Do we expect too much as a right in Great Britain?

Ninny, that's a very serious accusation to make. Would you like to explain your assertion.

Disagreement with your point of view is not bullying.

I was never bullied at school, never thought when I reached my 60's I would be bullied by a small bunch of left wing grans!

It probably is a good idea to read through previous posts if the OP suggests there's going to be an argument. Otherwise you are in the same position as someone who just overhears a bit of a conversation. And there are so many people on GN who have specialised expertise and experience that's worth reading - or really good ideas or advice.

What on earth was wrong with durhamjen's post at 17. 27.10. It was an interesting snippet of information. I for one knew nothing of this and it's the sort of local history that can have general appeal country-wide. There seemed to be no implication that it was purely directed at ninny -just part of the flow of conversation. I have to say I'd rather read factual info from a well-informed source than snippy and unjustifed comments with no basis in fact. Odd that there are those who take some comments so personally yet feel that they can set themselves up as experts on the political views of others.

sad

I very rarey read all of the posts, especially if it is a very long thread. I do read the last few comments and if necessary read backover. I dont think there is anything wrong with this at all, surely its just like any conversation. Those who are in at the start here all of it and sometimes people pop in later on, have their say (or not) and have to be either quickly updated or put right. Nothing wrong with that at all in my opinion.

I read all the posts, but I think it's wise not to assume that any and every point that is made, will either be know to, or have been considered by, someone else. Ths happens in academic discourse all the time. It isn't pedantry but discussion and debate.

the posts i am referring to were made yesterday my post to iam64 tues 22apr 17.02.35 and durhamjensns post to me 22apr 17.27.10. i realise it appeared out of sequence.

I have been told on posts that I have 'lectured' people. It is not my intention to do that but just to put my view clearly if I feel it has been misinterpreted or else to add a different perspective or specific information. I do not think it matters if someone already knows a lot about a subject because we can all learn something new!

when i said i didn't need a history lessons i was responding to durhamjens post at 17.27.10 she had been responding to my post to iam64 17.02.35 doesn't anyone read through all the posts. thanks jinglbellsfrocks for sticking up for me.

Come on Eglantine you've said worse yourself

No! It wasn't. If the powers that be see that it will be deleted.

Norty Jane.

Oh dear - I thought that was quite mild, Aka.

I think there are some poster mcem who come across as wanting to lecture others and it's annoying when, as in ninny's case, she is already familiar with the subject matter.

If it's new information to a reader then of course it's more interesting to them.

A difficult one I know as I'm sure most people don't mean to offend, unlike a remark such as 'shut up' for which there is little justification (IMO)

DurhamJen's posts are always a useful source of information. And, although I am an historian, I don't regard being pointed in the direction of unbiased information as a 'history lesson'. Neither is it 'pedantic'. It does, however, astonish me that anyone would find a link to an informative source as being personally directed.

I don't need to add up pit closures. The internet is quite sufficient information to go by.

Wonder why ninny took durhamjen's post personally. I agree with janea that her post is helpful and informative and adds to the discussion. I assumed that it was part of that general discussion and not a history lesson directed specifically at ninny. Why so touchy?

Don't say "shut up" to ninny!

Shut up, ninny.
Some of us find jen's posts informative.

durhamjen i do not need a history lesson, don't be so pedantic.

www.healeyhero.co.uk/rescue/individual/Bob_Bradley/PM-Closures.html

Haven't added them all up, POGS. I'm sure you will be able to.

Thatcher did it on purpose, vindictively to get rid of the NUM. She said so. I do not think that was the reason behind Wilson closing pits. It was because the pits ran out of coal. When we moved back up north, there was only one pit in Northumberland, and that was close soon after, because it was uneconomical.
I am not saying that it was only miners who lost their jobs. Miners lost their jobs because of Thatcher's vindictiveness. If Thatcher had not set out to destroy the NUM, those other jobs might not have been lost.

Am I wrong in saying the fact remains that Wilson closed a reported 290 pits and Thatcher 160.

It was a time when a lot of men lost their jobs because of the pit strikes, they too lost their homes. The pit strikes caused nationwide problems which touched the lives of families not in the coal industry. They did not have a choice of whether or not to go on strike, their factories and employers had to make that decision for them. It was a terrible time for everybody but it hardly get's a mention.

Rose, it depends on who you read about pit closures.

www.leftfootforward.org/2013/04/tory-spin-on-coal-masks-fact-that-80-per-cent-of-coal-jobs-were-lost-under-thatcher/

The problem, as I said earlier, was the fact that the miners could not move because nobody wanted to live in a pit village with no work, so the miners could not sell their houses after Thatcher closed the pits.
When Wilson closed pits, there were jobs elsewhere. The miners had rented the pit houses so could stop renting in one pit village and move to another pit village where there was work.
I know this because my father-in-law was a foreman repairing pit houses. Once most of them had been sold in Northumberland, he was made redundant. He wasn't responsible for just one village; it was the whole of Northumberland from Ashington up to Wooler, and across to the National park. He was in charge of a lot of men, who also lost their jobs.

Sorry, did not notice that.
Nobody has mentioned that this government has now said that builders can build as many houses as they want without any of them being affordable, or have I missed that as well?
www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/22/garden-cities-affordable-homes-tcpa-ebbsfleet-howard-letchworth
New planning rules.

rose re-posted her link at 21.20 durhamjen.