Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Were the Unions too powerful before Thatcher? Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    I'm actually happy to say that because one of the communist leaning union leaders was caught taking money from a communist enemy government
    Communist "enemy" government? Where they our enemies under English law? How? Were we at war with them?

    You know the Cold War was a moniker, we didn't declare actual war. They were a foreign power.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    Communist "enemy" government? Where they our enemies under English law? How? Were we at war with them?

    You know the Cold War was a moniker, we didn't declare actual war. They were a foreign power.
    Ladies and gentlemen, you have just seen a classic definition of 'clutching at straws'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Ladies and gentlemen, you have just seen a classic definition of 'clutching at straws'.
    I would have thought speaking to a non-existent audience might be better categorised thus (and, perhaps, as a sign of advancing madness).

    You might think whether it's an enemy power or merely a foreign power is a distinction without a difference, but then you're just demonstrating that you're not particularly aware of the difference in law, which is profound.

    It's like the difference between an offence that may involve a few years jail, and treason. See how far you'll get going around accusing people of treason, and how stinging the libel judgements will be.

    You may as well accuse someone of being a kiddy fiddler without proof.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah! Screw unions for fighting for workers rights....
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    Ha! Rowing the boat back now, I see. Can you please point to where you're publishing your public statement?
    Where should I publish it? Where can I publish it that will accept submissions of this nature, and ensure it is widely read by members of the public?

    Who are you to say I should do such a thing? I am happy to state that to anyone when asked, this is quite different from standing on the street and shouting it out to anyone who will listen.

    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    How prematurely you exalted in your fancied victory See the post above
    Scargill was not booted out until long after the power of the NUM was crushed, after it had become an utterly irrelevant organisation.

    "After the miners' strike, he was elected to lifetime presidency of the NUM by an overwhelming national majority, in a controversial election where some of the other candidates claimed that they were given very little time to prepare. He stepped down from leadership of the NUM at the end of July 2002, to become the honorary president."

    In April 2010 he was booted out. So trying to claim this as a victory that proves your point:

    The fact is that the Militant Tendency was a small minority that was booted out of the Unions
    I just have to LOL.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Where should I publish it? Where can I publish it that will accept submissions of this nature, and ensure it is widely read by members of the public?

    Who are you to say I should do such a thing? I am happy to state that to anyone when asked, this is quite different from standing on the street and shouting it out to anyone who will listen.
    Perhaps you should print up a pamphlet and hand it out in Parliament Square. After all, you're claiming there's this large, undiscovered fifth column of KGB spies in England. Surely this den of vipers must be routed out?

    Edit: Make sure the pamphlet has your full name and address, so we know where to deliver the writ

    Scargill was not booted out until long after the power of the NUM was crushed, after it had become an utterly irrelevant organisation.

    "After the miners' strike, he was elected to lifetime presidency of the NUM by an overwhelming national majority, in a controversial election where some of the other candidates claimed that they were given very little time to prepare. He stepped down from leadership of the NUM at the end of July 2002, to become the honorary president."

    In April 2010 he was booted out. So trying to claim this as a victory that proves your point:
    It's a logical fallacy of your own fevered imagination that the Labour Party and Unions' responses as a whole and position in respect of the Militant Tendency are dependent on the actions NUM and Scargill, who I don't defend.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    I would have thought speaking to a non-existent audience might be better categorised thus (and, perhaps, as a sign of advancing madness).
    I would have thought that believing that we are not having a semi-public conversation with many people also reading might be better categorised thus.

    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    You might think whether it's an enemy power or merely a foreign power is a distinction without a difference, but then you're just demonstrating that you're not particularly aware of the difference in law, which is profound.
    All that needs to be done is demonstrate that the west treated the Soviet Union as an enemy government, and the reverse happened with the Soviet Union treating the western powers as an enemy. They don't actually have to be at war.

    Do you coincidentally have nuclear tipped ICBMs always targeted on cities of a country who is not the enemy? I don't think so.

    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    It's like the difference between an offence that may involve a few years jail, and treason. See how far you'll get going around accusing people of treason, and how stinging the libel judgements will be.
    If he had been caught at the time, rather than when the UK got hold of the Soviet documents, he would have gotten more than a few years jail time.

    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    You may as well accuse someone of being a kiddy fiddler without proof.
    Straw man, since the proof exists that Scargill was in contact with the Soviets...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    All that needs to be done is demonstrate that the west treated the Soviet Union as an enemy government, and the reverse happened with the Soviet Union treating the western powers as an enemy. They don't actually have to be at war.
    "Enemy" is a legal term of art. Like "trading with the enemy".

    Do you coincidentally have nuclear tipped ICBMs always targeted on cities of a country who is not the enemy? I don't think so.
    They certainly did. That doesn't speak to whether they were in fact our enemies in a legal sense.

    If he had been caught at the time, rather than when the UK got hold of the Soviet documents, he would have gotten more than a few years jail time.
    What offence? What statute?

    Straw man, since the proof exists that Scargill was in contact with the Soviets...
    Indeed there is. But this wasn't your case, so please don't try to squirm away. You said that it's likely that he's not the only one.

    Which is analagous to libelling the entire teaching staff of a school when one is exposed as a paedophile, and asserting you think it's likely there are more... not even without proof, but even without evidence! Based solely on your personal prejudice.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    Communist "enemy" government? Where they our enemies under English law? How? Were we at war with them?

    You know the Cold War was a moniker, we didn't declare actual war. They were a foreign power.
    We know that. But it still didn't stop all of the lovely stuff associated with it such as espionage, sabotage, military tensions and political tensions. It happened and I sense that you're trying to ignore the fact that it happened just because the word war wasn't correctly used. A little bit like Labour who have chosen to pput the word Tax on a slogan related to a reduction in benefits.

    The Trade union movement was closely aligned with the Communist party in many respects and there's a high level of certainty that many elements of it were being played by Moscow.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    The Trade union movement was closely aligned with the Communist party in many respects
    By trade union movement, you mean Arthur Scargill.

    and there's a high level of certainty that many elements of it were being played by Moscow.
    By many elements, you mean Arthur Scargill.

    You're rather showing your personal prejudice, considering that far more Conservatives and members of the British establishment were shown to be Soviet spies and sympathisers.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    "Enemy" is a legal term of art. Like "trading with the enemy".
    'Enemy' is not a legal term whatsoever.

    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    They certainly did. That doesn't speak to whether they were in fact our enemies in a legal sense.
    So what's your point? That they must actually be in a state of war with you before you can consider them your enemy?

    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    What offence? What statute?
    If they found him secretly going to the Russians for money to continue his own personal war against the government, I'm sure they could have found something to throw at him. He certainly did all he could to conceal it. Why would he have done this if he believed that everything he was doing was all perfectly legal and above board?

    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    Indeed there is. But this wasn't your case, so please don't try to squirm away. You said that it's likely that he's not the only one.

    Which is analagous to libelling the entire teaching staff of a school when one is exposed as a paedophile, and asserting you think it's likely there are more... not even without proof, but even without evidence! Based solely on your personal prejudice.
    No it isn't.

    Besides being an incredible straw man, because we are talking about union leaders with communist tendencies being in touch with a communist enemy government, a better analogy would be to say that because one teacher with paedophilic tendencies has been exposed commiting sexual offences against children in the UK, it is very possible that other teachers with paedophilic tendencies will be exposed as doing the same in the future.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    By trade union movement, you mean Arthur Scargill.

    Not just him.

    By many elements, you mean Arthur Scargill.

    Not just him.

    You're rather showing your personal prejudice, considering that far more Conservatives and members of the British establishment were shown to be Soviet spies and sympathisers.

    Agreed, but those indivuduals couldn't manipulate the voew point sof tens of thousands of other people., Just like Arthur Scargill and other Trade Union Leaders at the time.
    See above in Bold
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    'Enemy' is not a legal term whatsoever.
    That must be why we don't have a Trading With The Enemy Act. Oh, we do!

    In fact, Section 2 of the 1939 Act provides a definition of enemy.

    So what's your point? That they must actually be in a state of war with you before you can consider them your enemy?
    Yes, that is the definition of enemy in English law.

    If they found him secretly going to the Russians for money to continue his own personal war against the government, I'm sure they could have found something to throw at him. He certainly did all he could to conceal it. Why would he have done this if he believed that everything he was doing was all perfectly legal and above board?
    For reasons of embarassment? To avoid bad publicity? Considering your knowledge of the law appears to be limited to, "Surely there must be a law against X", perhaps you're better leaving it to those who have actually studied the law to make these judgements.

    Besides being an incredible straw man, because we are talking about union leaders
    There you go again. Not one thin sliver of evidence that any union leader other than Scargill was in receipt of funds from the Soviet Union.

    with communist tendencies being in touch with a communist enemy government
    See above. Your claim that there is no legal definition of enemy is quite wrong and ignorant, so I'm not sure how much value any of the rest of what you say has.

    a better analogy would be to say that because one teacher with paedophilic tendencies has been exposed commiting sexual offences against children in the UK, it is very possible that other teachers with paedophilic tendencies will be exposed as doing the same in the future
    Not really. From a libel perspective, one is looking at the size of the "class" of claimant who is alleging they've been libelled. All teachers is hundreds of thousands, whereas the size of the class of defamed individuals, "union leaders in the 1980s", is actually quite small.

    Not only does logic and the law (Browne v D.C. Thomson & Co) say that these situations are different, but common sense also does.

    It's very curious that having discovered one instance of a union leader taking money from the Communists, you desperately jump on that rather than the innumerable instances of members of the British establishment who were secret communists and in the pay of and under direction from the Soviet Union.

    Defaming without evidence, and desperately deflecting attention from the social class that was exposed in the cold war as a nest of traitors. One wonders about your own allegiences
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    See above in Bold
    Not just him? Who else?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    Not just him? Who else?
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...liticians.html

    I guess we'll have to wait another 10 years until thoise docukments get declassified.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sammynorton90)
    I've heard a lot of people, even some left-wingers, say that the Unions were too powerful in Britain before Thatcher, and that although she went too far, they did need to be put in their place.
    you were more powerful before Thatcher.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...liticians.html

    I guess we'll have to wait another 10 years until thoise docukments get declassified.
    One person's diary, with no supporting evidence. Pretty weak.

    Conceding Jack Jones. You have two. That's less than the Cambridge 5. More trots and commos were exposed in the Armed Forces and Establishment than the Labour movement.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    That must be why we don't have a Trading With The Enemy Act. Oh, we do!

    In fact, Section 2 of the 1939 Act provides a definition of enemy.
    Who cares? You don't need to be at war with someone before you consider them the enemy.

    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    Yes, that is the definition of enemy in English law.
    Yet again, who cares?

    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    For reasons of embarassment? To avoid bad publicity? Considering your knowledge of the law appears to be limited to, "Surely there must be a law against X", perhaps you're better leaving it to those who have actually studied the law to make these judgements.
    Why would he be embarrassed if he thought that going to the Soviets for money was absolutely the right thing to do?

    Obviously because he knew that the vast majority of right thinking people in the country would have thought it a terribly criminal thing to do. Especially considering the state of world politics at the time

    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    There you go again. Not one thin sliver of evidence that any union leader other than Scargill was in receipt of funds from the Soviet Union.
    LOL. I let you walk right into that one didn't I? Perhaps you have heard of Jack Jones, leader of the Transport and General Workers' Union (TGWU)? Oh, I see you have!

    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    See above. Your claim that there is no legal definition of enemy is quite wrong and ignorant, so I'm not sure how much value any of the rest of what you say has.
    I never said there was no legal definition of enemy. I said that 'enemy' is not a legal term whatsoever. The difference might be subtle to you, but it has gone right over your head.

    It's more than I should so, but I will explain again. To consider someone, or a foreign power an enemy, you do not have to meet any legal definitions whatsoever.

    This is separate to your obsession with 'Trading With The Enemy' a statute law which must necessarily have what constitutes an enemy defined in law as the basis for constructing legal arguments against those thus accused.

    Notwithstanding the fact that someone may not be considered an enemy under the definition thus contained within, it is still possible to consider them and call them an enemy nonetheless.

    Otherwise you would have to argue that Thatcher and Scargill weren't enemies, and that would have us all dying of laughter.

    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    Not really. From a libel perspective, one is looking at the size of the "class" of claimant who is alleging they've been libelled. All teachers is hundreds of thousands, whereas the size of the class of defamed individuals, "union leaders in the 1980s", is actually quite small.

    Not only does logic and the law (Browne v D.C. Thomson & Co) say that these situations are different, but common sense also does.

    It's very curious that having discovered one instance of a union leader taking money from the Communists, you desperately jump on that rather than the innumerable instances of members of the British establishment who were secret communists and in the pay of and under direction from the Soviet Union.

    Defaming without evidence, and desperately deflecting attention from the social class that was exposed in the cold war as a nest of traitors. One wonders about your own allegiences
    I'm not going to argue about your straw man any further. Perhaps you should go and do some reading up on Jack Jones?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    One person's diary, with no supporting evidence. Pretty weak.

    Conceding Jack Jones. You have two. That's less than the Cambridge 5. More trots and commos were exposed in the Armed Forces and Establishment than the Labour movement.
    Really.

    But we digress. I'm was more worried about the power that was wielded by blackmailing the tax payer into paying them more. You know. The power cuts, uncollected rubbish, unburied dead.

    Anyway, they ended up shafting themselves ultimatl;ey as the electorate got sick and tired and voted a party in 3 times that would stop them, even voting in a party after that that turned it's back on teh trade Union movement.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    Who cares? You don't need to be at war with someone before you consider them the enemy.

    Yet again, who cares?
    Due to the vehemence of your response, I'm guessing you do.

    Why would he be embarrassed if he thought that going to the Soviets for money was absolutely the right thing to do?
    Because he knew the majority of people, including 90% of the Labour Party and trade union movement, would not see it that way.

    LOL. I let you walk right into that one didn't I? Perhaps you have heard of Jack Jones, leader of the Transport and General Workers' Union (TGWU)? Oh, I see you have!
    Two. I applaud you, you're at 40% of the Cambridge 5. If you can produce another three, you might be some way to demonstrating the the union and labour movement was anywhere near as in bed with the Soviets as the the officer class of the Armed Forces and the Establishment.

    I never said there was no legal definition of enemy.
    I quote you thus; 'Enemy' is not a legal term whatsoever.

    I said that 'enemy' is not a legal term whatsoever.
    So you deny in one sentence and then admit in the next? Not exactly a first-class debating tactic.

    It's more than I should so, but I will explain again. To consider someone, or a foreign power an enemy, you do not have to meet any legal definitions whatsoever.

    This is separate to your obsession with 'Trading With The Enemy' a statute law which must necessarily have what constitutes an enemy defined in law as the basis for constructing legal arguments against those thus accused.
    Interesting word, obsession. It's the law. Simples

    Notwithstanding the fact that someone may not be considered an enemy under the definition thus contained within, it is still possible to consider them and call them an enemy nonetheless.
    Yes, you're welcome to redefine the English language in whichever way you like. But please don't expect anyone to give it credence.

    Otherwise you would have to argue that Thatcher and Scargill weren't enemies, and that would have us all dying of laughter.
    Did they ever refer to each other in that way? Or are you making up mental states for people you didn't personally know?

    Anyway, I find you tiresome and you're not really adding anything to the debate. Nor do I have time to school you in the law. Please feel free to claim that I'm running away and that you've won a magnificent victory against one of your "enemies"
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.