More Women

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 12:18:26 +0100, beamendsltd
<[email protected]> wrote:

>My point (finaly!) is this - if the law is too percise, it
>will collapse becuase it will become unworkable. A case in
>point is emplyoment law - I want to employ someone, but the
>risk for a small buiness is massive - I can have some clown
>trun up and bankrupt my business simply because I didn't
>give them the job (they can get legal aid to go to a tribunal
>on *any* grounds, no matter how stupid - I'd get no help at all)
> - never mind actually giving them the job and then finding
>that they are theiving gits etc (you can't even sack someone,
>on the spot if you catch them walking out of the place with
>armfulls of your stock - really!).

Get the employee to sign a contract. We're a small business with a few
employees and our contract is worded such that we would have no legal
hassle laying them off easily (not that we ever plan to!)

>Plus, it's pracically impossible to word an advert now
>describing the sort of person you want without upsetting
>someone and ending up in front of another tribunal.

Put a sign up in the shop and ask around before going onto proper
adverts. When we wanted a full time employee we didnt actually need to
advertise. We just asked about and pretty quickly 2 of my mates were
interested! (and the one who we employed does a great job!)

 
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 16:33:41 +0100, Tom Woods
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 12:18:26 +0100, beamendsltd
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>My point (finaly!) is this - if the law is too percise, it
>>will collapse becuase it will become unworkable. A case in
>>point is emplyoment law - I want to employ someone, but the
>>risk for a small buiness is massive - I can have some clown
>>trun up and bankrupt my business simply because I didn't
>>give them the job (they can get legal aid to go to a tribunal
>>on *any* grounds, no matter how stupid - I'd get no help at all)
>> - never mind actually giving them the job and then finding
>>that they are theiving gits etc (you can't even sack someone,
>>on the spot if you catch them walking out of the place with
>>armfulls of your stock - really!).
>
>Get the employee to sign a contract. We're a small business with a few
>employees and our contract is worded such that we would have no legal
>hassle laying them off easily (not that we ever plan to!)

Additionally - decent contracts are the way forward with anything! All
our business contracts are worded hugely in our favour and they are
still signed quite happily! (basically nothing is ever my fault and i
can quit whenever i like and you still have to pay me!) :)
 
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 15:05:04 +0100, Greg wrote:

> I think you missed the smiley!, but even so I totally fail to see why a
> portable can is now limited to 5l and plastic ...

It's not, you can have 10l in a metal container.

I guess the limit is beacuse portable containers are much more likely to
abused and/or placed in stupid places compared to a tank fixed to a
vehicle.

--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail



 
"Dave Liquorice" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> It's not, you can have 10l in a metal container.

An earlier poster said that petrol stations were refusing to fill metal
containers, frankly I haven't a clue what's 'allowed' or not, I regularly
fill jerry cans and have yet to be stopped.

Greg


 
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 16:21:26 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 15:05:04 +0100, Greg wrote:
>
>> I think you missed the smiley!, but even so I totally fail to see why a
>> portable can is now limited to 5l and plastic ...
>
>It's not, you can have 10l in a metal container.
>

Which is bloody stupid as a jerry can holds 25 litres. and if the army
use em, i dont see why i cant.

Alex
 
"Alex" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Which is bloody stupid as a jerry can holds 25 litres. and if the army
> use em, i dont see why i cant.

If I could only fill a 5l plastic can at a visit I would have to make two
trips a week just to keep my ride-on mower going in the summer, not to
mention those silly plastic things have very ill fitting spouts that spill
petrol all over the place.
Greg


 
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:01:20 +0100, Greg wrote:

>> It's not, you can have 10l in a metal container.
>
> An earlier poster said that petrol stations were refusing to fill metal
> containers,

In which case that is rule from those particular filling stations. Petrol
in 10l in metal and a proper vapour seal cap is legal as is 5l with a
proper vapour seal in plastic. These rules don't apply to diesel, I'm not
sure what limits apply for diesel.

> I regularly fill jerry cans and have yet to be stopped.

Not particulary often but I've yet to be stopped as well, mind I don't
make a big sond an dance about it and generally to it at the back of the
Disco to save humping a full can any further than I have to.

--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail



 
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:07:00 +0100, Alex wrote:

>>> why a portable can is now limited to 5l and plastic ...
>>
>> It's not, you can have 10l in a metal container.
>
> Which is bloody stupid as a jerry can holds 25 litres.

Funny all the jerry cans I've ever seen have be 10 or 20l not 25...

> and if the army use em, i dont see why i cant.

'Cause the army is law unto itself?

--
Cheers [email protected]
Dave. pam is missing e-mail



 
On or around Fri, 29 Sep 2006 18:43:51 +0100, "Greg"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>"beamendsltd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:c37356e4e%[email protected]...
>
>> ...... and the one they came up with about no sockets to be reachable
>> by anyone with a hand in the sink!
>
>I think the next one to become notorious will be the fact you no longer cap
>wiring buried in walls if it's within a 'zone'. This saves a lot of work but
>assumes the general public know not to drill a wall in a zone 100mm wide
>radiating vertically and horizontally from any switch or socket, nor close
>to an internal corner or ceiling, nor on the reverse side of a thin
>partition wall that backs on to a zone. I seriously wonder how many DIYers
>know about that.

very few. and then you get the old places that were wired before there was
a wiring code, and have wiring anywhere they fancied it...

It'd be good practice to cap any buried wire... although the determined
could drill through the capping..
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Festina Lente" (Hasten slowly) Suetonius (c.70-c.140) Augustus, 25
 
On or around Sat, 30 Sep 2006 22:06:27 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:07:00 +0100, Alex wrote:
>
>>>> why a portable can is now limited to 5l and plastic ...
>>>
>>> It's not, you can have 10l in a metal container.
>>
>> Which is bloody stupid as a jerry can holds 25 litres.
>
>Funny all the jerry cans I've ever seen have be 10 or 20l not 25...

really old ones were 5 gallons, but more recent ones are 20l.
>
>> and if the army use em, i dont see why i cant.
>
>'Cause the army is law unto itself?

Cause the army are putting diesel in 'em?
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
Appearances: You don't really need make-up. Celebrate your authentic
face by frightening people in the street.
from the Little Book of Complete B***ocks by Alistair Beaton.
 
In message <[email protected]>
Tom Woods <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 12:18:26 +0100, beamendsltd
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >My point (finaly!) is this - if the law is too percise, it
> >will collapse becuase it will become unworkable. A case in
> >point is emplyoment law - I want to employ someone, but the
> >risk for a small buiness is massive - I can have some clown
> >trun up and bankrupt my business simply because I didn't
> >give them the job (they can get legal aid to go to a tribunal
> >on *any* grounds, no matter how stupid - I'd get no help at all)
> > - never mind actually giving them the job and then finding
> >that they are theiving gits etc (you can't even sack someone,
> >on the spot if you catch them walking out of the place with
> >armfulls of your stock - really!).
>
> Get the employee to sign a contract. We're a small business with a few
> employees and our contract is worded such that we would have no legal
> hassle laying them off easily (not that we ever plan to!)

Would it were so simple - the FSB news letter has had several
example cases recently where the ex, or even prospective,
employee has taken the business to a tribunal in seemingly
blatant cases, and had the FSB member not been a member and
able to get free advice, they would either have to have
given in and paid out compensation or risked terrible
finacial hardship getting legal help (these were one or
two man businesses with one enmployee). The point is the
tribunal will hear any case, and the claimant will get aid,
you won't! Getting a whater-tight contract of employment
drawn up isn't exactly cheap, and the tribunals interpretation
of those contracts is often only describable as bizarre since
they have a laywer go through it, not someone being realistic.


>
> >Plus, it's pracically impossible to word an advert now
> >describing the sort of person you want without upsetting
> >someone and ending up in front of another tribunal.
>
> Put a sign up in the shop and ask around before going onto proper
> adverts. When we wanted a full time employee we didnt actually need to
> advertise. We just asked about and pretty quickly 2 of my mates were
> interested! (and the one who we employed does a great job!)
>

That's the way I'm doing it - my point is two-fold - first that
I have to do it that way because I can get done if it upsets
someone, however stupidly, and secondly that it just makes the
whole thing far more complicated than is necessary.

Richard

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive
 
In message <[email protected]>
Tom Woods <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 16:33:41 +0100, Tom Woods
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 12:18:26 +0100, beamendsltd
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>My point (finaly!) is this - if the law is too percise, it
> >>will collapse becuase it will become unworkable. A case in
> >>point is emplyoment law - I want to employ someone, but the
> >>risk for a small buiness is massive - I can have some clown
> >>trun up and bankrupt my business simply because I didn't
> >>give them the job (they can get legal aid to go to a tribunal
> >>on *any* grounds, no matter how stupid - I'd get no help at all)
> >> - never mind actually giving them the job and then finding
> >>that they are theiving gits etc (you can't even sack someone,
> >>on the spot if you catch them walking out of the place with
> >>armfulls of your stock - really!).
> >
> >Get the employee to sign a contract. We're a small business with a few
> >employees and our contract is worded such that we would have no legal
> >hassle laying them off easily (not that we ever plan to!)
>
> Additionally - decent contracts are the way forward with anything! All
> our business contracts are worded hugely in our favour and they are
> still signed quite happily! (basically nothing is ever my fault and i
> can quit whenever i like and you still have to pay me!) :)

But have they been tested? I though my contracts when being a
freelance software engineer were pretty thourough, but when
tested they meant bugger all. Obvously, that sort of contract
is nothing like a "full-timers" employment contract anyway.

Richard

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive
 
"beamendsltd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:8d2aec6e4e%[email protected]...

> But have they been tested? I though my contracts when being a
> freelance software engineer were pretty thourough, but when
> tested they meant bugger all. Obvously, that sort of contract
> is nothing like a "full-timers" employment contract anyway.

Exactly the point I was going to make, people think that just because
they've got someone to sign something makes it valid, but it doesn't. Any
clause in a contract that is in contradiction of some obscure bit of
legislation is worthless, and any contract that you can't afford to enforce
in court is worthless.

A classic example is the disclaimers that some organisations/companies get
you to sign before doing something potentially dangerous, they are
absolutely pointless as no one can be absolved of a duty of care. Another is
all these "The management are not responsible for..." signs we see, in fact
the management are responsible for anything they were responsible for before
they put the sign up!.

Then there are these 'no-win no-fee' claim parasites, they'll make claims
against employers knowing full well that it would be thrown out of court but
gamble that the employer or their insurers will think it cheaper to settle
than contest, and in many cases they do. I go on seminars with Zurich as
part of my council work so see the other side of the industry, they reckon
it costs them at least £4000 to contest one of these claims so regularly
settle unless there is a bigger issue at stake, of course we're all paying
for this in our premiums.

Greg


 
In message <[email protected]>
"Greg" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "beamendsltd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:8d2aec6e4e%[email protected]...
>
> > But have they been tested? I though my contracts when being a
> > freelance software engineer were pretty thourough, but when
> > tested they meant bugger all. Obvously, that sort of contract
> > is nothing like a "full-timers" employment contract anyway.
>
> Exactly the point I was going to make, people think that just because
> they've got someone to sign something makes it valid, but it doesn't. Any
> clause in a contract that is in contradiction of some obscure bit of
> legislation is worthless, and any contract that you can't afford to enforce
> in court is worthless.
>
> A classic example is the disclaimers that some organisations/companies get
> you to sign before doing something potentially dangerous, they are
> absolutely pointless as no one can be absolved of a duty of care. Another is
> all these "The management are not responsible for..." signs we see, in fact
> the management are responsible for anything they were responsible for before
> they put the sign up!.

Never mind when the sign was put up - one, either as an individual or
a company, in either negligent or not. A sign make no adds at all,
execpt that probably quite a lot of people will assume it does.

>
> Then there are these 'no-win no-fee' claim parasites, they'll make claims
> against employers knowing full well that it would be thrown out of court but
> gamble that the employer or their insurers will think it cheaper to settle
> than contest, and in many cases they do. I go on seminars with Zurich as
> part of my council work so see the other side of the industry, they reckon
> it costs them at least £4000 to contest one of these claims so regularly
> settle unless there is a bigger issue at stake, of course we're all paying
> for this in our premiums.
>

A talk given by the NFU rep a while back said the same thing.

> Greg
>

Richard

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive
 
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 10:33:23 +0100, beamendsltd
<[email protected]> wrote:

> The point is the
>tribunal will hear any case, and the claimant will get aid,
>you won't! Getting a whater-tight contract of employment
>drawn up isn't exactly cheap, and the tribunals interpretation
>of those contracts is often only describable as bizarre since
>they have a laywer go through it, not someone being realistic.

IIRC, the contract cost about the same as I take home in a month - so
it better bloody work! :)
I imagine that we shall be having words with the legal company that
drew it up ift ever gets contested
 
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 21:01:20 +0100, "Greg"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Dave Liquorice" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> It's not, you can have 10l in a metal container.
>
>An earlier poster said that petrol stations were refusing to fill metal
>containers, frankly I haven't a clue what's 'allowed' or not, I regularly
>fill jerry cans and have yet to be stopped.

Ive been stopped at a local BP garage. Told me over the intercom that
i coulnt fill that up and wouldnt turn the pump on.
I've also filled jerry cans up very obviously at the same place and
been ignored so some of it must be down the the person working there.

It may also be because theyve had a load of pikeys/kids filling up
jerry cans and running off or something?

I really did read the 'rules' while i worked at a garage!

 
On 2006-10-01, Tom Woods <[email protected]> wrote:

> It may also be because theyve had a load of pikeys/kids filling up
> jerry cans and running off or something?

Blimey have you ever tried running with a full jerry can? They've got
minds of their own!

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
 
In message <[email protected]>
Ian Rawlings <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 2006-10-01, Tom Woods <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > It may also be because theyve had a load of pikeys/kids filling up
> > jerry cans and running off or something?
>
> Blimey have you ever tried running with a full jerry can? They've got
> minds of their own!
>

What the pikeys/kids? Never.......

Richard
--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine
Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive
 
I've seen many vehicles (mostly LR 110's incidentaly) pull up to the
pumps, and either open the back, or even better take the lid off a 6x4
trailer full of jerry cans (20L ex-army of course) - we're talking 30+
cans, and fill them all up with petrol.
This is usually at Tescos in Oban, or morrisons in Fort William.
They either live on an island or in a very remote place (I'm in the
highlands) and come to fill up once a month or so.

Andrew


beamendsltd wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>
> Ian Rawlings <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On 2006-10-01, Tom Woods <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > It may also be because theyve had a load of pikeys/kids filling up
> > > jerry cans and running off or something?
> >
> > Blimey have you ever tried running with a full jerry can? They've got
> > minds of their own!
> >
>
> What the pikeys/kids? Never.......
>
> Richard
> --
> www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk [email protected]
> www.radioparadise.com - Good Music, No Vine
> Lib Dems - Townies keeping comedy alive

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top