Miners organisation "hit by stock market crash"

The Chopwell lodge banner at a recent Gala

The Chopwell lodge banner at a recent Gala

First published in News
Last updated

MINERS’ leaders have hit back after being “smeared’’ by a MP.

The Durham Miners’ Association (DMA) warned earlier this week that it might struggle to fund the Durham Miners’ Gala in future because it must pay a £2m legal bill for an unsuccessful compensation claim for miners with osteoarthritis.

North Durham Labour MP Kevan Jones said that the last DMA accounts filed in 2007 - before it deregistered as a union and became a claims handling company - showed that it had £6m, including £1m in offshore bank accounts. He questioned what had happened to this money.

But the DMA has said that it suffered losses in the financial crisis.

Spokesman David Temple said: “The investments of the Durham Miners, which are managed by a professional management company – as are all trade union funds – took a massive hit in the stock market crash, which followed the 2008 banking crisis.

“This wiped an estimated 40 per cent off their value.

“Since that time, in addition to representing our members in thousands of tribunals, processing individual legal claims on their behalf, paying a permanent staff to maintain and repair our Grade II historic listed buildings, we have funded 14 Galas.

“We have never said that we have no money left. What we are saying is that looking after the interests of an ageing membership, at a time when their benefits are increasingly under attack by an uncaring government must take priority over the funding of the Gala.”

Mr Temple added: “Rather than condemn a legal system which has denied these miners their day in court, Jones chooses to smear the very organisation which has fought a six-year battle to get compensation for these men."

The DMA is urging people to help fund The Gala by joining its Friends of the Durham Miners’ Gala. Details are at www.durhamminers.org

Comments (77)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:50pm Wed 30 Apr 14

BMD says...

Remember the bitterness, hatred and contempt the Durham Miners Leaders have for the Bankers and the financial institutions, now, it turns out they have been playing the stock market and got burned.

Now which face will they wear to squirm out of this one?
Remember the bitterness, hatred and contempt the Durham Miners Leaders have for the Bankers and the financial institutions, now, it turns out they have been playing the stock market and got burned. Now which face will they wear to squirm out of this one? BMD
  • Score: 29

3:50pm Wed 30 Apr 14

behonest says...

Nice to see a left-wing, socialist organisation like the DMA rely on such a fundamental pillar of the capitalist system to take care of it's members money.

Shame it didn't work out for them.
Nice to see a left-wing, socialist organisation like the DMA rely on such a fundamental pillar of the capitalist system to take care of it's members money. Shame it didn't work out for them. behonest
  • Score: 31

4:01pm Wed 30 Apr 14

settheworldonfire says...

What goes around comes around...Serves the D.M.A. right....gambling on the stock market....Who would have thought.....
off shore bank accounts as well fiddling the tax system.....The miners ex union was corrupt from the start...They need to start living in the present and not the past....
What goes around comes around...Serves the D.M.A. right....gambling on the stock market....Who would have thought..... off shore bank accounts as well fiddling the tax system.....The miners ex union was corrupt from the start...They need to start living in the present and not the past.... settheworldonfire
  • Score: 23

5:59pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Voice-of-reality says...

I haven't laugh so much in years. The industry failed becuase it couldn't adapt to the market anbd they also can't invest in it. How have these people progressed beyond living in caves ...
I haven't laugh so much in years. The industry failed becuase it couldn't adapt to the market anbd they also can't invest in it. How have these people progressed beyond living in caves ... Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 31

6:04pm Wed 30 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

behonest wrote:
Nice to see a left-wing, socialist organisation like the DMA rely on such a fundamental pillar of the capitalist system to take care of it's members money.

Shame it didn't work out for them.
D.M.A. are in no way a Socialist organisation. Neither was the N.U.M. a "Socialist Organisation". It was a Trade Union, where workers came together, to "collectively" fight for their interests. I doubt very much that any more than a handful of miners, actually knew, or know what Socialism is. After all, they voted in their droves for pro Capitalist party's, including Labour.
If there are any who would suggest that Alan Cummings, or Hopper are Socialists, I would suggest you get a place in the Edinburgh comedy festival, because to claim such, is really funny and comical!
[quote][p][bold]behonest[/bold] wrote: Nice to see a left-wing, socialist organisation like the DMA rely on such a fundamental pillar of the capitalist system to take care of it's members money. Shame it didn't work out for them.[/p][/quote]D.M.A. are in no way a Socialist organisation. Neither was the N.U.M. a "Socialist Organisation". It was a Trade Union, where workers came together, to "collectively" fight for their interests. I doubt very much that any more than a handful of miners, actually knew, or know what Socialism is. After all, they voted in their droves for pro Capitalist party's, including Labour. If there are any who would suggest that Alan Cummings, or Hopper are Socialists, I would suggest you get a place in the Edinburgh comedy festival, because to claim such, is really funny and comical! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -21

6:22pm Wed 30 Apr 14

capt manners says...

Voice-of-reality wrote:
I haven't laugh so much in years. The industry failed becuase it couldn't adapt to the market anbd they also can't invest in it. How have these people progressed beyond living in caves ...
These miners provided the fuel for the power for you and your ancestors you idiot and small minded fool. Not to mention the amount of men who lost their lives doing this.
[quote][p][bold]Voice-of-reality[/bold] wrote: I haven't laugh so much in years. The industry failed becuase it couldn't adapt to the market anbd they also can't invest in it. How have these people progressed beyond living in caves ...[/p][/quote]These miners provided the fuel for the power for you and your ancestors you idiot and small minded fool. Not to mention the amount of men who lost their lives doing this. capt manners
  • Score: -18

6:28pm Wed 30 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

Tens, if not Hundreds of thousands of miners paid with their lives or health, to provide the fuel to power British industry. Not the Coal Owners, the wealthy, or the Governments, the Miners and only them!
There are those who would denigrate and run down miners and their contribution, on this site and elsewhere, I however, am not one of them!!!
Tens, if not Hundreds of thousands of miners paid with their lives or health, to provide the fuel to power British industry. Not the Coal Owners, the wealthy, or the Governments, the Miners and only them! There are those who would denigrate and run down miners and their contribution, on this site and elsewhere, I however, am not one of them!!! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -9

6:34pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Mod says...

Is the purpose of off shore accounts to avoid paying tax that would otherwise go to support the poor and vulnerable in society?
Is this the sort of practice that the Left claim is solely perpetrated by "capitalist scum"?
Shouldn't "Occupy" and other protesters be storming the buildings?
Where is the fairness? Where is the justice?
Is the purpose of off shore accounts to avoid paying tax that would otherwise go to support the poor and vulnerable in society? Is this the sort of practice that the Left claim is solely perpetrated by "capitalist scum"? Shouldn't "Occupy" and other protesters be storming the buildings? Where is the fairness? Where is the justice? Mod
  • Score: 18

6:35pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Voice-of-reality says...

TP1955,
Time to renew your library card and revisit the early origins of the Labour Party.

Capt manners - Yes the miners dug out the fuel - for which they were paid and also, more often than not, received free coal . No one made them do it - they chose to undertake the job and it was also their choice to ruin their own industry and communities through striking.
It is also worth remembering that more coal was produced and the industry was more profitable before it was nationalised. From memory the mosty profitable year was 1923. I agree some of them did die whilst working. However, whilst I mourn all soldiers who served their country and died in its name for they gave their services valantly and for others, the miners too often held the country to ransom for me to shed a single tear for any of them.
TP1955, Time to renew your library card and revisit the early origins of the Labour Party. Capt manners - Yes the miners dug out the fuel - for which they were paid and also, more often than not, received free coal . No one made them do it - they chose to undertake the job and it was also their choice to ruin their own industry and communities through striking. It is also worth remembering that more coal was produced and the industry was more profitable before it was nationalised. From memory the mosty profitable year was 1923. I agree some of them did die whilst working. However, whilst I mourn all soldiers who served their country and died in its name for they gave their services valantly and for others, the miners too often held the country to ransom for me to shed a single tear for any of them. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 18

6:36pm Wed 30 Apr 14

caberwocky1 says...

the dma deserve better than to be smeared by the politically smallminded.The DMA did a fantastic job in securing millions for miners in legal test cases.

It is the lost case which has left them with massive costs.

All trade unions have funds invested

Kevan jones would do better to try and support the working people of this county rather than smearing them.Once he has done as much as the dma he can comment.

Ffor a man who was part of a govt that took the country to an illegal war he should hold counsel.
the dma deserve better than to be smeared by the politically smallminded.The DMA did a fantastic job in securing millions for miners in legal test cases. It is the lost case which has left them with massive costs. All trade unions have funds invested Kevan jones would do better to try and support the working people of this county rather than smearing them.Once he has done as much as the dma he can comment. Ffor a man who was part of a govt that took the country to an illegal war he should hold counsel. caberwocky1
  • Score: -13

6:39pm Wed 30 Apr 14

capt manners says...

Voice-of-reality wrote:
TP1955,
Time to renew your library card and revisit the early origins of the Labour Party.

Capt manners - Yes the miners dug out the fuel - for which they were paid and also, more often than not, received free coal . No one made them do it - they chose to undertake the job and it was also their choice to ruin their own industry and communities through striking.
It is also worth remembering that more coal was produced and the industry was more profitable before it was nationalised. From memory the mosty profitable year was 1923. I agree some of them did die whilst working. However, whilst I mourn all soldiers who served their country and died in its name for they gave their services valantly and for others, the miners too often held the country to ransom for me to shed a single tear for any of them.
Who mentioned the labour party?

Take politics out of it and have a think.

Another clever political buffoon.
[quote][p][bold]Voice-of-reality[/bold] wrote: TP1955, Time to renew your library card and revisit the early origins of the Labour Party. Capt manners - Yes the miners dug out the fuel - for which they were paid and also, more often than not, received free coal . No one made them do it - they chose to undertake the job and it was also their choice to ruin their own industry and communities through striking. It is also worth remembering that more coal was produced and the industry was more profitable before it was nationalised. From memory the mosty profitable year was 1923. I agree some of them did die whilst working. However, whilst I mourn all soldiers who served their country and died in its name for they gave their services valantly and for others, the miners too often held the country to ransom for me to shed a single tear for any of them.[/p][/quote]Who mentioned the labour party? Take politics out of it and have a think. Another clever political buffoon. capt manners
  • Score: -14

6:57pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Voice-of-reality says...

If it ulitmately emerges that some of the money lost was also tied into the co-op bank fiasco - I may actually injury myself through laughter.
Now, 'as we 'celebrate the 30th anniversary of the NUM failure, think of how much more joyous it would be if the special 30th anniversary year were to mark the end of gala in its present guise along with the demise of both the co-op and the DMA.
If it ulitmately emerges that some of the money lost was also tied into the co-op bank fiasco - I may actually injury myself through laughter. Now, 'as we 'celebrate the 30th anniversary of the NUM failure, think of how much more joyous it would be if the special 30th anniversary year were to mark the end of gala in its present guise along with the demise of both the co-op and the DMA. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 9

7:03pm Wed 30 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

Voice-of-reality wrote:
TP1955,
Time to renew your library card and revisit the early origins of the Labour Party.

Capt manners - Yes the miners dug out the fuel - for which they were paid and also, more often than not, received free coal . No one made them do it - they chose to undertake the job and it was also their choice to ruin their own industry and communities through striking.
It is also worth remembering that more coal was produced and the industry was more profitable before it was nationalised. From memory the mosty profitable year was 1923. I agree some of them did die whilst working. However, whilst I mourn all soldiers who served their country and died in its name for they gave their services valantly and for others, the miners too often held the country to ransom for me to shed a single tear for any of them.
Actually VOC, I have no need to visit a library to know the origins of the anti working class Labour Party. I know every fetid, disgusting anti working class action Labour have perpetrated on a Class of people, Labour were originally set up to represent in Parliament. That Labours history, is one of betrayal of workers, stands as a shameful memorial to their duplicity!
As for the pre-nationalised Mining industry, If the Mines had not been nationalised post war, then the Mine Owners would have gone bankrupt. As it was such an important and integral part of the Capitalist economy, (all industries needed coal), it was necessary for Capitalists as a whole, to take on the burden of keeping this most necessary of industries going. This is what Nationalisation was and is. The whole of the Capitalist Class, securing and ensuring the continuation of a vital link in the productive chain.
The mines were taken into collective Capitalist ownership, with the former Mine Owners given bonds, that gave them a regular pay out. Given a choice between bankruptcy or regular income, I guess they got the best part of the deal!
That at each, Pit Head, a proclamation was made that, "This Pit now belongs to You, is perhaps the biggest and sorriest lie, ever told to a section of Workers, for nothing could be farther from the truth!
Finally VOR, you state; " the miners too often held the country to ransom for me to shed a single tear for any of them."
And that, about sums you up, you petty, ignorant, vicious excuse for a human being. As that is your level and has been for some time on this site, keep babbling, I do not intend to grace any more of your diatribes with further discourse.
[quote][p][bold]Voice-of-reality[/bold] wrote: TP1955, Time to renew your library card and revisit the early origins of the Labour Party. Capt manners - Yes the miners dug out the fuel - for which they were paid and also, more often than not, received free coal . No one made them do it - they chose to undertake the job and it was also their choice to ruin their own industry and communities through striking. It is also worth remembering that more coal was produced and the industry was more profitable before it was nationalised. From memory the mosty profitable year was 1923. I agree some of them did die whilst working. However, whilst I mourn all soldiers who served their country and died in its name for they gave their services valantly and for others, the miners too often held the country to ransom for me to shed a single tear for any of them.[/p][/quote]Actually VOC, I have no need to visit a library to know the origins of the anti working class Labour Party. I know every fetid, disgusting anti working class action Labour have perpetrated on a Class of people, Labour were originally set up to represent in Parliament. That Labours history, is one of betrayal of workers, stands as a shameful memorial to their duplicity! As for the pre-nationalised Mining industry, If the Mines had not been nationalised post war, then the Mine Owners would have gone bankrupt. As it was such an important and integral part of the Capitalist economy, (all industries needed coal), it was necessary for Capitalists as a whole, to take on the burden of keeping this most necessary of industries going. This is what Nationalisation was and is. The whole of the Capitalist Class, securing and ensuring the continuation of a vital link in the productive chain. The mines were taken into collective Capitalist ownership, with the former Mine Owners given bonds, that gave them a regular pay out. Given a choice between bankruptcy or regular income, I guess they got the best part of the deal! That at each, Pit Head, a proclamation was made that, "This Pit now belongs to You, is perhaps the biggest and sorriest lie, ever told to a section of Workers, for nothing could be farther from the truth! Finally VOR, you state; " the miners too often held the country to ransom for me to shed a single tear for any of them." And that, about sums you up, you petty, ignorant, vicious excuse for a human being. As that is your level and has been for some time on this site, keep babbling, I do not intend to grace any more of your diatribes with further discourse. tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -3

7:22pm Wed 30 Apr 14

David Lacey says...

TP - remind me which bunch of workers went on strike for more money during WW2 whilst my dad was sacrificing his life to save our country.
.
Please do so.
.
I dare you to use the one word answer.
.
Clue.
.
Miners.
TP - remind me which bunch of workers went on strike for more money during WW2 whilst my dad was sacrificing his life to save our country. . Please do so. . I dare you to use the one word answer. . Clue. . Miners. David Lacey
  • Score: 14

7:43pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Got Ya says...

Voice-of-reality wrote:
If it ulitmately emerges that some of the money lost was also tied into the co-op bank fiasco - I may actually injury myself through laughter.
Now, 'as we 'celebrate the 30th anniversary of the NUM failure, think of how much more joyous it would be if the special 30th anniversary year were to mark the end of gala in its present guise along with the demise of both the co-op and the DMA.
I dread to think what kind of person you will turn into when you grow up!
How much longer before you move up into the Junior School?
[quote][p][bold]Voice-of-reality[/bold] wrote: If it ulitmately emerges that some of the money lost was also tied into the co-op bank fiasco - I may actually injury myself through laughter. Now, 'as we 'celebrate the 30th anniversary of the NUM failure, think of how much more joyous it would be if the special 30th anniversary year were to mark the end of gala in its present guise along with the demise of both the co-op and the DMA.[/p][/quote]I dread to think what kind of person you will turn into when you grow up! How much longer before you move up into the Junior School? Got Ya
  • Score: -7

7:49pm Wed 30 Apr 14

laboursfoe says...

David Lacey wrote:
TP - remind me which bunch of workers went on strike for more money during WW2 whilst my dad was sacrificing his life to save our country.
.
Please do so.
.
I dare you to use the one word answer.
.
Clue.
.
Miners.
Let them find themselves David. If they worked so tirelessly to gain compensation for the ex miners surely they would have no problem getting contributions from the people they assisted.

Why send out the begging bowl, and why take great offence and see themselves smeared by a n MP asking perfectly reasonable questions.
This has only brewed because DMA were squirming and trying to avoid giving a response.

Miners may have provided an invaluable service in the last century but they were very handsomely paid for their work. More than many members of the Armed Forces, but they continually displayed the same if not worse greed than those they dispose the most!!
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: TP - remind me which bunch of workers went on strike for more money during WW2 whilst my dad was sacrificing his life to save our country. . Please do so. . I dare you to use the one word answer. . Clue. . Miners.[/p][/quote]Let them find themselves David. If they worked so tirelessly to gain compensation for the ex miners surely they would have no problem getting contributions from the people they assisted. Why send out the begging bowl, and why take great offence and see themselves smeared by a n MP asking perfectly reasonable questions. This has only brewed because DMA were squirming and trying to avoid giving a response. Miners may have provided an invaluable service in the last century but they were very handsomely paid for their work. More than many members of the Armed Forces, but they continually displayed the same if not worse greed than those they dispose the most!! laboursfoe
  • Score: 7

8:01pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Voice-of-reality says...

One of the many joys of the preparatory to public system, Got Ya, is that one never attends Junior School (no definite article required).
One of the many joys of the preparatory to public system, Got Ya, is that one never attends Junior School (no definite article required). Voice-of-reality
  • Score: -1

8:50pm Wed 30 Apr 14

capt manners says...

David Lacey wrote:
TP - remind me which bunch of workers went on strike for more money during WW2 whilst my dad was sacrificing his life to save our country.
.
Please do so.
.
I dare you to use the one word answer.
.
Clue.
.
Miners.
David
just to put you right, miners usually did not have the right to go to war due to the governments restrictions on essential workers.
Just to confirm that a reserved occupation (also known as essential services) is an occupation considered important enough to a country that those serving in such occupations are exempt—in fact forbidden—from military service.
These people were also losing their lives whilst ensuring those at home and those at war were supplied with what they needed to assist their battles.
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: TP - remind me which bunch of workers went on strike for more money during WW2 whilst my dad was sacrificing his life to save our country. . Please do so. . I dare you to use the one word answer. . Clue. . Miners.[/p][/quote]David just to put you right, miners usually did not have the right to go to war due to the governments restrictions on essential workers. Just to confirm that a reserved occupation (also known as essential services) is an occupation considered important enough to a country that those serving in such occupations are exempt—in fact forbidden—from military service. These people were also losing their lives whilst ensuring those at home and those at war were supplied with what they needed to assist their battles. capt manners
  • Score: 1

9:20pm Wed 30 Apr 14

laboursfoe says...

capt manners wrote:
David Lacey wrote:
TP - remind me which bunch of workers went on strike for more money during WW2 whilst my dad was sacrificing his life to save our country.
.
Please do so.
.
I dare you to use the one word answer.
.
Clue.
.
Miners.
David
just to put you right, miners usually did not have the right to go to war due to the governments restrictions on essential workers.
Just to confirm that a reserved occupation (also known as essential services) is an occupation considered important enough to a country that those serving in such occupations are exempt—in fact forbidden—from military service.
These people were also losing their lives whilst ensuring those at home and those at war were supplied with what they needed to assist their battles.
Yes coal was needed to fire furnaces for the war effort as provide heating for homes, but they still tried to squeeze more wages and threatened to withdraw labour even during wartime. Lovely folk!!!
[quote][p][bold]capt manners[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: TP - remind me which bunch of workers went on strike for more money during WW2 whilst my dad was sacrificing his life to save our country. . Please do so. . I dare you to use the one word answer. . Clue. . Miners.[/p][/quote]David just to put you right, miners usually did not have the right to go to war due to the governments restrictions on essential workers. Just to confirm that a reserved occupation (also known as essential services) is an occupation considered important enough to a country that those serving in such occupations are exempt—in fact forbidden—from military service. These people were also losing their lives whilst ensuring those at home and those at war were supplied with what they needed to assist their battles.[/p][/quote]Yes coal was needed to fire furnaces for the war effort as provide heating for homes, but they still tried to squeeze more wages and threatened to withdraw labour even during wartime. Lovely folk!!! laboursfoe
  • Score: 8

10:06pm Wed 30 Apr 14

capt manners says...

laboursfoe wrote:
capt manners wrote:
David Lacey wrote:
TP - remind me which bunch of workers went on strike for more money during WW2 whilst my dad was sacrificing his life to save our country.
.
Please do so.
.
I dare you to use the one word answer.
.
Clue.
.
Miners.
David
just to put you right, miners usually did not have the right to go to war due to the governments restrictions on essential workers.
Just to confirm that a reserved occupation (also known as essential services) is an occupation considered important enough to a country that those serving in such occupations are exempt—in fact forbidden—from military service.
These people were also losing their lives whilst ensuring those at home and those at war were supplied with what they needed to assist their battles.
Yes coal was needed to fire furnaces for the war effort as provide heating for homes, but they still tried to squeeze more wages and threatened to withdraw labour even during wartime. Lovely folk!!!
Missed the point you ever so clever man.
[quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]capt manners[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: TP - remind me which bunch of workers went on strike for more money during WW2 whilst my dad was sacrificing his life to save our country. . Please do so. . I dare you to use the one word answer. . Clue. . Miners.[/p][/quote]David just to put you right, miners usually did not have the right to go to war due to the governments restrictions on essential workers. Just to confirm that a reserved occupation (also known as essential services) is an occupation considered important enough to a country that those serving in such occupations are exempt—in fact forbidden—from military service. These people were also losing their lives whilst ensuring those at home and those at war were supplied with what they needed to assist their battles.[/p][/quote]Yes coal was needed to fire furnaces for the war effort as provide heating for homes, but they still tried to squeeze more wages and threatened to withdraw labour even during wartime. Lovely folk!!![/p][/quote]Missed the point you ever so clever man. capt manners
  • Score: -7

10:18pm Wed 30 Apr 14

laboursfoe says...

capt manners wrote:
laboursfoe wrote:
capt manners wrote:
David Lacey wrote:
TP - remind me which bunch of workers went on strike for more money during WW2 whilst my dad was sacrificing his life to save our country.
.
Please do so.
.
I dare you to use the one word answer.
.
Clue.
.
Miners.
David
just to put you right, miners usually did not have the right to go to war due to the governments restrictions on essential workers.
Just to confirm that a reserved occupation (also known as essential services) is an occupation considered important enough to a country that those serving in such occupations are exempt—in fact forbidden—from military service.
These people were also losing their lives whilst ensuring those at home and those at war were supplied with what they needed to assist their battles.
Yes coal was needed to fire furnaces for the war effort as provide heating for homes, but they still tried to squeeze more wages and threatened to withdraw labour even during wartime. Lovely folk!!!
Missed the point you ever so clever man.
Educate me then Capt!! What was your point??
[quote][p][bold]capt manners[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]capt manners[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: TP - remind me which bunch of workers went on strike for more money during WW2 whilst my dad was sacrificing his life to save our country. . Please do so. . I dare you to use the one word answer. . Clue. . Miners.[/p][/quote]David just to put you right, miners usually did not have the right to go to war due to the governments restrictions on essential workers. Just to confirm that a reserved occupation (also known as essential services) is an occupation considered important enough to a country that those serving in such occupations are exempt—in fact forbidden—from military service. These people were also losing their lives whilst ensuring those at home and those at war were supplied with what they needed to assist their battles.[/p][/quote]Yes coal was needed to fire furnaces for the war effort as provide heating for homes, but they still tried to squeeze more wages and threatened to withdraw labour even during wartime. Lovely folk!!![/p][/quote]Missed the point you ever so clever man.[/p][/quote]Educate me then Capt!! What was your point?? laboursfoe
  • Score: -2

10:24pm Wed 30 Apr 14

capt manners says...

laboursfoe wrote:
capt manners wrote:
laboursfoe wrote:
capt manners wrote:
David Lacey wrote:
TP - remind me which bunch of workers went on strike for more money during WW2 whilst my dad was sacrificing his life to save our country.
.
Please do so.
.
I dare you to use the one word answer.
.
Clue.
.
Miners.
David
just to put you right, miners usually did not have the right to go to war due to the governments restrictions on essential workers.
Just to confirm that a reserved occupation (also known as essential services) is an occupation considered important enough to a country that those serving in such occupations are exempt—in fact forbidden—from military service.
These people were also losing their lives whilst ensuring those at home and those at war were supplied with what they needed to assist their battles.
Yes coal was needed to fire furnaces for the war effort as provide heating for homes, but they still tried to squeeze more wages and threatened to withdraw labour even during wartime. Lovely folk!!!
Missed the point you ever so clever man.
Educate me then Capt!! What was your point??
Too clever for me David.
Think i'll leave it!
[quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]capt manners[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]capt manners[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: TP - remind me which bunch of workers went on strike for more money during WW2 whilst my dad was sacrificing his life to save our country. . Please do so. . I dare you to use the one word answer. . Clue. . Miners.[/p][/quote]David just to put you right, miners usually did not have the right to go to war due to the governments restrictions on essential workers. Just to confirm that a reserved occupation (also known as essential services) is an occupation considered important enough to a country that those serving in such occupations are exempt—in fact forbidden—from military service. These people were also losing their lives whilst ensuring those at home and those at war were supplied with what they needed to assist their battles.[/p][/quote]Yes coal was needed to fire furnaces for the war effort as provide heating for homes, but they still tried to squeeze more wages and threatened to withdraw labour even during wartime. Lovely folk!!![/p][/quote]Missed the point you ever so clever man.[/p][/quote]Educate me then Capt!! What was your point??[/p][/quote]Too clever for me David. Think i'll leave it! capt manners
  • Score: -2

10:32pm Wed 30 Apr 14

laboursfoe says...

capt manners wrote:
laboursfoe wrote:
capt manners wrote:
laboursfoe wrote:
capt manners wrote:
David Lacey wrote:
TP - remind me which bunch of workers went on strike for more money during WW2 whilst my dad was sacrificing his life to save our country.
.
Please do so.
.
I dare you to use the one word answer.
.
Clue.
.
Miners.
David
just to put you right, miners usually did not have the right to go to war due to the governments restrictions on essential workers.
Just to confirm that a reserved occupation (also known as essential services) is an occupation considered important enough to a country that those serving in such occupations are exempt—in fact forbidden—from military service.
These people were also losing their lives whilst ensuring those at home and those at war were supplied with what they needed to assist their battles.
Yes coal was needed to fire furnaces for the war effort as provide heating for homes, but they still tried to squeeze more wages and threatened to withdraw labour even during wartime. Lovely folk!!!
Missed the point you ever so clever man.
Educate me then Capt!! What was your point??
Too clever for me David.
Think i'll leave it!
So there was no point then. I'm not David BTW

I'm guessing that you were unhappy that I didn't dwell on the fact that Minrrs were a reserved occupation. You're right, they were very important during the World Wars, unfortunately that didn't stop them from taking advantage to try and get more money.
[quote][p][bold]capt manners[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]capt manners[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]capt manners[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: TP - remind me which bunch of workers went on strike for more money during WW2 whilst my dad was sacrificing his life to save our country. . Please do so. . I dare you to use the one word answer. . Clue. . Miners.[/p][/quote]David just to put you right, miners usually did not have the right to go to war due to the governments restrictions on essential workers. Just to confirm that a reserved occupation (also known as essential services) is an occupation considered important enough to a country that those serving in such occupations are exempt—in fact forbidden—from military service. These people were also losing their lives whilst ensuring those at home and those at war were supplied with what they needed to assist their battles.[/p][/quote]Yes coal was needed to fire furnaces for the war effort as provide heating for homes, but they still tried to squeeze more wages and threatened to withdraw labour even during wartime. Lovely folk!!![/p][/quote]Missed the point you ever so clever man.[/p][/quote]Educate me then Capt!! What was your point??[/p][/quote]Too clever for me David. Think i'll leave it![/p][/quote]So there was no point then. I'm not David BTW I'm guessing that you were unhappy that I didn't dwell on the fact that Minrrs were a reserved occupation. You're right, they were very important during the World Wars, unfortunately that didn't stop them from taking advantage to try and get more money. laboursfoe
  • Score: 3

10:50pm Wed 30 Apr 14

capt manners says...

laboursfoe wrote:
capt manners wrote:
laboursfoe wrote:
capt manners wrote:
laboursfoe wrote:
capt manners wrote:
David Lacey wrote:
TP - remind me which bunch of workers went on strike for more money during WW2 whilst my dad was sacrificing his life to save our country.
.
Please do so.
.
I dare you to use the one word answer.
.
Clue.
.
Miners.
David
just to put you right, miners usually did not have the right to go to war due to the governments restrictions on essential workers.
Just to confirm that a reserved occupation (also known as essential services) is an occupation considered important enough to a country that those serving in such occupations are exempt—in fact forbidden—from military service.
These people were also losing their lives whilst ensuring those at home and those at war were supplied with what they needed to assist their battles.
Yes coal was needed to fire furnaces for the war effort as provide heating for homes, but they still tried to squeeze more wages and threatened to withdraw labour even during wartime. Lovely folk!!!
Missed the point you ever so clever man.
Educate me then Capt!! What was your point??
Too clever for me David.
Think i'll leave it!
So there was no point then. I'm not David BTW

I'm guessing that you were unhappy that I didn't dwell on the fact that Minrrs were a reserved occupation. You're right, they were very important during the World Wars, unfortunately that didn't stop them from taking advantage to try and get more money.
Alright Dave
just to mention that As Britain could not import coal during World War II, the production of coal from mines in Britain had to be increased. The Minister of Labour, Ernest Bevin, decided that a percentage of young men called up to serve in the forces should work in the mines. From 1943 to the end of the war one in ten of the young men called up was sent to work in the mines. This caused a great deal of upset as many of the young men wanted to join the fighting forces and many felt that they were not valued. These conscript miners were given the nickname 'Bevin Boys'. Many suffered taunts as they wore no uniform and were wrongly assumed to be avoiding conscription which was mandatory for young men in Britain.

I can see you would have been one of the taunters no doubt.

All the best Dave
Good night Dave
[quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]capt manners[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]capt manners[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]capt manners[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: TP - remind me which bunch of workers went on strike for more money during WW2 whilst my dad was sacrificing his life to save our country. . Please do so. . I dare you to use the one word answer. . Clue. . Miners.[/p][/quote]David just to put you right, miners usually did not have the right to go to war due to the governments restrictions on essential workers. Just to confirm that a reserved occupation (also known as essential services) is an occupation considered important enough to a country that those serving in such occupations are exempt—in fact forbidden—from military service. These people were also losing their lives whilst ensuring those at home and those at war were supplied with what they needed to assist their battles.[/p][/quote]Yes coal was needed to fire furnaces for the war effort as provide heating for homes, but they still tried to squeeze more wages and threatened to withdraw labour even during wartime. Lovely folk!!![/p][/quote]Missed the point you ever so clever man.[/p][/quote]Educate me then Capt!! What was your point??[/p][/quote]Too clever for me David. Think i'll leave it![/p][/quote]So there was no point then. I'm not David BTW I'm guessing that you were unhappy that I didn't dwell on the fact that Minrrs were a reserved occupation. You're right, they were very important during the World Wars, unfortunately that didn't stop them from taking advantage to try and get more money.[/p][/quote]Alright Dave just to mention that As Britain could not import coal during World War II, the production of coal from mines in Britain had to be increased. The Minister of Labour, Ernest Bevin, decided that a percentage of young men called up to serve in the forces should work in the mines. From 1943 to the end of the war one in ten of the young men called up was sent to work in the mines. This caused a great deal of upset as many of the young men wanted to join the fighting forces and many felt that they were not valued. These conscript miners were given the nickname 'Bevin Boys'. Many suffered taunts as they wore no uniform and were wrongly assumed to be avoiding conscription which was mandatory for young men in Britain. I can see you would have been one of the taunters no doubt. All the best Dave Good night Dave capt manners
  • Score: -4

11:05pm Wed 30 Apr 14

laboursfoe says...

capt manners wrote:
laboursfoe wrote:
capt manners wrote:
laboursfoe wrote:
capt manners wrote:
laboursfoe wrote:
capt manners wrote:
David Lacey wrote:
TP - remind me which bunch of workers went on strike for more money during WW2 whilst my dad was sacrificing his life to save our country.
.
Please do so.
.
I dare you to use the one word answer.
.
Clue.
.
Miners.
David
just to put you right, miners usually did not have the right to go to war due to the governments restrictions on essential workers.
Just to confirm that a reserved occupation (also known as essential services) is an occupation considered important enough to a country that those serving in such occupations are exempt—in fact forbidden—from military service.
These people were also losing their lives whilst ensuring those at home and those at war were supplied with what they needed to assist their battles.
Yes coal was needed to fire furnaces for the war effort as provide heating for homes, but they still tried to squeeze more wages and threatened to withdraw labour even during wartime. Lovely folk!!!
Missed the point you ever so clever man.
Educate me then Capt!! What was your point??
Too clever for me David.
Think i'll leave it!
So there was no point then. I'm not David BTW

I'm guessing that you were unhappy that I didn't dwell on the fact that Minrrs were a reserved occupation. You're right, they were very important during the World Wars, unfortunately that didn't stop them from taking advantage to try and get more money.
Alright Dave
just to mention that As Britain could not import coal during World War II, the production of coal from mines in Britain had to be increased. The Minister of Labour, Ernest Bevin, decided that a percentage of young men called up to serve in the forces should work in the mines. From 1943 to the end of the war one in ten of the young men called up was sent to work in the mines. This caused a great deal of upset as many of the young men wanted to join the fighting forces and many felt that they were not valued. These conscript miners were given the nickname 'Bevin Boys'. Many suffered taunts as they wore no uniform and were wrongly assumed to be avoiding conscription which was mandatory for young men in Britain.

I can see you would have been one of the taunters no doubt.

All the best Dave
Good night Dave
Well that would be down to the ignorance of others then wouldn't it.
I still fail to see what construction has to do with the miners taking the opportunity to grasp more money when the rest of the country was pulling together in a war.

All the best Trigger ;-)
[quote][p][bold]capt manners[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]capt manners[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]capt manners[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]capt manners[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: TP - remind me which bunch of workers went on strike for more money during WW2 whilst my dad was sacrificing his life to save our country. . Please do so. . I dare you to use the one word answer. . Clue. . Miners.[/p][/quote]David just to put you right, miners usually did not have the right to go to war due to the governments restrictions on essential workers. Just to confirm that a reserved occupation (also known as essential services) is an occupation considered important enough to a country that those serving in such occupations are exempt—in fact forbidden—from military service. These people were also losing their lives whilst ensuring those at home and those at war were supplied with what they needed to assist their battles.[/p][/quote]Yes coal was needed to fire furnaces for the war effort as provide heating for homes, but they still tried to squeeze more wages and threatened to withdraw labour even during wartime. Lovely folk!!![/p][/quote]Missed the point you ever so clever man.[/p][/quote]Educate me then Capt!! What was your point??[/p][/quote]Too clever for me David. Think i'll leave it![/p][/quote]So there was no point then. I'm not David BTW I'm guessing that you were unhappy that I didn't dwell on the fact that Minrrs were a reserved occupation. You're right, they were very important during the World Wars, unfortunately that didn't stop them from taking advantage to try and get more money.[/p][/quote]Alright Dave just to mention that As Britain could not import coal during World War II, the production of coal from mines in Britain had to be increased. The Minister of Labour, Ernest Bevin, decided that a percentage of young men called up to serve in the forces should work in the mines. From 1943 to the end of the war one in ten of the young men called up was sent to work in the mines. This caused a great deal of upset as many of the young men wanted to join the fighting forces and many felt that they were not valued. These conscript miners were given the nickname 'Bevin Boys'. Many suffered taunts as they wore no uniform and were wrongly assumed to be avoiding conscription which was mandatory for young men in Britain. I can see you would have been one of the taunters no doubt. All the best Dave Good night Dave[/p][/quote]Well that would be down to the ignorance of others then wouldn't it. I still fail to see what construction has to do with the miners taking the opportunity to grasp more money when the rest of the country was pulling together in a war. All the best Trigger ;-) laboursfoe
  • Score: -1

11:35pm Wed 30 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

David Lacey wrote:
TP - remind me which bunch of workers went on strike for more money during WW2 whilst my dad was sacrificing his life to save our country.
.
Please do so.
.
I dare you to use the one word answer.
.
Clue.
.
Miners.
Miners were not the only workers to strike. In the first years of WW2 over 900 strikes occurred! Are you telling me they were all "Miners Strikes"? because they were not. In 1944, there were Over 2000 strikes, are you telling me they were all "Miners Strikes? because they were not!
In 1943 the two largest strikes, were by docker's in Liverpool and Birkenhead and a strike of bus drivers and conductors, no miners in sight!!!
WW2 did not stop Capitalists from using the "war effort" and "nationalist pap", to try their usual tactics of turning one section of workers against another, in order to save a few quid. So much for national unity!!!
Moreover, you have to remember Mr Lacey, that miners as well as other workers, had their relatives serving in the forces too. So your emotive plea does not work on me!
Workers, even in wartime, had to defend themselves against the depredations of "their betters", which our "betters", of a surety tried on.
Funnily enough, reading wartime history of how our leaders and betters spoke, during wartime, reminds me of todays self same lies of, "we are all in this together"! Good job then, that us ordinary proles did not have the leanings of a Prince of the realm and a leading Newspaper proprietor, amongst many of the wealthy, in their support for and admiration of, Herr Hitler! Wouldn't you agree Mr Lacey? Because if we had sucked up to Hitler, workers would have had no "rights", the same as existed in Deutschland. I know that there are those, on this site, who would rejoice at such a turn of events but I do not!
So Mr Lacey, it was not just Miners who went on strike, during WW2, as much as you try to paint that picture. Nor was it just workers, who were responsible for strikes during WW2, but Owners and Bosses trying to "take advantage and play the "Patriotic Card", to screw the workers over further.
So do you accept historical truth, that more than Miners went on strike and that Bosses tried to take advantage of the situation for their own pecuniary ends? or are you and others, sticking by your, evil, unpatriotic miners, Shiite?
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: TP - remind me which bunch of workers went on strike for more money during WW2 whilst my dad was sacrificing his life to save our country. . Please do so. . I dare you to use the one word answer. . Clue. . Miners.[/p][/quote]Miners were not the only workers to strike. In the first years of WW2 over 900 strikes occurred! Are you telling me they were all "Miners Strikes"? because they were not. In 1944, there were Over 2000 strikes, are you telling me they were all "Miners Strikes? because they were not! In 1943 the two largest strikes, were by docker's in Liverpool and Birkenhead and a strike of bus drivers and conductors, no miners in sight!!! WW2 did not stop Capitalists from using the "war effort" and "nationalist pap", to try their usual tactics of turning one section of workers against another, in order to save a few quid. So much for national unity!!! Moreover, you have to remember Mr Lacey, that miners as well as other workers, had their relatives serving in the forces too. So your emotive plea does not work on me! Workers, even in wartime, had to defend themselves against the depredations of "their betters", which our "betters", of a surety tried on. Funnily enough, reading wartime history of how our leaders and betters spoke, during wartime, reminds me of todays self same lies of, "we are all in this together"! Good job then, that us ordinary proles did not have the leanings of a Prince of the realm and a leading Newspaper proprietor, amongst many of the wealthy, in their support for and admiration of, Herr Hitler! Wouldn't you agree Mr Lacey? Because if we had sucked up to Hitler, workers would have had no "rights", the same as existed in Deutschland. I know that there are those, on this site, who would rejoice at such a turn of events but I do not! So Mr Lacey, it was not just Miners who went on strike, during WW2, as much as you try to paint that picture. Nor was it just workers, who were responsible for strikes during WW2, but Owners and Bosses trying to "take advantage and play the "Patriotic Card", to screw the workers over further. So do you accept historical truth, that more than Miners went on strike and that Bosses tried to take advantage of the situation for their own pecuniary ends? or are you and others, sticking by your, evil, unpatriotic miners, Shiite? tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: 1

11:40pm Wed 30 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

laboursfoe wrote:
capt manners wrote:
laboursfoe wrote:
capt manners wrote:
laboursfoe wrote:
capt manners wrote:
laboursfoe wrote:
capt manners wrote:
David Lacey wrote:
TP - remind me which bunch of workers went on strike for more money during WW2 whilst my dad was sacrificing his life to save our country.
.
Please do so.
.
I dare you to use the one word answer.
.
Clue.
.
Miners.
David
just to put you right, miners usually did not have the right to go to war due to the governments restrictions on essential workers.
Just to confirm that a reserved occupation (also known as essential services) is an occupation considered important enough to a country that those serving in such occupations are exempt—in fact forbidden—from military service.
These people were also losing their lives whilst ensuring those at home and those at war were supplied with what they needed to assist their battles.
Yes coal was needed to fire furnaces for the war effort as provide heating for homes, but they still tried to squeeze more wages and threatened to withdraw labour even during wartime. Lovely folk!!!
Missed the point you ever so clever man.
Educate me then Capt!! What was your point??
Too clever for me David.
Think i'll leave it!
So there was no point then. I'm not David BTW

I'm guessing that you were unhappy that I didn't dwell on the fact that Minrrs were a reserved occupation. You're right, they were very important during the World Wars, unfortunately that didn't stop them from taking advantage to try and get more money.
Alright Dave
just to mention that As Britain could not import coal during World War II, the production of coal from mines in Britain had to be increased. The Minister of Labour, Ernest Bevin, decided that a percentage of young men called up to serve in the forces should work in the mines. From 1943 to the end of the war one in ten of the young men called up was sent to work in the mines. This caused a great deal of upset as many of the young men wanted to join the fighting forces and many felt that they were not valued. These conscript miners were given the nickname 'Bevin Boys'. Many suffered taunts as they wore no uniform and were wrongly assumed to be avoiding conscription which was mandatory for young men in Britain.

I can see you would have been one of the taunters no doubt.

All the best Dave
Good night Dave
Well that would be down to the ignorance of others then wouldn't it.
I still fail to see what construction has to do with the miners taking the opportunity to grasp more money when the rest of the country was pulling together in a war.

All the best Trigger ;-)
Your post, in fact the final paragraph, is a lie, pure and simple!!! "The rest of the country, (were most assuredly not) pulling together in a war", as I state in my post just above. Mayhap you can do some research, to verify my assertion, or not, if you want to continue with the "Lie"
[quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]capt manners[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]capt manners[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]capt manners[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]capt manners[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: TP - remind me which bunch of workers went on strike for more money during WW2 whilst my dad was sacrificing his life to save our country. . Please do so. . I dare you to use the one word answer. . Clue. . Miners.[/p][/quote]David just to put you right, miners usually did not have the right to go to war due to the governments restrictions on essential workers. Just to confirm that a reserved occupation (also known as essential services) is an occupation considered important enough to a country that those serving in such occupations are exempt—in fact forbidden—from military service. These people were also losing their lives whilst ensuring those at home and those at war were supplied with what they needed to assist their battles.[/p][/quote]Yes coal was needed to fire furnaces for the war effort as provide heating for homes, but they still tried to squeeze more wages and threatened to withdraw labour even during wartime. Lovely folk!!![/p][/quote]Missed the point you ever so clever man.[/p][/quote]Educate me then Capt!! What was your point??[/p][/quote]Too clever for me David. Think i'll leave it![/p][/quote]So there was no point then. I'm not David BTW I'm guessing that you were unhappy that I didn't dwell on the fact that Minrrs were a reserved occupation. You're right, they were very important during the World Wars, unfortunately that didn't stop them from taking advantage to try and get more money.[/p][/quote]Alright Dave just to mention that As Britain could not import coal during World War II, the production of coal from mines in Britain had to be increased. The Minister of Labour, Ernest Bevin, decided that a percentage of young men called up to serve in the forces should work in the mines. From 1943 to the end of the war one in ten of the young men called up was sent to work in the mines. This caused a great deal of upset as many of the young men wanted to join the fighting forces and many felt that they were not valued. These conscript miners were given the nickname 'Bevin Boys'. Many suffered taunts as they wore no uniform and were wrongly assumed to be avoiding conscription which was mandatory for young men in Britain. I can see you would have been one of the taunters no doubt. All the best Dave Good night Dave[/p][/quote]Well that would be down to the ignorance of others then wouldn't it. I still fail to see what construction has to do with the miners taking the opportunity to grasp more money when the rest of the country was pulling together in a war. All the best Trigger ;-)[/p][/quote]Your post, in fact the final paragraph, is a lie, pure and simple!!! "The rest of the country, (were most assuredly not) pulling together in a war", as I state in my post just above. Mayhap you can do some research, to verify my assertion, or not, if you want to continue with the "Lie" tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: 2

11:49pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Voice-of-reality says...

Would it be possible not to have to copy all of the threads into messages? It is quite possible to respond without needing to repeat everything so that others do not have to scroll through quite asmuch.
You are correct TP that others did indeed go on strike during the war. They did not, however, hold the country to ransom twice in the 1970s or act in such a way as to bring down governments.
Would it be possible not to have to copy all of the threads into messages? It is quite possible to respond without needing to repeat everything so that others do not have to scroll through quite asmuch. You are correct TP that others did indeed go on strike during the war. They did not, however, hold the country to ransom twice in the 1970s or act in such a way as to bring down governments. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 4

11:52pm Wed 30 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

David Lacey wrote:
TP - remind me which bunch of workers went on strike for more money during WW2 whilst my dad was sacrificing his life to save our country.
.
Please do so.
.
I dare you to use the one word answer.
.
Clue.
.
Miners.
Mr Lacey, I answered you, but not in the one word answer you requested, why? because your assertion was "incorrect" and therefore needed more than the one word, you, granted me to use! Please append your apology, with your next post. Unless you still think, in the face of all historical evidence to the contrary, that you are correct! Do you?
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: TP - remind me which bunch of workers went on strike for more money during WW2 whilst my dad was sacrificing his life to save our country. . Please do so. . I dare you to use the one word answer. . Clue. . Miners.[/p][/quote]Mr Lacey, I answered you, but not in the one word answer you requested, why? because your assertion was "incorrect" and therefore needed more than the one word, you, granted me to use! Please append your apology, with your next post. Unless you still think, in the face of all historical evidence to the contrary, that you are correct! Do you? tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: 4

11:57pm Wed 30 Apr 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

Voice-of-reality wrote:
Would it be possible not to have to copy all of the threads into messages? It is quite possible to respond without needing to repeat everything so that others do not have to scroll through quite asmuch.
You are correct TP that others did indeed go on strike during the war. They did not, however, hold the country to ransom twice in the 1970s or act in such a way as to bring down governments.
Methinks me smells the effluvia of a cretin! One, moreover, that I am sure I have spoken, or informed said buffoon, that I would not respond to his fallacious pap. There you go, effluvia gone!!!
[quote][p][bold]Voice-of-reality[/bold] wrote: Would it be possible not to have to copy all of the threads into messages? It is quite possible to respond without needing to repeat everything so that others do not have to scroll through quite asmuch. You are correct TP that others did indeed go on strike during the war. They did not, however, hold the country to ransom twice in the 1970s or act in such a way as to bring down governments.[/p][/quote]Methinks me smells the effluvia of a cretin! One, moreover, that I am sure I have spoken, or informed said buffoon, that I would not respond to his fallacious pap. There you go, effluvia gone!!! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -3

6:03am Thu 1 May 14

BMD says...

Totally-puddled 1955, you have gone off at a tangent again, we are now in 2014, so let’s discuss today’s topic.

The DMA is a supporter of the Labour Party and all Unions have financially backed this preferred political party and even selected Labour MP’s by use of “Block voting”

Kevan Jones, Labour MP decides to query where £6m had disappeared since 2007, the DMA then wheel out its esteemed and deluded leaders to claim it is a smear campaign by a member of the political party it has been supporting for years. Don’t the DMA provide an annual balance sheet to its members?

But please let’s not forget the constant “them and us" attitude purported by the DMA charlatans. The same DMA leaders criticise the Bankers, Financial institutions and Tax avoidance schemes, whilst dabbling in the Stock markets and offshore banking. They are now walking around with burnt fingers and claiming the cupboard is bare, it would be honourable if the DMA opened its books to its members, if just for clarity and reassurance.
Totally-puddled 1955, you have gone off at a tangent again, we are now in 2014, so let’s discuss today’s topic. The DMA is a supporter of the Labour Party and all Unions have financially backed this preferred political party and even selected Labour MP’s by use of “Block voting” Kevan Jones, Labour MP decides to query where £6m had disappeared since 2007, the DMA then wheel out its esteemed and deluded leaders to claim it is a smear campaign by a member of the political party it has been supporting for years. Don’t the DMA provide an annual balance sheet to its members? But please let’s not forget the constant “them and us" attitude purported by the DMA charlatans. The same DMA leaders criticise the Bankers, Financial institutions and Tax avoidance schemes, whilst dabbling in the Stock markets and offshore banking. They are now walking around with burnt fingers and claiming the cupboard is bare, it would be honourable if the DMA opened its books to its members, if just for clarity and reassurance. BMD
  • Score: 4

6:15am Thu 1 May 14

laboursfoe says...

BMD wrote:
Totally-puddled 1955, you have gone off at a tangent again, we are now in 2014, so let’s discuss today’s topic.

The DMA is a supporter of the Labour Party and all Unions have financially backed this preferred political party and even selected Labour MP’s by use of “Block voting”

Kevan Jones, Labour MP decides to query where £6m had disappeared since 2007, the DMA then wheel out its esteemed and deluded leaders to claim it is a smear campaign by a member of the political party it has been supporting for years. Don’t the DMA provide an annual balance sheet to its members?

But please let’s not forget the constant “them and us" attitude purported by the DMA charlatans. The same DMA leaders criticise the Bankers, Financial institutions and Tax avoidance schemes, whilst dabbling in the Stock markets and offshore banking. They are now walking around with burnt fingers and claiming the cupboard is bare, it would be honourable if the DMA opened its books to its members, if just for clarity and reassurance.
Well put BDM.

Miners (ex) and their unionist mates, it's all double standards. As long as they get what they want, s@d everyone else.
[quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: Totally-puddled 1955, you have gone off at a tangent again, we are now in 2014, so let’s discuss today’s topic. The DMA is a supporter of the Labour Party and all Unions have financially backed this preferred political party and even selected Labour MP’s by use of “Block voting” Kevan Jones, Labour MP decides to query where £6m had disappeared since 2007, the DMA then wheel out its esteemed and deluded leaders to claim it is a smear campaign by a member of the political party it has been supporting for years. Don’t the DMA provide an annual balance sheet to its members? But please let’s not forget the constant “them and us" attitude purported by the DMA charlatans. The same DMA leaders criticise the Bankers, Financial institutions and Tax avoidance schemes, whilst dabbling in the Stock markets and offshore banking. They are now walking around with burnt fingers and claiming the cupboard is bare, it would be honourable if the DMA opened its books to its members, if just for clarity and reassurance.[/p][/quote]Well put BDM. Miners (ex) and their unionist mates, it's all double standards. As long as they get what they want, s@d everyone else. laboursfoe
  • Score: 2

6:23am Thu 1 May 14

laboursfoe says...

Ok TPM we'll have to agree to disagree on the WW2 strikes.

There will always be those who think that miners were the saviours of the UK just like there will always be those who think that they were the greediest most opportunistic bunch ever. History will decide, it's relatively recently that the ligature was self administered lets see the view in another 20 years!!!
Ok TPM we'll have to agree to disagree on the WW2 strikes. There will always be those who think that miners were the saviours of the UK just like there will always be those who think that they were the greediest most opportunistic bunch ever. History will decide, it's relatively recently that the ligature was self administered lets see the view in another 20 years!!! laboursfoe
  • Score: -2

12:13pm Thu 1 May 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

laboursfoe wrote:
Ok TPM we'll have to agree to disagree on the WW2 strikes.

There will always be those who think that miners were the saviours of the UK just like there will always be those who think that they were the greediest most opportunistic bunch ever. History will decide, it's relatively recently that the ligature was self administered lets see the view in another 20 years!!!
Oh no you don't! Bmd accuses me of going off on a tangent, away from the point of this thread. A perusal of the development of this thread, will prove that it was not I, but others who first brought up the issue of "miners during WW2". Understanding that fact, I ,merely rebutted this disgraceful slight, aimed "specifically" at miners, when historical record proves, beyond possibility of refutation, that many different sections of workers went on strike during WW2. That, however, would negate the fallacious nature of the post and so was not mentioned.
That is two apologies I am owed and two apologies I do not hold out much prospect of receiving!
As for Labours links with unions, unions should immediately disaffiliate from Labour, as the fact is, only a fool would continue to bankroll an organisation that continually slaps them in the face. As for you LF, we will not agree to disagree on WW2 strikes, you are wrong, pure and simple and an acknowledge of that fact is needed, unless you wish to continue to perpetuate lies and myths. Do you?
[quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: Ok TPM we'll have to agree to disagree on the WW2 strikes. There will always be those who think that miners were the saviours of the UK just like there will always be those who think that they were the greediest most opportunistic bunch ever. History will decide, it's relatively recently that the ligature was self administered lets see the view in another 20 years!!![/p][/quote]Oh no you don't! Bmd accuses me of going off on a tangent, away from the point of this thread. A perusal of the development of this thread, will prove that it was not I, but others who first brought up the issue of "miners during WW2". Understanding that fact, I ,merely rebutted this disgraceful slight, aimed "specifically" at miners, when historical record proves, beyond possibility of refutation, that many different sections of workers went on strike during WW2. That, however, would negate the fallacious nature of the post and so was not mentioned. That is two apologies I am owed and two apologies I do not hold out much prospect of receiving! As for Labours links with unions, unions should immediately disaffiliate from Labour, as the fact is, only a fool would continue to bankroll an organisation that continually slaps them in the face. As for you LF, we will not agree to disagree on WW2 strikes, you are wrong, pure and simple and an acknowledge of that fact is needed, unless you wish to continue to perpetuate lies and myths. Do you? tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -8

12:43pm Thu 1 May 14

Voice-of-reality says...

TP, You demand apologies and yet you use words such as 'effluvia' and 'cretin' and have hitherto accused those who merely disagree with you of not even being human. Perhaps, as with the DMA in this case, people would have more sympathy adn be more inclined to apologise, if you 'did unto us others what you would have/demand them do unto you'.
I know, given your earlier posts, that you will not reply.
TP, You demand apologies and yet you use words such as 'effluvia' and 'cretin' and have hitherto accused those who merely disagree with you of not even being human. Perhaps, as with the DMA in this case, people would have more sympathy adn be more inclined to apologise, if you 'did unto us others what you would have/demand them do unto you'. I know, given your earlier posts, that you will not reply. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 4

2:11pm Thu 1 May 14

David Lacey says...

I'm afraid that TP will be going the way of Loopy and others who can't behave in a civilised way.
I'm afraid that TP will be going the way of Loopy and others who can't behave in a civilised way. David Lacey
  • Score: 1

3:42pm Thu 1 May 14

BMD says...

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says @ 12:13pm - (Which is very, very, very early for the Left-wing)

That is two apologies I am owed and two apologies I do not hold out much prospect of receiving.

Must have got out of bed to early - try sleeping till 13:00pm
tolpuddlemartyr1955 says @ 12:13pm - (Which is very, very, very early for the Left-wing) That is two apologies I am owed and two apologies I do not hold out much prospect of receiving. Must have got out of bed to early - try sleeping till 13:00pm BMD
  • Score: 0

4:00pm Thu 1 May 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

David Lacey wrote:
TP - remind me which bunch of workers went on strike for more money during WW2 whilst my dad was sacrificing his life to save our country.
.
Please do so.
.
I dare you to use the one word answer.
.
Clue.
.
Miners.
Mr Lacey, do you remember the post above? you should, as you wrote it! Was your post incorrect? I dare you to use the one word answer.. Clue... Yes.
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: TP - remind me which bunch of workers went on strike for more money during WW2 whilst my dad was sacrificing his life to save our country. . Please do so. . I dare you to use the one word answer. . Clue. . Miners.[/p][/quote]Mr Lacey, do you remember the post above? you should, as you wrote it! Was your post incorrect? I dare you to use the one word answer.. Clue... Yes. tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: 0

4:14pm Thu 1 May 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

Has anyone seen a post on this thread, or others, where I "demanded an apology"? I'll wait and I'll wait but don't think evidence will be forthcoming! However, I could care less one way or the other.
As for Mr Lacey, when people who post on this site, ameliorate their language and their vile ideas of how their fellow man should be treated, I will treat those with respect. Show disrespect, you will get disrespect. Talk of people as "breeders", "should be denied access to the accoutrements of civilisation", generalising about people, rather than referring to specifics, these earn and deserve disrespect : )
I have seen people post words and thoughts, that I never, ever thought I would see from people about their fellows and still have the nerve to claim to be civilised but it is I who is accused of "not behaving in a civilised way" !!! I think not.
Has anyone seen a post on this thread, or others, where I "demanded an apology"? I'll wait and I'll wait but don't think evidence will be forthcoming! However, I could care less one way or the other. As for Mr Lacey, when people who post on this site, ameliorate their language and their vile ideas of how their fellow man should be treated, I will treat those with respect. Show disrespect, you will get disrespect. Talk of people as "breeders", "should be denied access to the accoutrements of civilisation", generalising about people, rather than referring to specifics, these earn and deserve disrespect : ) I have seen people post words and thoughts, that I never, ever thought I would see from people about their fellows and still have the nerve to claim to be civilised but it is I who is accused of "not behaving in a civilised way" !!! I think not. tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -4

4:38pm Thu 1 May 14

David Lacey says...

TP - you are on a final warning. Any more repulsive language and abuse aimed at me or any other visitor to the site and you will be referred. As for your insistence regarding the striking miners - I have never denied that other workers also took strike action. This thread started with comments about the DMA and ought to be focused on issues closely related to miners and their actions. I cannot fathom out why you opted to widen the scope of the debate. But you did.
.
The next step is up to you. I reiterate - abuse will be referred.
TP - you are on a final warning. Any more repulsive language and abuse aimed at me or any other visitor to the site and you will be referred. As for your insistence regarding the striking miners - I have never denied that other workers also took strike action. This thread started with comments about the DMA and ought to be focused on issues closely related to miners and their actions. I cannot fathom out why you opted to widen the scope of the debate. But you did. . The next step is up to you. I reiterate - abuse will be referred. David Lacey
  • Score: 0

5:02pm Thu 1 May 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

Mr Lacey, two points, I was not the first one to widen the discussion on this thread, but I most assuredly answered the incorrect assertions. Nor have I used repulsive language, nor abuse regarding yourself, in the first instance and in the second instance, with regard to anyone else. That others have stated vile views of fellow man, is without doubt. Posting that they would not care less if a million or so of the spongers were to go, is to me "vile and repulsive", as is the idea that the unemployed should be housed in what amounts to no more, nor less, than communal barracks, workhouses in other words.
Finally Mr Lacey, I have told you before, do not threaten me. You are not the moderator of the site, which is just as well, as your "warnings" are too selective for my liking!
You may be of a certain age, but that gives you no "rights" to "threaten", those you disagree with. Show me where I have abused you, or used "repulsive language" towards you?
By the way, as you are no doubt aware, repulsive language is a subjective opinion! and I reject your interpretation.
Mr Lacey, two points, I was not the first one to widen the discussion on this thread, but I most assuredly answered the incorrect assertions. Nor have I used repulsive language, nor abuse regarding yourself, in the first instance and in the second instance, with regard to anyone else. That others have stated vile views of fellow man, is without doubt. Posting that they would not care less if a million or so of the spongers were to go, is to me "vile and repulsive", as is the idea that the unemployed should be housed in what amounts to no more, nor less, than communal barracks, workhouses in other words. Finally Mr Lacey, I have told you before, do not threaten me. You are not the moderator of the site, which is just as well, as your "warnings" are too selective for my liking! You may be of a certain age, but that gives you no "rights" to "threaten", those you disagree with. Show me where I have abused you, or used "repulsive language" towards you? By the way, as you are no doubt aware, repulsive language is a subjective opinion! and I reject your interpretation. tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: 2

5:06pm Thu 1 May 14

laboursfoe says...

TPM, you're obviously a very sensitive soul.

You need to realise that there are two sides to every coin and you cannot expect people to be in admiration of the miners when you in the past have attacked employers as being greedy and exploitative.
TPM, you're obviously a very sensitive soul. You need to realise that there are two sides to every coin and you cannot expect people to be in admiration of the miners when you in the past have attacked employers as being greedy and exploitative. laboursfoe
  • Score: -3

5:44pm Thu 1 May 14

David Lacey says...

TP- I have logged all of your uses of abusive language and if they are referred the moderator may well decide to exclude you. It is MY decision to refer you. I hope you realise that. This is not a threat - it is a fact.
TP- I have logged all of your uses of abusive language and if they are referred the moderator may well decide to exclude you. It is MY decision to refer you. I hope you realise that. This is not a threat - it is a fact. David Lacey
  • Score: -2

5:46pm Thu 1 May 14

laboursfoe says...

Oh no you don't! Bmd accuses me of going off on a tangent, away from the point of this thread. A perusal of the development of this thread, will prove that it was not I, but others who first brought up the issue of "miners during WW2".
** Yes I'm aware of that.

Understanding that fact, I ,merely rebutted this disgraceful slight, aimed "specifically" at miners, when historical record proves, beyond possibility of refutation, that many different sections of workers went on strike during WW2. That, however, would negate the fallacious nature of the post and so was not mentioned.
** Yes, many different industries did go on strike. That has been acknowleged by almost everyone on these posts,.but I doubt many have attempted to hold the country to ransom in the same way or at the same frequency as the miners. And please remember this story is linked to miners.

That is two apologies I am owed and two apologies I do not hold out much prospect of receiving!
??

As for Labours links with unions, unions should immediately disaffiliate from Labour, as the fact is, only a fool would continue to bankroll an organisation that continually slaps them in the face.
** Thank god Labour are there, at least they have one use. To try and keep the millitant unions you are so fond of in line. Maybe the unions will get sick and create their own party, perhaps the National Unionists. Afterall, the national Socialists has been done before.

As for you LF, we will not agree to disagree on WW2 strikes, you are wrong, pure and simple and an acknowledge of that fact is needed, unless you wish to continue to perpetuate lies and myths. Do you?
** I acknowledge that other industry workers walked out but I stand by my statement that history will decide how the Miners are remembered.
And I also stand by my view that there are those that think the miners are the greatest bunch or people ever and also those that think they are undeserving of half the accolades that some people try to dress them with.
Oh no you don't! Bmd accuses me of going off on a tangent, away from the point of this thread. A perusal of the development of this thread, will prove that it was not I, but others who first brought up the issue of "miners during WW2". ** Yes I'm aware of that. Understanding that fact, I ,merely rebutted this disgraceful slight, aimed "specifically" at miners, when historical record proves, beyond possibility of refutation, that many different sections of workers went on strike during WW2. That, however, would negate the fallacious nature of the post and so was not mentioned. ** Yes, many different industries did go on strike. That has been acknowleged by almost everyone on these posts,.but I doubt many have attempted to hold the country to ransom in the same way or at the same frequency as the miners. And please remember this story is linked to miners. That is two apologies I am owed and two apologies I do not hold out much prospect of receiving! ?? As for Labours links with unions, unions should immediately disaffiliate from Labour, as the fact is, only a fool would continue to bankroll an organisation that continually slaps them in the face. ** Thank god Labour are there, at least they have one use. To try and keep the millitant unions you are so fond of in line. Maybe the unions will get sick and create their own party, perhaps the National Unionists. Afterall, the national Socialists has been done before. As for you LF, we will not agree to disagree on WW2 strikes, you are wrong, pure and simple and an acknowledge of that fact is needed, unless you wish to continue to perpetuate lies and myths. Do you? ** I acknowledge that other industry workers walked out but I stand by my statement that history will decide how the Miners are remembered. And I also stand by my view that there are those that think the miners are the greatest bunch or people ever and also those that think they are undeserving of half the accolades that some people try to dress them with. laboursfoe
  • Score: 7

6:48pm Thu 1 May 14

Voice-of-reality says...

There is a clear need, and the majority of users realise this, for contributors to be able to differentiate between the view they agree/disagree with, and the writer. It is a sad indictment that a present contributor in a manner very akin to Stocko* seems unable to do this.
• I am sure it is Stocko that I mean but if I am incorrect I apologise – there have only been two or three people unable to communicate with civility over the last couple of years and, unlike those with whom I agree/disagree with on a daily basis in a civilised manner, one tends to forget the names of those who fail to adhere to the rules of the site.
There is a clear need, and the majority of users realise this, for contributors to be able to differentiate between the view they agree/disagree with, and the writer. It is a sad indictment that a present contributor in a manner very akin to Stocko* seems unable to do this. • I am sure it is Stocko that I mean but if I am incorrect I apologise – there have only been two or three people unable to communicate with civility over the last couple of years and, unlike those with whom I agree/disagree with on a daily basis in a civilised manner, one tends to forget the names of those who fail to adhere to the rules of the site. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 1

7:00pm Thu 1 May 14

Red rose lad says...

If someone had questioned my integrity or financial competence in the way this Labour MP has, I'm damned sure I would have published a financial statement to reassure my members that their money was safe. Strange that they haven't. That aside, offshore accounts and gambling members money on the stock market - surely even the miners can't fail to see the irony of this debacle. Please stop - my ribs are aching.
If someone had questioned my integrity or financial competence in the way this Labour MP has, I'm damned sure I would have published a financial statement to reassure my members that their money was safe. Strange that they haven't. That aside, offshore accounts and gambling members money on the stock market - surely even the miners can't fail to see the irony of this debacle. Please stop - my ribs are aching. Red rose lad
  • Score: 2

7:47pm Thu 1 May 14

David Lacey says...

Thank you VOR. "Stocko" was exposed as the prospective Labour candidate in 2015 for the Stockton South constituency by the occasional contributor "DarloXman", who has a very balanced, highly intelligent approach to issues. I can't believe - indeed I don't believe - that TP is the reincarnation of "Stocko" as this person was always civil in her deceit. There is another visitor with a style remarkably reminiscent of "Stocko". A clear dyed in the wool Labour supporter and someone who is expert at wriggling and squirming. Initials JD. I invite DarloXman to use his forensic skills and find out.
Thank you VOR. "Stocko" was exposed as the prospective Labour candidate in 2015 for the Stockton South constituency by the occasional contributor "DarloXman", who has a very balanced, highly intelligent approach to issues. I can't believe - indeed I don't believe - that TP is the reincarnation of "Stocko" as this person was always civil in her deceit. There is another visitor with a style remarkably reminiscent of "Stocko". A clear dyed in the wool Labour supporter and someone who is expert at wriggling and squirming. Initials JD. I invite DarloXman to use his forensic skills and find out. David Lacey
  • Score: -1

8:02pm Thu 1 May 14

Jackaranda says...

The DMA are lefties, they therefore default to being clueless when it comes to capitalism!!
The DMA are lefties, they therefore default to being clueless when it comes to capitalism!! Jackaranda
  • Score: 3

8:18pm Thu 1 May 14

Voice-of-reality says...

Thank you David, I had a feeling I had the wrong name, there is certainly a former contributor who 'personalised' hisher arguments in a manner like that of TP - frequently on issues pertaining to education.
Thank you David, I had a feeling I had the wrong name, there is certainly a former contributor who 'personalised' hisher arguments in a manner like that of TP - frequently on issues pertaining to education. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 0

11:13pm Thu 1 May 14

LUSTARD says...

jeez
jeez LUSTARD
  • Score: 1

1:34am Fri 2 May 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

laboursfoe wrote:
Oh no you don't! Bmd accuses me of going off on a tangent, away from the point of this thread. A perusal of the development of this thread, will prove that it was not I, but others who first brought up the issue of "miners during WW2".
** Yes I'm aware of that.

Understanding that fact, I ,merely rebutted this disgraceful slight, aimed "specifically" at miners, when historical record proves, beyond possibility of refutation, that many different sections of workers went on strike during WW2. That, however, would negate the fallacious nature of the post and so was not mentioned.
** Yes, many different industries did go on strike. That has been acknowleged by almost everyone on these posts,.but I doubt many have attempted to hold the country to ransom in the same way or at the same frequency as the miners. And please remember this story is linked to miners.

That is two apologies I am owed and two apologies I do not hold out much prospect of receiving!
??

As for Labours links with unions, unions should immediately disaffiliate from Labour, as the fact is, only a fool would continue to bankroll an organisation that continually slaps them in the face.
** Thank god Labour are there, at least they have one use. To try and keep the millitant unions you are so fond of in line. Maybe the unions will get sick and create their own party, perhaps the National Unionists. Afterall, the national Socialists has been done before.

As for you LF, we will not agree to disagree on WW2 strikes, you are wrong, pure and simple and an acknowledge of that fact is needed, unless you wish to continue to perpetuate lies and myths. Do you?
** I acknowledge that other industry workers walked out but I stand by my statement that history will decide how the Miners are remembered.
And I also stand by my view that there are those that think the miners are the greatest bunch or people ever and also those that think they are undeserving of half the accolades that some people try to dress them with.
Good, more lies and obfuscation! You state, " Yes, many different industries did go on strike. That has been acknowleged by almost everyone on these posts". I've looked at all the posts on this thread, again. It is an utter lie, to state that it has " been acknowleged by almost everyone on these posts". "I" brought the matter up and hardly anyone has conceded the veracity of my post!
This thread is and was linked to the Miners, the miners of 2014, but other posters on this site brought up miners during WW2, specifically this first post on the subject from Mr Lacey ", the actual first post to mention workers striking in WW2. So not me, comprende?
You further state LF, "Thank god Labour are there, at least they have one use. To try and keep the millitant unions you are so fond of in line" You lie again, as, it appears your want. I do not support what you term "militant unions", I support unions who work for and in the interests of their members, if you think that is "militant" you need serious help, from mental health care professionals.
Finally, if you think, or state that I have stated that miners are "the greatest bunch or people ever", you are once again called a liar! Read this whole thread again and discover that if you are trying to state, " I" stated this, you are not merely a liar but a fantasist.
[quote][p][bold]laboursfoe[/bold] wrote: Oh no you don't! Bmd accuses me of going off on a tangent, away from the point of this thread. A perusal of the development of this thread, will prove that it was not I, but others who first brought up the issue of "miners during WW2". ** Yes I'm aware of that. Understanding that fact, I ,merely rebutted this disgraceful slight, aimed "specifically" at miners, when historical record proves, beyond possibility of refutation, that many different sections of workers went on strike during WW2. That, however, would negate the fallacious nature of the post and so was not mentioned. ** Yes, many different industries did go on strike. That has been acknowleged by almost everyone on these posts,.but I doubt many have attempted to hold the country to ransom in the same way or at the same frequency as the miners. And please remember this story is linked to miners. That is two apologies I am owed and two apologies I do not hold out much prospect of receiving! ?? As for Labours links with unions, unions should immediately disaffiliate from Labour, as the fact is, only a fool would continue to bankroll an organisation that continually slaps them in the face. ** Thank god Labour are there, at least they have one use. To try and keep the millitant unions you are so fond of in line. Maybe the unions will get sick and create their own party, perhaps the National Unionists. Afterall, the national Socialists has been done before. As for you LF, we will not agree to disagree on WW2 strikes, you are wrong, pure and simple and an acknowledge of that fact is needed, unless you wish to continue to perpetuate lies and myths. Do you? ** I acknowledge that other industry workers walked out but I stand by my statement that history will decide how the Miners are remembered. And I also stand by my view that there are those that think the miners are the greatest bunch or people ever and also those that think they are undeserving of half the accolades that some people try to dress them with.[/p][/quote]Good, more lies and obfuscation! You state, " Yes, many different industries did go on strike. That has been acknowleged by almost everyone on these posts". I've looked at all the posts on this thread, again. It is an utter lie, to state that it has " been acknowleged by almost everyone on these posts". "I" brought the matter up and hardly anyone has conceded the veracity of my post! This thread is and was linked to the Miners, the miners of 2014, but other posters on this site brought up miners during WW2, specifically this first post on the subject from Mr Lacey ", the actual first post to mention workers striking in WW2. So not me, comprende? You further state LF, "Thank god Labour are there, at least they have one use. To try and keep the millitant unions you are so fond of in line" You lie again, as, it appears your want. I do not support what you term "militant unions", I support unions who work for and in the interests of their members, if you think that is "militant" you need serious help, from mental health care professionals. Finally, if you think, or state that I have stated that miners are "the greatest bunch or people ever", you are once again called a liar! Read this whole thread again and discover that if you are trying to state, " I" stated this, you are not merely a liar but a fantasist. tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: 2

1:54am Fri 2 May 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

David Lacey wrote:
TP- I have logged all of your uses of abusive language and if they are referred the moderator may well decide to exclude you. It is MY decision to refer you. I hope you realise that. This is not a threat - it is a fact.
Lacey, as you have threatened me with exclusion 4 times now and yet again by the assertion that it is "your" decision! to refer me, go ahead. I know I caught you telling porkies about miners strikes in WW2, when you used this post,

"TP - remind me which bunch of workers went on strike for more money during WW2 whilst my dad was sacrificing his life to save our country.
.
Please do so.
.
I dare you to use the one word answer.
.
Clue.
.
Miners.
One word you "dared" me to use, when in fact it was not "one word" but many, to cover all the different set of workers who struck in WW2.
You tried to direct my answer but you were incorrect and I proved you "totally" wrong, in your singular mind set, of trying to slag off mineworkers, specifically!
Go ahead, report me. Everyone knows that all it takes is a "report" and guilty or not, the one reported against is banned.
I still have the disgusting and inhumane posts, that back eugenics, forced sterilization, modern day workhouses and forced adoptions, on any and all whom they (and they know whom they are), designate as scroungers.
You claim "This is not a threat" but oh it is!!! Intimidate me, would you, as you did when I first came on this site? Just report and be damned. I will rely on a moderator to review this whole thread and make the correct judgement and determination!!!!!!!
!!!!
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: TP- I have logged all of your uses of abusive language and if they are referred the moderator may well decide to exclude you. It is MY decision to refer you. I hope you realise that. This is not a threat - it is a fact.[/p][/quote]Lacey, as you have threatened me with exclusion 4 times now and yet again by the assertion that it is "your" decision! to refer me, go ahead. I know I caught you telling porkies about miners strikes in WW2, when you used this post, "TP - remind me which bunch of workers went on strike for more money during WW2 whilst my dad was sacrificing his life to save our country. . Please do so. . I dare you to use the one word answer. . Clue. . Miners. One word you "dared" me to use, when in fact it was not "one word" but many, to cover all the different set of workers who struck in WW2. You tried to direct my answer but you were incorrect and I proved you "totally" wrong, in your singular mind set, of trying to slag off mineworkers, specifically! Go ahead, report me. Everyone knows that all it takes is a "report" and guilty or not, the one reported against is banned. I still have the disgusting and inhumane posts, that back eugenics, forced sterilization, modern day workhouses and forced adoptions, on any and all whom they (and they know whom they are), designate as scroungers. You claim "This is not a threat" but oh it is!!! Intimidate me, would you, as you did when I first came on this site? Just report and be damned. I will rely on a moderator to review this whole thread and make the correct judgement and determination!!!!!!! !!!! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -3

6:44am Fri 2 May 14

BMD says...

TP- I would seek help, you certainly appear to be a keyboard firebrand and it will not help your blood pressure or your current mental health.

But, could you clarify one point you raised - 'I support unions who work for and in the interests of their members'

This must include the DMA whom in their members interests gambled on the stock market and tried to avoid UK tax in offshore bank accounts.
TP- I would seek help, you certainly appear to be a keyboard firebrand and it will not help your blood pressure or your current mental health. But, could you clarify one point you raised - 'I support unions who work for and in the interests of their members' This must include the DMA whom in their members interests gambled on the stock market and tried to avoid UK tax in offshore bank accounts. BMD
  • Score: 3

9:19am Fri 2 May 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

BMD wrote:
TP- I would seek help, you certainly appear to be a keyboard firebrand and it will not help your blood pressure or your current mental health.

But, could you clarify one point you raised - 'I support unions who work for and in the interests of their members'

This must include the DMA whom in their members interests gambled on the stock market and tried to avoid UK tax in offshore bank accounts.
DMA is not a Union. As everyone knows, mining, or at least deep coal mining, is extinct in the NE, as in many other areas. I think you know quite well what I meant when I said; "I support unions who work for and in the interests of their members". Unions are not political organisations and should not be used as such. Unions are there to be a mouthpiece for and representatives of, their members. Not to be used as cash cows, to fund a political party, many of their members probably don't even vote for! This is what I meant by my post. As for "blood pressure" and "mental health", if I require help with these, I will see a professional!
[quote][p][bold]BMD[/bold] wrote: TP- I would seek help, you certainly appear to be a keyboard firebrand and it will not help your blood pressure or your current mental health. But, could you clarify one point you raised - 'I support unions who work for and in the interests of their members' This must include the DMA whom in their members interests gambled on the stock market and tried to avoid UK tax in offshore bank accounts.[/p][/quote]DMA is not a Union. As everyone knows, mining, or at least deep coal mining, is extinct in the NE, as in many other areas. I think you know quite well what I meant when I said; "I support unions who work for and in the interests of their members". Unions are not political organisations and should not be used as such. Unions are there to be a mouthpiece for and representatives of, their members. Not to be used as cash cows, to fund a political party, many of their members probably don't even vote for! This is what I meant by my post. As for "blood pressure" and "mental health", if I require help with these, I will see a professional! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: 1

9:23am Fri 2 May 14

Voice-of-reality says...

TP,
You really do need to calm down a little.
It is more than possible to discuss views and not get quite so heated.

I recall the article and the post where you first mentioned workhouses, (if I recall correctly, that was the post where you furthered an existing thread and you suggested that people should be have to work to be fed by the state), I also seem to recall the question of adoptions being raised as a response to a post by you that had developed from a brief discussion of a wider viewpoint previously advanced by Sir Keith Joseph. Numerous contributors have commented on eugencis (both for an against) with, for instance 'behonest' noting that Churchill, supported them. Further, very few of the regular posters use the term 'scroungers' - though I note you did in the post above and, as a conseqeunce of that I have now used it (I believe for the first time on any thread).

Friend, as someone who values the general thrust of your comments (for it is always interesting to see a contrary view to one's own) - if not always the unfelictious language, I urge you to try to keep a professional tone in your comments - it would be a shame to lose you as a 'colourful' contributor. Perhaps, with regards to this thread you could be a little humbler and more forgving of the mistakes of others. You have called for apologies, and you have accused people of misquoting you - and yet, ver with reference to your wider posts over the last few weeks, your own memory is not perfect when it comes to ascribing the views and opinions of others.
TP, You really do need to calm down a little. It is more than possible to discuss views and not get quite so heated. I recall the article and the post where you first mentioned workhouses, (if I recall correctly, that was the post where you furthered an existing thread and you suggested that people should be have to work to be fed by the state), I also seem to recall the question of adoptions being raised as a response to a post by you that had developed from a brief discussion of a wider viewpoint previously advanced by Sir Keith Joseph. Numerous contributors have commented on eugencis (both for an against) with, for instance 'behonest' noting that Churchill, supported them. Further, very few of the regular posters use the term 'scroungers' - though I note you did in the post above and, as a conseqeunce of that I have now used it (I believe for the first time on any thread). Friend, as someone who values the general thrust of your comments (for it is always interesting to see a contrary view to one's own) - if not always the unfelictious language, I urge you to try to keep a professional tone in your comments - it would be a shame to lose you as a 'colourful' contributor. Perhaps, with regards to this thread you could be a little humbler and more forgving of the mistakes of others. You have called for apologies, and you have accused people of misquoting you - and yet, ver with reference to your wider posts over the last few weeks, your own memory is not perfect when it comes to ascribing the views and opinions of others. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: 2

11:51am Fri 2 May 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

"you suggested that people should be have to work to be fed by the state)". Sorry, never said such a thing. What I would say, is that if full time paid work, was available in sufficient quantity, people would not need food aid. However, the 1.4 million people in zero hour contract jobs and millions more in part time employment, the vast majority who have indicated they would like more hours, counts against the claims that the economy is improving and there are multitudes who do not want employment. Of course, there are those who do not and deliberately choose, not to contribute, it would be churlish to deny this, they should be sanctioned but they are and remain the minority.
"you suggested that people should be have to work to be fed by the state)". Sorry, never said such a thing. What I would say, is that if full time paid work, was available in sufficient quantity, people would not need food aid. However, the 1.4 million people in zero hour contract jobs and millions more in part time employment, the vast majority who have indicated they would like more hours, counts against the claims that the economy is improving and there are multitudes who do not want employment. Of course, there are those who do not and deliberately choose, not to contribute, it would be churlish to deny this, they should be sanctioned but they are and remain the minority. tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -1

1:43pm Fri 2 May 14

David Lacey says...

Thank you VOR for another measured response. I too would not wish to see TP banned - anyone who carries such a deep seated revulsion of Labour is to be listened to - even if their reasons are very different to yours and mine. When TP first visited the site my advice was to toughen up. Unfortunately he/she went from one extreme to the other.
Thank you VOR for another measured response. I too would not wish to see TP banned - anyone who carries such a deep seated revulsion of Labour is to be listened to - even if their reasons are very different to yours and mine. When TP first visited the site my advice was to toughen up. Unfortunately he/she went from one extreme to the other. David Lacey
  • Score: -1

11:45pm Fri 2 May 14

spragger says...

I see Stockton Louise is still up her own ****. Nothing changes
I see Stockton Louise is still up her own ****. Nothing changes spragger
  • Score: 0

11:35pm Sat 3 May 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

Yes spragger, wrong again!!!
Yes spragger, wrong again!!! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: 0

6:04am Mon 5 May 14

BMD says...

spragger wrote:
I see Stockton Louise is still up her own ****. Nothing changes
spragger says... I see Stockton Louise is still up her own ****. Nothing changes

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says... Yes spragger, wrong again!!!

Ha, Ha, ha, tolpuddlemartyr1955, how did you know Spragger was directing his comment at you?
[quote][p][bold]spragger[/bold] wrote: I see Stockton Louise is still up her own ****. Nothing changes[/p][/quote]spragger says... I see Stockton Louise is still up her own ****. Nothing changes tolpuddlemartyr1955 says... Yes spragger, wrong again!!! Ha, Ha, ha, tolpuddlemartyr1955, how did you know Spragger was directing his comment at you? BMD
  • Score: -3

11:49am Mon 5 May 14

David Lacey says...

OUCH! Any reply TP?
OUCH! Any reply TP? David Lacey
  • Score: -2

1:52pm Mon 5 May 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

I've been called Louise, Louise from Stockton etc, etc. Now, out of the blue, spragger, who has used one, or all of these epithets before, appears and uses one again. Now what would you pair of Einstein's conclude? Exactly!!!
I've been called Louise, Louise from Stockton etc, etc. Now, out of the blue, spragger, who has used one, or all of these epithets before, appears and uses one again. Now what would you pair of Einstein's conclude? Exactly!!! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: 2

1:55pm Mon 5 May 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

As I'm sick of stating, I'm not this Labour, Louise person!
BTW, no offence intended !!!
As I'm sick of stating, I'm not this Labour, Louise person! BTW, no offence intended !!! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: 2

2:35pm Mon 5 May 14

Jacko60 says...

David Lacey wrote:
Thank you VOR for another measured response. I too would not wish to see TP banned - anyone who carries such a deep seated revulsion of Labour is to be listened to - even if their reasons are very different to yours and mine. When TP first visited the site my advice was to toughen up. Unfortunately he/she went from one extreme to the other.
'When TP first visited this site my advice was to toughen up. Unfortunately he/she went from one extreme to the other.'

Never heard anything so conceited - hope all you other boys and girls are behaving yourselves.
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: Thank you VOR for another measured response. I too would not wish to see TP banned - anyone who carries such a deep seated revulsion of Labour is to be listened to - even if their reasons are very different to yours and mine. When TP first visited the site my advice was to toughen up. Unfortunately he/she went from one extreme to the other.[/p][/quote]'When TP first visited this site my advice was to toughen up. Unfortunately he/she went from one extreme to the other.' Never heard anything so conceited - hope all you other boys and girls are behaving yourselves. Jacko60
  • Score: 4

4:40pm Mon 5 May 14

David Lacey says...

You know that I don't share Spragger's analysis TP. Your views on Labour have been made quite clear. That's enough for me. And thanks for toning it down.
.
As for " hope all you other boys and girls are behaving yourselves". I've never heard of anything so conceited.
You know that I don't share Spragger's analysis TP. Your views on Labour have been made quite clear. That's enough for me. And thanks for toning it down. . As for " hope all you other boys and girls are behaving yourselves". I've never heard of anything so conceited. David Lacey
  • Score: -1

5:32pm Mon 5 May 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

As you say, you do not share spraggers analysis, but that being the case, why put this comment, "OUCH! Any reply TP?", as if spragger had just had a Eureka moment?
As you say, you do not share spraggers analysis, but that being the case, why put this comment, "OUCH! Any reply TP?", as if spragger had just had a Eureka moment? tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: 0

5:52pm Mon 5 May 14

Voice-of-reality says...

TP1955 is quite clearly not the dreadful Labour candidate. TP actually has opinions and defends them - he is thus unlike any present would-be MP I know
TP1955 is quite clearly not the dreadful Labour candidate. TP actually has opinions and defends them - he is thus unlike any present would-be MP I know Voice-of-reality
  • Score: -2

6:41pm Mon 5 May 14

spragger says...

Tol protesteth too much ..

Louise's biggest trait is exhuberance & jumping in. . .

Usually on some hopeless socialist mission . .
Tol protesteth too much .. Louise's biggest trait is exhuberance & jumping in. . . Usually on some hopeless socialist mission . . spragger
  • Score: 0

11:26pm Mon 5 May 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

spragger, you wouldn't know "Socialism" if it fell from the sky and landed on your head. You make statements with no intellectual backup, nor credence!
What is your definition of "Socialism"? Have you even got one? I can guess what it is and of a surety, is incorrect! I can already see Labour being mentioned. Along with nationalisation, maybe Cuba, China, Venezuela, et al. What an appalling joke, if these were mentioned and total proof of an ignorance of the subject, it would be!
Once again spragger, you numpty, I am not now, nor ever was, Louise. To continually restate an untruth, is to add credence to your ignorance and ineptitude.
spragger, you wouldn't know "Socialism" if it fell from the sky and landed on your head. You make statements with no intellectual backup, nor credence! What is your definition of "Socialism"? Have you even got one? I can guess what it is and of a surety, is incorrect! I can already see Labour being mentioned. Along with nationalisation, maybe Cuba, China, Venezuela, et al. What an appalling joke, if these were mentioned and total proof of an ignorance of the subject, it would be! Once again spragger, you numpty, I am not now, nor ever was, Louise. To continually restate an untruth, is to add credence to your ignorance and ineptitude. tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -1

10:35am Tue 6 May 14

David Lacey says...

Hi TP. Your definitions confuse me( easily done!). I can't figure out what your ideal political structure would look like. You abhor Labour, so I guess that dislike includes all parties to the right thereof. So can you enlighten us as it will help to understand your messages. Are you a member of an organised party? I'm not by the way.
Hi TP. Your definitions confuse me( easily done!). I can't figure out what your ideal political structure would look like. You abhor Labour, so I guess that dislike includes all parties to the right thereof. So can you enlighten us as it will help to understand your messages. Are you a member of an organised party? I'm not by the way. David Lacey
  • Score: 1

8:02pm Tue 6 May 14

Voice-of-reality says...

I am guessing that TP is a proper follower of Trotsky - not the moden day insult but a follower of theTrotksyite vision for post Imperial Russia. I may be wrong - but I am also intrigued.
I am guessing that TP is a proper follower of Trotsky - not the moden day insult but a follower of theTrotksyite vision for post Imperial Russia. I may be wrong - but I am also intrigued. Voice-of-reality
  • Score: -2

9:42pm Tue 6 May 14

spragger says...

Louise you protesteth far too much ..
Louise you protesteth far too much .. spragger
  • Score: -2

12:55am Wed 7 May 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

David Lacey wrote:
Hi TP. Your definitions confuse me( easily done!). I can't figure out what your ideal political structure would look like. You abhor Labour, so I guess that dislike includes all parties to the right thereof. So can you enlighten us as it will help to understand your messages. Are you a member of an organised party? I'm not by the way.
First of all, I am not a follower of Trotsky, either the "modern", nor the "original". As with Lenin and Stalin, we have three people who were not democrats but elitists. Indeed, Lenin stated, that the "working class" could only ever achieve a "trade union consciousness", not a revolutionary consciousness. He, as with Trotsky and Stalin, believed that workers had to be "led", by an intellectual elite, to a better society! Guess who comprised the "leadership" of this "elite"?
Indeed Mr Lacey, I do abhor Labour but further to this, I abhor the full spectrum of parties that support Capitalism, whether left, right, or centre. I make no distinction. Moreover, my distaste has a specific reason! I am not a supporter of a party, any party, that posits as an alternative, merely an "alternative" that does not intrinsically change the nature of said society but merely tweeks a few words or so-called meanings but leaves the essence, the "whole" intact!
That, essentially is what happened in "State-Capitalist" USSR.
I believe in democracy. The rule of the majority, in other words. I believe in a Society, a world, where the means to produce and distribute the things we, as humans, need to live, belong to us all!
Why should natural resources, such as Oil, Gas, Bauxite, Copper, Tin, Uranium, belong to a tiny fraction of the world, simply because these "guys" were, or paid, the biggest thugs around to secure these resources. Were these thugs around when the deposits of Oil, Gas, Rare Earths, Copper etc, were first laid down? no! So what gives them exclusive ownership rights, today, to the things that should be the heritage of all mankind and used to and for, the benefit of all mankind? I'll tell you what, MIGHT. The wealthy have so-called "Right" on their side, backed up by MIGHT.
When a political Party comes along that stands for "democracy" and fairness, I will consider joining and not until. I may be a dreamer but I'm not the only one!!!
[quote][p][bold]David Lacey[/bold] wrote: Hi TP. Your definitions confuse me( easily done!). I can't figure out what your ideal political structure would look like. You abhor Labour, so I guess that dislike includes all parties to the right thereof. So can you enlighten us as it will help to understand your messages. Are you a member of an organised party? I'm not by the way.[/p][/quote]First of all, I am not a follower of Trotsky, either the "modern", nor the "original". As with Lenin and Stalin, we have three people who were not democrats but elitists. Indeed, Lenin stated, that the "working class" could only ever achieve a "trade union consciousness", not a revolutionary consciousness. He, as with Trotsky and Stalin, believed that workers had to be "led", by an intellectual elite, to a better society! Guess who comprised the "leadership" of this "elite"? Indeed Mr Lacey, I do abhor Labour but further to this, I abhor the full spectrum of parties that support Capitalism, whether left, right, or centre. I make no distinction. Moreover, my distaste has a specific reason! I am not a supporter of a party, any party, that posits as an alternative, merely an "alternative" that does not intrinsically change the nature of said society but merely tweeks a few words or so-called meanings but leaves the essence, the "whole" intact! That, essentially is what happened in "State-Capitalist" USSR. I believe in democracy. The rule of the majority, in other words. I believe in a Society, a world, where the means to produce and distribute the things we, as humans, need to live, belong to us all! Why should natural resources, such as Oil, Gas, Bauxite, Copper, Tin, Uranium, belong to a tiny fraction of the world, simply because these "guys" were, or paid, the biggest thugs around to secure these resources. Were these thugs around when the deposits of Oil, Gas, Rare Earths, Copper etc, were first laid down? no! So what gives them exclusive ownership rights, today, to the things that should be the heritage of all mankind and used to and for, the benefit of all mankind? I'll tell you what, MIGHT. The wealthy have so-called "Right" on their side, backed up by MIGHT. When a political Party comes along that stands for "democracy" and fairness, I will consider joining and not until. I may be a dreamer but I'm not the only one!!! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: 1

10:04am Wed 7 May 14

David Lacey says...

May I point out the contradictions? You believe in democracy - but demonstrably the people have shown that they support the (very imperfect) capitalist system used by all western countries and many others across the planet. And the majority accept that the second part of your "wish list" is not feasible - where the means to produce and distribute the things we, as humans, need to live, belong to us all! So you can't have both! Your philosophy will never catch on whilst human beings exhibit basic traits like greed, envy - oh! and altruism.
May I point out the contradictions? You believe in democracy - but demonstrably the people have shown that they support the (very imperfect) capitalist system used by all western countries and many others across the planet. And the majority accept that the second part of your "wish list" is not feasible - where the means to produce and distribute the things we, as humans, need to live, belong to us all! So you can't have both! Your philosophy will never catch on whilst human beings exhibit basic traits like greed, envy - oh! and altruism. David Lacey
  • Score: -1

1:49pm Wed 7 May 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

Thank you for your reply Mr Lacey. I would point out, however, that though people continue to "vote" for the present system (in ever decreasing numbers) they do so, because, in the vast majority of cases, there is no alternative to vote for. Merely a choice between tweedle dee and tweedle dum! Moreover, so called "representative democracy" is a pale version of what democracy should be. Rather than vote for representatives to "govern" us every 5 or so years, democracy is about the "people" having a say in every issue that affects them, every day of their lives. The technology is there to facilitate this, it only needs the will of the majority to demand it.
Why is it not feasible for the things we need to live, to belong to us all? It is just as feasible as the present system, whereby the whole world belongs to a miniscule percentage of the human race, to the exclusion and detriment of the overwhelming majority!
As for the old bugbear that is the "human nature" question, that is often posited as a barrier to a different way of organising society, I would simply state, that there are far more instances of the altruistic side of mans behaviour, than is given credit. Acts of kindness and charity, self sacrifice and compassion. The ultimate act of self sacrifice, of giving ones life for another, the starkest example of this.
I guess it is how one perceives ones fellow humans.
Finally, in an earlier post you stated; Hi TP. Your definitions confuse me( easily done!). I beg to differ. You have never appeared confused to me. You put your arguments in a forthright, erudite, and committed manner. We disagree on many things but your principled stance is not one of them.
I hope you appreciate the intent and candour I have expressed above!
Thank you for your reply Mr Lacey. I would point out, however, that though people continue to "vote" for the present system (in ever decreasing numbers) they do so, because, in the vast majority of cases, there is no alternative to vote for. Merely a choice between tweedle dee and tweedle dum! Moreover, so called "representative democracy" is a pale version of what democracy should be. Rather than vote for representatives to "govern" us every 5 or so years, democracy is about the "people" having a say in every issue that affects them, every day of their lives. The technology is there to facilitate this, it only needs the will of the majority to demand it. Why is it not feasible for the things we need to live, to belong to us all? It is just as feasible as the present system, whereby the whole world belongs to a miniscule percentage of the human race, to the exclusion and detriment of the overwhelming majority! As for the old bugbear that is the "human nature" question, that is often posited as a barrier to a different way of organising society, I would simply state, that there are far more instances of the altruistic side of mans behaviour, than is given credit. Acts of kindness and charity, self sacrifice and compassion. The ultimate act of self sacrifice, of giving ones life for another, the starkest example of this. I guess it is how one perceives ones fellow humans. Finally, in an earlier post you stated; Hi TP. Your definitions confuse me( easily done!). I beg to differ. You have never appeared confused to me. You put your arguments in a forthright, erudite, and committed manner. We disagree on many things but your principled stance is not one of them. I hope you appreciate the intent and candour I have expressed above! tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: -1

2:42pm Wed 7 May 14

David Lacey says...

Thanks TP. I would love to live in the kind of world you have so eloquently described. Maybe one day we humans will grow up mentally and accept that there is a better way. But when most members of our race are preoccupied with survival from one day to the next I am afraid that mundane matters such as food, water and a roof to keep out the weather are dominant. The truth is there are too many humans, stripping the planet of its dwindling resources and squabbling over what remains. It will all end in tears!
Thanks TP. I would love to live in the kind of world you have so eloquently described. Maybe one day we humans will grow up mentally and accept that there is a better way. But when most members of our race are preoccupied with survival from one day to the next I am afraid that mundane matters such as food, water and a roof to keep out the weather are dominant. The truth is there are too many humans, stripping the planet of its dwindling resources and squabbling over what remains. It will all end in tears! David Lacey
  • Score: 0

5:26pm Wed 7 May 14

tolpuddlemartyr1955 says...

And that's the crux of the matter, is it not Mr Lacey! We are so tied up with the now with, as you say, the "mundane" matters such as food, water and shelter, that we have no time to think about "our" future. This state of affairs suits certain people to a T. In point of fact, this state of affairs, doesn't even allow us to be fully human. To enjoy and explore what we are.
As important to recognise, is that the stripping of the resources of the planet, is done at the behest of and in the interest of the "tiny minority", who own and control the planet and which resource stripping, provides them with the vast wealth and privilege they enjoy.
And that's the crux of the matter, is it not Mr Lacey! We are so tied up with the now with, as you say, the "mundane" matters such as food, water and shelter, that we have no time to think about "our" future. This state of affairs suits certain people to a T. In point of fact, this state of affairs, doesn't even allow us to be fully human. To enjoy and explore what we are. As important to recognise, is that the stripping of the resources of the planet, is done at the behest of and in the interest of the "tiny minority", who own and control the planet and which resource stripping, provides them with the vast wealth and privilege they enjoy. tolpuddlemartyr1955
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree