Jump to content

Thatcher Dead


trophyshy
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 740
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Didn't Morrissey decree it too?

 

Don't know who this 6bells is since being told it's not CabayeAye, but he has to be the most boring twat we've had on here. At least with RossGurko, Leazes, and CT there was some entertainment in the political threads. This guy just seems obsessed and bitter without any redeeming qualities. How much time is he spending posting this tedious shit? Is anyone reading the longer posts?

 

You're trying to hard. Please continue though, its mildly amusing you're wasting so much time and effort trying to wind up strangers on an NUFC forum, and failing miserably. :blush2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sense an undercurrent of intimidation being directed toward the uncomfortably bright light of reality. Maybe socialism isn't as dead as I thought. Maybe it's next generation has eschewed the corridors of power for the basements of the internet, lashing out at the world while munching on celerey and listening to depressing one dimensional soul suckers like Morrissey. Come on guys, out the basement. Come join us in the real world. Despite what your dad told you while he was scaring you with bedtime stories about Thatcher Thacther the Milk Snatcher, there's still plenty of jobs out here, even for the likes of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that reminds me, here's some gold about the milk snatcher bullshit.

 

What is little known is that Mrs Thatcher actually opposed ending school milk and was forced into the position by the Treasury. She was so upset by the public response that she considered quitting politics. Free milk began in 1940 to ensure that young children had strong bones and teeth at a time of food shortages. In 2010, Anne Milton, a Health minister, had proposed ending the £50m-a-year Nursery Milk scheme, describing it as ineffective and expensive. She wrote: "There is no evidence that it improves the health of very young children yet the cost of delivering it is increasing significantly. We think the scheme is out of step with the principle that public funding should focus on the most needy." In five years the annual cost of the scheme in England has almost doubled to £50m.

 

Imagine that eh. If the socialists had put just that little bit more pressure on her, she might have quit altogether. Over a lie. In defence of a scheme that is wasting public money on something introduced to combat wartime food shortages but was still being maintained 30 years later for no benefit to kids and in no way directed at the needy. Socialism in action. You really can't make this shit up, yet it is the reality of what underpins what Maggie haters really believe. Idiots. I wonder how many nurses £50m a year funds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep it up mate, were secretly really appreciative of you taking so much valuable time out of your successful and fulfilling life to educate us. :)

 

Ah, you're too kind. That's something that's all too rare in old school socialists, genuine gratitude for being helped to understand the realities of the world they live in. Too many of them are just happy to bowl along believing any old crap they've been told or read about the evil Maggie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: at the fitter/sparky story. I've found you get good and not so good 'trades' and some do indeed like to finish their cup of teas and insist on spending their breaks together.

 

Joking aside, I'd much rather work for a company with a union than one without (and that's allowing for the fact they are completely toothless thanks to your hero). You don't get holidays and rights etc because your companies shareholders care, you get them through historical agreements won by those unions you hate. The likes of Heseltine, Thatcher, Tebbitt and their current demon offspring would've happily chased young kids up chimneys and down mines in a different era.

 

Sometimes it really does come down to 'them' and 'us'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

83 posts!

 

Scary stuff.

 

 

edit; he's right about that twat Morrissey.

 

There's people on here with 25 or 30 thousand posts. How the fuck does that happen? Can't wrap my head around it. You'd have to be brain dead once you reach that level of post on a football forum, surely. I've seen nothing in here that would keep anyone interested for that length of time. It's more boring in here than mumsnet frankly. Still, Morrissey? Yes, twat indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's people on here with 25 or 30 thousand posts. How the fuck does that happen? Can't wrap my head around it. You'd have to be brain dead once you reach that level of post on a football forum, surely. I've seen nothing in here that would keep anyone interested for that length of time. It's more boring in here than mumsnet frankly. Still, Morrissey? Yes, twat indeed.

 

To be fair, most people post outside of just one thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:lol: at the fitter/sparky story. I've found you get good and not so good 'trades' and some do indeed like to finish their cup of teas and insist on spending their breaks together.

 

Joking aside, I'd much rather work for a company with a union than one without (and that's allowing for the fact they are completely toothless thanks to your hero). You don't get holidays and rights etc because your companies shareholders care, you get them through historical agreements won by those unions you hate. The likes of Heseltine, Thatcher, Tebbitt and their current demon offspring would've happily chased young kids up chimneys and down mines in a different era.

 

Sometimes it really does come down to 'them' and 'us'.

 

Ah no, not just finish a tea or want to coordinate your break with mates, that's reasonable. But I am talking about people who would literally leave a job at the precise second, and not return until the precise second. And wouldn't even answer a work related question if they were 'on a break'. And they would also adjust the speed with which they worked, and yes, even the speed at which they waddled their fat asses along the shop floor, in order to acheive this level of extreme selfishness. It sometimes didn't even matter if that left the plant in an unsafe condition.

 

As for a statement like "You don't get holidays and rights etc because your companies shareholders care, you get them through historical agreements won by those unions you hate.", well, come on, that's being a bit revisionist, and then some. The concept of workers rights predates the concept of unions by about 2 centuries. Given the fact the only lawmakers around at the time were most definitely not the working class, just who the bollocks do you think were behind this drive to improve the lot of the workers? Unions played a part later on, but for much of this early history they caused as much death and suffering as any of the agreements they secured saved. By the time of the 18th Century, unions were not the sole protectors of rights, and to claim otherwise is ludicrous, and ignores the existence of people like Bourneville and many other enlightened industrialists (which, by the way, were just a modern version of the patrons and guild masters that came before them). The Liberals did as much for latter developments than the unions, or the eventual Labour Party, easily. By the 1970s, they had no role at all, not in the sense that without them there would be no way for workers rights to be protected and advanced, whilst also allowing businesses to actually operate. Finally, it doesn't even make sense to talk about holidays and rights in the same breath as union agreements in the modern era, they are two different things. I had rights and holidays in that factory, and that had absolutely nothing to do with the modern day union's agreements or activities. It actually made me laugh when I was able to arrange an ad hoc day off here and there in a way that went way beyond their statutory obligations, but which they did because there was an atmoshpere of mutual benefit and respect between us and our section of management because we worked in a way that benefitted the company as much as looked out for our own interests, something the idiot fitters were unble to do because of their cast iron agreement they had bravely secured with their part of the management. Pillocks. I also never even had the heart to tell them I was being paid more than they were too at my age. Despite the management having conned them into thinking they still used 'grades' in our section, in reality you got paid what you were worth in a free market. Which, for a lazy fat fitter it turns out, wasn't much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Banned from mumsnet. :lol:

 

That site has got both David Cameron and Ed Milliband to give them interviews. Probably even change a policy here and there. www.socialistaction.com were fuming

 

 

(btw don't click that link, I literally just made it up, I have no idea if it goes anywhere, so don't blame me if it's goat porn or something)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.