revolution saint

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.

Round about ten ish but expect the ring entrances to take ages.

They said earlier that the rain would have to come in at a 45 degree angle to affect the fight - apparently they have some kind of temporary cover? Bloody hope it doesn't get rained off...

I thought this might make a good light hearted lounge topic. Obviously we can only talk about generalisations because there are exceptions to every one of them, but I wondered what the general consensus was? Obviously the generation that participated in the second world war had it tough - that's pretty much the ultimate sacrifice/ commitment you could ask. The baby boomer generation that came afterwards though are different - they've had a number of lucky advantages that generations after them won't. They were the first to get disposable income as teenagers, there was almost zero unemployment, they weren't just allowed free higher education - they were paid to go in the form of grants, they took advantage of a cheap housing market, their life expectancy rose dramatically compared to their parents but still have the same retirement age, in many cases they received their parents estates when they died although future generations (given that higher life expectancy) won't be so lucky. Obviously on the counter argument you can say that the baby boomers have been able to pay for both their kids and their parents - in terms of paying for Higher Education, getting on the housing ladder and paying for nursing homes. I'm not sure that generations after them will be in a position to do the same though. Oh, and apparently they had better music back then......b*stards.

As a total aside and irrelevancy, don't try and point that out to the 60-65 group moaning about the withdrawal of their concession for S/Ts.

Pretty much my thoughts - it's easy to discount Wlad over here but let's not forget he has all the natural attributes (weight and size) and fast hands as well. He may well be functional but he's bloody good at it. It seems to me though that he lacks a natural desire and a killer instinct. I never get the impression he loves being in the ring and when he gets hurt badly he can just give in. I keep going back to my original post, and that's about Adam Booth - it may be premature but he's fast becoming our Freddie Roach. He'll know what to expect from Vlad and will have a plan. Still a very, very tough call and I can't wait.

Yep, I'm paying for this one as well. In the past I've caught some really good streams but whilst I begrudge pfv for any channel I have a subscription to this at least justifies the tag, "box office". Anyone having any bets? There's a few good ones on Haye if you fancy round betting - my favourite is 11/1 on a Haye win rounds 7-9. Haven't bet yet though although I am leaning more towards Haye.

Hmm maybe I need to work on taking it more seriously...... Anyway to be pedantic I never suggested the comments today would affect the chances of Cork signing. My opinion was that by releasing details of our interest it indicated that we probably knew he wouldn't sign. That is just my opinion though.....I've nothing to back that up.

Of course I don't have a clue really, none of us have, it's just my opinion that it's less likely Cork signs than him signing. I really hope I'm wrong. Bloody hell - you lot take this seriously don't you? It was just my take on it.

Confirms our interest and alerts other clubs to sort something out earlier? Could be a whole host of reasons - you're best off asking NC as he's the one operating that policy up till now.

I have to say that I think you're probably right. I'd love Cork to sign but can't help thinking this is, as you say, a statement to show we're active and the type of player we're interested in. NC seems too cautious to allow a deal to be jeopardised by leaking it too the press. Only reason I can see for mentioning Cork is if he knows he definitely will sign......or he definitely won't Hope it's the former.

Strange that it was the BBC local radio that reported him rejecting us then, guess you should apologise.....