It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
I wonder if enquiries give anything accept kudos for the politicians that call for them. There doesn't seem to be any requirement for them to actually achieve anything once they start. People want answers... even if they already know them
Instagram
Comparisons with Hillsborough are sickening. Hillsborough victims were totally innocent. The mob of miners were not.
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
Can't imagine why anyone is nostalgic for when the unions held the country to ransom.
Everyone has a right to withdraw labour of course. But I've never understood the 'scab' stuff - everyone has a right to choose whether to work or not.
Also never understood the idolisation of Scargill. His actions destroyed the mining industry and he went on to bankrupt his own union by insisting they continue to pay for his Barbican flat. The hypocrisy was sickening.
One thing missing from the argument was the social impact of ending mining. The question of how important to the fabric of the country, the communities, was the mining sector. There was no plan to fill the void left by it, so whole communities were cast in the bin.
Scargill & Thatcher were the two worst personalities to have on either side of the divide. Two egotists set head to head. All logic went down the tubes.
Scargill has shown his true colours since, on several occassions. A horrible man.
Thatcher's crime was to leave working class communities which depended on mining to rot instead of investing money in retraining and helping new businesses setup.
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37831034
For me these are the key paragraphs:
In her letter she said policing had changed sufficiently since Orgreave to mean an inquiry was not merited.
She also argued that any review would be hampered by the passage of time, that some of those involved had died and that - in terms of accountability - most officers whose conduct might be examined were no longer employed by the police.
She's right that policing today isn't what it was then so it won't lead to any meaningful changes in policing going forwards - which would be the main reason for an enquiry. The culture of South Yorkshire police in that era has already been exposed by the Hillsborough enquiry/inquest so an enquiry will not tell us anything we don't already know there. I doubt there would be any reasonable likelihood of any criminal convictions coming out of it either so holding an enquiry is just going to cost (tens of) millions of pounds of tax payers money that would be better spent elsewhere.
There were issues on both sides. As stated above, Scargill wanted to bring down the government. The intimidation that the NUM was involved in was completely wrong. The lack of democracy in the NUM was a major problem. On the other hand, South Yorkshire police were dreadful but we know that already from the Hillsborough enquiry. As also seen from Hillsborough, the establishment would back the police even when they were in the wrong. We know this already. While I am sure there was wrongdoing on both sides, an enquiry won't give us any useful new information.
I love JR proceedings. It really exposes politician's ignorance of the law they claim to uphold.
Still, she won't ever beat Grayling's record of 48 straight losses at JR.
https://soundcertified.com/speaker-ohms-calculator/
Back in the time.of the strike British deep coalmines were woefully inefficient. Even after they lost the strike, the NUM were vehemently against the introduction of modern methods of roof support practised in Australian deep mines and tried very hard to prevent modernisation. Those changes allowed the introduction of much more efficient longwall retreat working which would eventually lead to the final six or so pits becoming highly efficient before being beaten by geology.
Social wellbeing is complex and is about more than just UK PLC's balance sheet.
I am not a socialist ( I dont think it works at all), but I most certainly am not a Thatcherite capitialist. I do think that the state has some degree of responsibility for underpinning and securing society though. Part of that for me is providing certain basic provisions and utilities. There is a fine line (IMO) between subsidy and support of society. In the dase of manufacturing, I think more could have been done by way of goverment support. The reason I say this is I believe in the attitude that government can do things to protect the way our society works, and has a degree of duty to do that. THey are custodians of the country, operating on our behalf (they sometimes forget this).
Part of that custodian role is to protect, nurture even, our communities. If a community is reliant on a manufacturing industry, then I believe that the government has a duty to support that. For this reason, I feel that more could have been done to make British coal more competitive. With hindsight, too much was at stake to make it a mission to destroy the unions (and I don'tlike unions btw). The cost was too high and I don't think the UK has done well out of it really.
And you cannot blame Tory voters for the demise of the industry, the NUM had seen off one Conservative government (Heath) so the NUM had it coming, but were to stupid to realise that the fight was theirs to lose. Thatcher simply applied common sense economics to the situation. Did the coal industry serve the country or did the country serve the coal industry?