Thatcher Dead

It would depend on whether they were rich or poor.

 

Yes because that's everybody's life regardless of their political persuasion, unless they're a scrounger.

 

Pint? I only drink fine wine and whisky, I am a capitalist you see. I look like Mr Monopoly.

 

Whereas my hands are so calloused and crippled through all the years spent under the capitalist yoke, I can't even hold a pint glass anymore.

 

CotK, I'm really not sure if you're trolling or not, you sound totally radicalised.

You truly believe that the correct way to treat someone who doesn't agree with your opinion is to shun them and that it's fine (and funny) to bully them mentally for the rest of their life? It's beyond belief.

I took part in strikes back in the 80s and worked with people who crossed the picket lines for many reasons. They got very little trouble from sensible, reasonable colleagues - Why should someone who doesn't agree with 'the cause' sacrifice their childrens welfare just because people like you (if you are serious) want them to?

I'm not talking about friendship, everybody is entitled to choose who they want to be friends with, but the behaviour you are championing and delighting in is reprehensible.

On the other hand, if you are trolling; excellent work :sign15:

 

It's not a case of simply not agreeing with my opinion though is it?

We're talking about scabbing. Taking a deliberate action to help break a strike and make everyone else's sacrifice worthless and a waste of time.

I don't see how it's mental bullying not to associate with someone anymore after they've scabbed. You yourself say it's fine to shun them.

I really struggle to understand why some seem to think that we should somehow be compelled to be fine and friendly with someone who's just finished completely betraying you. You'd be crazy to do that in any aspect of life.

It's as though you trusted me with your house keys while you were on holiday and instead of looking after them I went and sold them for £100 in the local pub and then complained when you weren't friendly with me anymore afterwards and that I'd 'needed the money'.

You'd consider me unreliable, untrustworthy and traitorous and you wouldn't want anything to do with me anymore - and quite rightly so!

 

You are saying that if someone crosses a picket line for any reason (including that they don't agree with the reasons for the strike) they should be shunned, so yes, you absolutely are saying exactly that.

To give a realistic example; You have a colleague who doesn't agree with the reasons for the strike. He is in debt and behind with his mortgage payments and is in danger of losing his house. Are you are saying that that person should go out on strike and risk losing his home purely because you believe in the cause?

Not only that, but you believe that mental persecution of that person for the rest of his life is acceptable? Really?

How about if that man was in a union striking to force one of it's officials to be re-instated and who actually deserved to get sacked? It's not beyond the realms of possibility. One of my friends is a member of the RMT and has a thing or two to say about some of the officials 'representing' him. Are the union always right?

 

How anyone with Clive's views, can criticise anyone else for being "uncaring " is beyond any credibility and logic. It is appalling.

...and that is why they come up with so few logical arguments against Thatcher. It is all she "destroyed", "dismantled", "hated the poor","loved the rich", etc, etc. it's all bluster, dogma and bitterness for what she did to stop the communist Unions having their way.

But rarely substance, true facts, or evidence.

I have said this before but the more low-life's that come out against Thatcher, the better, as it increases her standing no end. I find it quite heartening.

 

Scargill knew he didn't have a national majority in favour of a strike in 1984, so he broke the law and the Union constitution rules and called the strike anyway. There was no legal basis or any vote backed the strike, whatsoever.

Of the Nottinghamshire miners, out of 30,000 members only 5,000 voted to strike, whilst 22,000 voted not to strike and 3,000 didn't feel strongly enough to vote at all. Yet, those that went in to work (83%) were deemed "scabs", by the likes of Clive and his communist cronies.

So Scargill sent 000's of pickets from all over the Country to use violence and intimidation against the Nottingham miners when they went to work.

Yet Clive incredibly believes he was in the right and Thatcher, who wanted to defend the right to work, was in the wrong. there is not an ounce of logic in his argument.

 

Because I'm a human being with an independent mind, not a dumb animal doing what I'm told, and life is too short to spend it filled with hate.

 

It's not "taking a deliberate action to help break a strike", it's not changing the daily routine. You can't call not striking a deliberate slur against those that do in the same way that not donating money to the WWF is some way means that you are for the random killing of fluffy animals. What you're describing is a militant union rather than a useful one.

Lets turn it on it's head and also avoid the nasty "scab" term.
The Union betrayed this worker, who was happy doing his job, earning money and supporting his family. The union tried to intimidate and bully him into risking his job and losing money so that the people be they a majority or not, who were unhappy with their lot could earn a bit more.

Let us focus on being unhappy with their lot as well. If someone is unhappy with their pay and conditions, they should complain to their boss. If nothing improves, they should go and get another job. Wrecking other people's lives and businesses is 100% selfish, nothing else. It's just a different spin on the Director of a company awarding themselves a 100% bonus when the workers get nothing. Selfish and greedy, simply because they have the power to do it.

If the company is breaking the law or safety regulations and proper legal channels have not worked, then, and only then is a strike justified.

 

To be fair to Clive, if one of my friends went on strike I would excommunicate them (not that I know any blue collar, union type people).

 

ZZTop - I don't get this at all and can only assume some sort of typo. If not, I hope you don't do the accounts at your company! In your example, there's a clear 60% - 40% majority not to strike and presumably that would be the outcome.

3 people (60% of those voting) felt strongly enough to vote against a strike. 2 voted for a strike.

You can't make any assumption about the 5 who didn't vote.

They may have not felt strongly enough either way to vote.

They might have decided they'd go along with what everyone else decided.

They may have been passionately for or against a strike, but couldn't vote for some reason (illness, something else vital happening at the time of the vote?).

They might have been got the date of the vote wrong and missed it.

Who knows why they didn't vote - you can only speculate. What you can't assume, as you're doing at the moment, is that they're automatically against a strike.

If you're going to make assumptions about what non-voters think, then I would repeat that the Tories gained less than 20% of the votes of the eligible electorate at the last election. By your reasoning, a massive 80%+ majority were against them and they have no mandate whatsoever for what they're doing. However, they did win the greatest percentage of votes that were actually cast and are running the country on that basis.

 

It is slightly different in the general election though. As a vote to strike is to do something against the status quo. In the election you are voting in a new government, not voting if you want to change the current government.

Also the election involves many parties, not 2, so it is much different to a yes/no.

 

No typo Clive and you know it. In my example, 80% did not feel strongly enough not to vote for a strike. Now, I know that sickness levels are far higher in the public sector, but 50% of the workforce? Even for you that is stretching credibility, or that they missed the day, or any other spurious or daft reasons you've come up with. It was a 90% turn out in Nottinghamshire, are you saying that miners elsewhere are in better health or more intelligent, or got a better memory?

Also lm_wfc is right. Someone not voting in a strike ballot, is in effect saying that they are happy with the status quo.

In a General Election, there is no status quo, it is a standing start, completely different. Those 80% in your example weren't AGAINST the Conservatives, but they didn't feel strongly enough to vote for them. Even more than 80% didn't feel strongly enough to vote for labour.

Clive, you are wriggling, you don't fool me, and I don't really think you are fooling yourself.

 

I think they should play it. Censorship is what socialists do. Personally, I think Thatcher would be appalled if it was censored. If the estimated 70,000 people download it, that is a tiny 0.1% of the population. Pathetic.

 

Banned Macartney for political reasons during Thatcher's reign ..precedent set

 

Just back from a short break and can't be bothered to read through all the privious posts.

Never has one polititian ever divided a country or courted such opinion. The one ting we can say is she was a leader, more so than Major, Blair, Brown or Cameron will ever be.

For as much as she got right, and she did get a fair bit right, she balanced it out by getting so so so much wrong.

One thought though ..... 23 years, 5 general elections, 4 Prime Ministers later and none of them have had the courage or conviction that she had and none of them have ever turned round and undone any any of the bad she did by reversing any thing she put in place. Just shows how gutless politics have become

 

This...

 

Wings, the band the Beatles could've been.

 

Oh dear. Do you ever engage your brain with the outside world?

The right has always censored merrily. It's just termed in the 'national interest' or 'economically sensitive', or 'indecent', or 'blasphemous'. The American Right? I don't suppose they would ban anything would they?

And you don't have to appear to censor if the world is ordered the way you want it, because you just control the outputs. Blacklist who you wish, starve and isolate Cuba. Fill the paper full of right wing commentary, ignore other voices, so one dimensional ****wits can lap it up.

The left certainly censors, on the basis normally of what the left considers offence, racism etc. But it's a mixed bag - there is a libertarian left (as there is a libertarian right) who would not ban anything at all because that would empower the state.

I don't think the compromise on this is too bad. She was a public figure and is about to have a state funeral. She would have taken it on the chin. Can't pretend it isn't happening.

But it's not nice to call women witches and it's a very annoying tune. It doesn't deserve a full play.

 

Playing the 'witch is dead' is disrespectful. However, as I intend to leave an enormous steaming George on Tony Blair's grave in about 30 years I am hardly in a position to talk.....

 

if black sheep and black board are not politically correct, surely blacklist, should be blacklisted too? what say the commie bar sterwards now?

 

I think that they should play it as if it were a normal hit. Make the idiots who've wasted 70p on such a statement listen to it all the time. It's a terrible ditty.

 

The sad thing, I reckon you actually believe it. The communists in the USSR only banned free newspapers to censor the likes of racism? Tass was the Governmenet mouthpiece and was the only news agency allowed. Are you really this naive?

 

And ze Nazis controlled press and what could be read as well for a number of years! This discussion has run its course now and is becoming far to exaggerated and extreme ...

 

Wtf are you on about now? Of course state communism is horrendously censorious.

You don't know the slightest thing about politics do you?

 

It's all very simple
Worker - supports Maggie
Shirker - Doesn't support Maggie

 

I don't understand your politics. Nor do I understand your English. You give your opinion then you disagree with it later.

Listen, you and I obviously have different opinions. We aren't' going to change them. So instead of coming out with all this socialist dogma to demonstate them, why not give us some facts instead. At least they are likely to be understandable to normal people.

 

Politics is really very simple to understand:
Socialists are lazy feckers and want someone else to pay for their high quality life.
Right wingers work hard but enjoy killing fluffy animals and have no dress sense.
Liberals just talk a lot and are either gay or transexuals.
Religious fundamentalists are fundamentally stupid.
Monarchists own little dogs and like collecting cups, saucers and plates.
Libertarians never wash, eat a lot of lentils and have funny colour poo.

 

I'm sorry, but the double negative makes that sentence unintelligible. I can't make head nor tail of what you're on about. I tried taking the double negative out, since they cancel each other, and ended up with "In my example, 80% did feel strongly enough to vote for a strike", but that's not true either. I'm honestly mystified about the point you're trying to make.

Look, you'd agree that in your example 3 + 2 = 5 of the total electorate of 10 felt strongly enough, one way or the other, that they took part and voted, yes? So that's half or 50% of the electorate that felt strongly, either for or against. We're agreed?

So what on earth are you wittering on about the strength of feelings of 80% of the electorate for?

Half (50%) felt strongly and half (50%) didn't. Mathematically we may conclude nothing about the strength of feelings of a group made up of 4/5 (80%) of the electorate.

Do you get it now?

You leap from subject to subject like a demented mountain goat. I'll try to answer all these as best I can. Yes, I believe you're right that sickness levels are higher in the public sector. We'll leave the debate about the commonsense of going into work when you're coughing and sneezing everywhere and infecting all your workmates for another day. However, surely you'd agree that it would be a positively foolish thing to do if you were working on a hospital ward or crowded classroom, no? A different question for you sat in isolated majesterial splendour in your manager's office of course.

50% of the workforce? Oh, I see, we've left the real world and we're back to the imagined example again. 50% of them didn't vote. You're correct. I suggested (and surely anyone with the slightest experience of the world would agree) that this would most typically be for a variety of reasons. These might include illness and/or physical inabilty to attend the ballot, some unforeseen event coming up which prevented voting, forgetting to vote, not having received a ballot paper, 101 other reasons and no doubt, a good proportion who simply couldn't be bothered. What's the point you're trying to make with this?

Right what's next. Oh, "spurious and daft reasons". Well I think I've covered that already. Take any ballot and there will be any number of reasons why the non-voters did not vote. If you believe that you can conclude that that all those who didn't vote in say, the general election, didn't do so because they had chosen not to then you need to investigate a little further.

OK and finally, we've leaped off to some ballot of miners in Nottinghamshire, which you say had a 90% turnout. Not sure which ballot, but I'll take your word for it. 90% seems reasonable. It's within the bounds of what I'd call a normal turnout. It's not 101% or 3% or anything else that would raise eyebrows, so what's your point. Are they in better health or have a better memory than other miners? Umm, no. I'd doubt that very much. Why would it be relevant?

Oh, hang on a minute. I see what you're doing. You're comparing a 90% turnout of Nottinghamshire miners in the real world to a 50% turnout in your invented example.

Awwww, bless! No, look love - one is in what we call the REAL WORLD, you know what we see when we look out of the window, and the other one is IMAGINARY. Yes, dear, imaginary. In your head dear. Your imagination. {taps temple with forefinger}

Dear oh feckin' dear, this is hard work.

No, people not voting in any ballot anywhere are not saying anything. With the notable exception of where a turnout is affected by an organised boycott of the poll or where none of the candidates or options is acceptable, the feelings of those who have not voted can and scientifically must remain only the subject of speculation. This board has several hundred members. I'll assume that every one of them who doesn't post below refuting my views on this, agrees with me 100%. You see? Not fair is it? You can't assume someone's sentiments through their not doing something.

Right. Deep breath. Here we go again. "In a general election there is no status quo". Yes, there is. It's called the sitting government. If the election were not to take place, the sitting government, that is the status quo, would continue. Unless you're talking about the pop group, in which case you're still wrong. I think those long haired bars****s they turned out for the Tories a few back. Moaning about their tax or something. Did a joint statement with Phil Collins.

The general election is a 'standing start'. Umm well yes. If you mean everyone starts with zero votes. Yes, that's right. That's true (or certainly should be!) in every ballot or poll. Don't get your point. Again.

And finally. No, you're quite right. 80% weren't against the Conservatives. Absolutely right. We can only say that around 65% of those who actually voted were against the Conservatives, whilst 35% were in favour. Similarly, some 69% were against Labour, with only around 31% in favour. You've picked up on my point nicely there. Of those who didn't vote, we can't say whether they were against the conservatives or indeed whether they were against Labour. We know nothing of their intentions or sentiments and cannot categorise them.

Excellent progress. Well done.

I am wriggling.

I'm wriggling with embarrasment at your failure to get to grips with Key Stage 2 level maths. No wonder British industry is in such a mess if you're typical of our captains of industry.

 

It did make me laugh in the barber this morning when a feller said that it was Thatchers fault for the number of imigrants coming in to the country. When the barber asked how could it be her fault, the reply was because she "allowed" them to split up the communist states !

for me that just about sum's it up really

 

Was he shaving his head?

 

[video=youtube;8NpaT5LDFgM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NpaT5LDFgM[/video]