Baxter Parp Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Basing your UK-wide legal department in the part of the country where the vast majority of those qualified to staff it are based is "bizarre" now is it? You could do with providing a little evidence yourself. Any chance of that any time soon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 You could do with providing a little evidence yourself. Any chance of that any time soon? Evidence of what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Evidence of what? Legal departments should be based where there are most qualified solicitors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 The bare-faced cheek you have in asking for evidence when you have provided precisely none to support your bizarre theory is duly noted. Lawyers already work for public services in Scotland, therefore public services can hire solicitors. QED. Your turn. I don't have a theory. I've asked the people claiming (with their bizarre theory) that it would be viable and desirable to move the BBC legal team to Glasgow to provide some evidence that a) the pool of lawyers would be of the quantity and quality necessary to maintain the same quality of legal service and b) to provide solutions to the additional cost and practical obstacles of having a Glasgow-based legal team dealing almost exclusively with matters of English law, contracts written with English parties, with English jurisdiction clauses, threats of legal action under English laws before English courts and who will from time to time need face-to-face contact with agents of clients, most of which will be based... in London. This is basic burden of proof stuff. If you think it's a good and viable idea, show us the numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 I don't have a theory. I've asked the people claiming (with their bizarre theory) that it would be viable and desirable to move the BBC legal team to Glasgow to provide some evidence that a) the pool of lawyers would be of the quantity and quality necessary to maintain the same quality of legal service and b) to provide solutions to the additional cost and practical obstacles of having a Glasgow-based legal team dealing almost exclusively with matters of English law, contracts written with English parties, with English jurisdiction clauses, threats of legal action under English laws before English courts and who will from time to time need face-to-face contact with agents of clients, most of which will be based... in London. This is basic burden of proof stuff. If you think it's a good and viable idea, show us the numbers. A/ There is no reason to believe that a majority of staff would refuse to move since Scotland isn't the backwater hellhole you make it out to be. There is no reason to believe that additional staff could not be found since the BBC already successfully employs many, many lawyers at current pay rates as does the Scottish Government, MOD, HMRC, NHS, etc. It's a pretty obvious and desperate strawman. B/ You act as if this sort of thing isn't encountered every day in practically every legal department in the UK. The fact that we have two different legal systems, and have had them for hundreds of years, is not an unexpected barrier, it's a fact of life. Please feel free to prove me wrong. I've already said they could maintain a regional office in London. In fact the BBC employs lawyers all over the country already, there's no reason why there wouldn't be some in London. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mushroom Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 It's xbl being a child, vikingTON slavering for meat in the absence of a willing zero-pointer and Swampy trying to jump on the bandwagon without actually jumping on the bandwagon. The rest are just cheerleaders. I'm not a Unionist and will be voting Yes in the referendum. I call him a Unionist because 99% of his posts back the Unionist point of view. Baxter pointed out a good description. He's a "concern troll". When he stops posting like a Unionist, I'll stop calling him a Unionist. Point taken. Also, I'm not as box office as I once was, is a zero-pointer something to do with the influential poster/worst poster threads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Point taken. Also, I'm not as box office as I once was, is a zero-pointer something to do with the influential poster/worst poster threads? Most Influential poster thread. vikingTON's been going around calling people who weren't nominated "zero-pointers". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 A/ There is no reason to believe that a majority of staff would refuse to move since Scotland isn't the backwater hellhole you make it out to be. There is no reason to believe that additional staff could not be found since the BBC already successfully employs many, many lawyers at current pay The BBC had to pay £24 million in bribes to get staff to move to Manchester from London. And of course, staff who choose not to move to this new Scottish based BBC Legal will be entitled to huge redundancy payments instead. This is a real money saver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davi3j Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 The BBC had to pay £24 million in bribes to get staff to move to Manchester from London. And of course, staff who choose not to move to this new Scottish based BBC Legal will be entitled to huge redundancy payments instead. This is a real money saver. this is getting tedious...evedence?...source?...anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 A/ There is no reason to believe that a majority of staff would refuse to move since Scotland isn't the backwater hellhole you make it out to be. There is no reason to believe that additional staff could not be found since the BBC already successfully employs many, many lawyers at current pay rates as does the Scottish Government, MOD, HMRC, NHS, etc. It's a pretty obvious and desperate strawman. B/ You act as if this sort of thing isn't encountered every day in practically every legal department in the UK. The fact that we have two different legal systems, and have had them for hundreds of years, is not an unexpected barrier, it's a fact of life. Please feel free to prove me wrong. I've already said they could maintain a regional office in London. In fact the BBC employs lawyers all over the country already, there's no reason why there wouldn't be some in London. Hardly any UK-wide firms with the overwhelming majority of their work in English law will actively choose to have their principal law office north of the border. Name me, say, five such firms to have done this. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 this is getting tedious...evedence?...source?...anything? He's referring to what's cited in here, I'll guess: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10056497/BBC-staff-paid-up-to-150000-to-move-to-Salford.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 That's right... I particularly enjoy this - "According to figures in the report, a total of 175 staff have taken advantage of a halfway-house deal, officially called a "remote relocation allowance", under which they keep their main home in London but have rent and some of their travel expenses paid." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Hardly any UK-wide firms with the overwhelming majority of their work in English law will actively choose to have their principal law office north of the border. Name me, say, five such firms to have done this. Good luck. Given that property prices in Edinburgh are quite high, I'm really not sure why prominent Edinburgh firms haven't looked at relocating to areas such as Middlesbrough, which would be a lot cheaper to run offices in and would be much less expensive for staff to buy or rent accomodation in. Could be they need the Baxter Parp/Wee Bully guide to success. I'd have thought they'd have noticed this before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davi3j Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 He's referring to what's cited in here, I'll guess: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10056497/BBC-staff-paid-up-to-150000-to-move-to-Salford.html yeah I read thar already...no reference to £24 million with or with out bribes...nope yous need to do better than that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 yeah I read thar already...no reference to £24 million with or with out bribes...nope yous need to do better than that Your reading ability is clearly directly proportional to your posting ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Who are they? Are they using it to describe what I'm describing? It is difficult because you're being deliberately evasive about 'context' and 'bedfellows', stopping very carefully short of actually saying anything. A quick google of white settlers - Scotland comes up with the Scottish Republican Socialist Movement and Siol Nan Gaidheal in the first three links who don't sound like your sort of people at all which would make them strange bedfellows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xbl Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Point taken. As I said, I respond to the content of his posts. If 99% of his posts are a tearful defence of the institutions of the Union, then why shouldn't I treat him as a Unionist? Reynard also got sniffy when I used to call him a Unionist. Lo and behold, a few months later, he came out as a Unionist. On another note, I'm continuing to enjoy watching the Unionist legal squad goalpost shifting. Note that they have provided precisely no evidence that there are not a significant number of dual qualified lawyers in Scotland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H_B Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 Note that they have provided precisely no evidence that there are not a significant number of dual qualified lawyers in Scotland. Very amusing. Make a claim, get challenged on it, and ask those disputing it to provide evidence to support the negative. A sizeable number of Yes supporters are xenophobic anti-English racists. Note that I won't be providing evidence to support this contention - it will be for those who dispute it, assuming any do dispute it, to provide evidence showing that there are not a sizeable number of anti-English xenophobic racist Yes supporters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Bully Posted August 19, 2013 Author Share Posted August 19, 2013 Given that property prices in Edinburgh are quite high, I'm really not sure why prominent Edinburgh firms haven't looked at relocating to areas such as Middlesbrough, which would be a lot cheaper to run offices in and would be much less expensive for staff to buy or rent accomodation in. Could be they need the Baxter Parp/Wee Bully guide to success. I'd have thought they'd have noticed this before. Really? Firms (or service providers) in relationship based professions are generally based where their clients are. So, if a firm provinding Scots Law advice was based in Middlesbrough, then they might find some difficulty in servcing their clients. However, in-house roles? Different set of criteria. And if a mass of people requiring Scots Law advice based themselves in Middlesbrough, then the firms would follow. So, what exactly is your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted August 19, 2013 Share Posted August 19, 2013 The BBC had to pay £24 million in bribes to get staff to move to Manchester from London. And of course, staff who choose not to move to this new Scottish based BBC Legal will be entitled to huge redundancy payments instead. This is a real money saver. I never said it was, the point is to get the BBC to spend money North of the border. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.