BoxRec

He's not everyone's cup of tea but I've always liked Glenn's commentary. Hope to hear him soon...

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:John,

"Well, Ian, like Thatcher I don't back away that easily!"

Well, John, I'll take that comment in the light-hearted spirit it was intended. Hopefully your intransigence won't result in loss of life and livelihood, as Maggie's did at times

"As far as defending a position against "I'll be trampling the ground and getting p***ed when the bitch dies!" type drivel"

Love the addition of 'type drivel'. That's the type of sneaky thing I'd do. Quote me where I said this. You might notice regarding tramping the ground down, I did say 'metaphorically

"Now as regards all the "The bitch Thatcher did it, it was her.." rants. Where exactly would Callaghan have taken the country had he won in 1979? Into the "Summer of Discontent"...? Even further under the influence and control of the Unions?"

That is a fair point, and one overlooked by raving anti-Thatcherites. She went the other way and vindictively destroyed communities, families and, yes, militancy.[/b]

No, I meant it literally. You can hide behind "metaphorically" if you want though!

Anyway, what has all this got to do with Glenn McCrory...?!

J

thing is, if my neighbours came round for a cup of tea every day i wouldn't be able to stand it. fecking communities

yeah and people wanting to talk to you on the tube, not just crazy people, but normal people on their way to work

...I shudder to think

get well soon Glenn

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:Might have posted this glorious quote from that evil bastard Thatcher before. It comes from one of her former aides who was at a dinner with her shortly after the defeat of the Miners:

"I know I shouldn't gloat about the miners...but I will!"

When I found out she had been deposed in 1990, I went straight out and celebrated.

I'm more mature now but will find it hard not to, on the occasion of her death to follow Morrissey's advice and, metaphorically at least, trample the dirt down.

Put in perspective weren't the minners screwing the country over too with outragouse pay increases time after time - and if they didn't get them there would be strikes. A country can't survive been taken to hostage like this. Miners couldn't be guaranteed jobs if they couldn't provide their service at the right price. They could always find other jobs.

Who wants to work down a mine anyway? If it wasn't for Thatcher we'd be in the same position as France i. And I did used to hate Thatacher myself but looking at it from an ecomomic standpoint it has moved the country forward even if she made mistakes along the way.

TerribleTerry wrote:

steve689 wrote:

yiddo14 wrote:Cant remember how long ago i see this particular story,but i remember reading about an illegel immigrant,driving a car,hitting and killing a little boy of about 4.The guy had no driving license,no insurance,should not of even been it the country,and if i remember correctly the guy had also been drinking.I think he served something like 9 weeks!!!!Compare that to last weeks story where gary linekers brother got 2 and half years nick for fraud(basically trying to keep his own money)

This happened in Wolverhampton as far as i am aware, the immigrant was from Zimbabwe and he ended up doing 10 weeks in Blakenhurst. Apparently his sentence was so lenient because onlookers said the boy ran out in front of him and he couldn't stop in time. A guy i know did time with this fellow and he was apparently a decent guy who was extremely remorseful and sorry etc but just relaying that information as this was a terrible crime (and lapse in the system) and he should have been looking at years.

I work with the sister of this poor lad and just so you know her whole life has been decimated by it; the sentence just made the loss of life feel all the more meaningless.

Terrible happening and they shoulda thrown the book at the illegal driving 5hitbag.

So if your licensed and insured its okay to kill someone on the road?

Sorry to say it but shouldnt the parents be teaching there kid not to run into the road in the first place?

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

So if your licensed and insured its okay to kill someone on the road?

Sorry to say it but shouldnt the parents be teaching there kid not to run into the road in the first place?

I can see your point - I see it regular on the way to work, where kids are either lagging 10-15 metres behind their parents or running like lunatics 10-15 metres in front while the mothers are chit chatting away seemingly quite happy to neglect the danger their kiddies are in.

On saying that, this guy may well have had the ability to avoid the child if he had of had a driving licence and therefore the experience of learning to drive and passing a driving test - The fact remains he shouldn't have been anywhere near a car, let alone driving one.

Lenny Albert wrote:yeah and people wanting to talk to you on the tube, not just crazy people, but normal people on their way to work

...I shudder to think

get well soon Glenn

if they're attractrive young women i don't mind

mickeybeard wrote:Couple of things that spring to mind:

Violent crime actually down on ten years ago, and not far off where it was 30 years ago, IIRC. How much of the current 'waves of violence' are actually different to how things were years ago, and how much is simply down to perception? Don't forget, we live in an era of unprecidented access to information, where 24hr news stations and *spit* tabloid newspapers compete for market share with ever more lurid headlines for an increasingly jaded audience. Is the world really a more violent place, or is every incident examined in minute detail by a media that has an awful lot of minutes/column inches to fill?

Ireland tends to have a less-harsh prison system than us, locks people up for less time, and uses more community punishment. They also have a lower reoffending rate. Many US states bang people up for years in conditions that resemble dog-fighting pits. I don't actually know what their reoffending rates are, but I'd bet good money they're worse than ours.

Now, I'm not saying the above reflect my actual opinions (arguing on the internet is like pissing into the wind) but it's just what popped into my head as I read this. I'd say my views are not as touchy-feely-cardy-wearing as what I've written might suggest, or as extreme as others (actually, that's a lie - I once came up with the idea of an annual Twat Cull, to keep their breeding numbers down, but that was, mostly, said in jest). I'm probably somewhere to the Left of Mussellini, and somewhere to the Right of Ghandi.

Anyway, Get Well Soon to Glenn, which is the important thing.

Actually violent crime is on the increase, whilst most other forms of crime are down. Look on the national statistics website for further information.

However, I don't believe we are in the era of armageddon as others on here would have us believe.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

mickeybeard wrote:Couple of things that spring to mind:

Violent crime actually down on ten years ago, and not far off where it was 30 years ago, IIRC. How much of the current 'waves of violence' are actually different to how things were years ago, and how much is simply down to perception? Don't forget, we live in an era of unprecidented access to information, where 24hr news stations and *spit* tabloid newspapers compete for market share with ever more lurid headlines for an increasingly jaded audience. Is the world really a more violent place, or is every incident examined in minute detail by a media that has an awful lot of minutes/column inches to fill?

Ireland tends to have a less-harsh prison system than us, locks people up for less time, and uses more community punishment. They also have a lower reoffending rate. Many US states bang people up for years in conditions that resemble dog-fighting pits. I don't actually know what their reoffending rates are, but I'd bet good money they're worse than ours.

Now, I'm not saying the above reflect my actual opinions (arguing on the internet is like pissing into the wind) but it's just what popped into my head as I read this. I'd say my views are not as touchy-feely-cardy-wearing as what I've written might suggest, or as extreme as others (actually, that's a lie - I once came up with the idea of an annual Twat Cull, to keep their breeding numbers down, but that was, mostly, said in jest). I'm probably somewhere to the Left of Mussellini, and somewhere to the Right of Ghandi.

Anyway, Get Well Soon to Glenn, which is the important thing.

Actually violent crime is on the increase, whilst most other forms of crime are down. Look on the national statistics website for further information.

However, I don't believe we are in the era of armageddon as others on here would have us believe.

I can't actually see a breakdown of crime on the statistics website. Anyway, the British Crime Survey says violent crime is decreasing, at least in England & Wales:

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/files ... nce_05.gif

I'm not sure about the stats but violent crime seems to have increased as the years have gone by, these days you see 90 year old women with their faces black and blue because some bag head wanted their purse with 80p in it. Makes me feel sick to the stomach to see that type of thing. I was just driving home now and two girls were rolling in the middle of the road pounding each other with hair all over the place, stopping all the traffic at the lights! Thank goodness i came home to the sanctity of Boxrec :P

steve689 wrote:I was just driving home now and two girls were rolling in the middle of the road pounding each other with hair all over the place, stopping all the traffic at the lights!

I bet you thought you had got away from all that when u left wolvo eh Steve?

Fair enough Steve, but on the other hand I'd say that graph is fairly representative of where I live. Plymouth was feckin' horrible in the mid-90s. Union St (the main strip of clubs) had meatwagons on every corner, and there were fight everywhere you went. Pubs were smashed up because rival dealers drank in them, smack and amphetamines were rife, and people got hit over the head with paving slabs. Fair enough, it's still not exactly a paradise, but it's a lot better than it was.

Maybe it's all just moved up your way?

Twinkle Toes wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:

So if your licensed and insured its okay to kill someone on the road?

Sorry to say it but shouldnt the parents be teaching there kid not to run into the road in the first place?

On saying that, this guy may well have had the ability to avoid the child if he had of had a driving licence and therefore the experience of learning to drive and passing a driving test - The fact remains he shouldn't have been anywhere near a car, let alone driving one.

Exactly TT - if you have no licence and insurance you should not be on the road full stop.

Who knows how poor a driver this idiot was?

Phenomenal-Nutrition - your post makes you come across like a pr1ck.

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote: Put in perspective weren't the minners screwing the country over too with outragouse pay increases time after time - and if they didn't get them there would be strikes. A country can't survive been taken to hostage like this. Miners couldn't be guaranteed jobs if they couldn't provide their service at the right price.

Tory propaganda, I remember the right wing press were full of this kind of misinformation at the time. Reports of miners asking/getting 300 quid a week I was on 74 quid take home and still have the pay slips to prove it. If you worked at a pit that had wide seams and you were on a road heading crew who had worked for three years putting in a new roadway. Then maybe when it started coaling you could drag that kind of money for a few weeks. Most moggies like me saw the slim side of a hundred.

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:They could always find other jobs.

Where ? one of my uncles hasn't worked since. Who's going to give a job to a 40 year old who has only worked at a pit since he was 16. And don't say self employed, how many fish and chip shops can you open in a village.

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote: Who wants to work down a mine anyway? If it wasn't for Thatcher we'd be in the same position as France i. And I did used to hate Thatacher myself but looking at it from an ecomomic standpoint it has moved the country forward even if she made mistakes along the way.

For most miners it was about saving the community and our way of life. Yes money was important but those who were avaricious soon buggered off to the oil rigs where you could get serious money.
Scargill said we should maintain the pits as we has only 20 years of gas left. If we had done we wouldnt be facing an energy problem now where other countries will soon have us over the proverbial barrell of oil.

Yes, interesting isn't it that all of a sudden coal is being seen as 'the fuel of the future' despite cuntcher's assertions that the pits were no longer economically viable?

The whole issue with the miners was nothing to do with modernising the nation, but rather with breaking the back of the trade unions. The miners represented a powerful faction not just as trade unionists, but also in deciding the make up of the labour party. By killing the manufacturing base in this country, thatcher hoped to destroy socialism, and in large part she did. We are now a far more self-centred service based country, where personal wealth and acquisition of material goods has become the holy grail, and we are definetly paying the price for that in raising a generation for whom obligation will become a dirty word.

What's wrong with having a strong sense of community, and having a strong sense of regional identity, truth is it makes people happy, a lot more than money does.

Interesting research has been done recently on what makes people happy, and interestingly, money is way way down on the list.

Being a Rotherham lad in the late 70's and early 80's, I saw what Thatcher did to comminuties like mine and in the surrounding vilages.

there may well have been a logical argument to be had that coal was not a sustainable industry given the cost to return ration and the same could have been argued for the steel industry ( the two were the main employers in town ) So, in a simple " on paper" way, the economics may seem to make sense years after the event.

What Thatcher's real crime was, was the total and utter neglect of the human impact of this. Defeating the unions fascilitated her plan to move us from a manufacturing based country to a services based. That argument has some merits when you look at how China and India are wiping the floor with industries ( such as the motor industry ) in Europe and the US

However, there was not a seconds thought for the impact on people, families and community. Rotherham is now, to all intents and purposes, a dead town. Some of the best people in the country thrown on the scrapheap for the way they voted. Consett was another perfect example. A town that practically closed.

Nothing was done to re-employ or retrain ( token efforts, but nothing that really got to the fabric of the issue ) and these people were seen as merely necessary casualties to a political aim.

There has been some recovery. Sheffield is now a wealthy town with one of the highest densities of millionaires in the country.

The crime issue is one that stems from that period. The feeling that if you did not go out and get something, you were not going to survive. The good side of that is the entrapeneur. The bad side is the criminal. Two sides of the same coin of the Thatcher legacy IMHO

While one can argue that every one has the opportunity to be the former, many are so disenfranchised that the latter is easier, quicker and more rewarding. Hence gangs, violent crime and the feeling that you can behave exactly as you want without fear of negative sanction

A final point on the value of the communities that have been torn apart. I read recently about a city garden in Hackney. It was vandalised and wrecked. The police did nothing considering it a low priority ( which on their current instructions from on high, it is ) So, the locals, knowing who it was who did it, refused to serve them in shops and pubs, put their pictures up everywhere in the neighbourhood and generally cut them off from the community. In the end, the gang that did it offerd to restore what they had dammaged better than before. Which, they duly did. One of them even got a job there having showed a green fingered rather than a light fingered hand.
A slightly hokey example but it speaks volumes about the power of the local community

Long post. Just my tuppence worth

Slapsie

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:Might have posted this glorious quote from that evil bastard Thatcher before. It comes from one of her former aides who was at a dinner with her shortly after the defeat of the Miners:

"I know I shouldn't gloat about the miners...but I will!"

When I found out she had been deposed in 1990, I went straight out and celebrated.

I'm more mature now but will find it hard not to, on the occasion of her death to follow Morrissey's advice and, metaphorically at least, trample the dirt down.

ELVIS COSTELLO MATE.

"I SAW A NEWPAPER PICTURE FROM THE POLITICAL CAMPAIGN,
A WOMAN WAS KISSING A CHILD WHO WAS OBVIOUSLY IN PAIN
ETC ETC ETC.

great album that.

GET WELL SOON GLENN! hope you bump into some of these fuckers when they arent mob handed and dish out some retribution.


As for the political arguments going on for fucks sake you lot,I get the feeling that half of you vote Labour / Tory cos your Grandad/Dad did.

To thoroughly stick to one party is sheer folly in my view, yeah Im a political chameleon, WHY?

cos politicians change their fornicating mind every two mins so I retain the right to the same.

Fact is half of you who are banging on about the miners strike know 3 fifths of fornicate all and are only telling one side of the story, the one that you want to.

Ive been through this before on here, you quote what you want to see without actually knowing what went on behind closed doors.

If thatcher was a pudendum Skargill is a bigger one, its obvious he had delusions of granduer from the start and if all you think his agenda was jobs for the lads, and decent pay, you are miles off..and need to take off those rose tinted specs.

Its all shades of grey with mistakes and bigotry on both sides from the political men/ parties involved.

the labour gvt and the unions were fornicating up this country in the 70's look at the 3day week the levels of tax while for crying out loud etc etc, the high unemployment, the fact that Britain was stagnating in a pool of its own piss in the 70's. Like it or not Thatcher changed that.
Thatcher stayed on too long, that was her biggest crime, and blair is making the same mistake.

Oh yeah Ill keep my right to vote whichever way I want chaps, seems some of you had pre-ordained from birth and yet still have opinions on it all despite the fact you probably dont agree with yourself in voting for that particluar party, which in my mind is the real crime.
its that type of utter bafoonery that voted Bush back in every one in the rest of the world knows we would inhabit a better safer planet if the Dems got in, apart from just over 50% of the populace of the USA.

this isnt aobut a fornicating football team this is about things that affect your life, and your kids lives, things that you bring up in day to day life, at work, in the pub, look even on boxing boards.

keep it real.

off now my one post for the day.

One thing which springs from all this.

Politicians have for a long time concentrated most of their efforts on making sure the economy is 'strong,' 'prosperous, 'etc.

Why is this so important? If it has been proven that being affluent doesn't make you happy (which it has), then what is the point focussing so much energy on making sure that our society is affluent.

The recent research indicates that anything over and above the amount needed to put a roof over our head, feed us, clothe us and keep us secure, does nothing to improve how happy we feel with life, so I ask you, should politics focus so much on the economic welfare of a nation?

I've got a mate who is making about £150,000 a year, but all he ever bangs on about is how he wants more, and how he wants enough to retire to Australia, as though that is the solution to everything. He spends about £1000 a month on coke, and despite earning about 5 times what I do a year, doesn't seem happy with his lot. This is hardly an isolated case. When I pointed out to him that if he retired in 5 years time he would be bored shitless, and that if he really wanted to, he could easily save enough money to go travelling for 2 years doing whatever he wanted from his massive salary, he just couldn't understand what I was on about.

Instead he continues to get up at 6 am, get home at 9pm every day, commuting 3-4 hours a day, carping about his well paid job killing his freedom and drinking himself into a stupor when he gets home, arguing with his missus constantly, and shovelling huge amounts of yayo up his hooter at every available opportunity.

Money sure makes you happy eh?

I know people that earn <15k, still work long hours, still get pissed up all the time, and still hoover up ching like there's no tomorrow. Difference is, the won't be able to afford to pack in working and take up golf at age 40. Or expensive lawyers if they twat someone while they're swaggering around coked up to the eyballs. Some people are just self-destructive arseholes.

Money might not make you happy on its own, but it certainly gives you more options.

JohnShep wrote:

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote: Put in perspective weren't the minners screwing the country over too with outragouse pay increases time after time - and if they didn't get them there would be strikes. A country can't survive been taken to hostage like this. Miners couldn't be guaranteed jobs if they couldn't provide their service at the right price.

Tory propaganda, I remember the right wing press were full of this kind of misinformation at the time. Reports of miners asking/getting 300 quid a week I was on 74 quid take home and still have the pay slips to prove it. If you worked at a pit that had wide seams and you were on a road heading crew who had worked for three years putting in a new roadway. Then maybe when it started coaling you could drag that kind of money for a few weeks. Most moggies like me saw the slim side of a hundred.

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:They could always find other jobs.

Where ? one of my uncles hasn't worked since. Who's going to give a job to a 40 year old who has only worked at a pit since he was 16. And don't say self employed, how many fish and chip shops can you open in a village.

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote: Who wants to work down a mine anyway? If it wasn't for Thatcher we'd be in the same position as France i. And I did used to hate Thatacher myself but looking at it from an ecomomic standpoint it has moved the country forward even if she made mistakes along the way.

For most miners it was about saving the community and our way of life. Yes money was important but those who were avaricious soon buggered off to the oil rigs where you could get serious money.
Scargill said we should maintain the pits as we has only 20 years of gas left. If we had done we wouldnt be facing an energy problem now where other countries will soon have us over the proverbial barrell of oil.

An interesting perspective John. Whats your opinion on Scargill and all the strikes, which did bring the country to the halt, did he push the gov too far and force them to shut the mines?

It would be interesting to see the average miner pay increases over the period, to see Scargills real demands and to see if the Gov losing money on the mines. Because at the end of the day if the givernment was losing money on the mines and the miners were going to continue to ask for more it would push up tax and ruin the economy for everyone

You make good points about finding it hard to find jobs after that but theres always something you can do if your desperate enough. I couldn't get a job myself and set up my own business which is doing nicely now but not everyones really cut out for that I can appreciate.

All in all it wasnt an easy situation/decision for the government or the miners.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Yes, interesting isn't it that all of a sudden coal is being seen as 'the fuel of the future' despite cuntcher's assertions that the pits were no longer economically viable?

The whole issue with the miners was nothing to do with modernising the nation, but rather with breaking the back of the trade unions. The miners represented a powerful faction not just as trade unionists, but also in deciding the make up of the labour party. By killing the manufacturing base in this country, thatcher hoped to destroy socialism, and in large part she did. We are now a far more self-centred service based country, where personal wealth and acquisition of material goods has become the holy grail, and we are definetly paying the price for that in raising a generation for whom obligation will become a dirty word.

What's wrong with having a strong sense of community, and having a strong sense of regional identity, truth is it makes people happy, a lot more than money does.

Interesting research has been done recently on what makes people happy, and interestingly, money is way way down on the list.

If the government at the time could buy gas/coal at a much lower value than it cost them to employ miners it made sense to buy elsewhere - simple really. The only reason its become a viable option again is because oil prices are sky high now (they werent then) and getting energy reserves at home has become more attractive again.

James what job do you do and would you be happy swapping it for going down a mine and making a fraction of your current earnings?

Okay heres a question where do you draw the line with Scargill, the strike action and the demands for higher wages. Do you pay 150% what it costs to buy coal/gas/oil elsewhere, 200%? 300%? 1000%? When does it become unfeesable? Because the trade unions were holding the country to hostage and asking for above inflation pay rises.

J wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote: GET WELL SOON GLENN! hope you bump into some of these fuckers when they arent mob handed and dish out some retribution.

As for the political arguments going on for fucks sake you lot,I get the feeling that half of you vote Labour / Tory cos your Grandad/Dad did.

To thoroughly stick to one party is sheer folly in my view, yeah Im a political chameleon, WHY?

Yea fogot to wish Geln the best. Hes probably a bigger man that if he did see 1 of these pieces of human vermin in the street he wouldn't even get violent. Real men don't need to ruin another man. But if he did I'd pat him on the back of course.

Scargill didnt want a strike, the Tories had been building up stocks at the pit heads since they came to power we all knew that. Then they kept pushing and pushing the miners into strike on thier terms. There was a procedure to close pits but they just ignored it and gave Cortonwood the chop. So spontaneously all the other pits (apart from those in scabland) came out in support. Scargill was facing a fait acomplis, all the miners were out and he could either make it official or have the union split as a lot of the lads were very angry and would not have gone back if he had told them to.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:One thing which springs from all this.

Politicians have for a long time concentrated most of their efforts on making sure the economy is 'strong,' 'prosperous, 'etc.

Why is this so important? If it has been proven that being affluent doesn't make you happy (which it has), then what is the point focussing so much energy on making sure that our society is affluent.

The recent research indicates that anything over and above the amount needed to put a roof over our head, feed us, clothe us and keep us secure, does nothing to improve how happy we feel with life, so I ask you, should politics focus so much on the economic welfare of a nation?

I've got a mate who is making about £150,000 a year, but all he ever bangs on about is how he wants more, and how he wants enough to retire to Australia, as though that is the solution to everything. He spends about £1000 a month on coke, and despite earning about 5 times what I do a year, doesn't seem happy with his lot. This is hardly an isolated case. When I pointed out to him that if he retired in 5 years time he would be bored shitless, and that if he really wanted to, he could easily save enough money to go travelling for 2 years doing whatever he wanted from his massive salary, he just couldn't understand what I was on about.

Instead he continues to get up at 6 am, get home at 9pm every day, commuting 3-4 hours a day, carping about his well paid job killing his freedom and drinking himself into a stupor when he gets home, arguing with his missus constantly, and shovelling huge amounts of yayo up his hooter at every available opportunity.

Money sure makes you happy eh?

Ever been poor, lived on the breadline or been to to developing countries where people are hustling to getsome change for their next meal? I'm allot happier when I have more money in my pocket and I don't think many would not be.

Goto agree that the office boy, work 14hours a day mentality is a lousy way to live life. I work for myself, work when I want and try to enjoy life, and enjoy work too.