I've told him I won't debate with him when he posts links. I'm only interested in what posters genuinely think and believe. None of this devils advocacy nonsense.

You can never 'win' an internet argument/discussion, lively and interesting as they are.

People are already entrenched into their viewpoints and have a wealth of 'supporting evidence' to back their stance.

i would like to feel i have been educated by this thread. Particularly relating to the miners strike.

*I have learnt of how shlt Labour were before the Tories got in.
*Reform was needed by the tories, but perhaps could have been done a lot better by Thatcher.
*How badly some elements of The Met behaved in the miners strike
* How bad the Union leaders were.
* How compassionate some elements of the police were.
* The polarisation of elements of society. (divide and conquer)

The miners weren't shirkers. They wanted to work, and in fvcking shlt conditions, too. (unlike a significant % of today's population)
Some steel and mineworkers even committed suicide due to enforced changes to their life/communities.(if they didn't suffer enough from COPD, or industrial 'white-finger')

The souring after-taste for these ex-workers, is that many people, government, investors, bankers, property magnates (including Union leaders) got massive financial rewards, for fundamentally doing fck-all.

Edited by Forest Hillbilly (12 Apr 2013 9.37pm)

I disengage, I turn the page.

Just an observation but his tactics seem so HalfManHalfSlug-like or is this just a standard leftie tactic?
For the younger posters he was a prodigious former poster on here.

I.E. Make a ludicrous statement. See it shot down with facts.
Ignore follow up with next ludicrous statement and post/quote link to totally biased blog. Ditto.
Deflect comment with attack on some small unimportant aside made ages ago and/or accuse others of also using biased information which patently isn't or attempt to inject humour when losing a point.
Ad nauseum.
As i say, just an observation.
On another aside is the lack of CF and WH on this thread a clue they are one and the same?

In the woods there grew a tree. And a fine fine tree was he.

What I have learnt - less from here and more from the 2 Parliamentary debates - is that

* there were 2 completely contrasting sides to Maggie, which were almost like 2 different people.
* she worked for 18 hours a day, more than twice most people
* she was the mother of twins, which is a known genetic inheritance

My conclusion is therefore that there were actually 2 Mrs Thatchers, not just one....

...which means that one may still be alive!

Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand!

My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right.

(Member of the School of Optimism 1969-2016 inclusive)

Except for the odd throw-away comment on a thread I didn't debate with them which is probably why you don't remember. Never said I did anyway.
He was an entertaining read old HMHS although I was more on Pete and CF's side however as I'm sure you'll disagree he often resorted to the above with his "I'm superior" attitude because he could post a link to an 18th century left wing scholar.

In the woods there grew a tree. And a fine fine tree was he.

I don't have a problem with landlords per se.

One and a half million council houses were sold off at up to 50% of their value. 1/3 of these houses are now owned by private landlords, fair play to private landlords if that is their way of making money. However the rent they are charging is way above what the council rent would have been. In the vast majority of cases, the houses are being rented back to people who would have, had there been enough, been renting off of the council. As tax payers, we are paying a lot of the (now inflated when compared to council)rent through housing benefit.
Rents have increased by 36% in the last few years- now whether this is partly because landlords know they are onto a good thing because they know they have a guaranteed income from benefit tenants is debatable but not unlikely-I know there are other reasons, supply/demand etc-(a hangover from the original sold off housing stock not being replaced)

So as tax payers, we are paying a great deal more to support those who need housing benefit in order to provide a profit for individuals rather than to a council who could use the money for other projects-building more houses, fixing the facking pothole in the road, keeping libraries open etc etc.

That is where my beef lies.

Edited by nickgusset (12 Apr 2013 10.24pm)