Baroness Thatcher has died.

Status
Not open for further replies.
As tasteless as it is I think what they should have done is play the song but with no mention of why it's there. Doing it this way has thrown a spotlight on it and it's going to get far more coverage in the press than it ever deserved.
 
Castiel said:
Do you agree with Buffetslayer then that £300 a week is reasonable assumption to make then as well as his point that Miners were earning more (substantially so in some areas) than other industries?
Click to expand...

I initially mentioned that figure as something I remember (as well as I can do for something almost 30 years back)

DampDog said:
I'm a Stokie to and can well remember sitting in college surrounded by blokes who had lost their jobs at Shelton Bar - steel works. Likewise I can remember figures of £200-300 a week being mentioned by miners of the day.
Click to expand...

Finding actual figures from the day is surprisingly tricky, but I did come across this.

September, 1984
"As the miners' strike enters its 26th week the National Coal Board claimed yesterday that the dispute overall has cost miners an average of £4,543 in lost wages (Glenn Allan writes).
"With average wages of £165 a week, the 25 weeks' stoppage has cost each miner £4,125", a coal board spokesman said.
"But it must be remembered that the strike was preceded by a 19-week overtime ban, so the overall loss of earnings for the average worker now amounts to £4,543".

That mentions £165 as being the average miners wage. So it's not unreasonable with the various shift-working allowances that some would easily achieve £200+ or more. ( A banks-man wouldn't earn anything like as much as face worker)
 
Last edited:
newbiejim said:
No I don't, I will speak to some of my friends when I see them and glean information from them, coupled with tinterweb research I will firm up an opinion.
Click to expand...

If you do not agree with buffetslayer then you are not in agreement are you? He doesn't agree with you and now by your own admission you do not agree with him.

And I would point out that much of what buffetslayer has said echoes what I have said, the only proviso is on the specific figures, which has already been pointed out is subjective and anecdotal. The overall perception remains the same.

Also you have said that claims I have made have been proven wrong...they have not, at least not by any measure of evidence that is authoritative... I am afraid that the statement "The facts are anything I have mentioned that appear to be facts" isn't very convincing.

Anecdotally I have illustrated how a miner could conceivably earn the figures mentioned, (with help from a miner with decades of experience, if you are relying upon people you know who used to be miners as valid evidence then you should also accept others similar evidence) as has been mentioned many times, your vicarious experience may be different, but as you have said yourself, different mining regions had different wage structures, therefore your experience may not be indicative of others, and others not indicative of yours. I have not claimed that my anecdotal evidence is authoritative or representative of all miners, you however appear to trying to portray your anecdotes as authoritative and representative of the whole.

I just wanted to clear that up.

newbiejim said:
Anyway I thought you declared you weren't going to post anymore? :)
Click to expand...

You bought my name and opinion into it again, so I wanted to clarify a few things.
 
DampDog said:
I initially mentioned that figure as something I remember (as well as I can do for something almost 30 years back)



Finding actual figures from the day is surprisingly tricky, but I did come across this.

September, 1984
"As the miners' strike enters its 26th week the National Coal Board claimed yesterday that the dispute overall has cost miners an average of £4,543 in lost wages (Glenn Allan writes).
"With average wages of £165 a week, the 25 weeks' stoppage has cost each miner £4,125", a coal board spokesman said.
"But it must be remembered that the strike was preceded by a 19-week overtime ban, so the overall loss of earnings for the average worker now amounts to £4,543".

That mentions £165 as being the average miners wage. So it's not unreasonable with the various shift-working allowances that some would easily achieve £200+ or more.
Click to expand...

Indeed and if you factor in some mining regions paying bonuses equal to 100% of basic earnings, triple time overtime (with some miners working double shifts and 6 day weeks and that face workers earned more and the one off bonuses such as those to stem strike action and Christmas (sometimes as much as £500-£650) then it is not inconceivable that upwards of £600 is possible, at least occasionally.

That basic average figure of £165 is also substantially above the national average at the time, so again the perception that some have stated of Miners being relatively substantially better paid than the average chap is not unreasonable either.
 
Last edited:
Janesy B said:
What?
Click to expand...

?

I disagree with the decision that the tax payer should pay for her funeral.

And I'm also saying that I have nothing against her.

She, herself, didn't decide the tax payer should pay for her funeral expenses now did she. lol

What is so hard to understand about such a simple statement? I can conclude that your "What?" is the start of a pointless troll argument, which you are very well known for doing, therefore you will receive no further explanation from me. :)
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
If you do not agree with buffetslayer then you are not in agreement are you? He doesn't agree with you and now by your own admission you do not agree with him.

And I would point out that much of what buffetslayer has said echoes what I have said, the only proviso is on the specific figures, which has already been pointed out is subjective and anecdotal. The overall perception remains the same.

Also you have said that claims I have made have been proven wrong...they have not, at least not by any measure of evidence that is authoritative... I am afraid that the statement "The facts are anything I have mentioned that appear to be facts" isn't very convincing.

Anecdotally I have illustrated how a miner could conceivably earn the figures mentioned, (with help from a miner with decades of experience, if you are relying upon people you know who used to be miners as valid evidence then you should also accept others similar evidence) as has been mentioned many times, your vicarious experience may be different, but as you have said yourself, different mining regions had different wage structures, therefore your experience may not be indicative of others, and others not indicative of yours. I have not claimed that my anecdotal evidence is authoritative or representative of all miners, you however appear to trying to portray your anecdotes as authoritative and representative of the whole.

I just wanted to clear that up.



You bought my name and opinion into it again, so I wanted to clarify a few things.
Click to expand...

I actually considered that your trap was as simplistic as this, but tbh I credited you more than I should have. I said I was glad he agreed with me and disagreed with you, agreed with me as in the £800 claim was way out. I'm far from stupid , you should have picked up on that by now.

Oh I "appear" to be?, you being the judge of course. Anyway I find it strange you persist.I didn't say I would be relying btw,I said it would be an opinion.What do you mean "vicarious" btw, is there a whiff of haughty dismissal there?
 
newbiejim said:
I actually considered that your trap was as simplistic as this, but tbh I credited you more than I should have. I said I was glad he agreed with me and disagreed with you, agreed with me as in the £800 claim was way out. I'm far from stupid , you should have picked up on that by now.

Oh I "appear" to be?, you being the judge of course. Anyway I find it strange you persist.I didn't say I would be relying btw,I said it would be an opinion.What do you mean "vicarious" btw, is there a whiff of haughty dismissal there?
Click to expand...

Why do you keep taking such great offence to everything, I don't see anybody insulting you.
 
Castiel said:
Yes, and it is ironic that Maggie Thatcher would never have agreed to such a thing.
Click to expand...


She knew what was going to happen from the start as it all started just after Tony got in power.

Why don't the tory party pay for it themselves? I don't want to see my hard earned tax money go to waste.
 
deuse said:
Why don't the tory party pay for it themselves? I don't want to see my hard earned tax money go to waste.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

My mum has worked at a state school for 20 years and continues to do so. Does that mean Newham Council should pay for her funeral and have a procession going through the school grounds. Hell NO.
 
Last edited:
newbiejim said:
I actually considered that your trap was as simplistic as this, but tbh I credited you more than I should have. I said I was glad he agreed with me and disagreed with you, agreed with me as in the £800 claim was way out. I'm far from stupid , you should have picked up on that by now.
Click to expand...

You think it was a trap? It was asking for clarification. whoever said you were stupid? :confused:

I did not say the figure was agreed, quite the opposite, I said the overall perception is the same.

newbiejim said:
Oh I "appear" to be?, you being the judge of course.
Click to expand...

You appear to be what? the judge of what? :confused:

newbiejim said:
Anyway I find it strange you persist.I didn't say I would be relying btw,I said it would be an opinion.What do you mean "vicarious" btw, is there a whiff of haughty dismissal there?
Click to expand...

Vicarious as in through others, unless you have personal experience of earning a weekly wage in the pits during the 1980s...I do not know how old you are?

That also doesn't change that you are stating things authoritatively without substantiation...your opinion, like mine, is not authoritative.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom