Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 138 total)
  • Miners strike (quick question)
  • sootyandjim
    Free Member

    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.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    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?

    AndyP
    Free Member

    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.

    The Belgrano wasn’t an aircraft. I selected the bit about ships. HTH.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    RudeBoy
    Free Member

    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.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    Classic STW behaviour ignoring the question
    so

    ‘approach’ usually indicates motion towards, doesn’t it?

    porterclough
    Free Member

    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?

    sootyandjim
    Free Member

    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.

    RudeBoy
    Free Member

    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.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    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?

    aracer
    Free Member

    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.

    porterclough
    Free Member

    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?

    sootyandjim
    Free Member

    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.

    sootyandjim
    Free Member

    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.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    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 😆

    sootyandjim
    Free Member

    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.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    sorry for quoting you to bolster my weak arguments.

    sootyandjim
    Free Member

    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. 😛

    Pigface
    Free Member

    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.

    RustySpanner
    Full Member

    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?

    RudeBoy
    Free Member

    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… 🙁

    aracer
    Free Member

    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!

    Moses
    Full Member

    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.

    sootyandjim
    Free Member

    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 ARA Veinticinco De Mayo (which had its own shadowing submarine HMS Spartan) 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.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    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.

    sootyandjim
    Free Member

    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.

    RudeBoy
    Free Member

    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?

    porterclough
    Free Member

    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?

    richc
    Free Member

    So porter you don’t think we have gone too far the other way now then?

    aracer
    Free Member

    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.

    sootyandjim
    Free Member

    Unions are elected. I had to cast my ballot for my local rep just the other month.

    RudeBoy
    Free Member

    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…

    RudeBoy
    Free Member

    I’m with Churchill on the issue of democracy.

    Ah, is that the same Churchill who voted against Women having the right to vote?

    FB-ATB
    Full Member

    And to bring it neatly round, is it the same Churchill who sent troops into the miners strike in Tonypandy?

    mt
    Free Member

    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).

    DavidB
    Free Member

    I won’t be celebrating after Thatcher dies..I’ll be sharpening sticks and stocking up on garlic

    pennine
    Free Member

    Not the time to read through all the posts and apologies if this has been mentioned before. Could be of interest

    1984 Miner’s strike

    aracer
    Free Member

    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?

    trailmonkey
    Full Member

    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 ?

    BigEaredBiker
    Free Member

    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.

    mt
    Free Member

    Good question and should ensure that this one runs on for a while. Will get another brew.

Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 138 total)

The topic ‘Miners strike (quick question)’ is closed to new replies.