Election Year or Fear!

[ramAnag]

rA, my views don't 'support' Tricky's in any way, they happen to be similar in some places - nothing Tricky says as an opinion makes the slightest difference to my worldview, although some of his reports do warrant further investigation and can be fact checked as truthful. You still seem to have that moderator bee in your bonnet, Tricky's welcome to disagree with me, he won't get admonished for doing so, I thought we'd put all that to bed some time ago and the major protagonists of unrest have been better behaved (if a little childish still) since then

Apologies. I wasn’t suggesting that you typically support Tricky’s views…just on this occasion you have offered fairly outspoken criticism of Rachel Reeves which happens to appeal to his dislike/hatred of all things Labour. Something which has turned into something of an obsession since last July.

He did, on this occasion, lash out at Sith, as he invariably does at anyone who doesn’t share his political views, referring to his post as ‘absolute bull****’ when it just seemed very fair to me and - having fact checked as far as possible - it was your own timeline details which (again on this occasion and not generally) appeared to be exaggerated.

No ‘moderator bee in my bonnet’ and I don’t know what needed ‘putting to bed’…my observations just lead me to conclude that Tricky is likely to be much less antagonistic towards you than the four or five forum members who more regularly criticise/correct him.

P.S. Having asked the question and seen the responses where do you now stand on the RR issue?

[MadAmster]

I had one application come in that read as a perfect fit for what we wanted. A good look at the CV, however, showed that one critical piece didn't add up. the applicant claimed to have good knowledge of one particular software product. No mention of any courses taken on the product, not worked anywhere that used it.

Intrigued I asked him in for an interview. The discussion soon turned to the offending software. You don't know it, do you? This caused a sheepish admission. I explained that I was interested in why he had lied on his CV. He wanted the job was the answer. We parted ways, him understanding that blagging your way into a job may work on occasions but a half decent Manager is going to pick you up on it. He won't have lied again on his CV.

On another occasion, I was working as project manager and the company hired a contractor who did blag his way into the short term contract. He'd said he knew the software but hadn't used it in several years and would be rusty and not up to date with any changes/enhancements. He was given the job on the understanding that he's be on 70% of the rate for 2 weeks and be up to date by then or he was out. When I was introduced to him and told the deal I said fine. It was just after 4 so I asked the gaffer if it was OK if I left an hour early to go into Amsterdam for a beer with the new hire, get to know him and that would help me plan what knowledge needed refreshing and what needed teaching from scratch. The new hire, a Geordie, was quite happy to go for a beer and a chat away from the office. Once ensconced in the pub, we had a general chat then I said "right, how much do I need to teach/refresh?". The honesty of the answer was as refreshing as its content was frightening. he knew the background as he'd used similar products... I had a choice. Dob him in or have a very intensive 2 weeks to get him up to standard. I chose the latter for no other reason than the owner of the agency employing him was a good friend of mine. Geordie was a fast learner and he was 90% up to speed inside a week. I had a word with my mate and got a bonus for going the extra mile.

Same circumstances, different outcomes. The first lad was good but getting up to scratch on CICS isn't going to happen in a short timeframe. A scheduling system, when you know 3 other similar systems is a different kettle of fish.

[Andy_Faber]

Apologies. I wasn’t suggesting that you typically support Tricky’s views…just on this occasion you have offered fairly outspoken criticism of Rachel Reeves which happens to appeal to his dislike/hatred of all things Labour. Something which has turned into something of an obsession since last July.

He did, on this occasion, lash out at Sith, as he invariably does at anyone who doesn’t share his political views, referring to his post as ‘absolute bull****’ when it just seemed very fair to me and - having fact checked as far as possible - it was your own timeline details which (again on this occasion and not generally) appeared to be exaggerated.

No ‘moderator bee in my bonnet’ and I don’t know what needed ‘putting to bed’…my observations just lead me to conclude that Tricky is likely to be much less antagonistic towards you than the four or five forum members who more regularly criticise/correct him.

P.S. Having asked the question and seen the responses where do you now stand on the RR issue?

Not looking for an apology, I was just clarifying. I'm not especially a fan of RR, although IMO she's just a mouthpiece for people in the shadows making actual policy.

My timeline comment was arguably right, and maybe my post was phrased in a way to raise the temperature/promote discussion a bit, but in any case the issue was her not me and her 'best part of a decade' comment was pure deceit, borne I would guess more out of vanity than an attempt to impress her employer

I'm neither pro- nor anti- Tricky when he's putting a point over, providing he does it in a controlled manner. He's struggled with that recently, but we've had problems with others here in that regard and it blows over. Sith did get IMO unwarranted stick recently but he seems able to stick up for himself and I received no complaint.

Where I stand is she's no Gordon Brown technically (just a hunch) and comes across really badly as a person (both reinforced by her approval rating), I think she'll be seen by KS as damaging the brand and she'll be gone in the first reshuffle. Is that where I stand? maybe that's just a commentary. She does scrub up well

[SithHappens]

Tricky can say what he wants. It doesn't bother me, I think the best response to thugs and bullies is no response.

[ramAnag]

Not looking for an apology, I was just clarifying. I'm not especially a fan of RR, although IMO she's just a mouthpiece for people in the shadows making actual policy.

My timeline comment was arguably right, and maybe my post was phrased in a way to raise the temperature/promote discussion a bit, but in any case the issue was her not me and her 'best part of a decade' comment was pure deceit, borne I would guess more out of vanity than an attempt to impress her employer

I'm neither pro- nor anti- Tricky when he's putting a point over, providing he does it in a controlled manner. He's struggled with that recently, but we've had problems with others here in that regard and it blows over. Sith did get IMO unwarranted stick recently but he seems able to stick up for himself and I received no complaint.

Where I stand is she's no Gordon Brown technically (just a hunch) and comes across really badly as a person (both reinforced by her approval rating), I think she'll be seen by KS as damaging the brand and she'll be gone in the first reshuffle. Is that where I stand? maybe that's just a commentary. She does scrub up well

Never mind, you got one anyway for my part in any misunderstanding.

As regards the time line, you referred to her having worked at the BoE for just over four years. The BoE say five and a half (Sept 2000-March 2006) which is significantly different and leaves you open to the same accusation of exaggeration.

I’m sure Sith can stick up for himself and I don’t disagree with much else you’ve written. She does have an irritating automaton style of speaking, but I suspect KS will ultimately judge her on her achievements (or otherwise) as should we all imo.

[Trickytreesreds]

Oh do give it a rest, Tricky. I see you?re suddenly quoting the BBC now it suits, but Sith isn?t talking ?absolute bull****?, he?s just trying to be even handed about it.
If you want an example of inaccuracy then it?s Andy saying she worked for the BoE for ?just over four? years. According to the BoE she worked there from September 2000 until March 2006 which, by most people?s reckoning, would be around five and a half years, but of course you won?t criticise AF?s account because 1) he?s the moderator and 2) his view supports your own.
Did she exaggerate? It would seem so, as have some of her critics. Is that acceptable? Not really and she should know better. Are we surprised? Hardly?she?s a politician talking about her achievements. Does it matter enormously? What GP said yesterday.

No I won't give it a rest. You of all people were fastest out the blocks to criticise any Tory misdemeanors.
This clown just gets worse week by week, yet is supported by jellyfish.

You have just admitted its unacceptable, so does she get the sack or not? Had it been a Tory, you'd have had a flaming torch ready.



I quoted the BBC, because of your blinkers in not listen to any other source. You can't have it all ways sunshine.

[Trickytreesreds]

Tricky can say what he wants. It doesn't bother me, I think the best response to thugs and bullies is no response.

Thugs and bullies ? Brilliant

[ramAnag]

No I won't give it a rest. You of all people were fastest out the blocks to criticise any Tory misdemeanors.
This clown just gets worse week by week, yet is supported by jellyfish.

You have just admitted its unacceptable, so does she get the sack or not? Had it been a Tory, you'd have had a flaming torch ready.



I quoted the BBC, because of your blinkers in not listen to any other source. You can't have it all ways sunshine.

I think you’ll find that the Tory misdemeanours were rather more serious than an exaggerated CV from twenty years ago and I’m just amused at you quoting the BBC given the countless times you’ve told us all they can’t be trusted.

[ramAnag]

No I won't give it a rest. You of all people were fastest out the blocks to criticise any Tory misdemeanors.
This clown just gets worse week by week, yet is supported by jellyfish.

You have just admitted its unacceptable, so does she get the sack or not? Had it been a Tory, you'd have had a flaming torch ready.



I quoted the BBC, because of your blinkers in not listen to any other source. You can't have it all ways sunshine.

I’m not defending her, but I think you’ll find that the Tory misdemeanours were rather more serious than an exaggerated CV from twenty years ago and I’m just amused at you quoting the BBC given the countless times you’ve told us all they can’t be trusted.

[Geoff Parkstone]

No I won't give it a rest. You of all people were fastest out the blocks to criticise any Tory misdemeanors.
This clown just gets worse week by week, yet is supported by jellyfish.

You have just admitted its unacceptable, so does she get the sack or not? Had it been a Tory, you'd have had a flaming torch ready.



I quoted the BBC, because of your blinkers in not listen to any other source. You can't have it all ways sunshine.

In case you missed it the last two times he's not defending her, but he thinks you?ll find that the Tory misdemeanours were rather more serious than an exaggerated CV from twenty years ago and he's just amused at you quoting the BBC given the countless times you?ve told us all they can?t be trusted.