Baroness Thatcher has died.
- Thread starter psd99
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,408
Your first flimsy points as expected have no substance, seriously IF you HAVE read all the way through I suggest you try again, anyway for the laggardly among us........
LINK , again can I say this has already been posted, just sayin....indicative of your diligence imho, you have reached my cba threshold already, wasted some of my precious time. You will note, I am correct in this and you are wrong y?, you stridently claimed you had read the thread , egg, face rearrange.
Yes I have read the thread. Where exactly has your link been posted?
I thought when I clicked the above link that it did not look familiar. So I went back through every page again just to make sure. I couldn't find it. Would you be so kind as to put a link to the post that contains your above link earlier in this thread for me please, just in case I have missed it?
I would hate to think you were trying to deceive me when it may just be I have missed it
You will, notice however, that Biohazard posted this ( LINK ) over on page 36, in post 1070 to be precise.
Oh and I never contested that the secret services were used, only that you personally had not provided evidence to support it, so it made your stance contradictory.
How very mature.
I was mistaken and did the manly thing and apologised. You should try the same
NOT definitive at all, can I say (because you did it so I`m allowed), it was certainly heavily implied
Whether you think it was implied or not does not matter. His position was clear for most people to start with and in case it wasn't he has clarified it. Your point is still moot.
But as I said, you had not provided any evidence, and even with the evidence we do have the extent at which they were used is still unknown. Even if Dame Stella says ""We in MI5," she says, "limited our investigations to the activities of those who were using the strike for subversive purposes." I'm not entirely sure I believe her, but that is just me.
So now I am a liar because I can't prove I have had a conversation with someone? Oh dear.
No, I know full well it happened. But your 'story' that your family involved is not proof that they were - IE it does not give your post or your claims any credibility. That is the point I was making, and you missed it.
No, I think you have failed. Telling me I am wrong and have failed but not being able to say/show why indicates that you are on the back foot, hence your style of reply. You are clutching at straws.
oooooooooo now YOU have had several people tell you stuff, well I do declare........oh hang on you demanded proof from me, can i please have the same?, and not just rubbish proof that x said y, proper reasonable proof that these seemingly stupid (in my view) claims hold water. Just as an asides though, its not metering as you say, I`ll let you find out the correct word you meant to use
I never demanded anything from you. I was highlighting your hypocrisy. You demanded proof of things but offered none yourself. You have since partly rectified that by supposedly 're-posting' a link ('re-posted' is the operative word at this stage as I am still not convinced of the truth of your claim).
It is an example of how close knit the mining community were - 700 miners walking out when the life sentences of two were handed down. Also that they had a dark side. Again you seem to have missed the point.
Your response makes no sense. Try again.
I will assume from that that you are trying to contest that the coal mines were unprofitable. I would advise you to go and research some figures. Even the best performing mines were barely breaking even and all mines relied upon heavy subsidy. Even during the early 80's the government were putting in £2 Million per day. That's PER DAY.
What a lot of effort to try to prove a really tenuous point. I might add you have no evidence to back up your story, y'know like you demanded of me?
I have demanded nothing of you. Yes because I don't record / write down every conversation I have I have no 'evidence'. But that does not mean I am lying now does it? Or are you calling me a liar for a 2nd time?
The onus is on the story teller (Or the person making a statement), correct? Your statement was "no" so you need to prove that one to me. I'm looking forward to it, considering the veiled meanings in your previous posts.
Because you are pro-miner, or at least that is what you have inferred in your previous replies with comments such as "us pro miner lot". I am asking you about elements of the cause which you say you support (ed?). I note you have not answered them and instead pick on my spelling. Very telling.
Seems like he had mates who were miners, and miners drank in the pub he used. Remembering (not sure why I am having to repeat this again), that he was talking about Stoke on Trent only, and his own personal experiences. By the way, would you say your 'tone' in your recent posts was a good example?
He retracted nothing. He amended. How do you know they didn't? What just because he can't provide a link to a website he is lying? That's a very dubious stance, especially as others from his area and elsewhere have concurred. I note that nobody has concurred your story about your family. So the four people who have concurred with him trump your zero. Because of that am I to assume it is false until proven otherwise? Afterall, your own advice is that I shouldn't be stupid enough to believe someones story just on the face of it.
That is it? That is your response to evidence of miners being greedy (a point which you got in a tizz about earlier by the way)? The more of your posts I read, the more I suspect you are just trolling. Or playing devils advocate. Please, do tell me why I am biased, and in which direction. We can compare notes.
I think you forgot to answer this part as it just a paste of my own post.
No, I was not wrong. I still think you are disrespectful and discourteous. With regard to the secret service, I had already expressed my belief they were being used. I will reiterate that my point was your contradictory stance concerning evidence.
Ludicrous? What that bonus schemes were likely being used? That the mines I mentioned were doing well, and were known to be more affluent as well as receiving huge investment? That a national average does not cater for or represent local anomalies? Yes how absurd of me!
He gave his personal experience. I don't think that miners in his area being on a much higher wage than other industries is at all dubious.
Yes please do go ahead and prove it if you feel the need. But then you could provide me the numbers and addresses of anyone couldn't you? How do I know they are your family? How do I know they were there at the time? It does not prove your story does it?
This has been pretty much my entire point all along. Proving the things you are asking via an online forum is monumentally difficult, and you will find that out should you try and prove your own story. Because I can sit here all day long and say "I don't believe you that's not good enough evidence". I can call someone in your family, but how do I know who they are? They could be anyone! It proves nothing.
However, I happen to have no reason to disbelieve you (or Dimple). I am sure your family were involved and I am sure it was very traumatic, but by your own admission I am stupid for doing so (remember in one of your previous posts you said you were not stupid enough to believe people on face value? Alluding to your stance being anyone who does is). Well maybe I am, but I would rather show people around me courtesy and the benefit of the doubt than be outright antagonistic and disrespectful because their experiences don't mirror my own.
Furthermore, I notice you have not actually answered many of the questions I put to you. I think that is because you know you don't have a case for your behaviour towards Dimple, or your rather desultory reply to me.
Cheers
Buff
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2008
- Posts
- 2,382
- Location
- York
Rod Stewart has been asked to sing at Margaret Thatchers funeral, but 'wake up maggie' might not be to everyone's liking
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Isn't it called Maggie May? Shame she didn't die a month later.
Yes, that's the point. She dismissed him and his cause as terrorism.
Cameroon had to apologise for her views in 2006.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
Maybe someone can enlighten me on why the mines and steel mills were under control of the government to begin with?
Any good books on pre-world wars UK with respect to ownership of industry and economics, preferably not from a bias perspective?
Any good books on pre-world wars UK with respect to ownership of industry and economics, preferably not from a bias perspective?
No, but once upon a time the world wasn't such a greedy capitalist nasty place and governments (at their own peril) protected key industries.....
Hard to believe isnt it... We still do the same, our taxes still pay Railtrack Shed loads of money to run the railway... it really worked...
This should give you a starter no Nationalisation:
http://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Business_economics/Nationalisation.html
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 1,468
Got anything to post which hasn't got an obvious left wing bias?
Yes I have read the thread. Where exactly has your link been posted?
you are correct, it wasn't MY link, I remembered it had been posted that Stella Rimmington had admitted etc, so I did a cursory Google, remember you did that and could find no evidence?, it may well have been my good friend Biohazard who posted it I cant recall, check it though. Anyway, now that it is FACT you can now forget this one eh.
Very poor, when you and 'Dimple' have provided no evidence.
How very immature
I will readily do that when appropriate.
No it wasn't, seriously he made sweeping derogatory statements (can I remind you here it was YOU who made it ok to accept implied stuff in this exchange). My family and pretty much all of my friends were miners in those days and they were salt of the earth good people. I reserve the right to be a tad miffed when someone erroneously decries the aforementioned in these terms, and anyway how in hell can he know ALL miners in Stoke were these horrible people who needed sorting, at best it is a stupid statement.
That is just plain daft, come on, you are arguing like a woman now.
No, because it was a stupid irrelevant tale with no real worth or substance.
Yep you can choose to disbelieve, that is correct. HOWEVER, unlike your champion I CAN prove these things.
I disagree, I have provided you with facts, you tell stories about a man in Sunderland, jeez.
Not partly at all, I have shown I don't spout rubbish, you have embarked on an argument with a very weak case here. I`m sure in 'real life' as it were you are a decent guy as I am, lets not fall out, I`m happy that we have both presented our case/s to the GD Cognoscenti.
Totally and utterly irrelevant, actually its stupid, are you really saying this event shows beyond doubt that miners 'had a dark side'. If you give that even a second's thought you can see that any large group could be viewed in this way. Anyway please desist from spurious nonsense, you are wasting both our precious time lol and I've got visitors coming round.
I disagree.
That is fact is it?, seriously I was there at the time, there was a massive amount of spin and mistruth, do not believe this stuff, imho no one really knew. For me the value was much much more than mere profit/loss, it is apparent now to this day.
No I`m not, I`m saying some of your tales are irrelevant.
You asked a question, I gave you an answer, you are being spectacularly difficult and you and everyone reading this knows it.
I highlighted your repeated spelling errors of one of the main protagonists of the strike, in life I have noticed people who do this and find they make other errors too, I find it odd that you consistently spell Scargill (a very noticeable name) wrong.
If I have genuinely offended anyone by my tone, including you then I apologise.
Jeez, he did, he used the word retract, go look.
You seem to want to support this guy Dimple's case for no good reason, AND you feel fine about the state using MI5 etc against its own people, yes that's what it was btw.
Yes you are correct, I was at work and in a hurry, sorry.
But but, you say you believe they were used but don't believe Stella Rimington stating they were?
AGAIN, the onus of proof is on the poster, and it IS ludicrous, smacks of the rubbish spouted in the first post about greedy miners, closed estates etc.
I see what you did there, but that's NOT what he said is it?
Come visit, I can show you round, provide real documented evidence. Your Dimple cannot, FACT.
It's not really, its monumentally obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense and a reasonable disposition.
Yes I see what you are doing, you want to be perceived as reasonable and courteous, I can provide facts to back up my statements, as has been shown, you and Dimple cannot. There are very good reasons for this
If I failed to answer your questions it is either because they were ridiculous or I just missed them, sorry.
Cheers
I would hate to think you were trying to deceive me when it may just be I have missed it
you are correct, it wasn't MY link, I remembered it had been posted that Stella Rimmington had admitted etc, so I did a cursory Google, remember you did that and could find no evidence?, it may well have been my good friend Biohazard who posted it I cant recall, check it though. Anyway, now that it is FACT you can now forget this one eh.
Very poor, when you and 'Dimple' have provided no evidence.
How very immature
I was mistaken and did the manly thing and apologised. You should try the same
I will readily do that when appropriate.
No it wasn't, seriously he made sweeping derogatory statements (can I remind you here it was YOU who made it ok to accept implied stuff in this exchange). My family and pretty much all of my friends were miners in those days and they were salt of the earth good people. I reserve the right to be a tad miffed when someone erroneously decries the aforementioned in these terms, and anyway how in hell can he know ALL miners in Stoke were these horrible people who needed sorting, at best it is a stupid statement.
That is just plain daft, come on, you are arguing like a woman now.
So now I am a liar because I can't prove I have had a conversation with someone? Oh dear.
No, because it was a stupid irrelevant tale with no real worth or substance.
Yep you can choose to disbelieve, that is correct. HOWEVER, unlike your champion I CAN prove these things.
I disagree, I have provided you with facts, you tell stories about a man in Sunderland, jeez.
Not partly at all, I have shown I don't spout rubbish, you have embarked on an argument with a very weak case here. I`m sure in 'real life' as it were you are a decent guy as I am, lets not fall out, I`m happy that we have both presented our case/s to the GD Cognoscenti.
Totally and utterly irrelevant, actually its stupid, are you really saying this event shows beyond doubt that miners 'had a dark side'. If you give that even a second's thought you can see that any large group could be viewed in this way. Anyway please desist from spurious nonsense, you are wasting both our precious time lol and I've got visitors coming round.
I disagree.
That is fact is it?, seriously I was there at the time, there was a massive amount of spin and mistruth, do not believe this stuff, imho no one really knew. For me the value was much much more than mere profit/loss, it is apparent now to this day.
No I`m not, I`m saying some of your tales are irrelevant.
You asked a question, I gave you an answer, you are being spectacularly difficult and you and everyone reading this knows it.
I highlighted your repeated spelling errors of one of the main protagonists of the strike, in life I have noticed people who do this and find they make other errors too, I find it odd that you consistently spell Scargill (a very noticeable name) wrong.
If I have genuinely offended anyone by my tone, including you then I apologise.
Jeez, he did, he used the word retract, go look.
You seem to want to support this guy Dimple's case for no good reason, AND you feel fine about the state using MI5 etc against its own people, yes that's what it was btw.
Yes you are correct, I was at work and in a hurry, sorry.
But but, you say you believe they were used but don't believe Stella Rimington stating they were?
Ludicrous? What that bonus schemes were likely being used? That the mines I mentioned were doing well, and were known to be more affluent as well as receiving huge investment? That a national average does not cater for or represent local anomalies? Yes how absurd of me!
AGAIN, the onus of proof is on the poster, and it IS ludicrous, smacks of the rubbish spouted in the first post about greedy miners, closed estates etc.
I see what you did there, but that's NOT what he said is it?
Come visit, I can show you round, provide real documented evidence. Your Dimple cannot, FACT.
It's not really, its monumentally obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense and a reasonable disposition.
Yes I see what you are doing, you want to be perceived as reasonable and courteous, I can provide facts to back up my statements, as has been shown, you and Dimple cannot. There are very good reasons for this
If I failed to answer your questions it is either because they were ridiculous or I just missed them, sorry.
Cheers
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
You are obviously someone who think the Government exists to do everything for you. They didn't 'protect' key industries (well they did but we still do today be them private or public), what you mean is they bankrolled certain industries even when they were clearly failing and continued to do so indefinitely.
I also like your use of greedy. A person who studies hard, does well and earns a lot of money is 'greedy' but people who want the government to bankroll their industry so they can keep their wages isn't?
Everyone is greedy, the miners were no less greedy than anyone else. Just because there was a group of them doesn't diminish their greed. Expecting the rest of the country to pay for you industry to continue when it is clear it can't compete and losing the country money hand over foot is not selfless in the slightest.
Last edited:
MY behaviour?, how dare he sully the reputation of good men who did more for this country imho than this woman who is getting this adulation. Men who worked hard and contributed to the wealth of this country and didn't have the luxury of dying in the Ritz at an old age. Who didn't have privilege or luxury. It was NOT clear in his post that he was talking exclusively about only miners from Stoke or whatever, on the contrary he came across as very strident and any reasonable person would NOT infer he was talking exclusively about a few select miners.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,395
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
1) I implied from my opening post my experiences in Stoke On Trent and used the WE word - why are you being such a dick about it? Go back and read the posts.
There is absolutely know way on Earth I would know what was happening outside of my area so don't pretend I claimed I did.
2) I have had the £60 clarified by two ex mining Apprentices.
All Apprenticeships (in Stoke On Trent) were basically 8am to 4:30pm jobs but the mining Apprentices were allowed to do 'normal' work for their overtime and weekends which other Apprentices weren't allowed to do so this is why they were 'millionaires' and the rest of us weren't.
This post says it all and was my opening post so try and talk your way out of that -
Last edited:
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
I could never be accused of being a member of the Dimple Fan Club but the anomisty towards his posts in this thread seem quite unwarranted. To me it was clear it was a story about where he lived and worked - Stoke on Trent - and nobody has been able to credibly disprove what he said.
Uh huh, so you didn't have a point then, otherwise you would have clarified what on earth you are on about instead of tossing another insult around.
Can't stand vague/trolling posters, they waste everyone's time.
SHe hated the poor so much that she gave them the right to buy their own council homes with massive discount off market value.
British Manufacturing Industry was doing a good job of destroying itself. Productivity and efficiency was terrible, if you didn't agree with a change or something that was put forward in the workplace your union boss would take you all out.
British Mining Industry was bloated and required massive subsidy from tax payers to keep it afloat with the exception of a few pits that turned a profit.
Greenpeace hatred is Meh..... most people today think ecomentalists are full of rubbish, and its been proven subsequently with the great global warning scam where they had to falsify the data to support their views.
War is hell, so she gave an order to blow up an enemy ship outside of the disputed waters, what happens if they left that ship and it went on to take out British naval ships and caused massive losses ? I am sure you'd be saying she was crap for not ordering it to be blown up............... at least she had the balls to protect this countries interests, which the current coalition aren't doing a great job of and the previous government didn't fair to well either
Where I lived at the time thatcher was in power wasn't a great place, but when people got the right to actually buy their homes it became better because then they actually started looking after the neighbour hood as the owned a slice of it.
Some things she did were not right and somethings were done way to quickly. SOme of the public services certainly needed overhauling and she could have done a much more tactful job rather than privatise it all so quickly.
YOu have to remember the country was going **** up when she came in to power. In fact point for point we were in a worse place then than Cyprus and greece are today. Inflation was peaking above 20% and in their first term they brought it down by 8%.
While she certainly did some god awful things she also did a certain amount of good things that put britain back on track. I can't even begin to imagine what things would be like today if the unions were still swinging as much lead around as they were in the 70's and early 80's.
There is nothing wrong with unions and they should exist so the workforce has a voice and representation, but they pretty much selaed their own fates through the constant militancy.
- Status