Thatcher Dead

Ian Rubbish's uncomplicated view of Mrs Thatcher, Pt 1

[video=youtube;R0dMzq_XLIM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0dMzq_XLIM[/video]

 

Ian Rubbish's uncomplicated view of Mrs Thatcher, Pt 2
[video=youtube;LsbFcouT9WQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsbFcouT9WQ[/video]

 

Really, you open up by making fun of an obvious typo. So I write several pages on an Ipad and your primary point is that I made a typo. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would have just removed one of the “nots” and it makes sense. But it was too difficult for you to handle, wasn’t it?

The fact that you don’t understand logic around the striker ballots, is relatively disturbing.

But I’ll try again, as these low turn out ballots are causing strikes in the current day and they just don’t make sense.

Before looking at the figures, let’s just remember that Scargill and his cronies said that Miners were fighting the battle of their lives to save the Coal Mines. It wasn’t anything short of the very survival of the coal industry that was at stake. That was how important this potential strike action would be.

In these circumstances, if was a miner and I was told in no uncertain terms just how important this ballot was, I would have crawled on my hands and knees from my hospital bed to vote. I would have double checked the date of the ballot. I would have organised cars and minibuses to pick up fellow members, I would have rang up contacted every miner I knew, to make sure that he voted. If I was on holiday in Tenerife I would have cancelled it, or done a postal vote, or something. It was that important.

This wasn’t a run of the mill vote over whether or not a toilet break counts as part of a tea break. It was DEADLY SERIOUS.

If there was no ballot, then the status quo of no striking would carry on. So Arthur says that my industries survival is at stake here, so we must do everything we can do to allow the status quo to continue.

This wasn’t something that has suddenly occurred, this has been going on for several years and every miner would have known what Arthur wanted.
So back to my example. You can multiply my figures by 1000 to make the figures more realistic, if you wish.

Ballot Result;

Total Members 10,
Votes for a strike 2,
Votes against a strike 3.

Are you with me so far?

So in this example, only 20% is sufficiently moved by Arthur’s arguments to actually vote for a strike. Even though this is an incredibly important vote.

Whereas 80% (10-2=8) were not sufficiently moved by Arthur’s persuasions to actually vote for a strike.

If a miner wasn’t persuaded by either argument, then he has no option but to not vote.
There will be those that may have a sniffle, or just can’t be arsed to go out in the rain.
There will be others that fall into the other spurious excuses for not voting.

But, they are all forming part of the 80%.

I have never said, and I am not saying now that all 80% are AGAINST a strike, but that despite all the persuading by Scargill, the threats to their jobs, industry and livelihood, etc close to 80% (I am allowing for those killed on the way to vote, as you will probably bring that excuse up next) were not convinced by Scargills arguments. How can you or anyone else argue that point???????

Looking at the Nottingham vote. They had 30,000 members. 22,000 voted against the strike and 5,000 voted to strike. Only 20% could be bothered to vote for the strike. So my example was not so stupid was it?

By the way, concerned at your lack of understanding of simple maths, I have run the above passed my 14 year old nephew and he understands it completely. Maybe if you have a 14 year old nephew, you could ask him to explain to you?

Clearly there was a democratic ballot and Scargill lost. There was no national ballot. The NUM leadership had no mandate whatsoever to call the strike official and they broke their own rules in doing so, and also broke the law. Yet, you believe that it is right to castigate miners in Nottingham that went to work and send 1000’s of pickets to the Notts pits, to use violence, intimidation and bullying. You also criticise the police for trying to protect those miners right to work.

How on earth can you justify your stance.

Low turnouts for strike ballots are regular occurrences. In the recent PCS union ballot, 61% of voters voted for a strike, yet there was only a turnout of 32%. So only 19.5% of the members voted to strike. It is ridiculous that a strike should be called under these circumstances.

Quickly, about the General Election, you say that an Election doesn’t need to be called and then the status quo would continue. For someone that pretends that you understand these things, you are talking nonsense. I thought any adult would know that elections had to be called every 5 years at the latest (with a minor change made last year). Back to school Clive of the Kremlin.

You say that if someone doesn’t vote then they are saying nothing. Well you clearly don’t understand human nature. Usually, it will be because they havn’t been persuaded by the arguments enough to make the effort. Also MP’s, for example, abstain from a vote as a positive tactic. In both cases they are giving a message that they havn't been persuaded enough.

I notice that you didn’t respond to my post #316. I know it was long but I responded to individual points you had made and I would have thought that you would have had the decency to respond in some way. Or couldn’t you find a typo?

 

u dirty commie bar stewards..

lefties here, lefties there
lefties can't afford a beer
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

 

Can't believe that someone throw eggs at the coffin during the rehursal ! WTF ?

 

Not seen it, wish I said I was surprised but I am not, will loot some more on Wednesday !

What will they get if caught?

 

get off scot free if they are a minor!

 

I thort their wos no mor minors cos maggy closed the pits?

 

imported minors - you get dem in da dover detention centres

 

Yes I understand the music was by two composers who were both committed socialists.

The BBC coverage I saw tried very hard to be even handed, but some of the crowd seemed a bit vague as to why they were there. A lot of tourists and provincial tories I think.

They interviewed one local councillor Maggie wannabe who was called Flick Drummond (I 5hit you not). It's a measure of the huge admiration that every one had for her, that the whole Royal Navy is flying its flags at half mast, she said.

Well yeah. Because they've been ordered to.

If that's the measure, it's looking a bit short so far.

 

The Venezuelan sistema is a real triumph. I've really liked what I've seen of them, whirling their instruments and chucking their jackets to the crowd etc.

I can't understand why they don't have that system everywhere - if they're really worried about youth crime and riots and disaffection.

With the amount they spend on youth justice, you'd think they could spare a few millions to kick off something similar.

There are many, many kids who even if they can afford an instrument, they can't pay for lessons worth 5hit. It's a real shame to see kids frustrated in pursuing culture for lack of money.

 

if everyone was a commie, everyone would be a bast.ard..

u dirty commie bast.ards..

59,700 of the dirty bas.ards booed us lil watford fans in Sofia's mixer - she has a very big mixer , only 300 of us WFC Spartans in Sofia's mixer and we outsung the commie feckers and knocked em out, they left sofia's mixer very timid and gay.

oooh its a corner..

 

Argentinian Naval Captain at a joint British/Argentinian memorial service.

"Britain was right to sink the Belgrano. We would have done the same. I was the gunnery officer on the Belgrano at the time of the sinking. Our Captain hated being treated as victims of a war crime. We were sailors, doing our job."

But maybe Thatcher haters know better?

 

I agree with what you say. But remember the Belgrano wasn't there on any sort of pleasure trip. It was there for military purposes. The sinking of that ship meant that the Argentinian Navy became too frightened to leave port, obviously preventing further sea battles and casualties.

The sad thing is that whenever there is a conflict such as the Falklands War, the human nature, the fog of war, the decisions that had to be made, quickly and without the luxury of considered opinion, means that mistakes, and controversial actions are taken. Such events will bring out the worst in people through behaviour that wouldn't have been contemplated in normal times.

The safest way to help avoid such incidents is for Nations to avoid force/invading someone else's Country. It was the Argentinian government that was to blame through their initial action, rather than the UK governments reactions in trying to free the Islanders whilst minimising the casualties in their armed forces.

When unlawful threats or actions are taken against a person, property or a Country, then the perpetrators start to run the risk that the defenders will not always act perfectly and may have to suffer the consequences.

In my opinion, it is similar concept as to when a burglar comes to harm when committing the crime.

 

What like Iraq or Afghanistan? When you consider Britain's long and bloody history of empire, colonies, piracy, conquests and so on, Brits are hardly in a position to lecture anyone on the morals of invading other people's countries.

Before the Falklands confict, weren't there some existing and quite well advanced UN negotiations over a joint soveriegnty deal with Argentina? Then we pulled the plug all of a sudden when there was some university report published which suggested there might be oil and other minerals in the area.

Again, I feel that action was something that made the situation more volatile and was a factor in provoking the Argentine invasion.

Even if they couldn't come up with some joint sovereignty deal, they could have fudged something. Called for an in depth report to be published in 5 years and then sent for review and then further discussions. Set up one or two committees. Fly some Argetine bigwigs over for the next set of talks, which are ongoing and making progress with all parties due to report back in 18 months when a further report and study can be commissioned. They could have made the 'process' last indefinitely.

It would have been a lot cheaper than the conflict. Didn't we effectively spend £1 million each on the Falkland islanders by the time it was all over?

 

I'm not lecturing anyone. I'm just giving my opinion. You really are hard work aren't you. Just because I give an opinion that Britain was right to get he Falklands back doesn't mean that I also believe that every British decision made over their entire history was right. Please be sensible.

It seems that you believe that Argentina was right to invade, or that Britain should have just left the Islanders to their fate once it had happened. It isn't too clear what your point is. If so, that's your opinion, but I'm surprised that a commie is on the side of a right wing military dictator!

 

You ask me to be sensible and then claim that I believe Argentina was right to invade and that the islanders should have been left to their fate. I've said nothing like that. Nothing remotely similar even.

Argentina was quite wrong to invade, but I can understand the reasons why they did. The government should have avoided the situation in the first place by being more aware of sentiments in Argentina at the time and the possibility of invasion. They shouldn't have cut off all negotiations.

After the invasion, we should have passed a UN General Assembley and Security Council resolution and had them moved out that way.

If they refused to go, then finally and reluctantly take military action - but from a joint UN force.

 

How can you provoke someone into invading your country? Is that like a burglar is provoked into breaking into a house, because the owner wouldn't let him in through the front door?

Your continual defence of murderers, terrorists and lawbreakers, is tedious.

Britain went to the UN and the resolution confirmed their right to defend the Falklands. Your commie mates abstained, which probably explains your attitude.

 

Argentina has Maggie to thank for them becoming a democracy after the collapse of the military Junta following the Malvinas humiliation, now you don't hear the lefties crediting her for that!

 

It was a war that they started and we finished, war is horrible obviously but when it happens you need to kick ar$e. So what if the Belgrano was sailing away, was a legitimate target.