I think referring to a black person as a golli is wrong, stupid, offensive and ridiculous. But this was a private conversation where I believe no black people were present.

The notion that the police should be investigating her use of the word and prosecuting her is ridiculous. There are probably 5 million crimes far more serious than this that they have to deal with. They don't have time to dealing with burglaries, robberies and muggings, but hey, the hated Prmie Minister's daughter said "Golli" and it's in the papers so let's rush in there and create a crime that we can solve. WTFever.

I think the BBC were probably right to fire her over it. I don't know what type of shows she was involved in or whether she did a good job on screen, but anyone caught using language like that is risking their job.

Do I think her using the term once gives justification to the s who are publicly celebrating Thatcher's death? No. They were going to celebrate anyway, whether Carol Thatcher was the greatest women who ever lived or just an average person with flaws. It was a lame justification.

Withdrawing labour is entirely reasonable, rational and acceptable behaviour

I've never understood the indignation wreaked by the public over Carol Thatcher's sacking, and the calls for her to be reinstated as it was private converstion that was leaked. Thatcher's defence was the same, and I don't think she ever actually acknowledged that the use of the word was wrong.

Regardless of whether the word was uttered live on air, in a private room, to a black person or amongst friends is irrelevant, the fact that it passed her lips in the first place demonstrates the way her mind works. She's racist.

No one has touched your posts.

Agreed - so is not withdrawing your labour, would you not agree?

The notion of secondary picketing is an interesting one, it is basically saying that withdrawing ones labour is sufficient to win the argument so I need to disrupt other people who are not directly involved and who have not voted to strike.

Scabs are people who you have not managed to convince of your argument and like you they have made an independent decision to keep working which as you have suggested is "entirely reasonable, rational and acceptable behaviour" So why do you find this so abhorrent?

Savings are great provided inflation is controlled - perhaps if labour had controlled inflation people may have looked at savings in a different light. You seem incapable of seeing any fault outside of Thatcher - labour's management of the economy was woeful as was its ability to manage the unions.

Take your example of a house deposit - you are saving up for a deposit but every year the true value of your pot is being reduced by the difference in the inflation rate and the interest rate. With high inflation you cannot save enough as the object you are saving for is costing 10-20% more each year.

The idea of wage slaves is yet another one of your barmy ideas - the need to work was no different under Thatcher as it was under Callaghan.

Your idea of personal debt comes back to the first point - with high inflation nobody is interested in saving - it is futile. You might as well borrow the money enjoy the item you bought.

Once again you didn't read my earlier posts - yes the firm has offered a pay rise but it does have a bonus scheme in place which rewards everyone if the firm does well - it pays out.

The idea of salary increases as an annual norm is crazy - why should a firm pay out more for nothing in return? Supply and demand will dictate what rate they have to pay - if they are under the market people will leave and they will not be able to recruit at the right level. They will have to pay more and then everyone's numbers will have to go up.

Take the industry I am in - print - we are not the only channel marketing can use to promote their products. We are up against TV, Radio, Electronic, Newspapers, BOGOF etc. So the print element of a campaign is say 100k for 1m items. I give all my staff a 5% salary increase with no productivity increases and material costs remain the same what happens to the cost of the product? So the client has three choices they stick with 1m and it costs more, they spend 100k and get less product or they look at other channels to spend their 100k where the ROI may be better - this is the reality we face 20-50 times a day. Add to that over-capacity and you have an industry that is in crisis - paying higher wages for nothing is unrealistic.

I don't care how much the CEO earns - in fact I only care about what I earn and whether that is sufficient to support my family. If it great if not - and that has been the case in the past - I have worked a second job until I could find the right job.

As for shareholders - without them you have no firm - so it is important that they get suitable recompensed for the level of risk they are taking? We also have share save schemes that anyone can participate - so it is to the benefit of all participants if share price and dividends increase.

The fact you would ignore someone simply because they disagreed with you and exerted their democratic right work says more about you as a person than anything you choose to post on here - a very sad and bitter individual.

Presumably this holds from both the employer and employee's perspectives then?

That is not what I suggested.

HTH

Many of the practices you outline had been changed [iprior[/i to privatisation. And more changes were in the pipeline. BT was modernising [iand[/i making a profit - largely because unions and management had sat down and actually agreed a modernisation program.

You really are quite silly, aren't you?

That makes no difference whatsoever.



I never once said it should be a criminal matter.



Agreed.



'Average' people do not refer to black people as 'gollis'.



It wasn't justification at all. People have used Thatcher's actions in office as justification for celebrating her death. That her son is a criminal and her daughter is a racist just means they don't really feel compelled to cease celebrating for their benefit.

Ding Dong The Bells Are Dead.

Well at least for the duration on Wednesday anyway.

Presumably the Met will be wading into the crowds to arrest anyone who as much as farts or sneezes. Be interesting to see if they kettle them all in afterwards as they would football fans.

They'll be heavy handed no doubt.

There was a Parkinson's sufferer on the BBC this morning who was speaking (inter alia the sort of misunderstandings that Parkinson's people have to endure) about the time the police arrested him because he was on the route of a bike race (Olympics, I think) and was "acting suspiciously".
The "acting suspiciously" was ... get this ... that he was not smiling.

Not so.
Back then, the BoE base rate was set high, so as to be higher than inflation, that's why it hit 17% during Thatcher's time.

At the moment, however, base rate is set very low indeed and is deliberately way below inflation, so the point you were making would be true now.

I fondly remember Geoffrey Howe hiking-up VAT and then a year later as that hike disappeared from the year-on-year stats, pointing at it as a decrease in inflation.
Some would have believed him.

You also asked why salaries should have to go up every year.
I think you've probably answered that one yourself ... without an annual rise, once you take inflation into account, the salary is (in real terms) going down, that's why many people think of a rise commensurate with inflation as their right.
Unfortunately, they are wrong, their contract of employment usually states a number of pounds per year and doesn't mention inflation... but you can see why they think as they do.
Many employers nowadays utilise inflation as a way of reducing the salaries of their lower or average performers, awarding catch-up raises (or better) only to the higher-performing staff.