Land Registry staff set to strike over job and privatisation fears.

Land Registry staff set to strike over job and privatisation fears.

Land Registry staff set to strike over job and privatisation fears.

First published in News

WEYMOUTH'S Land Registry staff are set to walk out for 48-hours over fears about privatisation and job cuts.

The Public and Commercial Services(PCS) union has said that members at the building on the Granby Industrial Estate will join colleagues from across England and Wales in the stike.

The two-day strike is over fears that the agency could be privatised and that jobs could be cut.

The walkout, among the union's 3,000 members in 14 locations in England and Wales, will be on Wednesday 14 and Thursday 15 May.

There are 230 staff at the Weymouth office about three-quarters of whom are union members.

A consultation into the Land Registry's future closed in March, but union bosses said they have been told no decision has been reached.

A spokesman for the union said that despite repeated requests, Land Registry bosses have refused to rule out compulsory redundancies and office closures as 'the government appears to favour pressing ahead with privatisation.'

The spokesman said: “Business minister Michael Fallon is officially still considering responses to his consultation into the Land Registry's future, with options being to move it from the civil service to a 'government owned company', into a joint venture with a private company, or to maintain it in public ownership.”

The union said it believes the majority of consultation responses, including professionals and lawyers in the property industry, are opposed to any change of status.

Chairman of the PCS branch at Weymouth Land Registry Andy Woodgate said morale at the offices in Melcombe Court was 'at rock bottom.'

He said: “The situation is two fold. It's to do with the privatisation threat. We believe it's now very much on the cards.”

Figures from the Land Registry suggest they have a 98 percent customer satisfaction rating and last year made £98 million for the Treasury.

Mr Woodgate said: “We are helping to reduce the deficit- why do you want to privatise us? When we have performed very well both in value for money terms and customer service terms.”

Mr Woodgate said staff felt frustrated about not being told what was going to happen and they felt 'lives were on hold.'

Talks are ongoing and Mr Woodgate said the strike could be called off if talks were 'constructive' or if there was a retraction away from the ideas of privatisation or office closures.

We said: “We have to do something before it's too late.”

Comments (18)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:43pm Tue 6 May 14

MrTomSmith says...

Needs privatisation so no sympathy here I am afraid.
Needs privatisation so no sympathy here I am afraid. MrTomSmith
  • Score: -29

4:54pm Tue 6 May 14

Dorset Guy1 says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
Needs privatisation so no sympathy here I am afraid.
Why - If it makes a profit why move it to a rip off Private Company The Government have been ripped off too often
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: Needs privatisation so no sympathy here I am afraid.[/p][/quote]Why - If it makes a profit why move it to a rip off Private Company The Government have been ripped off too often Dorset Guy1
  • Score: 45

6:10pm Tue 6 May 14

Weyhassled says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
Needs privatisation so no sympathy here I am afraid.
would you care to enlighten us as to why this is the case and set out your evidence. The Land Registry contributed millions to the treasury from last year, we are a monopoly and deliver efficiency savings every year, productivity to you, I have worked there for over 30 years so do feel qualified to comment, I would suggest anyone interested has a look at the guardian website, very interesting!!!
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: Needs privatisation so no sympathy here I am afraid.[/p][/quote]would you care to enlighten us as to why this is the case and set out your evidence. The Land Registry contributed millions to the treasury from last year, we are a monopoly and deliver efficiency savings every year, productivity to you, I have worked there for over 30 years so do feel qualified to comment, I would suggest anyone interested has a look at the guardian website, very interesting!!! Weyhassled
  • Score: 29

6:57pm Tue 6 May 14

Get a grip says...

Weyhassled wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
Needs privatisation so no sympathy here I am afraid.
would you care to enlighten us as to why this is the case and set out your evidence. The Land Registry contributed millions to the treasury from last year, we are a monopoly and deliver efficiency savings every year, productivity to you, I have worked there for over 30 years so do feel qualified to comment, I would suggest anyone interested has a look at the guardian website, very interesting!!!
It may be that tom smith has no idea about how the registry works.
[quote][p][bold]Weyhassled[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: Needs privatisation so no sympathy here I am afraid.[/p][/quote]would you care to enlighten us as to why this is the case and set out your evidence. The Land Registry contributed millions to the treasury from last year, we are a monopoly and deliver efficiency savings every year, productivity to you, I have worked there for over 30 years so do feel qualified to comment, I would suggest anyone interested has a look at the guardian website, very interesting!!![/p][/quote]It may be that tom smith has no idea about how the registry works. Get a grip
  • Score: 18

6:59pm Tue 6 May 14

cosmick says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
Needs privatisation so no sympathy here I am afraid.
Some people talk out of there R *ss
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: Needs privatisation so no sympathy here I am afraid.[/p][/quote]Some people talk out of there R *ss cosmick
  • Score: 24

8:38pm Tue 6 May 14

Micke12 says...

Dorset Guy1 wrote:
MrTomSmith wrote:
Needs privatisation so no sympathy here I am afraid.
Why - If it makes a profit why move it to a rip off Private Company The Government have been ripped off too often
Dorset Guy1, I am certain that you meant the taxpayer has been ripped off, not the government, although the government are probably guilty of mismanaging the public purse in any event... All of the governments money comes from tax revenues, some 8 or more different taxes, some of us pay many of these taxes but some people evade their tax liability , especially multinational companies that shift their financial location to somewhere that has little or no taxes to pay, such as the Bahamas and Jersey to name a couple.

If the Land Registry, after all outgoings, including wages and stationary expenses has made a substantial profit for the revenue, then there is no way that it should be sold to the private sector.

If this strike action is purely about the things outlined in this story, then I support all the staff at the Land Registry wholeheartedly. This government, just like the Thatcher government, is hell bent on selling all publicly owned assets for a quick, but not sustainable rush of income to the treasury coffers, but once the money from this sort of sale is used up, you cannot sell the same asset again. You need to use the revenues gained by the publicly owned asset to offset any deficit in the country's fiscal balance sheet, and keep using it as long as it is making a profit. I could see the reason for selling if the organisation was making a net loss over the financial year, but year on year, this organisation has made profits and improved customer satisfaction. What, therefore, is the logic of selling off a profitable and profit making asset for short-term gains.
[quote][p][bold]Dorset Guy1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: Needs privatisation so no sympathy here I am afraid.[/p][/quote]Why - If it makes a profit why move it to a rip off Private Company The Government have been ripped off too often[/p][/quote]Dorset Guy1, I am certain that you meant the taxpayer has been ripped off, not the government, although the government are probably guilty of mismanaging the public purse in any event... All of the governments money comes from tax revenues, some 8 or more different taxes, some of us pay many of these taxes but some people evade their tax liability , especially multinational companies that shift their financial location to somewhere that has little or no taxes to pay, such as the Bahamas and Jersey to name a couple. If the Land Registry, after all outgoings, including wages and stationary expenses has made a substantial profit for the revenue, then there is no way that it should be sold to the private sector. If this strike action is purely about the things outlined in this story, then I support all the staff at the Land Registry wholeheartedly. This government, just like the Thatcher government, is hell bent on selling all publicly owned assets for a quick, but not sustainable rush of income to the treasury coffers, but once the money from this sort of sale is used up, you cannot sell the same asset again. You need to use the revenues gained by the publicly owned asset to offset any deficit in the country's fiscal balance sheet, and keep using it as long as it is making a profit. I could see the reason for selling if the organisation was making a net loss over the financial year, but year on year, this organisation has made profits and improved customer satisfaction. What, therefore, is the logic of selling off a profitable and profit making asset for short-term gains. Micke12
  • Score: 20

8:52pm Tue 6 May 14

ziggystardust says...

Like striking is the way to prove you aren't inefficient and on a gravy-train.
Like striking is the way to prove you aren't inefficient and on a gravy-train. ziggystardust
  • Score: -12

6:22am Wed 7 May 14

mazandkaz says...

As an ex employee of 30 years I am fed up with people who have pre conceived ideas of civil servants and the Land Registry. Land Registration is a very specialised field that takes years of training to gain experience. It is a job that requires a lot of knowledge which is gained over years, not weeks. The staff at the Land Registry work hard to achieve targets, and have to cope with an enormous amount of change. To privatise the Land Registry would be a travesty. It is a profit making organisation, and if there were to be redundancies or office closures then a lot of knowledge gained over many years would be wasted.
As an ex employee of 30 years I am fed up with people who have pre conceived ideas of civil servants and the Land Registry. Land Registration is a very specialised field that takes years of training to gain experience. It is a job that requires a lot of knowledge which is gained over years, not weeks. The staff at the Land Registry work hard to achieve targets, and have to cope with an enormous amount of change. To privatise the Land Registry would be a travesty. It is a profit making organisation, and if there were to be redundancies or office closures then a lot of knowledge gained over many years would be wasted. mazandkaz
  • Score: 23

6:23am Wed 7 May 14

Genghis says...

MrTomSmith wrote:
Needs privatisation so no sympathy here I am afraid.
Succinct and to the point. However, would you clarify how privatisation will, in the words of one of the government's consultation questions, "... provides the right checks and balances to protect the integrity of the Register and safeguard the provision of indemnities and state title guarantee?"

You can find the Law Society's response to that question, and their other concerns, here: file:///C:/Users/Gen
ghis/Downloads/land-
registry-service-del
ivery-consultation.p
df

Why, in your view does Land Registry need to be privatised. It's certainly not a view shared by it's customers. Many of whom, the Law Society being one, have grave concerns over the impartiality of a privately run Land Registry.

I look forward to your reply.
[quote][p][bold]MrTomSmith[/bold] wrote: Needs privatisation so no sympathy here I am afraid.[/p][/quote]Succinct and to the point. However, would you clarify how privatisation will, in the words of one of the government's consultation questions, "... provides the right checks and balances to protect the integrity of the Register and safeguard the provision of indemnities and state title guarantee?" You can find the Law Society's response to that question, and their other concerns, here: file:///C:/Users/Gen ghis/Downloads/land- registry-service-del ivery-consultation.p df Why, in your view does Land Registry need to be privatised. It's certainly not a view shared by it's customers. Many of whom, the Law Society being one, have grave concerns over the impartiality of a privately run Land Registry. I look forward to your reply. Genghis
  • Score: 15

8:01am Wed 7 May 14

woodsedge says...

Another opportunity for this sad excuse of a government to undervalue a public asset, privatise it and put more money in the pockets of their ex public school chums. We have all seen how Royal Mail was flogged off for peanuts and how well the banks and the governments so called expert advisers benefited from the sell off. Well expect more of the same.
Another opportunity for this sad excuse of a government to undervalue a public asset, privatise it and put more money in the pockets of their ex public school chums. We have all seen how Royal Mail was flogged off for peanuts and how well the banks and the governments so called expert advisers benefited from the sell off. Well expect more of the same. woodsedge
  • Score: 21

10:21am Wed 7 May 14

cj07589 says...

This is a terrible proposal when land deals are being researched and agreed the last thing you need is profiteering notwithstanding the potential conflict of interest that would ensure. Buying and selling property is expensive enough without being held to random by another private business out to make a quick buck. A bad bad suggestion you know what the first thing they will do is put the land search fees up for starters it will just like the privatisation of the trains.....sky rocketing prices and less service for the clients.
This is a terrible proposal when land deals are being researched and agreed the last thing you need is profiteering notwithstanding the potential conflict of interest that would ensure. Buying and selling property is expensive enough without being held to random by another private business out to make a quick buck. A bad bad suggestion you know what the first thing they will do is put the land search fees up for starters it will just like the privatisation of the trains.....sky rocketing prices and less service for the clients. cj07589
  • Score: 21

1:21pm Wed 7 May 14

cj07589 says...

woodsedge wrote:
Another opportunity for this sad excuse of a government to undervalue a public asset, privatise it and put more money in the pockets of their ex public school chums. We have all seen how Royal Mail was flogged off for peanuts and how well the banks and the governments so called expert advisers benefited from the sell off. Well expect more of the same.
For once Woodsedge we are in mutual agreement well said!
[quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: Another opportunity for this sad excuse of a government to undervalue a public asset, privatise it and put more money in the pockets of their ex public school chums. We have all seen how Royal Mail was flogged off for peanuts and how well the banks and the governments so called expert advisers benefited from the sell off. Well expect more of the same.[/p][/quote]For once Woodsedge we are in mutual agreement well said! cj07589
  • Score: 10

1:36pm Wed 7 May 14

JamesYoung says...

mazandkaz wrote:
As an ex employee of 30 years I am fed up with people who have pre conceived ideas of civil servants and the Land Registry. Land Registration is a very specialised field that takes years of training to gain experience. It is a job that requires a lot of knowledge which is gained over years, not weeks. The staff at the Land Registry work hard to achieve targets, and have to cope with an enormous amount of change. To privatise the Land Registry would be a travesty. It is a profit making organisation, and if there were to be redundancies or office closures then a lot of knowledge gained over many years would be wasted.
Private companies put satellites into space. It is a fallacy to suggest that something can only be done in the public sector.
What you are experiencing is a rate of change that is completely normal in the private sector. That you think that there is something unique about what you provide (in terms of the skills and infrastructure required to provide it) might suggest why the government is looking at privatisation (a new pair of eyes). My own experience, from both public and private sectors, is that when you claim that something is too complex to be done by somebody else, it is usefully more complex than it needs to be and needs reform.
That said, i wholeheartedly oppose the privatisation. The government is looking for a quick buck to make the books look a little better. This is short term thinking: if a private company can make a profit, it means it has found efficiencies. If a private company can find efficiencies, then a public sector organisation should be able to do so too, with the benefits accruing to the taxpayer, not private sector trousers.
[quote][p][bold]mazandkaz[/bold] wrote: As an ex employee of 30 years I am fed up with people who have pre conceived ideas of civil servants and the Land Registry. Land Registration is a very specialised field that takes years of training to gain experience. It is a job that requires a lot of knowledge which is gained over years, not weeks. The staff at the Land Registry work hard to achieve targets, and have to cope with an enormous amount of change. To privatise the Land Registry would be a travesty. It is a profit making organisation, and if there were to be redundancies or office closures then a lot of knowledge gained over many years would be wasted.[/p][/quote]Private companies put satellites into space. It is a fallacy to suggest that something can only be done in the public sector. What you are experiencing is a rate of change that is completely normal in the private sector. That you think that there is something unique about what you provide (in terms of the skills and infrastructure required to provide it) might suggest why the government is looking at privatisation (a new pair of eyes). My own experience, from both public and private sectors, is that when you claim that something is too complex to be done by somebody else, it is usefully more complex than it needs to be and needs reform. That said, i wholeheartedly oppose the privatisation. The government is looking for a quick buck to make the books look a little better. This is short term thinking: if a private company can make a profit, it means it has found efficiencies. If a private company can find efficiencies, then a public sector organisation should be able to do so too, with the benefits accruing to the taxpayer, not private sector trousers. JamesYoung
  • Score: 4

2:52pm Wed 7 May 14

woodsedge says...

cj07589 wrote:
woodsedge wrote:
Another opportunity for this sad excuse of a government to undervalue a public asset, privatise it and put more money in the pockets of their ex public school chums. We have all seen how Royal Mail was flogged off for peanuts and how well the banks and the governments so called expert advisers benefited from the sell off. Well expect more of the same.
For once Woodsedge we are in mutual agreement well said!
Agreed cj.
[quote][p][bold]cj07589[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]woodsedge[/bold] wrote: Another opportunity for this sad excuse of a government to undervalue a public asset, privatise it and put more money in the pockets of their ex public school chums. We have all seen how Royal Mail was flogged off for peanuts and how well the banks and the governments so called expert advisers benefited from the sell off. Well expect more of the same.[/p][/quote]For once Woodsedge we are in mutual agreement well said![/p][/quote]Agreed cj. woodsedge
  • Score: 3

6:07am Thu 8 May 14

mazandkaz says...

JamesYoung wrote:
mazandkaz wrote:
As an ex employee of 30 years I am fed up with people who have pre conceived ideas of civil servants and the Land Registry. Land Registration is a very specialised field that takes years of training to gain experience. It is a job that requires a lot of knowledge which is gained over years, not weeks. The staff at the Land Registry work hard to achieve targets, and have to cope with an enormous amount of change. To privatise the Land Registry would be a travesty. It is a profit making organisation, and if there were to be redundancies or office closures then a lot of knowledge gained over many years would be wasted.
Private companies put satellites into space. It is a fallacy to suggest that something can only be done in the public sector.
What you are experiencing is a rate of change that is completely normal in the private sector. That you think that there is something unique about what you provide (in terms of the skills and infrastructure required to provide it) might suggest why the government is looking at privatisation (a new pair of eyes). My own experience, from both public and private sectors, is that when you claim that something is too complex to be done by somebody else, it is usefully more complex than it needs to be and needs reform.
That said, i wholeheartedly oppose the privatisation. The government is looking for a quick buck to make the books look a little better. This is short term thinking: if a private company can make a profit, it means it has found efficiencies. If a private company can find efficiencies, then a public sector organisation should be able to do so too, with the benefits accruing to the taxpayer, not private sector trousers.
I can see exactly what you are saying and in no way am I suggesting that the work at the Land Registry could not be done outside of the public sector. My issue is with the number of people who have this idea that all civil servants are tea drinking time wasters who have no idea what a day's work is. The negative comments posted on this site demonstrate the people my comment was aimed at.
[quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mazandkaz[/bold] wrote: As an ex employee of 30 years I am fed up with people who have pre conceived ideas of civil servants and the Land Registry. Land Registration is a very specialised field that takes years of training to gain experience. It is a job that requires a lot of knowledge which is gained over years, not weeks. The staff at the Land Registry work hard to achieve targets, and have to cope with an enormous amount of change. To privatise the Land Registry would be a travesty. It is a profit making organisation, and if there were to be redundancies or office closures then a lot of knowledge gained over many years would be wasted.[/p][/quote]Private companies put satellites into space. It is a fallacy to suggest that something can only be done in the public sector. What you are experiencing is a rate of change that is completely normal in the private sector. That you think that there is something unique about what you provide (in terms of the skills and infrastructure required to provide it) might suggest why the government is looking at privatisation (a new pair of eyes). My own experience, from both public and private sectors, is that when you claim that something is too complex to be done by somebody else, it is usefully more complex than it needs to be and needs reform. That said, i wholeheartedly oppose the privatisation. The government is looking for a quick buck to make the books look a little better. This is short term thinking: if a private company can make a profit, it means it has found efficiencies. If a private company can find efficiencies, then a public sector organisation should be able to do so too, with the benefits accruing to the taxpayer, not private sector trousers.[/p][/quote]I can see exactly what you are saying and in no way am I suggesting that the work at the Land Registry could not be done outside of the public sector. My issue is with the number of people who have this idea that all civil servants are tea drinking time wasters who have no idea what a day's work is. The negative comments posted on this site demonstrate the people my comment was aimed at. mazandkaz
  • Score: 9

8:48am Thu 8 May 14

woodsedge says...

mazandkaz wrote:
JamesYoung wrote:
mazandkaz wrote:
As an ex employee of 30 years I am fed up with people who have pre conceived ideas of civil servants and the Land Registry. Land Registration is a very specialised field that takes years of training to gain experience. It is a job that requires a lot of knowledge which is gained over years, not weeks. The staff at the Land Registry work hard to achieve targets, and have to cope with an enormous amount of change. To privatise the Land Registry would be a travesty. It is a profit making organisation, and if there were to be redundancies or office closures then a lot of knowledge gained over many years would be wasted.
Private companies put satellites into space. It is a fallacy to suggest that something can only be done in the public sector.
What you are experiencing is a rate of change that is completely normal in the private sector. That you think that there is something unique about what you provide (in terms of the skills and infrastructure required to provide it) might suggest why the government is looking at privatisation (a new pair of eyes). My own experience, from both public and private sectors, is that when you claim that something is too complex to be done by somebody else, it is usefully more complex than it needs to be and needs reform.
That said, i wholeheartedly oppose the privatisation. The government is looking for a quick buck to make the books look a little better. This is short term thinking: if a private company can make a profit, it means it has found efficiencies. If a private company can find efficiencies, then a public sector organisation should be able to do so too, with the benefits accruing to the taxpayer, not private sector trousers.
I can see exactly what you are saying and in no way am I suggesting that the work at the Land Registry could not be done outside of the public sector. My issue is with the number of people who have this idea that all civil servants are tea drinking time wasters who have no idea what a day's work is. The negative comments posted on this site demonstrate the people my comment was aimed at.
I totally agree with you mazandkaz. Without a doubt there are idle employees in both private and public sector, but they are vastly outweighed by the majority of employees that are conscientious and hard working. You never see derogatory comments in news stories referring to the private sector, and there are those that cannot comment on civil servants without making it vile and personal. The Land Registry is doing an excellent job within the public sector and should be left alone.
[quote][p][bold]mazandkaz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JamesYoung[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mazandkaz[/bold] wrote: As an ex employee of 30 years I am fed up with people who have pre conceived ideas of civil servants and the Land Registry. Land Registration is a very specialised field that takes years of training to gain experience. It is a job that requires a lot of knowledge which is gained over years, not weeks. The staff at the Land Registry work hard to achieve targets, and have to cope with an enormous amount of change. To privatise the Land Registry would be a travesty. It is a profit making organisation, and if there were to be redundancies or office closures then a lot of knowledge gained over many years would be wasted.[/p][/quote]Private companies put satellites into space. It is a fallacy to suggest that something can only be done in the public sector. What you are experiencing is a rate of change that is completely normal in the private sector. That you think that there is something unique about what you provide (in terms of the skills and infrastructure required to provide it) might suggest why the government is looking at privatisation (a new pair of eyes). My own experience, from both public and private sectors, is that when you claim that something is too complex to be done by somebody else, it is usefully more complex than it needs to be and needs reform. That said, i wholeheartedly oppose the privatisation. The government is looking for a quick buck to make the books look a little better. This is short term thinking: if a private company can make a profit, it means it has found efficiencies. If a private company can find efficiencies, then a public sector organisation should be able to do so too, with the benefits accruing to the taxpayer, not private sector trousers.[/p][/quote]I can see exactly what you are saying and in no way am I suggesting that the work at the Land Registry could not be done outside of the public sector. My issue is with the number of people who have this idea that all civil servants are tea drinking time wasters who have no idea what a day's work is. The negative comments posted on this site demonstrate the people my comment was aimed at.[/p][/quote]I totally agree with you mazandkaz. Without a doubt there are idle employees in both private and public sector, but they are vastly outweighed by the majority of employees that are conscientious and hard working. You never see derogatory comments in news stories referring to the private sector, and there are those that cannot comment on civil servants without making it vile and personal. The Land Registry is doing an excellent job within the public sector and should be left alone. woodsedge
  • Score: 11

7:27pm Mon 12 May 14

ksmain says...

mazandkaz wrote:
As an ex employee of 30 years I am fed up with people who have pre conceived ideas of civil servants and the Land Registry. Land Registration is a very specialised field that takes years of training to gain experience. It is a job that requires a lot of knowledge which is gained over years, not weeks. The staff at the Land Registry work hard to achieve targets, and have to cope with an enormous amount of change. To privatise the Land Registry would be a travesty. It is a profit making organisation, and if there were to be redundancies or office closures then a lot of knowledge gained over many years would be wasted.
Trouble is there are people around who think that all Public Sector employees are on a gravy train and do nothing in the hours they are at work.

This view is usually borne out of ignorance of people who have never worked in the Public Sector, and have NO KNOWLEDGE of how the system works. Some of these people regularly supply comments here.

And of course they forget that the Public Sector provides a service to the public and I suspect that there are few companies around that would provide this service for as little cost as the Public Sector does.
[quote][p][bold]mazandkaz[/bold] wrote: As an ex employee of 30 years I am fed up with people who have pre conceived ideas of civil servants and the Land Registry. Land Registration is a very specialised field that takes years of training to gain experience. It is a job that requires a lot of knowledge which is gained over years, not weeks. The staff at the Land Registry work hard to achieve targets, and have to cope with an enormous amount of change. To privatise the Land Registry would be a travesty. It is a profit making organisation, and if there were to be redundancies or office closures then a lot of knowledge gained over many years would be wasted.[/p][/quote]Trouble is there are people around who think that all Public Sector employees are on a gravy train and do nothing in the hours they are at work. This view is usually borne out of ignorance of people who have never worked in the Public Sector, and have NO KNOWLEDGE of how the system works. Some of these people regularly supply comments here. And of course they forget that the Public Sector provides a service to the public and I suspect that there are few companies around that would provide this service for as little cost as the Public Sector does. ksmain
  • Score: 2

12:23pm Tue 13 May 14

Dorset Logic says...

ksmain wrote:
mazandkaz wrote:
As an ex employee of 30 years I am fed up with people who have pre conceived ideas of civil servants and the Land Registry. Land Registration is a very specialised field that takes years of training to gain experience. It is a job that requires a lot of knowledge which is gained over years, not weeks. The staff at the Land Registry work hard to achieve targets, and have to cope with an enormous amount of change. To privatise the Land Registry would be a travesty. It is a profit making organisation, and if there were to be redundancies or office closures then a lot of knowledge gained over many years would be wasted.
Trouble is there are people around who think that all Public Sector employees are on a gravy train and do nothing in the hours they are at work.

This view is usually borne out of ignorance of people who have never worked in the Public Sector, and have NO KNOWLEDGE of how the system works. Some of these people regularly supply comments here.

And of course they forget that the Public Sector provides a service to the public and I suspect that there are few companies around that would provide this service for as little cost as the Public Sector does.
I was interested until you said, "no knowledge of how the system works".

If you want to defend the Public Sector in any form, its probably best not to belittle those who pay the bills, and rather try to get them on your side.
[quote][p][bold]ksmain[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mazandkaz[/bold] wrote: As an ex employee of 30 years I am fed up with people who have pre conceived ideas of civil servants and the Land Registry. Land Registration is a very specialised field that takes years of training to gain experience. It is a job that requires a lot of knowledge which is gained over years, not weeks. The staff at the Land Registry work hard to achieve targets, and have to cope with an enormous amount of change. To privatise the Land Registry would be a travesty. It is a profit making organisation, and if there were to be redundancies or office closures then a lot of knowledge gained over many years would be wasted.[/p][/quote]Trouble is there are people around who think that all Public Sector employees are on a gravy train and do nothing in the hours they are at work. This view is usually borne out of ignorance of people who have never worked in the Public Sector, and have NO KNOWLEDGE of how the system works. Some of these people regularly supply comments here. And of course they forget that the Public Sector provides a service to the public and I suspect that there are few companies around that would provide this service for as little cost as the Public Sector does.[/p][/quote]I was interested until you said, "no knowledge of how the system works". If you want to defend the Public Sector in any form, its probably best not to belittle those who pay the bills, and rather try to get them on your side. Dorset Logic
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree