O/T When did the right wingers....

[ragingpup]

....turn into such a bunch of screeching, wailing, hysterical, precious jessies??

"Waaaahhhhh! Lefty fascists stopping free speech"

"Waaaaaahhhhh Lesbian picks on reformed gay guy"

"Waaaaaaaahhhh BBC wimping out of showing nude, huge breasted weather girls!"

Come on guys, this is rubbish.

Grow a pair!

[mellowmiller]

....turn into such a bunch of screeching, wailing, hysterical, precious jessies??

"Waaaahhhhh! Lefty fascists stopping free speech"

"Waaaaaahhhhh Lesbian picks on reformed gay guy"

"Waaaaaaaahhhh BBC wimping out of showing nude, huge breasted weather girls!"

Come on guys, this is rubbish.

Grow a pair!

Do you actually support the Millers or even like football?
It's just that you never seem to post anything about either of those things, just relentlessly biased political crap.

[ragingpup]

Do you actually support the Millers or even like football?
It's just that you never seem to post anything about either of those things, just relentlessly biased political crap.

Do you pick Stardson up on that?

If not, why not? :-)

[mellowmiller]

Do you pick Stardson up on that?

If not, why not? :-)
Because he does post things about the Millers, in fact there's quite a recent one on here.

[rolymiller]

So does pup. IBS mainly posts biased political crap to wind others up and its totally uninformed nonsense whereas pup backs up what he is saying with hard fact..don't side with the idiot or you might end up like him

[frogmiller]

These type of threads are either loved or hated on a football forum. They are challenging at times but interesting. The name calling seems to have stopped to a great extent (thank you all) which leaves people able to be open and express their beliefs on subjects.

There have been some that have caused me to blown up and I have said ungentlemanly things. If you don't know other arguments on a subject how can you have formed your opinion?

Every days a school day!

[ragingpup]

Because he does post things about the Millers, in fact there's quite a recent one on here.

So do I - but as an exile Miller I only see odd game (which is when I comment) as I don't think I can offer much of an informed view. But rest assured, I am always cheering us on!

However, I am well informed and interested in the sort of politics that gets discussed on here - but this is my first ever time I've started a post. I assure you that if Stardson et all didn't post their threads, I wouldn't get involved.

They could always just not do it? Why don't you try and persuade them to stop? Be footy only then wouldn't it?

In the meantime, let's keep to the topic of the post...

[mellowmiller]

So does pup. IBS mainly posts biased political crap to wind others up and its totally uninformed nonsense whereas pup backs up what he is saying with hard fact..don't side with the idiot or you might end up like him

I'm not siding with anyone. I just get heartily sick of all the ridiculously lengthy posts about politics, regardless of which party people support.
This is supposed to be a forum about the Millers after all but some people rarely comment about issues to do with the club but always come out of the woodwork whenever a political thread appears.

[the_idiotb_stardson]

....turn into such a bunch of screeching, wailing, hysterical, precious jessies??

"Waaaahhhhh! Lefty fascists stopping free speech"

"Waaaaaahhhhh Lesbian picks on reformed gay guy"

"Waaaaaaaahhhh BBC wimping out of showing nude, huge breasted weather girls!"

Come on guys, this is rubbish.

Grow a pair!

It's a very good question. I think it began when the old socialist ideas which were genuinely revolutionary and a threat to the establishment, were sidetracked by identity politics. The bloc of socialist support which could have genuinely changed things for the better, fragmented as each group began promoting their own cause. Lesbian socialists pursued lesbian causes over economic matters, surplus value and the ownership of the means of production. Likewise black socialists promoted race issues over core socialist values.

The ruling classes saw this fragmentation and depending on your opinion, they either exacerbated or promoted further division along the lines of identity politics or sat back and allowed the left to pursue these matters until all genuinely revolutionary goals had been submerged under rainbow flags, black lives matter and gender pronouns. (It could also be argued that the ruling class, implanted and then promoted these ideas in the first place at a time in history the late 60's and early 70's when a genuine revolution was a real possibility after all they are more intelligent than the working class)


Despite the deluded opinions of some socialists, we are further away from a revolution as we have ever been in our history.(Jeremy Corbyn..I mean c'mon on the day of reckoning he will be down on his allotment).


Consequently a genuinely revolutionary zeal has been funnelled into causes which cannot bring about a revolution.

In response, the right ( I have to confess I don't know much about right-wingers as I am not one) it appears to me are well and truly pissed off with these crackpots and have mirrored the left's misdirected and hysterical responses to trivia to keep them busy and also to promote the belief that they were in a real class struggle. Then at the end of the day the left go home pleased because they have successfully managed to insert gender neutral pronouns into old issues of whizzer and chips, while the right go home back to piles of cash and coke and unassailable power.

[ragingpup]

I'm not siding with anyone. I just get heartily sick of all the ridiculously lengthy posts about politics, regardless of which party people support.
This is supposed to be a forum about the Millers after all but some people rarely comment about issues to do with the club but always come out of the woodwork whenever a political thread appears.

Then why not have a word with the people who start them?

I have no intention of repeating a post like this one but will keep on addressing some of the hysterical and logically mystifying posts until they stop...

[mellowmiller]

Then why not have a word with the people who start them?

I have no intention of repeating a post like this one but will keep on addressing some of the hysterical and logically mystifying posts until they stop...

That's the trouble, they won't stop 😕

[rolymiller]

Start with IBS He is the main instigator of wind up political threads. If he stopped posting questions that are deliberately aimed to cause controversy there would be a lot less political stuff on here. His latest 3 posts have have had 281 replies and about 6000 views which I'm sure gives him a big buzz even if it is annoying/ offensive to others.. Stop the idiot and reduce the politics I would say.It is very rare he posts a footy thread but I have noticed a rare one recently.

[frogmiller]

Ragingpup, I understand exactly where you're coming from regarding the Millers and things Rotherham in general. There are people that I know and trust who give me snippets of real info that I post from time to time but MillersMad keeps me informed as to what's happening in Rotherham.

The political side are threads that I enjoy as long as I get into them early and don't turn into essays although they are often good to read if you have the time.

IBS has been a member for many years and was a member under another name before IBS. He throws things into the mix that provoke reaction. It is amazing to me how differently people think and their approach to life.
When it's a slow footy day then there's always a place for this type of thread and to be honest they are read more than the football threads.
For me the best time for IBS was the speculation of where the stadium was to be built and the funding of the project but at that time there were 90 odd members logged on at any one time.

If it ever got that there were more O/T politic threads than football ones then it would need to be addressed

[great_fire]

The ultimate end of all this identity politics is mass murder, happened with Stalin, happened with Mao.

That's why it's important.

[ragingpup]

The ultimate end of all this identity politics is mass murder, happened with Stalin, happened with Mao.

That's why it's important.

Wow, sounds a bit melodramatic? Hysterical perhaps. See post 1.

Talk me through the logic of this then Fire. How exactly might it lead to mass murder, of whom, by whom? How might that chain of actions play out in our UK culture? Be specific.

[rolymiller]

yes yes 2/10 gf keep going ...one begins with H another begins with M. Mid 20 th centuryish...you can do it...a clue NOT LEFTIES. We are not worried about spellings at this stage so have a go...no conferring with your pals thats cheating.

[celticmiller]

He's here look. Bless his little cotton socks.

[great_fire]

Jordan Peterson says it more articulately than I can:

"We're making your group identity the most important thing about you. I think that is reprehensible. It is devastating. It is genocidal in its ultimate expression. I think it will bring down our civilization if we pursue it. We shouldn't be playing that game. So what is the alternative?"

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/08/20/jordan_peterson_if_the_right_degenerates_into_iden tity_politics_the_left_wins.html

[ragingpup]

Jordan Peterson says it more articulately than I can:

"We're making your group identity the most important thing about you. I think that is reprehensible. It is devastating. It is genocidal in its ultimate expression. I think it will bring down our civilization if we pursue it. We shouldn't be playing that game. So what is the alternative?"

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/08/20/jordan_peterson_if_the_right_degenerates_into_iden tity_politics_the_left_wins.html

I think I can agree with the general thrust of what Peterson is saying: that if any group makes their collective race, ***ual identity the most important thing about you, it is not a good thing.

But it's a question of extents isn't it? And reactions from people not of their political identity.

On a basic level, is it a good thing for people who identify themselves in whatever group of people - let's say "Women" - to express their protest at what they perceive to be unfair/unequal treatment compared to other people in society. For example, the they should ask that they receive equal pay for doing the same job as a man?

Would you say that this is a fair and reasonable thing for "women" to ask for? And receive? Yes/no?

Moving on, and focusing on the movie that fundamental Christian movie Stardson posted about: it's on a very contentious theme about a form of 'therapy' that, objectively speaking, has been shown in some studies to cause harm to some people and has been banned in some countries. I've already stated that I am not against censor of this movie, so let's not go down that route - but does anyone who finds it offensive have a right to write to the cinema and advise them that they will withdraw their custom if they show it? Again, Yes/No?

And now further, do any of these protesters have a right to, if the film gets the go ahead and is shown, to gather at the door with placards (should they get rushed permission from the authorities to do so!) and stand peacefully, with placards summarising their opposition to the film? Yes/no?

Further still - do these same protesters have a right to verbally abuse anyone who wants to go and see the film? Or push/kick them? Or damage the cinema? Yes/no?


I think the exact same questions can be asked about any 'identity' group - I would argue that the vast majority of any such group are peaceful, rational, normal people who are aware of their identity, their particular cultural differences and where these differences are discriminated against by wider society, either just accept it (as the majority of us lazy people do - to much other stuff to do!) or at most, write letters/tweets etc expressing their feelings and occasionally, if they feel strong enough, form an action group for protests that are, from the VAST majority of such people, peaceful. This isn't something that I engage with but, as long as they keep their expressions peaceful and lawful, surely we can agree that they have a right to do so? Yes/No?

But to talk of Stalin? Mao? Mass murder?? The whole point of me posting this (for me) one off thread was to provoke thought about what I think are huge, hysterical over reactions to normal, peaceful people some of whom are engaging in peaceful arguments for what they believe in that, crucially, cause no harm to any other person.

Of course you get isolated d*ckheads in every 'movement' that take it too far (the Mogg protesters on the left, the race hate criminals on the right) but for the most part it's just the ebb and flow of society and personally I rather weary of your relentless hysteria on the matter. Hence this thread. You gret jessie!

[ragingpup]

It's a very good question. I think it began when the old socialist ideas which were genuinely revolutionary and a threat to the establishment, were sidetracked by identity politics. The bloc of socialist support which could have genuinely changed things for the better, fragmented as each group began promoting their own cause. Lesbian socialists pursued lesbian causes over economic matters, surplus value and the ownership of the means of production. Likewise black socialists promoted race issues over core socialist values.

The ruling classes saw this fragmentation and depending on your opinion, they either exacerbated or promoted further division along the lines of identity politics or sat back and allowed the left to pursue these matters until all genuinely revolutionary goals had been submerged under rainbow flags, black lives matter and gender pronouns. (It could also be argued that the ruling class, implanted and then promoted these ideas in the first place at a time in history the late 60's and early 70's when a genuine revolution was a real possibility after all they are more intelligent than the working class)


Despite the deluded opinions of some socialists, we are further away from a revolution as we have ever been in our history.(Jeremy Corbyn..I mean c'mon on the day of reckoning he will be down on his allotment).


Consequently a genuinely revolutionary zeal has been funnelled into causes which cannot bring about a revolution.

In response, the right ( I have to confess I don't know much about right-wingers as I am not one) it appears to me are well and truly pissed off with these crackpots and have mirrored the left's misdirected and hysterical responses to trivia to keep them busy and also to promote the belief that they were in a real class struggle. Then at the end of the day the left go home pleased because they have successfully managed to insert gender neutral pronouns into old issues of whizzer and chips, while the right go home back to piles of cash and coke and unassailable power.

That's an interesting theory, albeit quite fanciful.

I think the key difference between us is that you and a few others on here, appear to see identity politics all over the place. Where are all these 'socialist lesbians' of which you speak? Where are the vast hordes of black socialists that are organising protests on race?

I simply don't see any? Where do you see them?

I remember the 70s and although there was a stronger union membership and probably a stronger awareness of workers rights, I certainly don't remember a 'genuinely revolutionary zeal'. Outside of the trade unions, the vast majority of people just got in with the struggles of their own lives.

I think the rise of such vigorous expressions from the right is a much more recent development and is more to do with the mass preoccupation of Brexit, the divisive nature of the mass media and the focus on immigration. This is particularly resonant in Northern towns where immigration has been scandalously mismanaged from several governments. And unfortunately, as you look at many of the more extreme web sites that promote the ideas of a threat to our own national identity, one notices that intensity of their hostility to the left - as if whole 'problem' of mismanagement of immigration is the fault of lefties and that we lefties are the real enemy with our tendency to prioritise human rights, be more accepting of other cultures.

And of course, the local population playing their own type of 'identity politics' have every right to express their concerns. I have no problem with articulate exploration of the cultural challenges we face. But I am sick and tired of the hysterical, simplistic wailing that is going on from the right wingers on this site in response to every little change that society makes. If you don't like it, tweet yourself to the people that are relevant - don't just screech about fascist states, lack of free speech and black lesbian despots forming concentration camps.

It ain't a good look...

[animallittle3]

We live in challenging times to say the least .

Mandela when he was released from prison and his approach to uniting SA was something we can all learn from , myself included .

Should be the blueprint for us all .

[WanChaiMiller]

Its 50 60 70 year old working class wannebe Thatcherites that whinge most.

They were sold the dream in the 80s they would find untold wealth if they bought their council house, went private on their pension and bought BT shares (a euphemism for privatisation).

The reality is very different. They havent got enough pension so need to work till 70, the majority of council houses are in the hand of private landlords and utility bills are sky high. Neoliberlism mean their kids cant get the 'job for life' luxury of previous generations or cant get on the housing ladder.

They must blame someone. So its immigrants (blaming Labour when the truth is its Tory industrialist that want cheap labour) and the EU (blaming Labour, forgetting it was Thatcher and the Tories that took us into the single market and closer union in the first place).

Their whinge forgets it was them that, by voting Thatcher, created the situation they imagine as being problems today.

[great_fire]

Its 50 60 70 year old working class wannebe Thatcherites that whinge most.

They were sold the dream in the 80s they would find untold wealth if they bought their council house, went private on their pension and bought BT shares (a euphemism for privatisation).

The reality is very different. They havent got enough pension so need to work till 70, the majority of council houses are in the hand of private landlords and utility bills are sky high. Neoliberlism mean their kids cant get the 'job for life' luxury of previous generations or cant get on the housing ladder.

They must blame someone. So its immigrants (blaming Labour when the truth is its Tory industrialist that want cheap labour) and the EU (blaming Labour, forgetting it was Thatcher and the Tories that took us into the single market and closer union in the first place).

Their whinge forgets it was them that, by voting Thatcher, created the situation they imagine as being problems today.

We joined the EEC in 1973.

Thatcher became Tory leader in 1975.

So how did she take us into the single market?

It was that liar Heath who told us it was just a customs union we were entering, but he knew what the final destination was.

[WanChaiMiller]

We joined the EEC in 1973.

Thatcher became Tory leader in 1975.

So how did she take us into the single market?

It was that liar Heath who told us it was just a customs union we were entering, but he knew what the final destination was.

Heath, Common Market. Thatcher proactively led the negotiation to introduce the Single European Act 1985 (that led to Single Market 1992). Major signed the Maastricht Agreement.

[great_fire]

Thatcher did get us a big rebate though, which Blair partly gave back.

Mayor is a Bildenberg member and a globalist so no surprise there.

[mikemiller]

Thatcher did get us a big rebate though, which Blair partly gave back.

Mayor is a Bildenberg member and a globalist so no surprise there.

I don't even care who said what. Get off this site you Nazi scumbag - your general racist/fascist views are an embarassment to RUFC. Please FECK OFF! ...and take IdiotbarstewardKempo with you - you won't be missed

[great_fire]

I don't even care who said what. Get off this site you Nazi scumbag - your general racist/fascist views are an embarassment to RUFC. Please FECK OFF! ...and take IdiotbarstewardKempo with you - you won't be missed

Don't drink and post.

Bilderberg I meant of course, autocorrect.

[WanChaiMiller]

Arent all Brexiteers globalists?

[KerrAvon]

Its 50 60 70 year old working class wannebe Thatcherites that whinge most.

They were sold the dream in the 80s they would find untold wealth if they bought their council house, went private on their pension and bought BT shares (a euphemism for privatisation).

The reality is very different. They havent got enough pension so need to work till 70, the majority of council houses are in the hand of private landlords and utility bills are sky high. Neoliberlism mean their kids cant get the 'job for life' luxury of previous generations or cant get on the housing ladder.

They must blame someone. So its immigrants (blaming Labour when the truth is its Tory industrialist that want cheap labour) and the EU (blaming Labour, forgetting it was Thatcher and the Tories that took us into the single market and closer union in the first place).

Their whinge forgets it was them that, by voting Thatcher, created the situation they imagine as being problems today.I can't agree with your view of history.

It was the unions that put Thatcher into power and kept her there.

The 70s were marked by an inflationary spiral that was driven by unreasonable and unsustainable wage demands by the unions. When Heath took on the NUM and went to the country on the question of 'who rules the country' the electorate decided to give Labour and their union paymasters a narrow victory. Labour promptly caved into the NUM and other unions so feeding the inflationary spiral that was destroying the value of savings and rendering British industry hopelessly uncompetitive. It also stored up ‘real wage unemployment’ in the economy.

Labour demonstrated its usual fiscal incontinence to the point where the country was close to bankrupt by 1976, when the government was forced to go cap in hand to the IMF for what was the biggest loan ever given to a country by that body.

In return for the IMF loan, the British government was required to exercise restraint in its spending. The spending cuts that followed caused it to have to take an unusual step for Labour, which was to stand up to the unions, leading to the ‘winter of discontent’ and the decision by the electorate in 1979 to put Thatcher in power.

In the 1983 election, the electorate were faced with either voting for a Thatcher government that they didn't particularly like or a Foot led Labour Party that seemed keen to return to the inflationary policies of the 70s. The Tories were also helped by the Falklands effect and for the distaste of many for the unilateral nuclear disarmament policies of Foot and gained a substantially increased majority.

In 1984/5, Thatcher fought and won the inevitable decisive confrontation with the unions in the form of the NUM and was rewarded with another three figure majority in 1987.

Thereafter, the Tories ran out of puff and begin a slow decline that still took until 1979 to end in defeat by a rejuvenated Labour Party under Blair.

It is nonsense to suggest that anyone was promised untold wealth should they purchase their council house. People were given the opportunity to own their own property rather than rent from a council. They did it in droves not for untold wealth, but out of personal aspiration.

I'm not sure what you mean by going 'private on their pensions'. Anyone in a company or government pension who decided to give it up should have taken advice and thought it through. I was employed in the 80s and it never occurred to me to get out of the schemes that went with that and nobody sought to persuade me to do so or offered untold wealth if I did.

Nobody was promised untold wealth if they bought BT shares (although many understood that they were priced such that there was likely to be a profit to be made) and it was a euphemism for nothing. I'd be surprised if there was anyone who didn't understand that they were doing so as a part of a privatisation.

The reality is that standards of living moved on rapidly after the Tories stabilised and reinvigorated the economy. Foreign holidays and two car families were the preserve of the privileged when Labour left power. Now they are well within the reach of the majority of people. Some pensions – private and otherwise- have failed to deliver what they were expected to, but the majority of people in their 50s and above will enjoy a level of provision that was undreamed of by previous generations and will be sitting on a substantial asset in the form of the value of their homes. If people subsequently sold their homes to private landlords then that was their choice. The houses they sold still exist. Jobs for life are indeed a thing of the past for some, but is that a bad thing? I have chosen to make significant changes to my work on three occasions and am in the process of seeking to do so for a fourth time. I've done it out of personal choice and an aspiration to improve my lot. Utility bills have risen but how much more or less would they have done without competition and the drive for efficiencies that the need to make a profit brings? You don't know and neither do I, but I do remember the overmanning and restrictive practices of the state owned monopolies that existed in the 70s.

I’m sceptical about people blaming immigrants for pension problems, reduced job security, increased utility bills or the growth of private landlords. I am confused about your comment about people being unable to get on the housing ladder a few sentences after criticising Thatcher for allowing people to do just that. In my experience, hostility towards immigrants is rarely based upon rational considerations such as the potential for an increase in the supply of labour to reduce wages. Seeking to explain it away in those terms is, in my opinion, more about attempting to excuse the prejudices that many – perhaps particularly in the Labour core support – hold. I recall one poster on Tyke’s mad whose most significant contribution to the Brexit debate was that he didn’t like people talking Polish around in him in his work place.

I'm intrigued by the current fashion for Labour supporters to hark on about industry wanting cheap labour - of course it does - but the many Eastern Europeans that have come to this country haven't been trafficked and are free to leave when they want to. They come out of choice from countries with economies that are still maimed by the decades of Socialist policies that were imposed upon them after WW2. Is Labour truly intent upon keeping workers out of the country when they want to come? Is there now a nationalist element to Socialism? Marx and Trotsky in particular will be turning in their graves.

I’m uncertain where you are going with your comments about the Single Market. It was indeed upon the Tory watch that we entered it, but, insofar as Labour are willing to talk about their European policies, remaining within it appears to be their preferred option.

Of course, student didn't have to pay fees in the 70s, which is a good thing until you take into account that the consequence of that was that there were so few university places on offer that going to university was the realm of the wealthy and lucky few.

[animallittle3]

Stamp down the dirt



https://www.josharcher.uk/blog/why-margaret-thatcher-is-hated/

[WanChaiMiller]

KerrAvon. Not got time for an epic reply - and where I am I cant always get on line. Also on my phone so not easy. But anyway.

Very interesting that you dont see the role the Heath gov played as contributing to our need for an IMF loan. It was the recession started it 73 that brought us to the brink of bankruptcy.

During this recession started under Heath that lasted 14 quarters there was double digit inflation (peaking at 20%), huge trade deficite, national debt rising and the 3 day week. All forgotten in your snapshot of 70s economics.

[rolymiller]

The politician I have hated most in my life time that is for sure followed by Blair who let down the working classes badly when he had a big majority. May looks like Thatcher but is the slightly softer version but then again the last election result stopped her becoming thatcheresque so perhaps we will never know how bad she could have been.

[animallittle3]

The politician I have hated most in my life time that is for sure followed by Blair who let down the working classes badly when he had a big majority. May looks like Thatcher but is the slightly softer version but then again the last election result stopped her becoming thatcheresque so perhaps we will never know how bad she could have been.

The only good thing about Theresa May is that she isn't Margaret Thatcher .

[WanChaiMiller]

The 70s was a tough period in economic terms with inflation running in double figures. You cant heap the full blame on unions and workers for pay demand as their wage packet shrunk daily.

Thatcher set about tackling inflation with tough monetarist policy. The money supply squeeze had the effect of reducing inflation but economic consequence was quite devastating. The resulting recession of the early 80s saw 3m unemployed by 82 (upwards of 5m if you include youth unemployment). It saw our industrial base shrink killing off many factories, steel, coal and shipyards - from which the UK never recovered.

There are many that blame the EU for loss of our industrial base. Totally wrong in my opinion. I see it as a combination of early Thatcher monetarist policy and later the introduction of neo liberal policy.

[WanChaiMiller]

Pensions (copy paste)

Mrs Thatcher wanted self-reliance, not reliance on the state. That was the thinking behind the launch of personal pensions in 1988.

The new plans provided a route to save for those who did not have a company scheme. But, sadly, they backfired.

The promotions and publicity got out of hand. Advisers went to town, encouraging savers to switch out of solid traditional schemes into riskier personal pensions.

Compensating the victims cost the pensions industry £11bn.

[WanChaiMiller]

Article from the Express - Pensions.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/892001/pension-crisis-warning-britons-not-saving-enough

[animallittle3]

Pensions (copy paste)

Mrs Thatcher wanted self-reliance, not reliance on the state. That was the thinking behind the launch of personal pensions in 1988.

The new plans provided a route to save for those who did not have a company scheme. But, sadly, they backfired.

The promotions and publicity got out of hand. Advisers went to town, encouraging savers to switch out of solid traditional schemes into riskier personal pensions.

Compensating the victims cost the pensions industry £11bn.

Of which I was a victim and received a substantial amount in compensation and far more than I could have ever afforded to put in myself , a mind boggling figure in fact .

[WanChaiMiller]

Quote Kerr 'Nobody was promised untold wealth if they bought BT shares (although many understood that they were priced such that there was likely to be a profit to be made) and it was a euphemism for nothing'

Oh yes they did - see the speech by Thatcher.

'Popular capitalism is nothing less than a crusade to enfranchise the many in the economic life of the nation. We Conservatives are returning power to the people.'

https://youtu.be/Z7Qq01tC0lU

[KerrAvon]

Stamp down the dirt



https://www.josharcher.uk/blog/why-margaret-thatcher-is-hated/That’s actually quite a good read.

I note that the author of the blog states Finding a definitive resolution on the question of Britain’s manufacturing, Thatcher’s role in it’s demise and the extent to which it was about to implode under the weight of the Unions is virtually impossible, but I don’t think it’s impossible at all. The unions destroyed the competitiveness of British industry. Without that, much more of it could have survived the measures that Thatcher had to take to reign inflation in.

Another thing that I would draw from the blog is that the author should have been less ambitious and selected fewer reasons why Thatcher is ‘hated’. For example, ‘She voted against the relaxation of divorce laws’. Seriously? Do people hate her for that? They need to get a life if they do. I had no idea that she had done so and even less interest, particularly given that the Act was enacted without her help.

‘She supported the retention of Capital Punishment’ is a good one too. If opinion polls are to be believed, a significant proportion of the public do too. I’m vehemently opposed to it, but I’m not going to ‘hate’ anyone for disagreeing with me. I would have thought that most people who are opposed to capital punishment are not the kind of people who are prome to 'hating' others, but what do I know?

[KerrAvon]

KerrAvon. Not got time for an epic reply - and where I am I cant always get on line. Also on my phone so not easy. But anyway.

Very interesting that you dont see the role the Heath gov played as contributing to our need for an IMF loan. It was the recession started it 73 that brought us to the brink of bankruptcy.

During this recession started under Heath that lasted 14 quarters there was double digit inflation (peaking at 20%), huge trade deficite, national debt rising and the 3 day week. All forgotten in your snapshot of 70s economics.

Events under the time of the Heath government certainly didn’t help the UK economy, but I’m not sure that they can be attributed to that government to any significant degree. The two major events were the 1973/74 oil crisis, which caused a shock to the world economy, rather than specifically to the UK and the industrial action by the NUM that started in 1973 and which led to the imposition of a three day week. That industrial action was a direct consequence of the Heath government seeking to curb inflation by bearing down on wage increases. Unfortunately, Heath didn’t have the will power that Thatcher did and had not prepared the ground for the conflict. The rest is history; Labour took power in 1974 and immediately gave the miners the 35% they were demanding only to repeat the exercise a year later.

How could anyone forget the three day week – the consequences of unfettered union power set in stark relief?

The 1973- 75 recession affected the whole world, but it was only the UK that needed what was the biggest ever bail out from the IMF. That is, in my opinion, attributable to the unwillingness or inability of the Wilson government to curb the actions of its union paymasters and, in consequence, to control wage rises such as to bring inflation under control and to control public spending. We were not known as the sick man of Europe without reason.

[KerrAvon]

The 70s was a tough period in economic terms with inflation running in double figures. You cant heap the full blame on unions and workers for pay demand as their wage packet shrunk daily.

Thatcher set about tackling inflation with tough monetarist policy. The money supply squeeze had the effect of reducing inflation but economic consequence was quite devastating. The resulting recession of the early 80s saw 3m unemployed by 82 (upwards of 5m if you include youth unemployment). It saw our industrial base shrink killing off many factories, steel, coal and shipyards - from which the UK never recovered.

There are many that blame the EU for loss of our industrial base. Totally wrong in my opinion. I see it as a combination of early Thatcher monetarist policy and later the introduction of neo liberal policy.With respect, if the level of wage demands cannot be wholly attributable to workers and their union representatives who else are you going to require to accept responsibility for them?

Of course, workers are going to want to keep up with inflation and improve their lot – who could blame them for that - but the 82% rise given to the miners over the period Feb 1974 to Feb 1975 by Labour was way beyond inflation (I have not checked your 20% figure, but is sounds about right). Surely you can’t be arguing that such a figure was reasonable and could be given without harming the economy? The cost of such increases in pay to the miners in just over one year would be felt across the economy, particularly given that we were largely reliant upon coal for electricity generation. That is why it contributed to the inflationary spiral that was so damaging to the UK with unions then demanding yet more increases in order to seek to offset the consequences of the previous ones.

Inflation served to erode the competiveness of British manufacturing – British workers priced out of world markets - which contributed directly to the loss of manufacturing jobs in the UK, particularly as it was compounded by unfettered power of the unions making the UK a bad place to seek to invest and do business or, indeed to purchase goods from without having to be concerned about whether delivery would be held up by strike action.

I see what you did there, by the way. You argue that the 1976 IMF loan was attributable to the Heath government which ended in February 1974 rather than the Labour government that was in power for two years before it happened, but argue that the rise in unemployment under Thatcher was attributable wholly to her policies (even though the rise in unemployment started prior to the 1979 – Labour wasn’t working).

Blame Mrs Thatcher monetarist policy and later the introduction of neo liberal policy if you will, but before you do so, ask how it was that British workers became so uncompetitive in World terms? The jobs didn’t just disappear – they went to workers in other countries.

[rolymiller]

Just a question for you Kerr have you ever represented workers in industrial disputes. Just wondered since you seem so anti union. Don't worry i wont throw a wobbly with your answer.

[KerrAvon]

Pensions (copy paste)

Mrs Thatcher wanted self-reliance, not reliance on the state. That was the thinking behind the launch of personal pensions in 1988.

The new plans provided a route to save for those who did not have a company scheme. But, sadly, they backfired.

The promotions and publicity got out of hand. Advisers went to town, encouraging savers to switch out of solid traditional schemes into riskier personal pensions.

Compensating the victims cost the pensions industry £11bn.So encouraging people to have additional pension provision over and above that provided by the state was a bad thing? I am going to struggle to agree with you on that one. I would suspect that most people would.

What were people to do? Shrug their shoulders and accept the lot of the state pension?

If advisers improperly encouraged people to switch out of company schemes than that cannot be attributable to Thatcher. Such an argument would be analogues to saying that shops shouldn’t sell paracetamol because some people would overdose on them. The fault isn’t in the availability, which must, on any rational argument, be a good thing. It is in the manner they were then used by some.

[KerrAvon]

Quote Kerr 'Nobody was promised untold wealth if they bought BT shares (although many understood that they were priced such that there was likely to be a profit to be made) and it was a euphemism for nothing'

Oh yes they did - see the speech by Thatcher.

'Popular capitalism is nothing less than a crusade to enfranchise the many in the economic life of the nation. We Conservatives are returning power to the people.'

https://youtu.be/Z7Qq01tC0lUI'm not sure where you are going with that clip. It doesn't say at any point that people were offered untold wealth. The quote that you rely upon confirms that part of the purpose was to enfranchise people and the growth in share ownership confirms that was partially achieved.

[rolymiller]

Your a pedantic owd sod Kerr but I suppose it goes with the nature of your job :P

Yet your pendantry seems often biased eg surely a balanced reply would have been "it doesnt say people were offered untold wealth but then again it doesn't say they weren't". It is often what you don't say that shows the bias and also when you are defending others. JUst an observation...

[WanChaiMiller]

Events under the time of the Heath government certainly didn’t help the UK economy, but I’m not sure that they can be attributed to that government to any significant degree. The two major events were the 1973/74 oil crisis, which caused a shock to the world economy, rather than specifically to the UK and the industrial action by the NUM that started in 1973 and which led to the imposition of a three day week. That industrial action was a direct consequence of the Heath government seeking to curb inflation by bearing down on wage increases. Unfortunately, Heath didn’t have the will power that Thatcher did and had not prepared the ground for the conflict. The rest is history; Labour took power in 1974 and immediately gave the miners the 35% they were demanding only to repeat the exercise a year later.

How could anyone forget the three day week – the consequences of unfettered union power set in stark relief?

The 1973- 75 recession affected the whole world, but it was only the UK that needed what was the biggest ever bail out from the IMF. That is, in my opinion, attributable to the unwillingness or inability of the Wilson government to curb the actions of its union paymasters and, in consequence, to control wage rises such as to bring inflation under control and to control public spending. We were not known as the sick man of Europe without reason.

Totally agree causes of inflation and the recession. But you wiped that out of history in your epic.

I totally agree the cause of that recession cannot be blamed on a single government but, then, the consequess cannot be attributed to the next government.

I do not agree that our need for an IMF loan was down to Wilsons inability to control union wage demands. The major cause was the recession and our underlaying economic ability to withstand its impact. Other countries may have had more in reserve.

[WanChaiMiller]

I'm not sure where you are going with that clip. It doesn't say at any point that people were offered untold wealth. The quote that you rely upon confirms that part of the purpose was to enfranchise people and the growth in share ownership confirms that was partially achieved.

Depends on where you want to take it.

I read it that if you get on board you can share in the wealth of the City. And this is open to the whole population. Which takes us back to my original point.

[KerrAvon]

Just a question for you Kerr have you ever represented workers in industrial disputes. Just wondered since you seem so anti union. Don't worry i wont throw a wobbly with your answer.Keen followers of my posts will note that I have said that I used to be retained by one of the UK's biggest unions to provide representation to its members. I like to think that it was a rewarding arrangement for both parties.

I am not anti-union. I am opposed to the wholly undemocratic way in which they used to be allowed to behave. I am opposed to the closed shop, which was nothing more than a legalised protection racket (if you want a job here you are going to hand over a portion of your wages to a union). I am opposed to the intimidation of working people by mass picketing. I support the notion that working people should be allowed to express their views in a secret ballot before a strike is called.

The miners’ strike epitomises the issues that I have with the way unions used to be allowed to behave – working people intimidated by mobs - workers denied the right to express their views in a ballot that the union’s own constitution said they should have and workers having to go to court to stop a union misapplying the funds to which they contributed amongst other things. Whatever individual striking miners aimed to achieve from the strike none of that can possibly be justifiable. When workers have to turn to the law for protection against their own union, something has gone horribly wrong, as I'm sure you would agree.

[WanChaiMiller]

So encouraging people to have additional pension provision over and above that provided by the state was a bad thing? I am going to struggle to agree with you on that one. I would suspect that most people would.

What were people to do? Shrug their shoulders and accept the lot of the state pension?

If advisers improperly encouraged people to switch out of company schemes than that cannot be attributable to Thatcher. Such an argument would be analogues to saying that shops shouldn’t sell paracetamol because some people would overdose on them. The fault isn’t in the availability, which must, on any rational argument, be a good thing. It is in the manner they were then used by some.

It is not the point Im making on pensions.

I said the culture that exited in the 80s as Thatcher sold the financial dream led people to believe they could be wealthy beyond their dreams. Im saying the reality has turned out different and is the basis for such open discontent (the opening post is why right wingers whinge so much - I think this is the reason - they are finding theyve been sold down the river).

I lived in London and South East from mid 70s to late 80s. People down there bought into it.

[mellowmiller]

Football anyone? Just askin'

[Brin]

Keen followers of my posts will note that I have said that I used to be retained by one of the UK's biggest unions to provide representation to its members. I like to think that it was a rewarding arrangement for both parties.

I am not anti-union. I am opposed to the wholly undemocratic way in which they used to be allowed to behave. I am opposed to the closed shop, which was nothing more than a legalised protection racket (if you want a job here you are going to hand over a portion of your wages to a union). I am opposed to the intimidation of working people by mass picketing. I support the notion that working people should be allowed to express their views in a secret ballot before a strike is called.

The miners’ strike epitomises the issues that I have with the way unions used to be allowed to behave – working people intimidated by mobs - workers denied the right to express their views in a ballot that the union’s own constitution said they should have and workers having to go to court to stop a union misapplying the funds to which they contributed amongst other things. Whatever individual striking miners aimed to achieve from the strike none of that can possibly be justifiable. When workers have to turn to the law for protection against their own union, something has gone horribly wrong, as I'm sure you would agree.

Kerr apologies for interrupting your two way battle with Wanchai Miller but I cannot sit idly by and let you post drivelling crap such as,
'Whatever individual striking miners aimed to achieve from the strike none of that can possibly be justifiable'

We were in unison with our fellow mineworkers whose livelihoods were being ripped apart by Thatcher, who by the way brought in a yank to do the dirty work for her or have you forgot that piece of history? Someone who got paid millions to just to drift off back to the States and be forgotten about.

Thatcher and her Gang decimated the entire coalfield of the UK and whittled it down just to crush the union who were battling to save working class people being thrown on the scrapheap. The closure of coal mines that were even profitable, mine included, not only cost miners their jobs but the ripple effect to other private businesses who supplied the coal board with tools, oil, machinery etc also went to the wall as they no longer had a business to supply.

There was and still is over 300 years of fossil fuel left underground in the UK. Now look at the state of our energy reserves. Look at who supplies the power to the UK. We have to seek the majority of our electricity from France, our gas from Russia who at the flick of of a switch could cripple and shut this country down within weeks. What a calamitous position to be left in in the 21st century.

What are we trying to do now? Fracking, in the hope they can bore deep enough to draw off the methane left by the closed mines and fossil fuel that still lays beneath our land.

You may say you are not against Unions but boy do you still hate the miners and I feel there's a deep seated reason there somewhere.

[rolymiller]

Ok thanks for your reply Kerr and I am pleased that you at least recognise workers need representation in disputes with management ar times.I have obviously missed your posts on your union representation.They are the positives that I personally get out of your reply.
As Brin as said though would it be fair to say you have a grudge against the miners? Did you not have any sympathy for their cause and the dangerous and arduous work they do/did?

[animallittle3]

The NUM and it's members fought like they did because we knew what the Thatcher government's motives were , to decimate the industry totally , they spoke of a number of unprofitable collieries that they intended to close but we knew that was only the tip of the iceberg and that's now a proven FACT but we knew at the time it was a FACT .

Does anyone actually believe that miners would go without wages for 12 months , suffer horrendous hardship , lose their homes and split from their families in some cases over simply bringing a stupid women down and her minions , really ???????

Our whole working lives were on the line here , I was only 22 myself and there was nothing else in my town , there still isn't in real terms 30 plus years on .

This was an industry decimated to avenge the falling of the Heath government and the fact that working people could no longer be dictated to and kept down , just as history shows you with the working class and Tory governments .

The only people with evil in their eye were sat in Westminster and didn't even have the minerals to do the dirty work in public , " Iron Lady my @ss .

They had me returning to work in March 1985 but they never beat me with their council house sales or fantasy share holding , I wouldn't have had either for nowt , full stop .

Replaced by greedy young w@nkers in the city , that's a joke right , tell me how that ended in 2008 and how much it cost the taxpayer ?

You sell out to the tories without having privilege , Eton and Oxford behind you and you get what you deserve .

Take a good look at the UK today , nuff said .

[KerrAvon]

Kerr apologies for interrupting your two way battle with Wanchai Miller but I cannot sit idly by and let you post drivelling crap such as,
'Whatever individual striking miners aimed to achieve from the strike none of that can possibly be justifiable'

We were in unison with our fellow mineworkers whose livelihoods were being ripped apart by Thatcher, who by the way brought in a yank to do the dirty work for her or have you forgot that piece of history? Someone who got paid millions to just to drift off back to the States and be forgotten about.

Thatcher and her Gang decimated the entire coalfield of the UK and whittled it down just to crush the union who were battling to save working class people being thrown on the scrapheap. The closure of coal mines that were even profitable, mine included, not only cost miners their jobs but the ripple effect to other private businesses who supplied the coal board with tools, oil, machinery etc also went to the wall as they no longer had a business to supply.

There was and still is over 300 years of fossil fuel left underground in the UK. Now look at the state of our energy reserves. Look at who supplies the power to the UK. We have to seek the majority of our electricity from France, our gas from Russia who at the flick of of a switch could cripple and shut this country down within weeks. What a calamitous position to be left in in the 21st century.

What are we trying to do now? Fracking, in the hope they can bore deep enough to draw off the methane left by the closed mines and fossil fuel that still lays beneath our land.

You may say you are not against Unions but boy do you still hate the miners and I feel there's a deep seated reason there somewhere.With respect, you were not in unison with your fellow mineworkers. You were in unison with those who agreed with you upon whether there should be a strike. You don't know if you were in unison with the majority of your fellow mineworkers, because the NUM leadership denied them the secret ballot that the unions constitution guaranteed them. They denied them a ballot because they were scared that they might not get the result that they wanted, which was a confrontation with the government.

Rather than receiving the benefit of any form of ‘unison’ your fellow mineworker’s who did not share your view upon whether there should be strike faced intimidation both at their places of work and at their homes and elsewhere. Some may feel that was justified or acceptable, whereas I don’t. The leadership of a union should act upon the wishes of the whole membership, not just those members who agree with them.

Yes, Thatcher wanted the confrontation and prepared for it. The reason for that is that the unions had acted recklessly and unreasonably throughout the 60s and 70s and had caused immeasurable damage to the UK economy and the government was determined to end that. The NUM leadership knew that very well and were also playing a political game. Mining communities paid a huge price for it.

The days of coal are over, Brin: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/28/renewables-power-coal-2017-uk-figures

[great_fire]

Manufacturing is declining everywhere in the West, even Germany is becoming more of a service economy, we simply can't compete with countries like China where costs are so much lower.

[KerrAvon]

Ok thanks for your reply Kerr and I am pleased that you at least recognise workers need representation in disputes with management ar times.I have obviously missed your posts on your union representation.They are the positives that I personally get out of your reply.
As Brin as said though would it be fair to say you have a grudge against the miners? Did you not have any sympathy for their cause and the dangerous and arduous work they do/did?Of course I recognise that workers need representation in disputes and in wage negotiations etc. As I said to Brin, however, the leadership of a union should act upon the wishes of the whole membership, not just those members who agree with them. In addition, a union should respect its own constitution - that is, after all, the basis upon which they take subscriptions from their members. 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?

I don't have any grudge for miners and have huge respect for them given the dangerous and unpleasant job that they do. I think the destruction of mining communities and the hardships that flowed from it were and, to an extent, are, a tragedy, but every industry has it day and times move on. Perhaps if the NUM had had a different leadership and been willing to work with the government, the industry might had received a softer landing. Who knows?

[great_fire]

I don't even care who said what. Get off this site you Nazi scumbag - your general racist/fascist views are an embarassment to RUFC. Please FECK OFF! ...and take IdiotbarstewardKempo with you - you won't be missed

What an extraordinary outburst that was by the way.

You must be John Major's biggest fan.

Also, contrary to popular opinion on the left, calling people "Nazi", "fascist" or "racist" doesn't actually mean you've won the argument.

[Brin]

With respect, you were not in unison with your fellow mineworkers. You were in unison with those who agreed with you upon whether there should be a strike. You don't know if you were in unison with the majority of your fellow mineworkers, because the NUM leadership denied them the secret ballot that the unions constitution guaranteed them. They denied them a ballot because they were scared that they might not get the result that they wanted, which was a confrontation with the government.

Rather than receiving the benefit of any form of ‘unison’ your fellow mineworker’s who did not share your view upon whether there should be strike faced intimidation both at their places of work and at their homes and elsewhere. Some may feel that was justified or acceptable, whereas I don’t. The leadership of a union should act upon the wishes of the whole membership, not just those members who agree with them.

Yes, Thatcher wanted the confrontation and prepared for it. The reason for that is that the unions had acted recklessly and unreasonably throughout the 60s and 70s and had caused immeasurable damage to the UK economy and the government was determined to end that. The NUM leadership knew that very well and were also playing a political game. Mining communities paid a huge price for it.

The days of coal are over, Brin: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/dec/28/renewables-power-coal-2017-uk-figures

Kerr don't believe all you read. There have been hundreds of applications to site powered wind farms that have been turned down by planning associations so, to say this is the way forward it doesn't always mean they will get over the finish line.

I do like the point though that back's up my point on being held to ransom by other countries.

'However, if we continue to use gas at the rate that we do, then Britain will miss carbon targets and be dangerously exposed to supply and price risks in the international gas markets'

Don't say we haven't been warned!

By the way do you like my thread on 'instrumentals' ? Sure you have one in your locker somewhere....look forward to hearing it.

[rolymiller]

I assume you are talking about the Nottinghamshire miners. My argument would be that if they wanted to forge a breakaway union they shouldn't benefit from anything the striking miners gained from the dispute.

[animallittle3]

I assume you are talking about the Nottinghamshire miners. My argument would be that if they wanted to forge a breakaway union they shouldn't benefit from anything the striking miners gained from the dispute.

Bet their sons and daughters are proud everytime they clock on at Sports Direct every morning .

That said many were good solid lads many of whom who did come out were transferred up here to avoid intimidation and physical harm coming to them when the strike ended .

Not a lot of people know that , then again you wouldn't would you .

[animallittle3]

Manufacturing is declining everywhere in the West, even Germany is becoming more of a service economy, we simply can't compete with countries like China where costs are so much lower.

Yeh providing just enough just to keep you alive so you keep returning to work each day is definitely a competitive edge .

[rolymiller]

Bet their sons and daughters are proud everytime they clock on at Sports Direct every morning .

That said many were good solid lads many of whom who did come out were transferred up here to avoid intimidation and physical harm coming to them when the strike ended .

Not a lot of people know that , then again you wouldn't would you .

Yep true heard not all Nottinghamshire miners didn't support the strike and suffered intimidation for not joining the break away union. Not very democratic eh?

[animallittle3]

Yep true heard not all Nottinghamshire miners didn't support the strike and suffered intimidation for not joining the break away union. Not very democratic eh?

Aye the UDM did them proud .


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-17443724

[rolymiller]

What an extraordinary outburst that was by the way.

You must be John Major's biggest fan.

Also, contrary to popular opinion on the left, calling people "Nazi", "fascist" or "racist" doesn't actually mean you've won the argument.

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.

[animallittle3]

Better link , how many years did Scargill serve ?

Anyone ?????


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-17871869

[KerrAvon]

I assume you are talking about the Nottinghamshire miners. My argument would be that if they wanted to forge a breakaway union they shouldn't benefit from anything the striking miners gained from the dispute.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?

[KerrAvon]

Kerr don't believe all you read. There have been hundreds of applications to site powered wind farms that have been turned down by planning associations so, to say this is the way forward it doesn't always mean they will get over the finish line.

I do like the point though that back's up my point on being held to ransom by other countries.

'However, if we continue to use gas at the rate that we do, then Britain will miss carbon targets and be dangerously exposed to supply and price risks in the international gas markets'

Don't say we haven't been warned!

By the way do you like my thread on 'instrumentals' ? Sure you have one in your locker somewhere....look forward to hearing it.
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.

[rolymiller]

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.

[KerrAvon]

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.

[KerrAvon]

Football anyone? Just askin'If you want to do one of your 'woe is me - this club is so badly run - there is no plan' posts, I'll happily answer it.

[rolymiller]

Keop telling you not to be big brother to the idiots on here. Let them argue their own points.You are speaking for them when you don't really know what they are saying unless you know them personally.How do you know gfire is not a member of a far right party for example. Maybe he is maybe he isn't only he knows. He might come on here later and admit he is and make you look a bit of a berk.Why defend someone when you don't have the evidence to defend them?

On to your question. Sorry think i misunderstood your point.I think there probably is something wrong in terms of the message' /reasons not being put clearly to all union members. For me for a union to be effective it needs solidarity therefore ideally all members on board but the outcome needs to be decided through majority vote.

A question for you, What would you say if union members took their union to court because they thought their union was too weak and not being militant enough? Do you agree that something has gone wrong when union members in this case have to take their union to court to enforce their rights?

You can turn the clock off now, your chums don't answer at all.

[great_fire]

Scargill wanted to bring down a democratically elected government, he wanted a Marxist revolution, no way he was going to win support with the majority of the population with that attitude.

A more moderate leader would have been much more in the miners' interests.

[great_fire]

Keop telling you not to be big brother to the idiots on here. Let them argue their own points.You are speaking for them when you don't really know what they are saying unless you know them personally.How do you know gfire is not a member of a far right party for example. Maybe he is maybe he isn't only he knows. He might come on here later and admit he is and make you look a bit of a berk.Why defend someone when you don't have the evidence to defend them?

On to your question. Sorry think i misunderstood your point.I think there probably is something wrong in terms of the message' /reasons not being put clearly to all union members. For me for a union to be effective it needs solidarity therefore ideally all members on board but the outcome needs to be decided through majority vote.

A question for you, What would you say if union members took their union to court because they thought their union was too weak and not being militant enough? Do you agree that something has gone wrong when union members in this case have to take their union to court to enforce their rights?

You can turn the clock off now, your chums don't answer at all.

No I'm not a member of a far-right party or a far-left one.

Doubt KerrAvon will be defending me as we have a history of disagreements on here, mainly about the grooming scandal.

[rolymiller]

Thats good Gfire thanks for that. Can you tell us why you wouldnt be a member of either of these parties I am interested.

[great_fire]

Thats good Gfire thanks for that. Can you tell us why you wouldnt be a member of either of these parties I am interested.

I would say I'm a real conservative, not a neo-liberal like Cameron, May, Hammond, Rudd.

[rolymiller]

Appreciate your honesty. What a bit Thatcheresque?

[rolymiller]

Kerr don't ask me a question now not cos I'm trying to avoid it I am going to bed .night night so ya can turn ya tic toc off
now 😉

[ragingpup]

I would say I'm a real conservative, not a neo-liberal like Cameron, May, Hammond, Rudd.

UNlike Roly I don't think this is a honest answer to Roly's question. He asked why you wouldn't be a member of the far right parties, EDL, BF, NA and such? Like Roly, I am very interested in this as your views frequently expressed on here align pretty much exactly with these groups. So what stops you formally joining these groups, instead choosing to 'compromise' somewhat by ultimately supporting a party that are, and always will be globalists, even if the Euro research group have their way.

I've asked you this several times already and it's good to see you at least try to address it with Roly, albeit with a politician's swerve!

So what stops you from joining these groups? Which of their policies do you disagree with?

[mellowmiller]

If you want to do one of your 'woe is me - this club is so badly run - there is no plan' posts, I'll happily answer it.

How childish, but hardly surprising.

[millertop]

I don’t mind if they want to post on these threads but fo oks me off when we win and they want to post on this.

Did I mention win ?

[mikemiller]

No I'm not a member of a far-right party or a far-left one.

Doubt KerrAvon will be defending me as we have a history of disagreements on here, mainly about the grooming scandal.

Nobody in their right mind would think that you are in any way left-wing, so don't bother using that as a smokescreen to cover up your real reactionary views.... So as a Millers fan are you supporting the campaigns that RUFC is backing, like "Kick it out" and other anti-racist and anti-homophobia campaigns? (Well done RUFC for supporting those campaigns, by the way)

[millertop]

How childish, but hardly surprising.

Wasting your time Mellow.

Read Gwru’s post instead ;D

[mellowmiller]

Wasting your time Mellow.

Read Gwru’s post instead ;D
Think I might start a thread about JCH 😀

[great_fire]

Nobody in their right mind would think that you are in any way left-wing, so don't bother using that as a smokescreen to cover up your real reactionary views.... So as a Millers fan are you supporting the campaigns that RUFC is backing, like "Kick it out" and other anti-racist and anti-homophobia campaigns? (Well done RUFC for supporting those campaigns, by the way)

Don't really care for all that PC crap to be honest, and as I've already said, identity politics is divisive and poisonous to society.

[great_fire]

UNlike Roly I don't think this is a honest answer to Roly's question. He asked why you wouldn't be a member of the far right parties, EDL, BF, NA and such? Like Roly, I am very interested in this as your views frequently expressed on here align pretty much exactly with these groups. So what stops you formally joining these groups, instead choosing to 'compromise' somewhat by ultimately supporting a party that are, and always will be globalists, even if the Euro research group have their way.

I've asked you this several times already and it's good to see you at least try to address it with Roly, albeit with a politician's swerve!

So what stops you from joining these groups? Which of their policies do you disagree with?

The EDL isn't a party, you can't become a member, it was an anti-Islamic extremism movement launched after returning British soldiers were abused by extremists in Luton.

Of course I prefer nationalism over globalism.

You really think Soros has noble motives in spending billions campaigning against the removal of borders and the destruction of nations?

The globalists want to destroy national identities and turn the world into one big planet full of coffee-coloured consumers with no identity other than as consumers.

[rolymiller]

Could it not be argued that the world's problems are global eg environmental degradation. poverty, war. If we all turn a blind eye to what is going on elsewhere these problems never will be solved. Or maybe you don't care about these things?Thing is with things like global warming this is something you cant hide behind a border to avoid it will affect everyone on planet Earth. Same with war once they start chucking the big fire crackers around the wall you build around you wont protect you. it'll only need an idiot like Trump to press the red button on a bit of a whim...

[great_fire]

Could it not be argued that the world's problems are global eg environmental degradation. poverty, war. If we all turn a blind eye to what is going on elsewhere these problems never will be solved. Or maybe you don't care about these things?Thing is with things like global warming this is something you cant hide behind a border to avoid it will affect everyone on planet Earth. Same with war once they start chucking the big fire crackers around the wall you build around you wont protect you. it'll only need an idiot like Trump to press the red button on a bit of a whim...

The global warming people have chucked that in now because it wasn't getting any warmer, now called climate change.

TBH I think a lot of that is just another way to make money and screw more taxes out of us, there's always been climate change, we've been through several ice ages and there were no cars around whatsoever.

[mikemiller]

Don't really care for all that PC crap to be honest, and as I've already said, identity politics is divisive and poisonous to society.

No, actually it is RACISM that is divisive and poisonous to society. That's what RUFC as a club believes .... if you don't like that please go and support somebody else. You are a hardcore racist and an embarassment to RUFC and Millersmad

[great_fire]

No, actuallyit is RACISM that is divisive and poisonous to society. That's what RUFC as a club believes .... if you don't like that please go and support somebody else. You are a hardcore racist and an embarassment to RUFC and Millersmad

Your posts are pretty embarrassing, I'll say that.

You are actually trying to shout RACISM on a message board XD

You must be in Momentum or similar.

[mikemiller]

Your posts are pretty embarrassing, I'll say that.

You are actually trying to shout RACISM on a message board XD

You must be in Momentum or similar.

So you're not supporting the Millers in their anti-racist or anti-homophobia campaigns - there's a shock (LOL!).

I'm proud to be speaking out against racists and bigots like you.... so is RUFC, the club you supposedly support

[ragingpup]

The EDL isn't a party, you can't become a member, it was an anti-Islamic extremism movement launched after returning British soldiers were abused by extremists in Luton.

Of course I prefer nationalism over globalism.

You really think Soros has noble motives in spending billions campaigning against the removal of borders and the destruction of nations?

The globalists want to destroy national identities and turn the world into one big planet full of coffee-coloured consumers with no identity other than as consumers.

You're turning me into Paxman. Ok - I'll try again.

You CAN join Britain First and you can it appears join divisions of the English Defence League. And you can most certainly contribute to and support, join message boards, facebook groups of all of these parties.

So why do you not do so when you appear to espouse the same views as these groups? Why do you not join the groups that you CAN join, and why don't you support these organisations to grow and spread your/their political message?

If you don't, I ask again, why not? What is the difference between the views of these organisations and your own?

[millmoormagic]

I'll answer for him pup, he knows his views are basically reprehensible at best, but cannot be honest with himself about it, him stating he is a member of any of these organisations is him admitting to himself what he really is, what he stands for.

[animallittle3]

Your posts are pretty embarrassing, I'll say that.

You are actually trying to shout RACISM on a message board XD

You must be in Momentum or similar.

I'm a member of the Labour Party and Momentum and voted Leave in the referendum , any thoughts on that fire ?

[rolymiller]

I think right wingers in general are pretty selfish. Think Thatcher-look after number 1 wasn't that her catchphrase or summat like it. A whole generation grew up with this crap etched into their brains and it still remains while ever we have that generation about who were conned into believing it. Me me me/ money money money they were the buzzwords. The Harry Enfield loadsa money character sort of summed up the times.

None of the right wingers who come on here ever seem to defend the poor or minority groups. Instead they attempt to marginalise them further and blame them for all of societies ills. Its those muslims/ welfare scroungers/ immigrants etc . If it wasn't for them this country wouldn't be going to the dogs. You know that sort of crap. Never do they blame the bankers or the Rupert Murdochs of this world or the tax fiddlers at the top. The corrupted rich.

People like Kerr seem to think its ok to hold racist views even though he would say he is not a racist himself because in some warped way racists have a right to be racists because that is democracy. If you want to hate groups of people that is your right sort of mentality.Not very democratic though for the minority groups who have to put up with it though is it?

[great_fire]

You're turning me into Paxman. Ok - I'll try again.

You CAN join Britain First and you can it appears join divisions of the English Defence League. And you can most certainly contribute to and support, join message boards, facebook groups of all of these parties.

So why do you not do so when you appear to espouse the same views as these groups? Why do you not join the groups that you CAN join, and why don't you support these organisations to grow and spread your/their political message?

If you don't, I ask again, why not? What is the difference between the views of these organisations and your own?

They've got nothing to do with me why do you keep going on about them? Seems like you are the one who knows all about them not me.

Do you support Soros spending £18 billion to destroy nation states and democracies and encourage mass migration?

[great_fire]

le ever we have that generation about who were conned into believing it. Themselves/ money they were the buzzwords. The Harry Enfield loadsa money character sort of summed up the times.

Oh my God.

WWI was just like Blackadder.

The 80s was summed up by Loadsamoney.

You watch too much TV, read a book FFS.

[great_fire]

I'm a member of the Labour Party and Momentum and voted Leave in the referendum , any thoughts on that fire ?

That you ought to have a word with the rest of your party.

[rolymiller]

So then gfire lets keep it simple and step back a bit, what do you think to the kick racism out of football campaign. Good thing? Bad thing? Why? Why not? Were you on your feet when Cyril Regis died? Did you think what he did was a good thing for black footballers? Was it good for the game in general?

[rolymiller]

Oh my God.

WWI was just like Blackadder.

The 80s was summed up by Loadsamoney.

You watch too much TV, read a book FFS.

if you are going to quote me please quote me properly in the context of what i am saying or it becomes meaningless.

My second paragraph is the one you should be dealing with.

[great_fire]

So then gfire lets keep it simple and step back a bit, what do you think to the kick racism out of football campaign. Good thing? Bad thing? Why? Why not? Were you on your feet when Cyril Regis died? Did you think what he did was a good thing for black footballers? Was it good for the game in general?

What did you think about Ron Atkinson being part of the tributes?

20-25% of footballers are black, black and white footballers mix together, where's the racism to be kicked out? (Ron has already been kicked out).

[rolymiller]

I think, at this point, I shall go for a lie down...:s

[animallittle3]

That you ought to have a word with the rest of your party.

Leaving the EU doesn't hold any political allegiance fire , plenty in both major party's wanted to leave , Dennis Skinner perhaps the standout left leaning MP .

There are many many good reasons to leave as they are remain in my opinion and it all boils down to how you view it .

Neither result was particularly great .

My own view was that the victory margin should have been set at 60% , anything less couldn't really be classed as a victory given the importance of the outcome .

[ragingpup]

They've got nothing to do with me why do you keep going on about them? Seems like you are the one who knows all about them not me.

Do you support Soros spending £18 billion to destroy nation states and democracies and encourage mass migration?


So when you say "they've got nothing to do with me" are you disassociating yourself from them and their views? If so, on what grounds? What do you disagree with them on?

I keep going on about them because I like people to be honest and transparent about their political views and I struggle to see how a man can espouse such strong views on Islam, nationalism and mass immigration without being drawn to these parties, the very things issues that these organisations exist to oppose. I'm also very interested in why people that have no problem in expressing these views seem to be ashamed of admitting support for these organisations.

So, I hear that you say that you are not supporting them but I can't believe you haven't seriously considered supporting them and therefore ask again - what has stopped you? Where do you and they differ?

[great_fire]

Leaving the EU doesn't hold any political allegiance fire , plenty in both major party's wanted to leave.

Not really.

Most Labour and Tory MPs are neither socialist or conservative, they neo-liberals, members of the globalist Davos elite.

Hence Chuka and Soubry are in different parties but have the same views.

[great_fire]

I think, at this point, I shall go for a lie down...:s

Good idea.

You really need and expect an answer to "why aren't you a member of this party you know little about?", why don't you support the Monster Raving Loonies?

[mikemiller]

Not really.

Most Labour and Tory MPs are neither socialist or conservative, they neo-liberals, members of the globalist Davos elite.



"Globalist Davos elite" ??? Did you get that from a Donald Trump Tweet? - I've never heard anyone in Britain use that term.He does come out with a lot of incomprehensible garbage though. By the way Trump's visit to Britain keeps getting postponed - is that because he is such a well-liked figure over here? (LOL!)

[rolymiller]

You need the lie down owd lad, where did you dig that quote up from me?

[great_fire]

You need the lie down owd lad, where did you dig that quote up from me?

Ha, yes sorry that was ragingpup.

[WanChaiMiller]

Great Fire. Have you always been a Tory. When did you start viting Tory?

Are you a fan of Thatcher?

[animallittle3]

Not really.

Most Labour and Tory MPs are neither socialist or conservative, they neo-liberals, members of the globalist Davos elite.

Hence Chuka and Soubry are in different parties but have the same views.

So Jacob Rees Mogg and Dennis Skinner are like two peas in a pod then ?

[rolymiller]

...disturbed me from my little snooze did that great fire.

[mikemiller]

I have to confess I don't know much about right-wingers as I am not one

That is literally unbelievable! When have you put anything on this site that was remotely liberal or left-of-centre ? ( Answer - never. It's always reactionary crap, often using totally fabricated stories)
You are an evil glove-puppet of Kempo, also known as Will Ritson, the self-styled "World's Biggest Liar". You have also encouraged the hard-core Nazis to keep spouting off their racist filth on this site too. You should be ashamed of yourself , Kempo (By the way are you still 57 years old? Even then, it's old enough to know better)

[ragingpup]

Good idea.

You really need and expect an answer to "why aren't you a member of this party you know little about?", why don't you support the Monster Raving Loonies?

You expect us to believe that you know little about the EDL, BF and NA? A man of your obvious passion in the very issues that they stand for?

OK then, reframe it. From the " little " you know of these groups, what stops you from finding out more and joining them? What on earth do they have to do to get you interested in them? If they can't attract someone with your views, at least to get to know a bit more about them God help them!

[mikemiller]

If he really does/did work for the NHS (doubtful), even he might have thought that it wouldn't be a good idea to say "By the way I'm a member of the NF/EDL/BNP, etc" at the job interview. He still seems to agree with their general fascist ideas though.

[rolymiller]

I would have thought it would be very difficult for gfire to work in the nhs because he would have had to work with people from many different races, religions and cultures. It must have been very hard for him to get on with anybody so its a not true from me. Certainly he would not have been able to come out with the stuff he says on here and hope to cultivate any sort of friendships or working relationships. Perhaps THE doc was his only pal there eh?

[mikemiller]

I would have thought it would be very difficult for gfire to work in the nhs because he would have had to work with people from many different races, religions and cultures. It must have been very hard for him to get on with anybody so its a not true from me. Certainly he would not have been able to come out with the stuff he says on here and hope to cultivate any sort of friendships or working relationships. Perhaps THE doc was his only pal there eh?

Could easily be the same obsessive liar as Kempo/IdiotBarsteward/Wendun?Unwed2, etc. Wonder if thinks he's 57 years old?

[great_fire]

I would have thought it would be very difficult for gfire to work in the nhs because he would have had to work with people from many different races, religions and cultures. It must have been very hard for him to get on with anybody so its a not true from me. Certainly he would not have been able to come out with the stuff he says on here and hope to cultivate any sort of friendships or working relationships. Perhaps THE doc was his only pal there eh?

Not really. Was in the 2000s though, probably more Eastern and Central Europeans working there now like there are everywhere.

With a couple of exceptions the only real foreigners I worked with were some of the doctors and consultants.

When I go back there are still loads of people there I worked with though, people stay for the pensions, sickness pay, holidays.

[animallittle3]

Not really. Was in the 2000s though, probably more Eastern and Central Europeans working there now like there are everywhere.

With a couple of exceptions the only real foreigners I worked with were some of the doctors and consultants.

When I go back there are still loads of people there I worked with though, people stay for the pensions, sickness pay, holidays.

I'm delighted fire that you made a contribution to one of the Labour Party's greatest achievements , yes I am aware the tories have a misguided claim to be the architect's but it was Labour who built it .

[great_fire]

I'm delighted fire that you made a contribution to one of the Labour Party's greatest achievements , yes I am aware the tories have a misguided claim to be the architect's but it was Labour who built it .

Not fit for purpose any more though.

European Bismarck system needed to replace it.

Early adopters don't usually get the best products, the iPhone was not the first smartphone, the NHS is the Nokia N95 of health services.

[ragingpup]

Not fit for purpose any more though.

European Bismarck system needed to replace it.

Early adopters don't usually get the best products, the iPhone was not the first smartphone, the NHS is the Nokia N95 of health services.

So for you the Bismarck system (established Germany 1883) is cutting edge and the future?

What for you are the inherent benefits to UK society of the Bismarck system? How will it help /improve us?

[KerrAvon]

People like Kerr seem to think its ok to hold racist views even though he would say he is not a racist himself because in some warped way racists have a right to be racists because that is democracy. If you want to hate groups of people that is your right sort of mentality.Not very democratic though for the minority groups who have to put up with it though is it?I don't think it is up to you, me or anyone else to dictate how people should think, Roly. That way lays people being ‘disappeared’ in the middle of the night for holding dissident views.

I can see that you are a big fan of labels, in which case you could call me a realist or a libertarian (I appreciate that there are other labels that you would probably prefer to apply to me), in that I recognise that people can and will hold a range of views, many of which I would vehemently disagree with, but which they are perfectly entitled to hold. I also think that people are entitled to express their views, whether I agree with them or not, provided that they remain within the limits of the law. Nobody has the right not to be offended in a liberal democracy such as the one that we are fortunate to live in.

Of course you have the absolute right to oppose and argue with any views that others express. I believe in the market place of ideas in which debate and discussion are the best way to try to get at the truth. All very unfashionable, I know. It must be so much easier just to shout racist or any other form or ‘ist’ or ‘phobe’ than to argue a point. Reverting to name calling or simply trying to stop people expressing views that you don’t agree with isn’t the answer though. As I pointed out last week, gf is a bigot, but so are you in your own way.

[KerrAvon]

I'm delighted fire that you made a contribution to one of the Labour Party's greatest achievements , yes I am aware the tories have a misguided claim to be the architect's but it was Labour who built it .It was the Liberals who established the welfare state in 1911 - 13 years before the first Labour government. David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill were the people who drove the National insurance Act 1911 through Parliament. It was then William Beveridge, a Liberal, who was the architect of its further development in his report that was prepared at the direction of the National Government during World War 2

[mikemiller]

So if you were a non-white patient would you be happy having a hard-core racist as your doctor, or even as an administrator involved in your case? Thankfully that's not how the NHS usually works, although, from what we have been told (if true) a few scumbags slip through the net. Far too abstract KerrAvon and not addressing the realities of the situation.

[rolymiller]

Think you make some very reasonable points there Kerr to be fair. I agree that you cannot force people into accepting your beliefs because that is where totalitarianism lies. I also believe that people are socialised differently so will have different views. It certainly wouldn't be much fun if everyone had the same view point. The only comment I would make is that certain matters border on being offensive or totally unfair. Now this is ok if you can address these matters through law but law as I'm sure you know us a subjective thing people who lack power cannot change the law in their favour compared with more powerful people. What I am trying to say in terms of the law is that I believe racism is not taken as seriously as it should be by the law because powerful people who make laws are not interested in serving minority groups they are for instance more interested in curving union power to protect the wealth of the rich and powerful.

[rolymiller]

I know you will say we all make laws through the ballot box and parliamentary democracy but is this truly democratic? What about press bias ? What about big business backing one party rather than another? If we had a truly democratic society we wouldn't have the problems we have with equality I believe. Yes parliamentary democracy is better than totalitarianism but to have a truly progressive society we need something much better something that genuinely represents everyone fairly.

[great_fire]

Of course you have the absolute right to oppose and argue with any views that others express. I believe in the market place of ideas in which debate and discussion are the best way to try to get at the truth. All very unfashionable, I know. It must be so much easier just to shout racist or any other form or ‘ist’ or ‘phobe’ than to argue a point. Reverting to name calling or simply trying to stop people expressing views that you don’t agree with isn’t the answer though. As I pointed out last week, gf is a bigot, but so are you in your own way.

And you still won't admit to saying that the grooming gangs in Rotherham were an invention of the BNP.

And more importantly, whether you actually believed that at the time or were, like the council, trying to cover it up to preserve "community cohesion".

[KerrAvon]

So if you were a non-white patient would you be happy having a hard-core racist as your doctor, or even as an administrator involved in your case? Thankfully that's not how the NHS usually works, although, from what we have been told (if true) a few scumbags slip through the net. Far too abstract KerrAvon and not addressing the realities of the situation.The reality of the situation is that people hold a range of views, mike. How do you propose to change that? As Roly acknowledges history is littered with examples of people being sent for 'political ee-education' or 'final solutions' for holding dissident views.

If I were a non - white patient being treated by a hard core 'racist' then I would be totally oblivious of his ot her views unless he or she chose to express them. At that point, it would become a question of whether his or behavior in expressing those views was inconsistent with his or her continued employment. That doctor is entitled to hold those views, however.

One of the issues is that words like 'racist' are over used and poorly defined. In my opinion, the country might be a more settled place if we could have a reasoned political debate about immigration, but we can't, in part because people fear being shouted down as being 'racist' forc expressing what might be well reasoned views.

On a less abstract point, gf makes a point about the Rotherham CSE scandal. Neither report into it suggests that it was covered up in the way that he suggests, but both confirm that there was a fear about mentioning the ethnicity of the majority of perpetrators. Surely you can accept that didn't help to address the issue and to protect children?

[KerrAvon]

Think you make some very reasonable points there Kerr to be fair. I agree that you cannot force people into accepting your beliefs because that is where totalitarianism lies. I also believe that people are socialised differently so will have different views. It certainly wouldn't be much fun if everyone had the same view point. The only comment I would make is that certain matters border on being offensive or totally unfair. Now this is ok if you can address these matters through law but law as I'm sure you know us a subjective thing people who lack power cannot change the law in their favour compared with more powerful people. What I am trying to say in terms of the law is that I believe racism is not taken as seriously as it should be by the law because powerful people who make laws are not interested in serving minority groups they are for instance more interested in curving union power to protect the wealth of the rich and powerful.What additional laws do you want to address 'racism: and which Trade Union laws do you want to repeal?

[KerrAvon]

I know you will say we all make laws through the ballot box and parliamentary democracy but is this truly democratic? What about press bias ? What about big business backing one party rather than another? If we had a truly democratic society we wouldn't have the problems we have with equality I believe. Yes parliamentary democracy is better than totalitarianism but to have a truly progressive society we need something much better something that genuinely represents everyone fairly. Churchill once said something along the lines that Democracy was imperfect, but was better than every other system of government. I don't have time to look it up, but it's worth it as he said it much better than me.

We have a free press. Long may it continue. The enthusiasm of people on the Left at the moment to complain about bias in the MSM, whilst repeatedly linking to The Guardian suggests that what they are really upset about is the MSM not agreeing with them.

If you are upset about business backing one party, how do you feel about the TUs bank rolling Labour? McCluskey and The Great Leader are becoming a double act to rival Little and Large.

[KerrAvon]

And you still won't admit to saying that the grooming gangs in Rotherham were an invention of the BNP.

And more importantly, whether you actually believed that at the time or were, like the council, trying to cover it up to preserve "community cohesion".I didn't say it and so I won't admit it.

Do you agree that the BNP tried to use the tragedy for political ends?

[Exiletyke]

Never have I seen a phrase so fitting for KA

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.

Mark Twain

[KerrAvon]

Never have I seen a phrase so fitting for KA

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.

Mark Twain Which facts haven't I got or which have I distorted, Exile?

[great_fire]

I didn't say it and so I won't admit it.

Do you agree that the BNP tried to use the tragedy for political ends?

All I remember from you and the left-wing posters on here was the usual denial, victim-blaming and whataboutism.

Maybe the BNP did exploit it but that's hardly the relevant point.

They were willing to listen to the victims whereas the police, council, local MPs and press weren't.

[great_fire]

Never have I seen a phrase so fitting for KA

Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.

Mark Twain

Good line recently from the French drama "Spiral": "Get a lawyer, they're paid to lie and they're very good at it".

[gm_gm]

On a less abstract point, gf makes a point about the Rotherham CSE scandal. Neither report into it suggests that it was covered up in the way that he suggests, but both confirm that there was a fear about mentioning the ethnicity of the majority of perpetrators. Surely you can accept that didn't help to address the issue and to protect children?

Kerr agree with most of that but in relation to the above, I seem to remember ongoing commentary suggesting a "cover up" although it may not have been in a report. The suggestion was also given more credibility when a load of files pertaining to case went missing in mysterious circumstances.

I think if you read between the lines there was some murky activity on behalf of the council, who lets face it have a large rap sheet

[Exiletyke]

Which facts haven't I got or which have I distorted, Exile?




Most of them & all of them