I have no problem working for either male or female so long as I respect them and they prove their competence at the job and can at least show that they know as much, if not more than, myself.
Maggie? I loathe the woman with avengance. I didn't think I could hate more but recently have just read a book called The School Report by Nick Davies. In it Baker who started all the so called education reforms admits that his motive was purely to smash the Unions. He knew that the reforms were based on very dodgy premises but didn't really care as all the privledged children weren't affected as they were educated under the private system. In the interview with Nick Davies he is laughing about it as though it's a joke. Regrettably Blunket didn't look carefully at the statements made by the Conservatives but just carried on blindly insisting that schools in areas of high deprivation could equal those in wealthy areas. As a teacher who had to take early retirement because of severe ill health, which I blame a lot of it on too high stress levels for years caused by trying to make something work that was never going to. I also lost a good friend who took her own life because she was no longer able to cope. She was a good teacher but the system was impossible.
Yes I do blame Thatcher. She could have controlled her henchmen but chose not to. Right whinge over. If anyone wants the ISBN number of this very readable book please pm me
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Just an observation but I feel confused
Sex God
I dont think its a matter of politics or specifics for me. I can name quite a few politicians and political activists for whom I cannot list specific achievements. The truth about Margaret Thatcher is that she will be listed in history along with all the greatest states(wo)men and people who shaped the world.
Its undeniable, in the same way that the Kennedys are almost deified by people ignoring their faults MT will always be vilified ignoring any achievements.
One thing she will be useful for in perpetuity is that she will always stand as a beacon of excuse for anyone who failed at anything in the eighties.
Peace
Its undeniable, in the same way that the Kennedys are almost deified by people ignoring their faults MT will always be vilified ignoring any achievements.
One thing she will be useful for in perpetuity is that she will always stand as a beacon of excuse for anyone who failed at anything in the eighties.
Peace
Sex God
Quote by Theladyisaminx
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 am happiest working for a good and fair boss - gender is irrelevant.
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.
I have no problems managing or leading teams of people full stop. Gender is, again, irrelevant. If you have the management/leadership skills you should be able to manage people, full stop.
Could this be we are more cynical of the same sex?
Why would you feel cynical about people of your own gender? I find this perplexing. Do you not treat people on their merits? Do you treat them differently because of their gender? How odd.
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.
I have managed teams of up to 150 people. I have worked for both men and women. I have managed all female teams and all male teams. I manage people. That is what I have been taught to do. I respect colleagues and employers or employees as people. Simple as.
Master of Sex
I'm a Black Country lad and Thatcher was responsible for destroying the manufacturing industry in that area.
She killed the foundries, chain makers, steel companies etc. and that led to the end of the "small firms" around the area that "supported" them.
She is not highly thought of in the Black Country. Many people will celebrate her passing. The area has never really recovered.
She killed the foundries, chain makers, steel companies etc. and that led to the end of the "small firms" around the area that "supported" them.
She is not highly thought of in the Black Country. Many people will celebrate her passing. The area has never really recovered.
I was reminded about MT only this morning..
As I got out of bed, I realised that, thanks to her, I could make an informed choice about whether to wear my grey socks or my pink and grey ones.
I chose the grey ones but chose not to tuck my shirt in my underpants.
the fact I wasn't wearing any was also down to my ability to make choices
I'm not sure that such choices are legally possible any more in Borrowns Britain
As I got out of bed, I realised that, thanks to her, I could make an informed choice about whether to wear my grey socks or my pink and grey ones.
I chose the grey ones but chose not to tuck my shirt in my underpants.
the fact I wasn't wearing any was also down to my ability to make choices
I'm not sure that such choices are legally possible any more in Borrowns Britain
Quote by benrums0nYou are wrong both of Thatcher's wars were just. In the Falklands we defended British territory. A nation must defend it's self and it's dependancences.
...
Killing my friends in a pointless war decided upon in a whim.
...
In the Gulf we defended an Kuwait, we had treaties with Kuwait, we had no option but defend a friend.
Both wars were the act of a responsible nation. Anything else she did was is open to debate, but if a nation does not stand on it's word others turn there back in time of need.
Now the Blair wars, they were whims. He just wanted, perhaps needed to out do Thatcher. He considers her the best modern PM this country has had. In his attempt to over compensate for his own insecurity he has killed many a serviceman, countless civilians and brought shame to Britain.
Thatcher's wars were lawful. Blair's were not.
I do say we should have kept going to Baghdad the first time around. Not because of 11th. September, that had nothing to do with Iraq. We should have kept going because the world was only to pleased to see a change. Not going just left forces deployed on the boarders of Iraq, they would have been better at home.
Thatcher save servicemen's lives, Blair killed them.
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 byYou are wrong both of Thatcher's wars were just. In the Falklands we defended British territory. A nation must defend it's self and it's dependancences.
...
Killing my friends in a pointless war decided upon in a whim.
...
In the Gulf we defended an Kuwait, we had treaties with Kuwait, we had no option but defend a friend.
Both wars were the act of a responsible nation. Anything else she did was is open to debate, but if a nation does not stand on it's word others turn there back in time of need.
Now the Blair wars, they were whims. He just wanted, perhaps needed to out do Thatcher. He considers her the best modern PM this country has had. In his attempt to over compensate for his own insecurity he has killed many a serviceman, countless civilians and brought shame to Britain.
Thatcher's wars were lawful. Blair's were not.
I do say we should have kept going to Baghdad the first time around. Not because of 11th. September, that had nothing to do with Iraq. We should have kept going because the world was only to pleased to see a change. Not going just left forces deployed on the boarders of Iraq, they would have been better at home.
Thatcher save servicemen's lives, Blair killed them.
But to have kept going would have put Britain in the wrong, so it was entirely just that the war ended and troops were withdrawn from the territory otherwise it was have been an illegal occupancy of a foreign State - just like Blair and G W Bush stand accused of.
Quote by niceguysdoexist
As I understand it Saddam Hussein's army illegally entered Kuwait and committed many criminal acts. To have pursued him into Iraq with his subsequent arrest and trial in an internationsal court would have been a just cause surely?
If that was what the international community wanted and was properly sanctioned, of course :thumbup:
But it wasn't and so they didn't.
Sex God
Quote by niceguysdoexist
As I understand it Saddam Hussein's army illegally entered Kuwait and committed many criminal acts. To have pursued him into Iraq with his subsequent arrest and trial in an internationsal court would have been a just cause surely?
Probably more than justified, given the attacks on Israel, atrocities in Kuwait, and the previous genocidal campaign against Iraqi Kurds, but unfortunately UN Resolution 678, which effectively gave the authorisation for military force allowed them only to go so far as to force compliance with Resolutions 660 through 667 and no further. i.e. the liberation of Kuwait was their only goal. Any further action in Iraqi territory would as a result probably have been illegal in the absence of further UN resolutions.
Neil x x x ;)
Quote by neilinleeds
Probably more than justified, given the attacks on Israel, atrocities in Kuwait, and the previous genocidal campaign against Iraqi Kurds, but unfortunately UN Resolution 678, which effectively gave the authorisation for military force allowed them only to go so far as to force compliance with Resolutions 660 through 667 and no further. i.e. the liberation of Kuwait was their only goal. Any further action in Iraqi territory would as a result probably have been illegal in the absence of further UN resolutions.
Neil x x x ;)
Thanks for that Neil I am grateful for your illuminatory posting. Yet another example, however, of the UN falling short in its global responsibilities.I also note that abiding by UN resolutions was not a constraint that bothered the US and the UK when they decided to invade Iraq for the second time.
Quote by niceguysdoexist
Probably more than justified, given the attacks on Israel, atrocities in Kuwait, and the previous genocidal campaign against Iraqi Kurds, but unfortunately UN Resolution 678, which effectively gave the authorisation for military force allowed them only to go so far as to force compliance with Resolutions 660 through 667 and no further. i.e. the liberation of Kuwait was their only goal. Any further action in Iraqi territory would as a result probably have been illegal in the absence of further UN resolutions.
Neil x x x ;)
Thanks for that Neil I am grateful for your illuminatory posting. Yet another example, however, of the UN falling short in its global responsibilities.I also note that abiding by UN resolutions was not a constraint that bothered the US and the UK when they decided to invade Iraq for the second time....but by then America had proven there were no weapons of mass-destruction to hurt them, it was safe, and there was a PM and President both trying to out do their predecessors.
It seems they were not up to the task. No one in their right mind says 'Lets bomb everything that moves and wing it from there in.'
