EDITOR'S CHAIR: How two huge egos destroyed the mining industry

BITTER CONFLICT: The 1984-85 miners' strike

BITTER CONFLICT: The 1984-85 miners' strike

First published in News
Last updated
South Wales Argus: NEW EDITOR: Kevin Ward by

YESTERDAY marked 30 years since the start of the last significant national strike in this country.

On March 12, 1984, National Union of Mineworkers leader Arthur Scargill declared that a number of strikes at various coal fields across Britain were to become a national strike.

And so started a year-long battle between the government and the miners that destroyed an industry and changed the industrial face of Gwent forever.

The strike was ultimately a titanic struggle between two huge egos – Mr Scargill and then prime minister Margaret Thatcher.

Mrs Thatcher wanted revenge on the miners for the 1974 strike that brought down the previous Conservative administration. Mr Scargill wanted to bring Mrs Thatcher’s government down.

It was a clash of ideologies and it cost tens of thousands of jobs.

I grew up in Cwmbran but moved to live in England in 1978, when I was 12. At that time, heavy industries producing coal and steel were the main employers in Gwent.

Blaenavon, Bedwas, Abercarn, Cwmfelinfach, Oakdale – a handful of the long list of places dominated and defined by mining.

When I returned to this area to work at the Argus in 1989 at the age of 23 they had all gone.

All that was left of a mighty industry was Big Pit at Blaenavon – and that was already a museum.

Who you believe was to blame for the decimation of an industry and the decades of economic woes that then befell areas like Blaenau Gwent depends largely on which side of the dispute you were on in 1984-85.

Mr Scargill’s supporters will say Cabinet papers released earlier this year prove his claims of a government hit list of more than 70 pits to be closed.

Mrs Thatcher’s backers will say defeating the miners was the only way to control the trade unions and that the strike was motivated by Mr Scargill’s politics rather than concern for his members’ jobs.

The reality probably lies somewhere in between.

Mrs Thatcher was ready for a miners’ strike.

She did not want a repeat of the 1974 strike that led to power cuts, a three-day week and election defeat for Edward Heath’s Conservatives, who went to the country under the slogan ‘Who governs Britain?’

A potential strike in 1981 was averted after a climbdown by Mrs Thatcher’s first government. Coal stocks were low at the time and she knew she risked a repeat of 1974.

In 1984, buoyed by a second election victory with a much-increased majority, Mrs Thatcher was ready for the miners.

Coal had been stockpiled, some power stations converted to burn heavy fuel oil instead of coal, and fleets of lorries were at the ready to transport coal if railworkers backed the miners.

However, it is too easy to say Mr Scargill picked the wrong time for a fight. Yes, he made monumental mistakes – not least in calling a national strike without a ballot – that played into the government’s hands.

But what choice did he really have? Despite being adamant that only 20 pits were up for closure, the reality is the government wanted to close 75. Mr Scargill knew it and he knew this was fight or die.

Many of those who stayed out for the duration of the year-long strike knew they could not win. But they also knew they could not stand by and watch their jobs go without a fight.

Perhaps two leaders less divided by ideology would have found a way forward. It may not have saved the mining industry but it could have extended its life by a few more years.

Instead, we had two people who would simply not back down.

The result was the bitterest industrial dispute this country has ever seen. Communities were torn apart, particularly as other mining unions – notably the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers – refused to join the strike.

There were bloody battles between striking miners and the police. Families were split. Men who had been friends for years never spoke again. People died.

Those who suffered most, of course, were the mining communities.

Many areas that relied almost entirely on the pits for work became unemployment blackspots for decades to come. Some have never truly recovered.

The abiding shame of the miners’ strike is that its two main protagonists were probably the two people least affected by its outcome.

Comments (81)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:49am Thu 13 Mar 14

KarloMarko says...

What a shed load of garbage!

The Tories planned to destroy the NUM from the 1970s onwards. No matter at what cost (multi millions) and to who. Just read Nigel Lawson on the "military like" preparations. We live with the economic neo liberal results and the wrecked communities.

And with blood on the media's hands to this day. Scumbags all.

What a repulsive rag this paper is. It even pollutes the bins.
What a shed load of garbage! The Tories planned to destroy the NUM from the 1970s onwards. No matter at what cost (multi millions) and to who. Just read Nigel Lawson on the "military like" preparations. We live with the economic neo liberal results and the wrecked communities. And with blood on the media's hands to this day. Scumbags all. What a repulsive rag this paper is. It even pollutes the bins. KarloMarko
  • Score: -29

11:07am Thu 13 Mar 14

snafu1 says...

The tory government were assisted by the police who were involved in the huge fit up of miners at orgreave coking works 95 miners were charged with rioting at the trial it collapsed south Yorkshire police paid out £ 425,000 in compensation same police force that was involved in Hillsborough makes you think eh
The tory government were assisted by the police who were involved in the huge fit up of miners at orgreave coking works 95 miners were charged with rioting at the trial it collapsed south Yorkshire police paid out £ 425,000 in compensation same police force that was involved in Hillsborough makes you think eh snafu1
  • Score: 11

11:09am Thu 13 Mar 14

Gareth says...

I know that facts tend to get in the way of a good ole finger wag, but why is it always these two personalities in the firing line over the decimation of the coal industry?

Die-hard labour supporters should remember that more coal mines were closed under Harold Wilson and James Callaghan than Mrs T ever managed.

I'm no apologist for the Conservatives - and their policy on closures caused a far greater amount of unemployment than the previous Labour governments - but the idea of a rosy future for coal-mining under a different party/government/lea
der is just not accurate.
I know that facts tend to get in the way of a good ole finger wag, but why is it always these two personalities in the firing line over the decimation of the coal industry? Die-hard labour supporters should remember that more coal mines were closed under Harold Wilson and James Callaghan than Mrs T ever managed. I'm no apologist for the Conservatives - and their policy on closures caused a far greater amount of unemployment than the previous Labour governments - but the idea of a rosy future for coal-mining under a different party/government/lea der is just not accurate. Gareth
  • Score: 23

11:12am Thu 13 Mar 14

Kevin Ward - Editor says...

KM
Very happy to publish your opinions - not sure you help yourself with offensive insults though.
KM Very happy to publish your opinions - not sure you help yourself with offensive insults though. Kevin Ward - Editor
  • Score: 27

11:13am Thu 13 Mar 14

Woodgnome says...

This episode in history was not one of our finest hours and communities were destroyed. Even now I find the images distressing. However, even miner leaders now say it was a fight they knew they could not win.
This episode in history was not one of our finest hours and communities were destroyed. Even now I find the images distressing. However, even miner leaders now say it was a fight they knew they could not win. Woodgnome
  • Score: 4

11:59am Thu 13 Mar 14

KarloMarko says...

Kevin, how anyone with half a brain can reduce this to "egos" is beyond me.

It was a determined and co-ordinated attack to break effective trade unionism and any restistance to what was to follow as the post war social-democratic "consensus" was finally hammered into the ground. Britain then became the "Bankocracy" for hire which now even repulses the New York Times as it pimps the world. See last weekends edition.

I was on picket lines and it was a war zone. The full force of the British state unleashed against its own citizens. Not a debate about street lighting or the attractions of a city centre Nandos. YOU stick to what you semi-know. Newsquest deserves you.
Kevin, how anyone with half a brain can reduce this to "egos" is beyond me. It was a determined and co-ordinated attack to break effective trade unionism and any restistance to what was to follow as the post war social-democratic "consensus" was finally hammered into the ground. Britain then became the "Bankocracy" for hire which now even repulses the New York Times as it pimps the world. See last weekends edition. I was on picket lines and it was a war zone. The full force of the British state unleashed against its own citizens. Not a debate about street lighting or the attractions of a city centre Nandos. YOU stick to what you semi-know. Newsquest deserves you. KarloMarko
  • Score: -6

11:59am Thu 13 Mar 14

lord.iron.of.shumg says...

I blame the pair of them Thatcher and Scargill . I was four years old when this happen but don't remember much about this other than my grand dad , always going to picket line and saying its a shame that I'll never work down the pit because of the witch !!!!! .

I grew up remembering the pits around going to area and then shutting down one by one , I now know that both Arthur Scargill and Margaret Thatcher were to blame for all this thatcher because she only cared about profit and greed and her hatred of the unions .

Arthur Scargill is an evil man for leading the miners on strike without the Ballot which was illegal and the ultimately the loss of the battle which caused the most of the pits close, if he played by her rules he might of won and brought down that even more of an evil cow thatcher !!!!

If I was old enough I would of been in the picket lines supporting the miners . It's a dam shame in the world we live in now , I blame though two for the Wales I live in now , poor , unloved and rotting away from the drugs and unruly thugs that occupy our life's today .
I blame the pair of them Thatcher and Scargill . I was four years old when this happen but don't remember much about this other than my grand dad , always going to picket line and saying its a shame that I'll never work down the pit because of the witch !!!!! . I grew up remembering the pits around going to area and then shutting down one by one , I now know that both Arthur Scargill and Margaret Thatcher were to blame for all this thatcher because she only cared about profit and greed and her hatred of the unions . Arthur Scargill is an evil man for leading the miners on strike without the Ballot which was illegal and the ultimately the loss of the battle which caused the most of the pits close, if he played by her rules he might of won and brought down that even more of an evil cow thatcher !!!! If I was old enough I would of been in the picket lines supporting the miners . It's a dam shame in the world we live in now , I blame though two for the Wales I live in now , poor , unloved and rotting away from the drugs and unruly thugs that occupy our life's today . lord.iron.of.shumg
  • Score: -10

12:09pm Thu 13 Mar 14

throwy1 says...

There were not two egos just one, Margaret Thatchers. The release of the Cabinet papers prove one thing about thatcher she was a straight forward LIAR.
There were not two egos just one, Margaret Thatchers. The release of the Cabinet papers prove one thing about thatcher she was a straight forward LIAR. throwy1
  • Score: -3

12:11pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Kevin Ward - Editor says...

KM
And you stick to your insults. It's a shame you appear incapable of debating without resorting to abuse - or of reading beyond a headline.
KM And you stick to your insults. It's a shame you appear incapable of debating without resorting to abuse - or of reading beyond a headline. Kevin Ward - Editor
  • Score: 27

12:19pm Thu 13 Mar 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

Kevin Ward - Editor wrote:
KM
And you stick to your insults. It's a shame you appear incapable of debating without resorting to abuse - or of reading beyond a headline.
I agree that KM's abusive comments may seem OTT - but then you're a hardbitten newspaper editor aren't you? Water off a duck's back surely?

If you didn't want emotional outbursts then why on earth would you print a piece like this in South Wales?

Besides, your comment quoted above could quite easily be read as insulting, not to mention provocative.
[quote][p][bold]Kevin Ward - Editor[/bold] wrote: KM And you stick to your insults. It's a shame you appear incapable of debating without resorting to abuse - or of reading beyond a headline.[/p][/quote]I agree that KM's abusive comments may seem OTT - but then you're a hardbitten newspaper editor aren't you? Water off a duck's back surely? If you didn't want emotional outbursts then why on earth would you print a piece like this in South Wales? Besides, your comment quoted above could quite easily be read as insulting, not to mention provocative. GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: 3

12:22pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Llanmartinangel says...

KarloMarko wrote:
Kevin, how anyone with half a brain can reduce this to "egos" is beyond me.

It was a determined and co-ordinated attack to break effective trade unionism and any restistance to what was to follow as the post war social-democratic "consensus" was finally hammered into the ground. Britain then became the "Bankocracy" for hire which now even repulses the New York Times as it pimps the world. See last weekends edition.

I was on picket lines and it was a war zone. The full force of the British state unleashed against its own citizens. Not a debate about street lighting or the attractions of a city centre Nandos. YOU stick to what you semi-know. Newsquest deserves you.
Were the endless unballoted strikes and power cuts of the 1970s under both Labour and Tory not 'unleashed against British citizens' then?
[quote][p][bold]KarloMarko[/bold] wrote: Kevin, how anyone with half a brain can reduce this to "egos" is beyond me. It was a determined and co-ordinated attack to break effective trade unionism and any restistance to what was to follow as the post war social-democratic "consensus" was finally hammered into the ground. Britain then became the "Bankocracy" for hire which now even repulses the New York Times as it pimps the world. See last weekends edition. I was on picket lines and it was a war zone. The full force of the British state unleashed against its own citizens. Not a debate about street lighting or the attractions of a city centre Nandos. YOU stick to what you semi-know. Newsquest deserves you.[/p][/quote]Were the endless unballoted strikes and power cuts of the 1970s under both Labour and Tory not 'unleashed against British citizens' then? Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 11

12:31pm Thu 13 Mar 14

KarloMarko says...

My comments reflect the reality. Even Roy Greenslade has grovelled for his and the British press "for hire' debased role during that era. Kevin needs to let go of the white whale...Read Alan Waters or Nigel Lawson from the Right. Theres no longer any "mystery" of what this was about.

A War.
My comments reflect the reality. Even Roy Greenslade has grovelled for his and the British press "for hire' debased role during that era. Kevin needs to let go of the white whale...Read Alan Waters or Nigel Lawson from the Right. Theres no longer any "mystery" of what this was about. A War. KarloMarko
  • Score: -11

1:02pm Thu 13 Mar 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
KarloMarko wrote:
Kevin, how anyone with half a brain can reduce this to "egos" is beyond me.

It was a determined and co-ordinated attack to break effective trade unionism and any restistance to what was to follow as the post war social-democratic "consensus" was finally hammered into the ground. Britain then became the "Bankocracy" for hire which now even repulses the New York Times as it pimps the world. See last weekends edition.

I was on picket lines and it was a war zone. The full force of the British state unleashed against its own citizens. Not a debate about street lighting or the attractions of a city centre Nandos. YOU stick to what you semi-know. Newsquest deserves you.
Were the endless unballoted strikes and power cuts of the 1970s under both Labour and Tory not 'unleashed against British citizens' then?
No - they were unleashed against the government.

I mean, I wasn't there personally but I'd imagine the conversation didn't often go along the lines of 'yeah, let's have a strike... that'll teach the British people.'

They were merely caught in the crossfire.
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarloMarko[/bold] wrote: Kevin, how anyone with half a brain can reduce this to "egos" is beyond me. It was a determined and co-ordinated attack to break effective trade unionism and any restistance to what was to follow as the post war social-democratic "consensus" was finally hammered into the ground. Britain then became the "Bankocracy" for hire which now even repulses the New York Times as it pimps the world. See last weekends edition. I was on picket lines and it was a war zone. The full force of the British state unleashed against its own citizens. Not a debate about street lighting or the attractions of a city centre Nandos. YOU stick to what you semi-know. Newsquest deserves you.[/p][/quote]Were the endless unballoted strikes and power cuts of the 1970s under both Labour and Tory not 'unleashed against British citizens' then?[/p][/quote]No - they were unleashed against the government. I mean, I wasn't there personally but I'd imagine the conversation didn't often go along the lines of 'yeah, let's have a strike... that'll teach the British people.' They were merely caught in the crossfire. GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: -8

1:24pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Sometimes says...

KarloMarko wrote:
My comments reflect the reality. Even Roy Greenslade has grovelled for his and the British press "for hire' debased role during that era. Kevin needs to let go of the white whale...Read Alan Waters or Nigel Lawson from the Right. Theres no longer any "mystery" of what this was about.

A War.
Someone had to stand up to the bully boy tactics of those who thought they ran the country, rather than those elected. Making the vast majority of the populations lives a complete misery for their own ends, why else wasn't a ballot held at the time. people are now looking back at those times as the bad old days, and they're right, nobody wants to return to those days, apart from maybe you KM. Rose tinted glasses need to be taken off.
[quote][p][bold]KarloMarko[/bold] wrote: My comments reflect the reality. Even Roy Greenslade has grovelled for his and the British press "for hire' debased role during that era. Kevin needs to let go of the white whale...Read Alan Waters or Nigel Lawson from the Right. Theres no longer any "mystery" of what this was about. A War.[/p][/quote]Someone had to stand up to the bully boy tactics of those who thought they ran the country, rather than those elected. Making the vast majority of the populations lives a complete misery for their own ends, why else wasn't a ballot held at the time. people are now looking back at those times as the bad old days, and they're right, nobody wants to return to those days, apart from maybe you KM. Rose tinted glasses need to be taken off. Sometimes
  • Score: 10

1:26pm Thu 13 Mar 14

KarloMarko says...

Final point from me.

I think now, and certainly as more leaks out, the 84/85 Miners Strike will be seen as a big a fault line in British history as the Spanish Civil War was for Spain. It was and is a "which side are you on" division. A Peterloo. A realisation of the nature of the State as it came full force to break heads and destroy decent communities and lives. Any illusions I had about the police were brutally shed. Ordinary miners were victimised long after. It was a truly evil era and burnt in the soul.

Kevin trots out his clueless platitudes? Well, what else is Letraset journalism for.

Dont bother, I'm gone.
Final point from me. I think now, and certainly as more leaks out, the 84/85 Miners Strike will be seen as a big a fault line in British history as the Spanish Civil War was for Spain. It was and is a "which side are you on" division. A Peterloo. A realisation of the nature of the State as it came full force to break heads and destroy decent communities and lives. Any illusions I had about the police were brutally shed. Ordinary miners were victimised long after. It was a truly evil era and burnt in the soul. Kevin trots out his clueless platitudes? Well, what else is Letraset journalism for. Dont bother, I'm gone. KarloMarko
  • Score: -10

1:32pm Thu 13 Mar 14

portman says...

The sad thing about this was communities and families were split apart and wrecked by this terrible event,many individuals and organisations came out of this with very little credit ,with one exception the miners and their families the last of their kind .i salute their determination , courage and fortitude you done yourselves proud .
The sad thing about this was communities and families were split apart and wrecked by this terrible event,many individuals and organisations came out of this with very little credit ,with one exception the miners and their families the last of their kind .i salute their determination , courage and fortitude you done yourselves proud . portman
  • Score: 2

1:42pm Thu 13 Mar 14

On the inside says...

GardenVarietyMushroo
m
wrote:
Kevin Ward - Editor wrote:
KM
And you stick to your insults. It's a shame you appear incapable of debating without resorting to abuse - or of reading beyond a headline.
I agree that KM's abusive comments may seem OTT - but then you're a hardbitten newspaper editor aren't you? Water off a duck's back surely?

If you didn't want emotional outbursts then why on earth would you print a piece like this in South Wales?

Besides, your comment quoted above could quite easily be read as insulting, not to mention provocative.
Correct. To use your own paper the provoke people in the one coalfield that stayed out and then complain about what people say is vanity at best and stupidity at worst. Thatcher lied, it was about class war for her. Scargill applied the NUM rulebook that required no ballot whatever the idiots above say about it being illegal, although I do concede it may have been wise to have had a ballot. Still, at least the **** is dead.
[quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Kevin Ward - Editor[/bold] wrote: KM And you stick to your insults. It's a shame you appear incapable of debating without resorting to abuse - or of reading beyond a headline.[/p][/quote]I agree that KM's abusive comments may seem OTT - but then you're a hardbitten newspaper editor aren't you? Water off a duck's back surely? If you didn't want emotional outbursts then why on earth would you print a piece like this in South Wales? Besides, your comment quoted above could quite easily be read as insulting, not to mention provocative.[/p][/quote]Correct. To use your own paper the provoke people in the one coalfield that stayed out and then complain about what people say is vanity at best and stupidity at worst. Thatcher lied, it was about class war for her. Scargill applied the NUM rulebook that required no ballot whatever the idiots above say about it being illegal, although I do concede it may have been wise to have had a ballot. Still, at least the **** is dead. On the inside
  • Score: -5

3:22pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Llanmartinangel says...

GardenVarietyMushroo
m
wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
KarloMarko wrote:
Kevin, how anyone with half a brain can reduce this to "egos" is beyond me.

It was a determined and co-ordinated attack to break effective trade unionism and any restistance to what was to follow as the post war social-democratic "consensus" was finally hammered into the ground. Britain then became the "Bankocracy" for hire which now even repulses the New York Times as it pimps the world. See last weekends edition.

I was on picket lines and it was a war zone. The full force of the British state unleashed against its own citizens. Not a debate about street lighting or the attractions of a city centre Nandos. YOU stick to what you semi-know. Newsquest deserves you.
Were the endless unballoted strikes and power cuts of the 1970s under both Labour and Tory not 'unleashed against British citizens' then?
No - they were unleashed against the government.

I mean, I wasn't there personally but I'd imagine the conversation didn't often go along the lines of 'yeah, let's have a strike... that'll teach the British people.'

They were merely caught in the crossfire.
Good job the government won then.
[quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarloMarko[/bold] wrote: Kevin, how anyone with half a brain can reduce this to "egos" is beyond me. It was a determined and co-ordinated attack to break effective trade unionism and any restistance to what was to follow as the post war social-democratic "consensus" was finally hammered into the ground. Britain then became the "Bankocracy" for hire which now even repulses the New York Times as it pimps the world. See last weekends edition. I was on picket lines and it was a war zone. The full force of the British state unleashed against its own citizens. Not a debate about street lighting or the attractions of a city centre Nandos. YOU stick to what you semi-know. Newsquest deserves you.[/p][/quote]Were the endless unballoted strikes and power cuts of the 1970s under both Labour and Tory not 'unleashed against British citizens' then?[/p][/quote]No - they were unleashed against the government. I mean, I wasn't there personally but I'd imagine the conversation didn't often go along the lines of 'yeah, let's have a strike... that'll teach the British people.' They were merely caught in the crossfire.[/p][/quote]Good job the government won then. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 4

3:50pm Thu 13 Mar 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

Why's that?
Why's that? GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: 0

4:22pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Llanmartinangel says...

GardenVarietyMushroo
m
wrote:
Why's that?
Err, because the endless bl**dy crossfire was tedious in the extreme and I can't have been alone in thinking that because a hell of a lot of people who voted Tory must have been a worker just like me.
[quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: Why's that?[/p][/quote]Err, because the endless bl**dy crossfire was tedious in the extreme and I can't have been alone in thinking that because a hell of a lot of people who voted Tory must have been a worker just like me. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: -2

4:33pm Thu 13 Mar 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo

m
wrote:
Why's that?
Err, because the endless bl**dy crossfire was tedious in the extreme and I can't have been alone in thinking that because a hell of a lot of people who voted Tory must have been a worker just like me.
Oh I see - so because the government won - despite what they had to do in order to achieve that - it was all the Unions' fault was it?

Ever hear the phrase - it takes two to tango?
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: Why's that?[/p][/quote]Err, because the endless bl**dy crossfire was tedious in the extreme and I can't have been alone in thinking that because a hell of a lot of people who voted Tory must have been a worker just like me.[/p][/quote]Oh I see - so because the government won - despite what they had to do in order to achieve that - it was all the Unions' fault was it? Ever hear the phrase - it takes two to tango? GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: -4

4:40pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Llanmartinangel says...

GardenVarietyMushroo
m
wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo


m
wrote:
Why's that?
Err, because the endless bl**dy crossfire was tedious in the extreme and I can't have been alone in thinking that because a hell of a lot of people who voted Tory must have been a worker just like me.
Oh I see - so because the government won - despite what they had to do in order to achieve that - it was all the Unions' fault was it?

Ever hear the phrase - it takes two to tango?
I didn't say that. But let's face it, anyone around in the 1970s could see what union excess was like. People were actually sacked for refusing to join unions, even at the Argus (I knew one, my schoolmates father). People were dragged out on strike without ballots regardless of their views as members. Companies were closed down due to secondary flying pickets even though they weren't in a dispute. Yet no-one ever mentions THEIR rights. Airbrushing that out of history is just crass.
[quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: Why's that?[/p][/quote]Err, because the endless bl**dy crossfire was tedious in the extreme and I can't have been alone in thinking that because a hell of a lot of people who voted Tory must have been a worker just like me.[/p][/quote]Oh I see - so because the government won - despite what they had to do in order to achieve that - it was all the Unions' fault was it? Ever hear the phrase - it takes two to tango?[/p][/quote]I didn't say that. But let's face it, anyone around in the 1970s could see what union excess was like. People were actually sacked for refusing to join unions, even at the Argus (I knew one, my schoolmates father). People were dragged out on strike without ballots regardless of their views as members. Companies were closed down due to secondary flying pickets even though they weren't in a dispute. Yet no-one ever mentions THEIR rights. Airbrushing that out of history is just crass. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 10

4:43pm Thu 13 Mar 14

blackandamber says...

It's over and done. There was wrong on both sides and you can argue who did this and who did that till the cows come home it won't change a thing.
There are greater things to be concerned about what is happening in this country today.
It's over and done. There was wrong on both sides and you can argue who did this and who did that till the cows come home it won't change a thing. There are greater things to be concerned about what is happening in this country today. blackandamber
  • Score: 7

5:04pm Thu 13 Mar 14

BassalegCountyFan says...

The devious arrogance of thatcher's government remains a national disgrace, and Ian Lavery was right to call for an official apology from Cameron for the behaviour of the tory government.

The result of the strike wasn't just a devastating blow for mining communities (i.e. Gwent), but for working people across the board who since then have been trodden on by employers at will.

Arthur had his flaws, but he was fundamentally right about what the tories were doing, and we're still paying the price for the damage that was done.
The devious arrogance of thatcher's government remains a national disgrace, and Ian Lavery was right to call for an official apology from Cameron for the behaviour of the tory government. The result of the strike wasn't just a devastating blow for mining communities (i.e. Gwent), but for working people across the board who since then have been trodden on by employers at will. Arthur had his flaws, but he was fundamentally right about what the tories were doing, and we're still paying the price for the damage that was done. BassalegCountyFan
  • Score: -6

5:15pm Thu 13 Mar 14

BassalegCountyFan says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo

m
wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo



m
wrote:
Why's that?
Err, because the endless bl**dy crossfire was tedious in the extreme and I can't have been alone in thinking that because a hell of a lot of people who voted Tory must have been a worker just like me.
Oh I see - so because the government won - despite what they had to do in order to achieve that - it was all the Unions' fault was it?

Ever hear the phrase - it takes two to tango?
I didn't say that. But let's face it, anyone around in the 1970s could see what union excess was like. People were actually sacked for refusing to join unions, even at the Argus (I knew one, my schoolmates father). People were dragged out on strike without ballots regardless of their views as members. Companies were closed down due to secondary flying pickets even though they weren't in a dispute. Yet no-one ever mentions THEIR rights. Airbrushing that out of history is just crass.
What you describe as 'union excess' actually means working people having a voice against employers. We could do with a bit more of that in this day and age - many of the obituaries to Bob Crow this week reflect that. Since thatcher came to power, we have gone severlely backwards in terms of the representation of working people.

And in relation to your other point, how many people are still being sacked at work for BEING union members? Anti-union laws in Britain are a shame on our country.
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: Why's that?[/p][/quote]Err, because the endless bl**dy crossfire was tedious in the extreme and I can't have been alone in thinking that because a hell of a lot of people who voted Tory must have been a worker just like me.[/p][/quote]Oh I see - so because the government won - despite what they had to do in order to achieve that - it was all the Unions' fault was it? Ever hear the phrase - it takes two to tango?[/p][/quote]I didn't say that. But let's face it, anyone around in the 1970s could see what union excess was like. People were actually sacked for refusing to join unions, even at the Argus (I knew one, my schoolmates father). People were dragged out on strike without ballots regardless of their views as members. Companies were closed down due to secondary flying pickets even though they weren't in a dispute. Yet no-one ever mentions THEIR rights. Airbrushing that out of history is just crass.[/p][/quote]What you describe as 'union excess' actually means working people having a voice against employers. We could do with a bit more of that in this day and age - many of the obituaries to Bob Crow this week reflect that. Since thatcher came to power, we have gone severlely backwards in terms of the representation of working people. And in relation to your other point, how many people are still being sacked at work for BEING union members? Anti-union laws in Britain are a shame on our country. BassalegCountyFan
  • Score: -5

5:35pm Thu 13 Mar 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

BassalegCountyFan wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo


m
wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo




m
wrote:
Why's that?
Err, because the endless bl**dy crossfire was tedious in the extreme and I can't have been alone in thinking that because a hell of a lot of people who voted Tory must have been a worker just like me.
Oh I see - so because the government won - despite what they had to do in order to achieve that - it was all the Unions' fault was it?

Ever hear the phrase - it takes two to tango?
I didn't say that. But let's face it, anyone around in the 1970s could see what union excess was like. People were actually sacked for refusing to join unions, even at the Argus (I knew one, my schoolmates father). People were dragged out on strike without ballots regardless of their views as members. Companies were closed down due to secondary flying pickets even though they weren't in a dispute. Yet no-one ever mentions THEIR rights. Airbrushing that out of history is just crass.
What you describe as 'union excess' actually means working people having a voice against employers. We could do with a bit more of that in this day and age - many of the obituaries to Bob Crow this week reflect that. Since thatcher came to power, we have gone severlely backwards in terms of the representation of working people.

And in relation to your other point, how many people are still being sacked at work for BEING union members? Anti-union laws in Britain are a shame on our country.
Was going to reply to Martin but you pretty much summed up my position quite nicely there.
[quote][p][bold]BassalegCountyFan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: Why's that?[/p][/quote]Err, because the endless bl**dy crossfire was tedious in the extreme and I can't have been alone in thinking that because a hell of a lot of people who voted Tory must have been a worker just like me.[/p][/quote]Oh I see - so because the government won - despite what they had to do in order to achieve that - it was all the Unions' fault was it? Ever hear the phrase - it takes two to tango?[/p][/quote]I didn't say that. But let's face it, anyone around in the 1970s could see what union excess was like. People were actually sacked for refusing to join unions, even at the Argus (I knew one, my schoolmates father). People were dragged out on strike without ballots regardless of their views as members. Companies were closed down due to secondary flying pickets even though they weren't in a dispute. Yet no-one ever mentions THEIR rights. Airbrushing that out of history is just crass.[/p][/quote]What you describe as 'union excess' actually means working people having a voice against employers. We could do with a bit more of that in this day and age - many of the obituaries to Bob Crow this week reflect that. Since thatcher came to power, we have gone severlely backwards in terms of the representation of working people. And in relation to your other point, how many people are still being sacked at work for BEING union members? Anti-union laws in Britain are a shame on our country.[/p][/quote]Was going to reply to Martin but you pretty much summed up my position quite nicely there. GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: -3

5:55pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Llanmartinangel says...

BassalegCountyFan wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo


m
wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo




m
wrote:
Why's that?
Err, because the endless bl**dy crossfire was tedious in the extreme and I can't have been alone in thinking that because a hell of a lot of people who voted Tory must have been a worker just like me.
Oh I see - so because the government won - despite what they had to do in order to achieve that - it was all the Unions' fault was it?

Ever hear the phrase - it takes two to tango?
I didn't say that. But let's face it, anyone around in the 1970s could see what union excess was like. People were actually sacked for refusing to join unions, even at the Argus (I knew one, my schoolmates father). People were dragged out on strike without ballots regardless of their views as members. Companies were closed down due to secondary flying pickets even though they weren't in a dispute. Yet no-one ever mentions THEIR rights. Airbrushing that out of history is just crass.
What you describe as 'union excess' actually means working people having a voice against employers. We could do with a bit more of that in this day and age - many of the obituaries to Bob Crow this week reflect that. Since thatcher came to power, we have gone severlely backwards in terms of the representation of working people.

And in relation to your other point, how many people are still being sacked at work for BEING union members? Anti-union laws in Britain are a shame on our country.
Not entirely sure how that makes what went on in the 70s any more morally right or democratic. Why is it that the Labour Party then tried and failed to reign them in with the Social Contract? The country was ungovernable, that's why.
[quote][p][bold]BassalegCountyFan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: Why's that?[/p][/quote]Err, because the endless bl**dy crossfire was tedious in the extreme and I can't have been alone in thinking that because a hell of a lot of people who voted Tory must have been a worker just like me.[/p][/quote]Oh I see - so because the government won - despite what they had to do in order to achieve that - it was all the Unions' fault was it? Ever hear the phrase - it takes two to tango?[/p][/quote]I didn't say that. But let's face it, anyone around in the 1970s could see what union excess was like. People were actually sacked for refusing to join unions, even at the Argus (I knew one, my schoolmates father). People were dragged out on strike without ballots regardless of their views as members. Companies were closed down due to secondary flying pickets even though they weren't in a dispute. Yet no-one ever mentions THEIR rights. Airbrushing that out of history is just crass.[/p][/quote]What you describe as 'union excess' actually means working people having a voice against employers. We could do with a bit more of that in this day and age - many of the obituaries to Bob Crow this week reflect that. Since thatcher came to power, we have gone severlely backwards in terms of the representation of working people. And in relation to your other point, how many people are still being sacked at work for BEING union members? Anti-union laws in Britain are a shame on our country.[/p][/quote]Not entirely sure how that makes what went on in the 70s any more morally right or democratic. Why is it that the Labour Party then tried and failed to reign them in with the Social Contract? The country was ungovernable, that's why. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 7

6:10pm Thu 13 Mar 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

Same could be said of Thatcher though couldn't it? With regards to morality and democracy I mean.

'Ungovernable' eh? Now there's a very illuminating word.
Same could be said of Thatcher though couldn't it? With regards to morality and democracy I mean. 'Ungovernable' eh? Now there's a very illuminating word. GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: -5

9:43pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Llanmartinangel says...

GardenVarietyMushroo
m
wrote:
Same could be said of Thatcher though couldn't it? With regards to morality and democracy I mean.

'Ungovernable' eh? Now there's a very illuminating word.
She did however have the benefit of some kind of democratic mandate, despite all the shortcomings of that process which I recognise. Most unions at the time had no such thing.
[quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: Same could be said of Thatcher though couldn't it? With regards to morality and democracy I mean. 'Ungovernable' eh? Now there's a very illuminating word.[/p][/quote]She did however have the benefit of some kind of democratic mandate, despite all the shortcomings of that process which I recognise. Most unions at the time had no such thing. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 5

6:54am Fri 14 Mar 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo

m
wrote:
Same could be said of Thatcher though couldn't it? With regards to morality and democracy I mean.

'Ungovernable' eh? Now there's a very illuminating word.
She did however have the benefit of some kind of democratic mandate, despite all the shortcomings of that process which I recognise. Most unions at the time had no such thing.
A democratic mandate? I'm not so sure that's true. Totalitarian temper tantrum might be more accurate. If we'd had a referendum at the time and she'd made the case that she wanted to destroy British industry, make millions unemployed, ravage whole communities for more than a generation and brutalise dissent, all in order to destroy democracy - then I'm not sure that many people would have thought that a good idea.
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: Same could be said of Thatcher though couldn't it? With regards to morality and democracy I mean. 'Ungovernable' eh? Now there's a very illuminating word.[/p][/quote]She did however have the benefit of some kind of democratic mandate, despite all the shortcomings of that process which I recognise. Most unions at the time had no such thing.[/p][/quote]A democratic mandate? I'm not so sure that's true. Totalitarian temper tantrum might be more accurate. If we'd had a referendum at the time and she'd made the case that she wanted to destroy British industry, make millions unemployed, ravage whole communities for more than a generation and brutalise dissent, all in order to destroy democracy - then I'm not sure that many people would have thought that a good idea. GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: -6

8:39am Fri 14 Mar 14

Llanmartinangel says...

GardenVarietyMushroo
m
wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo


m
wrote:
Same could be said of Thatcher though couldn't it? With regards to morality and democracy I mean.

'Ungovernable' eh? Now there's a very illuminating word.
She did however have the benefit of some kind of democratic mandate, despite all the shortcomings of that process which I recognise. Most unions at the time had no such thing.
A democratic mandate? I'm not so sure that's true. Totalitarian temper tantrum might be more accurate. If we'd had a referendum at the time and she'd made the case that she wanted to destroy British industry, make millions unemployed, ravage whole communities for more than a generation and brutalise dissent, all in order to destroy democracy - then I'm not sure that many people would have thought that a good idea.
'In order to destroy democracy?' I think she was subject to the same electoral process both before and after the strike as had been the case in the 70s. Whatever the shortcomings of that process and I admit there are many, I would still prefer it to the Socialist and Communist rabble that ran the shop in the seventies. I happen to think most politicians of all colours a pretty rum bunch and grudgingly therefore marginally prefer those I feel cost me the least. But pretending that the likes of McGahey, Scargill, Robinson etc., were some sort of Mother Theresa figures to whom we should all doff our caps in gratitude is frankly hilarious. Oh and as for 'tantrum' please tell me you did actually see Scargill rant?
[quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: Same could be said of Thatcher though couldn't it? With regards to morality and democracy I mean. 'Ungovernable' eh? Now there's a very illuminating word.[/p][/quote]She did however have the benefit of some kind of democratic mandate, despite all the shortcomings of that process which I recognise. Most unions at the time had no such thing.[/p][/quote]A democratic mandate? I'm not so sure that's true. Totalitarian temper tantrum might be more accurate. If we'd had a referendum at the time and she'd made the case that she wanted to destroy British industry, make millions unemployed, ravage whole communities for more than a generation and brutalise dissent, all in order to destroy democracy - then I'm not sure that many people would have thought that a good idea.[/p][/quote]'In order to destroy democracy?' I think she was subject to the same electoral process both before and after the strike as had been the case in the 70s. Whatever the shortcomings of that process and I admit there are many, I would still prefer it to the Socialist and Communist rabble that ran the shop in the seventies. I happen to think most politicians of all colours a pretty rum bunch and grudgingly therefore marginally prefer those I feel cost me the least. But pretending that the likes of McGahey, Scargill, Robinson etc., were some sort of Mother Theresa figures to whom we should all doff our caps in gratitude is frankly hilarious. Oh and as for 'tantrum' please tell me you did actually see Scargill rant? Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 5

9:13am Fri 14 Mar 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

Of course destroy democracy. The union movement epitomised direct democracy, and Thatcher representative democracy. I would argue that the former is the more legitimate of the two.
Of course destroy democracy. The union movement epitomised direct democracy, and Thatcher representative democracy. I would argue that the former is the more legitimate of the two. GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: -6

9:37am Fri 14 Mar 14

Llanmartinangel says...

GardenVarietyMushroo
m
wrote:
Of course destroy democracy. The union movement epitomised direct democracy, and Thatcher representative democracy. I would argue that the former is the more legitimate of the two.
'The union movement epitomised direct democracy, '

Hmmm. We'll disagree on that one then.
[quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: Of course destroy democracy. The union movement epitomised direct democracy, and Thatcher representative democracy. I would argue that the former is the more legitimate of the two.[/p][/quote]'The union movement epitomised direct democracy, ' Hmmm. We'll disagree on that one then. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 4

11:01am Fri 14 Mar 14

county mad says...

Gvm and km why do you read the Argus you already know it all and dont need to debate your minds are closed try the Morning Star or Socialist worker much more to your 'taste'if thst word can be used to such distasteful commentators
Oh and to save you the trouble I am 60 I lived thru it and remember it well and I am not "toryboy
Gvm and km why do you read the Argus you already know it all and dont need to debate your minds are closed try the Morning Star or Socialist worker much more to your 'taste'if thst word can be used to such distasteful commentators Oh and to save you the trouble I am 60 I lived thru it and remember it well and I am not "toryboy county mad
  • Score: 7

11:20am Fri 14 Mar 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

county mad wrote:
Gvm and km why do you read the Argus you already know it all and dont need to debate your minds are closed try the Morning Star or Socialist worker much more to your 'taste'if thst word can be used to such distasteful commentators
Oh and to save you the trouble I am 60 I lived thru it and remember it well and I am not "toryboy
You're right, of course. We should all just agree with what you think and if we don't like it, clear off somewhere else.
[quote][p][bold]county mad[/bold] wrote: Gvm and km why do you read the Argus you already know it all and dont need to debate your minds are closed try the Morning Star or Socialist worker much more to your 'taste'if thst word can be used to such distasteful commentators Oh and to save you the trouble I am 60 I lived thru it and remember it well and I am not "toryboy[/p][/quote]You're right, of course. We should all just agree with what you think and if we don't like it, clear off somewhere else. GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: -3

11:53am Fri 14 Mar 14

Llanmartinangel says...

GardenVarietyMushroo
m
wrote:
county mad wrote:
Gvm and km why do you read the Argus you already know it all and dont need to debate your minds are closed try the Morning Star or Socialist worker much more to your 'taste'if thst word can be used to such distasteful commentators
Oh and to save you the trouble I am 60 I lived thru it and remember it well and I am not "toryboy
You're right, of course. We should all just agree with what you think and if we don't like it, clear off somewhere else.
Or you could just enlighten us in how unballoted strikes, intimidating people carrying out their lawful right to work and closed shops are in any way 'democratic', direct or otherwise.
[quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]county mad[/bold] wrote: Gvm and km why do you read the Argus you already know it all and dont need to debate your minds are closed try the Morning Star or Socialist worker much more to your 'taste'if thst word can be used to such distasteful commentators Oh and to save you the trouble I am 60 I lived thru it and remember it well and I am not "toryboy[/p][/quote]You're right, of course. We should all just agree with what you think and if we don't like it, clear off somewhere else.[/p][/quote]Or you could just enlighten us in how unballoted strikes, intimidating people carrying out their lawful right to work and closed shops are in any way 'democratic', direct or otherwise. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 4

12:44pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Mervyn James says...

lord.iron.of.shumg wrote:
I blame the pair of them Thatcher and Scargill . I was four years old when this happen but don't remember much about this other than my grand dad , always going to picket line and saying its a shame that I'll never work down the pit because of the witch !!!!! .

I grew up remembering the pits around going to area and then shutting down one by one , I now know that both Arthur Scargill and Margaret Thatcher were to blame for all this thatcher because she only cared about profit and greed and her hatred of the unions .

Arthur Scargill is an evil man for leading the miners on strike without the Ballot which was illegal and the ultimately the loss of the battle which caused the most of the pits close, if he played by her rules he might of won and brought down that even more of an evil cow thatcher !!!!

If I was old enough I would of been in the picket lines supporting the miners . It's a dam shame in the world we live in now , I blame though two for the Wales I live in now , poor , unloved and rotting away from the drugs and unruly thugs that occupy our life's today .
But for North sea oil Thatcher would have lost, a THIRD of the UK's entire reserve via taxes were used to pay the police to bring the coal fields down. We can still recall the image of angry miners being bludgeoned by the police drafted in from England and elsewhere to put the miners down, and waving their pay packets at the Miners thanking them for the extra overtime and expenses they were getting, the police deliberately provoked many confrontations and fitted up the leaders too, of which there are still demands they apologise for and clear their names.
[quote][p][bold]lord.iron.of.shumg[/bold] wrote: I blame the pair of them Thatcher and Scargill . I was four years old when this happen but don't remember much about this other than my grand dad , always going to picket line and saying its a shame that I'll never work down the pit because of the witch !!!!! . I grew up remembering the pits around going to area and then shutting down one by one , I now know that both Arthur Scargill and Margaret Thatcher were to blame for all this thatcher because she only cared about profit and greed and her hatred of the unions . Arthur Scargill is an evil man for leading the miners on strike without the Ballot which was illegal and the ultimately the loss of the battle which caused the most of the pits close, if he played by her rules he might of won and brought down that even more of an evil cow thatcher !!!! If I was old enough I would of been in the picket lines supporting the miners . It's a dam shame in the world we live in now , I blame though two for the Wales I live in now , poor , unloved and rotting away from the drugs and unruly thugs that occupy our life's today .[/p][/quote]But for North sea oil Thatcher would have lost, a THIRD of the UK's entire reserve via taxes were used to pay the police to bring the coal fields down. We can still recall the image of angry miners being bludgeoned by the police drafted in from England and elsewhere to put the miners down, and waving their pay packets at the Miners thanking them for the extra overtime and expenses they were getting, the police deliberately provoked many confrontations and fitted up the leaders too, of which there are still demands they apologise for and clear their names. Mervyn James
  • Score: 4

1:30pm Fri 14 Mar 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo

m
wrote:
county mad wrote:
Gvm and km why do you read the Argus you already know it all and dont need to debate your minds are closed try the Morning Star or Socialist worker much more to your 'taste'if thst word can be used to such distasteful commentators
Oh and to save you the trouble I am 60 I lived thru it and remember it well and I am not "toryboy
You're right, of course. We should all just agree with what you think and if we don't like it, clear off somewhere else.
Or you could just enlighten us in how unballoted strikes, intimidating people carrying out their lawful right to work and closed shops are in any way 'democratic', direct or otherwise.
Two words - people power.
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]county mad[/bold] wrote: Gvm and km why do you read the Argus you already know it all and dont need to debate your minds are closed try the Morning Star or Socialist worker much more to your 'taste'if thst word can be used to such distasteful commentators Oh and to save you the trouble I am 60 I lived thru it and remember it well and I am not "toryboy[/p][/quote]You're right, of course. We should all just agree with what you think and if we don't like it, clear off somewhere else.[/p][/quote]Or you could just enlighten us in how unballoted strikes, intimidating people carrying out their lawful right to work and closed shops are in any way 'democratic', direct or otherwise.[/p][/quote]Two words - people power. GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: 2

2:30pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Stevenboy says...

GardenVarietyMushroo
m
wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo


m
wrote:
county mad wrote:
Gvm and km why do you read the Argus you already know it all and dont need to debate your minds are closed try the Morning Star or Socialist worker much more to your 'taste'if thst word can be used to such distasteful commentators
Oh and to save you the trouble I am 60 I lived thru it and remember it well and I am not "toryboy
You're right, of course. We should all just agree with what you think and if we don't like it, clear off somewhere else.
Or you could just enlighten us in how unballoted strikes, intimidating people carrying out their lawful right to work and closed shops are in any way 'democratic', direct or otherwise.
Two words - people power.
Or just plain bullying which is exactly what you accuse the Tories of. But then, I doubt anyone was expecting a reasoned response from you to such an articulate question.
[quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]county mad[/bold] wrote: Gvm and km why do you read the Argus you already know it all and dont need to debate your minds are closed try the Morning Star or Socialist worker much more to your 'taste'if thst word can be used to such distasteful commentators Oh and to save you the trouble I am 60 I lived thru it and remember it well and I am not "toryboy[/p][/quote]You're right, of course. We should all just agree with what you think and if we don't like it, clear off somewhere else.[/p][/quote]Or you could just enlighten us in how unballoted strikes, intimidating people carrying out their lawful right to work and closed shops are in any way 'democratic', direct or otherwise.[/p][/quote]Two words - people power.[/p][/quote]Or just plain bullying which is exactly what you accuse the Tories of. But then, I doubt anyone was expecting a reasoned response from you to such an articulate question. Stevenboy
  • Score: 2

2:53pm Fri 14 Mar 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

Now which would I call bullying I police wonder.... closed shops or state police beating up unarmed civilians?

Yup - seems pretty clear cut to me. Those bullies deserved to get their heads smashed in by armed thugs.
Now which would I call bullying I police wonder.... closed shops or state police beating up unarmed civilians? Yup - seems pretty clear cut to me. Those bullies deserved to get their heads smashed in by armed thugs. GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: 1

2:54pm Fri 14 Mar 14

GardenVarietyMushroom says...

oops - typo
oops - typo GardenVarietyMushroom
  • Score: -1

3:05pm Fri 14 Mar 14

endthelies says...

I watched the tv programme on itv the other night. The tactics the police used to incite rioting and the violence used by them could only have been to one end. To discredit the men who were fighting to save not just their jobs, but their communities and their children's future. The miners had two choices. Sit back whilst their jobs and futures were taken or fight back against a government who lied at every turn. Thatcher will never be forgiven for what she did to those families and for the havoc she wreaked upon the future generations.
I watched the tv programme on itv the other night. The tactics the police used to incite rioting and the violence used by them could only have been to one end. To discredit the men who were fighting to save not just their jobs, but their communities and their children's future. The miners had two choices. Sit back whilst their jobs and futures were taken or fight back against a government who lied at every turn. Thatcher will never be forgiven for what she did to those families and for the havoc she wreaked upon the future generations. endthelies
  • Score: 0

4:09pm Fri 14 Mar 14

Llanmartinangel says...

GardenVarietyMushroo
m
wrote:
Now which would I call bullying I police wonder.... closed shops or state police beating up unarmed civilians?

Yup - seems pretty clear cut to me. Those bullies deserved to get their heads smashed in by armed thugs.
Are you saying one type of violence or intimidation is preferable to another? Just checking as I still can't see where either fit in a democracy. And by 'democracy' I mean what we have now or the type you seem to be peddling which seems even less appealing to me. The strikers throwing rocks at the one third of miners who chose to work are no more worthy of power than the police.
[quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: Now which would I call bullying I police wonder.... closed shops or state police beating up unarmed civilians? Yup - seems pretty clear cut to me. Those bullies deserved to get their heads smashed in by armed thugs.[/p][/quote]Are you saying one type of violence or intimidation is preferable to another? Just checking as I still can't see where either fit in a democracy. And by 'democracy' I mean what we have now or the type you seem to be peddling which seems even less appealing to me. The strikers throwing rocks at the one third of miners who chose to work are no more worthy of power than the police. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 3

4:42pm Fri 14 Mar 14

endthelies says...

Violence is not acceptable by any 'side' but sometimes, you have to fight fire with fire. Maggie did not expect the miners to fight as hard as they did. She was so worried she had the army on standby ready to stand against the men of their own country, who just wanted to try and save their jobs. The dirty tricks played by the police on her guidance did not work and so therefore, she had her plan B. When men and their families had starved for a year, some losing their homes and their marriages, in order to fight against a government who wanted an end to the rights of the working man, and to shut down their only source of income, it can almost be seen as inevitable that somewhere along the line, tempers will rise. And what have we got today. People working for low wages, on contracts that mean you can be terminated at the drop of a hat. Charged for taking your employer to an industrial tribunal. No strong unions to back you up and if you are in a union, chances are if your employer finds out, they will not want you. So basically, the working mans rights are practically non existent in real terms. I wish people today had the guts and determination that the miners had to be able to stand up against Cameron, the way they stood up to Thatcher.
Violence is not acceptable by any 'side' but sometimes, you have to fight fire with fire. Maggie did not expect the miners to fight as hard as they did. She was so worried she had the army on standby ready to stand against the men of their own country, who just wanted to try and save their jobs. The dirty tricks played by the police on her guidance did not work and so therefore, she had her plan B. When men and their families had starved for a year, some losing their homes and their marriages, in order to fight against a government who wanted an end to the rights of the working man, and to shut down their only source of income, it can almost be seen as inevitable that somewhere along the line, tempers will rise. And what have we got today. People working for low wages, on contracts that mean you can be terminated at the drop of a hat. Charged for taking your employer to an industrial tribunal. No strong unions to back you up and if you are in a union, chances are if your employer finds out, they will not want you. So basically, the working mans rights are practically non existent in real terms. I wish people today had the guts and determination that the miners had to be able to stand up against Cameron, the way they stood up to Thatcher. endthelies
  • Score: 4

5:00pm Fri 14 Mar 14

coalpicker says...

Kevin Ward - Editor wrote:
KM
Very happy to publish your opinions - not sure you help yourself with offensive insults though.
KEVIN the tory plan to destroy the miners was three years in the making,
Barbara Castle and her IN PLACE OF STRIFE was the first shot in emasculating the TU's then the anti trade union legislation brought in by the Tory's ensured that the spear point (NUM ) would be isolated ,Sequestering the funds of any union supporting was the weapon used.Of course the stab in the back administered by the overmen, firemen and shot firers was the final nail in the issue the fact that they were committing
industrial suicide did not occur to them . By the same token the non union
and some union lorry drivers did the same thing with the same consequences. The child of the unions ( LABOUR) while gladly taking money from the movement did nothing to remove the shackles clearly showing that they had forgotten the ethos that had created them. The mining communities will never forget the police and their paramilitary oppression, the lies they told the taunts they tormented miners with, their cavalry charges and brutality subsequently proved . If the miners had organised along government lines we would have had civil war .
[quote][p][bold]Kevin Ward - Editor[/bold] wrote: KM Very happy to publish your opinions - not sure you help yourself with offensive insults though.[/p][/quote]KEVIN the tory plan to destroy the miners was three years in the making, Barbara Castle and her IN PLACE OF STRIFE was the first shot in emasculating the TU's then the anti trade union legislation brought in by the Tory's ensured that the spear point (NUM ) would be isolated ,Sequestering the funds of any union supporting was the weapon used.Of course the stab in the back administered by the overmen, firemen and shot firers was the final nail in the issue the fact that they were committing industrial suicide did not occur to them . By the same token the non union and some union lorry drivers did the same thing with the same consequences. The child of the unions ( LABOUR) while gladly taking money from the movement did nothing to remove the shackles clearly showing that they had forgotten the ethos that had created them. The mining communities will never forget the police and their paramilitary oppression, the lies they told the taunts they tormented miners with, their cavalry charges and brutality subsequently proved . If the miners had organised along government lines we would have had civil war . coalpicker
  • Score: 2

12:28am Sat 15 Mar 14

Melvyn The Milk says...

Things never work when the tail wags the dog. The good lady did what had to be done.
Things never work when the tail wags the dog. The good lady did what had to be done. Melvyn The Milk
  • Score: 6

2:04am Sat 15 Mar 14

Billybong41 says...

" fleets of lorries were at the ready to transport coal if railworkers backed the miners "

Many of those lorries were run by Hazell's of Newport , I can still clearly remember their drivers waving wads of money at us as they drove past laughing, so brave when there were lots of police about otherwise it was windows up and pedal to the floor.

I could understand why they drove the coal lorries if it was a job they did week in week out but it was just a one off chance to earn a quick buck by helping to break the strike.

My Rugby Region should be the Dragons but I'll never support them while that family has any involvement there.
" fleets of lorries were at the ready to transport coal if railworkers backed the miners " Many of those lorries were run by Hazell's of Newport , I can still clearly remember their drivers waving wads of money at us as they drove past laughing, so brave when there were lots of police about otherwise it was windows up and pedal to the floor. I could understand why they drove the coal lorries if it was a job they did week in week out but it was just a one off chance to earn a quick buck by helping to break the strike. My Rugby Region should be the Dragons but I'll never support them while that family has any involvement there. Billybong41
  • Score: 4

11:14am Sat 15 Mar 14

Howie' says...

KarloMarko wrote:
Kevin, how anyone with half a brain can reduce this to "egos" is beyond me.

It was a determined and co-ordinated attack to break effective trade unionism and any restistance to what was to follow as the post war social-democratic "consensus" was finally hammered into the ground. Britain then became the "Bankocracy" for hire which now even repulses the New York Times as it pimps the world. See last weekends edition.

I was on picket lines and it was a war zone. The full force of the British state unleashed against its own citizens. Not a debate about street lighting or the attractions of a city centre Nandos. YOU stick to what you semi-know. Newsquest deserves you.
Exactly. Read the 'Ridley Report' written by Nicholas Ridley (Baron Ridley of Liddesdale who became a Foreign office and Transport Secretary of State under Thatcher) leaked to the Economist in 78 and implemented by Thatchers Tories to the letter. It was a blueprint of how to take on and beat the Trade Unions,especially the NUM. Thatcher came to power looking for conflict and determined to take on the Unions and the NUM knew what the Tory's were going to do to the coal fields. As you say KM the full force of the British State was unleashed on the Miners and their family's/ supporters. I hardly see it as a clash of ego's when one of the protagonists wanted to destroy the mining industry and all of the communities that had grown up round those mines and depended on them financially whilst the other was trying to protect the industry from closure and save the communities and peoples Livelihoods. Lets not forget it was the same Conservatives who turned the Troops on strikers in LLanelli and Tonypandy using live ammunition and killing Welsh citizens.....and they wonder why the nasty party doesn't poll well in Wales!
[quote][p][bold]KarloMarko[/bold] wrote: Kevin, how anyone with half a brain can reduce this to "egos" is beyond me. It was a determined and co-ordinated attack to break effective trade unionism and any restistance to what was to follow as the post war social-democratic "consensus" was finally hammered into the ground. Britain then became the "Bankocracy" for hire which now even repulses the New York Times as it pimps the world. See last weekends edition. I was on picket lines and it was a war zone. The full force of the British state unleashed against its own citizens. Not a debate about street lighting or the attractions of a city centre Nandos. YOU stick to what you semi-know. Newsquest deserves you.[/p][/quote]Exactly. Read the 'Ridley Report' written by Nicholas Ridley (Baron Ridley of Liddesdale who became a Foreign office and Transport Secretary of State under Thatcher) leaked to the Economist in 78 and implemented by Thatchers Tories to the letter. It was a blueprint of how to take on and beat the Trade Unions,especially the NUM. Thatcher came to power looking for conflict and determined to take on the Unions and the NUM knew what the Tory's were going to do to the coal fields. As you say KM the full force of the British State was unleashed on the Miners and their family's/ supporters. I hardly see it as a clash of ego's when one of the protagonists wanted to destroy the mining industry and all of the communities that had grown up round those mines and depended on them financially whilst the other was trying to protect the industry from closure and save the communities and peoples Livelihoods. Lets not forget it was the same Conservatives who turned the Troops on strikers in LLanelli and Tonypandy using live ammunition and killing Welsh citizens.....and they wonder why the nasty party doesn't poll well in Wales! Howie'
  • Score: 1

1:46pm Sat 15 Mar 14

varteg1 says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo

m
wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo



m
wrote:
Same could be said of Thatcher though couldn't it? With regards to morality and democracy I mean.

'Ungovernable' eh? Now there's a very illuminating word.
She did however have the benefit of some kind of democratic mandate, despite all the shortcomings of that process which I recognise. Most unions at the time had no such thing.
A democratic mandate? I'm not so sure that's true. Totalitarian temper tantrum might be more accurate. If we'd had a referendum at the time and she'd made the case that she wanted to destroy British industry, make millions unemployed, ravage whole communities for more than a generation and brutalise dissent, all in order to destroy democracy - then I'm not sure that many people would have thought that a good idea.
'In order to destroy democracy?' I think she was subject to the same electoral process both before and after the strike as had been the case in the 70s. Whatever the shortcomings of that process and I admit there are many, I would still prefer it to the Socialist and Communist rabble that ran the shop in the seventies. I happen to think most politicians of all colours a pretty rum bunch and grudgingly therefore marginally prefer those I feel cost me the least. But pretending that the likes of McGahey, Scargill, Robinson etc., were some sort of Mother Theresa figures to whom we should all doff our caps in gratitude is frankly hilarious. Oh and as for 'tantrum' please tell me you did actually see Scargill rant?
By similar means the Nazi party 'democratically' took over Germany.

If it had not been for her own stabbing her in the back, who's to say a similar path would not have been followed built upon the 'success' of both the strike and the fortunate intervention of the Falklands episode, which gave a high degree of 'nationalistic' fervour to her re-election.
The consequences go far beyond what happened in the mining industry, which, by the way, was also being reduced by Labour, but in a constructive and non violent manner, consequences that resound in her deregulation of the banks and financial sectors, a matter that in the USA they are now addressing, as their regulator is hammering on the door of many of OUR top banks re the LIBOR scandal, all because she wished to let rip the alley cats of money.
The miners strike was a minor issue(excuse pun) when compared to what came after through her manipulations.

Similar to throwing a stone through a window, which of course breaks the glass, but which then travels on to break a gas pipe causing an explosion which brings down the house.

Domino effect.
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: Same could be said of Thatcher though couldn't it? With regards to morality and democracy I mean. 'Ungovernable' eh? Now there's a very illuminating word.[/p][/quote]She did however have the benefit of some kind of democratic mandate, despite all the shortcomings of that process which I recognise. Most unions at the time had no such thing.[/p][/quote]A democratic mandate? I'm not so sure that's true. Totalitarian temper tantrum might be more accurate. If we'd had a referendum at the time and she'd made the case that she wanted to destroy British industry, make millions unemployed, ravage whole communities for more than a generation and brutalise dissent, all in order to destroy democracy - then I'm not sure that many people would have thought that a good idea.[/p][/quote]'In order to destroy democracy?' I think she was subject to the same electoral process both before and after the strike as had been the case in the 70s. Whatever the shortcomings of that process and I admit there are many, I would still prefer it to the Socialist and Communist rabble that ran the shop in the seventies. I happen to think most politicians of all colours a pretty rum bunch and grudgingly therefore marginally prefer those I feel cost me the least. But pretending that the likes of McGahey, Scargill, Robinson etc., were some sort of Mother Theresa figures to whom we should all doff our caps in gratitude is frankly hilarious. Oh and as for 'tantrum' please tell me you did actually see Scargill rant?[/p][/quote]By similar means the Nazi party 'democratically' took over Germany. If it had not been for her own stabbing her in the back, who's to say a similar path would not have been followed built upon the 'success' of both the strike and the fortunate intervention of the Falklands episode, which gave a high degree of 'nationalistic' fervour to her re-election. The consequences go far beyond what happened in the mining industry, which, by the way, was also being reduced by Labour, but in a constructive and non violent manner, consequences that resound in her deregulation of the banks and financial sectors, a matter that in the USA they are now addressing, as their regulator is hammering on the door of many of OUR top banks re the LIBOR scandal, all because she wished to let rip the alley cats of money. The miners strike was a minor issue(excuse pun) when compared to what came after through her manipulations. Similar to throwing a stone through a window, which of course breaks the glass, but which then travels on to break a gas pipe causing an explosion which brings down the house. Domino effect. varteg1
  • Score: 0

2:01pm Sat 15 Mar 14

varteg1 says...

endthelies wrote:
Violence is not acceptable by any 'side' but sometimes, you have to fight fire with fire. Maggie did not expect the miners to fight as hard as they did. She was so worried she had the army on standby ready to stand against the men of their own country, who just wanted to try and save their jobs. The dirty tricks played by the police on her guidance did not work and so therefore, she had her plan B. When men and their families had starved for a year, some losing their homes and their marriages, in order to fight against a government who wanted an end to the rights of the working man, and to shut down their only source of income, it can almost be seen as inevitable that somewhere along the line, tempers will rise. And what have we got today. People working for low wages, on contracts that mean you can be terminated at the drop of a hat. Charged for taking your employer to an industrial tribunal. No strong unions to back you up and if you are in a union, chances are if your employer finds out, they will not want you. So basically, the working mans rights are practically non existent in real terms. I wish people today had the guts and determination that the miners had to be able to stand up against Cameron, the way they stood up to Thatcher.
Don't forget in commenting about 'loss of temper' etc, those employed by the Sate rarely lose theirs, they are cool calm and collected, trained even......enough even to cold bloodedly shoot down their own people, and the Nuremberg matter never arises,... they were simply following orders. so they would claim if later investigated.

The police, ( as the initial employed State force) had the option to say No! but chose to 'follow orders', had they refused the order, without doubt the military would have been likewise ordered to move against the strikers,

Such is the mind of the brain dead who let their paymasters (and I don't mean us the people) do their thinking for them.

They get no ballot, so why complain that Scargill failed to call for a ballot. 'Sauce for the goose.....' springs to mind, at least he had the backing when he called for it, his work force were not ORDERED to turn out, they volunteered to man the picket lines.
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: Violence is not acceptable by any 'side' but sometimes, you have to fight fire with fire. Maggie did not expect the miners to fight as hard as they did. She was so worried she had the army on standby ready to stand against the men of their own country, who just wanted to try and save their jobs. The dirty tricks played by the police on her guidance did not work and so therefore, she had her plan B. When men and their families had starved for a year, some losing their homes and their marriages, in order to fight against a government who wanted an end to the rights of the working man, and to shut down their only source of income, it can almost be seen as inevitable that somewhere along the line, tempers will rise. And what have we got today. People working for low wages, on contracts that mean you can be terminated at the drop of a hat. Charged for taking your employer to an industrial tribunal. No strong unions to back you up and if you are in a union, chances are if your employer finds out, they will not want you. So basically, the working mans rights are practically non existent in real terms. I wish people today had the guts and determination that the miners had to be able to stand up against Cameron, the way they stood up to Thatcher.[/p][/quote]Don't forget in commenting about 'loss of temper' etc, those employed by the Sate rarely lose theirs, they are cool calm and collected, trained even......enough even to cold bloodedly shoot down their own people, and the Nuremberg matter never arises,... they were simply following orders. so they would claim if later investigated. The police, ( as the initial employed State force) had the option to say No! but chose to 'follow orders', had they refused the order, without doubt the military would have been likewise ordered to move against the strikers, Such is the mind of the brain dead who let their paymasters (and I don't mean us the people) do their thinking for them. They get no ballot, so why complain that Scargill failed to call for a ballot. 'Sauce for the goose.....' springs to mind, at least he had the backing when he called for it, his work force were not ORDERED to turn out, they volunteered to man the picket lines. varteg1
  • Score: 1

5:02pm Sat 15 Mar 14

endthelies says...

Melvyn The Milk wrote:
Things never work when the tail wags the dog. The good lady did what had to be done.
And what did 'the good lady' (sorry I just felt a little sick there) leave us with. Nothing. No jobs, no communities, no future for our children. 'Good lady' are not words I would use to describe her, no matter how much the Tories would like me to.
[quote][p][bold]Melvyn The Milk[/bold] wrote: Things never work when the tail wags the dog. The good lady did what had to be done.[/p][/quote]And what did 'the good lady' (sorry I just felt a little sick there) leave us with. Nothing. No jobs, no communities, no future for our children. 'Good lady' are not words I would use to describe her, no matter how much the Tories would like me to. endthelies
  • Score: 2

5:59pm Sat 15 Mar 14

KarloMarko says...

The honesty and integrity of the British state....aka "trust us" while we knife you...

Cabinet papers ~ newly released Jan 2014...

"Mr MacGregor had it in mind over
the three years 1983-85 that a
further 75 pits would be closed...
There should be no closure list, but
a pit-by-pit procedure. (sic)

"The manpower at the end of that
time in the industry would be down
to 138,000 from its current level of
202,000."

The document reveals that plans for
pit closures and subsequent job
losses were discussed

As a result, two-thirds of Welsh
miners would become redundant, a
third of those in Scotland, almost
half of those in north east England,
half in South Yorkshire and almost
half in the South Midlands. The
entire Kent coalfield would close.

The final paragraph of the
document read: "It was agreed that
no record of this meeting should be
circulated."

What was that again about Scargill lying to the membership? And the "robust"media bought it wholesale. Stenographers.
The honesty and integrity of the British state....aka "trust us" while we knife you... Cabinet papers ~ newly released Jan 2014... "Mr MacGregor had it in mind over the three years 1983-85 that a further 75 pits would be closed... There should be no closure list, but a pit-by-pit procedure. (sic) "The manpower at the end of that time in the industry would be down to 138,000 from its current level of 202,000." The document reveals that plans for pit closures and subsequent job losses were discussed As a result, two-thirds of Welsh miners would become redundant, a third of those in Scotland, almost half of those in north east England, half in South Yorkshire and almost half in the South Midlands. The entire Kent coalfield would close. The final paragraph of the document read: "It was agreed that no record of this meeting should be circulated." What was that again about Scargill lying to the membership? And the "robust"media bought it wholesale. Stenographers. KarloMarko
  • Score: 5

10:56am Sun 16 Mar 14

varteg1 says...

Melvyn The Milk wrote:
Things never work when the tail wags the dog. The good lady did what had to be done.
The 'tail' IS/ARE the government, an almost ephemeral construct with a very limited life span.

The 'body' IS/ARE the people, and no government has the moral right, even if temporarily mandated, to go against the people in a manner that causes communal devastation in the manner caused by the Thatcher government.
That government was destructive, and acted against the general welfare of both the people and the State of which it took temporary charge.
Thatcher literally stole the power she used. she had no mandate to create chaos within the community.

If matters carry on as they are at present, she may well have created the environment for civil unrest, a situation that no one will appreciate, especially those that support the notion that in a modern social framework it is acceptable that hundreds of thousands can only exist by utilising charity, via food banks and charity shops.
[quote][p][bold]Melvyn The Milk[/bold] wrote: Things never work when the tail wags the dog. The good lady did what had to be done.[/p][/quote]The 'tail' IS/ARE the government, an almost ephemeral construct with a very limited life span. The 'body' IS/ARE the people, and no government has the moral right, even if temporarily mandated, to go against the people in a manner that causes communal devastation in the manner caused by the Thatcher government. That government was destructive, and acted against the general welfare of both the people and the State of which it took temporary charge. Thatcher literally stole the power she used. she had no mandate to create chaos within the community. If matters carry on as they are at present, she may well have created the environment for civil unrest, a situation that no one will appreciate, especially those that support the notion that in a modern social framework it is acceptable that hundreds of thousands can only exist by utilising charity, via food banks and charity shops. varteg1
  • Score: 2

10:57am Sun 16 Mar 14

Mervyn James says...

Consensus is pretty universal in Wales,Tories destroyed welsh mining.industry/comm
unities and used tactics more akin to a Junta than a democracy. And people wonder why Wales won;t vote Tory... or try to pass it off as 'in the past', to people today, to their children, the legacy of Tory hate against the Welsh has been something they have grown up with, not helped by more of the same from Cameron and his Tory private school chums , and,they claim there is no class war.... when the UK Government has more 'Old school ties' than any other on the planet in power.
Consensus is pretty universal in Wales,Tories destroyed welsh mining.industry/comm unities and used tactics more akin to a Junta than a democracy. And people wonder why Wales won;t vote Tory... or try to pass it off as 'in the past', to people today, to their children, the legacy of Tory hate against the Welsh has been something they have grown up with, not helped by more of the same from Cameron and his Tory private school chums , and,they claim there is no class war.... when the UK Government has more 'Old school ties' than any other on the planet in power. Mervyn James
  • Score: -3

10:42am Mon 17 Mar 14

Cymru Am Beth says...

Kevin Ward - Editor wrote:
KM
Very happy to publish your opinions - not sure you help yourself with offensive insults though.
I thought that your article was balanced and showed that there were faults on both sides.
You didn't fall into the old socialist trap of blaming Margaret Thatcher for everything, as quite a lot of commentators on here seem to do.
[quote][p][bold]Kevin Ward - Editor[/bold] wrote: KM Very happy to publish your opinions - not sure you help yourself with offensive insults though.[/p][/quote]I thought that your article was balanced and showed that there were faults on both sides. You didn't fall into the old socialist trap of blaming Margaret Thatcher for everything, as quite a lot of commentators on here seem to do. Cymru Am Beth
  • Score: 2

10:49am Mon 17 Mar 14

Cymru Am Beth says...

lord.iron.of.shumg wrote:
I blame the pair of them Thatcher and Scargill . I was four years old when this happen but don't remember much about this other than my grand dad , always going to picket line and saying its a shame that I'll never work down the pit because of the witch !!!!! .

I grew up remembering the pits around going to area and then shutting down one by one , I now know that both Arthur Scargill and Margaret Thatcher were to blame for all this thatcher because she only cared about profit and greed and her hatred of the unions .

Arthur Scargill is an evil man for leading the miners on strike without the Ballot which was illegal and the ultimately the loss of the battle which caused the most of the pits close, if he played by her rules he might of won and brought down that even more of an evil cow thatcher !!!!

If I was old enough I would of been in the picket lines supporting the miners . It's a dam shame in the world we live in now , I blame though two for the Wales I live in now , poor , unloved and rotting away from the drugs and unruly thugs that occupy our life's today .
Wales is in the position it is in, because people keep harking back to the past.
It is unfortunately, sinking in its own misery.
We need people with drive and ambition.
However, this is sadly lacking in Wales and we will always be a minority nation seen by the English as a parasitic non- contributor, forever turning to them for assistance.
[quote][p][bold]lord.iron.of.shumg[/bold] wrote: I blame the pair of them Thatcher and Scargill . I was four years old when this happen but don't remember much about this other than my grand dad , always going to picket line and saying its a shame that I'll never work down the pit because of the witch !!!!! . I grew up remembering the pits around going to area and then shutting down one by one , I now know that both Arthur Scargill and Margaret Thatcher were to blame for all this thatcher because she only cared about profit and greed and her hatred of the unions . Arthur Scargill is an evil man for leading the miners on strike without the Ballot which was illegal and the ultimately the loss of the battle which caused the most of the pits close, if he played by her rules he might of won and brought down that even more of an evil cow thatcher !!!! If I was old enough I would of been in the picket lines supporting the miners . It's a dam shame in the world we live in now , I blame though two for the Wales I live in now , poor , unloved and rotting away from the drugs and unruly thugs that occupy our life's today .[/p][/quote]Wales is in the position it is in, because people keep harking back to the past. It is unfortunately, sinking in its own misery. We need people with drive and ambition. However, this is sadly lacking in Wales and we will always be a minority nation seen by the English as a parasitic non- contributor, forever turning to them for assistance. Cymru Am Beth
  • Score: 4

10:53am Mon 17 Mar 14

Cymru Am Beth says...

blackandamber wrote:
It's over and done. There was wrong on both sides and you can argue who did this and who did that till the cows come home it won't change a thing.
There are greater things to be concerned about what is happening in this country today.
Absolutely.
Well said.
[quote][p][bold]blackandamber[/bold] wrote: It's over and done. There was wrong on both sides and you can argue who did this and who did that till the cows come home it won't change a thing. There are greater things to be concerned about what is happening in this country today.[/p][/quote]Absolutely. Well said. Cymru Am Beth
  • Score: 3

11:35am Mon 17 Mar 14

endthelies says...

Cymru Am Beth wrote:
blackandamber wrote:
It's over and done. There was wrong on both sides and you can argue who did this and who did that till the cows come home it won't change a thing.
There are greater things to be concerned about what is happening in this country today.
Absolutely.
Well said.
You're right. Nothing can bring back the jobs or communities that she took away and that part of wales history has passed. We now have to live with what's left after our industries were taken away. We cannot change what happened but it will NEVER be forgotten. To many lives were, and still are, affected by the changes that were made.
[quote][p][bold]Cymru Am Beth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]blackandamber[/bold] wrote: It's over and done. There was wrong on both sides and you can argue who did this and who did that till the cows come home it won't change a thing. There are greater things to be concerned about what is happening in this country today.[/p][/quote]Absolutely. Well said.[/p][/quote]You're right. Nothing can bring back the jobs or communities that she took away and that part of wales history has passed. We now have to live with what's left after our industries were taken away. We cannot change what happened but it will NEVER be forgotten. To many lives were, and still are, affected by the changes that were made. endthelies
  • Score: 0

1:02pm Mon 17 Mar 14

KarloMarko says...

"A parasitic non-contributor always turning to England for assistance" (sic)

LOL!

That is NO way to talk about the Welsh tories!

Well OK, it IS then.
"A parasitic non-contributor always turning to England for assistance" (sic) LOL! That is NO way to talk about the Welsh tories! Well OK, it IS then. KarloMarko
  • Score: -3

1:49pm Mon 17 Mar 14

robrat41 says...

Sometimes wrote:
KarloMarko wrote:
My comments reflect the reality. Even Roy Greenslade has grovelled for his and the British press "for hire' debased role during that era. Kevin needs to let go of the white whale...Read Alan Waters or Nigel Lawson from the Right. Theres no longer any "mystery" of what this was about.

A War.
Someone had to stand up to the bully boy tactics of those who thought they ran the country, rather than those elected. Making the vast majority of the populations lives a complete misery for their own ends, why else wasn't a ballot held at the time. people are now looking back at those times as the bad old days, and they're right, nobody wants to return to those days, apart from maybe you KM. Rose tinted glasses need to be taken off.
The country is only run "by the government" under a mandate from the people.
That includes the Miners and their families.

Thatcher and her cronies did not run under a manifesto of destroying the miners and associated British Industries so the Miners etc. were well within their rights to fight her on that point.
[quote][p][bold]Sometimes[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KarloMarko[/bold] wrote: My comments reflect the reality. Even Roy Greenslade has grovelled for his and the British press "for hire' debased role during that era. Kevin needs to let go of the white whale...Read Alan Waters or Nigel Lawson from the Right. Theres no longer any "mystery" of what this was about. A War.[/p][/quote]Someone had to stand up to the bully boy tactics of those who thought they ran the country, rather than those elected. Making the vast majority of the populations lives a complete misery for their own ends, why else wasn't a ballot held at the time. people are now looking back at those times as the bad old days, and they're right, nobody wants to return to those days, apart from maybe you KM. Rose tinted glasses need to be taken off.[/p][/quote]The country is only run "by the government" under a mandate from the people. That includes the Miners and their families. Thatcher and her cronies did not run under a manifesto of destroying the miners and associated British Industries so the Miners etc. were well within their rights to fight her on that point. robrat41
  • Score: 2

1:52pm Mon 17 Mar 14

robrat41 says...

blackandamber wrote:
It's over and done. There was wrong on both sides and you can argue who did this and who did that till the cows come home it won't change a thing.
There are greater things to be concerned about what is happening in this country today.
Like the further destruction of the rights of the working man to remove his labour if he feels he has a grievance against his employer that they wont listen to.

I think that makes it very relevant to discuss this topic.
[quote][p][bold]blackandamber[/bold] wrote: It's over and done. There was wrong on both sides and you can argue who did this and who did that till the cows come home it won't change a thing. There are greater things to be concerned about what is happening in this country today.[/p][/quote]Like the further destruction of the rights of the working man to remove his labour if he feels he has a grievance against his employer that they wont listen to. I think that makes it very relevant to discuss this topic. robrat41
  • Score: 0

2:05pm Mon 17 Mar 14

KarloMarko says...

"Those who cannot
remember the past are
condemned to repeat it."

~ Santayana.

And as more lies are dragged from the State, the clearer its past becomes. And the clearer the rancid present. "They created a desert and called it peace."
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." ~ Santayana. And as more lies are dragged from the State, the clearer its past becomes. And the clearer the rancid present. "They created a desert and called it peace." KarloMarko
  • Score: -2

8:16pm Mon 17 Mar 14

merlin the silure says...

listen now and I will tell it how it was-We all knew that the fight could NOT be won-we were just fighting for our communities and that-Scargill was a a nonce and all he wanted was a headline-get over it,the future COULD be bright.
listen now and I will tell it how it was-We all knew that the fight could NOT be won-we were just fighting for our communities and that-Scargill was a a nonce and all he wanted was a headline-get over it,the future COULD be bright. merlin the silure
  • Score: 1

7:59am Tue 18 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

I well remember the first outing from Abertillery, lots of beer on the coach . And the fact that the most violent ones who got nicked weren't colliers at all. Might have been casuals from Warwills Foundry or possibly even men who worked on a council ashcart and had taken the day off. Plus ca change plus ca reste la meme chose , as we used to say in the Beynons Welfare.
I well remember the first outing from Abertillery, lots of beer on the coach . And the fact that the most violent ones who got nicked weren't colliers at all. Might have been casuals from Warwills Foundry or possibly even men who worked on a council ashcart and had taken the day off. Plus ca change plus ca reste la meme chose , as we used to say in the Beynons Welfare. Dai Rear
  • Score: 2

8:05am Tue 18 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

PS did you know Scargill visited Hancock and Shankland regularly while they did their time and the NUM paid them their salary?
PS did you know Scargill visited Hancock and Shankland regularly while they did their time and the NUM paid them their salary? Dai Rear
  • Score: 2

8:06am Tue 18 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

Of course they were Martyrs of the Working Class. Not sure what that made the poor taxi driver.......
Of course they were Martyrs of the Working Class. Not sure what that made the poor taxi driver....... Dai Rear
  • Score: 3

10:48am Tue 18 Mar 14

endthelies says...

Dai Rear wrote:
Of course they were Martyrs of the Working Class. Not sure what that made the poor taxi driver.......
I don't think there is a person on this forum who would disagree with me when I say that the people who killed the taxi driver were deserving of all the justice that could be thrown at them. They killed an innocent person. Their actions were not the actions of the rest of the miners so don't tar them all for what some idiots decided to do off their own backs.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: Of course they were Martyrs of the Working Class. Not sure what that made the poor taxi driver.......[/p][/quote]I don't think there is a person on this forum who would disagree with me when I say that the people who killed the taxi driver were deserving of all the justice that could be thrown at them. They killed an innocent person. Their actions were not the actions of the rest of the miners so don't tar them all for what some idiots decided to do off their own backs. endthelies
  • Score: 1

10:52am Tue 18 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

endthelies wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
Of course they were Martyrs of the Working Class. Not sure what that made the poor taxi driver.......
I don't think there is a person on this forum who would disagree with me when I say that the people who killed the taxi driver were deserving of all the justice that could be thrown at them. They killed an innocent person. Their actions were not the actions of the rest of the miners so don't tar them all for what some idiots decided to do off their own backs.
Not me. Scargill was the one who visited them. He was the voice of the NUM so that's what the NUM considered them to be. You may not like that but you can't escape it because if you were NUM in those days then it was done in your name.
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: Of course they were Martyrs of the Working Class. Not sure what that made the poor taxi driver.......[/p][/quote]I don't think there is a person on this forum who would disagree with me when I say that the people who killed the taxi driver were deserving of all the justice that could be thrown at them. They killed an innocent person. Their actions were not the actions of the rest of the miners so don't tar them all for what some idiots decided to do off their own backs.[/p][/quote]Not me. Scargill was the one who visited them. He was the voice of the NUM so that's what the NUM considered them to be. You may not like that but you can't escape it because if you were NUM in those days then it was done in your name. Dai Rear
  • Score: 2

11:21am Tue 18 Mar 14

endthelies says...

Nobody ordered them to kill someone for the cause. Nobody.
Nobody ordered them to kill someone for the cause. Nobody. endthelies
  • Score: 2

11:52am Tue 18 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

endthelies wrote:
Nobody ordered them to kill someone for the cause. Nobody.
Nor did I say anyone did. I simply reported the fact that Mr Scargill, on your behalf visited those men and arranged that your Union pay their wages. Had Mr Scargill ordered them to kill the taxi driver one supposes he'd not have needed to visit them for he would have been in an adjoining cell on conviction for incitement. You will recall that Mr Williams was also present on the bridge but was not convicted. It would be interesting to know what recognition he received from Mr Scargill. I only know of Hancock and Shankland ..
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: Nobody ordered them to kill someone for the cause. Nobody.[/p][/quote]Nor did I say anyone did. I simply reported the fact that Mr Scargill, on your behalf visited those men and arranged that your Union pay their wages. Had Mr Scargill ordered them to kill the taxi driver one supposes he'd not have needed to visit them for he would have been in an adjoining cell on conviction for incitement. You will recall that Mr Williams was also present on the bridge but was not convicted. It would be interesting to know what recognition he received from Mr Scargill. I only know of Hancock and Shankland .. Dai Rear
  • Score: 1

12:03pm Tue 18 Mar 14

endthelies says...

I have never been a union member, I have never been married to a miner. What I say is what I believe and what I have witnessed in my own town. There was a civil war going on at the time. No doubt about it. Had Maggie not lied about the mine closures or sent the police in to incite violence, maybe none of it would have happened. Maybe no one would have been hurt or killed. Maybe the miners would not have been beaten with truncheons until they smashed over their heads. That was done in her name. However, what those men did to the taxi driver was wrong in no uncertain terms. They were never martyrs for the cause. In fact, they helped serve bring down the strike.
I have never been a union member, I have never been married to a miner. What I say is what I believe and what I have witnessed in my own town. There was a civil war going on at the time. No doubt about it. Had Maggie not lied about the mine closures or sent the police in to incite violence, maybe none of it would have happened. Maybe no one would have been hurt or killed. Maybe the miners would not have been beaten with truncheons until they smashed over their heads. That was done in her name. However, what those men did to the taxi driver was wrong in no uncertain terms. They were never martyrs for the cause. In fact, they helped serve bring down the strike. endthelies
  • Score: -2

12:09pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

You seem to be implying that this incident happened in hot blood, "at the point of a truncheon". It didn't. If you are sad that the Winter of Discontent did not lead to rule by trades union, you are welcome to your view. I actually admire men like Bob Crow who was wise enough to realise that his role was the improvement of his members' conditions, and succeeded. I would not equate Mr Scargill's agenda with that of Mr Crow.
You seem to be implying that this incident happened in hot blood, "at the point of a truncheon". It didn't. If you are sad that the Winter of Discontent did not lead to rule by trades union, you are welcome to your view. I actually admire men like Bob Crow who was wise enough to realise that his role was the improvement of his members' conditions, and succeeded. I would not equate Mr Scargill's agenda with that of Mr Crow. Dai Rear
  • Score: 1

12:24pm Tue 18 Mar 14

endthelies says...

NoI didn't imply that. I stated quite clearly that what these men did, they did off their own backs. That they deserved their punishment and that they actually helped bring about the end to the strike. You implied that they were martyrs and that what they did was done ion the name of the NUM. You are wrong. I am sad at what Maggie left our counties with. Nothing. I am sad that thousands and thousands of miners lost their jobs, their income, their houses and the future for their children. I am sad that Blaenau Gwent has become one of the poorest places in the uk when it used to be a thriving happy community with shops and businesses. I am sad that no one has been able to resurrect what she took away. I am sad that people were hurt and killed in the quest to keep their jobs and communities. And I am sad that people still think that Maggie did a good job.
NoI didn't imply that. I stated quite clearly that what these men did, they did off their own backs. That they deserved their punishment and that they actually helped bring about the end to the strike. You implied that they were martyrs and that what they did was done ion the name of the NUM. You are wrong. I am sad at what Maggie left our counties with. Nothing. I am sad that thousands and thousands of miners lost their jobs, their income, their houses and the future for their children. I am sad that Blaenau Gwent has become one of the poorest places in the uk when it used to be a thriving happy community with shops and businesses. I am sad that no one has been able to resurrect what she took away. I am sad that people were hurt and killed in the quest to keep their jobs and communities. And I am sad that people still think that Maggie did a good job. endthelies
  • Score: -2

12:45pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

So you're saying that when Mr Scargill made the journey to see them he was attempting to rehabilitate them? (didn't work) That when he organised payment of their wages whilst they were inside it was not a reward for their behaviour?
I frankly can't remember whether the man's alive or dead now, but if he's alive, why don't you ask him why he did it?
It is indeed sad that collieries become worked out and everyone has to up sticks and move elsewhere but I fear that that is the nature of the extraction of minerals and that one day Aberdeen will be one of the poorest places in the UK-or not in the UK, as we shall find out later this year. Actually, places like Radstock , Betteshanger and Midsomer Norton, nor indeed the Forest of Dean are not notably poor places so there may be an ingredient you've not noticed, beyond the exhaustion of mineral reserves, but that's another topic.
So you're saying that when Mr Scargill made the journey to see them he was attempting to rehabilitate them? (didn't work) That when he organised payment of their wages whilst they were inside it was not a reward for their behaviour? I frankly can't remember whether the man's alive or dead now, but if he's alive, why don't you ask him why he did it? It is indeed sad that collieries become worked out and everyone has to up sticks and move elsewhere but I fear that that is the nature of the extraction of minerals and that one day Aberdeen will be one of the poorest places in the UK-or not in the UK, as we shall find out later this year. Actually, places like Radstock , Betteshanger and Midsomer Norton, nor indeed the Forest of Dean are not notably poor places so there may be an ingredient you've not noticed, beyond the exhaustion of mineral reserves, but that's another topic. Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

1:04pm Tue 18 Mar 14

endthelies says...

Dai Rear wrote:
So you're saying that when Mr Scargill made the journey to see them he was attempting to rehabilitate them? (didn't work) That when he organised payment of their wages whilst they were inside it was not a reward for their behaviour?
I frankly can't remember whether the man's alive or dead now, but if he's alive, why don't you ask him why he did it?
It is indeed sad that collieries become worked out and everyone has to up sticks and move elsewhere but I fear that that is the nature of the extraction of minerals and that one day Aberdeen will be one of the poorest places in the UK-or not in the UK, as we shall find out later this year. Actually, places like Radstock , Betteshanger and Midsomer Norton, nor indeed the Forest of Dean are not notably poor places so there may be an ingredient you've not noticed, beyond the exhaustion of mineral reserves, but that's another topic.
I haven't mentioned Scargill ! Please stop trying to put words into my mouth.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: So you're saying that when Mr Scargill made the journey to see them he was attempting to rehabilitate them? (didn't work) That when he organised payment of their wages whilst they were inside it was not a reward for their behaviour? I frankly can't remember whether the man's alive or dead now, but if he's alive, why don't you ask him why he did it? It is indeed sad that collieries become worked out and everyone has to up sticks and move elsewhere but I fear that that is the nature of the extraction of minerals and that one day Aberdeen will be one of the poorest places in the UK-or not in the UK, as we shall find out later this year. Actually, places like Radstock , Betteshanger and Midsomer Norton, nor indeed the Forest of Dean are not notably poor places so there may be an ingredient you've not noticed, beyond the exhaustion of mineral reserves, but that's another topic.[/p][/quote]I haven't mentioned Scargill ! Please stop trying to put words into my mouth. endthelies
  • Score: -2

6:19pm Tue 18 Mar 14

jimmysmith says...

BassalegCountyFan wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo


m
wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
GardenVarietyMushroo




m
wrote:
Why's that?
Err, because the endless bl**dy crossfire was tedious in the extreme and I can't have been alone in thinking that because a hell of a lot of people who voted Tory must have been a worker just like me.
Oh I see - so because the government won - despite what they had to do in order to achieve that - it was all the Unions' fault was it?

Ever hear the phrase - it takes two to tango?
I didn't say that. But let's face it, anyone around in the 1970s could see what union excess was like. People were actually sacked for refusing to join unions, even at the Argus (I knew one, my schoolmates father). People were dragged out on strike without ballots regardless of their views as members. Companies were closed down due to secondary flying pickets even though they weren't in a dispute. Yet no-one ever mentions THEIR rights. Airbrushing that out of history is just crass.
What you describe as 'union excess' actually means working people having a voice against employers. We could do with a bit more of that in this day and age - many of the obituaries to Bob Crow this week reflect that. Since thatcher came to power, we have gone severlely backwards in terms of the representation of working people.

And in relation to your other point, how many people are still being sacked at work for BEING union members? Anti-union laws in Britain are a shame on our country.
well said the truth dont hurt anybody .this country is the s h i t hole it is today because of thatchers actions at that time .its a pity we aint got strong unions today .Mores the pity argus you dont come out on the side of the working classes .Thatcher wrecked wales and no tory party has ever done wales or its people any favours ever since
[quote][p][bold]BassalegCountyFan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GardenVarietyMushroo m[/bold] wrote: Why's that?[/p][/quote]Err, because the endless bl**dy crossfire was tedious in the extreme and I can't have been alone in thinking that because a hell of a lot of people who voted Tory must have been a worker just like me.[/p][/quote]Oh I see - so because the government won - despite what they had to do in order to achieve that - it was all the Unions' fault was it? Ever hear the phrase - it takes two to tango?[/p][/quote]I didn't say that. But let's face it, anyone around in the 1970s could see what union excess was like. People were actually sacked for refusing to join unions, even at the Argus (I knew one, my schoolmates father). People were dragged out on strike without ballots regardless of their views as members. Companies were closed down due to secondary flying pickets even though they weren't in a dispute. Yet no-one ever mentions THEIR rights. Airbrushing that out of history is just crass.[/p][/quote]What you describe as 'union excess' actually means working people having a voice against employers. We could do with a bit more of that in this day and age - many of the obituaries to Bob Crow this week reflect that. Since thatcher came to power, we have gone severlely backwards in terms of the representation of working people. And in relation to your other point, how many people are still being sacked at work for BEING union members? Anti-union laws in Britain are a shame on our country.[/p][/quote]well said the truth dont hurt anybody .this country is the s h i t hole it is today because of thatchers actions at that time .its a pity we aint got strong unions today .Mores the pity argus you dont come out on the side of the working classes .Thatcher wrecked wales and no tory party has ever done wales or its people any favours ever since jimmysmith
  • Score: -1

6:40pm Tue 18 Mar 14

endthelies says...

Well said Jimmysmith.
Well said Jimmysmith. endthelies
  • Score: 0

11:03pm Tue 18 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

"I haven't mentioned Scargill ! Please stop trying to put words into my mouth."
Not relevant. You've banged on about "Maggie" Therefore .for you, Scargill was in the right. He wasn't. In passing, "Maggie" didn't shut Rising Sun, Beynons, Henwain , South Griffin, Tillery, Vivian, Gray, Hafodyrynys, Risca Deep Vein, Pochin, Ty Trist, Crumlin Navigation, Waunllwyd, Aberbeeg. Argoed,9 Mile Point, McLaren You get the point. They, and the others that followed , were worked-out pits. It's called Life, not" Maggie".
However, you're not "jimmysmith". He was invented by the Sun, so "well said Sun writers" is , I'm sure, what you meant.
"I haven't mentioned Scargill ! Please stop trying to put words into my mouth." Not relevant. You've banged on about "Maggie" Therefore .for you, Scargill was in the right. He wasn't. In passing, "Maggie" didn't shut Rising Sun, Beynons, Henwain , South Griffin, Tillery, Vivian, Gray, Hafodyrynys, Risca Deep Vein, Pochin, Ty Trist, Crumlin Navigation, Waunllwyd, Aberbeeg. Argoed,9 Mile Point, McLaren You get the point. They, and the others that followed , were worked-out pits. It's called Life, not" Maggie". However, you're not "jimmysmith". He was invented by the Sun, so "well said Sun writers" is , I'm sure, what you meant. Dai Rear
  • Score: -3

2:10am Wed 19 Mar 14

Lord coed melyn says...

As a man who was in the know at the time of the discord in heavy industry and threats to jobs.
And having go by THE POLICIES AND RULES) of the unions. T.U.C
Everybody forgets the steel union (ISTC) in dispute about the closer of steel plants
Asked the the Nur and the Aslef not to carry steel from anywhere to anywhere?
And they asked the NUM not to allow any coal out of pits or coke ovens.
and they did on the understanding that if there was a dispute in Ind
The triple alliance was formed.
NO STEEL WAS MOVED NO COAL OR COKE WAS MOVED WITHOUT PERMISSION.
Now the steelmen settled their dispute?after a bitter battle with Mcgregor and magge.
The Power workers where paid off ?
And maggie set her sights on the miners,
the national executive of the num asked the area executive counts from pit lodges for there resolvere and they gave a resounding strike call.
Then a call was made to the rail unions. As part of the triple alliance and We newport rail and margam rail branches and the aslef branches made
a decision to stop. the train at east usk sidings. Newport AND THERE IT STAYED FOR THE WHOLE OF THE MINERS STRIKE.3000TONS OF IRON ORE. And for the steelmen well you had a good innings on the backs of the miners and the railmen. and for your friends in the T and G ?AND THE LOCAL TRANSPORT COMPANIES WHO GOT TO RUN TO LLANWERN
ROT IN HELL


,
As a man who was in the know at the time of the discord in heavy industry and threats to jobs. And having go by THE POLICIES AND RULES) of the unions. T.U.C Everybody forgets the steel union (ISTC) in dispute about the closer of steel plants Asked the the Nur and the Aslef not to carry steel from anywhere to anywhere? And they asked the NUM not to allow any coal out of pits or coke ovens. and they did on the understanding that if there was a dispute in Ind The triple alliance was formed. NO STEEL WAS MOVED NO COAL OR COKE WAS MOVED WITHOUT PERMISSION. Now the steelmen settled their dispute?after a bitter battle with Mcgregor and magge. The Power workers where paid off ? And maggie set her sights on the miners, the national executive of the num asked the area executive counts from pit lodges for there resolvere and they gave a resounding strike call. Then a call was made to the rail unions. As part of the triple alliance and We newport rail and margam rail branches and the aslef branches made a decision to stop. the train at east usk sidings. Newport AND THERE IT STAYED FOR THE WHOLE OF THE MINERS STRIKE.3000TONS OF IRON ORE. And for the steelmen well you had a good innings on the backs of the miners and the railmen. and for your friends in the T and G ?AND THE LOCAL TRANSPORT COMPANIES WHO GOT TO RUN TO LLANWERN ROT IN HELL , Lord coed melyn
  • Score: 0

12:01pm Wed 19 Mar 14

endthelies says...

Dai Rear wrote:
"I haven't mentioned Scargill ! Please stop trying to put words into my mouth."
Not relevant. You've banged on about "Maggie" Therefore .for you, Scargill was in the right. He wasn't. In passing, "Maggie" didn't shut Rising Sun, Beynons, Henwain , South Griffin, Tillery, Vivian, Gray, Hafodyrynys, Risca Deep Vein, Pochin, Ty Trist, Crumlin Navigation, Waunllwyd, Aberbeeg. Argoed,9 Mile Point, McLaren You get the point. They, and the others that followed , were worked-out pits. It's called Life, not" Maggie".
However, you're not "jimmysmith". He was invented by the Sun, so "well said Sun writers" is , I'm sure, what you meant.
The MINERS were in the right to try and fight for their jobs. again, stop assuming what I mean or what I don't mean as you have no idea. If you're going to make a statement, make it one that comes from you, not from some made up assumptions about someone else's post. I made my points clear and concise. I'm not going through it all again for your sake.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: "I haven't mentioned Scargill ! Please stop trying to put words into my mouth." Not relevant. You've banged on about "Maggie" Therefore .for you, Scargill was in the right. He wasn't. In passing, "Maggie" didn't shut Rising Sun, Beynons, Henwain , South Griffin, Tillery, Vivian, Gray, Hafodyrynys, Risca Deep Vein, Pochin, Ty Trist, Crumlin Navigation, Waunllwyd, Aberbeeg. Argoed,9 Mile Point, McLaren You get the point. They, and the others that followed , were worked-out pits. It's called Life, not" Maggie". However, you're not "jimmysmith". He was invented by the Sun, so "well said Sun writers" is , I'm sure, what you meant.[/p][/quote]The MINERS were in the right to try and fight for their jobs. again, stop assuming what I mean or what I don't mean as you have no idea. If you're going to make a statement, make it one that comes from you, not from some made up assumptions about someone else's post. I made my points clear and concise. I'm not going through it all again for your sake. endthelies
  • Score: 0

1:26pm Wed 19 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

endthelies wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
"I haven't mentioned Scargill ! Please stop trying to put words into my mouth."
Not relevant. You've banged on about "Maggie" Therefore .for you, Scargill was in the right. He wasn't. In passing, "Maggie" didn't shut Rising Sun, Beynons, Henwain , South Griffin, Tillery, Vivian, Gray, Hafodyrynys, Risca Deep Vein, Pochin, Ty Trist, Crumlin Navigation, Waunllwyd, Aberbeeg. Argoed,9 Mile Point, McLaren You get the point. They, and the others that followed , were worked-out pits. It's called Life, not" Maggie".
However, you're not "jimmysmith". He was invented by the Sun, so "well said Sun writers" is , I'm sure, what you meant.
The MINERS were in the right to try and fight for their jobs. again, stop assuming what I mean or what I don't mean as you have no idea. If you're going to make a statement, make it one that comes from you, not from some made up assumptions about someone else's post. I made my points clear and concise. I'm not going through it all again for your sake.
The South Wales miners were of course right to fight for their jobs but the fight had already been lost, and it wasn't against the government. You will recall that , under Des Dutfield, they'd agreed modern working practices to run Margam. Scargill made sure that was scuppered at the Conference because he wanted a fight-on his terms-to take over the government. I really don't think you have the remotest idea of the state we'd be in if Scargill and Anthony Wedgewood Benn (with unilateral disarmament) had succeeded.
[quote][p][bold]endthelies[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: "I haven't mentioned Scargill ! Please stop trying to put words into my mouth." Not relevant. You've banged on about "Maggie" Therefore .for you, Scargill was in the right. He wasn't. In passing, "Maggie" didn't shut Rising Sun, Beynons, Henwain , South Griffin, Tillery, Vivian, Gray, Hafodyrynys, Risca Deep Vein, Pochin, Ty Trist, Crumlin Navigation, Waunllwyd, Aberbeeg. Argoed,9 Mile Point, McLaren You get the point. They, and the others that followed , were worked-out pits. It's called Life, not" Maggie". However, you're not "jimmysmith". He was invented by the Sun, so "well said Sun writers" is , I'm sure, what you meant.[/p][/quote]The MINERS were in the right to try and fight for their jobs. again, stop assuming what I mean or what I don't mean as you have no idea. If you're going to make a statement, make it one that comes from you, not from some made up assumptions about someone else's post. I made my points clear and concise. I'm not going through it all again for your sake.[/p][/quote]The South Wales miners were of course right to fight for their jobs but the fight had already been lost, and it wasn't against the government. You will recall that , under Des Dutfield, they'd agreed modern working practices to run Margam. Scargill made sure that was scuppered at the Conference because he wanted a fight-on his terms-to take over the government. I really don't think you have the remotest idea of the state we'd be in if Scargill and Anthony Wedgewood Benn (with unilateral disarmament) had succeeded. Dai Rear
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree