revolution saint

Well to be fair you've been just as generalist about the public sector as anyone has been about bankers. In your first post didn't you say, and I'm paraphrasing here, that you "despaired of any young teacher without an intelligent significant other to provide a counter point argument"? Don't you find that even a little patronising? You defend your mate the banker purely on the basis of how much he pays in tax (as if that was ever any yardstick for how hard someone works) but carefully forgetting how much the banking industry has cost us, and how much our tax has bailed out your mate's industry. Is it any wonder people are going to find issue with that argument? Indeed we could argue that failing pension funds both private and public are a direct result of your hard working banker mate's industry and it's failure to keep it's house in order (although I bet his pension is OK eh?). Now I'm sure you're a nice enough fella, and I shouldn't have called you a c u n t, but from the very first post you said your gf was being "brainwashed" when really she just had a different viewpoint, or was willing to listen to one, than you. That's not really being brainwashed at all - it's just called disagreeing with you and that's what a lot of this thread is about. If you really don't like it then maybe you should have thought before posting in the first place, ortherwise enjoy the mostly reasoned argument you proclaim to love so much.

I could explain why you're wrong but I don't have all night either, and of course it's pretty hard when you don't offer any reason except a vague assertion. Tell you what, have a cup of ovaltine and a nap and get back to me.

Of course I am, and it's quite deliberate. Just as Jackanory chose in his opening post to criticise the public sector as a group so I choose to criticise the banking sector as a group (and as a group rewarded apparently for success, haven't they been rewarded well for such failure). Obviously I realise it's more complex than that though.

Surely if they were bad at their job (and they clearly were) then they deserved to have lost their jobs and had their bonuses stopped? Difference is that their bonuses and wages when they were being bad at their job, and lead us to this situation, will probably give them more than most of us will earn. The idea that they deserve those bonuses again when we are still paying for their mistakes is laughable

For a bloke who likes reasoned argument it's surprising you haven't really offered any.

To be fair I don't think anyone will argue the point that the commercial banking sector created this recession, or that when they f*cked up they f*cked up so big that they had to be bailed out by govt. intervention, or that those tax payers that bailed them out are now suffering the consequences. It's no wonder there will be anger when a banker is defended as "saving" jobs due to his income tax - how many jobs, lives, families, homes did his industry cost us? Conveniently forget about that don't they?

And you're really just basing that judgement on the fact Sharp has rejected us, aren't you? No reason to suggest sloppy journalism at all. Sharp may be mistaken in thinking a prem club will come in for him but that's hardly the journalist's fault.

It does make you wonder what the commercial banking sector actually do, doesn't it? Seems to me like they are gamblers who can reap the rewards when they win and never pick up the tab when they lose. Oh and they can brag a fair bit too. I mean I know what doctors, teachers, servicemen, sheet metal workers, car production workers etc do - they either create or facilitate jobs, or the talent to do those jobs. Bankers though? In their purest form they supply capital which is OK except it's not their capital is it? It's someone else's capital and, if you're a saver, then it's your capital. Purely my opinion but they seem like glorified middle men, a bit like estate agents but with bigger egos.

To be fair, you're right. I got a little annoyed there!

You're right, of course, and I apologise - there was no need to call you a c u n t. I'll try harder It was OUR taxes that saved the banking industry wasn't it? Doesn't matter if you or your friend don't work for Lloyds or RBS because without govt. intervention the whole banking sector would have collapsed - commercial bankers chased an irresponsible dream and were driven by personal greed. Now of course having been bailed out you can feel free to enjoy big bonuses whilst everyone around you, who helped you, suffers for generations. Surely you can see why that would rankle?

For everyone lauding the private sector and castigating the public, don't forget you have this arrogant ***** on your side. I'm sure someone will put that far more eloquently than me though.

Branfoot was by far the worst "football" manager I've seen since watching Saints. The style of play was utterly dreadful and the players brought in were largely awful. Anyone remember that tactic of kicking the ball as far into the corner as possible every time we kicked off? When asked we consistently did this (and it never worked) Branfoot replied, "I don't know why the players do that - I've never asked them to". You can argue that Branfoot managed to keep us up but the team he inherited hadn't finished lower than 12th in six seasons so we shouldn't be using mere survival as a benchmark. I was also one of those who had got to the stage of hoping we would lose just to get rid of the manager. For any supporter to get to that stage it shows just how dire Branfoot must have been.

That's the spirit! If at first you don't succeed try, try again. You'll get better at it one day and it's great fun for the rest of us - carry on!

Post of the week for me.

That was about what I thought, excusing Foreman's comeback. It's no real surprise that the heavyweight golden era occured at a time when they were lighter. In fact I'd be in favour of having a super heavy weight division that could be safely ignored.

Sorry but that was pure pantomime and almost reminiscent of the ridiculous wrestling stuff. It was designed to sell tickets but I don't think this fight needs that.

I've only read this page of the thread (thank god) but are people really, honestly questioning Bridge's talent? Really? Whether we need him, or whether left back is a priority is irrelevant but Bridge was and is class. I'm all for opinions but to slag him off and say he wouldn't improve the team is laughable.

Who says they are respected? A belief in a supernatural (at best) being doesn't earn respect. Hell (excuse the pun) I figured we may as well do some religion bashing on this thread as well. Obviously it's such a stupid idea and won't happen but if Gove actually gets any parents in to cover classes has he explained what they would do? My guess is not much good.

I think this why most boxing fans want Haye to win - because it might lead the way for lighter, more mobile and more exciting boxers in the heavyweight division. I don't have the facts to hand but what weights did Ali, Foreman and Frazier fight at? I suspect it was probably around the 15/16 stone mark?

Good post.

Less than a week to go now and should be a great fight. Predictions anyone? I find this a really tough one to predict a winner and as it's in Germany Haye really won't want it to go to the cards. I'm switching between the two of them but one thing stands out for me and that's Haye's trainer, Adam Booth. The guy seems to consistently pick the right strategy for any boxer and could be the difference. The heavyweight division certainly needs a Haye win though - I'm tired of seeing fat, bloated, over blown lumps hugging each other from round 4 onwards.

And personally I despise you for having such a judgemental attitude. There was a time when an old fella like you would respect someone else's opinion even if you disagreed with it. Not any more it seems. Get a grip you OAP Rambo, so you went out and followed someone who wanted to look at your shed? BFD, well done, feel free to now criticise anyone who either can't or isn't brave enough to do that.

And Labour don't have a monopoly on wisdom either - I don't vote for them. In many cases comparing the tories and Labour is like comparing chalk with chalk and in any case it's an irrelevancy.

I'd certainly hope so, although I also realise that having kids wouldn't turn me into a one man army either. Some of the quotes on here - invade my house and you die! Well, it's nice to think that but I'm not sure it's an entirely sensible or realistic viewpoint. Of course this is an aside and not related to the OP particularly but most burglaries are not violent - I'm not sure I'd want to provoke one that led to it and consequently actually put at risk my fictional kids.

Working in the private sector doesn't give you a monopoly on either financial hardship or realism. The difference is that the public sector is more organised and better equipped to argue against changes to pensions that are either unjustified, unfair or can be financed elsewhere. This why this thread has been dominated by the "I've got it harder" brigade - it's because some people resent that others can actually protest and make a difference. The argument shouldn't be that we should all meekly accept what we're told - we should all be pressing for the preservation of rights that we signed up for when we took the job. If some people have the ability to do that then fair play. I don't buy into the argument that we can't afford it - we can.