o/t King Arthur up to his armpits in A? rumours again

[fivetide]

...7. Barbican flat

(Scargills) Response

An application was made to buy the Barbican flat in 1993 on the basis that if accepted it would be subsequently transferred into the ownership of the NUM.

Except we only have Arthurs word on this after the event.

Note he doesn't say he was using Thatcher's right to buy to do it

Or that he wasn't paying the rent

Or that he never declared any of this on the application form.

Lets ignore the fact that a council property, meant for people who can't really afford other housing, was nearly bought, fraudulently, by a man who only didn't get it because he actually had somewhere else to live!!!

[quote]

Had the application been accepted it would have been put to the NUM NEC which would have accepted or rejected the proposal. Had the application to buy a?? made on advice of the NUMa??s solicitor and Counsel a?? been accepted by the City of London and then accepted by the NUM NEC it would hav

[walter10]

...7. Barbican flat

(Scargills) Response

An application was made to buy the Barbican flat in 1993 on the basis that if accepted it would be subsequently transferred into the ownership of the NUM.

Except we only have Arthurs word on this after the event.

Note he doesn't say he was using Thatcher's right to buy to do it

Or that he wasn't paying the rent

Or that he never declared any of this on the application form.

Lets ignore the fact that a council property, meant for people who can't really afford other housing, was nearly bought, fraudulently, by a man who only didn't get it because he actually had somewhere else to live!!!

[quote]

Had the application been accepted it would have been put to the NUM NEC which would have accepted or rejected the proposal. Had the application to buy a?? made on advice of the NUMa??s solicitor and Counsel a?? been accepted by the City of London

[charlielard]

The question that noone seems to be asking is this: -

The present NUM General Secretary Chris Kitchen is kicking up a fuss about the money that was paid to the IEMO by the NUM annually until 2010. Scargill ceased to be the president of the NUM in 2002 so who was responsible for the payments in the 8 years after then and why aren't they being criticised?

[Elite_Pie]

He could murder, rape and pillage and the lefties on here would still applaud him.

He makes Thatcher look like a saint

Scargill was a brilliant union leader in his early days, he made fantastic improvements in safety and working conditions for miners that undoubtedly saved lives. In his later years he was simply the opposite side of an evil coin to Thatcher.

Whatever he has done wrong won't change the fact that she was one of the most evil bitches ever to govern.

[millmoormagic]

He could murder, rape and pillage and the lefties on here would still applaud him.

He makes Thatcher look like a saint

Scargill was a brilliant union leader in his early days, he made fantastic improvements in safety and working conditions for miners that undoubtedly saved lives. In his later years he was simply the opposite side of an evil coin to Thatcher.

Whatever he has done wrong won't change the fact that she was one of the most evil bitches ever to govern.[/quote]

Great post that, many people have grown up soaking up all this right wing propaganda that they can't see the woods for the trees.

People are endlessly moaning on here, at work, in the boozer, about scroungers, immigrants, benefit cheats, benefit street! All this stems from the Thatcher era, where greed was good, where it was every man for himself and **** the others, where the manufacturing industry was decimated, a

[fivetide]

So, I have the choice of believing either you (who can't possibly know what happened) or Scargill (who provides quite a simple reasonable explanation of events)?

how silly.

Your choices are clear:

1. Believe the NUM and the facts from the court case
2. Believe uncle Arthur's edited version which can be easily and logically pulled apart by 1. as shown above

Understanding point 1. is logical. Continuing to follow point 2. is completely irrational.

Really walter, very strange to have someone absolutely refuse to see what is front of them. Real shame

[walter10]

So, I have the choice of believing either you (who can't possibly know what happened) or Scargill (who provides quite a simple reasonable explanation of events)?

how silly.

Your choices are clear:

1. Believe the NUM and the facts from the court case
2. Believe uncle Arthur's edited version which can be easily and logically pulled apart by 1. as shown above

Understanding point 1. is logical. Continuing to follow point 2. is completely irrational.

Really walter, very strange to have someone absolutely refuse to see what is front of them. Real shame [/quote]

The real shame is that you are making a big deal out of a meaningless sequence of events where nothing happened.