MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
AndyP - What about
In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty's Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
or,
All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly.
Selected quoting to support a specific viewpoint, classic STW behaviour.
sooty
Do you think it may be defendable in law and yet [morally ] indefensible?
How much threat were we under from the [your description]relic of WW2 when it was sailing away when Thatcher gave the order to sink it?
[i] All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly.
Selected quoting to support a specific viewpoint, classic STW behaviour. [/i]
The Belgrano wasn't an aircraft. I selected the bit about ships. HTH.
Yeah, Sooty; it was sailing away. Even top British politicians and military personnel have admitted this. IE, it posed no actual threat at the time it was attacked.
'Legal'? What do you mean, 'Legal'? There's no legality in War; biggest gun wins...
Thatcher was an evil woman. Stop defending her.
Classic STW behaviour ignoring the question
so
'approach' usually indicates motion towards, doesn't it?
It's good to see that most people still have knee jerk reactions that haven't changed in over 20 years as soon as you mention Thatch or King Arthur.
In a desperate attempt to move things on, I wonder how many of the people who were in support of the miners in the 80s are in support of the climate protestors now?
Do you think it may be defendable in law and yet [morally ] indefensible?
Such things do exist. Whether this is one of them is open to discussion.
How much threat were we under from the [your description]relic of WW2 when it was sailing away when Thatcher gave the order to sink it?
Although an old ship the ARA General Belgrano was still fitted with some very powerful weapons, namely her main armament of 15" guns that could have caused a huge amount of danger at long range to the British fleet.
An aside was that sinking the Belgrano caused the Argentinean navy to withdrawal all its forces back to port, including its aircraft carrier that could have supplied the attack aircraft of the air force with fighter cover, a lack of which later proved decisive.
Not a good comparison, Porterclough.
Although Climate Change/pollution etc is an issue that is vitally important. I try to do everything I can, to minimise my 'carbon footprint', so I spose I'm already supporting them, in a way. As are many others, I'd imagine.
Although an old ship the ARA General Belgrano was still fitted with some very powerful weapons, namely her main armament of 15" guns that could have caused a huge amount of danger at long range to the British fleet.
if she had been any where near them you mean
Wonder where they got the ship from?
In London, we had the Print Workers dispute at Wapping, where she used the Police as her private army, to help her mate Murdoch crush the strike. The strikers; men who would never work again. Men who lost their homes. Men who could no longer feed their children.
Wonderfully emotive that about men who relied on restrictive working practices for their jobs.
RudeBoy - the closure of the pits and the 'dash for gas' for electricity production enabled Britain to meet its CO2 targets in the 90s.
My view is there were lefties up for a fight in the 80s who backed an industry that the same people now blame for destroying the planet. Cognitive dissonance anyone?
Junkyard - You question is out of context due to the quote you use not taking into account other factors within the declaration you take it from.
Yes 'approach' usually means 'towards' but history shows us that traditionally navies rarely sail directly at each in order to position themselves for an attack. Navies often manouver, using wind, tides and weather in order to try and gain a better position on the enemy fleet.
The ARA General Belgrano was at the time maneuvering towards a well-charted area of shallows which would have meant the shadowing submarine would have either been forced to abandon its pursuit or possibly broach over the shallows. The Argentineans were well-aware of the threat of British submarines, hence the ASW picket they were using to ping the waters all around the task group, so their maneuvering towards the shallows could be interpreted as an attempt to throw off their tail.
if she had been any where near them you mean
They were a relative stones throw at 32 knots.
Wonder where they got the ship from?
The USA, a country with quite a history for supporting South American juntas.
sooty are you in training to be a politician with your natural inablity to answer a question you are a natural.
PS wikepedia looks very much like your posting hope it helped with the degree 😆
I answered your question, RTFA.
Are you training to be a politician? Its just you have an knack of only quoting what you need in order to try an bolster a weak argument.
sorry for quoting you to bolster my weak arguments.
Selective quoting dear chap, selective quoting.
PS wikepedia looks very much like your posting hope it helped with the degree
Thats because Wiki quotes directly from the official release, strangely.
If Wiki had been about when I did my degree I'm sure it would have been selectively plundered, it would have made it a damn sight easier than having to read stacks of books. 😛
I have been working with a guy for the last week who was ex Thames Valley Police. The Met used to sing "we are maggies boot boys" at the miners and wave cash at them. Even he was shocked at the behavior of them. He also told a story about "Gauntlet Bill" who was a miner who got arrested virtually everyday for 8 months. He was arrested whether he did anything wrong or not, he said it was a game the police used to play. He also said that as far as he knew no army was used on the pickets.
I have been teetotal for 20 years but will have a pint to celeberate the with Thatcher dying. I grew up in the South Wales Valleys and the legacy of the strike is just beneath the surface, you dont have to dig far to find the bitterness and hatred not just towards Thatcher and McGregor but the press, the Nottingham boys who went back and the people who profited from the dispute.
As you may be able to tell from previous posts, I am no fan of this woman.
However, can anyone who is now having a go at her for the Falklands/Belgrano affair please tell me what they would have done differently in her position?
Yes, her attitude was hateful, but would you have genuinely have allowed members of our armed forces to be placed in a position of unnecessary danger?
Wonderfully emotive that about men who relied on restrictive working practices for their jobs.
Men who still lost their jobs, their homes, their ability to feed their families.
I am aware there are all sorts of politics, in all sorts of areas of life. But I think the point here, is that Thatcher sought to crush any political power the Working Classes might have had. As already mentioned. D'you think that's a good idea? Or d'you just believe the bullshit in right-wing press, all the time?
Granted, there were sound economic reasons behind pit closures, and the move to Wapping by News International. But it's the way Human lives were secondary to profit, is what's important to remember.
People before profit.
Sooty; the sinking of the Belgrano served no real purpose. It wasn't that much of a threat, considering the vastly superior hardware the Royal Navy had in that area.
You can argue the ins and outs all you want. Yesterday, you expressed anger over the needless deaths of two British Servicemen in NI. Today, you are defending decisions which lead to the needless deaths of over 600 people.
Some quite selfish and uncaring attitudes on here.
Seems Thatcher achieved her aims, after all... 🙁
Men who still lost their jobs, their homes, their ability to feed their families.
So do you think they should have kept the old fashioned inefficient presses and working practices which resulted in two men being employed to do work one could have done, in order not to put anybody out of work?
I think it's a good idea the unions not having the power to bring the country to its knees anymore, though I'm sure you'll disagree, but hey-ho. You are allowed to wield political power in ways other than that even if you're working class.
You're obviously getting really worked up over this, you forgot to claim 100!
If we're going to argue about the Falklands, please don't forget that it was Mrs T who withdrew the Endeavour support ship from the area & S. Georgia, and who ensured that the Argentinians were led to believe that we would not fight to retain the Falklands.
My personal belief is that the treaties / deals we made with the US military to get satellite surveillance & other help, are the reasons that we had to go to war in 2003 in Iraq in their support.
RB - The ARA General Belgrano (although an old ship) and the rest of the Argentinean navy as a whole were a significant threat to the UK task force, especially considering they had a proper aircraft carrier [i]ARA Veinticinco De Mayo[/i] (which had its own shadowing submarine [i]HMS Spartan[/i]) against the RN's very mediocre force of AD fighters in the form of the Sea Harriers. Coupled with air and land launched Exocet missiles, correctly employed the ARA V De M and the Belgrano the Argentineans could have wreaked havoc amongst the British task force.
As for the needless deaths in NI, apparently peace reigns over there. The deaths in the Falklands happened during a war that the Argentineans started.
Couldn't the Argentinian government be as cupable if not more so in the deaths of all those sailors for sending a relic of WW2 against a navy armed with nuclear-powered hunter/killer submarines?
That's like saying it's your fault for leaving your bike unlocked if it gets nicked.
the closure of the pits and the 'dash for gas' for electricity production enabled Britain to meet its CO2 targets in the 90s.
Pointless conjecture. If we still had coal and CO2 targets maybe we'd have been working on clean coal technology for the last 20 years. That'd have come in handy.
That's like saying it's your fault for leaving your bike unlocked if it gets nicked.
Except its not, in any way, shape or form.
If you were of course to pop down to Brick Lane market, tell the guy who is selling really nice bikes dead cheap that you are going to lock your bike up around the corner in a minute, wander around the corner and lock it up, wander back, kick the guy in the nuts and drop him the spare key for the lock whilst doing it it may, possibly, be more comparable.
Argentina attacked a dependancy of a sovereign state, recognised by the UN as being such. It then sent its sailors to sea against a credible submarine threat in vessels that were a credible threat to the British taskforce sent to recapture said dependancy. It and the many apologists can't then go crying foul when blood is spilt, especially as the Argentine junta was doing exactly what many accuse Thatcher of in '82, starting a war for popular support.
So do you think they should have kept the old fashioned inefficient presses and working practices which resulted in two men being employed to do work one could have done, in order not to put anybody out of work?
Yes. News International was still making good profits.
It's not so much the changoever that I was angry about, more the way Thatcher simply introduced new laws, whenever she needed to, to crush the Unions.
I personally think the Government has too much power today. They act against the will of the majority, which is undemocratic. At least powerful Unions could keep governments in check.
Which is why Thatcher wanted rid of them.
Politicians are meant to be elected representatives of the populace; there to represent the needs of the people.
Instead, we have a bunch of self-serving greedy bastards only intent on helping themselves.
Call that Democracy?
a bunch of self-serving greedy bastards only intent on helping themselves.Call that Democracy?
No, which is why union power needed pegging back a bit.
Oh wait, that's not what you meant is it?
So porter you don't think we have gone too far the other way now then?
Yes. News International was still making good profits.
Oh that's OK then. As long as they're making a profit they shouldn't even think about making their business more efficient by getting rid of some of the slackers.
At least powerful Unions could keep governments in check.
But they didn't, did they? They just threw their weight around to get their own way - unlike the unions, the government is at least elected, and you can get rid of them eventually if they're really rubbish. How exactly is the unelected unions acting in their own self interest democratic?
Call that Democracy?
Yes! That's exactly how democracy works - you elect them, they decide what to do. If you don't like what they do get rid of them. I'm with Churchill on the issue of democracy.
Unions are elected. I had to cast my ballot for my local rep just the other month.
Er, no, Porter. And if you read what I actually wrote, you would see this. 🙄
Unions: Organisations founded to serve the interests of the ordinary workers, doing the work, so that they can't be mistreated and exploited by their employers. Organisations where the most lowly factory worker can actually have a voice. Where ordinary people, who've not had the 'benefit' of Public School/Oxbridge educations, can be active in decision and policy making that affects them directly. Organisations that can help prevent companies taking the piss, and treating the workers like dirt.
Unions: An important and integral part of any real Democracy. Necessary and essential in bringing a balance between Governments and the ordinary populace.
Thatcher: An evil, inhumane despot, intent only on consolidating her own power and wealth, to serve her own ends.
Put the Champagne on ice; wheel out the disco; put yer dancing shoes on...
I'm with Churchill on the issue of democracy.
Ah, is that the same Churchill who voted against Women having the right to vote?
And to bring it neatly round, is it the same Churchill who sent troops into the miners strike in Tonypandy?
Rudeboy, if you had been around at the time you would understand but you were not and it shows. Ourmaninthenorth made some valid points earlier, things are not always as you see them. Try asking someone there at the time what it was like working for two bosses, the company the union. I used to cack myself on a daily basis when a certain union offical walked into our area.
Just to play the devil with you (this has sadly amused me foe a number of years), it is ironic to read an apparent socialist bleating for a facist goverment that often used it's navy to throw it's own left leaning decenters out of planes and helicoters into the south atlantic. A war is a war, if you can't take it don't get into one. At the last count our wonderous goverment of the day has taken the uk to war far more than any goverment of any colour since Suez (now that was a cock up).
I won't be celebrating after Thatcher dies..I'll be sharpening sticks and stocking up on garlic
Not the time to read through all the posts and apologies if this has been mentioned before. Could be of interest
[url= http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=G449AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA125&lpg=PA125&dq=miners+on+m4+bridges&source=bl&ots=zlDPRvjIGq&sig=yEMcE3BRIaTa2gpmP6V9D9zG2-g&hl=en&ei=NjO1SZ2SHaKHjAfBsJX0BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPP1,M1 ]1984 Miner's strike[/url]
Unions are elected.
Yeah, but lots of people don't get a vote. How is them running the country democracy?
Rudeboy - I must be missing the bit where ordinary factory workers aren't allowed to vote in local or general elections, let alone stand for parliament. Pressa must have just been a figment of my imagination. That and the bit where unions weren't (I'll give them the benefit of the doubt that they've changed a little, though tempted to write "aren't" given people like Andy Gilchrist) run by people largely after furthering their own interests and political gains. Oh, and I've also apparently neglected to notice how Facha made unions totally illegal and unable to stand up for workers basic rights, rather than simply curtailing the excessive powers of the big ones.
BTW do those of you commenting on Churchill know what he actually said about democracy?
Oh dear, my comment with regard to Thatcher's sinking of the Belgrano seems to have led the discussion away from its original topic which is unfortunate as I never made any comment as to the legality of the issue. But, while we're on the subject, it raises an issue that struck me at the time and never seems to get raised to this day. Far from being feted for her handling of the crisis, why was she not hounded from office for the neglegent way that her govt allowed a large force, in broad daylight, to attack a territory so important, that she deemed it worth killing thousands of men to reclaim ?
Just to play the devil with you (this has sadly amused me foe a number of years), it is ironic to read an apparent socialist bleating for a facist goverment that often used it's navy to throw it's own left leaning decenters out of planes and helicoters into the south atlantic. A war is a war, if you can't take it don't get into one. At the last count our wonderous goverment of the day has taken the uk to war far more than any goverment of any colour since Suez (now that was a cock up).
MT - Here here, my thoughts exactly.
S&J - Some very well put points there. buggger all to do with miners strikes.
Rudeboy - Thanks for the distraction, work is dragging today.
Good question and should ensure that this one runs on for a while. Will get another brew.
mt, which pit did you work at...
Just to play the devil with you (this has sadly amused me foe a number of years), it is ironic to read an apparent socialist bleating for a facist goverment that often used it's navy to throw it's own left leaning decenters out of planes and helicoters into the south atlantic
Eh? What on earth are you on about?
Exactly where did I express any support for Galtieri? Please, I'd really like you to point that out for me. Please. Go ahead. No, seriously; go on.
My point was that 600 men on the Belgrano died needlessly. Some of you lot are just conveniently forgetting and ignoring facts, just to back up your Thatcher supporting arguments. Behave yourselves, and stickto the facts. So, I criticise the needless destruction of Human Life, and I'm suddenly a supporter of the fascist Regime in Argentina? I'd [i]love[/i] to hear you try to explain that reasoning..
You make me laugh. D'you really think Thatcher and her cronies actually gave a **** about any of us? Really? Because if you do, you've swallowed the biggest crock of shit ever. Only the most brainwashed and misguided fool would believe that she had the Nation's interests at heart.
And as for you Union-bashers; as i have said before on here; it's the Unions that allowed workers to actually have some say in their pay and working conditions; things like safety, and equal rights are the work of Unions. You really think the big corporations really want their workers to have many rights???
But carry on; use isolated examples of Union corruption to back up your pathetic arguments, and conveniently ignore the huge, unquantifiable benefit that Workers' Unions have brought to people in this country.
At the time of the strike the disparity of miners ranged widely, whilst some earned very good money, that was down to the bonus system. Different pits in the same area and different faces at the same pit could be earning double their workmates if they were coaling well. Facemen and headers got their own specific bonus whilst haulage workers and switch operaters received a sliding scale of the pit average. It was only really the faceworkers on productive faces that got decent money as well as some of the heading teams.
Scargill used the strike for his own agenda as much as anything else, there were plenty of collieries that were ending their natural life and even more that were seriously unprofitable due to geological conditions. There was plenty of activity before the strike proving new coal seams that was intended to sink new pits or expand existing ones where practicable. Such exploration stopped after the strike. Scargill's biggest mistake was to allow each NUM region to have their own ballot, had he called a national ballot the regions that didn't vote for a strike in the regional ballot would have striked as a result of the national vote and the result may well have been totally different, though I suspect the miners still wouldn't have won. I remember that power stations were invisible behind vast stocks of coal reserves, Thatcher knew what was coming and was well prepared.
The pits that have closed down may well be unserviceable but only from the existing sites, new mines can be sunk, indeed there is a programme of work at the moment to re-open some fields, a shaft sinking acquaintance is very busy at the moment preparing for some of that work. The vulnerablity of our energy reserves is well known, it seems the present government is gearing up for a return to coal, albeit to a limited degree initially. We'll see.
But carry on; use isolated examples of Union corruption to back up your pathetic arguments, and conveniently ignore the huge, unquantifiable benefit that Workers' Unions have brought to people in this country.
The whole point is the examples of union corruption, and abusing their power. I don't think anybody is ignoring the good things unions do. I'm certainly not - in general I'm very much pro-union (wish we had an effective one where I work), just anti unions being too powerful and abusing that power.
My dancing shoes are polished and waiting by the door....
Thatcher fought the NUM and others purely for her own ego and political beliefs(and that of her henchmen) not the good or betterment of the country.
Yes some of the strikers went beyond what they should have done, but so did the police in equal measure.
When you see the total destruction of pit villages, and the families within, and these villages are still like that now- you get a different perspective of the economic viability of the mines. As some one previously posted regarding the total meltdown in these communities - when the pits were thriving, everyone had a job waiting, there was no underclass of chavs who hang about all day drinking/getting stoned/getting up to no good-costing the economy billions, yes they may have been a few layabouts but it wasn't an accepted way of life as it appears to be now.
So what would be the real cost of having a UK coal mining/power generating industry? Fair enough some pits were finished, but many more not, and there are still enormous reserves of coal available.
Similarly the ship yards were shut due to being uneconomical, they were forced to tender for work on a global marketplace that was awash with subsidised yards in Europe and beyond.
That's my twopennith worth!
The normal Thatcher apologists seem to be missing from here
Well I watched the miner program last night, and to tell the truth I didn't think it was very good, it seemed to lack substance but it had lots of flashly graphics 🙁 and didn't provide any real information.
The brutality of the Met came across though (even though it was watered down), especially when one of the Met chiefs justified beating women and children at wakefield, by saying 'we had wifes and children at home we wanted to see again, so if we did what we felt had to be done, even if that included beating picketing women and children'
[url= http://www.thisishampshire.net/news/hampshirenews/3992645.Curry_link_to_beating_Alzheimer_s_Disease/ ]How a seemingly simple discussion about the low incidence of Alzheimers in regular curry eaters can lead to a debate about Thatcher vs Miners! STWtastic![/url]
I've nothing further to add to this topic (other than to applaud Dibnah for his first post), but I will say that all those of you that are planning to dance on the sickening old ba5tard's grave had better wear their wellies, cos it'll be covered in my urine.
Never worked under ground as I was only a kid when the Miners Strike went on. But I remember it quite well. It certainly runined a lot of families in mining areas. Some of these areas have not yet recovered and maybe never will. My missus father was a miner and he hasn't got a good word to say about Maggie and not many good ones about Scargil.
As for the army being used, interestingly one of of my work mates witnessed a bloke that was supposed to be serving in the army in Germany, wearing a Police uniform at a picket line. Urban Myth?!?
For all you that ride the Glyncorrwg skyline, before you get to the Will rock if you look north you should just make out Tower colliery, up until recently still bringing up coal. So how many others could have been kept viable.
Maybe just maybe that coal will be worth more than gold in a couple more decades. There has been considerable interest in sinking new shafts in the South Wales area. They wouldn't do it for the fun now would they!
I'm too young to remember her reign properly.
But from what I've read she mucked the country up rather a lot. The lack of a manufacturing industry is a real problem in this country imo.
BUT despite this, I still think my overall feelings towards her are positive. She had balls. When she wanted something she went ahead and did it, and didn't take any shite from anyone. Definitely not something which can be said of Gordon, Tony or John afterwards.
BUT despite this, I still think my overall feelings towards her are positive. She had balls. When she wanted something she went ahead and did it, and didn't take any shite from anyone. Definitely not something which can be said of Gordon, Tony or John afterwards.
I don't want 'balls' in a prime minister. I want clear level-headed thinking about what is [b]right for the country[/b]. While I loathe him you can't say that Blair didn't have balls when he took us into what I consider to be an illegal war even though most people were against it. And lied to parliament/us.
Thatcher didn't want what's best for us (only what's best for her party). Major same. Blair and Brown same. The only reason Brown is being nice to the banks is because he's considering what his job is going to be after the next election.
For the first time ever I'm considering spoiling my ballot paper next time. They're all ****ing useless and all talk the same complete and utter b*llocks. 🙁
I don't want 'balls' in a prime minister........you can't say that Blair didn't have balls
Hitler only had one ball when he became Chancellor of Germany in 1933 (the other was hanging on the wall)
.
.................the prosecution rests its case, M'lud
was not it in a French Town Hall?
I'm too young to remember her reign properly.
Yes, you are.
was not it in a French Town Hall?
Mmm, it's exact whereabouts has always been cause of some debate 😕
.
What is certain however, is that Himmler had something similar.
And of course poor old Goebbels, had no balls at all 🙁
Really???
No-Balls Goebbels!
Ah, you're having me on!
I've been compared to Joseph Goebbels (nowt to do with testicular bereftness).
And someone once suggested that, had I been around at the time of the Nazis, I'd have been in the TotenKopf, the Death's Head Brigade of the evil Waffen SS. The very worst of the worst.
Nice. 😯
Don't know if this has already been posted above. Sorry, couldn't trawl all the vitriol.
Photographer Martin Shakeshaft spent 12 months photographing the miners on strike. Take a look at his superb 'then and now' pictures here.....
[url= http://www.strike84.co.uk/ ]http://www.strike84.co.uk/[/url]
[i]RudeBoy - Member
Really???
No-Balls Goebbels!
Ah, you're having me on!
I've been compared to Joseph Goebbels (nowt to do with testicular bereftness).
And someone once suggested that, had I been around at the time of the Nazis, I'd have been in the TotenKopf, the Death's Head Brigade of the evil Waffen SS. The very worst of the worst.
Nice. [/i]
Your striking physical resemblance to the adopted Arian blueprint would also have helped in this respect....
Yes, that always puzzled me, actually...
Although, if you actually look at the true meaning of the term [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan ]Aryan[/url], then from my father's side, it's possible I am actually closer, in racial terms, than yer Nordic types..
I think it was more a statement about my personality, really.
😯