Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Max777
Over 90 days ago
Straight Male, 71
0 miles · Tyne and Wear

Forum

Quote by MidsCouple24
I used to like FB, it was a networking site for people to get to know each other, keep in touch with friends, make new friends and yes mke friends with people at your local in the safety of your own home and avoid that chatting face to face situation when your at the pub.
But now it is just a marketing tool for every Company to advertise their wares on, poke us and we will donate 1p to charity, follow us on FB, play this free game so we can find out personal information that you have showing on there for marketing purposes, it has been stolen from the public and we rarely use it now.

When did Facebook ever belong to the public?
I use the public baths and the public Library, I use phone boxes and post boxes, I use the post office and Asda, all of which are owned by companies but intended for the public to use, what are you trying to say ? that we should not expect a site initially designed for private networking should not be used for private networking ?
Business might have taken it over and that might have been inevitable but that doesn't make it right or that I should still use it, to those who enjoy the site, good on you, have fun, to those who don't like how it has changed, do what I do and find an alternative smile
Just please, don't question my personal choice and personal opinion, you can have your own choices and opinions it is not for you to question mine.

What on earth are you on about? You don't have to use it if you don't want to and I really couldnt give a toss as to whether you do or not but it has never been in the sort of public ownership you claim. Mark Zuckerberg founded Facebook and is still the major shareholder, Chairman and C.E.O. You are naive in the extreme if you don't expect him and the other shareholders to make money from it. I'm sure you would!
Public baths and libraries are owned by local authorities and you pay for these services via your council tax.
The other services you mention are all owned/supplied by private companies that charge you for the privilege of using them.
Quote by MidsCouple24
I used to like FB, it was a networking site for people to get to know each other, keep in touch with friends, make new friends and yes mke friends with people at your local in the safety of your own home and avoid that chatting face to face situation when your at the pub.
But now it is just a marketing tool for every Company to advertise their wares on, poke us and we will donate 1p to charity, follow us on FB, play this free game so we can find out personal information that you have showing on there for marketing purposes, it has been stolen from the public and we rarely use it now.

When did Facebook ever belong to the public?
Quote by flower411

Thanks for that HnS as it must have been fresh news when I heard it last night on the radio, and I could find no mention of it on the net.
What I am baffled by is that if Suarez got a 7 game ban for the last biting offense, why would a second biting offense carry a lesser punishment? I am damn sure that the FA took his last " indiscretion " into account when dishing out this latest punishment.

You are baffled. There is no second offence and even if there were, 10 is greater than 7. ( He actually received a 6 match ban + a further 1 match that had previously been suspended) If you read back through this thread you'll see that I have tried to explain the fact that his biting offence in Holland could not be taken into account by the English FA. I also said that the panel appointed by the FA to decide on Suarez's case said that it considered his latest indiscretion in isolation. You can read the full article here.
In the 21 page rationale included in your link it explains that they decided to view the case in isolation because it was "exceptional" and was not covered by FIFA regulations. If they had treated it as a second similar offence they would have had to deal with it differently and presumably left themselves open to appeals to FIFA against their decision.
They treated this exceptional case as an isolated incident precisely because they had taken the other incident into consideration.
Er no. Once again you are reading what you want to read.
"28. We noted that the action for the Referees under Laws of the Game, Law 12, for violent conduct is the dismissal of the player from the field of play and that there is no instructions or guidelines for the sanctions from FIFA. It has been up to individual country’s Association or Federation to apply the sanctions as they see fit under their own jurisdictions."
Where does it say that they treated this exceptional case as an isolated incident because they had taken the other incident into consideration? This is what is actually said:
"As The FA had claimed that the standard punishment that would otherwise apply is clearly insufficient (refer in para 8) and this was not accepted by Mr Suarez (refer in para 11), we were to deal with this case, not as a Misconduct Charge but, under the Schedule A of Standard Directions and we did not take into consideration any previous Disciplinary Records of Mr Suarez and considered the offence in isolation."
Quote by Too Hot
...........
The USA keeps telling us how wonderfull they are, how well do they do during a national crisis let alone a 2 car crash, how well did they do in New Orleans.

You are not seriously comparing a two vehicle crash with a natural disaster of truly biblical proportions?
Even more laughable when one considers how this country grinds to a halt after a couple of inches of snow or rain!
Quote by starlightcouple
Thanks for that HnS as it must have been fresh news when I heard it last night on the radio, and I could find no mention of it on the net.
What I am baffled by is that if Suarez got a 7 game ban for the last biting offense, why would a second biting offense carry a lesser punishment? I am damn sure that the FA took his last " indiscretion " into account when dishing out this latest punishment.

You are baffled. There is no second offence and even if there were, 10 is greater than 7. ( He actually received a 6 match ban + a further 1 match that had previously been suspended) If you read back through this thread you'll see that I have tried to explain the fact that his biting offence in Holland could not be taken into account by the English FA. I also said that the panel appointed by the FA to decide on Suarez's case said that it considered his latest indiscretion in isolation. You can read the full article here.
Quote by MidsCouple24
You accidently but definetely trip up an opposing player, you get a yellow card, later in the match you do it again or some other minor foul, you are sent off and banned for the next 3 matches, that means a 10 match ban for a deliberate act of violence is fair in my book, end of lol

The ban for receiving 2 yellow cards in a match is only 1 match. A straight red receives a 3 match ban.
Quote by GnV
I would rank kneeing a player in the back up there with Suarez's bite.

What a silly and ridiculous comment to make, and there is YOU stating that others are not seeing anything. Your comments on this matter and especially the one above, well......how can anyone take you seriously ever again ?
It was not in the back, it was the top of the thigh. He was sent off for that and let his team down as well. In the end the sending off only spurred Chelsea on even more, and we all know the result eh Max? :bounce::bounce:
Seems you haven't learnt much from your recent 'rest' star.
Everyone is more than entitled to make an observation without being derided for it., no matter how absurd it might seem.
It's Max's viewpoint. He is entitled to it. He's entitled to express it.
Get over it and be a bit more tolerant in future eh? rolleyes
GNV, it's really rich Star claiming that others comments are ridiculous and silly. He is so myopic he even denies the obvious. In my book, a cowardly knee in the BACK is as bad as Suarez's indiscretion.
The FA have announced that their decision to ban Suarez for 10 matches was reached after considering his latest indiscretion in isolation.
Quote by starlightcouple

Wrong again Star. I have no hatred for Chelsea, in fact I greatly admire many of the players they have in their squad with one obvious exception. I even wanted them to win last night!

So you don't like John Terry? At least he has a genuine right to feel aggrieved by the FA, as he was found NOT guilty in a court of law, and yet the FA ( tossers btw )still chose to make an example of him come what may.
You think that was in same category as Suarez and his nashers? In fact don't bother answering that Max as it is as obvious as the sun setting tonight what your predictable answer will be.
Suarez wasn't allowed the luxury of being found not guilty in a court of law. Both Suarez and Terry were found guilty by the FA on the grounds of 'probabilities' Suarez was banned for 8 matches for using the term negro, Terry was banned for 4 matches for using the words 'black c***'
I seem to recall Terry being sent off against Barcelona last season for kneeing an opponent in the back and then trying to claim that the Barca player backed on to him. I would rank kneeing a player in the back up there with Suarez's bite.
Quote by starlightcouple

As for your comments regarding Rodgers only being manager for a year, that makes him longer serving than most recent Chelsea managers. And as for paying lip service........isn't that what most Chelsea managers do?

What has that childish comment go to do with it?
Quote by Max777
Your vitriol towards Suarez might be laudable if it wasn't for your complete hypocrisy when it comes to the Chelsea thug.

Another thing that is as obvious as what I first said, is your hatred of Chelsea. Really Max........I thought better of you.
Wrong again Star. I have no hatred for Chelsea, in fact I greatly admire many of the players they have in their squad with one obvious exception. I even wanted them to win last night!
Quote by flower411
OK I've had a quick look through that. Would you care to point me to the relevant pages or paragraphs?

1.
With regard to matches and competitions not organised by FIFA (cf. art. 2),
associations, confederations and sports organisations that organise matches for
cultural, geographical, historical or other reasons are responsible for enforcing sanctions imposed against infringements committed in their area of jurisdiction.
If requested, the sanctions passed may be extended to have worldwide effect
(cf. ff.)

I read that as sanctions imposed by any FA have worldwide implications, so whatever happens in one country does effect another.
The key words in that final paragraph are sanctions and may be extended. Sanctions mean penalties handed out by governing bodies, not the infringements that incurred the sanctions. The words 'may be' mean that this is at the whim of FIFA and not mandatory.
If your interpretation was correct, Joey Berton's ban would also have stood in France.
4. If the judicial bodies of FIFA discover that associations, confederations and
other sports organisations have not requested a decision to be extended to
have worldwide effect, these bodies may themselves pass a decision.
So how does that fit with
Quote by Max777
It was an offence committed in another country. It has absolutely no relevance to an offence committed in this country.

Once again, reading only what you want to or maybe even trying to be clever by only quoting in part. Try reading all of section 136 in context.
Quote by Rogue_Trader
OK I've had a quick look through that. Would you care to point me to the relevant pages or paragraphs?

1.
With regard to matches and competitions not organised by FIFA (cf. art. 2),
associations, confederations and sports organisations that organise matches for
cultural, geographical, historical or other reasons are responsible for enforcing sanctions imposed against infringements committed in their area of jurisdiction.
If requested, the sanctions passed may be extended to have worldwide effect
(cf. ff.)

I read that as sanctions imposed by any FA have worldwide implications, so whatever happens in one country does effect another.
The key words in that final paragraph are sanctions and may be extended. Sanctions mean penalties handed out by governing bodies, not the infringements that incurred the sanctions. The words 'may be' mean that this is at the whim of FIFA and not mandatory.
If your interpretation was correct, Joey Berton's ban would also have stood in France.
Quote by Rogue_Trader
Under the FIFA Charter all contraventions, irrespective of game/country/match type, will stand and cross all borders. Therefore an infringement in a Dutch game can be used as previous evidence in determining the penalty in an English game.

Could you please provide a link to substantiate your claim?

OK I've had a quick look through that. Would you care to point me to the relevant pages or paragraphs?
Quote by Rogue_Trader
Under the FIFA Charter all contraventions, irrespective of game/country/match type, will stand and cross all borders. Therefore an infringement in a Dutch game can be used as previous evidence in determining the penalty in an English game.

Could you please provide a link to substantiate your claim?
Quote by flower411
It was an offence committed in another country. It has absolutely no relevance to an offence committed in this country.

OK Max, it appears that I'm not the only one who misunderstood what you meant when you wrote this. It looks pretty clear to me that you have stated that an offence committed in another country has no relevance to offences committed in this country. But now you say that it doesn't mean that.
So what does it mean ?
OK Flower, I'm talking purely in footballing terms when talking about 'offences' committed and I have not changed my stance one iota. Are you another who only reads what he wants to read? Interesting to see that you bracket yourself with Mids and Star in that respect. Thought you would have held yourself in much higher regard!
I'm saying that an offence committed under the jurisdiction of the Dutch FA has no bearing on the punishment being handed out by the English FA. Whilst it may well have influenced the thinking of the English FAs disciplinary panel when they made their decision they would not be able to take the previous incident into account when deciding the length of Suarez's ban. It will be interesting to see their reasoning when the report is published.
Look at the position regarding Joey Barton. He received a 12 match ban but was able to play for Marseille in the French league as the English FA has no authority over the French FA. As far as Im aware, offences, bans, disciplinary actions etc are not transferable between different football association
unless they are made at UEFA or FIFA level.
Quote by starlightcouple
Are people seriously suggesting that what someone does in another country has no bearing on what they may or may not do here in the UK ?

Yep. rolleyes
Max is obviously a Liverpool supporter, as there is no other reason for his views that make one jot of common sense.
He is now crying like the child he is ( Suarez that is ) by threatening to quit Liverpool, and now the Liverpool manager of wait for it..........a YEAR is now acting like someone who really cares. My advice TO Brendan Rodgers is to shut the fuck up. This guy is singing the tune to the people paying his wages, he has no history with Liverpool FC and am sure if he was still at Swansea he would be singing a completely different tune.
I hate it when people pay lip service.
I think the animal that is Suarez is no different to a dog that bites someone who has taken his bone away. The dog is acting on instinct where as Suarez is acting on a temper tantrum......pathetic and he should have been banned for six months.
Wrong on every level Star. The team I follow is well documented it this forum. So which of my views make 'one jot of common sense'
( I think you missed a negative somewhere in that sentence) .
As for your comments regarding Rodgers only being manager for a year, that makes him longer serving than most recent Chelsea managers. And as for paying lip service........isn't that what most Chelsea managers do?
Your vitriol towards Suarez might be laudable if it wasn't for your complete hypocrisy when it comes to the Chelsea thug.
Quote by Theladyisaminx
I thought football was supposed to be a civilised game played by civilised people. I haven't watched the game for years now as it changed into breeding fame and fortune. While money is the driving factor behind football the players in the eyes it seems of supporters and clubs are gods to them, it seem anything is tolerated if a player is part of your team.
I would have to ask them, don't they have a individual conscious and basic thought on our treatment of other humans. Would they react the same way if their children bit another?
For me I would apply the same principles but we can make allowances on age of child as they have to learn what is right and wrong.
As a parent I am pleased my children are old enough to be disgusted when they saw the actions of this player. They said he should never be allowed to play the game again. Young children watch the game and look up to these players.
For anyone to try and make allowances for such behaviour for me raises a question, would you be or are you allowing your young children to watch and admire these types of players?
I thought part of being a civilised human was our conduct towards others.
We teach our children not to bit others, how can anyone have seen what happened and try and defend a grown man from doing it?
I only saw it on the news and I thought he didn't even look human doing what he did.
If I had my way I would never want him to play for any club in my country.

I'm not sure who you refer to as making allowances for and trying to defend Suarez , as I'm certainly not.
Quote by MidsCouple24
Are people seriously suggesting that what someone does in another country has no bearing on what they may or may not do here in the UK ?
Rules, Laws there is no difference, should we allow someone to migrate to the UK who has a history of being a serial killer or serial ? I thought most people here were in support of some measure of migration laws like other nations such as keeping out those who have convictions for serious crime.
You cannot say that what someone does in another country has no bearing on what happens in the UK, if someone is found guilty of taking drugs to enhance performance the ban applies in the UK, at the very least it would be taken into consideration here if that person performed here, you can be sure the drug enforcement officials would test that person.
When handing out a punishment to anyone, anywhere, prior history should be taken into account, be that a previously impecable record or previous offences, especially when those offences are for bizzare behaviour and of the same nature as that which they are being questioned upon here.

Yet again you fail to either read properly or understand what others have written.
Quote by flower411

There's really no logic to what you're saying. The previous ban for biting was under the jurisdiction of a different football association and therefor has no bearing on the punishment handed out by the FA.

In what way does the jurisdiction make any difference ?
He bit somebody once and was punished ....the punishment didn't work because he bit someone again. It is absolutely irrelevent who punished him !
It was an offence committed in another country. It has absolutely no relevance to an offence committed in this country.
Max ... you are having a laugh aren`t you lol
Aren't you ?
OMG !
Not at all. If it was UEFA that was meeting out the punishment it may have some relevance but as its the English FA, it has absolutely none. Give me an example of when a player's indiscretions in another country has had a baring on a punishment subsequently handed out by by the English FA.
Max ....The man bites people .
The punchers and kickers are pathetic .
I previously thought that the biting had taken place in some kind of mellee but having now seen it ! It was an action one would expect to see from a five year old and even then it would be worrying. From a grown man it suggests a serious mental disorder .
It does not matter one iota where or when this man committed the offences . He is obviously a danger to other players due to his mental instability .
You may well be correct but it still has no relevance on the punishment handed out by the FA.
Whatever I think of you max it does surprise me that your dislike of me goes so deep that you are prepared to look silly just to disagree with me !
Flower, whatever I think of you has absolutely no baring on my argument. Don't flatter yourself.
The only person looking silly is yourself. It's actually you disagreeing with me but your argument has no substance so you have resorted to playing
pathetic games yet again. Some things never change!
Quote by flower411

There's really no logic to what you're saying. The previous ban for biting was under the jurisdiction of a different football association and therefor has no bearing on the punishment handed out by the FA.

In what way does the jurisdiction make any difference ?
He bit somebody once and was punished ....the punishment didn't work because he bit someone again. It is absolutely irrelevent who punished him !
It was an offence committed in another country. It has absolutely no relevance to an offence committed in this country.
Max ... you are having a laugh aren`t you lol
Aren't you ?
OMG !
Not at all. If it was UEFA that was meeting out the punishment it may have some relevance but as its the English FA, it has absolutely none. Give me an example of when a player's indiscretions in another country has had a baring on a punishment subsequently handed out by by the English FA.
Max ....The man bites people .
The punchers and kickers are pathetic .
I previously thought that the biting had taken place in some kind of mellee but having now seen it ! It was an action one would expect to see from a five year old and even then it would be worrying. From a grown man it suggests a serious mental disorder .
It does not matter one iota where or when this man committed the offences . He is obviously a danger to other players due to his mental instability .
You may well be correct but it still has no relevance on the punishment handed out by the FA.
Quote by flower411

There's really no logic to what you're saying. The previous ban for biting was under the jurisdiction of a different football association and therefor has no bearing on the punishment handed out by the FA.

In what way does the jurisdiction make any difference ?
He bit somebody once and was punished ....the punishment didn't work because he bit someone again. It is absolutely irrelevent who punished him !
It was an offence committed in another country. It has absolutely no relevance to an offence committed in this country.
Max ... you are having a laugh aren`t you lol
Aren't you ?
OMG !
Not at all. If it was UEFA that was meeting out the punishment it may have some relevance but as its the English FA, it has absolutely none. Give me an example of when a player's indiscretions in another country has had a baring on a punishment subsequently handed out by by the English FA.
Quote by flower411

There's really no logic to what you're saying. The previous ban for biting was under the jurisdiction of a different football association and therefor has no bearing on the punishment handed out by the FA.

In what way does the jurisdiction make any difference ?
He bit somebody once and was punished ....the punishment didn't work because he bit someone again. It is absolutely irrelevent who punished him !
It was an offence committed in another country. It has absolutely no relevance to an offence committed in this country.
Quote by Too Hot

As for Suarez - He got a 7 game ban for biting in Holland, clearly did not learn his lesson, so the FA slapped him with a 10 game ban this time. Sounds fair and proportionate in my book. Next time he needs a season long ban.

As you have rightly said TH, the last time he got a seven game ban so why would people naturally presume he would get the same or less for a second biting offense?
He is now apparently according to some reports looking at possibly leaving Liverpool. The last time he did this he also left that club and then funnily enough went to the very same club that he has now repeated that offense at. I wonder sometimes by signing players with a bad history that they sometimes deserve the bad press and the crap that comes with employing someone like Suarez? Liverpool remember stood by and allowed their players ( the ones that represent Liverpool FC ) to parade on the pitch with shirts supporting Suarez in his case against Evra. Also Suarez made the great Kenny Dalglish look like a right idiot by saying he would shake Evra's hand and then ignoring the clubs wishes to do it, and then Dalglish was sacked not long after.
Really Liverpool have got in some people's eyes, exactly what they deserved and even now are coming to the defense of their poor little player by saying the ban is way out of proportion. loon
To be honest nothing that Suarez has done even comes close to the tackle that shortened Alf-Inge Haaland's career... a premeditated act of violence towards another professional.
The man should have been banned for life
after his autobiography admitting his intent is a disgrace that this man is even considered as a TV pundit
Suarez deserved a ban for what he did but was it in the context for other or more horrific crimes that have been committed on a football pitch ..........not really
that's the problem with the FA no consistency in my opinion evra for crying wolf after the Chelsea game, regards the racist comments he claimed the groundsman made towards him.
should have faced the same ban as someone who was found guilty of racist very same as when he accused Jamie carrigher of the same crime.
just for the record i don't care one way or the other that Suarez is banned or for how long, but i do think whats good for one should apply to all the others.
There is no logic to what you are saying. He got a 7 match ban previously for biting an opponent. Doing the same thing again can only mean that he has not learned his lesson and so the ban could be nothing less than 7 games.
In fact, I reckon the FA decision making process was very straightforward. 7 games for the previous and an FA 3 match ban = 10.
As for Evra you need to check your facts about what happened - it is all over the public domain.
There's really no logic to what you're saying. The previous ban for biting was under the jurisdiction of a different football association and therefor has no bearing on the punishment handed out by the FA.
Quote by MidsCouple24
So the aecond world war was about if Hitler ever planned to kill off old people and what the title of his book actually meant, ok I accept all that and believe all that is correct and I am wrong, so for me the WWII subject is all done and dusted and really quite boring so I am going to find another more interesting subject to debate, have fun with this one.

Get over yourself! As Rob said above, it was you that took the thread off topic.
Quote by MidsCouple24
directly it translates to "My Fight" but the popular and accepted thinking is that it was his life, something he saw as a struggle, a fight and the reason he did what he did and believed what he believed. At the end of the day in this context it means all those things in just the same way as many words mean many different things when used in different contexts after all if it had just been his fight it might have been soley about his service in WWI in which he did fight and did struggle, it was published in 1925 with the second volume in 1926 whilst he was in prison, a struggle and perhaps a fight and also his life. It did tell the story of his life, struggles and fights to that day but he also talked about his dreams for the future. But again a thread about WWII is just becoming a discussion about one man albeit he did play a big roll in the whole thing it wasn't just about him.

Seeing as how you love Wiki so much, this their explanation of the title of the book:
"Hitler originally wanted to call his forthcoming book Viereinhalb Jahre (des Kampfes) gegen Lüge, Dummheit und Feigheit, or Four and a Half Years (of Struggle) Against Lies, Stupidity and Cowardice. Max Amann, head of the Franz Eher Verlag and Hitler's publisher, is said to have suggested the much shorter "Mein Kampf or My Struggle"
The book may well be autobiographical in part but the title does not mean My Life ( Mein Leben) and I have seen no evidence that this is the " popular and accepted thinking" as you claim.
Quote by MidsCouple24
No I won't quote chapter and verse because I no longer have my copy of Mein Kampf and have no desire to buy another, you can choose not to agree with what I have said, you can choose to disbelieve what I say, you can even say it is not true, because that is your perogative as it is my pergotive to believe it.
I have put forward a greater argument for it being true than anyone has for it not being true, there are many references to the Nazi Party and Adolf Hitlers views of Darwinism availalbe via Google if you care to look including references to his book Mein Kampf.
The Nazi Party did not always shout about their plans for anyone, the jews, the mentally disabled, the infirm or the gypsies why do you think they would have shouted about plans to kill off the elderly, most of the plans were kept on a "need to know" basis just as our Government and many others treat their own plans for the future.
I made a statement I believe to be true through what I have read, I have no requirement to prove it just as those that say it is not true have no requirement to disprove it, if they want they can try, personally I don't think it important enough to waste my time on, it was a plan that never reached fruition therefore somewhat imaterial in the greater picture of what was done.

I'm afraid mids there is no proof to what Hitler believed as those close to him stated different things about what his beliefs where
it is obvious from what we know about his adolescence was that as he grew older he distanced his self from the catholic religion, after that no one would ever know as those close to him whilst he was in power can't agree
its all guess work I'm afraid with only bits of puzzle
Then why is it written in his book Mein Kampf (My Life) ?
I think you'll find that Mein Kampf translates as My Struggle.
Quote by deancannock
Inflation was running at 26% when Thatcher came to power..........I wonder why that was. Oh and inflation was what at the end of her term as PM ?

Googled this...and inflation actually peaked at 26% 18 monthes before Mrs Thatchers became Prime Minister, under the Tory administration of Edward Heath. when she took over it was actually 17%.......when she left office it was 9%.
On same page it showed unemployment was at 1.5 million when she took over and by time she left it was 3 million !!!
Maybe inflation had dropped as no one could afford to buy anything !!
Getting back to the original point....I have no problem with Tesco making money. There is plenty of competition out there, to drive down prices. I can understand the profits being down, I would guess it is not helped by the recent food scares. Maybe they can spend a few more bits of the profit making sure, what they sell us..is what it says on the package.
Not sure what you've Googled Dean but Jim Callaghan was PM 18 months before Thatcher. Inflation peaked in 1975, under Wilson's Labour government.
Quote by MidsCouple24
OK, so can you tell me the difference between Council Tax, Poll Tax and Rates, as I understand it Rates were based on a home irrespective of the number of occupants, Council Tax and Poll Tax are based on the individual living in a home no matter how many live in the house, ie 2 people living there they both pay, 10 people living they all 10 pay unlike the rates system where 10 could live in a house and only one flat rate was charged.

Council tax is determined by the notional value of the house, split into 8 various bands. The tax is based on 2 adults sharing a property and there is a 25% discount for single dwellers,
If there were 10 adults living in the property, the council tax would be the same as if there were two.
Quote by AlanStone
Says it all Max you say you know nothing about the closure of Littleton Colliery so you have done a LITTLE research and now you are an expert and preach that closing of the collieries were nothing to do with Thatcher. A little knowledge is as dangerous as no knowledge at all and you should not preach about things that you know sod all about.

I'm not an expert but I can read and also understand what I have read, which is obviously more than you can do. Please tell me where I have said that the closure of the COLLIERIES was nothing to do with Thatcher.
Maybe you should try practising what YOU preach!
Quote by deancannock
Max....if you read below from local newspaper....you will see and read who announced the closure of Littleton Colliery.....It was then saved by being listed as a core colliery....then the Tory Government changed back to orginal plan. 2000 out of work .. Working down the pit was not nice....but there was a tradtion and a comaradry amonst the men. Both my Great grandfather and grandfather lost limbs in rock falls, so trust me the family knew the risks. However my father though not down the pit, worked for the Coal Board...and my brother carried on the tradition and went down the pits. I was the only one in 5 generations to have never worked for the coal board. The closure killed a community.

Sorry Dean but I see no reference to any announcement of of the closure of the colliery within the article, only the closure date itself. The author is clearly wrong in stating Thatcher closed the mine. The articles I read also stated the number of miners that lost their job was 600 to 800, not 2000.