Aye the UDM did them proud .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-17443724
While ever you don't deny that you are not one of these types then you will always be open to being accused of being one.Just say I have no links with any extreme right wing groups and abhor anything remotely to do with these evil groups.ITs simple really. Why would you not want to clear this up once and for all unless...at least be honest. If you want to be a supporter of such organisations that is up to you, We might not like it but we know where you stand when you come on here with your views.
Last edited by rolymiller; 11-02-2018 at 09:43 PM.
Better link , how many years did Scargill serve ?
Anyone ?????
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-17871869
I'm talking about miners from all over the country who chose not to strike and those who did only for fear of a display of ‘unison’ from their colleagues. All NUM members, whether pro- or anti-strike, were entitled by the NUM’s constitution to a ballot and they didn’t get one.
The constitution was a contract that regulated the relationship between NUM members and the NUM. It was the contract under which NUM members paid money in and it gave them rights, but the NUM leadership ignored that.
I shouldn't think that anyone would want a share of what the miners 'gained' from the strike
I seem to recall you getting excited upon another thread about people not answering questions. I’ve had the courtesy to answer yours on this thread, so how about you having a go at mine? Do you agree that something has gone wrong when union members have to take their union to court to enforce their rights? Who is there to represent their interests when that happens?
Neither wind nor solar are the complete answer without a substantial improvement in the technology for the large scale storage of electricity. That's because it isn't always sunny and windy. I agree with the need to reduce the reliance upon gas. Coal is not the answer, however and we will not be going back there.
I'm largely indifferent to your thread on instrumentals, but do like your choice of Samba Pa Ti.
I have answered your question. If members don't want to be part of a union etc then that is fine but it is not fair for them to gain from any successes unions gain by striking etc. For example, if a union wanted to strike for a pay rise and achieved it through strike action then those who weren't willing to strike shouldn't get the pay rise that they had won, Surely that is fair because the strikers have made the sacrifice.
With the greatest of respect, you haven't answered the question at all. The question Do you agree that something has gone wrong when union members have to take their union to court to enforce their rights? has absolutely nothing to do with people not wanting to be part of a union. Quite the reverse - it's about people not getting what they are entitled to by virtue of the terms of their membership. Care to answer it? ‘Tic Toc’ as I believe you were saying to others a couple of days ago.
Non-membership of a union wasn’t an option in a closed shop. If you left the union you left the job. It was a legalised protection racket until outlawed by a Thatcher government. It was a protection racket that failed to provide the protection that membership supposedly offered when the union leadership rode rough shod over and ignored their member’s rights.