000
per annum more than a regular pension.


I really don't think he is well paid compared with people of similar
abilities and initiative in industry or banking. Trouble is, everyone
thinks they could be a professor even though they have neither the
ability nor the dedication to do the job. Most people in professional
jobs spend many or most weekends and evenings studying or writing, for
instance.

Pamela seems to be on a one person crusade. To drive down the pay of
everyone from lecturers to train drivers.

Typical women perhaps it's something to do with the date or the time of the month. ;-)

In article ,
pamela wrote:
Pamela seems to be on a one person crusade. To drive down the pay
of everyone from lecturers to train drivers.

That's correct. Too many parts of the public sector and
overstaffed, overpaid and provide poor service.

Meaning the private sector is flawless?

Perhaps you haven't realised we pay for that too.

--
*That's it! I‘m calling grandma!

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 23:47 23 Feb 2018, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
pamela wrote:
Pamela seems to be on a one person crusade. To drive down the
pay of everyone from lecturers to train drivers.

That's correct. Too many parts of the public sector and
overstaffed, overpaid and provide poor service.

Meaning the private sector is flawless?

Perhaps you haven't realised we pay for that too.

Rant mode on.

The private sector is far from flawless but it's not set up as a
public service. In my experience, as a ruleworkers in the private
sector work longer hours and more diligently while complaining less.

If you are only dealing with your experience, how do you justify
translating that to the entire public service? Unless you've had an awful
lot of jobs.

Take the lecturers currently on strike. I used to do that work and
I know from discussion with colleagues and staffroom chat at the
time that they're a bunch of moaners who don't know a good thing
when they have it.

Again, your experience of one uni or whatever applies to them all?

I didn't like the profession and left. If they don't like it then
they should leave. Problem is, too many of them are so useless they
wouldn't find a job in the private sector they keep comparing
htemsleevs too

Making yourself rather unique?

I'm not sure what you mean that you pay for the private sector.
However I can say private firms are collapsing every day for failing
to meet market needs at a cost the market will pay.

You cannot compare say a uni or school to the private sector.

The public sector is largely unaccountable to the public. It was a
talking point when John Major introduced the notion that hitherto
faceless civil servants give their name when asked. Immediately
exceptions were found if the safety of the individual may be at risk
which quickly got extended to almost every civil servant who was
behaving in their usual uncooperative, obstructive and high handed
way that might have merited a punch on the nose.

You've certainly got a bee in your bonnet. ;-)

Rant mode off.

--
*The hardness of the butter is proportional to the softness of the bread *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
pamela wrote:
I can't do every job in the public sector and I can't do every job
in the private sector. What experience do you have of working in
the private sector?

Approx 15 years in the public sector and 35 in the private one. And found
both keen and less keen workers in both.

--
*People want trepanners like they want a hole in the head*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 15:16 24 Feb 2018, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
pamela wrote:
I can't do every job in the public sector and I can't do every
job in the private sector. What experience do you have of
working in the private sector?

Approx 15 years in the public sector and 35 in the private one.
And found both keen and less keen workers in both.

Touché.

Perhaps largely within unionised workforces in both sectors.

Yes.

Were you
in a public sector job that got privatised?

No. ;-)

--
*In "Casablanca", Humphrey Bogart never said "Play it again, Sam" *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 23:43 24 Feb 2018, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
pamela wrote:
On 15:16 24 Feb 2018, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
pamela wrote:
I can't do every job in the public sector and I can't do every
job in the private sector. What experience do you have of
working in the private sector?

Approx 15 years in the public sector and 35 in the private one.
And found both keen and less keen workers in both.

Touché.

Perhaps largely within unionised workforces in both sectors.

Yes.

Were you
in a public sector job that got privatised?

No. ;-)

Then presumably you were in a public sector job until you stopped
working.

Eh?

--
*DON'T SWEAT THE PETTY THINGS AND DON'T PET THE SWEATY THINGS.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
pamela wrote:
Pamela seems to be on a one person crusade. To drive down the pay
of everyone from lecturers to train drivers.

That's correct. Too many parts of the public sector and
overstaffed, overpaid and provide poor service.

Meaning the private sector is flawless?

No but in the private sector you tend to suffer the consequences of your
errors.
Perhaps you haven't realised we pay for that too.

You have choice as to how and whom you pay.
--
bert

In article , pamela
writes
On 15:16 24 Feb 2018, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
pamela wrote:
I can't do every job in the public sector and I can't do every
job in the private sector. What experience do you have of
working in the private sector?

Approx 15 years in the public sector and 35 in the private one.
And found both keen and less keen workers in both.

Touché.

Perhaps largely within unionised workforces in both sectors. Were you
in a public sector job that got privatised?
His "private sector" was working pseudo freelance for the BBC
--
bert

In article ,
pamela wrote:
Then presumably you were in a public sector job until you stopped
working.

Eh?

Were you in a public sector job right up until you stopped working?

No.

It's not common to go from working for years in public sector to the
private sector unless there is something like privatisation which you
said isn't the case.

It was quite common in my industry. Very rarely the reverse. Because the
pay in the private sector - for the same job - was considerably better.
Unlike what you seem to think.

--
*Two many clicks spoil the browse *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
bert wrote:
Perhaps largely within unionised workforces in both sectors. Were you
in a public sector job that got privatised?
His "private sector" was working pseudo freelance for the BBC

I know you're an idiot bert, but why move on to telling lies too?

--
*What happens if you get scared half to death twice? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.