Explain?
Baroness Thatcher has died.
- Thread starter psd99
- Start date
- Status
Explain?
I don't take great offence, as you put it. In fact if you read back through the thread you will see my adversaries bemoaning being treated discourteously. You yourself have bandied around a bit of name calling which may indicate you have taken great offence. This in mind should I feel aggrieved that you have felt the need to ask me this?
It's the impression you give off, that's all.
The ding dong song campaign may be tasteless, but this act is totally ludicrous.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...hem-aiming-to-rival-witch-song-in-charts.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...hem-aiming-to-rival-witch-song-in-charts.html
Adversarial and Argumentative.
Its not, are you saying that Maggie Thatcher conspired with Tony Blair to have her funeral costs borne by the taxpayer?
Not agreeing with your view is not the same as taking a side.
As fascinating as your anecdote is, does it have a point that is even mildly relevant to the topic at hand or are you just rambling for the sake of it?
Last edited:
What is the matter with you?
Her funeral started being organized just after Blair got in and MT had her input.
No wonder forum members lose it with you.
Why not simply say that, I had no idea that either of them were organising her funeral as long ago as 1997 or at all for that matter. Do you have a link to explain why this is the case, and why a Labour Govt would be organising a Conservative members funeral at the taxpayers expense?
Last edited:
Yes.
Thatcher was the former PM. And the state tax is paying for her funeral.
My mum worked at a state school. Or even better, the headteacher, worked there for about 20 years also. Should the local council tax pay for her/their funeral?
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,387
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
My view of what? I haven't purchased or in fact actually ever listened to the song as far as I'm aware.
They failed to remain impartial by just doing their job of playing a chart song
LOL, Seriously have a word with yourself. Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary you still persist in your deluded quest, and despite your most fanciful extrapolations you come nowhere near your initial ventured claims. Honestly I think you actually have lost it here. Let me say if I took a similar approach I could dream up stuff that would decrease their wage, but I don't, because it is plainly not reasonable.
You think it was a trap? It was asking for clarification. whoever said you were stupid?
I did not say the figure was agreed, quite the opposite, I said the overall perception is the same.
I didn't say you said I was stupid, I arbitrarily declared it, which last time I looked was not illegal.
lol on the figure stuff, scrambling around looking for an exit......
You appear to be what? the judge of what?
You said I appear to portray my anecdotes etc as authoritative, well if I appear like this to you then you would seem to be the judge of this y?, not difficult really.
I actually do have experience of earning a wage in the pits, albeit for two weeks. Yes I know the meaning of vicarious, I suspect your usage was as I described.
No I`m not that again is your allegation.
You arbitrarily declared that you are stupid? or you arbitrarily declared that I called you stupid? the latter is patently untrue, the former is your decision, not mine.
Forgive me, but you are not making too much sense at the moment.
As for the figures, they are what they are, agree or disagree.
I see, in that case you are offering your opinion as authoritative, it is not a judgement, it is an observation.
So, you are in your late 40s early 50s?
As for the latter, again you are being adversarial for no reason. It isn't all a conspiracy against you btw, so there is no need to take it as such.
Its an observation demonstrated by your responses to those who you do not agree with (dampdog for example), not an allegation.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,408
I saw those figures on the Hansard website. There is a lot of information there, but unfortunately the search engine is not brilliant.
In the google preview of a book I linked to yesterday it was saying that early 80's wages were circa £170, and mid 80's circa £190. I find the increase in pay for such a short period of time pretty high, considering miners were already earning more than most. If the mid 80's wage is accurate at £190 then asking for over and above a 25% increase in pay is ludicrous especially given:
and
So 25% more than the average wage of a male worker in manufacturing by 1983.
Or at least that is how I am reading those figures. And the NUM on behalf of its members were asking in excess of another 25%.
(and lets not forget that is the "average" wage. Bonuses and OT were not mentioned so I will assume they are excluded.)The evidence is starting to show that being a coal miner was quite lucrative in comparison to the manufacturing industry at least.
Last edited:
Yes, I had it confirmed again last night.
Here in STOKE ON TRENT a COAL MINING APPRENTICE could earn £60 (maybe more) by working after their 8 to 5 Mon to Fri apprenticeship which other apprentices here in STOKE ON TRENT didn't have the luxury to do.
Mrs Dimple reminded me of a story from 1983 when we went out and bought a top of the range Grundig stereo TV for £500. We had won £300 on the Pools, we'd got £100 saved and we had £100 on the knock. My mate came round and he is the type who still to this day will see what gadget I've bought and then have one himself. He asked how much it was, there was a debate with his wife and she said "Have it with your next weeks wages"
Or the story could be untrue and I made it up.
Stereo tv lol.
And he was a miner, with 100pc disposable income @ the equivalent of one grundig telly a week?
- Status