Questions Thread

[Facecloth]

2 hours ago, Izzy said:

k3iTh asked for it to be removed. The relentless abuse took it's toll on the old boy eventually 

Coming from the man who said he'd use his email to sign up for marketing sites 

[Izzy]

7 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

Coming from the man who said he'd use his email to sign up for marketing sites 

I know, I felt a bit guilty afterwards tbh 

 

I blame @Costock_Fox and @Vacamion who are both clearly bad influences on me 

[Facecloth]

2 minutes ago, Izzy said:

I know, I felt a bit guilty afterwards tbh 

 

I blame @Costock_Fox and @Vacamion who are both clearly bad influences on me 

They say the same about you 

[Costock_Fox]

2 minutes ago, Izzy said:

I know, I felt a bit guilty afterwards tbh 

 

I blame @Costock_Fox and @Vacamion who are both clearly bad influences on me 

Yeah definitely some guilt coming from my side on that front, sorry I’m a wa nker  @ktfox59 

[Vacamion]

 

I did try and tell Keith that we were only pulling his leg and it was good natured banter, and I think he was joining in to some extent by the end.

 

Having posted to ask for the thread to be removed, he then posted a suggestion that a doctored picture of the shirt was funny.

 

Anyway, it was his thread, so his right to take it down.

 

I still doubt that he's going to find anyone willing to pay 500 smackers for it, but I wish him well on his quest.

 

[ktfox59]

1 hour ago, Vacamion said:

 

I did try and tell Keith that we were only pulling his leg and it was good natured banter, and I think he was joining in to some extent by the end.

 

Having posted to ask for the thread to be removed, he then posted a suggestion that a doctored picture of the shirt was funny.

 

Anyway, it was his thread, so his right to take it down.

 

I still doubt that he's going to find anyone willing to pay 500 smackers for it, but I wish him well on his quest.

 

Lovely post mate. Thank you. The very best was the c0ck one as denis wises signature. Loved it. Yes it wss banter. I was pissed off trying to put the pic of it😂😂😂 i hsve to be in right place of hard vore fans who wanys a piece of the clubs history. Lol. Obv not here with thr plastics😂😂😂

[chuck'em]

I've got a question about employment law. 

 

As an employee I have a contract that states my working hours are normally 40 per week, and additional hours if necessary.

 

If for 3 weeks in a row I worked 45 hours to help out in a busy period but then on the 4th week there isn't as much work, is my employer entitled to only give me (and pay me for) 25 hours as this averages out at 40?

There is nothing in my contract mentioning an average over any period. 

Edited 14 August 2020 by chuck'em

[FoxesDeb]

I don't know the official answer, but if your contract states 40 hours per week I would expect them to pay you for this? Did they pay you for the extra 15 hours you worked? Are you paid a monthly salary, so your pay is the same for the month? 

[chuck'em]

4 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

I don't know the official answer, but if your contract states 40 hours per week I would expect them to pay you for this? Did they pay you for the extra 15 hours you worked? Are you paid a monthly salary, so your pay is the same for the month? 

It's hourly pay so i get paid for what ever I work. In this scenario my pay would be the same as if I worked 40 hours each week, but I feel that working the extra when the company needs it shouldn't then result in hours being cut on other weeks. 

[FoxesDeb]

45 minutes ago, chuck'em said:

It's hourly pay so i get paid for what ever I work. In this scenario my pay would be the same as if I worked 40 hours each week, but I feel that working the extra when the company needs it shouldn't then result in hours being cut on other weeks. 

So you're not losing any money and you still have your job and you've worked the same hours? 

[Steve_Walsh5]

59 minutes ago, chuck'em said:

It's hourly pay so i get paid for what ever I work. In this scenario my pay would be the same as if I worked 40 hours each week, but I feel that working the extra when the company needs it shouldn't then result in hours being cut on other weeks. 

You should be paid whatever you’re contracted too regardless whether they haven’t got much work or not. It’s not your fault they haven’t got enough work for you. 
 

That is unless your contract states that scenario could happen. I’m contracted to 38.33 hours per week. Anything over that I want paying for overtime. 

[The Bear]

You'd definitely be able to claim overtime for hours worked over the 40 per week. 

[chuck'em]

43 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

So you're not losing any money and you still have your job and you've worked the same hours? 

Yes that's right. 

 

But I'm not asking whether I should be grateful to still be working in the current environment. I'm trying to find out whether my company is legally obliged to pay me for the hours on the contract they offered me every single week or whether they can average it out over a given period. 

[murphy]

SEISS 2 question for the self-employed.

 

I believe you can only claim if you can prove that your business has been adversely affected?  My small business, selling antiques is doing OK, selling at least as well as this time last year, perhaps better, however, my buying opportunities have been limited by the virus and I'm running with stock levels of about 60% of what they were or should be.  This means that any problems or adverse affects will likely hit me in the future as turnover will drop as I burn through stock.

 

So my question is, should I claim the grant?  Have I been adversely affected enough?  I can't really prove what my stock levels were last year.  I feel like we should take whatever we are offered as we will certainly be paying it all back for many years to come.

[Izzy]

2 hours ago, murphy said:

SEISS 2 question for the self-employed.

 

I believe you can only claim if you can prove that your business has been adversely affected?  My small business, selling antiques is doing OK, selling at least as well as this time last year, perhaps better, however, my buying opportunities have been limited by the virus and I'm running with stock levels of about 60% of what they were or should be.  This means that any problems or adverse affects will likely hit me in the future as turnover will drop as I burn through stock.

 

So my question is, should I claim the grant?  Have I been adversely affected enough?  I can't really prove what my stock levels were last year.  I feel like we should take whatever we are offered as we will certainly be paying it all back for many years to come.

Do you have premises mate as in a shop, or is it all sold online?

 

I’m sure I read that if you have premises you can claim the grant.

[murphy]

5 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Do you have premises mate as in a shop, or is it all sold online?

 

I’m sure I read that if you have premises you can claim the grant.

No, just online.

 

Used to do fairs once upon a time but I'm just too lazy and there's really no point.  Online sales are much better, easier and there's no haggling etc.  It's the easiest job in the world.

 

One of the criteria you can claim for is interruption in supply chain which I reckon I can just about qualify for.  I'm just a bit terrified of HMRC.  Get it wrong and you have to pay it back, get a fine and they'll be all over you.

[Benguin]

19 hours ago, chuck'em said:

I've got a question about employment law. 

 

As an employee I have a contract that states my working hours are normally 40 per week, and additional hours if necessary.

 

If for 3 weeks in a row I worked 45 hours to help out in a busy period but then on the 4th week there isn't as much work, is my employer entitled to only give me (and pay me for) 25 hours as this averages out at 40?

There is nothing in my contract mentioning an average over any period. 

Is there anything in your contract about hours in lieu? It’s pretty common in the industry I work in. We are paid 42 hours per week irregardless of how much we work but are given hours back when the operation is quiet. Could work 4 hours one week and still paid for 42 but then also could work 60 hours and still paid 42. In my case it’s actually a positive as they have to pay out over hours if you leave but not claim back under hours and often staff leave owing hours rather than having them owed. 

[Izzy]

19 minutes ago, murphy said:

No, just online.

 

Used to do fairs once upon a time but I'm just too lazy and there's really no point.  Online sales are much better, easier and there's no haggling etc.  It's the easiest job in the world.

 

One of the criteria you can claim for is interruption in supply chain which I reckon I can just about qualify for.  I'm just a bit terrified of HMRC.  Get it wrong and you have to pay it back, get a fine and they'll be all over you.

Yeah me too 

 

Do you use an accountant? If so, I'd check with them and get advice.

 

My guess is the government are dealing with millions of claims like this and haven't got the resources to check each one.

 

I'd probably stick the claim in based on your supply chain criteria and if they cough up, happy days. I'll be amazed if there's any come back after.

[murphy]

22 minutes ago, Izzy said:

Yeah me too 

 

Do you use an accountant? If so, I'd check with them and get advice.

 

My guess is the government are dealing with millions of claims like this and haven't got the resources to check each one.

 

I'd probably stick the claim in based on your supply chain criteria and if they cough up, happy days. I'll be amazed if there's any come back after.

 

No, I do my own tax return in crayon.  Mine is the easiest job in the world but not the best paid, so I make it u... I mean ... do it... myself.

[chuck'em]

17 hours ago, Benguin said:

Is there anything in your contract about hours in lieu? It’s pretty common in the industry I work in. We are paid 42 hours per week irregardless of how much we work but are given hours back when the operation is quiet. Could work 4 hours one week and still paid for 42 but then also could work 60 hours and still paid 42. In my case it’s actually a positive as they have to pay out over hours if you leave but not claim back under hours and often staff leave owing hours rather than having them owed. 

Nothing about hours in lieu. The contract mentions normal hours, plus more if necessary. No mention of less hours, hours in lieu or average weekly hours

 

Edited 16 August 2020 by chuck'em

[Izzy]

On 15/08/2020 at 10:52, murphy said:

SEISS 2 question for the self-employed.

 

I believe you can only claim if you can prove that your business has been adversely affected?  My small business, selling antiques is doing OK, selling at least as well as this time last year, perhaps better, however, my buying opportunities have been limited by the virus and I'm running with stock levels of about 60% of what they were or should be.  This means that any problems or adverse affects will likely hit me in the future as turnover will drop as I burn through stock.

 

So my question is, should I claim the grant?  Have I been adversely affected enough?  I can't really prove what my stock levels were last year.  I feel like we should take whatever we are offered as we will certainly be paying it all back for many years to come.

Fill yer boots mate 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53783797

 

Coronavirus: Claims open for second self-employed support grant

[Nuneatonfox in Manchester]

Looking for some advice.

 

Early Thursday morning I was assaulted by a couple of guys outside a bar. I fell and hit my head on the ground, hard.

 

My mate called an ambulance as I lost consciousness and was unresponsive. I remember waking up in the ambulance and being taken to a largely empty A&E department of hospital 1. I was vomiting and exhibiting other signs of concussion. Eventually I was given a CT scan which I was told was clear and my BP was fine as well, so I was released pretty much immediately. I wasn’t given any advice on when to come back in, how long I needed to rest etc they just wanted me out. I feel I should make it clear that I was not overly drunk, abusive, loud or otherwise a pain to deal with- I just lay there. I wasn’t given any Ice for my head or any prescription for pain meds.

 

I went to work the following day and had a headache and still felt dazed which I Just assumed was normal. Over the weekend I had the absolute worst head and neck pain imaginable, kind of like a two day migraine with ringing in my ears and more vomiting. I took migraine medication and called 111 who advised I go to A&E. It was Saturday night and obviously we are in the middle of a pandemic and my vision was unaffected without any more loss of consciousness. So, coupled with the clear CT scan and pressure from my girlfriend to avoid exposing my self to a hospital environment again we decided not to go to A&E.

 

Monday morning and still a severe headache and ear ringing I thought **** this I’m going to a different A&E.

I arrive at hospital 2, all day waiting - very busy so understandable,  especially because I had a clear CT scan already. Eventually the doctor sees me and does decide through advice from a more senior doctor to do a second CT scan. Results come in and I have a fractured skull. I asked how it was missed in the scan in hospital 1, he said he didn’t know. I asked if it was small enough to be unrecognisable to a more junior doctor, he said not really no, it was pretty clear.

 

Was this malpractice? I am very angry with how I was treated in hospital 1, I feel like I was considered less of a priority because I had been drinking.

Legally, would I have a case?

[StanSP]

5 minutes ago, Nuneatonfox in Manchester said:

Looking for some advice.

 

Early Thursday morning I was assaulted by a couple of guys outside a bar. I fell and hit my head on the ground, hard.

 

My mate called an ambulance as I lost consciousness and was unresponsive. I remember waking up in the ambulance and being taken to a largely empty A&E department of hospital 1. I was vomiting and exhibiting other signs of concussion. Eventually I was given a CT scan which I was told was clear and my BP was fine as well, so I was released pretty much immediately. I wasn’t given any advice on when to come back in, how long I needed to rest etc they just wanted me out. I feel I should make it clear that I was not overly drunk, abusive, loud or otherwise a pain to deal with- I just lay there. I wasn’t given any Ice for my head or any prescription for pain meds.

 

I went to work the following day and had a headache and still felt dazed which I Just assumed was normal. Over the weekend I had the absolute worst head and neck pain imaginable, kind of like a two day migraine with ringing in my ears and more vomiting. I took migraine medication and called 111 who advised I go to A&E. It was Saturday night and obviously we are in the middle of a pandemic and my vision was unaffected without any more loss of consciousness. So, coupled with the clear CT scan and pressure from my girlfriend to avoid exposing my self to a hospital environment again we decided not to go to A&E.

 

Monday morning and still a severe headache and ear ringing I thought **** this I’m going to a different A&E.

I arrive at hospital 2, all day waiting - very busy so understandable,  especially because I had a clear CT scan already. Eventually the doctor sees me and does decide through advice from a more senior doctor to do a second CT scan. Results come in and I have a fractured skull. I asked how it was missed in the scan in hospital 1, he said he didn’t know. I asked if it was small enough to be unrecognisable to a more junior doctor, he said not really no, it was pretty clear.

 

Was this malpractice? I am very angry with how I was treated in hospital 1, I feel like I was considered less of a priority because I had been drinking.

Legally, would I have a case?

No idea but that sounds fvcking rough and I hope you recover. 

 

Staggered that a fractured skull gets missed unless it's small enough to be so but the 2nd doctor says otherwise. 

 

Could you get doctors to look at the first CT Scan and see what they say and if it could have legit been missed? 

[Nuneatonfox in Manchester]

Cheers, I’m just glad I’ve now got some decent pain killers!

 

I have to go and see a specialist  at hospital 1 in a couple of days. So yeah, good point I will ask them if they can look at the first scan to clarify.

[StanSP]

11 minutes ago, Nuneatonfox in Manchester said:

Cheers, I’m just glad I’ve now got some decent pain killers!

 

I have to go and see a specialist  at hospital 1 in a couple of days. So yeah, good point I will ask them if they can look at the first scan to clarify.

Good stuff. 

 

Also, sorry for attacking you. Didn't think it'd be that serious.