Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Theladyisaminx
Over 90 days ago
Straight Female, 62
United Kingdom

Forum

Quote by benrums0n
Ive never beaten mine and they seem to have turned out OK.
I suppose Im just lucky.
It did cause one problem though, my sons step father was fond of bullying my son, mostly emotionally but the odd sly slap punch and poke. I knew it was going on and did my best to support my son through it all without resorting to Social Services. I managed to curtail the physical aspects but the emotional stuff carried on despite my best efforts.
It all came to a head when my son was 14 and responded to a jibe by the step father by telling him he was an absolute twat who didn't know how to behave as an adult human being. The step father punched my son in the face. My son retaliated and punched the chap squarely on the jaw knocking him to the ground.
I often wonder if I had beaten the boy more regularly would he have been able to cope better.

:shock: I have never beaten mine either.
Beaten means: to strike repeatedly
Quote by kentswingers777
My 12 year old daughter Came home from school the other evening very upset and confused, I knew the minute she walked through the door.
I sat her down and asked what the problem was, she said she had just seen a mother shout and hit her child who was no older than 3 and in a buggy and swore at the child. After calming her anger down, I got the change to question her about the odd times I have smacked her and it must be the same.
She said Mum when you smacked me it was because I was pushing you, I felt you couldn’t tell me what to do, or make me do something I didn’t want to do. When you asked me to do sometime and I didn’t want to do I felt there was nothing you could do to make me. She said she felt what was the worse that could happen I could have been grounded so what, you could have taken something away, I knew I would get it back so was not bothered. I knew you couldn’t smack me I could phone child line or tell a teacher. So there was nothing I thought that you could do to make me. So I asked her why after I smacked her did she feel different, she said because she saw how upset it made me, she didn’t like seeing me upset, and the feeling she had then was different than seeing me angry.
These are the words out of my 12 year old daughter’s lips.
I wrote a thread about smacking my children some time ago, and just thought I would let you know an update.
I will still stand by my first stance and say sometimes a smack does not hurt.

Minxy I agree with you about this but.....I am going through this myself with my Grandaughter.
In the eyes of Social Services, a smack is NOT ok, and I will not go into any details here, but hasten to say MY Grandaughter is now in that system.
In their eyes to even tap your child is abuse. I was told to shout at your child is emotional abuse. I wish I lived in these lefties ideal world where everything is just sooooooo perfect.
They have perfect kids and a perfect home, and an oh soooooooo wonderful perfect partner. Bollox I say to that.
Bottom line here Minxy is that to tap, to slap, to shout, is now NOT acceptable. If caught the system will become involved, and like in my current situation, a long hard fight lies ahead. We have created a monster society, and we will bear the brunt of it for years to come.
But saying all of that a lot of kids NEED that system and most Social workers do a fine job from protecting kids, that really need that protection. It is even worse now though with the baby P scandal. Social services are so scared of their own shadows now, that now if you get into the system, nobody or nothing will stand in their way, whether it is just or not.
777 I feel for you if you are battling the system as I could have been facing the same thing had my daughter felt the need to tell her teacher or pick up a phone.
I don't know if you will remember the first thread I done on this subject, I took some harsh punishment and was told I was breading a monster, someone that would see hitting was acceptable, that my children would be violent that I was barbaric.
This thread I must stress isn’t I told you so, but please we can not judge all cases within the same light, I believe so many times we get pigeon holed into a box as the boxes only read good or bad.
I would love the people who think all cases should be dealt with in the same way to come around here and question my children, I have not influenced how they think, they have made their own minds up.
How by as a 12 year old said by seeing a parent smack a child isn’t the same as another parent smacking another.
We do need to protect our children but we don’t need to protect children that are loved. We need the children that are loved to be raised by their parents and leave their parents to choose the right form of punishment for their children.
I personally believe a manager should like people, you can not teach people that, it is something from within.
If you don’t like people why manage?
I have worked with all types of manager ones of a lower ranking, at the same level, and senior.
I know a lot of managers that don’t like people, but enjoy having the power over them.
So ok you can teach people the job in hand, to pass on to teach others and make sure the job is getting done, but you can’t teach them to manage people.
Quote by Dave__Notts
Yes
Or there would be a helluva lot of people out of a job who teach on BSc (Hons) courses that have integrated management or the gurus that have seminars up and down the country.
Are some people natural managers? They may have an inner confidence to take the lead but how to do the job or to get the best out of the people under them is an art to be learnt over time.
It is similar to this common sense nonsense that is bandied about. There is no such thing as common sense. A child does not wake up and have the in built knowledge tha the fire is hot. They either put their hand in the fire and learn by experience that it is hot or they are told by their parent and learn by anothers experience. This becomes a common knowledge. So without being taught or learning yourself, you will never know.
Dave I believe there is such thing as common sense,
Dave_Notts

Dave I see common sense is a mixture of knowledge and expierance.
Dave I see common sense as being independent of specialised training but something that is there from expiernaces and knowledge that is gained from life’s education and that we can draw a judgement from to deal with a situation.
Babies will not have it, as they have no previous experiences or knowledge to draw from, but I would expect adults to have some.
So I can see how it can't be taught, as our expierances and knowledge differ from person to person.
So I do believe in common sense.
Quote by Sara_2006
sometimes we handle things differently and can be educated in different ways to handle a situation.. is this the same thing .. perhaps.
most skills can be taught and lessons learned from yours or others mistakes its how you intergrate that into managing people and adapting what you do and say to them.
we all cannt get along with everyone and sometime personalities clash its how you handle the difficult situations with the difficult people is where the training comes into its own. i believe that if we dont get along with someone we rely on training not instinct on how to handle that person.
by training i mean either formal education or from a previous experience from a similar situation

Good post
I am christened but do not have any of my children christened.
I choose to send them all to a church school and spoke to the school before my children went and was honest about the fact that none of my children had been.
The school in question taught all religions and philosophy although was a Church of England school.
I wanted them to get a broad idea of all religions and to keep an open mind
My 17 year old says he does not believe in god, and if had to be made to choose a religion it would be Buddhism.
My 12 year old son said don’t you know about the big bang theory.
My 12 year old daughter wants to believe in something.
But all believe possibly that Jesus existed.
They have asked why they are not christened and we have said the choice is yours if you want to be, none have asked to be as yet.
Just picking up from another thread, something just caused me to ask this question
Can we be taught to manage people?
I was always under the impression that these skills would come naturally.
I have managed people but I have never been taught how to.
I have been taught the job in hand as to pass on my knowledge, I would have thought that is different than being taught to manage.
So can we be taught to do something that doesn’t come naturally?
Quote by GnV
You have one hell of a daughter there minxy..

For years I have been trying to think of words to explain why smacking never hurt me, and takes my daughter to give me the explaination, who says we can't learn from our children. wink
My 12 year old daughter Came home from school the other evening very upset and confused, I knew the minute she walked through the door.
I sat her down and asked what the problem was, she said she had just seen a mother shout and hit her child who was no older than 3 and in a buggy and swore at the child. After calming her anger down, I got the change to question her about the odd times I have smacked her and it must be the same.
She said Mum when you smacked me it was because I was pushing you, I felt you couldn’t tell me what to do, or make me do something I didn’t want to do. When you asked me to do sometime and I didn’t want to do I felt there was nothing you could do to make me. She said she felt what was the worse that could happen I could have been grounded so what, you could have taken something away, I knew I would get it back so was not bothered. I knew you couldn’t smack me I could phone child line or tell a teacher. So there was nothing I thought that you could do to make me. So I asked her why after I smacked her did she feel different, she said because she saw how upset it made me, she didn’t like seeing me upset, and the feeling she had then was different than seeing me angry.
These are the words out of my 12 year old daughter’s lips.
I wrote a thread about smacking my children some time ago, and just thought I would let you know an update.
I will still stand by my first stance and say sometimes a smack does not hurt.
Quote by Lucyandmike7
Yes Thatcher is responsible, The children that I am referring to are the ones whose parents have not worked since Thatcher took away their working dignity.
A tool maker from a steel mill had status with in the place he worked. Take that status away from him and hand him no future because he is to old or unable to retrain will sit the rest of his life feeling like there is nothing worth attempting. This is handed on to his kids and on to their kids. I work in an area that is in the lowest 10% of social deprivation and the kids there are working hard to get out of there, not because of their families but because of the local school and the teachers within that school that work bloody hard to pass on aspirational values.
A good example of this - last year my organisation ran a summer scheme for local kids, we took them out into their community to do litter picking, we sorted the litter out and then showed them how to make art from the litter. The kids loved it, talked of be coming artists, environmental people and of becoming designers who would produce waste that biodegraded. All good stuff all very positive. The the parents were invited in to see what the kids had done (Parents being Thatcher’s children). The kids proudly showed their parents what they had done and we heard comments like "thats crap that is" "I'll chuck it in the bin when I get home" "What a fucking waste of time". Thats why the kids on the street dont respond because of the legacy from the 80s I am alright jack society.

I can not argue with any of the point you have made there at all. Plus have seen the same reactions from parents myself.
Negativity breeds negativity!
The power of praise is wonderful!
I Agree lucy and when praising a child, never should the word 'but' be uttered from a parents lips.
Just an example of bringing a positive statement to a negative one.
Quote by flower411
Oh well ....
Sorry minx ... just realised, your original question was "do you think Gordon Brown is doing a good job ?"
My answer is ...No
lol
I think that what he is doing may make it look like we are coming out of recession in a relatively short space of time, but I think he is fully aware that it will not stand up in the long term.
Cooking the books to avoid the consequences is usually frowned upon and would involve you or I ending up in prison as soon as the auditors arrived !! wink

:shock: well luckily I keep my books well balanced then, and they certainly are not full of hot air. wink
Quote by flower411
. Maybe you would like to put forward your ideas on how we move forward and get out of this recession then.

Stop fighting other peoples wars.
Stop trying to police the world.
If we are able to conjure up money out of nowhere, start giving grants (not loans) to businesses, with conditions.
They must use the bank designated by the government to process all their money for a specific amount of time.
Stop charging business account holders to deposit cash ....it just encourages them to hold on to cash which then funds the black economy.
There should be incentives to business to pay cash into the bank.
Stop paying people to sit around doing nothing, take away their benefits if they turn down work.
Encourage British manufacturing by awarding government contracts to British companies.
Encourage legal immigrants into the tax paying system and remove illegal immigrants from the country.
Stop paying people to have children.
Teach children useful vocational skills in schools, abolish school league tables and national curriculums.
Bring in a form of national service, with everybody having to train and serve in some kind of community related enterprise........Fire Brigade, ambulance service, Waste collection, Recycling ....whatever.
Bring back apprenticeships.
The list is endless... the rot has well and truly set in and to suggest that we can buy our way out of this mess by pretending we have money that doesn`t exist and that everything will be ok in 2010.....well really !! rolleyes
Flower I agree with a lot of your points here and feel we have gone backwards.
But we need to get out of this mess as soon as possible to stablise things.
What you have listed I hope will happen when people see the light, but we do need a stable enviroment and peoples attitudes changing to hopefully see those things happen, do we not?
I think we also have to stop pointing blame and look within ourself for a way forward.
Things are pretty stable now minx.. we are close to the bottom of the hole and we should build something solid to get ourselves out ....it will take time.
If we go for the "quick fix" it`ll all come crumbling down again, in ten years, 20 years, 30 years ?? Who knows ??
If Gordon had the welfare of the country at heart he would be looking at building our way out of the hole but he is simply searching for votes so he`s gonna float us all out in a balloon of hot air. The balloon will burst and the cycle will start all over again.....
Boom and bust boom and bust boom and bust... How long will it take for economists and politicians to see the evidence of history ??
If we keep on repeating the same mistakes we will have the same outcome ....Durrr !! it`s not rocket science !!!
It will take time, and longer term planning, but that is the problem, nobody has ever invested long term planning into this country.
I do understand what you saying it is a short term fix, but the differences are now people are more able to talk about what is going on, would they really stand around and see us go down the same slippery slope?
surely more awareness provokes changes or am I wrong in my thoughts.
I know I can be naive at times.
Quote by flower411
. Maybe you would like to put forward your ideas on how we move forward and get out of this recession then.

Stop fighting other peoples wars.
Stop trying to police the world.
If we are able to conjure up money out of nowhere, start giving grants (not loans) to businesses, with conditions.
They must use the bank designated by the government to process all their money for a specific amount of time.
Stop charging business account holders to deposit cash ....it just encourages them to hold on to cash which then funds the black economy.
There should be incentives to business to pay cash into the bank.
Stop paying people to sit around doing nothing, take away their benefits if they turn down work.
Encourage British manufacturing by awarding government contracts to British companies.
Encourage legal immigrants into the tax paying system and remove illegal immigrants from the country.
Stop paying people to have children.
Teach children useful vocational skills in schools, abolish school league tables and national curriculums.
Bring in a form of national service, with everybody having to train and serve in some kind of community related enterprise........Fire Brigade, ambulance service, Waste collection, Recycling ....whatever.
Bring back apprenticeships.
The list is endless... the rot has well and truly set in and to suggest that we can buy our way out of this mess by pretending we have money that doesn`t exist and that everything will be ok in 2010.....well really !! rolleyes
Flower I agree with a lot of your points here and feel we have gone backwards.
But we need to get out of this mess as soon as possible to stablise things.
What you have listed I hope will happen when people see the light, but we do need a stable enviroment and peoples attitudes changing to hopefully see those things happen, do we not?
I think we also have to stop pointing blame and look within ourself for a way forward.
Quote by The_third_man
Please dont quote me and I could very well be wrong but doesnt just printing money lead to hyper inflation? ala Germany in the 30's?

In Germany after WW1 lack of production caused hyper inflation.
The money printed was used for consumers to buy basis goods.
The banks did not lead additional money, notes and coins were only printed to meet withdrawals from consumers.
Lack of production was the cause.
This then lead Keynes theories of money supply and how to control it, to either reduce or increase to match the goods being produced.
Quote by flower411

I personally don't agree with it, but as it stands at the moment I can't see a better option, I hope and pray that a lot of lessons have been learnt during this crisis, as although I hate it media has bought it into the eyes of people that can now have conversations like this. I don't know what would be a better solution I have just stated what I have as a way to question and understand it myself.
I am hoping we pull through, but all hope will go out of the window if things just revert back to how it was.
My hope is based on peoples attitudes have to change from greed and selfishness and if we have to go through this to even change a proportion of people’s attitudes then I feel it is worth the ride.
I could see years ago that people needed a wake up call, I am hoping this is it.
Quote by The_third_man
Yes Thatcher is responsible, The children that I am referring to are the ones whose parents have not worked since Thatcher took away their working dignity.
A tool maker from a steel mill had status with in the place he worked. Take that status away from him and hand him no future because he is to old or unable to retrain will sit the rest of his life feeling like there is nothing worth attempting. This is handed on to his kids and on to their kids. I work in an area that is in the lowest 10% of social deprivation and the kids there are working hard to get out of there, not because of their families but because of the local school and the teachers within that school that work bloody hard to pass on aspirational values.
A good example of this - last year my organisation ran a summer scheme for local kids, we took them out into their community to do litter picking, we sorted the litter out and then showed them how to make art from the litter. The kids loved it, talked of be coming artists, environmental people and of becoming designers who would produce waste that biodegraded. All good stuff all very positive. The the parents were invited in to see what the kids had done (Parents being Thatcher’s children). The kids proudly showed their parents what they had done and we heard comments like "thats crap that is" "I'll chuck it in the bin when I get home" "What a fucking waste of time". Thats why the kids on the street dont respond because of the legacy from the 80s I am alright jack society.

I can not argue with any of the point you have made there at all. Plus have seen the same reactions from parents myself.
Quote by flower411
I wanted to bump this back as time has moved on after first asking the question.
I believe he was slow in reacting but what he is doing now in the financial sense are the best moves for the long term future of this country.
What has happened was always going to happen it was only a matter of time before the bubble burst.
It is and is still going to be a hard bumpy ride but I still feel Brown is the best man for the job in hand to get us out of this recession.

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
So which bits of his jiggery pokery do actually think are working ?????
Personally I think his best idea to date was to give the banks loads of OUR money so they could pay themselves their bonuses this year. I`ll certainly sleep better knowing that the fat cats are getting even fatter.
Real weight off my mind blink
I don’t profess to know a lot about economics but know more in my head than have the ability to write down as it is such a complex topic.
What Brown’s aim is right now is to stabilise the economy, because the overall economy is deflating. I liken it to a balloon deflating, to make the balloon more stable money needs to be injected in.
A lot of the deflating we know comes from the banks losses.
What Brown has done is given money to the banks by way of printing more money, It is not out of tax payers reserves. But then what happens once the economy inflates there will be more money about that needs to be taken back out, or we will have inflation.
This money is not being raised by borrowing too much but by creating money from the government. Not only is money being printed, but more bank deposits are being created to increase the money supply. This is not being financed by more government borrowing because borrowing would just take the money back out of the economy to put it back in.
Brown in giving the money to the banks and has taken shares as a swap, the government now own RBS ( Natwest) and Northern Rock.
The bonuses for the boards of banks owned by the government have been banned.
In future years this could be sold at a large profit thus earning a large income for the treasury.
This to me is an immediate solution to an immediate problem that could have long term positive effects for the future of this country.
It is just going to take time for it to be seen to be having some effect.
The fact that the government are pressurising banks to lend on small business opportunities covered by the government loan guarantee scheme to me must be a good thing for the future of this country too.
So... he`s printing money to give to the banks and he`s trying to force the banks to use this "conjured up from nowhere, backed by nothing" money to do exactly what got us into this mess in the first place. Thereby simply repeating and compounding the problem.
If we continue to promote policies that are already proven to be wrong there will be no profitable shares to be sold !!
The whole basis of the idea relies on the rest of the world believing that the money that is now being printed is backed by something solid !! They are simply not going to fall for it !!!
Please minx, give me an example of an economy that survived after it started printing money that didn`t exist.
In 1974 in the US two of the largest banks were in trouble through bad loans.
If these two banks collapsed at the time the knock on effect to the banking system would have been considerable.
The Fed. Pumped money into the banks and staved off a collapse.
This money was not borrowed just created by the Fed.
Later when inflation took off, the Fed by interest rate and money supply reduction polices corrected the situation.
So in answer to your question when a balloon deflates you give it more air, you don’t borrow it you just provide it.
Flower people see everything in notes and coins, most money in circulation are bookkeeping entries, no cash
When a bank gives you an overdraft it doesn’t put the notes and coins in a vault for you, it is just a bookkeeping entry.
I do believe in small business, I would rather see 100,000 small businesses run on a small scale than one big huge corporate company.
The advantages for employment are far better for those that like to have comfort of a wage packet. Smaller companies I feel respect their work force better.
The families could gain from it as it can promote back apprenticeships.
Maybe it is just me that could see the benefits that this could have for the future of this country.
Minx ... we are talking in simple terms here because it keeps things understandable !!
I am aware that when I get an overdraft the money is not deposited in an account for me !!!
Yes, it is a book keeping entry !!
But ..... it has to be backed by something. Our economy has been run on the assumption that the financial sector will continue to grow simply by the the purchase and sale of book keeping entries.
There has to be a solid base...we used to have gold reserves but they were sold cheap for a few worthless "book keeping" entries.
The days where “paper” needs to be backed by solid assets as gold as long since expired, there isn’t enough gold in the world to back the amount of money in the world in circulation.
The only way to back money supply is throught production of goods, to much money chasing to few goods =inflation. To many good and to little money = deflation
Money doesn’t have to be backed by anything because it is “Fiat Money”
The objectives of economists are to create equilibrium and eventually growth.
Going back to a previous point about our history
The last two depressions back in the 30’s and just after the war,
in the 30’s we created money as per I believe John Milton Keynes theories to inflate the economy. Within a few years things were booming.
After the war we borrowed money from the international community mostly America to rebuild out infrastructure and we have just finished paying it back some 50+ years later
So I know what solution I would prefer.
Quote by kentswingers777
So IF Bottler Brown and " eyebrows " know what they are doing, why the decrease in VAT ?
It is obvious it has not worked....was never likely to work....and has NO bearing on the people on the street at all.
These people think that by either " printing " more money will help, are idiots....one eyed ones. lol
All printing money will do is to destabalise the economy even more, and the pound will sink even further, against other currencies.
The only way to do it is to BUY the banks and let the Government take control of them, and then they can make them borrow to each other again.
What Brown has done so far, has had no bearing on the economy at all, that I can see.
VAT down to 15%.............yes I can see that has worked.

I didn’t know you were a communist/ socialist whereby the state owns everything? :shock:
That goes again where you think. lol
On another point if the banks have lost their money, how would they lead to each other?
Whether owned by the state of not?
Where does the money come from off trees?
It can’t be raised by borrowing because it is taking it out of the economy only to put it back in again.
Liken it to the balloon you suck a mouthful of air out to blow a mouthful back, the balloon stays the same size.
Quote by flower411
I wanted to bump this back as time has moved on after first asking the question.
I believe he was slow in reacting but what he is doing now in the financial sense are the best moves for the long term future of this country.
What has happened was always going to happen it was only a matter of time before the bubble burst.
It is and is still going to be a hard bumpy ride but I still feel Brown is the best man for the job in hand to get us out of this recession.

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
So which bits of his jiggery pokery do actually think are working ?????
Personally I think his best idea to date was to give the banks loads of OUR money so they could pay themselves their bonuses this year. I`ll certainly sleep better knowing that the fat cats are getting even fatter.
Real weight off my mind blink
I don’t profess to know a lot about economics but know more in my head than have the ability to write down as it is such a complex topic.
What Brown’s aim is right now is to stabilise the economy, because the overall economy is deflating. I liken it to a balloon deflating, to make the balloon more stable money needs to be injected in.
A lot of the deflating we know comes from the banks losses.
What Brown has done is given money to the banks by way of printing more money, It is not out of tax payers reserves. But then what happens once the economy inflates there will be more money about that needs to be taken back out, or we will have inflation.
This money is not being raised by borrowing too much but by creating money from the government. Not only is money being printed, but more bank deposits are being created to increase the money supply. This is not being financed by more government borrowing because borrowing would just take the money back out of the economy to put it back in.
Brown in giving the money to the banks and has taken shares as a swap, the government now own RBS ( Natwest) and Northern Rock.
The bonuses for the boards of banks owned by the government have been banned.
In future years this could be sold at a large profit thus earning a large income for the treasury.
This to me is an immediate solution to an immediate problem that could have long term positive effects for the future of this country.
It is just going to take time for it to be seen to be having some effect.
The fact that the government are pressurising banks to lend on small business opportunities covered by the government loan guarantee scheme to me must be a good thing for the future of this country too.
So... he`s printing money to give to the banks and he`s trying to force the banks to use this "conjured up from nowhere, backed by nothing" money to do exactly what got us into this mess in the first place. Thereby simply repeating and compounding the problem.
If we continue to promote policies that are already proven to be wrong there will be no profitable shares to be sold !!
The whole basis of the idea relies on the rest of the world believing that the money that is now being printed is backed by something solid !! They are simply not going to fall for it !!!
Please minx, give me an example of an economy that survived after it started printing money that didn`t exist.
In 1974 in the US two of the largest banks were in trouble through bad loans.
If these two banks collapsed at the time the knock on effect to the banking system would have been considerable.
The Fed. Pumped money into the banks and staved off a collapse.
This money was not borrowed just created by the Fed.
Later when inflation took off, the Fed by interest rate and money supply reduction polices corrected the situation.
So in answer to your question when a balloon deflates you give it more air, you don’t borrow it you just provide it.
Flower people see everything in notes and coins, most money in circulation are bookkeeping entries, no cash
When a bank gives you an overdraft it doesn’t put the notes and coins in a vault for you, it is just a bookkeeping entry.
I do believe in small business, I would rather see 100,000 small businesses run on a small scale than one big huge corporate company.
The advantages for employment are far better for those that like to have comfort of a wage packet. Smaller companies I feel respect their work force better.
The families could gain from it as it can promote back apprenticeships.
Maybe it is just me that could see the benefits that this could have for the future of this country.
Quote by essex34m

The issues with teenagers today, unruly and on the street are a direct consequence of thatcherite policies. No apprentices, no jobs and no future after all not everyone can have a McJob.

You say the above is a direct consequence of Thatcherite policies, you conveniently fail to mention that Thatcher quit as Prime Minister in 1990, and that Labour came to power in 1997.
A 19 year old today, one of the unruly teenagers you speak of would have been 7 when labour came to power, and born in the year when Thatcher resigned, it would appear that you are putting the blame squarely at Thatchers door, yet seem to ignore that for 12 years, the Labour Government has let those kids down, not Thatcher.
Yes, Thatcher caused a hell of a lot of havoc for the country with her policies, but Labour got into power on the basis of changing everything that is wrong with the country.
Tony Blair once famously gave a speech in which he said he would make changes, and the tagline of "Education Education Education" was pushed to the fore, clearly some around here could do with some themselves.
Teenagers started to become unruly way before Thatcher came into power, parents were complaining I believe before I was born in the 50's to the teenagers becoming rebellious when listening to rock and roll.
We can not just blame government influences kids are not into politics.
Music, media and game consoles I think have bigger influences where children are concerned than any Politian will.
Quote by flower411
I wanted to bump this back as time has moved on after first asking the question.
I believe he was slow in reacting but what he is doing now in the financial sense are the best moves for the long term future of this country.
What has happened was always going to happen it was only a matter of time before the bubble burst.
It is and is still going to be a hard bumpy ride but I still feel Brown is the best man for the job in hand to get us out of this recession.

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:
So which bits of his jiggery pokery do actually think are working ?????
Personally I think his best idea to date was to give the banks loads of OUR money so they could pay themselves their bonuses this year. I`ll certainly sleep better knowing that the fat cats are getting even fatter.
Real weight off my mind blink
I don’t profess to know a lot about economics but know more in my head than have the ability to write down as it is such a complex topic.
What Brown’s aim is right now is to stabilise the economy, because the overall economy is deflating. I liken it to a balloon deflating, to make the balloon more stable money needs to be injected in.
A lot of the deflating we know comes from the banks losses.
What Brown has done is given money to the banks by way of printing more money, It is not out of tax payers reserves. But then what happens once the economy inflates there will be more money about that needs to be taken back out, or we will have inflation.
This money is not being raised by borrowing too much but by creating money from the government. Not only is money being printed, but more bank deposits are being created to increase the money supply. This is not being financed by more government borrowing because borrowing would just take the money back out of the economy to put it back in.
Brown in giving the money to the banks and has taken shares as a swap, the government now own RBS ( Natwest) and Northern Rock.
The bonuses for the boards of banks owned by the government have been banned.
In future years this could be sold at a large profit thus earning a large income for the treasury.
This to me is an immediate solution to an immediate problem that could have long term positive effects for the future of this country.
It is just going to take time for it to be seen to be having some effect.
The fact that the government are pressurising banks to lend on small business opportunities covered by the government loan guarantee scheme to me must be a good thing for the future of this country too.
Quote by flower411
No doubt I am going to get a bucket load of spanners thrown at me but here goes.
Thatcher and her policies dismantled the manufacturing industries of this country. She let the fat cats get rich on the privatising of power, water, BT etc, she pushed the belief that everyone should own their home forcing house prices into hyper inflation. She sat back whilst the health service struggled.
The issues with teenagers today, unruly and on the street are a direct consequence of thatcherite policies. No apprentices, no jobs and no future after all not everyone can have a McJob.
The so called paying off of the loans accrued under labour never happened, the money made from the selling off went on tax cuts and fat cat salaries.
I for one will be glad when she is a chapter in a dusty history book some where in a forgotten library.

Well done for writing that lot down :thumbup:
I hope she is never forgotton. The fact that this country has been hit so hard by this recession is a direct result of her "get rich quick" policies.
The idea that an economy has to be constantly growing is one of the biggest economic myths that has been foisted upon us and the fact that a "so called" labour prime minister has not only fallen for the lie but is actively promoting the whole boom and bust idea is disappointing to say the least.
Flower I totally agreed with you.
About your question to me on how I think brown is doing a good job. I wrote a detailed response and lost the whole damn lot when sending. I will asnswer your question again later, just to let you know I am not shying away from it.
I don't back Brown in all that he stands for but still do believe he is best for the job in hand.
I wanted to bump this back as time has moved on after first asking the question.
I believe he was slow in reacting but what he is doing now in the financial sense are the best moves for the long term future of this country.
What has happened was always going to happen it was only a matter of time before the bubble burst.
It is and is still going to be a hard bumpy ride but I still feel Brown is the best man for the job in hand to get us out of this recession.
Just talking to people in normal life and on here, what has baffled me is that a lot of men I talk to, (not all) although not particularly agreeing with all she done and not a supported of the party, seem to have a lot of respect for Margret Thatcher.
This has baffled me, as myself and my female friends can not understand why.
It seems more men seem to respect her than woman do, or is this just my own observations which I could be wrong as is often the case.
Or if it is true lead me to another thought that would we be happier working for a someone of the opposite sex?
I think myself personally I would rather work for a man than a woman likewise I would rather lead a team of men than women.
Could this be we are more cynical of the same sex?
I don't know, I am a bit confused about my own feelings about how I feel.
Do others have similar views, or is it just me.
I wonder if others could help me see if this is the case and why.
Quote by The_third_man
Gripping, Well written and down right dirty!, Looking forward to seeing who gets pulled off at halftime smile

LMAO!
That's strictly a priveledge for those in the executive relief boxes... ;-)
There's more news to follow, Chris Kamara is having a fit at it... "It's absolutely unbelievable Jeff..."
Stay tuned...
Oooooooo is he on the team now? :twisted:
Would only be happy about being on the team if I got to kiis the girls when they score, play a one two with dirty girl and slip my tackle between Minxs legs smile
:shock: Thats a dirty move!
You could get a stiff one from the ref for that, with the crowd shouting OFF! OFF! OFF! lol
Quote by Resonance

Sorry res this thought did pop into my head after reading your football thread, that doesn't mean that is solely directed at you only. :P
What would be your first thoughts on some of the threads?

I suppose anyone looking at the abject sh*te I post would probably think any of the following:-
"It's nice to see care in the community works..."
"Call a doctor."
"At least it gives his Mrs five minutes peace."
"Thank God for the Chatrooms"
"For him it's a day out, for his family a day off."
"I must have this verbally stimulating stallion of a chap who could bring me to orgasm using simply cunning linguistic skills."
"What a t*sser!"
I feel, the majority of right thinking people are firmly in the camp of the final statement! But that's ok, cos more often than not they are right.
:-)
I would go for quote 'For him it's a day out, for his family a day off' lol
Quote by kentswingers777
Thanks Steve, am glad you accepted it.
Sometimes my balls engage first before my brain.....some would say that happens all the time. :shock:
Minxy I sure AM man enough. wink wink

:shock: Errm I am confused!
I never see where one disengages and the other engages :P
bolt
Quote by bouncy332
:silly: :silly: poke bolt

lol Oh god, now we need an interpreter biggrin
I mean sillysillypokebolt - sounds like a clapping game biggrin

rotflmao
:shock: don't laugh the clap is no laughing matter! rolleyes
So I have have heard! redface
I know the people that post on these forums must get as much laughter, out of some of the posts as I.
But if I was looking in from the outside of this site, as I know people can that are not members.
I often wonder what they must think.
I wonder if there are some that tune in like us for their daily fix.
I know there are others here that read them and dont post.
If I was looking in for my first time and just reading some of these threads.
I would think this is the community loony house. lol
In the nicest possible sense.
Sorry res this thought did pop into my head after reading your football thread, that doesn't mean that is solely directed at you only. :P
What would be your first thoughts on some of the threads?