wrote in message ...
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 09:39:22 +0100
Robin9 wrote:
;153328 Wrote:

Unfortunately Goldsmith is a bit of a non-entity so Khan
has a good chance of winning.

--
Spud

Semantic casuistry time: Mr. Goldsmith isn't a non-entity;
he's a non-event sitting on a pile of unearned money. He
has established a definite public persona: "committed", wimpish
and negative, and he has gained much media attention so he's
not - alas - a non-entity.

Well , call him what you like but he's not mayoral material (and neither
is
Khan). You have to wonder if the Tory party want to lose the election by
choosing him.

He was the best of the bunch.

Not unreasonably, the London electorate want a mayor who has some commitment
to London and parachuting in a high flyer from the shires is unlikely to be
more successful.

Which means that you have to select from those few London MPs who have no
immediate aspiration for ministerial post and/or some unknown (outside his
own front room) councillor.

They were lucky to get someone of even Mr Goldsmith's calibre to stand IMHO.

tim

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Eric wrote:
On 2016-01-20, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 22:10:25 on Tue, 19
Jan 2016, Eric remarked:

[Train drivers]

overpaid is a matter of opinion. And anyone who has that opinion should
spend a few full shifts in the cab.

You could also say that about nurses in A&E and constables on the beat.
Both of whom earn about half that of a train driver.

Of course you could. OK then, overpaid and underpaid are both a matter
of opinion, and in many cases that opinion could be modified by spending
significant time observing the job concerned.

Even better, open up recruitment to anyone who wants to apply, not just
existing staff. That way the market can decide whether the job is over or
underpaid, so we won't need to rely on opinion.

How many weeks training are needed to become an LU driver?


Dunno about Lt, but quote from SWT:

"Our train driver training is extremely comprehensive and strict, and lasts
for up to 18 months"

tim

On 2016\01\20 17:01, d wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 16:46:56 +0100
Eric wrote:
On 2016-01-20, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 22:10:25 on Tue, 19
Jan 2016, Eric remarked:

[Train drivers]

overpaid is a matter of opinion. And anyone who has that opinion should
spend a few full shifts in the cab.

You could also say that about nurses in A&E and constables on the beat.
Both of whom earn about half that of a train driver.

Of course you could. OK then, overpaid and underpaid are both a matter
of opinion, and in many cases that opinion could be modified by spending
significant time observing the job concerned.

So other than getting up for early shifts occasionally (which many other
jobs require), fill us in on what is so taxing about the job of a tube driver
that justifies them being paid twice as much as a nurse or a bus driver or a
police constable. Obviously theres some incredibly intellectually or physically
demanding part of the job that we're just not aware of so please tell us what
it is.

Why don't you just google for the answers you got the last half dozen
times you asked that.

tim..... wrote:

wrote in message ...
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 09:39:22 +0100
Robin9 wrote:
d;153328 Wrote:

Unfortunately Goldsmith is a bit of a non-entity so Khan
has a good chance of winning.

--
Spud

Semantic casuistry time: Mr. Goldsmith isn't a non-entity;
he's a non-event sitting on a pile of unearned money. He
has established a definite public persona: "committed", wimpish
and negative, and he has gained much media attention so he's
not - alas - a non-entity.

Well , call him what you like but he's not mayoral material (and neither
is
Khan). You have to wonder if the Tory party want to lose the election by
choosing him.

He was the best of the bunch.

Not unreasonably, the London electorate want a mayor who has some commitment
to London and parachuting in a high flyer from the shires is unlikely to be
more successful.

Which means that you have to select from those few London MPs who have no
immediate aspiration for ministerial post and/or some unknown (outside his
own front room) councillor.

They were lucky to get someone of even Mr Goldsmith's calibre to stand IMHO.

Yes, I agree.

BTW, Boris was the Henley MP when he was elected mayor, so though
preferable, it's not essential that a candidate be a London MP.

In message , at 20:04:56 on Wed, 20 Jan
2016, tim..... remarked:

try working as a junior doctor for 70 hours a week making life and death
decisions on possibly an hourly basis

Not to mention the nine years training, and having to be "AAA" at A-
level material.

I don't think that's a "have to", it's just a convenient filter. IME
there's no equivalent academic expectation in many other countries for
"entry level" doctors.

Entry to medical training in the UK is highly competitive and greatly
(I've seen as much as 10x) oversubscribed.

politics Perhaps junior doctors need to remember the weren't forced to
study medicine /politics

Some require even more than AAA, for example Oxford:

"A-levels: A*AA, in three A-levels taken in one academic year
excluding Critical Thinking and General Studies. Candidates are
required to have Chemistry (compulsory), plus Biology and/or
Physics and/or Mathematics to full A-level."

Back in the day (early 70's) I had four A-levels in sciences; today
they'd be called A*AAC, but only three were taken the same year (one I
took the year after, having already confirmed a Uni place). Many
students went to Uni with two A-levels.

UCL's clinical medicine course entry averages 532 UCAS points (which is
halfway between A*A*AA and A*A*A*A).

My daughter is doing a related course at UCL which requires AAAA in
sciences, but that's OK because she has A*AAA. The biggest problem was
getting the school to agree to let her drop General Studies (which was
virtually compulsory), but simply a way to easily increase a school's
league table results - however clearly cuts no ice with the major
universities.

In retrospect, I don't think they had any argument with the A*AAA, not
including General Studies.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 20:29:45 +0000
Basil Jet wrote:
On 2016\01\20 17:01, d wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 16:46:56 +0100
Eric wrote:
On 2016-01-20, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 22:10:25 on Tue, 19
Jan 2016, Eric remarked:

[Train drivers]

overpaid is a matter of opinion. And anyone who has that opinion should
spend a few full shifts in the cab.

You could also say that about nurses in A&E and constables on the beat.
Both of whom earn about half that of a train driver.

Of course you could. OK then, overpaid and underpaid are both a matter
of opinion, and in many cases that opinion could be modified by spending
significant time observing the job concerned.

So other than getting up for early shifts occasionally (which many other
jobs require), fill us in on what is so taxing about the job of a tube driver
that justifies them being paid twice as much as a nurse or a bus driver or a
police constable. Obviously theres some incredibly intellectually or
physically
demanding part of the job that we're just not aware of so please tell us what
it is.

Why don't you just google for the answers you got the last half dozen
times you asked that.

Why don't you butt out of a thread you have nothing to add to? FYI I have
googled on numerous occasions and I've yet to see ANYTHING which justifies
their grossly inflated salary. Though if you know otherwise feel free to
fill us in with your extensive knowledge on the subject.

--
Spud

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 20:04:56 -0000
"tim....." wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 11:18:34 on Wed, 20 Jan
2016, d remarked:

try working as a junior doctor for 70 hours a week making life and death
decisions on possibly an hourly basis

Not to mention the nine years training, and having to be "AAA" at A-level
material.

I don't think that's a "have to", it's just a convenient filter. IME
there's no equivalent academic expectation in many other countries for
"entry level" doctors.

If you're talking some 3rd world dump then no doubt, but one would hope most
if not all western nations do initial selection on candidates based on
intellectual ability.

--
Spud

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 20:14:01 -0000
"tim....." wrote:
"Our train driver training is extremely comprehensive and strict, and lasts
for up to 18 months"

I suspect most of that is route learning. Learning to drive the train and
troubleshoot minor issues probably takes a week at most. I learnt to drive
an HGV and do all the checks in 4 days.

--
Spud

On 20/01/2016 16:19, Steve Fitzgerald wrote:
In message , Roland Perry
writes

but most people agree that train drivers are overpaid for their four
day week.

If only!

Which bit? The overpaid (compared to average wages then it could be
argued yes) or the 4 day week? If the latter:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...-a3161856.html

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:26:27 +0000
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 20/01/2016 16:19, Steve Fitzgerald wrote:
In message , Roland Perry
writes

but most people agree that train drivers are overpaid for their four
day week.

If only!

Which bit? The overpaid (compared to average wages then it could be
argued yes) or the 4 day week? If the latter:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/trans...nd-four-day-wo
k-week-in-bid-to-avert-strikes-over-night-tube-a3161856.html

Who wouldn't need 3 days off after the exhusting job of pressing a couple of
buttons every 2 minutes.

--
Spud