Jon the Hat

This is going to be very interesting. I assume this date was the end of a freeze period - they are not allowed to sell stock while they know quarterly results but the market doesn't - so it is not unusual to see execs selling some of their shares on a same or similar date, especially if the share price looks good after those results. What would be interesting is to see whether these were a large chunk of their shares or just a regular amount. Sounds like the SEC is looking into it so I am sure it will come out.

That is very fair. I also have no issue with people pointing to the US and saying "we don't want that", but with some perspective.

Are they? I mean the US is one thing, but do you think the UK government is failing to protect people from corporate greed? In what way? Mostly I hear people complaining about profits being too high at supermarkets! They are usually about 5% after tax. There are of course examples where the market is broken - I think the US healthcare model is weird, but lots of people think it delivers the best care in the world, at least to those on the inside of it. What I dislike is generalisms based on some examples in the US, which make no sense at all lterally anywhere else on the planet.

I hardly think this is fair.

Unlike in the UK where the ministers head up departments which can operate perfectly well on their own, I believe the in the US there are levels of political appointments which total in the thousands, so they have to appoint the heads, then they have to put together their teams, then they have a handover with the exiting teams, all in time for the inauguration.

You should be in cheese marketing. "Edam. reassuringly Dutch"

Bigotry in this case taught by their religion, which is a legally protected right, as long as it doesn't impinge on the legally protected rights of others. Him not wearing an armband impinges on no one at all, so he has the right to refuse on the basis of his religion. Personally I think all religion is literally bollocks so this makes no sense to me at all, but I don't believe employers should have the right to force their employees to show support for something they do not support, even if their belief is bigoted nonsense. They also should not have the right to punish an employee for this.

Two days and Ruud's turned him into an actual player.

You want him to wear an armband promoting diversity, because diversity is good, unless it is religious diversity? Not sure I understand your point. An awful lot of religious people pick and choose which part of their religious teaching they follow. Suck it up.

Probably they didn’t enjoy getting told off for their approved Christmas do.

Hmm. That was rubbish again.

Its ok, our players never fall out with the manager. He will get on great with Jannick who definitely hasn't fallen out with two already. Seriously though the players had a year of Enzo to get used to a manager with exacting standards, I think they will be fine.

Chelsea? We’re calling him ex Chelsea now? 1 goal was it?

Look at that face! He is very sorry.

I think he will bring a real energy, he has been in the Prem all season so he knows the opposition, he will also have lots of ideas on what he wants from the various supporting teams about the club. I wish him all the best!

The law is the law.

Top had no plan. Ruud is recently available in the news saying he wants a job in the UK. People bet on him.

I mean come on, they are Dutch. They are better looking than us, nicer than us, they have a wonderful liberal democracy, they speak multiple languages. We have a duty to mock their English accents.

Oh it definitely immoral, but this thread is full of serious criminals and exploitation. These people have been vilified in the press which is sufficient, I think. And they had to knock down their ugly spa thing which is very funny.

Does he have a backroom team? Or are we making it up as we go again?

How very Ruud.

They are nice in Germany! Gluhwein!

It doesn't appear they did anything illegal? To play devils advocate it sounds like she applied for the CEO role and negotiated a salary, agreed to publish three books in a private capacity using her family name, got paid for a personal appearance at an award ceremonty and tried to leverage the family name to avoid a planning dispute? If the publishers failed to put in the contract that some of the proceeds where to go to the charity they were incompetent in not doing so. Trustees did not have to appoint her as CEO, and if they felt that was the wrong thing to do they should have taken it to the charity commission at the time. Storm in an admittedly slightly unpleasant teacup.

This is what happens when council fail in their duty to provide proper waste and recycling services to residents. Resident act like arseholes.

I get you. Aliens recharging their craft remotely.