On this day, 33 years ago...

neverever1

Just goes to show how little the ruling classes care for ordinary people in Britain, it's a pity not many of them can see it.

Fratton Fred

neverever1 wrote: »

Just goes to show how little the ruling classes care for ordinary people in Britain, it's a pity not many of them can see it.

Do you remember the power cuts of the 70s, because the miners were on strike? Our local paper had the times each day that the power would go off, because the power station had to divert all power to essential premises, like hospitals. Thye went on strike because the Labour government of the time were trying to modernise the industry.

The miners couldn't have given a **** about anyone other than themselves. They got what was coming.

neverever1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Do you remember the power cuts of the 70s, because the miners were on strike? Our local paper had the times each day that the power would go off, because the power station had to divert all power to essential premises, like hospitals. Thye went on strike because the Labour government of the time were trying to modernise the industry.

The miners couldn't have given a **** about anyone other than themselves. They got what was coming.

I don't have an interest in English news stories past or present except when it affects us. I have been told by English people in the past that the working class have always been treated like dirt. It's a pity none of them stand together to fight back against it.

c_man

If only Michael Foot had got in power.

Fratton Fred

neverever1 wrote: »

I don't have an interest in English news stories past or present except when it affects us. I have been told by English people in the past that the working class have always been treated like dirt. It's a pity none of them stand together to fight back against it.

British.

aah, so you have no idea what you're talking about then.

The Backwards Man

c_man wrote: »

If only Michael Foot had got in power.

Foot Heads Arms Body.

end of the road

Fratton Fred wrote: »

aah, she hated manual workers.

I wonder why she bent over backwards to bring Toyota to Derby and Nissan to Sunderland. At one time Wales was the second largest television producing country in the world with massive factories built on what was coal mines. Maybe she hated them so much she wanted to find work for them?

she didn't "bend over backwards" to bring Toyota to Derby and Nissan to Sunderland.
they came of their own accord because they felt britain was a good place to trade probably due to tax breaks, tax breaks other companies availed of as well.
she made the odd tocan effort to find work for the odd few people but that is all it was. lip service and tocan jestures.

ohnonotgmail

c_man wrote: »

If only Michael Foot had got in power.

that bumbling idiot couldn't run a raffle never mind a country

Widdershins

Well it was a very sad situation no matter what way you look at it. There's still plenty of resentment there among the children and grandchildren of te working class.

The battle of the beanfields was an interesting one too.

neverever1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

British.

aah, so you have no idea what you're talking about then.

I'm going by what actual English people have said. Unless somehow you're more believable than them? Doubtful knowing some of the acts you support.

Fratton Fred

end of the road wrote: »

she didn't "bend over backwards" to bring Toyota to Derby and Nissan to Sunderland.
they came of their own accord because they felt britain was a good place to trade probably due to tax breaks, tax breaks other companies availed of as well.
she made the odd tocan effort to find work for the odd few people but that is all it was. lip service and tocan jestures.

she personally lobbied the Nissan CEO to bring 6000 jobs to Sunderland. I'd hardly call that a token effort for a few people.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8253169.stm

Fratton Fred

Widdershins wrote: »

Well it was a very sad situation no matter what way you look at it. There's still plenty of resentment there among the children and grandchildren of te working class.

The battle of the beanfields was an interesting one too.

it was a classic case of opposing ideologies clashing and the guys in the middle being the ones that suffered most.

There was only ever going to be one winner and both sides could have handled it so much better, but at the end of the day, the NUM were trying to hold back the tide.

Fratton Fred

neverever1 wrote: »

I'm going by what actual English people have said. Unless somehow you're more believable than them? Doubtful knowing some of the acts you support.

Actual English people, you mean like real, live english people who were alive during the miners strike and to whom it was a major event in their formative years?

right.....:D

neverever1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Actual English people, you mean like real, live english people who were alive during the miners strike and to whom it was a major event in their formative years?

right.....:D

Yes.

Fratton Fred

neverever1 wrote: »

Yes.

glad we cleared that one up :pac:

neverever1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

glad we cleared that one up :pac:

Ok.

end of the road

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that bumbling idiot couldn't run a raffle never mind a country

why couldn't he. i saw wno reason why he couldn't. had the falklands war not been engineered then he may very well have been elected to run the country.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

why couldn't he. i saw wno reason why he couldn't. had the falklands war not been engineered then he may very well have been elected to run the country.

let me guess: you think that the british should have handed the "malvinas" over to the argies over the wishes of the inhabitants?

Fratton Fred

neverever1 wrote: »

Ok.

Classic.

I look forward to meeting these "Actual" English people of which you speak. Maybe they could teach me about this place, I'd like to go some day

Fratton Fred

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

let me guess: you think that the british should have handed the "malvinas" over to the argies over the wishes of the inhabitants?

it was all manufactured by Thatcher. She persuaded the Junta to invade so she could win the election. She even managed to get them to send their friendly little cruise ship to saunter off on a sight seeing cruise, so she could sink it.

end of the road

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

let me guess: you think that the british should have handed the "malvinas" over to the argies over the wishes of the inhabitants?

oh absolutely. the inhabitants contribute nothing to the defence and other huge costs of keeping the islands, which contribute nothing to the british economy in return for their nightmare costs. they are a defence nightmare as well.
so britain should have got rid of them and still should get rid of them. the inhabitants could have been taken back to britain during and after the war in a rescue operation and they would have lots of opportunities in britain. win win. the islanders get to be british and argentina get 2 islands that are worthless.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

it was all manufactured by Thatcher. She persuaded the Junta to invade so she could win the election. She even managed to get them to send their friendly little cruise ship to saunter off on a sight seeing cruise, so she could sink it.

she cut back on their defences dispite knowing the risks of doing so. the "friendly little cruise ship" as you call it wasn't a danger when it was sunk.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

oh absolutely. the inhabitants contribute nothing to the defence and other huge costs of keeping the islands, which contribute nothing to the british economy in return for their nightmare costs. they are a defence nightmare as well.
so britain should have got rid of them and still should get rid of them. the inhabitants could have been taken back to britain during and after the war in a rescue operation and they would have lots of opportunities in britain. win win. the islanders get to be british and argentina get 2 islands that are worthless.

The falkland islands has been their home for generations. they have a better claim to it than the argies ever had. It is funny how you support the aims of a military junta who only invaded the islands to prop up their own power base over the wishes of people who are citizens of a democratically elected country. that says a lot about you. none of it good.

El Tarangu

end of the road wrote: »

oh absolutely. the inhabitants contribute nothing to the defence and other huge costs of keeping the islands, which contribute nothing to the british economy in return for their nightmare costs. they are a defence nightmare as well.
so britain should have got rid of them and still should get rid of them. the inhabitants could have been taken back to britain during and after the war in a rescue operation and they would have lots of opportunities in britain. win win. the islanders get to be british and argentina get 2 islands that are worthless.



she cut back on their defences dispite knowing the risks of doing so. the "friendly little cruise ship" as you call it wasn't a danger when it was sunk.

So - 'ethnic cleansing', is your solution.

Righto...

end of the road

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The falkland islands has been their home for generations. they have a better claim to it than the argies ever had. It is funny how you support the aims of a military junta who only invaded the islands to prop up their own power base over the wishes of people who are citizens of a democratically elected country. that says a lot about you. none of it good.

the islands have unnatural defence costs and are hugely far away from british supports. the islanders have no opportunities on the islands and the british tax payer is paying to subsidise all of this. in britain the islanders will have opportunities and a much better life.

El Tarangu wrote: »

So - 'ethnic cleansing', is your solution.

Righto...

there is no 'ethnic cleansing'. britain would be cutting the islands loose and the islanders would have passage to britain if they want it. britain can't afford to subsidise them any longer on the islands.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

the islands have unnatural defence costs and are hugely far away from british supports. the islanders have no opportunities on the islands and the british tax payer is paying to subsidise all of this. in britain the islanders will have opportunities and a much better life.



there is no 'ethnic cleansing'. britain would be cutting the islands loose and the islanders would have passage to britain if they want it. britain can't afford to subsidise them any longer on the islands.

Britain doesnt want to cut the islands loose as you put it. If they islanders want to leave and live in britain they can do so now. They dont because they want to live there.

Fratton Fred

end of the road wrote: »

she cut back on their defences dispite knowing the risks of doing so. the "friendly little cruise ship" as you call it wasn't a danger when it was sunk.

Oh absolutely.

in the middle of a war, the Argentine navy sent its flagship out for a pleasure cruise :rolleyes:

end of the road

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Oh absolutely.

in the middle of a war, the Argentine navy sent its flagship out for a pleasure cruise :rolleyes:

the british government have admited it was no threat when sunk, it was sunk simply as an act of revenge.

Fratton Fred

end of the road wrote: »

the british government have admited it was no threat when sunk, it was sunk simply as an act of revenge.

no they haven't. Quit th opposite in fact, the Argentine navy have accepted it was a bonafide target.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

the british government have admited it was no threat when sunk, it was sunk simply as an act of revenge.

When did they admit this? the ship had orders to sail back towards the falklands. the british had intercepted these orders. the ship was a threat and the ship was sunk.

Skylinehead

end of the road wrote: »

oh absolutely.

Nice to know you're against one of the fundamental rights of the UN charter, the right to self-determination.