Subject: RE: carol thatcher death threats
From:
Teribus
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 10:43 AM
"his remarks have been answered and he chooses not to respond with anything other than his rightist twaddle, as opposed to answering points made. He continues along on his own twisted constructs. I don't believe that his points haven't been addressed." - Big Mick
Now as far as me not answering points put to me goes Big Mick let's take a run through them:
• "Don't know why I'm surprised to find the pretentiously and self-importantly pseudonymed Terribus (is 'War Cry' still published by The Salvation Army?) with his ultra-right proboscis still firmly jammed up the rear end of the establishment!"
As this is purely a personal attack in which Jim Carroll cannot even get my name right I think it can be ignored.
I had asked Jim Carroll the following question - "Well then Jim-Lad still want to tell me about law-abiding "miners". His reply:
• "I knew Bryn as a fine singer many years ago; I do not agree with his attitude here, nor do I believe it to be either helpful or representative of the striking miners actions – do you? By the way, I understood Bryn to be a member of the legal profession – I certainly never knew he was a miner."
This point I believe I answered, while the majority of striking miners did protest peacefully and legally, certain sections did not and it was their actions that the police reacted to – Note that word reacted. Also in the "picket" lines were supporters of the militant left, they were not miners, they had nothing whatsoever to do with the dispute, the sole purpose of their presence was to instigate and provoke trouble – they are the ones I referred to as being "scum masquerading as decent people".
With regard to Bryn Pugh, the information I post in this thread is paraphrased from what the man himself has written in threads on this forum, so he can have no objection to it being repeated here.
• "Interesting to see that the actions of the miners are all being compared to 9-11, and Irish terrorist activities; (surely you could have fitted the somewhat incontinent Israeli army in there somewhere) – do you really have as low an opinion of British workers as that?"
Here is Jim Carroll once again trying to put words into my mouth – old trick Jim tried by many on this forum, it hasn't worked in the past and it won't work now. Address yourself to what I actually say, don't expect me to respond to things that I have not said. I would also advise you to go back and read the particular post you incorrectly gleaned that "comparison" from, you will find after actually reading it that I was responding to a point made by Big Mick about the "the means justifying the ends", and the hypocritical way it is applied by the Left.
I made the following comment - "Taking a look at the instances of violence on the picket lines it was the norm that it started with objects (stones, bricks, etc) being thrown at the police." To which Jim Carroll jumps in with:
• "Yes, I see you do have such a low opinion – utter bollocks – the vast majority of pickets were peaceful ones, the handful of violent ones got the publicity – prove your statement."
I begin to doubt whether Jim can actually read, or whether he just reacts and goes off at half-cock. Judge for yourself Big Mick:
- Where in what I said do I state that the vast majority of picket situations were violent? – truth is I didn't.
- Where in what I posted do I state that I have a low opinion of British Workers? – truth is I don't voice anything remotely like an opinion on British Workers.
To my observation that - "The miners and their "supporters" broke the law". I received in response:
• "As distinct from the Thatcher Government who manipulated the law and used the police force as a private army in order to break the strike,."
And you have the gall to complain about right-wing twaddle. A number points unpalatable as they well may be:
- The "Thatcher Government" was the elected government of the United Kingdom.
- Manipulated the law? Guest Lox stated that every game must have rules. In this case the rule of Law. If you or anybody else is going to state that actions taken by the government of the day, or by the police force were illegal, I would suggest you come up with some proof to back your statements up, please forgive me if I am not inclined just to take your word for it. Oh and the following is perfectly correct - "the police acted in accordance with their duty to uphold the laws of the land".
- explain to us all what rules relate to legal industrial action in the UK Jim. What you can and what you cannot do, then tell us how many times those boundaries were trampled during the miners strike.
• the provocation of miners on strike pay by the police by waving money at them;
If true this would provoke the miners how?? How could this harm them?? The miners or their "supporters" however could always retaliate by sticking hat pins dipped in shit into the police officers who so aggressively wave cash at them couldn't they Big Mick. The only miners who got strike pay were those who actually turned up on the picket lines – true??
• the Orgreave mounted baton charges (still have the press cutting of the woman about to have her head split in two by a mounted guardian of the law);
Glad you mentioned Orgreave:
"Initially the strike played out like most others, and the strikers played football for a while. But as more numbers arrived on both sides, tensions began to rise. There was some stone-throwing from the miners' side which persuaded the commander of the police presence, Assistant Chief Constable Anthony Clement, to deploy a cordon of long-shielded police in front of his standard officers - a fairly standard practice in such encounters. The first casualty was PC Akers, who was hit in the face by a brick at about 8am, and taken to hospital."
The press cutting you so cherish, the photographer must have been exceptionally lucky to get it: "The NUM was represented by 5,000 to 6,000 pickets from across the UK. The police deployed between 4,000 and 8,000 officers, and were deployed from 10 counties. Of these, a small number had been trained in new riot tactics following the Toxteth and Brixton riots, while most had little or no experience in dealing with such events. There were between 40 and 50 mounted police and 58 police dogs. There were no women officers and only a handful of female picketers."
But then that's the trouble with still photography, you don't get what happened immediately before of after the shutter operates.
Rather odd that at the end of the day in this modern day "Peterloo Massacre" you had 93 arrests, 51 miners injured and 72 policemen injured. Tell me Jim is it legal to construct barricades across roads in the UK. Is it legal to break into business premises and steal material to construct your barricade? Who was the first person injured that day Jim??
• "and then there was a (leftie, no doubt) BBC documentary on the events);"
No doubt leftie BBC coverage – Google up BBC biased reporting and take a look at the number of inquiries and investigations that have been conducted into our "national" broadcasting corporation that is supposed to provide balanced and impartial reporting of events throughout Britain and around the world – take note of how many of those investigations have resulted in findings of the BBC showing a clear left-wing bias in its reporting.
• "the near declaration of martial law by the police authorities closing off pit towns in order to prevent lawful demonstrations in favour of the strike – all well verified in print and on film."
Is there such a thing as a "near declaration of martial law"?? I don't think so – You either have a state of martial law or you don't and that has to be declared by the Government of the day and they most certainly did not do that – If you doubt that consult Hansard.
To the statement - "Overall, the government generally had more support than the miners". I got:
• Oh dear, another referendum I missed – when was that one? Considering that the information on the events on the strike were controlled and manipulated by a largely hostile media, it's hardly surprising which way the ballot finally went – or is it a case of 'left-wing' bias and right wing 'information'?; as far I'm concerned 'Not So' Sleepy Rosie has the right of it.
Hands up all those who were asked to take part in the poll – I wasn't!"
I quoted results of a number of Gallup Polls taken throughout the course of the strike and I clearly stated that it was a Poll so where does Jim's "referendum" come from – Go back and check Big Mick. This is just another example of Jim Carroll putting words into my mouth then taking me to task for it. The clown even trips himself up in the last sentence quoted above when he does get it right and asks who were asked to take part in the poll.
"The men who threw the concrete and killed the taxi driver were punished"
• I missed a bit when I wrote that – it should read "The 'TWO' men...."
Again, are you going to judge the actions of all the miners on the actions of these men – who were punished for their crime?
As far as I am aware I have not condemned all miners on the actions of these men. IIRC Captain Birdseye posted about remembering miners killed by policemen – There were none by the way. I posted to mention those killed by miners deserved to be remembered too.
• "As for the "scab driver who crushed the picket to death", what should he have been punished for??"
Maybe nothing, but as the event took place in the presence of police who were directing the vehicles, at the very least there should have been an enquiry into the incident which included the behaviour of the police at the scene – there wasn't – or maybe you can tell us otherwise."
It is standard procedure for any RTA involving a fatality that a full investigation is carried out into the nature and circumstances of the death, such an investigation was carried out into the death of Joe Green at Ferrybridge Power Station on 15th June 1984, Joe Green was buried seven days later on 22nd June, 1984.
It is standard procedure for any fatal accident at the workplace to be fully investigated by the Health & Safety Executive and by the police.
It is law in England and Wales that any unnatural death is subject to a Coroner's Inquest into the circumstances and nature of that death.
While those present picketing the Power Station at Ferrybridge on the 15th June 1984 could demonstrate peacefully, they could not obstruct the road and they could not infringe the human rights of those lawfully going about their business, in this case drivers delivering fuel to the Power Station.
• "The picket who died should not have been where the driver could have run over him."
Describes every road accident that ever happened; it also sums up Thatcherism (and gangsterism) perfectly – "do as you're told and you won't get hurt".
Rather over-dramatic comparisons there don't you think? Mind you it would appear that if you have to be restrained from getting in the way of a 32 tonne truck fully laden then the "do as you're told and you won't get hurt" advice would appear to be warranted.
• "scum masquerading as decent people..... "
There goes that contempt for the British working people again – tsk - tsk, you really should make an effort to hide it."
Let's be quite clear on this. That remark, "scum masquerading as decent people.." was aimed at and applies to those such as Bryn Pugh who prior to setting out to lend his "support" on a picket line, took a hat pin dipped it in excrement and carried it with him to the picket line/demonstration where the intended use of the hat pin was to stick it into a police officer or his horse. Here again we have another example of Jim Carroll putting words into my mouth and attributing to me opinions that I have most certainly not stated.
• My main difference with Trolleybus here is that he is prepared (quite rightly) to condemn the killing of a taxi driver, but justify that of a picket – I condone neither. Though I do concede that it could be argued that those who threw the block and the scab driver were acting (albeit from different points of view) out of frustration in order to defend their way of life and feed their families, while the police were 'just obeying orders' – pretty much as the SS claimed after the war!
Ah another funny version of my Mudcat name, Jim-lad, you taking counselling for that?? Oh by the bye where do I "justify" the death of Joe Green?? Maybe you can point that out to me Big Mick? I do not believe that I have done so. Rightly, in the case of the TWO miners who killed the taxi driver, they were charged and jailed for manslaughter, as a result of a coroners inquest into the death of Mr. Wilkie where it was established that he had been killed unlawfully by person or persons unknown. The subsequent police investigation resulted in the arrest of the TWO men. In the case of Joe Green his death was found on investigation to have been accidental, therefore there were no charges to answer and no-one was arrested or convicted.
The TWO men Jim-lad went out to deliberately cause injury, they did not set out from their homes that morning with peaceful intent. The driver of the truck delivering fuel to Ferrybridge Power Station on the 15th June, 1984 was going about his lawful business, he had no intent whatsoever to cause harm to anyone or anything. If you are unable to differentiate between the two, then you have no business questioning anyone's "moral compass". The police presence at the Power Station in Ferrybridge that day was to control the picket and ensure that the rights of people to pursue their lawful employment without threat or intimidation were protected. Your attempt to present both cases as being similar is ludicrous.
• For 'Democratic Mineworkers Union' read 'Maggie's Miners' – most major industrial action produces its counter-action of scabs – wonder what became of them after we lost our mining industry – I seem to remember some sort of financial scandal...... nah, couldn't be!!!!
The Democratic Union of Mineworkers came into being Jim-Lad because Arthur Scargill refused point blank to hold a national ballot of mineworkers on support for strike action. His reason for not putting it to the members of the Union was because he knew damn well that they wouldn't have gone for it.
• "Tell us all why British Industry should pay £250/ton for coal when they could get it from elsewhere for £8/ton........."
Totally agree with Jack on the ethical question of buying cheap.
There may well be ethical questions involved in placing contracts for supply of raw materials, but to take it to the extent of paying 30 times what you have to smacks of lunatic irresponsibility.
• "The choice for British industry was quite stark and simple you either pay £250 per ton for British coal or you pay £8 per ton for Australian coal."
At the time of the miners strike one of the chief suppliers of coal was Poland (as far as I know Poland is still a big supplier) where wages and working conditions were, and by all reports, still are - appalling.
Let's see Jim-lad, the period of the strike was 1984-1985 correct?? I would agree that during that period conditions in Poland were appalling, due mainly to their Soviet backed Communist Government and during the specific period mentioned wasn't Poland under martial law?? Now how could that possibly happen in "the workers paradise"??
• "Tell us all why the British Taxpayer had to subsidise British Steel to the tune of millions per day."
Why indeed, when we could purchase steel (as Britain does, along with many other goods) from democratic China where the workers live in luxury and work under idyllic conditions?"
What you mean that the people who live and work in the "Democratic People's Republic of China" are not living in "the worker's paradise"?? But I am gratified that here again you condemn the Communist system of government and its ruthless exploitation of their own people.
• "Who knows, maybe some of the beneficiaries of this 'arrangement' are the Tibetans! The only reason that Britain can purchase more cheaply from these countries is that by and large the workers there are treated like shit and by supporting such behaviour the British Governments become part of it."
And what would all those Chinese workers do if the rest of the world did not buy from them?? I would also venture to point out the obvious that Britain is not the only country to trade with "the workers paradise", nor can it influence in any real terms what happens within China – that will have to be done by the people of China if, as and when they get the opportunity to do so – don't hold your breath, as the "communist elite" who rule China do not intend letting go the reins of power any time in the near future.
• "And then of course there's the economic wisdom of shutting down your home industries and relying on imports – the results of which we are about to find out with a vengeance via the current recession."
So it's economic wisdom to run home industries at a thundering great loss, in order that the workers can produce stuff that nobody wants at prices nobody can afford. Jobs for life eh Jim-lad? Psst Jim, the UK has always relied on imports, and the world owes nobody a living, nothing new there.
• "Being an atheist, my one regret is that 'practicing Christian' Margaret Thatcher, who will die shortly (I believe she has requested a state funeral – it seems that Terabyte is not the only one with an over-inflated view of his own importance), like her mass-murderer Chilean friend, will not receive her just reward in heaven for the misery and suffering she caused the vast majority of the people of these islands - pity. I guess I'll have to make do with the beautiful memory of her leaving Downing Street in tears (like a spoilt child after having her favourite toy confiscated), when she was given the bums rush by her fellow turds."
Good heavens another irrelevant left-wing rant coupled up with another personal attack, keep it up Jim-lad, its good for a laugh, but it could be said that you're in danger of becoming a bitter man. By the bye the "misery and suffering" she caused the "majority of the people of these islands" – Left-Wing Myth. Shall we compare unemployment figures from 1979 to 1991 to what had gone on in the years before?? How about inflation?? Tell us again Jim how often did Maggie have to go to the IMF for a bail-out loan for the UK??
The rest of your post meaningless, emotive left-wing crap.
|
sj
