So, tube strike huh?

Fysh

Playboy wrote: »

Whilst agreeing that the ability to strike is a very important right that we need to protect I also feel that measures need to be introduced to stop Unions abusing their power especially in relation to essential services like the tube. To be able to call a strike of this impact based on a 30% turnout is frankly a ludicrous situation to be in. Having read a lot of material on both sides of this debate I still cannot see a valid reason for this strike.

I'm entirely in favour of a strict quorum requirement for union strike votes, with the proviso that the exact same requirement is applied to all government elections. If a 38% turnout is enough to elect the Mayor of London, a 40% turnout is enough for a union to call a strike. (Personally, I'm also a fan of the Australian system wherein you're fined if you are on the electoral register and don't vote in an election, but that might be tricky to apply to union members...)

Playboy wrote: »

TFL should be able to make decisions on staffing without facing a strike. There is no compulsory redundancy here and as others have stated many of the workers have come forward for voluntary redundancy. Staff will be redeployed from ticket offices where in most stations (bar the very busy central london station) they are under utilized. I don't see why that is a bad thing or why it means we need a strike? Are we to believe that the Union believes that reducing ticket office staff numbers will impact safety and that the motivation of the strike is to protect Joe public?

Happy to be informed differently but I really just dont get what all the fuss is about.

The rhetoric from both sides has gotten in the way of actually discussing the changes, unfortunately, which is frustrating for everyone - more so as the strike drew closer and both Bob Crow and Boris Johnson decided that playing the hard man was more important than actually achieving a resolution to the dispute.

As I understand it there are several issues at hand:
1) the plan to close all ticket offices is already problematic - my own experience of the Tube & Overground stations in Kilburn alone is that if I had to rely purely on the machines for any Oyster-related operations, I'd have been unable to get to work on at least a couple of dozen occasions in the last few years. So I already find myself sceptical on that one.
2) despite the "no compulsory redundancies" line being touted, I've heard suggestions at several points that staff affected by the changes are having their job titles and descriptions changed just enough to require them to reapply for their jobs. That may sound innocent, but as a public sector employee I happen to know (from personal experience) it's a trick that is sometimes used by management to get rid of people who are on inconveniently high wages or older contracts with better terms than are now offered by the company. Unfortunately Union support (including the threat of strike action) is frequently the only defence against such manouevres that actually works; I'm wary to just take it as gospel that the nice man from TfL is being entirely sincere and that no workers are getting shafted as a result.

On a wider scale, saying that unions running non-essential services (and whether you disagree on that in principle, in legal fact the Underground is currently classed as a non-essential service) should not have the right to strike in protest at changes to their working conditions is a stance that has far-reaching implications, most of them negative for anyone who can in any way be classed as a "worker". (It's also worth noting that the party currently in power is also the party who did such a stellar job of promoting competition and ongoing reinvestment into that other non-essential chunk of transport network known as national rail. So I wouldn't recommend having too much faith in them...)

breadmonkey

Fysh wrote: »

That's an irrelevant question and I'm taking this opportunity to put my Mod Hat on:
Attack the post, not the poster. You do not need to know any poster's personal connection to either side in order to discuss or debate their comments, and asking the question seems worryingly close to trying to dismiss an opinion with a "well, of course you'd say that" handwave.

I don't understand that is definitely relevant to the discussion at hand. What's wrong with having all our cards on the table here?

Reekwind

Playboy wrote: »

Re the bolded bit, that is your opinion so its not categorical

No, it is. The Tube is not an essential service. Neither the UK government nor the relevant UN agency (the ILO) consider rail services to be 'essential'. Not like hospitals, utilities, police, air traffic controllers, fire brigade, etc. These all have restrictions on striking because their absence would put lives at risk

You may feel that the Tube should be an essential service but that's a different matter. But in that case you'll have to explain how the lack of an Underground system would put the very fabric of society at work. Complicating people's commutes is not on the same scale.

A comparison that has been bandied around in the press for the last few days and its another strawman. That is a completely separate issue

Because...? How can you question the legitimacy of workers voting to stop doing their job and then apply a completely different standard to electing a mayor, assembly or government?

breadmonkey wrote:

Reekwind, do you have any association with RMT or TSSA, directly or indirectly?

No. Why would you assume that I do?

Jack B. Badd

The next person who questions a Mod decision or warning will be taking a well-deserved holiday from the forum & this thread will be locked.

Thank you,
Jack

Playboy

Fysh wrote: »

On a wider scale, saying that unions running non-essential services (and whether you disagree on that in principle, in legal fact the Underground is currently classed as a non-essential service) should not have the right to strike in protest at changes to their working conditions is a stance that has far-reaching implications, most of them negative for anyone who can in any way be classed as a "worker".

Reekwind wrote: »

No, it is. The Tube is not an essential service. Neither the UK government nor the relevant UN agency (the ILO) consider rail services to be 'essential'. Not like hospitals, utilities, police, air traffic controllers, fire brigade, etc. These all have restrictions on striking because their absence would put lives at risk

You may feel that the Tube should be an essential service but that's a different matter. But in that case you'll have to explain how the lack of an Underground system would put the very fabric of society at work. Complicating people's commutes is not on the same scale.

Fair point re the legal classification of an 'essential' service but in my opinion something is essential if it can not be done without. London would not be able to function for any extended period of time without the tube, it would absolutely cripple the economy of the City.

Playboy

Fysh wrote: »

I'm entirely in favour of a strict quorum requirement for union strike votes, with the proviso that the exact same requirement is applied to all government elections. If a 38% turnout is enough to elect the Mayor of London, a 40% turnout is enough for a union to call a strike. (Personally, I'm also a fan of the Australian system wherein you're fined if you are on the electoral register and don't vote in an election, but that might be tricky to apply to union members...)

I don't agree or see the relevance of the comparison. A Trade Union who represents a restricted group potentially abusing their power to achieve aims that may not be in the public interest is a very different proposition to voter apathy in a mayoral election.

Fysh wrote: »

As I understand it there are several issues at hand:
1) the plan to close all ticket offices is already problematic - my own experience of the Tube & Overground stations in Kilburn alone is that if I had to rely purely on the machines for any Oyster-related operations, I'd have been unable to get to work on at least a couple of dozen occasions in the last few years. So I already find myself sceptical on that one.

Fair enough, everybody will have different personal experiences, I for instance haven't used a ticket office in about 6 years. However we cannot assume to try and control how TFL run their business. I'm sure that if the ticket offices were generating revenue and were sufficiently busy then TFL would not withdraw the service in that station. Why would they?

Fysh wrote: »

2) despite the "no compulsory redundancies" line being touted, I've heard suggestions at several points that staff affected by the changes are having their job titles and descriptions changed just enough to require them to reapply for their jobs. That may sound innocent, but as a public sector employee I happen to know (from personal experience) it's a trick that is sometimes used by management to get rid of people who are on inconveniently high wages or older contracts with better terms than are now offered by the company. Unfortunately Union support (including the threat of strike action) is frequently the only defence against such manouevres that actually works; I'm wary to just take it as gospel that the nice man from TfL is being entirely sincere and that no workers are getting shafted as a result.

Well employee contracts should cover whether that type of change is allowable. It is not an issue that I have seen discussed in relation to this strike.

Fysh wrote: »

On a wider scale, saying that unions running non-essential services (and whether you disagree on that in principle, in legal fact the Underground is currently classed as a non-essential service) should not have the right to strike in protest at changes to their working conditions is a stance that has far-reaching implications, most of them negative for anyone who can in any way be classed as a "worker". (It's also worth noting that the party currently in power is also the party who did such a stellar job of promoting competition and ongoing reinvestment into that other non-essential chunk of transport network known as national rail. So I wouldn't recommend having too much faith in them...)

I am in no way saying that workers shouldn't have a right to strike. I do think that mandatory minimum turnouts for strikes of this scale and impact would be appropriate. The level of apathy in respect to the turnout would indicate to me that this is not an issue that the majority of TFL workers feel particularly strongly about so I'm dismayed at the level of disruption it has caused over the last couple of days. I dont think Boris's office or TFL or blameless in this scenario but Bob Crowe has a history of these kind of strong arm tactics and his pursuit of extreme measures to achieve his aims in blatant disregard to the impact on the wider economy and peoples lives.

FTA69

Playboy wrote: »

I don't agree or see the relevance of the comparison. A Trade Union who represents a restricted group potentially abusing their power to achieve aims that may not be in the public interest is a very different proposition to voter apathy in a mayoral election.

It's totally relevant. On one hand you have Boris Johnson lecturing people about mandates and apathy while he himself was elected on a smaller turnout than the strike ballot. If a minimum turnout is needed for a trade union to make a call to its members, why isn't it needed for a politician to be put in charge of the entire city? The fact remains that the turnout issue is a red herring, especially considering the vast majority of TSSA and RMT workers accepted the call on the day.

However we cannot assume to try and control how TFL run their business.

This is nonsense. First of all TFL isn't a business, it's a public service that is supposed to be run in the interests of all those in the city. Second of all, it's a local body and we have every right to comment on how it is run.

I'm sure that if the ticket offices were generating revenue and were sufficiently busy then TFL would not withdraw the service in that station. Why would they?

Because Johnson is pursuing an agenda where he's implementing Tory cuts on public services?

I dont think Boris's office or TFL or blameless in this scenario but Bob Crowe has a history of these kind of strong arm tactics and his pursuit of extreme measures to achieve his aims in blatant disregard to the impact on the wider economy and peoples lives.

Crow said he was willing to meet the Mayor at any stage but Johnson refused unless he withdrew the option of industrial action. That is not negotiation, it is posturing.

Playboy

FTA69 wrote: »

It's totally relevant. On one hand you have Boris Johnson lecturing people about mandates and apathy while he himself was elected on a smaller turnout than the strike ballot. If a minimum turnout is needed for a trade union to make a call to its members, why isn't it needed for a politician to be put in charge of the entire city? The fact remains that the turnout issue is a red herring, especially considering the vast majority of TSSA and RMT workers accepted the call on the day.

Well we will just have to agree to disagree wont we? I stated my reasons earlier.

FTA69 wrote: »

This is nonsense. First of all TFL isn't a business, it's a public service that is supposed to be run in the interests of all those in the city. Second of all, it's a local body and we have every right to comment on how it is run.

It is a business and it is a business that needs to be run efficiently to keep the costs of our travel down and pay for any improvement works and maintenance. Every business needs to be able to have some flexibility in how it manages its cost base and that includes staff. If we remove any power from TFL to make these types of decisions then the public purse will be forced to subsidize it even further.

FTA69 wrote: »

Because Johnson is pursuing an agenda where he's implementing Tory cuts on public services?

What does this mean? I'm not interested in some ideological discussion about what the left or right want to do. I'm interested in having a transport infrastructure that is affordable and reliable.

FTA69 wrote: »

Crow said he was willing to meet the Mayor at any stage but Johnson refused unless he withdrew the option of industrial action. That is not negotiation, it is posturing.

The reports I read/listened to stated that the Union would not meet unless any proposals were removed first. Obviously both sides have an agenda here but the Unions cannot dictate the outcome on any and every staffing decision by using the threat of strike action. There are no compulsory redundancies here so why are we putting up with a strike?

FTA69

Well we will just have to agree to disagree wont we? I stated my reasons earlier.

We can, but as I said above, bringing up mandates is silly when you lecture people about calling on other workers to strike when you yourself are running an entire city on an even lesser mandate.

It is a business and it is a business that needs to be run efficiently to keep the costs of our travel down and pay for any improvement works and maintenance. Every business needs to be able to have some flexibility in how it manages its cost base and that includes staff.

There is always going to be a level of subsidy involved in any effective and inclusive public service. As a public service however, it has a duty to cater to those less-able to access machines etc as well as to facilitate tourists who proportionally contribute a massive amount to the London economy. TFL isn't a body driven by profit and nor should it be.

What does this mean? I'm not interested in some ideological discussion about what the left or right want to do. I'm interested in having a transport infrastructure that is affordable and reliable.

It means that Boris Johnson is a right-wing arse who is a member of a party cutting public services to the bone. This latest move is driven by the same ideology that is seeing the NHS come under attack as well a multitude of other cuts.

The reports I read/listened to stated that the Union would not meet unless any proposals were removed first.

Crow and Cortes said repeatedly they would meet with the Mayor at any stage. This was rebuffed.

tibor

There's a good write-up over on Londonist that looks at the reasons behind the strike.

http://londonist.com/2014/02/a-look-at-the-reasons-behind-the-tube-strike.php

Notably TfL refuse to comment or provide information on a number of fairly important points.

Here's hoping they get it sorted out before the next scheduled strike, even cycling during peak times was a nightmare with traffic. Added at least 5 mins to my journey.

Fysh

Playboy wrote: »

I don't agree or see the relevance of the comparison. A Trade Union who represents a restricted group potentially abusing their power to achieve aims that may not be in the public interest is a very different proposition to voter apathy in a mayoral election.

So you're trying to suggest that Boris Johnson being anti-union (or at least anti-RMT) is in no way related to him being a Conservative Party member and following the current Conservative drive for austerity-based cuts to any and all public services?

I'm not sure I agree.

Playboy wrote: »

Fair enough, everybody will have different personal experiences, I for instance haven't used a ticket office in about 6 years. However we cannot assume to try and control how TFL run their business. I'm sure that if the ticket offices were generating revenue and were sufficiently busy then TFL would not withdraw the service in that station. Why would they?

Having worked in the public sector for going on 7 years, I'm going to suggest that you may have entirely too much faith in the value placed on actual facts or common sense when making decisions of this sort. Bear in mind that during the Mayoral election Boris said he wouldn't close ticket offices because he knew a number of people felt strongly on the issue, so it's not like he can say this is something that even the people who voted for him explicitly supported.

Playboy wrote: »

Well employee contracts should cover whether that type of change is allowable. It is not an issue that I have seen discussed in relation to this strike.

Again, you may be placing more faith in the adherence to good practice and Not Playing Silly Buggers in the public sector than is necessarily the case. I've seen it mentioned by a couple of TfL employees asked about their concerns regarding the changes, but as most of the coverage has been this idiotic presentation of the strike as a Bob Crow Vs Boris Johnson thing relevant aspects like this (even if only to debunk them) have been mostly ignored.

Playboy wrote: »

I am in no way saying that workers shouldn't have a right to strike. I do think that mandatory minimum turnouts for strikes of this scale and impact would be appropriate. The level of apathy in respect to the turnout would indicate to me that this is not an issue that the majority of TFL workers feel particularly strongly about so I'm dismayed at the level of disruption it has caused over the last couple of days. I dont think Boris's office or TFL or blameless in this scenario but Bob Crowe has a history of these kind of strong arm tactics and his pursuit of extreme measures to achieve his aims in blatant disregard to the impact on the wider economy and peoples lives.

Bob Crow being a bollix doesn't invalidate the strike, though, and I stand by my assertion that if stewardship of the entire country or a given council or borough can be secured on the same kind of turnout that voted for this strike, then it's legitimate.

Placing higher quorum demands on strike action than on actual public representation is a dangerous and anti-labour-rights move, no matter the grounds or motivations for doing so.

I'm also going to take a somewhat controversial stance on the whole "Tube is essential" angle - I disagree that it is essential. It is not impossible to get around London when the Tube isn't running, it's merely inconvenient - in some cases journey times are considerably longer, in other cases alternate routes are needed, in yet other cases you have to walk. But when some of the people complaining about the Tube being "essential" are people who didn't plan at all for the strike, turned up on the day wearing high heels and then spent 2 hours waiting for a bus because the notion of actually walking anywhere was anathema to them, I find it hard to believe.

Bearing in mind that the current essential services are things like the Metropolitan Police, the Ambulance Service and the Fire Brigade (the latter of which have in fact been on strike recently because, again, of Boris Johnson's austerity-driven cuts to public services) - the comparison should be obvious. There are alternatives to the Underground for the vast majority of journeys, albeit less convenient ones; there are not alternatives to the police or fire services available to those of us who need them (unless you're a private megacorp with your own private mercenary army on retainer ).

Playboy

On a lighter note, a great article in the Daily Mash!

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/tube-strike-backfires-as-commuters-steal-train-keys-and-drive-themselves-201011303299

Tube Strike Backfires As Commuters Steal Train Keys And Drive Themselves

THE London tube strike ended abruptly last night after commuters stormed trains and instantly mastered the controls.

Remember to stop when you get to one of these
The latest walk-out was prompted by concerns over reduced staffing levels in ticket offices, or pay, or the withdrawal of Quavers from canteen vending machines masquerading as some bull**** about safety.

But the action backfired when a group of frustrated would-be travellers stole keys and entered train cabs to discover that tube driving mainly involves pressing a button.

Civilian hijacker, Martin Bishop, said: “When we got in the cab we discovered there was just one button. A big, red button like a clown’s nose.

“You press it once to stop, once to go. And the train itself is on rails, so you don’t have to worry about steering.

“I thought to myself, ‘I can probably handle this’.”

He added: “Basically, working a train is not that hard and if I was getting forty grand a year to do it I’d probably keep my head down, perhaps even do cockney-style sing-a-longs over the PA to keep everyone sweet.

“In Paris they don’t even have human drivers, it’s all automatic and inside the cabs there’s just a baguette with a cap stuck on it.”

Meanwhile, other angry civilians broke into ticket offices and immediately began operating them in a friendly and polite manner.

Disgruntled punter Emma Bradford said: “Apparently reducing ticket office staffing levels in stations would make them less safe. But, while I can understand that in principle, last time I went to the ticket window and asked for a Zone 2 Travelcard, the man looked at me as if I’d just offered to fill his hat with some of my ****.

“So on that basis, I’m not entirely sure the same person could be relied upon to help if my hair was on fire.”

djpbarry

FTA69 wrote: »

Not at all, they're collectively withdrawing their labour in defence of their conditions and also in support of an important service within the Underground.

Whether or not a ticket office at every station is important seems to be a fundamental issue that people disagree on. Personally, I don’t think I’ve ever used a ticket office for anything, but I can understand their importance to tourists. But, would staff on the station concourse not be just as effective?

FTA69 wrote: »

It means that Boris Johnson is a right-wing arse who is a member of a party cutting public services to the bone.

Closing some ticket offices hardly constitutes cutting the tube service “to the bone”.

djpbarry

Fysh wrote: »

I'm also going to take a somewhat controversial stance on the whole "Tube is essential" angle - I disagree that it is essential. It is not impossible to get around London when the Tube isn't running, it's merely inconvenient - in some cases journey times are considerably longer, in other cases alternate routes are needed, in yet other cases you have to walk. But when some of the people complaining about the Tube being "essential" are people who didn't plan at all for the strike, turned up on the day wearing high heels and then spent 2 hours waiting for a bus because the notion of actually walking anywhere was anathema to them, I find it hard to believe.

You’re being just a touch harsh here. The point was made that London in its current form could not function for long without the tube and I don’t think there can be any reasonable argument against that – remove the tube and London’s economic output collapses.

As for alternatives to the tube, that’s not a reasonable argument. London’s transport system simply does not have the capacity to pick up the slack if the tube is not operational. Getting a bus during rush hour is difficult at the best of times – getting one in the absence of the tube was nigh on impossible. So, you’re relying on people to walk, cycle or drive. Plenty of people opted for the last option, hence the roads were choked for three days. As for the other options, as much as I’d like to the see the entire city walking or cycling to work, I have to concede it’s not realistic. I usually cycle to work (although I didn’t on one occasion last week because the wind was so strong I deemed it too dangerous), but let’s be honest, that’s not for everyone and for others the distance is just too great to walk (or maybe they’re just not capable).

Reekwind

djpbarry wrote: »

You’re being just a touch harsh here. The point was made that London in its current form could not function for long without the tube and I don’t think there can be any reasonable argument against that – remove the tube and London’s economic output collapses.

Keep in mind that the term 'essential' in this context refers to services that really are essential to the maintenance of society. If there is no fire brigade then London could burn, if there are no police force then law and order breaks down, if there are no hospitals then people die. And so on. The Tube is just not in that category

Whether or not a ticket office at every station is important seems to be a fundamental issue that people disagree on. Personally, I don’t think I’ve ever used a ticket office for anything, but I can understand their importance to tourists. But, would staff on the station concourse not be just as effective?

I doubt the latter (because look at the queues at offices today - the windows and barriers are there for a reason) but in truth I don't think anyone is overly fussed about the physical offices. It's the elimination of staff that's the issue - the idea that you can maintain the same level of service with (net) 750 odd less workers is questionable at best

djpbarry

Reekwind wrote: »

Keep in mind that the term 'essential' in this context refers to services that really are essential to the maintenance of society.

I never even used the word “essential” – you’re responding to a point I didn’t make.

Reekwind wrote: »

It's the elimination of staff that's the issue - the idea that you can maintain the same level of service with (net) 750 odd less workers is questionable at best

So more staff guarantees better service?

afatbollix

Lusas and the tram line from Wimbledon to Croydon work without ticket offices..

No reason the tube can't either. But I do agree that the tourist areas and main stations should keep ticket offices.

Reekwind

djpbarry wrote: »

I never even used the word “essential” – you’re responding to a point I didn’t make

So you're not suggesting that the Tube is important enough to be included in the list of essential services that have legal restrictions on striking? My mistake then

So more staff guarantees better service?

"Guarantee" is a strong word, and not one that I'd use, but the obverse is typically the case. Slashing a workforce while maintaining the same level of customer service requires a damn good process/tech solution to offset the manpower loss.

As tibor's link above noted, that's a pretty key question in this case: how to maintain existing service levels with a fraction of the resources? That's something that TfL have come nowhere near to answering.

djpbarry

Reekwind wrote: »

So you're not suggesting that the Tube is important enough to be included in the list of essential services that have legal restrictions on striking?

No, I’m saying that London would be screwed without the tube.

Reekwind wrote: »

"Guarantee" is a strong word, and not one that I'd use, but the obverse is typically the case. Slashing a workforce while maintaining the same level of customer service requires a damn good process/tech solution to offset the manpower loss.

Like automated ticket machines and driverless trains?

enda1

this conversation is going nowhere... just like the tube tomorrow :P

Reekwind

djpbarry wrote: »

Like automated ticket machines and driverless trains?

I'm fairly sure that the former already exist (and self-evidently don't address the core need for the offices) and the latter is not even on the table. (And wouldn't even address the customer service issue )

I mean, the key issue (in regards customer service, which is not the sole union complaint) is whether or not ticket offices and staff are required to maintain service levels. Can anyone explain to me how contactless cards or more ticket machines are going to alleviate the need for query points?

djpbarry

Reekwind wrote: »

I'm fairly sure that the former already exist (and self-evidently don't address the core need for the offices) and the latter is not even on the table.

The Victoria Line is automated - the guy/gal at the front of the train is there purely to open and close the doors. The DLR is also automated. There are several completely automated metro systems around the world, such as in Copenhagen, for example.

What's the relevance of the above? I don't think it's at all "self-evident" that ticket offices are required simply because they exist - tube drivers exist, but we don't actually need them.

Reekwind wrote: »

I mean, the key issue (in regards customer service, which is not the sole union complaint) is whether or not ticket offices and staff are required to maintain service levels. Can anyone explain to me how contactless cards or more ticket machines are going to alleviate the need for query points?

Once again, you are arguing against a point that nobody has made. At no stage has it been suggested that there should be no customer service representatives in stations. What is being questioned is whether those representatives need a dedicated office in every station.

Playboy

enda1 wrote: »

this conversation is going nowhere... just like the tube tomorrow :P

Yup, seems to be the same groups of people on the opposite sides of most issues on here! Don't see any of us convincing the others of the error of their ways! Maybe politics should be banned from the forum so we can get back to discussing the important things like beer and food!

Playboy

Looks like it has been called off now! Sense has prevailed

Fysh

Playboy wrote: »

Yup, seems to be the same groups of people on the opposite sides of most issues on here! Don't see any of us convincing the others of the error of their ways! Maybe politics should be banned from the forum so we can get back to discussing the important things like beer and food!

I can certainly see the logic in banning political conversations outright encouraging them to take place in a friendly environment, possibly over a tasty beverage or two...

Playboy wrote: »

Looks like it has been called off now! Sense has prevailed

Yep. The best comment I saw about the resumption of talks was from the Beeb's transport correspondent:
"What will be most depressing for commuters is the seeming inevitability of how this dispute panned out."

djpbarry

Playboy wrote: »

Yup, seems to be the same groups of people on the opposite sides of most issues on here! Don't see any of us convincing the others of the error of their ways! Maybe politics should be banned from the forum so we can get back to discussing the important things like beer and food!

On the contrary - I think it's heartening to see that people have taken an interest in the politics of their adopted home.

SarahBeep!

Does anyone know if there'll still be disruption this weekend?

Jack B. Badd

SarahBeep! wrote: »

Does anyone know if there'll still be disruption this weekend?

Just the usual. Take a look at tfl.gov.uk.

Reekwind

Fysh wrote: »

I can certainly see the logic in banning political conversations outright encouraging them to take place in a friendly environment, possibly over a tasty beverage or two...

Speaking of which, aren't we overdue a boisterous boards beers outing?

FTA69

Bob Crow died of a heart attack last night. RIP.