Letter from india.
pencil
It opened :
"Dear Friend,
Greetings from Calcutta!"
And for a moment i thought someone had me confused with soon ill - that is
sunil, for the uninitiated.
Eagerly, i read on :
"My name is Chandan Sengupta and I work for UNICEF,
here in India's 'City of Joy' (sic)...etc"
Mr Sengupta sounded a decent enough sort of chap. He's been working for
'unicef calcutta' ten years on certain sanitation schemes in the poor
rural areas of india. He's helped provide fresh water for a good number of
indian villages, and now he's focussing on providing flushing lavatories for
the same villagers.
He writes to me to ask that i make a donation to this scheme. He writes to
me from india! He says :
"You may be interested to know that it costs less to send
this letter to you from india than a letter sent within the uk!"
Yes, i was wondering about that. So presumably the paper's cheaper as well,
and the labour too. How much do indians pay for their petrol, i wonder how
the cost of a flight from heathrow to calcutta compares to the cost of a
flight from calcutta to heathrow (included that one just for those of you
who like nothing better than to slide (safely) along a tangent).
We are informed that "india is the world's largest democracy" - incredible
isn't it, and still not able to provide its population with lavatories! How
long has it been since independence?
But then that's nothing to do with me. India's affairs are india's affairs;
india chooses to order its society in the way she best sees fit. I would not
presume to know better than indians about the organisation of their country.
Oh that reminds me; in common with many other democracies, doesn't india
have her own nuclear arsenal?
Surely this can't be so...have i got it right...the indians can wipe out a
city but they can't flush it away? But again, if that's an indian way,
that's an indian way and i respect it. My interest (as always) is in the
paradox.
Unicef, the kiddies arm of the peace loving un, is effectively subsidising
the indian nuclear arsenal - as are the various contributing nations and
their populations. By lifting the burden of india's rural poor from the
indian government, funds are freed for the purchase of weaponry. Cui bono?
J W B Greenwood
I deduce from what is happening that toilets are a thing of the past; from
the media reports, more and more of the local authorities are dispensing
with them. Maybe India are further ahead than we are and don't realise it,
or perhaps the LAs have taken the business of accepting immigrant cultures
aboard a bit too far ?
--
RISC OS Foundation Member
Zer0
"pencil" <pen...@hnlnmd.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> This morning i received a letter from india.
> We are informed that "india is the world's largest democracy" - incredible
> isn't it, and still not able to provide its population with lavatories! How
> long has it been since independence?
India will survive, through market forces alone. As an example, only this week,
Harrods and Debenhams have announced the transfer of their call centre
operations from Leeds to Delhi. Many more companies will follow. And in other
functions, too.
India has an intelligent population that speaks English and is IT literate.
This nucleus which is prepared to work, currently, at approximately 10% of UK
wage rates, will fuel astronomic growth via the Internet.
Zer0
martin
> India has an intelligent population that speaks English and is IT literate.
> This nucleus which is prepared to work, currently, at approximately 10% of UK
> wage rates, will fuel astronomic growth via the Internet.
>
> Zer0
Which nations do not have an intelligent population, in your opinion?
Cliff Morrison
<ze...@bigwig.net> wrote:
> market forces alone. As an example, only this week,
> Harrods and Debenhams have announced the transfer of their call centre
> operations from Leeds to Delhi. Many more companies will follow. And
in other
> functions, too.
[a snip at]
> approximately 10% of UK wage rates
It's predictable enough -- but just where the **** does that leave the
call-centre "economy" that the UK government has made so much of the
country's population dependent upon for a living?
So screwed up by their looney "market" dogmas that it cannot even hope to
hack it as a fourth-world sweatshop any more, perhaps?
Cliff Morrison
hack it as a low-wage fourth-world sweatshop any more, perhaps?
J W B Greenwood
Too many to name.....
But any that allow themselves to be ground down by people such as Sadam
Hussain and Mugabe. Since you ask.
a goss
<r...@raymond34.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> India has an intelligent population that speaks English and is IT literate.
>> This nucleus which is prepared to work, currently, at approximately 10% of UK
>> wage rates, will fuel astronomic growth via the Internet.
>>
>> Zer0
>
>
>Which nations do not have an intelligent population, in your opinion?
>
Wessex.
But that's only my opinion.
Robin
Cliff Morrison <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> writes
Just the latest form of 'makework' scheme I suppose?
I would think that the majority of trade is internal, so we are just
passing currency around between people providing goods and services.
Remember my forecast that we'll *all* end up working for insurance
companies and simply spend the day cold calling each other!
( in fact try calling a call centre and try to sell the operator some
double glazing...great fun.[1])
On a similar note just imagine if we could persuade companies that
sending junk smail is hugely ineffective. All those people, using all
that paper, printers, ink, postmen etc etc. Once again we need to be
wasteful and inefficient to create jobs so that people will have the
dosh to buy the shiny baubles that *have* to be desired if the whole
sorry mess isn't to collapse.
[1] I looked up recursion in my dictionary of computing terms and it
said...see recursion.
--
Robin
abelard
typed:
>In article <8mfg05$4l8$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, martin
>> Which nations do not have an intelligent population, in your opinion?
>Too many to name.....
>
>But any that allow themselves to be ground down by people such as Sadam
>Hussain and Mugabe. Since you ask.
does that include e*g*a*d under our great leader.......?
regards..
web site at www.abelard.org - new, doc. on logic of ethics.
..also education, logic and more....over 400 doc. requests daily
-- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for I walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that I a big stick.
good people do nothing I trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robin
Free_R...@someones.place writes
>On Sat, 5 Aug 2000 16:06:33 +0100, Robin
><Alp...@droom.demon.co.uk.spam> wrote:
>
>>In article <cliffm-0508...@th-gt141-112.pool.dircon.co.uk>,
>>Cliff Morrison <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> writes
>>>In article <8mfccq$6f2gr$1...@ID-19198.news.cis.dfn.de>, "Zer0"
>>><ze...@bigwig.net> wrote:
>
>
>>On a similar note just imagine if we could persuade companies that
>>sending junk smail is hugely ineffective. All those people, using all
>>that paper, printers, ink, postmen etc etc. Once again we need to be
>>wasteful and inefficient to create jobs so that people will have the
>>dosh to buy the shiny baubles that *have* to be desired if the whole
>>sorry mess isn't to collapse.
>
>
>creates wealth. All other activities dissipate it. Whether they
>are taxes paid toa greedy Government for "re-distribution" or fees
>paid to an accountant to minimise these taxes, it is a waste.
>
>
>
As an ex-engineer I appreciate what you say. Many unfortunately believe
that we no longer need industry to add value to raw materials. This view
is often quoted along with the statistic that the US only generates
around 20% of its GNP by manufacturing. I have no idea if this is true
or not but Germany seems to have a pretty thriving economy and makes far
more than we now seem to.
--
Robin
J W B Greenwood
<URL:mailto:abe...@abelard.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Aug 2000 08:48:36 +0100, J W B Greenwood <bro...@argonet.co.uk>
>
> typed:
>
> >In article <8mfg05$4l8$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, martin
>
> >> Which nations do not have an intelligent population, in your opinion?
>
> >Too many to name.....
> >
> >But any that allow themselves to be ground down by people such as Sadam
> >Hussain and Mugabe. Since you ask.
>
> does that include e*g*a*d under our great leader.......?
>
> regards..
>
In my opinion the media grinds down the populace in this country :-)
Mr Rupert Murdoch et al.
J W B Greenwood
<URL:mailto:Free_R...@someones.place> wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Aug 2000 16:06:33 +0100, Robin
> <Alp...@droom.demon.co.uk.spam> wrote:
>
> >In article <cliffm-0508...@th-gt141-112.pool.dircon.co.uk>,
> >Cliff Morrison <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> writes
> >>In article <8mfccq$6f2gr$1...@ID-19198.news.cis.dfn.de>, "Zer0"
> >><ze...@bigwig.net> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> >On a similar note just imagine if we could persuade companies that
> >sending junk smail is hugely ineffective. All those people, using all
> >that paper, printers, ink, postmen etc etc. Once again we need to be
> >wasteful and inefficient to create jobs so that people will have the
> >dosh to buy the shiny baubles that *have* to be desired if the whole
> >sorry mess isn't to collapse.
>
>
> Being serious for a moment, never forget that it is industry that
> creates wealth. All other activities dissipate it. Whether they
> are taxes paid toa greedy Government for "re-distribution" or fees
> paid to an accountant to minimise these taxes, it is a waste.
>
Correction....land and labour create wealth....
That's why the demise of farming and manufacturing will produce an
underclass of 90% and a very wealth 10% of the population; a return to
serfdom. Another thing to help us along this road is the insistance of
'perfect farm produce' by the supermarkets and large suppliers. Enormous
amounts of sub-standard produce wasted, thus keeping farm prices down and
shop prices up.
a goss
wrote:
>On Sat, 5 Aug 2000 08:48:36 +0100, J W B Greenwood <bro...@argonet.co.uk>
>
> typed:
>
>>In article <8mfg05$4l8$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, martin
>
>>> Which nations do not have an intelligent population, in your opinion?
>
>>Too many to name.....
>>
>>But any that allow themselves to be ground down by people such as Sadam
>>Hussain and Mugabe. Since you ask.
>
>does that include e*g*a*d under our great leader.......?
>
Yes if your great leader was Margaret Hilda Thatcher.
--
'The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it'. Woodrow Wilson
Alan G
Zer0
"J W B Greenwood" <bro...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In my opinion the media grinds down the populace in this country :-)
Do you consider yourself to be 'ground down' by the British media?
Zer0
Hamish McSnetter
>On Sat, 05 Aug 2000 18:53:35 +0200, abelard <abe...@abelard.org>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 5 Aug 2000 08:48:36 +0100, J W B Greenwood <bro...@argonet.co.uk>
>>
>> typed:
>>
>>>In article <8mfg05$4l8$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, martin
>>
>>>> Which nations do not have an intelligent population, in your opinion?
>>
>>>Too many to name.....
>>>
>>>But any that allow themselves to be ground down by people such as Sadam
>>>Hussain and Mugabe. Since you ask.
>>
>>does that include e*g*a*d under our great leader.......?
>>
>Yes if your great leader was Margaret Hilda Thatcher.
Iam not kidding here- I think Mrs T was the greatest Prime Minister the UK
has had encumbent for well over 40 years.
J W B Greenwood
<URL:mailto:ze...@bigwig.net> wrote:
>
> "J W B Greenwood" <bro...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In my opinion the media grinds down the populace in this country :-)
>
>
No I don't, but most of the people I know tend to follow the instructions
issued by the media. Particularly magazines' dictates on fashion, whether
clothes, music, electronic gadgets, etc.
I was coming home one evening on the bus and as I was getting off the bus
driver handed me the evening newspaper, with the words, "I'm fed-up of
bloody newspapers telling me what to do." I looked through the paper later
but I couldn't find anything to account for his anger, he was obviously
upset about something.
I should imagine many of you have had the experience of reading articles
which contain phrases like, "we all want", "everybody abhors", "all of us",
etc. which don't express our views at all. But these words will stay in
people's minds and colour their ideas of what their 'lifestyle' should be,
rather than what their 'life' should be.
Zer0
"J W B Greenwood" <bro...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In my opinion the media grinds down the populace in this country :-)
>>Do you consider yourself to be 'ground down' by the British media?
> No I don't, but most of the people I know tend to follow the instructions
> issued by the media. Particularly magazines' dictates on fashion, whether
> clothes, music, electronic gadgets, etc.
Are you saying, therefore, that you don't follow today's fashions?
Zer0
a goss
You spelt encumbered wrong
Steve Glynn
"Cliff Morrison" <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cliffm-0508...@th-gt141-112.pool.dircon.co.uk...
> > Harrods and Debenhams have announced the transfer of their call centre
> > operations from Leeds to Delhi. Many more companies will follow. And
> in other
> > functions, too.
> [a snip at]
> > approximately 10% of UK wage rates
>
> It's predictable enough -- but just where the **** does that leave the
> call-centre "economy" that the UK government has made so much of the
> country's population dependent upon for a living?
>
> So screwed up by their looney "market" dogmas that it cannot even hope to
But if this change provides a better service to Harrods' customers what can
be the possible objectection to it?
Steve
Cliff Morrison
<steve...@lineone.net> wrote:
It may do, I've no idea on that -- but once they (the by now ubiquitous
call-centres) all get outsourced that's the UK with rather a massive chunk
of the so-called "economy" its loonytarian fatcateer governments have
encouraged (instead of making things) gone, innit?
As in the UK's way up shit creek without a boat never mind the frigging
paddle, and the water's bin selt as well......
J W B Greenwood
<URL:mailto:Free_R...@someones.place> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Aug 2000 10:03:13 +0100, J W B Greenwood <bro...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <f32moson2qtnp8u6a...@4ax.com>,
> ><URL:mailto:Free_R...@someones.place> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 5 Aug 2000 16:06:33 +0100, Robin
> >> <Alp...@droom.demon.co.uk.spam> wrote:
> >>
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> Being serious for a moment, never forget that it is industry that
> >> creates wealth. All other activities dissipate it. Whether they
> >> are taxes paid toa greedy Government for "re-distribution" or fees
> >> paid to an accountant to minimise these taxes, it is a waste.
> >>
> >
> >Correction....land and labour create wealth....
> >
> >That's why the demise of farming and manufacturing will produce an
> >underclass of 90% and a very wealth 10% of the population; a return to
> >serfdom. Another thing to help us along this road is the insistance of
> >'perfect farm produce' by the supermarkets and large suppliers. Enormous
> >amounts of sub-standard produce wasted, thus keeping farm prices down and
> >shop prices up.
>
So are all services; but they don't 'create' wealth, they simply use it.
> Land and labour are just one step down from my original generalization.
And is the point where 'useless' ( and needing nothing to be there ) becomes valuable by applying labour.
Produce from farmed land, materials and machinery from minerals in the land,
acquired via application of labour, the sole necessity to make 'useless'
useful.
> Neither is strictly necessary in an absolute sense. It is conceivable
> that robots could manufacture and run a factory.
To make the 'world go round' for people, money/token-value is needed to
allow us exist. Which capitalist will pay fickle human employees when they
can have entirely reliable, biddable, controllable robots ?
> The factory might
> be located in space. Likewise, land (unused) is of little use,
> except perhaps as scenery.
Where, on the basis of 'service', tourism makes it useful.
> It is what can be done with it that makes it
> valuable. This might be farming, tourism (an industry, because it generates
> wealth by bringing in money from abroad), housing or whatever.
>
The word 'generate' is misplaced, circulates is the word wanted. Any
increase/decrease in the amount of money circulating, other than 'land and
labour' comes about by rises/falls create by finance manipulation.
Actual lowly labour, stuff that keeps the wheels turning, is being used
outside the UK by the capitalists for cheapness. This will increase the
service 'industry' work of UK employees. When the robots eventually take
over for these people, who will pay the wages/salaries to allow them to
exist and be able to pay for the goods and services that are necessary for
their existence?
As Mr Micawber said, "Something will turn up." You hope.......
J W B Greenwood
>
> >>Do you consider yourself to be 'ground down' by the British media?
>
> > No I don't, but most of the people I know tend to follow the instructions
> > issued by the media. Particularly magazines' dictates on fashion, whether
> > clothes, music, electronic gadgets, etc.
>
> Are you saying, therefore, that you don't follow today's fashions?
>
No, I use and wear what I like and consider of good value, honed by
experience. I make a point of buying what I want, not what the vendor wants
to sell. Marketing methods leave no impression on me.
I await you next one-line query.............
Cliff Morrison
> Likewise, land (unused) is of little use,
> except perhaps as scenery.
Errr.... ecosystems? oxygen? the psycological effect of not being sardined?
> It is what can be done with it that makes it valuable.
Bet you think of people and animals the same way....
Oh dear, oh dear.... what a sad git.
> This might be farming, tourism (an industry, because it generates
> wealth by bringing in money from abroad), housing or whatever.
Imho, you're a sub-moron, a fucking pathetic waste of space.
So is it ok if I apply your own criteria and terminate you?
Steve Glynn
But very few Harrods' customers or shareholders work in call centres, so I
don't see what the problem is....I'm sure that any Indian who gets a job
with a Harrods call centre will be far better educated, more polite, helpful
and charming than most of the hamburger-guzzling, baseball-cap wearing oiks
our education system turns out, bursting with acne and resentment that their
degrees in "Media Studies" qualify them to do little else than work in call
centres.
Steve
Cliff Morrison
<steve...@lineone.net> wrote:
Well that's as may well be (though in wading slowly through the ghasly
labrynth that is the customer-end face of BT Cellnet I must say I've
spoken to quite a number of very nice and intelligent people who surely
deserved a much better fate than to be profiteer-fodder in its scabby call
centres!) but what would you -- or more importantly the government --
propose to do when all such ops go abroad, everything else having already
gone, and there's damn-all at all in the UK for them to force everyone
that's not actually dead to work in?
even McOffal burgerflipping has to reach its saturation point pretty soon,
surely?
Simon Slavin
Hamish McSnetter <hamishm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [snip]
Just a quick note to point out that this thread is cross-posted
to the following groups:
alt.journalism,
alt.politics.british,
uk.politics.misc,
alt.folklore.urban
If you decide to follow-up, please make sure you post only to
those groups where you post is on-charter. Thanks for your
help.
Simon.
--
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk | Come to think of it, just what are we going
No junk email please. | to say to an alien race if we make contact?
| "Do you have Napster?"
| "Stop making crop circles!" -- Scott Barber
Edwin
>In article <59sqosstisriebk87...@4ax.com>,
>Hamish McSnetter <hamishm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>
>Just a quick note to point out that this thread is cross-posted
>to the following groups:
>
>alt.journalism,
>alt.politics.british,
>uk.politics.misc,
>alt.folklore.urban
>
>If you decide to follow-up, please make sure you post only to
>those groups where you post is on-charter. Thanks for your
>help.
>
>Simon.
Please ignore this goober as he has a tendency to act like a fuckhead
control freak.
Zer0
"Steve Glynn" <steve...@lineone.net> wrote:
>....I'm sure that any Indian who gets a job
> with a Harrods call centre will be far better educated, more polite, helpful
> and charming than most of the hamburger-guzzling, baseball-cap wearing oiks
> our education system turns out, bursting with acne and resentment that their
> degrees in "Media Studies" qualify them to do little else than work in call
> centres.
Without taking issue with you about degrees in Media Studies, which I do think
*can* be useful (not that mine is in that particular discipline) I think that
your cutting comments are extremely accurate.
The political issue that is developing here, though - and a darn serious one
too - is, 'What is the future for UK employees?'
We know what is happening to manufacturing industry. Service industries are
being held out as the our salvation, but when Indians will work for 10% of the
cost of UK staff, where are companies going to go?
Call centres are just one example. The Internet makes the concept of world-wide
service staff a reality for businesses of all sizes.
The DTI needs a thorough re-think about long-term employment opportunities
before events overtake it.
Zer0
Joseph Michael Bay
>>Yes if your great leader was Margaret Hilda Thatcher.
>Iam not kidding here- I think Mrs T was the greatest Prime Minister the UK
>has had encumbent for well over 40 years.
An' I pity the fool who say otherwise!
--
Joe Bay Stanford University Cancer Biology
I M O N I T O R E D T H E S E S A N T A S
John Sefton
> In article <3r7ooskf6ufh7mer1...@4ax.com>, Free Radical
wrote:
>
> > Likewise, land (unused) is of little use,
> > except perhaps as scenery.
>
> Errr.... ecosystems? oxygen? the psycological effect of not being
sardined?
>
> > It is what can be done with it that makes it valuable.
>
> Bet you think of people and animals the same way....
> Oh dear, oh dear.... what a sad git.
That's just a strawman Cliff: make him say what he wasn't saying and then
attack that. BTW, animals ARE only valuable when we can use them. For
example elephants are surviving better in countries which cull them and sell
the ivory than in countries that totally ban such "evil" utilitarian
approaches - no funds or incentive to keep the poachers at bay.
Cliff Morrison
> On Mon, 07 Aug 2000 18:03:31 GMT, cli...@post.almac.co.uk (Cliff Morrison)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <3r7ooskf6ufh7mer1...@4ax.com>, Free Radical wrote:
> >
> >> Likewise, land (unused) is of little use,
> >> except perhaps as scenery.
> >
> >Errr.... ecosystems? oxygen? the psycological effect of not being sardined?
> >
> >> It is what can be done with it that makes it valuable.
> >
> >Bet you think of people and animals the same way....
> >Oh dear, oh dear.... what a sad git.
> >
> >> This might be farming, tourism (an industry, because it generates
> >> wealth by bringing in money from abroad), housing or whatever.
> >
> >Imho, you're a sub-moron, a fucking pathetic waste of space.
> >So is it ok if I apply your own criteria and terminate you?
>
> I am sorry you believe I am a moron. I never believe in attempting to
convince
> anybody with such profound opinions of their worthlessness.
<shrug>
at least, unlike you, I can appreciate my place in time....
but unlike you I'm a realist as well.
So you don't reckon any "argument" counts except money?
Steve Frazer
news:B5B4CC529...@10.0.1.2...
> In article <59sqosstisriebk87...@4ax.com>,
> Hamish McSnetter <hamishm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> Just a quick note to point out that this thread is cross-posted
> to the following groups:
>
> alt.journalism,
> alt.politics.british,
> uk.politics.misc,
> alt.folklore.urban
Interesting, Sunil added alt.folklore.urban to his reply............. that
is just too much of a coincidence. Hamish is also Sunil? Why waste time
adding stupid groups to the reply Hamish/Sunil?
--
Steve
"The Only Thing Worse Than IGNORANCE Is Acting On It"
http://members.xoom.com/steve_frazer/
Includes "How To Live On A Little" - all the secrets!
Steve Glynn
"Zer0" <ze...@bigwig.net> wrote in message
news:8mn83b$6vk6v$1...@ID-19198.news.cis.dfn.de...
First, an apology to call centre workers everywhere, apart from the clown
with whom I had the misfortune to discuss Halifax plc's inability to follow
simple instructions about transferring funds from one account to another
yesterday. I'm sure most call centre workers do an excellent job under
very trying conditions.
Second, I don't really have any answers to your question, Zer0. If I did,
I'd be out making money out of them. The fact that so few companies have
shifted their call centre and back-office operations to lower-wage economies
suggests there may be complications of which you and I are not aware. Most
banks moved their back-office operations out of London about 15-20 years
ago. That they didn't move them further afield (because, if you're
shifting the back office to Leeds, there's no technical reason not to shift
it to Bombay) implies to me that there must be some problem.
I'm not quite sure why you want the DTI to get involved. On their past
form, it would surely be a better idea to send them to advise potential
competitors. While I've got no idea how to acheive it, I think we do need
a shift in tax and in investment culture to encourage long-term thinking.
The only company of which I've any detailed knowledge that's managed to do
well in a declining industry (trawling) is a family-owned business in Hull.
About 25 years ago, they took a hard look at the prospects for their
industry, and, because the owners wanted to have a business to pass on to
their sons, made some very expensive investment decisions to equip
themselves for the very different business environment they saw coming in 10
or 15 years' time. They were, I think, only able to do this because they
didn't have institutional investors looking at the quarterly balance sheet
and worrying about what the trading account looked like for the funds they
were managing (and, before Cliff gets all vexed again about capitalists and
whatnot, those city funds managed by fat-cat capitalists are what pays my
mother's pension, my endowment mortgage, and the interest on his savings
account).
Steve
a goss
<steve...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
>"Cliff Morrison" <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:cliffm-0608...@th-gt146-161.pool.dircon.co.uk...
>> In article <8mklor$295$1...@supernews.com>, "Steve Glynn"
>> <steve...@lineone.net> wrote:
>>
>> > "Cliff Morrison" <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> wrote in message
>> > news:cliffm-0508...@th-gt141-112.pool.dircon.co.uk...
>> > > In article <8mfccq$6f2gr$1...@ID-19198.news.cis.dfn.de>, "Zer0"
>> > > <ze...@bigwig.net> wrote:
>> > >
>But very few Harrods' customers or shareholders work in call centres, so I
>don't see what the problem is....I'm sure that any Indian who gets a job
>with a Harrods call centre will be far better educated, more polite, helpful
>and charming than most of the hamburger-guzzling, baseball-cap wearing oiks
>our education system turns out, bursting with acne and resentment that their
>degrees in "Media Studies" qualify them to do little else than work in call
>centres.
>
A statement like that is just what I'd expect from an oik.
Ruth Saunders
> >>>Yes if your great leader was Margaret Hilda Thatcher.
> >>Iam not kidding here- I think Mrs T was the greatest Prime Minister the
UK
> >>has had encumbent for well over 40 years.
> >An' I pity the fool who say otherwise!
I loathed Thatcher as much as it is possible to loathe someone you don't
actually know. When she stepped down I was the person seen dancing down the
Strand singing, "Ding, dong, the witch is dead."
--
Person X.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get caught in jet engines.
<If you wish to mail me, remove all references to animals from my email
address.>
pencil
pencil asks :
where is his reply ?
Zer0
"Steve Glynn" <steve...@lineone.net> wrote:
> First, an apology to call centre workers everywhere, apart from the clown
> with whom I had the misfortune to discuss Halifax plc's inability to follow
> simple instructions about transferring funds from one account to another
> yesterday. I'm sure most call centre workers do an excellent job under
> very trying conditions.
I recommend Internet banking. Lloyds is particularly secure because it only
allows you to transfer money between designated accounts: your own, BT, LEB or
whatever you set-up, so no cracker can come along and siphon off all your lovely
lolly to Litchenstein.
> Second, I don't really have any answers to your question, Zer0. If I did,
> I'd be out making money out of them. The fact that so few companies have
> shifted their call centre and back-office operations to lower-wage economies
> suggests there may be complications of which you and I are not aware. Most
> banks moved their back-office operations out of London about 15-20 years
> ago. That they didn't move them further afield (because, if you're
> shifting the back office to Leeds, there's no technical reason not to shift
> it to Bombay) implies to me that there must be some problem.
I agree with you that the banks shifted their back-office operations some
(nit-picking) 12-15 years ago, but it is only recent technological developments
that now make India a possible operations centre for English speaking countries.
These include instant, automatic telecommunications re-routing facilities,
speech compression ratios, broadband technology, secure, international
point-to-point networking etc.
> I'm not quite sure why you want the DTI to get involved. On their past
> form, it would surely be a better idea to send them to advise potential
> competitors.
Acknowledged - and what a disgrace.
> While I've got no idea how to acheive it, I think we do need
> a shift in tax and in investment culture to encourage long-term thinking.
> The only company of which I've any detailed knowledge that's managed to do
> well in a declining industry (trawling) is a family-owned business in Hull.
> About 25 years ago, they took a hard look at the prospects for their
> industry, and, because the owners wanted to have a business to pass on to
> their sons, made some very expensive investment decisions to equip
> themselves for the very different business environment they saw coming in 10
> or 15 years' time. They were, I think, only able to do this because they
> didn't have institutional investors looking at the quarterly balance sheet
> and worrying about what the trading account looked like for the funds they
> were managing
Difficult to comment on an individual case without details. If they did well
good luck to them. Did they do better than investing on the stock market? In
the current environment to get rich quick institutional investors are essential,
because almost all Internet-based business plans need substantial start-up
capital.
Zer0
PS On a more serious note - now that you're back from LA, get your ass over to
the thread '"I was spied upon - here's the proof" RH' started by David Currie on
07-Aug-00 at 16:27. We're awaiting the reports..... ;)
Cliff Morrison
> On Tue, 08 Aug 2000 00:45:49 GMT, cli...@post.almac.co.uk (Cliff Morrison)
> I am sorry, but I am not prepared to enter into a debate with someone
who on the
> one hand believes I am a moron and then on the other asks for my opinons.
>
> I I am a moron, what does that make you, if you ask for my opinion.
A more tolerant moron than you.
Marc Living
<le...@redrose.worldonline.co.uk.cat> wrote:
>I loathed Thatcher as much as it is possible to loathe someone you don't
>actually know. When she stepped down I was the person seen dancing down the
>Strand singing, "Ding, dong, the witch is dead."
What a remarkably strange thing to want to boast about.
--
Marc Living (remove "BOUNCEBACK" to reply)
***********************************************
"The first objective of any tyrant in Whitehall
would be to make Parliament utterly subservient
to his will; and the next to overturn or diminish
trial by jury ..." Lord Devlin
http://www.holbornchambers.co.uk
************************************************
Cliff Morrison
<jse...@cyberelectric.net.au> wrote:
> BTW, animals ARE only valuable when we can use them. For
> example elephants are surviving better in countries which cull them and sell
> the ivory than in countries that totally ban such "evil" utilitarian
> approaches - no funds or incentive to keep the poachers at bay.
Does the same apply to people in your world?
John Sefton
Same world I share with you Cliff, fellow human being that you are. If it
ever comes down to choosing between saving your life and that of a fuzzy
seal cub, I'm sorry Cliff, but your's is the life I'd save.
John Sefton
Cliff Morrison <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cliffm-0808...@th-gt149-124.pool.dircon.co.uk...
I can tell by your tolerant manner! LOL ;^)
a goss
<black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 8 Aug 2000 21:10:10 +0100, "Ruth Saunders"
><le...@redrose.worldonline.co.uk.cat> wrote:
>
>>I loathed Thatcher as much as it is possible to loathe someone you don't
>>actually know. When she stepped down I was the person seen dancing down the
>>Strand singing, "Ding, dong, the witch is dead."
>
>What a remarkably strange thing to want to boast about.
>
>
Why?
She was/is evil. A destroyer rather than a creator.
I used to have a sig stating Thatcher deserved a state funeral and
next Friday would be fine.
I still stand by that.
--
Alan Goss
The rule of law 'excludes the idea of any exemption
of officials or others from the duty of obedience to
the law which governs other citizens or from the
jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals'
Marc Living
>On Tue, 08 Aug 2000 23:27:43 +0100, Marc Living
><black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
>>On Tue, 8 Aug 2000 21:10:10 +0100, "Ruth Saunders"
>><le...@redrose.worldonline.co.uk.cat> wrote:
>>>I loathed Thatcher as much as it is possible to loathe someone you don't
>>>actually know. When she stepped down I was the person seen dancing down the
>>>Strand singing, "Ding, dong, the witch is dead."
>>What a remarkably strange thing to want to boast about.
>Why?
>She was/is evil. A destroyer rather than a creator.
I've come to the conclusion that you are the reincarnation of Matthew
Hopkins. You *really* don't like powerful women, do you?
>I used to have a sig stating Thatcher deserved a state funeral and
>next Friday would be fine.
I noticed it. Such a shame you are no longer licensed to burn people
of whom you disapprove.
Robin
<black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> writes
>On Tue, 8 Aug 2000 21:10:10 +0100, "Ruth Saunders"
><le...@redrose.worldonline.co.uk.cat> wrote:
>
>>I loathed Thatcher as much as it is possible to loathe someone you don't
>>actually know. When she stepped down I was the person seen dancing down the
>>Strand singing, "Ding, dong, the witch is dead."
>
>What a remarkably strange thing to want to boast about.
>
>
classroom singing the same tune. I still regard her as the only person
in my lifetime that I have truly hated and wanted to see dead.
I shall, hopefully dance on her grave.
--
Robin
Steve Frazer
news:8mppn6$23$9...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "Sunil added alt.folklore.urban to his reply............."
>
> pencil asks :
>
> where is his reply ?
A reply in another thread. That is why the coincidence is so amazing.
Steve Frazer
news:ovb0ps0nbabrn9e4f...@news.f9.co.uk...
> *** WARNING: THIS USER MAY BE A TROLL ***
Oh dear this child also wants to add alt.folklore.urban *plonk*
Doug.
md.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>"Sunil added alt.folklore.urban to his reply............."
>
>pencil asks :
>
>where is his reply ?
More to he point,..
Where is Sunilji?.
Doug.
Zer0
"Doug." <D...@yarlside.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> More to he point,..
> Where is Sunilji?.
Incognito in Mumbai with Steve Glynn. Don't mention money - Mo's covering
everything. ;)
Zer0
wajohnc
You really didn't like your colleague, did you?
John "lousy singer, huh?" Caldwell
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
a goss
<black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 17:18:29 GMT, Ala...@freeuk.net (a goss) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 08 Aug 2000 23:27:43 +0100, Marc Living
>><black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
>
>>>On Tue, 8 Aug 2000 21:10:10 +0100, "Ruth Saunders"
>>><le...@redrose.worldonline.co.uk.cat> wrote:
>
>>>>I loathed Thatcher as much as it is possible to loathe someone you don't
>>>>actually know. When she stepped down I was the person seen dancing down the
>>>>Strand singing, "Ding, dong, the witch is dead."
>
>>>What a remarkably strange thing to want to boast about.
>
>>Why?
>>She was/is evil. A destroyer rather than a creator.
>
>I've come to the conclusion that you are the reincarnation of Matthew
>Hopkins. You *really* don't like powerful women, do you?
I have the greatest admiration for powerful women, I just believe this
one is evil on a par with a creature from one of the inner circles of
hell.
>
>>I used to have a sig stating Thatcher deserved a state funeral and
>>next Friday would be fine.
>
>I noticed it. Such a shame you are no longer licensed to burn people
>of whom you disapprove.
>
I don't believe in the death penalty but when she and her familiar
Lilley no longer stalk the land I'll be happy. Life imprisonment for
them would suit me. Jack Straw is cuddly in comparison.
a goss
<Alp...@droom.demon.co.uk.spam> wrote:
>In article <us11ps0rh293lc8h7...@4ax.com>, Marc Living
><black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> writes
>>On Tue, 8 Aug 2000 21:10:10 +0100, "Ruth Saunders"
>><le...@redrose.worldonline.co.uk.cat> wrote:
>>
>>>I loathed Thatcher as much as it is possible to loathe someone you don't
>>>actually know. When she stepped down I was the person seen dancing down the
>>>Strand singing, "Ding, dong, the witch is dead."
>>
>>What a remarkably strange thing to want to boast about.
>>
>>
>Not at all. I was teaching at the time and a colleague rushed into my
>classroom singing the same tune. I still regard her as the only person
>in my lifetime that I have truly hated and wanted to see dead.
>
>I shall, hopefully dance on her grave.
When she's lying on her deathbed I wonder will it pass through her
mind "why did I need to practise so much evil". Somehow I doubt it.
I hope she catches herpes. Preferably off Lilley.
--
'The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it'. Woodrow Wilson
Alan G
Ruth Saunders
news:st3U2QA8...@droom.demon.co.uk...
> In article <us11ps0rh293lc8h7...@4ax.com>, Marc Living
> <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> writes
> >On Tue, 8 Aug 2000 21:10:10 +0100, "Ruth Saunders"
> ><le...@redrose.worldonline.co.uk.cat> wrote:
> >
> >>I loathed Thatcher as much as it is possible to loathe someone you don't
> >>actually know. When she stepped down I was the person seen dancing down
the
> >>Strand singing, "Ding, dong, the witch is dead."
> >
> >What a remarkably strange thing to want to boast about.
> >
> >
> Not at all. I was teaching at the time and a colleague rushed into my
> classroom singing the same tune. I still regard her as the only person
> in my lifetime that I have truly hated and wanted to see dead.
>
> I shall, hopefully dance on her grave.
Excellent, I shall not be alone. See you there, champers in hand! Actually,
I think there are enough of us that we will be able to hold a veritable
party.
John Bennett
Robin <Alp...@droom.demon.co.uk.spam> wrote in message
news:st3U2QA8...@droom.demon.co.uk...
> In article <us11ps0rh293lc8h7...@4ax.com>, Marc Living
> <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> writes
> >On Tue, 8 Aug 2000 21:10:10 +0100, "Ruth Saunders"
> ><le...@redrose.worldonline.co.uk.cat> wrote:
> >
> >>I loathed Thatcher as much as it is possible to loathe someone you don't
> >>actually know. When she stepped down I was the person seen dancing down
the
> >>Strand singing, "Ding, dong, the witch is dead."
> >
> >What a remarkably strange thing to want to boast about.
> >
> >
> Not at all. I was teaching at the time and a colleague rushed into my
> classroom singing the same tune. I still regard her as the only person
> in my lifetime that I have truly hated and wanted to see dead.
>
> I shall, hopefully dance on her grave.
> Robin
I bet they bury the bitch at sea.
She killed more Englishmen and destroyed more English cities than the
Germans did in WW2.
We should campaign for the revocation of her title, at least to prevent her
offspring becoming a Baron.
Marc Living
>>>Why?
>>>She was/is evil. A destroyer rather than a creator.
>>I've come to the conclusion that you are the reincarnation of Matthew
>>Hopkins. You *really* don't like powerful women, do you?
>I have the greatest admiration for powerful women, I just believe this
>one is evil on a par with a creature from one of the inner circles of
>hell.
It is quite amusing seeing how unbalanced some people become when they
talk of her. Since it is totally irrational so to hate somebody who
you've never met, and has never personally done you any harm* - even
to the extent of making a prat of yourself waltzing down the Strand???
- I had assumed that this was some sort of mother fixation.
(* Real harm I mean ... not the "everything that has ever gone wrong
in my world has never ever been my fault ... oh no ... I am perfect
... my counselor told me so ... it has always been the fault of that
woman" sort of "harm".)
Steve Glynn
"Robin" <Alp...@droom.demon.co.uk.spam> wrote in message
news:st3U2QA8...@droom.demon.co.uk...
> In article <us11ps0rh293lc8h7...@4ax.com>, Marc Living
> <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> writes
> >On Tue, 8 Aug 2000 21:10:10 +0100, "Ruth Saunders"
> ><le...@redrose.worldonline.co.uk.cat> wrote:
> >
> >>I loathed Thatcher as much as it is possible to loathe someone you don't
> >>actually know. When she stepped down I was the person seen dancing down
the
> >>Strand singing, "Ding, dong, the witch is dead."
> >
> >What a remarkably strange thing to want to boast about.
> >
> >
> Not at all. I was teaching at the time and a colleague rushed into my
> classroom singing the same tune. I still regard her as the only person
> in my lifetime that I have truly hated and wanted to see dead.
>
> I shall, hopefully dance on her grave.
> --
> Robin
Let us hope that neither Baroness Thatcher or your colleague elect to be
buried at sea.
Steve
Doug.
<ze...@bigwig.net> writes
He can't be in Bombay, he hails from the Commie State way down south
at Kerala.
Mo?, you don't mean Bo, - do you?.
That would be something!.
--Doug.
Doug.
<Ala...@freeuk.net> writes
>On Wed, 9 Aug 2000 12:14:04 +0100, Robin
><Alp...@droom.demon.co.uk.spam> wrote:
>
>><black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> writes
>>>On Tue, 8 Aug 2000 21:10:10 +0100, "Ruth Saunders"
>>><le...@redrose.worldonline.co.uk.cat> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I loathed Thatcher as much as it is possible to loathe someone you don't
>>>>actually know. When she stepped down I was the person seen dancing down
>the
>>>>Strand singing, "Ding, dong, the witch is dead."
>>>
>>>What a remarkably strange thing to want to boast about.
>>>
>>>
>>Not at all. I was teaching at the time and a colleague rushed into my
>>classroom singing the same tune. I still regard her as the only person
>>in my lifetime that I have truly hated and wanted to see dead.
>>
>>I shall, hopefully dance on her grave.
>
>mind "why did I need to practise so much evil". Somehow I doubt it.
> I hope she catches herpes. Preferably off Lilley.
You probably mean the Pox.
--Doug.
J W B Greenwood
<URL:mailto:black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 17:03:05 GMT, Ala...@freeuk.net (a goss) wrote:
>
> >>>Why?
> >>>She was/is evil. A destroyer rather than a creator.
>
> >>I've come to the conclusion that you are the reincarnation of Matthew
> >>Hopkins. You *really* don't like powerful women, do you?
>
> >I have the greatest admiration for powerful women, I just believe this
> >one is evil on a par with a creature from one of the inner circles of
> >hell.
>
> It is quite amusing seeing how unbalanced some people become when they
> talk of her. Since it is totally irrational so to hate somebody who
> you've never met, and has never personally done you any harm* - even
> to the extent of making a prat of yourself waltzing down the Strand???
> - I had assumed that this was some sort of mother fixation.
>
> (* Real harm I mean ... not the "everything that has ever gone wrong
> in my world has never ever been my fault ... oh no ... I am perfect
> ... my counselor told me so ... it has always been the fault of that
> woman" sort of "harm".)
The woman did real harm to many people, her own country and not least the
Russians. She is one of the truly selfish people, with no redeeming feature,
on a par with Arthur Scargill. Their basis is, "Me first, me second, owt
left, me again.", regardless of other peoples, needs and requirements.
Her theory that private management is better than public has been shot down
in flames in the example of the railway system. It would very interesting to
hear her definition of 'monopoly', since she simply exchanged a monopoly
public management for many private monopoly managements.
Perhaps it could be put on at the Edinburgh Fringe in the comedy category.
--
RISC OS Foundation Member
Zer0
"Doug." <D...@yarlside.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> More to he point,..
>>> Where is Sunilji?.
>>Incognito in Mumbai with Steve Glynn. Don't mention money - Mo's covering
>>everything. ;)
> He can't be in Bombay, he hails from the Commie State way down south
> at Kerala.
Keep it under your hat; he has deep cover.
> Mo?, you don't mean Bo, - do you?.
No Mohammed. Steve's about to expose stuff that involves the Duke of Edinburgh.
Go to the thread '"I was spied upon - here's the proof" RH'. Steve reveals a
lot..... ;)
Zer0
Marc Living
<bro...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <h1a6psg18s10bhcp3...@4ax.com>, Marc Living
><URL:mailto:black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 17:03:05 GMT, Ala...@freeuk.net (a goss) wrote:
>> >>>Why?
>> >>>She was/is evil. A destroyer rather than a creator.
>> >>I've come to the conclusion that you are the reincarnation of Matthew
>> >>Hopkins. You *really* don't like powerful women, do you?
>> >I have the greatest admiration for powerful women, I just believe this
>> >one is evil on a par with a creature from one of the inner circles of
>> >hell.
>> It is quite amusing seeing how unbalanced some people become when they
>> talk of her. Since it is totally irrational so to hate somebody who
>> you've never met, and has never personally done you any harm* - even
>> to the extent of making a prat of yourself waltzing down the Strand???
>> - I had assumed that this was some sort of mother fixation.
>> (* Real harm I mean ... not the "everything that has ever gone wrong
>> in my world has never ever been my fault ... oh no ... I am perfect
>> ... my counselor told me so ... it has always been the fault of that
>> woman" sort of "harm".)
>The woman did real harm to many people,
Then it should be very easy for you to name five: detailing exactly
what "harm" she did to each one.
>her own country and not least the
>Russians.
LoL.
>She is one of the truly selfish people, with no redeeming feature,
>on a par with Arthur Scargill. Their basis is, "Me first, me second, owt
>left, me again.", regardless of other peoples, needs and requirements.
Mother fixation?
>Her theory that private management is better than public has been shot down
>in flames in the example of the railway system.
Although I acknowledge that you believe her to have been responsible
for everything from the fall of man from a state of grace to the
Hiroshima bomb, and apologise profusely in advance for bringing
inconvenient things like facts into what is clearly a rant based
solely on the ability to emote, I would point out that the
privatisation of the railways was after she left office.
As for the theory behind it having been "shot down in flames" then you
are clearly unable, or unwilling, to remember what the nationalised
industries were like before the 1980s. They were *dire*.
Moreover, again far from being "shot down in flames" she set an
example which has been followed around the world. The only country
that I can think of which is still looking to nationalise things is
Zimbabwe: no doubt a country which you believe to be setting a shining
example which we should all follow.
>It would very interesting to
>hear her definition of 'monopoly', since she simply exchanged a monopoly
>public management for many private monopoly managements.
Hmmm ... I wasn't aware that the "mono" in "monopoly" meant "many".
mma...@my-deja.com
J W B Greenwood <bro...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> Her theory that private management is better than public has been shot
down
> in flames in the example of the railway system.
Except that the railway system has never been privatised in any
meaningful sense; a change of managers from public to private is not
going to make much difference when there's no real competition and
government regulators still run the show.
Mark
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
mma...@my-deja.com
Of course some of us actually remember life in the 70s before she was
elected. Dragging the country out of that socialist cesspit and turning
it into something resembling a working first-world economy is hardly
what I'd call evil.
GarethInVegas
>it into something resembling a working first-world economy is hardly
>what I'd call evil.
A working third world economy that has to depend upon the japanese and koreans
for our major industries?
Back in the seventies, those jobs went to the third world because labour was so
cheap and had no rights........now they come here, you guess why.
Gareth
J W B Greenwood
<URL:mailto:black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
>
> >It would very interesting to
> >hear her definition of 'monopoly', since she simply exchanged a monopoly
> >public management for many private monopoly managements.
>
> Hmmm ... I wasn't aware that the "mono" in "monopoly" meant "many".
>
In individual areas they have a monopoly; similarly in many areas
supermarkets have a monopoly. I'm certain you didn't need it spelling out.
mma...@my-deja.com
gareth...@aol.com (GarethInVegas) wrote:
> A working third world economy that has to depend upon the japanese and
koreans
> for our major industries?
And how much of this country's income depends on those 'major
industries'?
> Back in the seventies, those jobs went to the third world because
labour was so
> cheap and had no rights........
Odd. Most lefties like to claim that exporting jobs abroad was one of
Thatcher's inventions.
> now they come here, you guess why.
Because EU protectionism prevents them from importing direct?
mma...@my-deja.com
J W B Greenwood <bro...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> In individual areas they have a monopoly; similarly in many areas
> supermarkets have a monopoly.
Really? How about you name some of these 'many' areas where a
supermarket has a monopoly? Areas where I can't find *anywhere* else to
buy food within, say, five miles?
Cliff Morrison
> In article <ant11081...@brooke.argonet.co.uk>,
> J W B Greenwood <bro...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > Her theory that private management is better than public has been shot
> > down in flames in the example of the railway system.
>
> Except that the railway system has never been privatised in any
> meaningful sense; a change of managers from public to private is not
> going to make much difference when there's no real competition and
> government regulators still run the show.
They need to surely, to see that the subsidy-junkie fatcats running the
(capitalist, private) railroad system don't kill or rip off the travelling
public to such an excessive extent that demands for its re-nationalisation
(without compensation) become unstoppable.
Doug.
>
>>>Hopkins. You *really* don't like powerful women, do you?
>
>>I have the greatest admiration for powerful women, I just believe this
>>one is evil on a par with a creature from one of the inner circles of
>>hell.
>
>It is quite amusing seeing how unbalanced some people become when they
>talk of her. Since it is totally irrational so to hate somebody who
>you've never met, and has never personally done you any harm* - even
>to the extent of making a prat of yourself waltzing down the Strand???
>- I had assumed that this was some sort of mother fixation.
>
>(* Real harm I mean ... not the "everything that has ever gone wrong
>in my world has never ever been my fault ... oh no ... I am perfect
>... my counselor told me so ... it has always been the fault of that
>woman" sort of "harm".)
She was a destroyer, she won the final battle of who should get the
monsters' share of the industrial profits cake. She took the working class
mans' condition right back fifty years to the serfdom of the twenties.
She destroyed the traditional industrial base that made this Country the
envy of the world by destroying the workers' rights to have spokesmen
argue their case in the undignified scrabble for a fair share of the loot
gleaned from the skills of their minds and hands.
She gave free reign to the profiteers and financial crooks, who have now
taken complete control and made this island a sole dicey financial
institution.
She stifled the brains and skills of the innovative Engineering sectors
and caused the closing down and destruction of the buildings of the finest
Engineering Colleges in the World.
Her epitaph should read, "Maggie wants rid of our Shipyards".
The flash of terror those words caused echoed down the mean streets of
terraced houses and Council Housing Estates.
In order to steal votes she flogged off at ridiculous prices the working
mans' only hope of a home to live in, - a Council House.
She threw onto the mercy of the dicey Mortgage market the youngsters
who wished to marry but could not scrape together the money for the
down payment, and I and my wife were two who had to live in a
disgusting wooden military hut with the moisture seeping down the
inside walls and the privy 50 yards across the field. This was the gift of
our grateful Country, alongside the munificent sum of 60 pounds cash (10
pounds for every year) we spent conducting a global war in foreign
stink-holes.
'Maggie Thatcher the job - snatcher' is still scrawled across one street
near here. Perhaps that should be her epitaph.
Having now been given a year's rise of 75 pence, what do we see?.
Foreigners flooding into our country as though they owned it.
Our pensioners get a 75 pence increase. What do those incoming
foreigners become entitled to as soon as they climb down off the backs
of their lorries?.
Immediate asylum without question. Can anyone see that happen in
Saudi, or the U.A.E??. Not bloody likely!. There, they have control
over their own land and say who enters it, and anyone who enters it has
to have evidence of self-support and sustenance. Workers have to be
sponsored, - and quite right, too.
Here the pensioner with his derisory 75 pence has to pay taxes in order
to house, feed and pay the stink-hole dropouts who won't, at any price,
work and fight for their own country and with justification see they are
on to a good thing and that this island is populated by stark raving mugs.
God help our children , and their children.
We won the Wars but weak, squalid politicians have trounced us in the
Peace we gained for them.
Hilda, above all, sold us all down the river.
--Doug.
a goss
>In article <39912661...@news.freeuk.net>,
> Ala...@freeuk.net (a goss) wrote:
>> She was/is evil. A destroyer rather than a creator.
>
>Of course some of us actually remember life in the 70s before she was
>elected. Dragging the country out of that socialist cesspit and turning
>it into something resembling a working first-world economy is hardly
>what I'd call evil.
>
I worked through the 60's 70's 80's and most of the 90's. I saw my
standard of living improve through the first of those two decades
then decline in the 80's when the thing from hell got power.
She got to power on the back of a slogan criticising the labour
government for high unemployment then she and her hellspawn proceeded
to follow policies that more than quadrupled unemployment throwing
millions out of work and into misery. They destroyed businesses and
jobs. The cesspit was the greedy criminal tory government and I'd
hardly call what we had when she was kicked out of power a working
first world economy. Not when we had beggars in the streets again.
Something not seen since the 30's and more reminiscent of Calcutta
than the late 20century UK..
Martin Veasey
wrote:
>I bet they bury the bitch at sea.
>She killed more Englishmen and destroyed more English cities than the
>Germans did in WW2.
>We should campaign for the revocation of her title, at least to prevent her
>offspring becoming a Baron.
I think you'll find it's a life peerage. Interesting factoids, though.
References?
Robin
>In article <39912661...@news.freeuk.net>,
> Ala...@freeuk.net (a goss) wrote:
>> She was/is evil. A destroyer rather than a creator.
>
>Of course some of us actually remember life in the 70s before she was
>elected. Dragging the country out of that socialist cesspit and turning
>it into something resembling a working first-world economy is hardly
>what I'd call evil.
>
That's because you represent the worst type of money grabbing selfish
git. And, despite promises to piss off overseas you're still here
sucking in resources whilst attempting to give as little back as
possible.
--
Robin
Marc Living
wrote:
>In article <h1a6psg18s10bhcp3...@4ax.com>, Marc
>Living <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> writes
>>On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 17:03:05 GMT, Ala...@freeuk.net (a goss) wrote:
>>>>>Why?
>>>>>She was/is evil. A destroyer rather than a creator.
>>>>I've come to the conclusion that you are the reincarnation of Matthew
>>>>Hopkins. You *really* don't like powerful women, do you?
>>>I have the greatest admiration for powerful women, I just believe this
>>>one is evil on a par with a creature from one of the inner circles of
>>>hell.
>>It is quite amusing seeing how unbalanced some people become when they
>>talk of her. Since it is totally irrational so to hate somebody who
>>you've never met, and has never personally done you any harm* - even
>>to the extent of making a prat of yourself waltzing down the Strand???
>>- I had assumed that this was some sort of mother fixation.
>>(* Real harm I mean ... not the "everything that has ever gone wrong
>>in my world has never ever been my fault ... oh no ... I am perfect
>>... my counselor told me so ... it has always been the fault of that
>>woman" sort of "harm".)
>She was a destroyer,
The goddess Shiva eh? How highly you must rate her.
>she won the final battle of who should get the
>monsters' share of the industrial profits cake. She took the working class
>mans' condition right back fifty years to the serfdom of the twenties.
>She destroyed the traditional industrial base that made this Country the
>envy of the world
Don't forget the hand-loom weavers and the coil/oil lamp manufacturers
- not to mention the hansom carriage makers. How disgraceful that they
are not currently being subsidised by the state.
(And let's not forget the candlemakers. What a torrid time *they've*
had since that terrible woman ended all those lovely power cuts.
Ortabeyaloragainstit.)
>by destroying the workers' rights to have spokesmen
>argue their case in the undignified scrabble for a fair share of the loot
>gleaned from the skills of their minds and hands.
LoL. I take it that this (and the snipped stuff) is all a piss-take.
Marc Living
<bro...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <jqu7ps4ehuub1eo59...@4ax.com>, Marc Living
><URL:mailto:black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:57:17 +0100, J W B Greenwood
>> <bro...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>> >It would very interesting to
>> >hear her definition of 'monopoly', since she simply exchanged a monopoly
>> >public management for many private monopoly managements.
>> Hmmm ... I wasn't aware that the "mono" in "monopoly" meant "many".
>In individual areas they have a monopoly; similarly in many areas
>supermarkets have a monopoly. I'm certain you didn't need it spelling out.
And which of the privatised industries are now monopolies? BT - I
don't use it. Electric? I get people coming around all the time asking
me to switch supplliers. Likewise water.
Railways? Whilst only two companies pass through my station, three use
the next one up. (Although I do agree that Major's privatisation of
the railways left something to be desired.)
(Oh, and whilst we're at it, perhaps you could mention an area or two
where a supermarket has a monopoly on food distribution.)
Marc Living
wrote:
>>Dragging the country out of that socialist cesspit and turning
>>it into something resembling a working first-world economy is hardly
>>what I'd call evil.
>A working third world economy that has to depend upon the japanese and koreans
>for our major industries?
A third world economy may well have to. This one doesn't.
>Back in the seventies, those jobs went to the third world because labour was so
>cheap and had no rights........now they come here, you guess why.
Ah, back in the 1970s. Happy days. When you could always depend on a
Labour Government to have sterling or balance of payments crises every
quarter, and Labour Chancellors had to keep passing emergency
mini-budgets (when they weren't on the plane to beg an overdraft from
the IMF) to cope with the financial emergencies: and the main question
of the day was whether Britain was run from Downing Street or
Transport House.
The worst legacy of Mrs T is that she left an economy which even
Labour couldn't muck up (well ... not yet anyway:-)
Marc Living
Marc Living
>>Of course some of us actually remember life in the 70s before she was
>>elected. Dragging the country out of that socialist cesspit and turning
>>it into something resembling a working first-world economy is hardly
>>what I'd call evil.
>I worked through the 60's 70's 80's and most of the 90's. I saw my
>standard of living improve through the first of those two decades
>then decline in the 80's when the thing from hell got power.
Basically then, your argument is: "I don't give a f*ck that my country
was going down the lavatory, *I* was doing all right Jack".
>She got to power on the back of a slogan criticising the labour
>government for high unemployment then she and her hellspawn proceeded
>to follow policies that more than quadrupled unemployment throwing
>millions out of work and into misery.
Far better for them to be endlessly and increasingly subsidised by a
rapidly diminishing base of taxpayers to keep polluting their
townsfolk into an early grave so that they could continue making
things that nobody wanted to buy.
If you believe that whole industries can run indefinitely making ever
increasing losses - and requiring ever increasing subsidies - then,
quite frankly, you are living in some kind of fairyland. If you want
to blame anybody for this state of affairs, you should blame the
people who nationalised them, and then left them to rot, in the first
place.
>They destroyed businesses and
>jobs. The cesspit was the greedy criminal tory government and I'd
>hardly call what we had when she was kicked out of power a working
>first world economy. Not when we had beggars in the streets again.
>Something not seen since the 30's and more reminiscent of Calcutta
>than the late 20century UK..
What total twaddle. There were beggars on the streets during the 1960s
and 1970s. The only difference being that they had to keep out of the
way of the police because they were liable to be arrested and locked
up for vagrancy and/or clapped into some asylum somewhere providing
raw material for the shrinks to play around with their new toys.
Remember "Cathy come home"?
a goss
<black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 22:36:42 GMT, Ala...@freeuk.net (a goss) wrote:
>
>>>Of course some of us actually remember life in the 70s before she was
>>>elected. Dragging the country out of that socialist cesspit and turning
>>>it into something resembling a working first-world economy is hardly
>>>what I'd call evil.
>
>>I worked through the 60's 70's 80's and most of the 90's. I saw my
>>standard of living improve through the first of those two decades
>>then decline in the 80's when the thing from hell got power.
>
>Basically then, your argument is: "I don't give a f*ck that my country
>was going down the lavatory, *I* was doing all right Jack".
It might be your argument . It isn't mine. The country didn't seem to
be going down the pan from my perspective. If anything it was getting
better in spite of the right wing press reports that over emphasised
the effects of the left wing actions,
>
>>She got to power on the back of a slogan criticising the labour
>>government for high unemployment then she and her hellspawn proceeded
>>to follow policies that more than quadrupled unemployment throwing
>>millions out of work and into misery.
>
>Far better for them to be endlessly and increasingly subsidised by a
>rapidly diminishing base of taxpayers to keep polluting their
>townsfolk into an early grave so that they could continue making
>things that nobody wanted to buy.
Are you saying Thatcher didn't subsidise anybody?
>
>If you believe that whole industries can run indefinitely making ever
>increasing losses - and requiring ever increasing subsidies -
Tell me when we stopped subsidising the military, the police, the
civil service etc.
How much subsidy does the defense industry get?
Who made a packet out of the repeal of the truck act?
> then,
>quite frankly, you are living in some kind of fairyland. If you want
>to blame anybody for this state of affairs, you should blame the
>people who nationalised them, and then left them to rot, in the first
>place.
So the tories never nationalised anything?
>
>>They destroyed businesses and
>>jobs. The cesspit was the greedy criminal tory government and I'd
>>hardly call what we had when she was kicked out of power a working
>>first world economy. Not when we had beggars in the streets again.
>>Something not seen since the 30's and more reminiscent of Calcutta
>>than the late 20century UK..
>
>What total twaddle. There were beggars on the streets during the 1960s
>and 1970s. The only difference being that they had to keep out of the
>way of the police because they were liable to be arrested and locked
>up for vagrancy and/or clapped into some asylum somewhere providing
>raw material for the shrinks to play around with their new toys.
The laws were still there.
I got around the country a lot and never saw a beggar in the streets
until your domanatrix buddy took control.
>
>Remember "Cathy come home"?
>
Yes. The title. Never saw it.
When it was (1969?) shown I was working an 84 hour week and didn't
have much time for tv. The city I lived in had 10% unemployment for
most of the 60's and in the early part of the decade when I left
school youth unemployment was 15%
I was also living in a 12'x12' room with a wife and child. The toilet
and fresh water tap was shared with 4 other families. We got to it
down two flights of stairs and down the bottom of the yard. Every
morning at 6am I carried a Burco boiler down and filled it up with
fresh water and carried it back up stairs. Then I carried the bucket
we peed into during the night. down and emptied it. Then I went to
work. I washed at the pit and my wife got a sponge down in the baby
bath and a proper bath once a week.
Don't tell me about the swinging 60's cos they didn't.
But things were getting better.
They did get better until the greasy thieving tories of the 80's.
a goss
<Alp...@droom.demon.co.uk.spam> wrote:
>In article <8n1cnb$sjc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, mma...@my-deja.com writes
>>In article <39912661...@news.freeuk.net>,
>> Ala...@freeuk.net (a goss) wrote:
>>> She was/is evil. A destroyer rather than a creator.
>>
>>Of course some of us actually remember life in the 70s before she was
>>elected. Dragging the country out of that socialist cesspit and turning
>>it into something resembling a working first-world economy is hardly
>>what I'd call evil.
>>
>> Mark
>
>That's because you represent the worst type of money grabbing selfish
>git. And, despite promises to piss off overseas you're still here
>sucking in resources whilst attempting to give as little back as
>possible.
>Robin
LOL
Most apt
Doug.
Living <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> writes
>On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:21:30 +0100, "Doug." <D...@yarlside.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <h1a6psg18s10bhcp3...@4ax.com>, Marc
>>Living <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> writes
>
>>>>>>Why?
>>>>>>She was/is evil. A destroyer rather than a creator.
>
You would. You are ignorant of what has happened. That is probably
because when it was all happening you were still running up and down
Daddy's backbone
Also I expect you have never been tied into a heavy industry area from
birth.. You certainly know nothing of the grinding poverty of the
Twenties, with no sign of a Labour Party so who to blame, Hey?.
--Doug.
Terry Smith
"Marc Living" <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:s58apss7fk7lipbra...@4ax.com...
>
> Remember "Cathy come home"?
>
Follow-ups set, even if you do think she is a Legend.
J W B Greenwood
<URL:mailto:black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 16:27:16 +0100, J W B Greenwood
> <bro...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <jqu7ps4ehuub1eo59...@4ax.com>, Marc Living
> ><URL:mailto:black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 09:57:17 +0100, J W B Greenwood
> >> <bro...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> >It would very interesting to
> >> >hear her definition of 'monopoly', since she simply exchanged a monopoly
> >> >public management for many private monopoly managements.
>
> >> Hmmm ... I wasn't aware that the "mono" in "monopoly" meant "many".
>
> >In individual areas they have a monopoly; similarly in many areas
> >supermarkets have a monopoly. I'm certain you didn't need it spelling out.
>
> And which of the privatised industries are now monopolies? BT
If it isn't a monopoly, why are all the other communications people
complaing about them not allowing connections for their services ?
> - I
> don't use it. Electric? I get people coming around all the time asking
> me to switch supplliers. Likewise water.
And whichever you use there is very little difference overall.
>
> Railways? Whilst only two companies pass through my station, three use
> the next one up.
All going to the same place ?
( Although I do agree that Major's privatisation of
> the railways left something to be desired.)
>
> (Oh, and whilst we're at it, perhaps you could mention an area or two
> where a supermarket has a monopoly on food distribution.)
>
Never done a survey, the government is current investigating them for
running 'near cartels'.
I live in one of those unique areas where the nearest alternative is over 4
miles away.
>
> --
> Marc Living (remove "BOUNCEBACK" to reply)
> ***********************************************
> "The first objective of any tyrant in Whitehall
> would be to make Parliament utterly subservient
> to his will; and the next to overturn or diminish
> trial by jury ..." Lord Devlin
> http://www.holbornchambers.co.uk
> ************************************************
>
--
J W B Greenwood
wrote:
> In article <ant11151...@brooke.argonet.co.uk>,
> J W B Greenwood <bro...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> > In individual areas they have a monopoly; similarly in many areas
> > supermarkets have a monopoly.
>
> supermarket has a monopoly? Areas where I can't find *anywhere* else to
> buy food within, say, five miles?
If I named them would run around checking the accuracy ?
I do like most people do, note it and forget it except as fact.
In my own town the nearest alternatives are at least four miles away and not
best served by public transport.
Five miles is much too far for many people to travel unless they have their
own transport. In a lot of cases having family transport doesn't guarantee
'easy' access unless the stores remain open until late. (If I gave you a
long list of families who have one night a week when they can go shopping
would you check on it ? Would you accept it as a general condition or
would you say the place must be unique ?)
The situation is well known and is under government investigation for
running a 'near cartel' system to the detriment of comsumers.
No, I'm not a member of the government or a civil servant, just someone who
reads a newspaper intelligently.
John Bennett
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 18:15:57 +0100, Martin Veasey <use...@veasey.org>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 21:53:13 +0100, "John Bennett"
<ny...@worldonline.co.uk>
> >wrote:
>
> >>I bet they bury the bitch at sea.
> >>She killed more Englishmen and destroyed more English cities than the
> >>Germans did in WW2.
> >>We should campaign for the revocation of her title, at least to prevent
her
> >>offspring becoming a Baron.
>
> >I think you'll find it's a life peerage. Interesting factoids, though.
> >References?
>
> His imagination.
>
eyes in terror as you passed Sheffield on your left and Rotheram on your
right, both of them devestated by thatchies policies, the average for
suicides amongst businessmen rose threefold during the thatcher years, sorry
I cannot remember where I read this, possibly The Mirror??JB
> --
> Marc Living ***
John Bennett
Marc Living
wrote:
>>LoL. I take it that this (and the snipped stuff) is all a piss-take.
>You would. You are ignorant of what has happened. That is probably
>because when it was all happening you were still running up and down
>Daddy's backbone
As a matter of fact, I remember the 1970s perfectly well thank you. I
remember driving to Price's in order to try to buy some candles for
the interminable power cuts. I remember buying a copy of the one and
only edition of "Not the Times" during the year long "Times" strike" -
a strike which left a once proud institution crippled and easy prey
for the Murdochs of this world.
I remember the weekly sterling crises. I remember the quarterly
balance of payments crises. I remember a *British* Chancellor of the
Exchequer having to join the queue, together with all the other third
world nobodies, to get down on his knees and beg for an overdraft from
the IMF.
I remember all the "mini-budgets" and emergency exchange controls
which made it a criminal offence to own gold, or to take more than £50
(later raised to £250) out of the country. I remember when credit
cards were reserved only for the wealthy. I remember when you had to
wait six months for a phone (any colour you like, so long as its
black, or was a Jason Wyngard tweeter phone) to be installed to a
party line (and how many people now remember what a party line was?).
I remember when every other day's newspapers led with the latest
strike, when their leaders were full of speculations of "who runs
Britain", and whether it was really possible that the most influential
nation the world had ever seen could possibly be the first to fall
from the first to the third world. I remember when the French and
Germans would refer contemptuously about the "sick man of Europe" and
"the British disease".
I remember when we had Governments so bereft of ideas that they would
use other peoples money to bribe voters to build ships which had to be
given away for free to Polish shippers - thereby enabling them to put
British shippers out of business. Governments who were so cynical in
their crapulence that they thought they knew best how much people
should be paid. Governments who so debased a once proud and stable
currency that inflation reached latin american proportions.
I remember the "green goddesses" out on the streets when the army had
to be called upon to fight fires, because the firemen were on strike.
I remember the bags of refuse, and the rats they attracted, littering
the streets when the dustmen went on strike. I remember the picket
lines preventing people from going to hospital.
I remember when the hope for Britain's educational future was
cynically and criminally dismantled for short-term political reasons.
I remember a decade when hope was a commodity in very short supply.
So tell me ... what exactly do *you* remember about that god-forsaken
decade?
Marc Living
>>>I worked through the 60's 70's 80's and most of the 90's. I saw my
>>>standard of living improve through the first of those two decades
>>>then decline in the 80's when the thing from hell got power.
>>Basically then, your argument is: "I don't give a f*ck that my country
>>was going down the lavatory, *I* was doing all right Jack".
>It might be your argument . It isn't mine. The country didn't seem to
>be going down the pan from my perspective. If anything it was getting
>better in spite of the right wing press reports that over emphasised
>the effects of the left wing actions,
At the risk of repeating myself:-
>>>She got to power on the back of a slogan criticising the labour
>>>government for high unemployment then she and her hellspawn proceeded
>>>to follow policies that more than quadrupled unemployment throwing
>>>millions out of work and into misery.
>>Far better for them to be endlessly and increasingly subsidised by a
>>rapidly diminishing base of taxpayers to keep polluting their
>>townsfolk into an early grave so that they could continue making
>>things that nobody wanted to buy.
>Are you saying Thatcher didn't subsidise anybody?
Is this intended to address the point I made? Or are you now seeking
to shift the goalposts?
>>If you believe that whole industries can run indefinitely making ever
>>increasing losses - and requiring ever increasing subsidies -
>Tell me when we stopped subsidising the military, the police, the
>civil service etc.
>How much subsidy does the defense industry get?
Defence isn't a subsidised industry, it is a government service. A
service which, I might add, was one of those which Thatcher's
government cut quite drastically.
>Who made a packet out of the repeal of the truck act?
I don't know. Who?
>> then,
>>quite frankly, you are living in some kind of fairyland. If you want
>>to blame anybody for this state of affairs, you should blame the
>>people who nationalised them, and then left them to rot, in the first
>>place.
>So the tories never nationalised anything?
Thatcher didn't.
>>>They destroyed businesses and
>>>jobs. The cesspit was the greedy criminal tory government and I'd
>>>hardly call what we had when she was kicked out of power a working
>>>first world economy. Not when we had beggars in the streets again.
>>>Something not seen since the 30's and more reminiscent of Calcutta
>>>than the late 20century UK..
>>What total twaddle. There were beggars on the streets during the 1960s
>>and 1970s. The only difference being that they had to keep out of the
>>way of the police because they were liable to be arrested and locked
>>up for vagrancy and/or clapped into some asylum somewhere providing
>>raw material for the shrinks to play around with their new toys.
>The laws were still there.
What is this comment supposed to mean?
>I got around the country a lot and never saw a beggar in the streets
>until your domanatrix buddy took control.
Well der. If the homeless were all being rounded up to have electrodes
strapped to their heads before Thatcher, then you *wouldn't* have seen
them ... would you?
Still ... who gives a damn what happened to them. At least the streets
were neater and tidier, eh?
>>Remember "Cathy come home"?
>Yes. The title. Never saw it.
Perhaps you should if you believe that homelessness was a 1980s
invention.
>When it was (1969?) shown I was working an 84 hour week and didn't
>have much time for tv. The city I lived in had 10% unemployment for
>most of the 60's and in the early part of the decade when I left
>school youth unemployment was 15%
>I was also living in a 12'x12' room with a wife and child. The toilet
>and fresh water tap was shared with 4 other families. We got to it
>down two flights of stairs and down the bottom of the yard. Every
>morning at 6am I carried a Burco boiler down and filled it up with
>fresh water and carried it back up stairs. Then I carried the bucket
>we peed into during the night. down and emptied it. Then I went to
>work. I washed at the pit and my wife got a sponge down in the baby
>bath and a proper bath once a week.
>Don't tell me about the swinging 60's cos they didn't.
It was you who was saying that they were so much better in the 1960s.
>But things were getting better.
>They did get better until the greasy thieving tories of the 80's.
Do you now live in a smaller that 12'x12' room with shared lavatory
and no bath? You can't possibly have a *better* standard of living now
than you did then after all ... given the demoness from hell and all.
Drew McMichael
> I remember when
Ah . . . but do you remember Paris?
Andrew "or how to trim followups?" McMichael
Reverend Edwin
>Marc Living wrote:
>
>>On 13 Aug 2000 00:09:21 GMT, Drew McMichael <dr...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In alt.folklore.urban Marc Living <black...@bounceback.cwcom.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> I remember when
>>
>>>Ah . . . but do you remember Paris?
>>
>>That too:-)
>
>;-)
:^)
Ruth Saunders
news:3995...@news.server.worldonline.co.uk...
> Obviously when travelling along the M1 to Leeds, both of you closed your
> eyes in terror as you passed Sheffield on your left and Rotheram on your
> right, both of them devestated by thatchies policies,
They also clearly missed the clear example of Scunthorpe, a town which had
the stuffing kicked out of it thanks to Thatcher's policies. Steel industry?
What steel industry?
--
Person X.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get caught in jet engines.
<If you wish to mail me, remove all references to animals from my email
address.>
Ruth Saunders
> So tell me ... what exactly do *you* remember about that god-forsaken
> decade?
I remember people in the north having a job. I also remember then 80s when
they didn't.
Marc Living
<le...@redrose.worldonline.co.uk.cat> wrote:
>"John Bennett" <ny...@worldonline.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3995...@news.server.worldonline.co.uk...
>> Obviously when travelling along the M1 to Leeds, both of you closed your
>> eyes in terror as you passed Sheffield on your left and Rotheram on your
>> right, both of them devestated by thatchies policies,
>They also clearly missed the clear example of Scunthorpe, a town which had
>the stuffing kicked out of it thanks to Thatcher's policies. Steel industry?
>What steel industry?
Don't forget the hand loom weavers and the coal/oil lamp
manufacturers. Not to mention the hansom cab makers and blacksmiths.
What a waste. I propose we should immediately resurrect all those
essential industries and give them as many subsidies as are necessary
to enable them to retake their place within British industry.
Marc Living
<ny...@worldonline.co.uk> wrote:
>> >I think you'll find it's a life peerage. Interesting factoids, though.
>> >References?
>> His imagination.
>Obviously when travelling along the M1 to Leeds, both of you closed your
>eyes in terror as you passed Sheffield on your left and Rotheram on your
>right, both of them devestated by thatchies policies, the average for
>suicides amongst businessmen rose threefold during the thatcher years, sorry
>I cannot remember where I read this, possibly The Mirror??
Blame the governments which nationalised, neglected and let them die.
Not the government which stopped pretending they were still alive.
Marc Living
<le...@redrose.worldonline.co.uk.cat> wrote:
>"Marc Living" <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net> wrote in message
>news:smobpsobkh3j2esad...@4ax.com...
>> So tell me ... what exactly do *you* remember about that god-forsaken
>> decade?
>I remember people in the north having a job.
No you don't. You remember them being paid taxpayers money to do work
that nobody wanted doing, and making things that nobody wanted to buy
(unless forced to).
Marc Living
<bro...@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> Hmmm ... I wasn't aware that the "mono" in "monopoly" meant "many".
>> >In individual areas they have a monopoly; similarly in many areas
>> >supermarkets have a monopoly. I'm certain you didn't need it spelling out.
>> And which of the privatised industries are now monopolies? BT
>If it isn't a monopoly, why are all the other communications people
>complaing about them not allowing connections for their services ?
The very fact that there are "other communications people" itself
militates against your argument: there were none (outside Kingston)
when BT was still part of the Post Office.
>> - I
>> don't use it. Electric? I get people coming around all the time asking
>> me to switch supplliers. Likewise water.
>And whichever you use there is very little difference overall.
Very possibly - what of it?
>> Railways? Whilst only two companies pass through my station, three use
>> the next one up.
>All going to the same place ?
Obviously not. There will be some places served only by one company,
some served by two of them and some by all three.
>( Although I do agree that Major's privatisation of
>> the railways left something to be desired.)
>> (Oh, and whilst we're at it, perhaps you could mention an area or two
>> where a supermarket has a monopoly on food distribution.)
>Never done a survey, the government is current investigating them for
>running 'near cartels'.
That is a different question. There is certainly evidence that the
larger supermarkets have been running cartels. But even then they
prove self-defeating - because they raise the profit margins to such
an extent that it becomes worthwhile for new entrants - such as Lidl
or Wall-Mart - to enter the market.
(A balancing mechanism which is impossible when you have government
imposed monopolies.)
>I live in one of those unique areas where the nearest alternative is over 4
>miles away.
So it really comes down to how you are defining "area".
Paul Hyett
stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>
>So tell me ... what exactly do *you* remember about that god-forsaken
>decade?
>
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham, England
Paul Hyett
stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>
>>standard of living improve through the first of those two decades
>>then decline in the 80's when the thing from hell got power.
>
>Basically then, your argument is: "I don't give a f*ck that my country
>was going down the lavatory, *I* was doing all right Jack".
An attitude all the more common since the 1980's and Thatcherism.
>
>If you believe that whole industries can run indefinitely making ever
>increasing losses - and requiring ever increasing subsidies - then,
>quite frankly, you are living in some kind of fairyland. If you want
>to blame anybody for this state of affairs, you should blame the
>people who nationalised them, and then left them to rot, in the first
>place.
The Tory led coalition government in WW2? :)
Terry Smith
Followups set.
> I remember the "green goddesses" out on the streets when the army had
> to be called upon to fight fires, because the firemen were on strike.
Indeed - Firemen, those greedy self-serving lefties without a care for
society or their fellow men. Maggy sure sorted that sort of rabble out.
What do you do for a living? If alt.journalism is a clue, then I shudder to
think, as I don't recall seeing your name on a Guardian headline.
Marc Living
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Aug 2000, Marc Living <black...@BOUNCEBACK.cwcom.net>
>stated this considered view. To keep the thread going, I replied -
>>So tell me ... what exactly do *you* remember about that god-forsaken
>>decade?
>That for half of it we had a Tory government? :)
Heath was a Tory like Blair is a socialist.
Marc Living
<pah...@activist.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>If you believe that whole industries can run indefinitely making ever
>>increasing losses - and requiring ever increasing subsidies - then,
>>quite frankly, you are living in some kind of fairyland. If you want
>>to blame anybody for this state of affairs, you should blame the
>>people who nationalised them, and then left them to rot, in the first
>>place.
>The Tory led coalition government in WW2? :)
The nationalisations came after WW2. Both Conservative and Labour
governments between 1940 and 1979 played their part in degrading those
once proud industries: transforming them from viable enterprises into
political playthings.