Marmora Man

How much if the British media us controlled by the BBC, for which I am obliged to hold, and pay for, a licence? A soggy left of centre organisation that has consistently promulgated a left of centre point of view, while often accepting uncritically government propaganda. This doesn't in any way condone Murdoch's actions but his empire isn't the only one setting an agenda.

40 years ago I left school and joined the Royal Navy. It was a grey time. Police corruption was evident, the press was sleazy, politics were boring, stagflation was a problem, unemployment was rising, unions were flexing their muscle, politicians were in bed with business and "smoke filled rooms" deals went unremarked. Have I entered a tine warp and returned to my youth? I suppose the food is better - and the real beer revolution of the 70s was good for beer drinkers.

ratty Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It was not a war though was it? War is when one nation is using military force to subdue another. The Arentinians invaded British territory, the British used military force to evict them. You do not need a formal declaration delivered by an ambassador. The Belgrano task group was part of a pincer movement with the Arngentinian aircaft carrier and its task group. The aim of the pincer movement was to take out the UK flagships of Hermes and Illustrious. Had UK lost either of those ships it would not have been able to provide air cover to defend its troops and regain the islands. Belgrano was a legitimate target.

I was at my neice's wedding to a Scot this weekend. The men of his family arrived en masse in kilts, a number of his English friends - with formal roles of Best Man & Ushers also kilted up - and reported they found it an excellent outfit. As the wedding was in a Tithe Barn with Morris Men and country dancing - the English were able to respond in kind with a form of national outfit. However, it was the kilted men that engaged the interest of the female drinkers at the nearby pub. As a English man of many many generations with no discernible, or realistically believable, claim to a Scottish ancestry I regret having no excuse to wear a kilt. Would over 40 years of whisky drinking help me qualify?

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------ > Smug, sanctimonious.....perhaps. Right....absolutely. But also, so often wrong, wrong and wrong again,

As an occasional Guardian reader (always good to know what the opposition is thinking) I applaud thoroughly the Guardian's research and exposure of the NOTW. However, I don't think I've posted an anti Guardian post so don't D-C meet your criteria.

UDT - I am, and have always been, a right of centre sympathiser. (With apologies to HUAC and the US Grand Jury system) Having subscribed to this forum, almost, since its inception I can assure you that there is no right wing majority - along with a few, very few, like minded individuals I have fought a fairly lonely battle for my point of view. Along the way I have enjoyed the rational debates and fine political point scoring - I have never felt the need to resort to name calling or to cry "foul" to the ref. I have met and made friends with many people who espouse a completely different political philosophy - I hope this approach can be sustained. See This 2007 Post for an early example of such rational debate. Many disagreed with my position - none felt it necessary to insult me.

georgegarrett Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Listen socks only, your points are really just pants, stop ranting and start thinking So on the CV you posted for Mary Bousted, she has spent 9 years teaching in a school, 12 years teaching teachers and 8 years as a full time trades union official. I might, just, listen to Mary Bousted discussing teaching but nothing in that CV persuades me she has any knowledge of economics. As for "Finance for the Future" - you've posted a link to a left wing think tank with minimal followers and little, if any, impact on current political thinking. It appears to posit the usual left wing view that by taxing everything, everything can be solved. Reminds me of the quote "The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) reported (Sept '10) that the average weekly income for a private sector worker is ?465. Average weekly income for public sector worker is ?539 - a difference of ?75 a week. Add in the fact that > 85% of public sector workers have pensions and < 40% of private sector workers have pensions then the effect is greater (a pension is simply deferred pay / salary / income). Once this is factored in the difference becomes ?136.00. People choose jobs and careers for all sorts of reasons - at the beginning it seldom has much to do with the pay & pension arrangements - more about - suitability, aptitude, ability, availability, locality and other less financial factors. However, it is not "fair" to have one sector of the workforce apparently protected from the reality of planning for their future after retirement by a subsidy from the other sector of the workforce. Such a situation, if allowed to prevail, would create all sorts of perverse incentives that would damage British society. The madness of the Greek economy demonstrates what can happen when a job in the public sector is sought rather than private enterprise because public sector workers earn well over the average wage, retire at 50 on pensions equivalent of 80% of salary - all funded via dodgy bank loans from the EU. NOTES: 1. All figures taken from Office of National Statistics annual Labour & Workforce survey.

UDT - you're making this up as you go along aren't you? The Office for National Statistics (ONS) reported (Sept '10) that the average weekly income for a private sector worker is ?465. Average weekly income for public sector worker is ?539 - a difference of ?75 a week. Add in the fact that > 85% of public sector workers have pensions and < 40% of private sector workers have pensions then the effect is greater (a pension is simply deferred pay / salary / income). Once this is factored in the difference becomes ?136.00. People choose jobs and careers for all sorts of reasons - at the beginning it seldom has much to do with the pay & pension arrangements - more about - suitability, aptitude, ability, availability, locality and other less financial factors. However, it is not "fair" to have one sector of the workforce apparently protected from the reality of planning for their future after retirement by a subsidy from the other sector of the workforce. Such a situation, if allowed to prevail, would create all sorts of perverse incentives that would damage British society. The madness of the Greek economy demonstrates what can happen when a job in the public sector is sought rather than private enterprise because public sector workers earn well over the average wage, retire at 50 on pensions equivalent of 80% of salary - all funded via dodgy bank loans from the EU. NOTES: 1. All figures taken from Office of National Statistics annual Labour & Workforce survey. 2. Copied also to the Public Sector Pensions thread

UDT - the report did not state that Public Pensions were affordable. It did point out that the cost of Public Pension, assuming recent changes were fully implemented would fall as a proportion of GDP. That is not the same as "affordable". There is a still a rational debate to be had about the extent to which the tax payer should subsidise public sector pensions and what is "fair". Given the broad parity between public sector and private sector salaries & benefits then: a. Is it fair that a private sector employee has to save 20% of their salary to provide a reasonable pension for their future? b. Is it fair that they should also pay an additional ?1,000 a year in tax to pay for some else's public sector pension to which they (the public sector employee) only pays in 3% of salary?

GG - a few points: 1. Just because an economically illiterate union leader gets to make a statement on the BBC's Today programme it doesn't add any credence to the statement. The ratio of utter tosh spouted to common sense on that programme is almost about 70:30. 2. Presumably Christine Bousted was referring to tax relief on pension contributions; it was not clear. However, if that is the case - then public sector employee contributions benefit from the same tax relief - so it is not for the private sector alone, it is a sensible tax relief to encourage all employees to make sensible plans for their pension. 3. A notional tax not levied is not the same as a subsidy. Notionally the gov't could tax everyone at 100% - making, in Christine Bousted's view, any money we retain after current gov't taxes a subsidy. 4. Her proposition was rubbish - and the idea's lack of traction, except among the more excitable and foolish left wingers and / or union members, is an indication of how poor a suggestion it was.

katie1997 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Gosh, what insight into the forum from someone who > is relatively new. Been 'lurking' long then? > > Personally, I only bother to read ????, Marmora > Man and Loz in the DR. Most others are boring and > I cannot be ar5ed to read their splenetic > ramblings 'backed up' by Wikipedia. OK gross > generalisation and off topic, sorry Chair. Katie1997 - I bow to and salute you in acknowledgement of your kind words.

Horrible as this is for the boy's parents, friends and teachers - nastier still is a kneejerk, left wing, response by a Guardian writer Kia Abdullah to gap year students with double barreled names, on Twitter. She has since deleted the offending tweet but it remains available on the web for us to see how unpleasant some people can be. Guido Fawkes Blog Site

Is he hypocritical and defensive or is it OK for progressive writers (a term he has used to describe his political and personal position) to lie for the "greater good"? Or is he being bullied for a minor transgression - as Polly Toynbee alleges?

Try ABebooks also.

Wrong, wrong and wrong again. Accrued benefits to date remain unchanged. CPI only applies going forward - there is no retrospective change.

GG - you make the mistake of believing your own propaganda. This morning's press seem to rate yesterday's action at somewhere between "damp squib" [The Times], "respectable but not overwhelming" [Guardian] and "low turn out" [Telegraph]. The official opposition signally failed to endorse the strikes. On QT last night even Polly Toynbee struggled to make a case for the strike. The planned disruption failed to appear - 33% of schools remained fully open, another 33% were partially open. Airports carried on as usual, as did most of the civil service. Little solidarity was apparent from the general public. Strikes don't resolve arguments - rational discourse and discussion might. I have not been persuaded by yesterday that your cause has any logic, justice or right on its side.

Don't get too high on the adrenalin of strike action. The numbers weren't as high as predicted. Public support for the strike appears to be ambivalent at best. The fact that unions can mobilise a, reasonably, large number of strikers does not make their argument logical, sensible or right. The fact remains that the average public sector pension is heavily subsidised by the taxpayer - in a way, and to an degree, that private sector pensions are not. You and your fan club have yet to make an argument as to why tax payers should fund over two thirds of the cost of public sector pensions - when those same tax payers enjoy a far less generous pension scheme and receive, on average, a slightly lower income which at work.

Wrong again - I'm 6'5" in my socks and weigh 17 stone!

George, The NUT calculator comes out with the following figures for a 50 year old Inner London teacher on ?54K a year now and expecting to have a salary of ?62K just before retiring, if the proposed minor changes go thru' 1. An increase in pension contributions of ?91.62 a month. This would take the teacher's total monthly contributions to ~ ?275.00. Employer contributions will be ?640.00 a month 2. Retirement age becomes 66 (vice 65) 3. Pension will be ?1,975 a year LESS IF the teacher retires at 60. The NUT website is silent on the difference to pension if the teacher carries on until 65 but implies that this reduction will be less. If it wre more specific (honest) it might weaken the case it is trying to make. The website does not indicate what the actual pension would be - but the Teacher's Pension Scheme (TPS) suggests, using same salary figures, it would be a tad over ?26,500 a year under current rules - so about ?24,500 under the new rules, which plus the state pension would give today's pensioner teacher an annual pension of ~ ?30K, significantly above today's average income. Not a bad deal. The website also states, without making clear its calculation or assumptions, that over 25 years the total loss to a teacher will be ?170K. This is presumably the total estimated difference between a CPI uprated pension and an RPI uprated pension. Such a calculation is pure hypothesis and hyperbole and perhaps the basis for your rather wild claim of an ?8,000pa loss. No one can know what the difference between these two measures will be over the next 5 years - let alone the next 25 years. I would add that nothing I have said, in this or other posts, is meant in any way to diminish or belittle the work of teachers. It is a vitally important role.

Sag - you must start to read and analyse before engaging the "spout" mechanism. Teachers perform a vitally important role. Agreed. I have never said otherwise - anywhere - ever. Teachers are in a very valuable pension scheme that is 2/3 funded by the taxpayer. The scheme is now becoming unsustainable due to increases in longevity. Some basic, and relatively minor, changes to their pension scheme have been proposed. I was once a public sector employee and my public sector pension will be similarly affected but I support these necessary changes.

sagatelsagouni Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TWO hate-filled women leading the teachers' strike > today are left-wing extremists who put their > twisted politics ahead of kids' education. > > Mam man - writes in today's Sun. > > Also any of our Local politicians want to enter > this debate ? Doubtful. Sag - just to get it straight. I'm in my 50's My university was in London I spent 22 years in the Royal Navy I have never voted Lib Dem in my life I am eligible for a public sector pension that will be affected by the changes planned - CPI for RPI etc. I am not whinging but understand and recognise the reason for this change. I now work in healthcare - and will, one day, collect an NHS pension. Again it will be affected by proposed changes to public sector and again I agree with them. I have never read VIZ I don't know what cfra is - let alone drink it - my preferred tipple is malt whisky. I am one of the few right of centre posters on the Forum I do not read the Sun or the Mail. I tend to read the Economist, Times, Telegraph, Independent and Guardian to gain balanced view of events. I believe in small government, an minimum but essential "safety net" welfare system, low taxes and greater personal responsibility for all. I also prefer clarity in posts - something which is sorely lacking in most of yours. Finally - you ask elsewhere what benefit a Virgin Call Centre or John Lewis bring. Apart from providing a service which the paying punter finds useful they are staffed by the private sector workers that pay tax to fund the public sector. Without a vibrant and profitable private sector there will be no taxes and no public sector.

'bout now Wrote: "Are you suggesting people in public service don't pay tax? Or is it your tax/you are more important than other people?" Public sector workers pay tax - yes. However, they are paid by taxpayers - so the tax paid by the public sector is just "wooden dollars" - it does not increase the total tax take of the country, it merely recycles tax already ppaid by the private sector. So private sector tax is more important than public sector tax. The only reason for charging tax on public sector salaries is to ensure that headline salaries are comparable between the two sectors. Many years ago servicemen didn't pay tax - they complained that their salaries were low. Government increased their pay to match private sector comparators and then deducted tax - net change - absolutely zilch.

I think you'll find this is an urban myth. It is certainly almost exactly, word for word, an oft quoted "fact" about military pensions and life expectancy. A fairly recent report quoted by BBC indicates that a teacher's life expectancy was 79.2 in 2005 and expected to be above 80 by 2010.