so we now have another scandal in the offing. They lied about the miners, no surprise there though. And Hillsborough, and the Belgrano, and death on the rock, and just about anything else we can think of. Why though? Could they not just try being honest or is that a thing of the past. Do we have honesty any more in government? Is this a little too serious after a bottle of wine, a very large glass of port and sitting keeping a glass of laphroig company? And it's only 9 o-clock? Do I have a drink problem?
Quote by capricornten so we now have another scandal in the offing. They lied about the miners, no surprise there though. And Hillsborough, and the Belgrano, and death on the rock, and just about anything else we can think of. Why though? Could they not just try being honest or is that a thing of the past. Do we have honesty any more in government? Is this a little too serious after a bottle of wine, a very large glass of port and sitting keeping a glass of laphroig company? And it's only 9 o-clock? Do I have a drink problem?
Whilst I am fully aware that Governments be they Tory, Labour or Liberal, lie all the time to us, I am astounded by your statement. Firstly that you think that the Tory party are any different to the others and secondly that you make such a statement without colabatory proof of what your saying published in your post. The Belgranno was sunk because it posed a threat to the task force, yes it was heading away from the fleet at the time of being torpedoed, yes it was outside the exclusion zone, the Government never denied that fact, the Argentine Governemnt admits it was sent to attack the Task Force. Ships at war zig zag, that is SOP, the direction may have been part of such a manouvere, who cares, it was a threat and it was taken out, the right decision, following it's demise the Argentine Navy opted to stay in port no doubt saving countless British and Argentine lives. The Tory party did not lie about it's fears that the miners strike was being infiltrated by extremists set about ruining the Government and as had previously happened bringing it down, true they did not announce their fears or publish them until now but they did not lie, they stated quite categorically that they would not let the Unions dictate British Policy or run Britain and that they would not submit to what they were doing which however right or wrong was illegal in it's use of flying pickets and murder. The Rock - No government reveals it's tactics during a time of war or conflict, the IRA operated a shoot to kill policy, is it wrong for those they are fighting to operate the same policy ? if so will you be calling for the US government to be charged over the killing of the unarmed Osama Bin Laden and other members of his group ? Personally I would be more worried about their fraudulent actions with their claims and with their refusal to follow their own rules regarding the disclosure of personal and financial interests when introducing commons bills. I would be asking how many of them have financial interests in Power companies, Online betting, pay day loans, alcohol and companies that cause obesity which might explain why they will not act against them.
Quote by MidsCouple24 so we now have another scandal in the offing. They lied about the miners, no surprise there though. And Hillsborough, and the Belgrano, and death on the rock, and just about anything else we can think of. Why though? Could they not just try being honest or is that a thing of the past. Do we have honesty any more in government? Is this a little too serious after a bottle of wine, a very large glass of port and sitting keeping a glass of laphroig company? And it's only 9 o-clock? Do I have a drink problem?
Whilst I am fully aware that Governments be they Tory, Labour or Liberal, lie all the time to us, I am astounded by your statement. Firstly that you think that the Tory party are any different to the others and secondly that you make such a statement without colabatory proof of what your saying published in your post. The Belgranno was sunk because it posed a threat to the task force, yes it was heading away from the fleet at the time of being torpedoed, yes it was outside the exclusion zone, the Government never denied that fact, the Argentine Governemnt admits it was sent to attack the Task Force. Ships at war zig zag, that is SOP, the direction may have been part of such a manouvere, who cares, it was a threat and it was taken out, the right decision, following it's demise the Argentine Navy opted to stay in port no doubt saving countless British and Argentine lives. The Tory party did not lie about it's fears that the miners strike was being infiltrated by extremists set about ruining the Government and as had previously happened bringing it down, true they did not announce their fears or publish them until now but they did not lie, they stated quite categorically that they would not let the Unions dictate British Policy or run Britain and that they would not submit to what they were doing which however right or wrong was illegal in it's use of flying pickets and murder. The Rock - No government reveals it's tactics during a time of war or conflict, the IRA operated a shoot to kill policy, is it wrong for those they are fighting to operate the same policy ? if so will you be calling for the US government to be charged over the killing of the unarmed Osama Bin Laden and other members of his group ? Personally I would be more worried about their fraudulent actions with their claims and with their refusal to follow their own rules regarding the disclosure of personal and financial interests when introducing commons bills. I would be asking how many of them have financial interests in Power companies, Online betting, pay day loans, alcohol and companies that cause obesity which might explain why they will not act against them. interesting response, not sure why proof is needed in the post though as it's well known, well documented just about everywhere and isn't disputed by anyone. good try though.
They all lie, irrespective of their political hue. Why is the latest batch of 'edited' Papers, under the 30yr rule, 'news' other than confirming stories about the subjects at the time or since ? You want a more immediate clarification of this, just look at any Manifesto prior to any election then compare it with post election, though they are getting slightly more adapt at wording like "it's our desire to" or some wording similar so as to allow them a 'get out' once elected and not implementing a Manifesto 'promise'. Get real, they aren't to be trusted. The choice we face every election is more like which do you distrust the least ? And they wonder why the turn out at elections has consistently fallen over the decades, and why there are such headline grabbing possible policy statements aimed at the older and OAP sections of the electorate, purely and simply because it's this age group that are more likely to actually vote rather than the under 40's, under 30's and certainly under 20's.
yes....the truth is all political parties can be economical with the truth. what the recently released papers show, was how calculating Mrs Thatcher was with her lies.....and in her case it was not economical with the truth but downright lies. She even asked for minutes of meetings to be altered or not taken !!! The one that directly affects me is the miners strike. Fact is Mr Scargill is now shown as being right all the time. He said there was a hit list of 70 pits to be was ridiculed by Mrs Thatcher for saying such a thing. The minutes of meetings clearly show that was exactly correct....despite Mrs thatcher saying less than 20...and just the uneconomical ones !!! The list is clearly talked about, the pits listed, and an action plan of 3 years put in action. After the first two meetings where this was listed and discussed, the three ministers and Mr McGregor the then chairmen on the Coal Board, agreed to meet monthly, but to have a non minuted meetings !!!!!
Not letting you get away with that one too easily Dean... Why should the Country allow the Miners to hold them to ransom? What god given right did Scargill have to rule? He was not an elected representative of the people but yet he acted as a demi-god hurting the lives of thousands of people whilst he and his henchmen enjoyed lavish lifestyles. He had no accountability - indeed he had no shame. That he very nearly brought the Country to its knees but for the determination of Mrs T to break the mob rule in the name of democracy is something that often, even 30 years later, seems to escape those who were brow beaten into submitting to his will for fear of being branded 'scabs' and publicly ridiculed in their own communities. On the other hand, Mrs T did have accountability and won two further elections to boot. The Electorate certainly gave their verdict on her performance. Scargill couldn't win; the establishment is omnipotent not unelected load mouthed bullies like Scargill. The electorate in common have the power to remove governments, not evil minded cretins like him with nothing but self interest in mind. I'm so sorry that you were caught in the midst of this at such a critical stage in your adult development. I might have expected that the passage of time might have now healed those wounded emotions.
GnV......as the cabinet papers now show...everything Mr Scargill said and stood for was correct. He said they had a hit list of 70 pits ( he must of had inside information to be so precise I am guessing ). As the papers now released show there was a list of 70 pits to be closed in a three year period. The miners were not asking for more pay remember, simply asking that their pits were kept open and their jobs and families kept safe. Mrs Thatcher two days after having the meeting where 70 pits were listed.....said there was only a timetable for 20 !!! Now then....which one was the liar !!! I'm not saying Mr Scargill was a great and wonderful man.....but what I am saying is he knew the truth and spoke it.....Mrs thatcher lied threw her back teeth.
They were loss making pits the Country could no longer afford to subsidise and the workforce were totally out of control under the direct guidance of Scargill who sought to bring the Government down and the Country to it's knees. 20 pits, 70 pits. Would it have made a difference what number was used to control the beast within? No. Who is to say that it wasn't 20 initially and that was all that was planned at that stage but that the figure grew when the true extent of the rot became known? People can have very imaginative minds when they seek to justify history with half-statistics and half-truths. Scargill did do the Country some service however. Like Red Rob to BL, he helped identify an industry that was pulling down the greatness of the Country for his own nefarious purposes. I expect your next argument will be as to why many of those pits which closed then re-opened under new management and became profitable. That was because the beast had been controlled and the true and undoubted worth of many fine men and women, management and workers alike, was then unleashed and they able to get on with the task of mining coal without being hidebound by restrictive practices, rather than undermining the State. It was a tough call and Mrs T, bless her, did the electorate proud. To this day, people remember Mrs T for what she was - the greatest post war PM ever - and a woman to boot! People only remember Mr Scargill for the sad, small minded insignificant cretin he was/is to this day, still hanging on to the past and screwing miners blind by claiming significant amounts of their hard earned cash to fund his miserable existence. I have no concerns about this 20 over 70 number and I know instinctively who's account account I trust more. To be honest, if it took closing every single one of them in public ownership to achieve the ultimate objective, she would still have had my vote. The problem is, some miners themselves backed the wrong horse after receiving duff odds from the stable hand and they can't forgive themselves for being so stupid as to listening to one more used to shovelling shit, so blame everyone else instead and cling to insignificant detail by way of justicication.
Quote by GnV They were loss making pits the Country could no longer afford to subsidise and the workforce were totally out of control under the direct guidance of Scargill who sought to bring the Government down and the Country to it's knees. Yes...the 20 pits were technically not making a profit...but then when you balance that against the redundancy payments and the cost on unemployment benefit paid, then they weren't uneconomic. Also we then brought coal in from Poland at a higher cost !!! 20 pits, 70 pits. Would it have made a difference what number was used to control the beast within? No. Who is to say that it wasn't 20 initially and that was all that was planned at that stage but that the figure grew when the true extent of the rot became known? The minutes of the meeting say it was 70 over a three timescale. Quite clearly laid out with dates for each...please not these were not un-economical pits. Littleton Colliery was the most productive man or man in the whole of Europe. All this at a time when Mrs Thancher said not such list or plan..its just the 20 !!
Scargill did do the Country some service. Like Red Rob to BL, he helped identify an industry that was pulling down the greatness of the Country for his own nefarious purposes. I expect your next argument will be as to why many of those pits which closed then re-opened under new management and became profitable. That was because the beast had been controlled and the true and undoubted worth of many fine men and women, management and workers alike, was then unleashed and they able to get on with the task without being hidebound by restrictive practices. It was a tough call and Mrs T, bless her, did the electorate proud. I have no concerns about this 20 over 70 number. To be honest, if it took closing every single one of them in public ownership to achieve the objective ultimately, she would still have had my vote. The problem is, the miners themselves backed the wrong horse.
Fact is the electorate and the miners were blatantly lied to , for the obvious reason that she knew she would not have public support had she told the truth. Many good men were thrown on the scrap heap, some took their own lives, as a result of not being about to sustain their families.....all in a good cause you say.....well here is one that doesn't... Oh and this is just the lies she told about the miners.....you should read all the others. Anything so she would be seen in a good light....The papers show her to be a power crazed liar, who would do anything for popularity !!
Maybe the passage of time has altered memories, but I saw the miners strike from a town which had a very profitable pit, with years of reserves left. Note I said town not village. The pit is long gone now !! But the town was big enough to cope. The NUM did not suddenly proclaim, out of the blue, one day that they were going on strike. There had been rumours circulating about mass pit closures for some time and about 20 pits were closing a year up to then. What happened was that the mining villages, where they relied on the pit for most incomes, said "we have to do something" the NUM was playing catch-up to respond to this, then it all got nasty. In the villages, they were not trying to bring down the Gov. they were trying to preserve a way of life !! It may have been a horrible job, an in-efficient industry, but it was their way of life and they wanted it preserving. You might look at it in regard to the "travellers" of today. Most people would not want that way of life but do we have the right to decide to take action which would end that way of life ? John
Well dean, we are obviously at the opposing ends of a great divide on this one so no reason to allow it to descend into a slanging match as I respect your view on so much (but not this one, eh?). I think we should just agree not to agree on the miners issue.
Quote by GnV Well dean, we are obviously at the opposing ends of a great divide on this one so no reason to allow it to descend into a slanging match as I respect your view on so much (but not this one, eh?). I think we should just agree not to agree on the miners issue.
Quote by deancannock Well dean, we are obviously at the opposing ends of a great divide on this one so no reason to allow it to descend into a slanging match as I respect your view on so much (but not this one, eh?). I think we should just agree not to agree on the miners issue.
lol...right I agree to disagree...!!!! Merci bien :thumbup:
Quote by deancannock yes....the truth is all political parties can be economical with the truth. what the recently released papers show, was how calculating Mrs Thatcher was with her lies.....and in her case it was not economical with the truth but downright lies. She even asked for minutes of meetings to be altered or not taken !!! The one that directly affects me is the miners strike. Fact is Mr Scargill is now shown as being right all the time. He said there was a hit list of 70 pits to be was ridiculed by Mrs Thatcher for saying such a thing. The minutes of meetings clearly show that was exactly correct....despite Mrs thatcher saying less than 20...and just the uneconomical ones !!! The list is clearly talked about, the pits listed, and an action plan of 3 years put in action. After the first two meetings where this was listed and discussed, the three ministers and Mr McGregor the then chairmen on the Coal Board, agreed to meet monthly, but to have a non minuted meetings !!!!!
Standard Government and Employer practice just as Unions inflate the devastation that will be caused and the amount that will be put into unemployment by the act knowing full well many will take voluntary redundancy, some will take the option to work at alternative pits and some will use their redundancy payments to finance new business, not saying any of them are right just living in the real world. It still does not justify murder.
Quote by capricornten so we now have another scandal in the offing. They lied about the miners, no surprise there though. And Hillsborough, and the Belgrano, and death on the rock, and just about anything else we can think of. Why though? Could they not just try being honest or is that a thing of the past. Do we have honesty any more in government? Is this a little too serious after a bottle of wine, a very large glass of port and sitting keeping a glass of laphroig company? And it's only 9 o-clock? Do I have a drink problem?
Whilst I am fully aware that Governments be they Tory, Labour or Liberal, lie all the time to us, I am astounded by your statement. Firstly that you think that the Tory party are any different to the others and secondly that you make such a statement without colabatory proof of what your saying published in your post. The Belgranno was sunk because it posed a threat to the task force, yes it was heading away from the fleet at the time of being torpedoed, yes it was outside the exclusion zone, the Government never denied that fact, the Argentine Governemnt admits it was sent to attack the Task Force. Ships at war zig zag, that is SOP, the direction may have been part of such a manouvere, who cares, it was a threat and it was taken out, the right decision, following it's demise the Argentine Navy opted to stay in port no doubt saving countless British and Argentine lives. The Tory party did not lie about it's fears that the miners strike was being infiltrated by extremists set about ruining the Government and as had previously happened bringing it down, true they did not announce their fears or publish them until now but they did not lie, they stated quite categorically that they would not let the Unions dictate British Policy or run Britain and that they would not submit to what they were doing which however right or wrong was illegal in it's use of flying pickets and murder. The Rock - No government reveals it's tactics during a time of war or conflict, the IRA operated a shoot to kill policy, is it wrong for those they are fighting to operate the same policy ? if so will you be calling for the US government to be charged over the killing of the unarmed Osama Bin Laden and other members of his group ? Personally I would be more worried about their fraudulent actions with their claims and with their refusal to follow their own rules regarding the disclosure of personal and financial interests when introducing commons bills. I would be asking how many of them have financial interests in Power companies, Online betting, pay day loans, alcohol and companies that cause obesity which might explain why they will not act against them. interesting response, not sure why proof is needed in the post though as it's well known, well documented just about everywhere and isn't disputed by anyone. good try though. I need proof, caught a bit of the news about the miners strike and that was all, whenever I post in here people ask me to prove it, so I am saying prove it, show me the lies.
Are we talking about the same Scargill who was sacked by the Unions ? the one that continued to claim for many expenses years and years after being sacked including his car and driver ? The one that used Union money to have work done on his private home ? The one the Union was still paying 10 years after sacking him because of rules he wrote himself ?
Quote by Geordiecpl2001 Maybe the passage of time has altered memories, but I saw the miners strike from a town which had a very profitable pit, with years of reserves left. Note I said town not village. The pit is long gone now !! But the town was big enough to cope. The NUM did not suddenly proclaim, out of the blue, one day that they were going on strike. There had been rumours circulating about mass pit closures for some time and about 20 pits were closing a year up to then. What happened was that the mining villages, where they relied on the pit for most incomes, said "we have to do something" the NUM was playing catch-up to respond to this, then it all got nasty. In the villages, they were not trying to bring down the Gov. they were trying to preserve a way of life !! It may have been a horrible job, an in-efficient industry, but it was their way of life and they wanted it preserving.
You might look at it in regard to the "travellers" of today. Most people would not want that way of life but do we have the right to decide to take action which would end that way of life ? John
In my opinion the Miners were the victims of their own power, their own unions, the world had witnessed the miners in Russia and China holding their respective nations to ransom, all the Unions in the UK were being run by power crazy leaders who cared more about personal power and personal gain than the actual members, they knew that Thatcher would not allow them to bring down the Government or hold the Nation to ransom, but they went ahead with a no-win strike anyway. when it costs twice as much to get a bag of coal out of the ground than you can sell it for something has to give, when you can buy coal from abroad at half the price even the profitable pits can sell it for then your onto a loser, look at today with the price of fuel, if the UK population were told that their energy bills would be cut in half tomorrow if we bought gas and electricity from Iran or North Korea but at the expense of many British workers do you think they would support the workers, I think not. The IRA tried to hold Maggie to ransom, Bobby Sands tried the hardest and look what happened to him Stop the Miners and you stop the shipyard union, the Transport and General union, the Steel union, show me a 70s, 80s Great British industry and I will show you they had a powerful Union and that the industry you name is no longer with us or here but in dire straits. Shipbuilding, Steel, Pottery, Coal, Car manufacture, Railways.
Quote by MidsCouple24 Maybe the passage of time has altered memories, but I saw the miners strike from a town which had a very profitable pit, with years of reserves left. Note I said town not village. The pit is long gone now !! But the town was big enough to cope. The NUM did not suddenly proclaim, out of the blue, one day that they were going on strike. There had been rumours circulating about mass pit closures for some time and about 20 pits were closing a year up to then. What happened was that the mining villages, where they relied on the pit for most incomes, said "we have to do something" the NUM was playing catch-up to respond to this, then it all got nasty. In the villages, they were not trying to bring down the Gov. they were trying to preserve a way of life !! It may have been a horrible job, an in-efficient industry, but it was their way of life and they wanted it preserving.
You might look at it in regard to the "travellers" of today. Most people would not want that way of life but do we have the right to decide to take action which would end that way of life ? John
In my opinion the Miners were the victims of their own power, their own unions, the world had witnessed the miners in Russia and China holding their respective nations to ransom, all the Unions in the UK were being run by power crazy leaders who cared more about personal power and personal gain than the actual members, they knew that Thatcher would not allow them to bring down the Government or hold the Nation to ransom, but they went ahead with a no-win strike anyway. when it costs twice as much to get a bag of coal out of the ground than you can sell it for something has to give, when you can buy coal from abroad at half the price even the profitable pits can sell it for then your onto a loser, look at today with the price of fuel, if the UK population were told that their energy bills would be cut in half tomorrow if we bought gas and electricity from Iran or North Korea but at the expense of many British workers do you think they would support the workers, I think not. The IRA tried to hold Maggie to ransom, Bobby Sands tried the hardest and look what happened to him Stop the Miners and you stop the shipyard union, the Transport and General union, the Steel union, show me a 70s, 80s Great British industry and I will show you they had a powerful Union and that the industry you name is no longer with us or here but in dire straits. Shipbuilding, Steel, Pottery, Coal, Car manufacture, Railways. OK, The Gas and Electricity industries had powerful unions !!! Those industries are still with us, but privatised by Maggie. So to turn it round a bit, out of all the privatised industries, which of them do you look at today and say "Thank God we privatised them, they are now much better for Joe Public" ??? John
steel industry....don't make me laugh......we now pay 10 times the cost from China for it...because we closed down all our industries. We have quite a few big iron and steel plants...and yes all coal fuelled in midlands.....and they then fuelled lots of other associated industries......now all gone and replaced with Ikea !!! We have no industry left, and so, the people that do, have us over a barrel on price !!
The general comment was why Tories lie! Think you will find most people who have power or covert power lie and that it is not just the preserve of one political party. Liberal democrats = No tuition fees and no increase in the rate of VAT! They get there grubby nicotine stained fingers on power and we get an increase in tuition fees and the rate of VAT. Labour = the end of boom and bust, British jobs for British workers and weapons of mass disruption. What did we get? Huge bust, no control on whether it is British or EU citizens who get jobs in this country and no weapons of mass disruption. George Bush Senior “Watch my lips, no new taxes!” 12 months before introducing new taxes. And my own personal favourite which has still to reach it’s inevitable conclusion, “No 3rd runway at Heathrow!” More specifically the comments on the miners’ strike. What released papers can’t tell you is that in the climate of the time there were 2 ideological forces in play. These had been rumbling since the end of the second world war and hit head on in the miners’ strike. I too grew up in a town where the pit was biggest employer and is now just a waste land of unemployment and crime. Blame the government of the time, blame the union leaders of the time BUT DON’T BLAME THE MINERS’ OF THE TIME! They were just pawns in the idealistic war. All they wanted to do was work but since in the 1980’s some miners’ who broke the nation strike in the 1930’s were still shunned and the fact that if you didn't join the picket line, you didn't get paid, is it any wonder that they didn't disobey the union. Add to that the fact there was never a union ballet as to whether or not to go on strike, then how can you blame these men who ended up digging out railway embankments for discarded coal just to provide heat for their families? Don’t you really think they would have preferred to be at work? The Government at the time was bent on breaking the strangle hold unions had over British industry. The steel works were first but then a lumbering giant in the shape of the NUM appeared on the horizon, they were not going to back down. They stock piled enough coal to last 2 years and told the NUM to do their worst. Heartless and cynical as it maybe and the collateral damage was not just the miners’ but whole communities. We now have a perverse situation where French power companies import huge amounts of subsidised German coal (poor quality coal at that) to British power stations that were built on top of vast coal fields that had enough coal to last for 250 years! THAT'S NOT THE MINERS’ FAULT!
I don't think anyone blames the miners, to be honest. As you say, they were in the thick of an industrial revolution which has seen many labour intensive economic activities go into decline. Farming is another. In the countryside, whole communities have declined as huge tractors and harvesters have replaced them. Here in rural France, it is the same too. I have an old local photograph from not that many years ago which showed, on less than an acre of land, 20 or more workers raking in the hay whereas now, the local farmer does it with a huge tractor and a single farmhand. That's progress and it hurts but the insatiable thirst for better newer technology and more electricity to fund our modern lifestyles is the driving force. We are the authors of our own misfortune, perhaps. How much would coal extraction cost today in manpower terms and the ocean of regulation to keep workers safe? Not that I like or support the idea but will fracking be the new mining industry of the future? I don't understand enough about it to be complimentary about it's future or just how many jobs it will create but for as long as workers demand better pay and more paid time off and the establishment creates barriers to work with the populace demanding even more electrical power, the Industry will seek to achieve it with fewer humans to screw it (and their profits) up. Nuclear, anyone?
How much would coal extraction cost today in manpower terms and the ocean of regulation to keep workers safe? I don't know, ask the Germans that mine it and subsidise it and EDF who transport it the British power stations!
Personally I have nothing but sympathy for the miners, it is a shame that their livelihoods were brought into ruin by no fault of their own simply by the cost of acquiring their product after so many years of mining and that they were let down by power hungry Union officials, by the actions of Miners abroad that scared Governments the world over, by mine bosses who would not or could not negotiate and the actions of Government who could not find a way to help them more. That said I no more want to live in a Country whose policies are dictated by Unions than I want to live in a world where one Middle Eastern leader controls much of the worlds oil production and prices, we went to war over that remember it is not just coal that is important.
I may be wrong, but the government at the time succeeded in breaking the unions hold over Britain. I don't recall any union having the same power since the miners strike that they the had before those dark days?
Quote by Trevaunance I may be wrong, but the government at the time succeeded in breaking the unions hold over Britain. I don't recall any union having the same power since the miners strike that they the had before those dark days?
yea....because with it they closed all industry.... No industry = No unions ......we don't have a manufacturing base anymore....!!! Totally short sighted business, we now pay double the cost for these items as we import them. They just picking a fight with fire fighters and alike now...maybe in the event of a fire we can import some polish fire fighters to over fly over and contain the fire and save lives !!
0 likes
Stop the Miners and you stop the shipyard union, the Transport and General union, the Steel union, show me a 70s, 80s Great British industry and I will show you they had a powerful Union and that the industry you name is no longer with us or here but in dire straits.
:rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao:
