Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
You can't close the thread, if you do all the other threads will go on strike 
Baroness Thatcher has died.
- Thread starter psd99
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 10,938
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,408
Like I said, I never contested the secret services were used, but I did take exception to your stance which, on the one hand accepted a point without (at the time you posted) any evidence being presented by you or anyone else. But on the other hand you refused to accept Dimples story without evidence. So my argument was purely about your stance, never about contesting whether the secret services were used or not. I even said I thought they were used at the time I posted.
You are quite right, it was post 573 by do ron ron, which came after your initial assertions regarding the secret services being used.
Ah yes, but we were not the ones bleating on about lack of evidence from other posters now were we?
As has been mentioned (not just by me), you tend to refute everything you don't agree with, but never actually offer up any evidence of your own to support that refutation. Yes, yes, please do go on about how the burden of proof is on the person making the claim etc etc...... Like I have said all along it is monumentally difficult to obtain the proof you are asking for online, but again, I think you know that so it makes refuting things really easy does it not? I do notice, that other than a national average wage figure, you have not offered any evidence as to what miners were earning in your area, or anywhere else in fact. Others have tried, but without actual copies of the wage slips of miners, surely all such evidence is anecdotal, and by your own stance is to be disbelieved with prejudice? I should note, that is a door that swings both ways.
How very immature
It was sarcasm, and an apt response to someone saying "blah blah blah" to someones point of view (and another example of your lack of respect for other posters point of view). A point of view, I should add, which was in agreement with your own! Another indication that your stance in this debate is a little mixed up. You go on the offensive even when I am agreeing with you!
I think it is appropriate. Having read your recent posts and comments towards other users, along with your behaviour towards me and Dimple you have shown yourself to be discourteous and disrespectful. You also seem incapable of accepting any differing point of view without becoming aggressive and obtuse. Recent posts have shown I am not alone in my opinions, or that your behaviour towards myself and Dimple is not isolated to myself and Dimple.
Ah, so now we get to the honesty of your outbursts. You are offended by someone elses point of view. Fair enough, I can understand your position. However, it is one of subjectivity, and not necessarily reflective of the bigger picture. At no point have you accepted that is the case, and your overall stance is that miners were not greedy full stop (or very few were). How do you know? You can no more answer for all miners than Dimple can. True the miners round your area may not have been greedy, but maybe the ones around by Dimple were?
I'm afraid the ballot votes that were taken over pay in the early part of the 80's do seem to indicate that 40%-50% of miners were in favour of yet more wage increases. Although the ballots were defeated it does show a general feeling among approx half of miners that they should be entitled to more money. Even though at the time they were earning well in excess of every other industry. The book I linked to has some very interesting facts and figures. Unfortunately I have checked the link today and the pages in preview are completely different to what they were yesterday
Having done a little reading it appears that Google preview is severely limited and also displays different content to different users based on how many free pages they have viewed already, and I will not be using it again. That said, the book is available in hard copy should you wish to get one LINK. Ah, the personal attack (a 2nd showing of your disrespect, and that is only in this one post). Again, strangely over a point in which I agree with you: that the secret services were used. My point was that I am not sure I believe the rather low key involvement that Dame Stella alludes to. Not sure why that means I am arguing like a woman? I stand by my point though, that at the time you had not provided any evidence so again your stance appeared to be one of contradiction (by pure logic of your stated principles).
A 3rd example of your disrespect. Their story's are stupid and irrelevant? So not only are you attempting to discredit me and be particularly rude, you are now calling the stories and life experiences of complete strangers stupid and irrelevant. The worth and relevance was that the tales I am lucky enough to be told offer an insight into peoples lives and can often be far more accurate than the slanted media reports that you can get via google. Especially when you are, like I am, working all over the country and get told similar stories by different people about the same subject. It may not be the black and white conclusive evidence that you strive for, but it is good enough for me. I cant prove it, but I feel their stories are true. Afterall, there is no pretense, no agenda. Its just an easy going conversation so why would they lie? You seem to take the stance that everyone is out to lie to you, would you agree?
Can you? On an online forum? I would call your bluff but at this stage I am losing the will to even try and have reasoned debate.
What facts have you provided exactly? Other than a link to an Mi5 story, what other facts have you brought to the table in support of your stance? None that I can see, and I would like to point out I am not the only one. Again, why would the man in Sunderland have any reason to lie to me? His response, to me, was an honest one. He was a salt of the earth kind of guy, the very same as I am sure you and your family are. Would you lie to me if we were having a chat about any given subject? I don't think you would. Why, then, do you seem to take the stance that I and anyone I have spoken to would? Seems a rather aggressive and cynical stance to take, would you agree?
My argument is based on your behaviour. It always has been. Having read through the conversations you have had with other forum members, as well as re-reading your responses to me I feel my case is very strong. You simply cannot entertain a different point of view, and when you come across one you resort to insults and an aggressive style of posting in an attempt to discredit someone, whilst at the same time offering very little in the way of facts to support your own stance.
It was an example, merely that. Along with the anecdotal evidence thus far presented (which comes from different people but essentially highlights the same point), as well as other information in the public domain, I would have thought that you would have seen that miners did indeed have a dark side.
For instance, do some googling and see how they treated 'scabs'. They forced their illegal ballot on none striking coal areas with flying pickets and intimidation. That was Sargill's plan. He knew he would likely lose a national ballot so he intended to use executive powers in order to call official strikes in each coal area one by one. The problem is, not everyone wanted a strike, so he resorted to using flying pickets and those who did not capitulate to the NUM's desires were 'persuaded' to do otherwise. There is a lot of evidence online should you do some searching, and in the face of such evidence I'm not sure you can really argue against this point any further (especially when anecdotal evidence supports the documented evidence online).
I dont think you know what you are disagreeing to. Otherwise you would clearly see your response made no sense. Did you go back and read?
I said:
To which you replied:
I stand by my point, your answer made no sense, and I suspect you made it in error because you didn't go back and read the point I made. If you wish to respond please feel free.
Yes it is fact. Even when presented with documented facts you still refute them. You simply cannot accept anything other than your own opinions can you? Do some Googling.
As to your presence 'there' where do you mean exactly? Were you in the inner workings of the NCB having information about productivity or finances? Or any other establishment that dealt with the finances and profitability of the mine? Can you produce any kind of evidence to support your claims? Yes, the government and the NCB knew, that's why they announced pit closures for mines that were costing more than they were producing. It is documented fact (from several sources) that British industry was in steep decline, mining being one of the worst cases because of the excessive subsidy it received. Even well performing mines were barely breaking even. I really don't know how you can refute such information and still think your stance is credible.
Why are they irrelevant? They have all shown peoples feelings about the subject of mining and Thatcher, which is pertinent to the discussion in this topic. Please explain how they are irrelevant.
Yes, you gave me an answer. My point was can you prove it? I personally don't think you need to as it is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I accept that, as rightly I should. However, you don't seem to extend that courtesy to others. That was the point I was making, and another example of your hypocritical stance.
I never professed to be a good speller. In my opinion your responses have been merely a diversion because you cannot answer the questions put to you in a way that supports your argument.
I will reiterate those questions now, if you would like to answer them, I would appreciate it. Please also give details of how the incorrect spelling of a name means that I am mistaken:
Also, you never clarified your stance on whether miners could be legitimately seen as greedy due to their actions:
What are your thoughts, bearing in mind that they were already earning a good wage (more than every other industry as far as the reported facts are concerned)?
Do people have a credible cause to see the miners as greedy?
I should point out here that my own thoughts are that yes some were greedy (seemingly around 40-50% in respect to previous ballots). However, it is my view that the NUM manipulated the miners to its own ends and did them a disservice. I also don't understand how the NUM could justify national strikes when pay and conditions were decided at the local level by individual mining areas. A blanket increase in pay would have still meant there were regional disparities between the earnings of individual mining areas and therefore the pay envy between higher and lower paid miners would still exist. It could also be argued that it was the miners in lower paid areas pushing for the wages of their higher earning counterparts that were voting yes in strike ballots. I would also argue a case could be made for wage envy between miners, and the split ballots in the early part of the 80's were part of the bitter internal divisions within the mining industry. (I have actually seen this kind of view expressed in another forum, but as you loathe anecdotal evidence I wont bother to present it).
Fair enough, apology accepted.
Yes he used the word retracted, but he actually went on to clarify his point and actually, whilst it may have not been 100% accurate originally it still paints a picture of a closed shop where you needed someone on the inside to get you a job:
Although this is anecdotal, it is also a point made by others, so I have no reason to disbelieve it.
Yes because part of MI5's brief is to run counter subversion at home or within the British Empire.
Seeing as the NUM were striking illegally, and based on their own actions to bring down the government in the 70's I would say the government were well within their right to use MI5 to monitor the strike ring leaders (It was also doing this in the 70's, and it has since been admitted that television actor Ricky Tomlinson was under surveillance for his roles in industrial action in the 70's).
Are you implying that the NUM should not have been subject to counter subversion? Seeing as their thinly veiled intent was to control (maybe subjugate) the democratically elected ruling power (IE the State) I would be interested to hear your justification that MI5's actions were anything other than legitimate.
No problem. Would you care to respond to the points I made when you have more time?
No, I believe they were used but I don't believe that they were used to the extent that Dame Stella alludes. For clarity, I suspect they were used more than she lets on. I thought that was clear in my post. Sorry if it wasn't.
Indeed, but again you have not tabled evidence to refute it, only your opinion that you don't believe it. Two opinions are at play, both without supporting evidence so therefore they are both equally valid. However, I would say that the evidence that miners were paid well over the norm, and the large amount of anecdotal evidence coming out of the woodwork suggests that some people's opinions about 'greedy' miners and inflated wages are edging ahead in the credibility race.
I will reiterate that you have bought no evidence, anecdotal or otherwise to prove your own refutations.
It's meaning was evident in his post, and he went on to further clarify his position. Your point is still moot. Furthermore the other forum members who have commented on the subject said they thought it was clear in their opinions as well. I think you need to let this one go, as you are just digging yourself into a hole.
No I asked if you could prove your story on an online forum. I doubt you can, not without monumental effort. I am sure Dimple could prove his claims should you wish to visit him.
So you are implying those who do not agree with you are senseless and unreasonable? Sounds like another veiled insult. Or are you going to try and tell me it isn't?
I stand by my point, that providing evidence to prove anecdotal claims is extremely difficult in an online forum because generally presented evidence relies upon available information in the online public domain. However, that does not mean that al anecdotal evidence is invalid or false. I ask again - using such limited resources can you prove your story of your family involvement in the previously mentioned mining disaster? I think the answer will be no.
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
Where are they? Your repeated assertions that you have provided facts is getting a little tired now. I, and it seems others too, have noticed your claims are hollow. Where are these other facts which you allude to in the above comments? Please present them to further your argument. I am always interested in further learning on a subject.
I am reasonable and courteous. Or at least I try my best to be. Read my entire post history, and form your own opinions. On that subject I am definitely at the mercy of my peers.
Another insult. Why are they ridiculous? I feel they are all pertinent, but they are testing your stance. Is the actual truth not that you think they are ridiculous, but that you can't actually answer them whilst still maintaining your stance, as such you resort to diversion tactics and insults?
Not clear to you maybe. But several others have commented that it was perfectly clear to them. Your stance seems to be that because they do not agree with you that they are unreasonable. In fact you have repeated such sentiments several times in this topic. Can you clarify if that is your stance please?
Anyway, there is no danger in me falling out with you because I can accept other peoples views, even if I do not agree with them. However it would appear from your participation in this thread that you cannot. Would you say that is a fair assessment of you?
To add further clarity, my debate with you has always been about your behaviour, and your contradictions in stance. I never actually said I agreed with everything Dimple has said, only that I have no reason not to believe him, so I offer my respect for his opinion and experiences. Afterall, I cannot refute it so for all I know it could be true. I think it is insulting to label someones experiences and opinion as ridiculous, or imply they are unreasonable because their stated experiences differ to the norm, or from your own.
For further clarity, from my own research into the subject, I do not think miners in general would be on the kind of wages mentioned (three figures so far £300 / £500 / £800). I could perhaps entertain the £300 figure for some areas given that bonus schemes and overtime were in use. Indeed, compared to all other industries they would appear to be 'millionaires' wages. However, it is clear miners were earning more (substantially so in some areas) than every other industry. Furthermore it is clear that government investment and subsidy was massively higher in mining than any other industry.
I don't think a case can be argued that mines were merely mis-managed and could have been profitable because the circumstances at the time with regard to export prices and European competition precluded a profitable business model without yet further heavy subsidy. It was an unsustainable approach to throw yet more money into mining. Money, I might add, that was being wasted on unprofitable mines just to keep people in a job (its harsh, but true). In effect, tax payers were keeping some miners in jobs via tax contributions that were disseminated amongst miners via subsidy. Of course, the miners paid tax as well, but the whole nation was suffering the tax implications of heavy government subsidy, not just miners. In the face of reduced profitability due to high cost of production versus low export values mining was never going to be anything other than a drain on the economy and the tax payer. Any responsible business person would identify that and take action to reduce dead money.
Even now, the coal mining industry in this country cannot operate with any level of profits ( LINK ) & LINK so maybe it is just time to accept that coal mining as an industry is not financially viable and was always doomed to fail? Indeed the projected direction of coal mining pointed to it's eventual collapse (along with other heavy industry). Partly because of the nature of the industry and the global economy, but also because the unions had a repressive strangle hold in general, and put workers jobs above the good of the industry and the nation as a whole.
Whilst it is admirable to want people in work, when it is at odds with reality and what is realistic, it becomes toxic.
Anyway, I think we have all laboured our respective points, and I for one have had enough of typing!
newbiejim, I respect that your opinions differ to mine, but I will have to agree to disagree. I am also not a fan of your style of debate, or what I see as your general derision towards those not in agreement with you. However I accept it is your prerogative. I have no intent to breed animosity, or to get into a slanging match with you (or anyone else).
As Castiel has said, I don't think further input will add any more to the discussion so for those reasons I will refrain.
Have a good weekend
Cheers
Buff
I heard that 'spin' on QT last night, it's amazing how political types can twist things. The lyrics stand alone with no mention of east and west.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 11,108
DAYYYYUUUUMMMMMM!
Well reasoned and measured post, my man.
But really... whoa. Time on your hands today!
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,408
Can I be first to say tl;dr ?
Bloody hell, that's effort right there BuffetSlayer !!
DAYYYYUUUUMMMMMM!
Well reasoned and measured post, my man.
But really... whoa. Time on your hands today!
I can only take part of the credit, newbiejim wrote half of it, I just used quotes
Yeah, I had a little bit of time spare, it is true
I like to try and make an effort
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,408
Crikey, I though I could go on, it was a good reasoned read though......not much going on today then Buffetslayer? You know there will be a retort.....
Yeah fairly quiet day it is true, hence why I had taken till now to reply. I wanted to do our discussion justice.
newbiejim has every right to retort but I will refrain from further input on the debate between me and him as it is unhelpful to the wider discussion. As such I respectfully offer him 'the last word'.
I believe everyone else can form their own opinions based on the posts so far.
By the way, what does PTLDR mean?
(I'm not net speak literate!)Yeah fairly quiet day it is true, hence why I had taken till now to reply. I wanted to do our discussion justice.
newbiejim has every right to retort but I will refrain from further input on the debate between me and him as it is unhelpful to the wider discussion. As such I respectfully offer him 'the last word'.
I believe everyone else can form their own opinions based on the posts so far.
I am of much the same opinion.
By the way, what does PTLDR mean?
I have no idea...I'm probably too old.
Indeed, it's embarrassing when you see such pathetic attempts at spin.
It was written in the 30's & the lyrics by a socialist (who's family was from Russia) - it isn't pro or anti thatcher, it's simply a song from a children's film.
The only link being a witch being dead (with a number of people linking Thatcher to being a witch) - hardly complicated.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 9,258
- Location
- United Kingdom
Epic post there. Now that took a while to scroll down on my mobile.
By the way, what does PTLDR mean?
Too long didn't read. Not sure what the P is, post?
Yeah, we should have a thread just based on miners wages in the 1970's/1980's with multiquoting a prerequisite.
Somethings to ponder in this thread.
In 1980 we did not have the interweb social media.and a 24 hour news and analysis. Television was pretty much dead after midnight. We played cards and drank a bit for amusement.
Politics was much more confined to the actors be they left or right. many people were not particularly involved although voting was considered important at General elections.
News was not so analytical with news editors and political editors on every broadcast, it was just reported factually.
People were less radicalised politically than they are today. Except for a few vocal minorities. Many were not bothered much with westminster politics, local issues were more important.
Somethings to ponder in this thread.
In 1980 we did not have the interweb social media.and a 24 hour news and analysis. Television was pretty much dead after midnight. We played cards and drank a bit for amusement.
Politics was much more confined to the actors be they left or right. many people were not particularly involved although voting was considered important at General elections.
News was not so analytical with news editors and political editors on every broadcast, it was just reported factually.
People were less radicalised politically than they are today. Except for a few vocal minorities. Many were not bothered much with westminster politics, local issues were more important.
- Status