revolution saint

I've not seen that anywhere, have you got a link? Meanwhile this shows how a bit of money hushes things up. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jul/08/murdoch-papers-phone-hacking

I'd give most of it to friends, family and charity - that much money is incomprehensible. I'd also buy a few places - certainly in New England and here. I'd also like to design and build my own place, a bit like grand designs. Mostly though I would go back to University and study something totally useless but interesting.

Not really, you just spoil most threads and I like making you look a bit silly. Nothing snobbish about that - I think most people enjoy that.

To be fair, it's not just today.

And sometimes they go and work for the govt too - are you suggesting Andy Coulson has implemented the same phone tapping and breach of law as an employee of the conservative party? No, of course you're not. Fact is until any allegations surface, if there are any, then it's restricted to the NOTW. Given their tactics I would have thought the NOTW would have uncovered anything dodgy in another paper anyway....

Interesting point. Have you anything to suggest other papers are involved? Otherwise it's pretty irrelevant.

I doubt whether any of the broadsheets would have sunk so low and I agree about The Guardian. It's had to rigourously defend itself quite a few times over the last 20 years or so and has been successful (Jonathan Aitken anyone?). Mirror possibly - they did doctor photos a while ago. On the face of it this seems a cultural thing in the NOTW though and it appears as if they have got used to this method of investigation.

Indeed. Advertisers don't want to be associated with a tarnished brand and that's what NOTW is now. I seriously doubt they'll be able to recover any kind of reputation.

There have been a few instances of firms doing something so stupid and repugnant that they've never really recovered. The one that springs to mind is Gerald Ratner (although that was just stupid), and doesn't The Sun still have a particularly low circulation in Merseyside? I could easily see sales of NOTW suffering very badly because this is something so disgusting and without moral. That said I never buy those papers anyway so it's hard to know what the diehards will do. You would have thought a rival tabloid would be out to make an awful lot of capital out of this.

Christ on a bike! What is wrong with you? This was illegal and not an exercise in freedom of the press.

There's quite a few people in their 60's who have been or are in a better position to purchase a 2nd home than people of my generation being able to afford a first one. Remember this is about a generation and not an era.

Except you couldn't afford a property. TV, mobile phone, etc etc those costs come nowhere near being able to live somewhere and renting is even more expensive, it's no wonder pensions are considered a luxury You could of course argue that previous generations had nothing to fritter their money away except on second homes. Obviously it's more complex than that but it does seem to me that it was easier to live and raise a family on a single wage than it is now.

Well we have iPhones, but we can't afford property like we did in the 60's and we can't support a family on a single wage as we did in the 60's and 70's. Still. it's easier cos we can make a few calls eh?

Although the fact that a couple could buy a property based on 3 times a single wage earners wage suggests it's a little easier than now. I don't see many couples being able to buy a place on a single average wage, and bring up a family with the mother staying at home in today's circumstances. That was the norm when I grew up.

Ah the clues are in the original post. HTH. I don't think there's any reason to call people snobs just because they got the jist of the thread and you didn't...

Hmmm surely if you have nothing and compare it with nothing the result is the same? 0=0? Anyway the point still stands this is about whether the ordinary working family of the BB generation got some lucky economic breaks or not? Appreciate you'd like to go on about benefit scroungers etc but I'm a little bored of that.....

This isn't about 25 years ago either. It's about whether the BB generation actually had some lucky economic breaks or they didn't.

To be honest this isn't really about benefits, or about who worked harder.

Shut up Mong. Oh and Iris Murdoch is a journeyman (journeywoman) either way she's sh1t.

Absolutely and there's no doubt that minorities were discriminated against (although you could argue they continue to be discriminated against albeit to a lesser extent). I know my Dad gets annoyed by the "If you remember the 60's then you weren't there" line. However my argument wasn't really that they all enjoyed the free love etc and the music but that economically they got lucky. Neither of my parents were well educated but both retired early. My uncle didn't go to university either and managed to retire when he was 50 - he worked his entire life for a county council. I'm not blaming them by any mean though - I think they got lucky and fair play to them but I don't think that set of circumstances is likely to occur again.

That is quite interesting. My personal opinion is that the BB generation is the first "modern" generation. I don't think there's a fundamental difference between them and younger generations like there was between the BBs and their parents. Much of this I think is due to a lack of respect (and I don't mean that in a bad way). Popular institutions like the church and state come under far more scrutiny and critical thinking now and the BBs started that.

I agree with this and the stupid thing is that most arguments are based on a subjective opinion, such as is Player A a good player? How can that be validated? It's just a personal opinion and whilst you can put up arguments to suggest why you have a certain viewpoint you can never be certain either way. I actually like people having differing opinions - it makes life fun but it gets tedious when some posters outright reject something.

I agree with most of what you say, especially the dual carer role. I think the tragedy is that the baby boomer generation may be the last generation to be in a position to do that though. For many of you the statutory retirement age has become when you start receiving a state pension, rather than when you stopped full time work and so you've been in a position to help - especially with child care. I don't foresee as many people of my generation (just shy of 40) having the same luxury of retiring early and having the time to do that. Obviously the other thing to consider and is a huge factor IMO is the property market - the fact that the 3 times salary for a mortgage could be enforced shows how low prices were. That's compounded by the fact that many families only had a single wage earner (of course you can argue that's not a good thing). From my point of view I look at my parents and obviously want to think that I will enjoy the same benefits they've had. Neither went to University but both retired early, and my mum was a stay at home mum until I was 16. I don't see those opportunities being available to later generations. Of course this a generalisation and there will be exceptions. I do find it strange though that this generational difference isn't debated more though.

He did over play the leaning style of Wlad, and ultimately it cost him but let's face it Wlad was too big and too good for Haye.

Shame, but couldn't really argue with that.