striking teachers.

[hubgearfreak]

Apologies I have just checked and I was wrong.

accepted, no harm done

[hungrydave]

Surely you had the same opportunity as everyone else to become a teacher

perhaps not. he could be good with children, intelligent, concientious and all the rest of it. but no english 'O' level, or a minor crime on a drunken night out as a student = no chance

In the case of the O level, then he has an inferior ability to those who have qualified as teachers thus they are better rewarded.
As for the crime - it would have been his choice to commit the crime.

In both cases you cannot hold working teachers responsible for his not becoming one of them and not having the correct abilities to do the job. But as it turns out,

Yes, but the argue can be extended to say that teachers should not be complaining about their conditions when they've had the same opportunity as the majority to enter higher paid, better remunerated positions.

I think one of the issues here is a general financial illiteracy amongst the general population. It means that the debate is driven by conjecture and emotion, not a reasoned understanding of the facts (in saying this, i include myself). I have a number of friends striking that do not know in practise what their pension contribution is I'm percentage terms nor understand the effect of compound interest in growing the size of the pension pot. Many people are starting pensions later but expect to draw them relatively young. The maths just don't stack up.

[thelawnet]

Nobody has ever been shot for going on strike.

i'd be surprised if this is true

Ok, so there are actually quite a few strike-related massacres in the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:A ... _Conflicts

Also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-union_violence

Doesn't seem to be a UK history of it however.

[hungrydave]

From the echelons of top finance the distinction between "highly paid teachers" and poor workers would be unnoticeable.

It's nice to hear the distinction between high finance and 'bankers'. The terms are used interchangeably but in ignorance of the real situation.

There are hundreds of thousands of banking employees in the uk, the vast majority of whom work in operational or administrative roles, earning perhaps 15-17k pa. I work in the industry in a managerial role and whilst I do earn more, it's not what the public associates with 'bankers'. The term and incessant abuse grinds people down to the point that one of the union leaders in this latest pensions debate was publically slagging off 'bankers' as a defence (attack being the finest form of) for the public sector pension reforms. The irony being that his union also represents thousands of paying members from the banking industry.

The reason for saying this is not to go off topic but in sympathy for the unreasoned slagging that the 'public sector' seems to be receiving from much of the media and private sector. It seems the term is reaching a similar level whereby its used as a catch all that masks massive diversity and range of characters.

It seems that we are unable in the uk to challenge our own understanding of a situation, look at the facts or have a grown up debate. Whenever there are difficult decisions to be made or debates to be had, we adopt a stance that suits us and generally breeds animosity in the opposition - the only way from there is down.

[pete75]

Nobody has ever been shot for going on strike.

i'd be surprised if this is true

Ok, so there are actually quite a few strike-related massacres in the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:A ... _Conflicts

Also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-union_violence

Doesn't seem to be a UK history of it however.

Six pickets were killed during the 1984 Miners strike presumably by the police as were a couple of people involved in strike breaking presumably by the miners.

[Edwards]

Check out the General Strike and the use of troops and police in Liverpool. But remember that history is written by the winners.

[irc]

Six pickets were killed during the 1984 Miners strike presumably by the police

b
Where's the evidence for that statement? Or is it just a knee jerk anti police comment?

The Justice for Mineworkers Campaign lists the deaths during the strike. Two on picket lines. No suggestion of police involvement.

http://www.justiceformineworkers.org.uk/

According to wikipaedia the two deaths on picket lines were caused by a flying brick during a riot and by being hit by a truck. No police involvement in either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners'_strike_(1984–1985

[Si]

Yes, but the argue can be extended to say that teachers should not be complaining about their conditions when they've had the same opportunity as the majority to enter higher paid, better remunerated positions.

I'd suggest that the difference is that the teachers' issue is with what is happening to _their_own_ jobs and the positives that they are losing, they are not asking to be given a new set of benefits that others get. Whereas the critics issue is to complain about the few benefits that the teachers have left, and despite misunderstanding them, they seem to be saying that because there are a few things that are perceived to be good about teaching, the teachers should not complain or take action in order to preserve these.

It seems to be part of an underlying begrudgement (seemingly fostered , or at least exploited, by the govt and elements of the right wing media) that pubic sector workers, and teachers especially, have such cushy jobs and so many benefits that they have no right to complain about anything. My suggestion is that if this was really true and their lives so wonderful, why don't the complainers become public sector workers (teachers especially) too - after all, most people think that they could do the job better and they certainly think that they know more about the issues than those in the profession/job.

As for the O level discussion - Pete75 I apologise - I really did think that you were just doing your customary thing of diving into the middle of a topic, picking a random statement and trying to start an argument about it just for the sake of it (wolf, boy, crying, etc). If I have misjudged the situation and you really can't work out what's being said then.... there are two ways to look at it:
i/ teachers are no more able than everyone else, thus anyone should be able to become a teacher (so anyone can reap the rewards of being a teacher - thus would it not make sense to stop complaining about their benefits, jack in your own job and become a teacher so you too can share in the spoils?),
ii/ teaching requires certain skills that not everyone has, thus shouldn't those with these skills get an extra reward for them - just like in any other job? The only problem is that a number of these rewards don't actually exist, whatever the Clarksons of the world might tell us.
iii/ these benefits don't really exist in the form that they have been discussed by some here - in which case, taking even more from the teachers is clearly unjust and we should be supporting them

Of course, as soon as I start to talk about being rewarded for skills someone is bound to bring up bankers bonuses. So to avert the argument: different thing. 1/ higher up bankers' bonuses are real and considerable. 2/ the issue with bankers' bonuses at the moment is that those at the top are are getting them for failure - I have less of a problem with them getting them if they actually deserve them. 3/ if a teacher makes as big a mess of their job as some bankers then I'm all for removing their benefits (or even their job depending on the circumstances).

[thirdcrank]

Getting this back to matters of national or even international importance, I see that Clarkson is a chum of the prime minister according to the Daily Torygraph and you might expect them to know. It all shows terrible judgment IMO and mere apologies are not enough. I think he should do the decent thing and go quickly. On the other hand, I couldn't care less what Clarkson does about it.

[reohn2]

So what you're telling me is that he is indispensible?

no, but would you rather more tv licence*/ lesser quality of programming or tolerate a necessary evil?

*or better collection of fees from them that watch i-player on their macs and avoid it

I would rather there was more responsibilty by(all)the media(don't laugh,I know)what a sorry state of affairs when plonkers like Clakson,who's a good friend of David Camaron by all accounts,get into the position where they can say practically anything,then offer a hollow apology and get away with it.

[hubgearfreak]

Check out the General Strike and the use of troops and police in Liverpool. But remember that history is written by the winners.

i'm sure i heard a programme on the wireless (R4) some months ago that said some strikers had been shot in manchester. i don't even recall whether it was the general strike or not, but i do recall it was some time ago

[reohn2]

Nobody has ever been shot for going on strike.

less than a hundred years ago they were,in the 1926 general strike soldiers were under orders to shoot strikers if they didn't disperse.
It is the remarks of buffoons such as Clakson that land on the ears of idiots who's minds then twist such comments for their own mentally deranged agendas.
Whilst I agree the vast majority of people see Clakson(and others of the same ilk)for what they are(comic buffons) there is always the element that don't,if you don't believe that,look around.

[NUKe]

Nobody has ever been shot for going on strike.

i'd be surprised if this is true

Ok, so there are actually quite a few strike-related massacres in the US:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:A ... _Conflicts

Also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-union_violence

Doesn't seem to be a UK history of it however.

What about 1911
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=19750
Maybe not shot but
http://www.peterloomassacre.org/history.html

In the miners strike the Thatcher government came very close to deploying the troops

As for Clarkson I think its just him being him.

[reohn2]

As for Clarkson I think its just him being him.

The problem being that so many like him being him,which says a lot for the society I live in.

BTW thanks for the links re striking workers being killed for beliefs,I googled too slowly

[pete75]

Six pickets were killed during the 1984 Miners strike presumably by the police

b
Where's the evidence for that statement? Or is it just a knee jerk anti police comment?

The Justice for Mineworkers Campaign lists the deaths during the strike. Two on picket lines. No suggestion of police involvement.

http://www.justiceformineworkers.org.uk/

According to wikipaedia the two deaths on picket lines were caused by a flying brick during a riot and by being hit by a truck. No police involvement in either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners'_strike_(1984–1985

I was working from memory but just looked at Wikipedia and it says "Ten deaths resulted from events around the strike: six pickets, three teenagers searching for coal, and a taxi driver taking a non-striking miner to work." Given the level of violence shown towards pickets by some police officers(mainly from forces well away from mining areas) and not just on the picket lines is it unreasonable to presume pickets deaths were caused by the police?