You would do well to read this thread properly, it is documented fact that the secret services were involved, do you concede this?
I have read the thread all the way through thanks. Have you?
Documented fact? Please show me.
I personally feel they probably were involved, as the actions of the NUM were both illegal and counter productive, costing the mining industry and the country an awful lot of money (
LINK ). Their actions did create an issue for national security as it was akin to holding the country to ransom and very militant (one reason why the programme of closures was postponed was so that the NCB could stock pile coal to shield the country from striking). However, to what extent they were actually involved is a mystery, and hard evidence in the online public domain appears to be somewhat lacking. Or do you have evidence to the contrary?
, or will we laugh at you floundering?, again read this thread properly, I also never said Army were used.
Floundering? I think not. With regard to comments regarding the Army, that was my mistake and I apologise. I had mistaken another posters comments for yours.
No he didnt say in his initial post he was speaking of Stoke only,but anyway....
His initial post being this one? (note it has not been edited)
Thatcher devastated Stoke On Trent, we were a mining and steel city (as well as Pottery) but something needed doing with the greedy Miners. I was working in a factory on about £75/week but my Miner mates were getting 'millionaires' wages and wanted more more more and would keep going on strike to get it. I know it sounds like jealousy but mining jobs were 'Family' jobs and you could only get in if you had family already there. When you're working class you should all be on the same steps of the ladder and it was quite hard to share your pub with greedy Miners. Something had to happen and she was the person to do it.
I have highlighted the parts which I think show this is a personal experience post, and one being specific to Stoke. By the way, he may not have put a title in big letters saying "THIS POST IS ABOUT STOKE ONLY" but people who read it will understand it is. In case they don't, he goes on to further qualify his position in a later post. So really, your point is moot.
whilst you paint a rather soft and fuzzy picture of old guys telling you stories (yeah really lol) I for one am not stupid enough to take these tales as actual fact, yes there may be carmaraderie etc but as a concept worth alluding to in this context?
But you will happily believe the secret services were used without being able to present evidence to support it?
I work in a job where I have met hundreds of people, from all over the country and all walks of life. I have met some really interesting folks, and yes I have heard many many stories about all kinds of things. Its one of the few things I love about my job. But of course I cannot present you with evidence to that effect, so I must be lying. Correct?
I suppose I could apply the same stance to the 'story' you told about your family being involved in a mining accident. If you had told me that face to face, why would I have any reason to believe you? Afterall, you cant really call an overview of the event on Wikipedia evidence. Conversely, why would you have any reason to lie? You will most likely state how true your story is and how you have no reason to lie. True? Does that mindset not also apply to the things others say? Or does it only apply when it serves your cause?
So what do you accept as fact? Please provide details. Making blanket statements about things being "well documented" seem a little vague. Documented where? By whom? Having done some Googling this morning I cannot find this well documented evidence of which you speak, which is odd seeing as it is purportedly so well recorded. I can find plenty of information where things are suspected, or inferred, or alluded to or believed though. I find it interesting that you link to the book "The Enemy Within". Surely the contents are tantamount to stories? Hearsay? The kind of thing you have derided? Have you actually even read that book and know its contents? What makes the authors stories any more credible than those of the people I have met in my life? Or are your searches merely picking out the few reader comments made below and you feel it backs your argument?
As for the concept of miners being suspicious of outsiders in their community, I have had several people tell me this was the case. I have also been told the communities ran themselves, metering out support and punishment as it saw fit. Indeed, the stories available online certainly show a very dark side to the mining world, or are you saying that Scargille's Hit Men were a myth?
Tell that to the family of David Wilkie. His killers did five years. Not bad for killing someone eh? Strikes me as odd that killing someone is not the intent when dropping a concrete block on their car from atop a bridge, and due to miners walking out on the news of the life sentences, I suspect the reduction in sentences was politically motivated - but I cannot prove it so it surely can't be true. It does seem an odd turn for the justice system to reduce their sentences from life to just 8 (serving 5) years though, especially using such ambiguous terminology for their reasoning. I find it hard to believe that David's death was not a "natural consequence" of having a concrete block dropped on his car. Furthermore, it comes as an odd confession from Kim Howells that he destroyed everything at the local NUM offices when he heard about the killing. Guilty conscience maybe?
It may have been different in other parts of the country though. But just because something is not the norm, or the same elsewhere, does it mean that it becomes false?
,I mean seriously.
You have picked holes in nothing of mine, I said it hasnt been forgotten that Nottinghamshire miners capitulated , that is true, why would it not be?, dont claim my posts "imply" etc.
Quite right, you do a fine job of picking apart your own stance. What is true? That they capitulated or that it hasn't been forgotten that they did so? Or both? Please be more clear, and also more specific on who has not forgotten, and who you refer to when you say "it has not been forgotten". Probably best if you make yourself more clear in future. I wouldn't wan to upset you further by taking your ambiguous writing to imply something that you do not intend.
As for the Nottinghamshire miners, I can't help feeling there is some underlying envy because they had a productive mine and were receiving investment, whereas other areas were not. Perhaps maybe the area you were involved with was suffering yet they were on a gravy train? Indeed the crux of this dispute appears to be that people were not happy that the government wanted to close unprofitable, heavily subsidised mines. Looking through the Hansard website, it becomes clear that the subsidy was not sustainable, especially seeing as our European counterparts were offering double or more subsidy for their own mines. We simply could not compete.
In fact I was working in Sunderland a couple of months ago and got talking to a guy and the mining strike came up. He went practically red in the face and used expletives to describe the Nottingham lot. For him at least, there is a lot of bad blood for both the Nottingham miners and the Tories in general. Having perused some other forums from the north, it does strike me that this viewpoint is likely to be prevalent. But lacking hard evidence to support that claim, it is to be naturally disbelieved (according to your stance).
As you appear to be from Scotland, I will ask: do you have a beef with the Nottingham miners because they capitulated?
As a pro miner, can you explain why there was never a national ballot of NUM members? From my readings it would appear that the NUM knew they would not get support for a national strike because of the autonomy granted to coal districts to manage their own affairs. Some areas were doing very well for themselves (IE almost breaking even!). Nottinghamshire being one such area. It appears a national ballot would have divided the union, and Scargille couldn't have that now could he? Do you concede this is the reason the ballot was never cast, and do you also concede that the strike actions of the NUM were illegal?
you then ask who I think I am, eh? really?, bit aggressive tbh,
No more so than your proclamations that someone is wrong, calling their personal experiences garbage, or your brow-beating style of debate. Asking who do you think you are is quite apt considering your complete lack of courtesy and respect for other peoples stories and opinions. Unless, of course it is a 'story' that backs up your argument, then it is presented as fact. I get a distinct whiff of hypocrisy.
anyway you also ask what qualifies me to assess what the poster claimed. Firstly, what qualifies YOU to assess what I say?,
You have not answered my question.
In response to yours, nothing, other than a bit of research to try and qualify these facts you keep telling the forum you have presented. Facts which you keep saying you have brought to the table and yet none of your posts appear to contain any? Here's some information for you - the offer on table for the miners was a 25% increase in average pay over all other industries, but it was refused. That is a huge increase in pay. You could argue that asking for even more was indeed a little 'greedy'.
anyway I feel I am allowed to doubt these spurious claims, of which none have been verified btw, imho they are local tales and hoo ha,
You still have not answered my question.
Yes, by all means doubt. Maybe ask questions or present evidence to the contrary. But to outright call someones personal experience garbage is a little under handed, wouldn't you say? Likewise your flippant "yeah really lol" comment with regard to my own experiences further shows you lack courtesy. But then no doubt you will be on here saying I should not imply you mean something from such remarks. My counter to that will be to advise you, again, to write more clearly in future, and be less ambiguous.
As for the local 'hoo haa' being verified, what would you accept as verification? You seem happy to believe in the secret services being used in an underhanded manner, even though there is no definitive hard evidence that such is the case. So to then say you need Dimple's story verified in order to believe it is surely a contradiction in your stance? Can you explain why you are contradicting yourself, and what your reasoning is for doing so?
one in particular being mining apprentices (not trades within the mines btw) earned £60 a week in 1974
LINK, I`m calling wrong on this, and if this is indeed wrong as is overwhelmingly likely we must question the reliability of the poster.
Fair comment, it does seem to go against the grain of the
average national earnings for that time. But then, Stoke, Derby and Nottingham were three areas doing pretty well from mining so it could be construed that they would pay a higher rate, especially if performance bonuses were in use as has been alluded to. It is not such a giant leap of faith is it?
However, it still does not mean what Dimple said was not true as average earnings do not show area specific earnings - ones which would not be reflected in the national average.
That is not to say what he said was 100% true, but you have hardly tabled unequivocal evidence to refute it.
How is Dimple to prove his point in order to satisfy you? Find a miner from the mid 70's and hope he still has a pay slip? But then you know the difficulty full well, hence why you are baiting him. Far harder for him to prove his experiences than it is for you to refute them based on national averages, would you agree?
Cheers
Buff
