Quote tigertot="tigertot"I found this link: recourse.org.uk/ucu-warns-of-ind ... d-through/ I haven't followed the other links through so do not know whether it will give you what you are after. UCU did set out its case several months ago, I read what they put forward & thought it a reasonable argument. I voted yes for action short of a strike, no for a strike. Both votes came out yes. I have continued to work 50 hours a week since, it is simply not possible to work to rule without it significantly affecting those I manage, the university (who are generally a fantastic employer) or the students we are here to support. Undoubtedly there are some within unions who do see it as a political battle & an opportuntiy to bring down the capatilist state. But they are a massive minority. Very few work in HE to get rich. Our VC who runs an organisation with a half billion pounds turnover, made £35m profit last year, has >40,000 staff & students - the second biggest in the UK, only earns c£250k. Now I happen to think no-one should or needs to earn any more than that, but the vast majority of people here earn relatively low wages but accept that for job security, good holidays & a decent pension.'" the uni only made that profit via the VLS scheme and have also another surplus of £7million too, they basically cut 800 jobs via allowing people to sell them their jobs for 18months gross pay. but mr arthur is ok on his £250 k a year salary and his chauffer driven audi and his flights back down to his home in southampton on a weekend i bet he doesn't pay for his flights does he? he claimed he didn't want to put tuition fees up then what did he do? put them up to the maximum of £9k a year!! don't make him out to be a hero when people on here know the score.

Quote tigertot="tigertot"I found this link: recourse.org.uk/ucu-warns-of-ind ... d-through/ I haven't followed the other links through so do not know whether it will give you what you are after. UCU did set out its case several months ago, I read what they put forward & thought it a reasonable argument. I voted yes for action short of a strike, no for a strike. Both votes came out yes. I have continued to work 50 hours a week since, it is simply not possible to work to rule without it significantly affecting those I manage, the university (who are generally a fantastic employer) or the students we are here to support. Undoubtedly there are some within unions who do see it as a political battle & an opportuntiy to bring down the capatilist state. But they are a massive minority. Very few work in HE to get rich. Our VC who runs an organisation with a half billion pounds turnover, made £35m profit last year, has >40,000 staff & students - the second biggest in the UK, only earns c£250k. Now I happen to think no-one should or needs to earn any more than that, but the vast majority of people here earn relatively low wages but accept that for job security, good holidays & a decent pension.'" the uni only made that profit via the VLS scheme and have also another surplus of £7million too, they basically cut 800 jobs via allowing people to sell them their jobs for 18months gross pay. but mr arthur is ok on his £250 k a year salary and his chauffer driven audi and his flights back down to his home in southampton on a weekend i bet he doesn't pay for his flights does he? he claimed he didn't want to put tuition fees up then what did he do? put them up to the maximum of £9k a year!! don't make him out to be a hero when people on here know the score.

I can't think of anything better, more rational or intelligent than being outraged at Clarkson. Not his comments, just the fat, odious, curly haired oaf himself.



I am not outraged at him as I generally avoid watching or listening to anything featuring his bilious face or grating tones but if I feign some faux outrage at his crass and ill judged comments and it helps remove his offensive presence from my screen all together then what could be more rational, free thinking and intelligent than that.

Nice one.I wish I could have posted this somewhere else yesterday.

Yeh, when I see Dave I see a free thinking man of the world.

If that was what I actually said then your wonderful sarcastic response would have been justified.



If you found it offensive then I can accept it, and I understand why you would find it offensive. I happen to think that what he said was tongue in cheek though not in good taste.

However, just like the Brand/Ross situation it has been blown out of proportion by the media, who seem to jump on these things with gusto. Many of the people complaining about it won't have seen the original, but will have only seen replays of it on the news, or gone looking for it on iPlayer, presumably with the intention of being offended.



If anything, the news are offending more people than the original comment by shoving it in everyone's faces at every opportunity. Its the media equivalent of a footballer rolling around on the floor trying to get a fellow professional sent off