On this day, 33 years ago...

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.

end of the road

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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

that isn't true, the argentines have always and continue to state it was not a legitimate target. some individual argentine citizens may have a different view as their right but the argentine government and military have never expressed such a view.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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.

the ship was sailing away from the islands and was no threat when sunk. the british claimed they had intercepted orders for the ship to sail toards the islands but such an order was never made.

Skylinehead wrote: »

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

i'm not against it i'm for it. however the reality is the islands are to far away and to hard to defend and have other costs due to their nature that means britain have to seriously look at cutting them loose. the islands in return don't contribute anything to the british e onomy. the islanders aren't being stopped from being british, they just cannot expect britain to continue subsidising their living arrangements. i get that might be an unpopular view and so be it but it comes down to practicality, especially for what may end up being a struggling country after brexit.

Skylinehead

end of the road wrote: »

i'm not against it i'm for it. however the reality is the islands are to far away and to hard to defend and have other costs due to their nature that means britain have to seriously look at cutting them loose. the islands in return don't contribute anything to the british e onomy. the islanders aren't being stopped from being british, they just cannot expect britain to continue subsidising their living arrangements. i get that might be an unpopular view and so be it but it comes down to practicality, especially for what may end up being a struggling country after brexit.

So you advocate for forcing the islanders off their home (ethnic cleansing)?

You should read up on self-determination before claiming you're for it - in this example, the people who live there decide what country they want to be part of. Nobody else. If you don't support that, you don't support the human right of self-determination.

c_man

Would the presence of the Belgrano on the field, have swung the balance of the Battle of Orgreave?

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

that isn't true, the argentines have always and continue to state it was not a legitimate target. some individual argentine citizens may have a different view as their right but the argentine government and military have never expressed such a view.

the argentine navy are of the opinion that it was legitimate. the only people with a different view are politicians who want to boost their profile. The professionals know it was legitimate.

end of the road wrote: »

the ship was sailing away from the islands and was no threat when sunk. the british claimed they had intercepted orders for the ship to sail toards the islands but such an order was never made.

Such an order was made. you can believe whatever you like.

end of the road wrote: »

i'm not against it i'm for it. however the reality is the islands are to far away and to hard to defend and have other costs due to their nature that means britain have to seriously look at cutting them loose. the islands in return don't contribute anything to the british e onomy. the islanders aren't being stopped from being british, they just cannot expect britain to continue subsidising their living arrangements. i get that might be an unpopular view and so be it but it comes down to practicality, especially for what may end up being a struggling country after brexit.

It is very strange for you to be so benevolent towards the british. But the british want to keep the islands and the islanders want to stay there and your view to the contrary holds absolutely zero weight with anybody.

The Backwards Man

c_man wrote: »

Would the presence of the Belgrano on the field, have swung the balance of the Battle of Orgreave?

She was diesel-electric I think.

ohnonotgmail

The Backwards Man wrote: »

She was diesel-electric I think.

actually boilers powered by fuel oil. she was a WW2 ship.

cajonlardo

" Oh the iron will and iron hand
In England's green and pleasant land
No music for the shameful scene
That night they said it had even shocked the queen"

Dire Straits excellent ballad records the events of that day.....

Murrisk

The Backwards Man wrote: »

He was a commie eejit in fairness.

And he called a strike going into summer. What the hell? Not the best strategist.

nice_guy80

Murrisk wrote: »

And he called a strike going into summer. What the hell? Not the best strategist.

best weather to be outside on strike if you ask me

Murrisk

nice_guy80 wrote: »

best weather to be outside on strike if you ask me

I hope you're joking here?

Yourself isit

Skylinehead wrote: »

So you advocate for forcing the islanders off their home (ethnic cleansing)?

You should read up on self-determination before claiming you're for it - in this example, the people who live there decide what country they want to be part of. Nobody else. If you don't support that, you don't support the human right of self-determination.

They are run from Britain. That's not self determination. And an Argentinian take over would just mean they now live in Argentina. No ethnic cleansing needed.

ohnonotgmail

Yourself isit wrote: »

They are run from Britain. That's not self determination. And an Argentinian take over would just mean they now live in Argentina. No ethnic cleansing needed.

They want to be run from britain. they have never asked for independence. they definitely do not want to be run from Buenos Aires. People here seem very keen to ignore what the islanders want.

Skylinehead

Yourself isit wrote: »

They are run from Britain. That's not self determination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_referendum,_2013

end of the road

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

They want to be run from britain. they have never asked for independence. they definitely do not want to be run from Buenos Aires. People here seem very keen to ignore what the islanders want.

because of the huge cost to give them what they want, when they give nothing back in return.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

because of the huge cost to give them what they want, when they give nothing back in return.

It is what the islanders want. It is what britain wants. that is all that matters. how the british government spends its money is no concern of yours.

Fratton Fred

Yourself isit wrote: »

They are run from Britain. That's not self determination. And an Argentinian take over would just mean they now live in Argentina. No ethnic cleansing needed.

They aren't run from Britain, they are run from Stanley. The UK only looks after their foreign affairs and their defence. everything else they do themselves.

neverever1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

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

Amazing.

Fratton Fred

neverever1 wrote: »

Amazing.

Is it? Do tell.

neverever1

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Is it? Do tell.

Fantastic.

FTA69

Murrisk wrote: »

I hope you're joking here?

Not at all, we've a strike in work coming up now for early July and we're delighted. Nothing worse than standing on a picket in the freezing cold and p*ssing rain while some prick of a manager is inside in his warm office noting down those outside.

We'll have some grub and refreshments put out and the public too will be in a better mood for the sun.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

British.

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

The British working class are treated like dirt. Working families are using food banks.

steddyeddy

In fairness the British have no right to preach about self determination. They denied it to this island long enough. Surely they can understand people fighting for self determination.

LordSutch

Looking back now ....

Arthur Scargill, (three shredded wheat), Antony Wedgewood Benn, Derek Hatton, the NUM, Mounted Police, Battle of Orgreave, Batton charging, Mrs Thatch, Michael Foot, Red Ken, Red Wedge, The IRA, Billy Brag, Darkus Howe, Frankie Goes to Hollywood, Robin Day, Elvis Costello, Simon West, Harry Enfield - Loadsa money, Banarama, the Police . . . . .

Just some of my associated memories from that year (or there abouts)!

indioblack

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.

Power cuts, car workers wildcatting, power workers, steel. coal - ditto.
Three day week, crap cars from BLMC and Ford - the good old days.
The unions made a rod for their own backs, allowed themselves to be portrayed as the cause of all the ills in Britain 40 years ago.
The only thing I would concede to Scargill was that he was right about planned pit closures.
At that time my trade union shop steward told me he was taking a day off work to show solidarity with the miners - and would I do the same.
I asked him to give me one instance where the miners had supported any dispute we had in our own industry - none, of course - so I refused.
Mind you, I still never voted for Thatcher.

ohnonotgmail

steddyeddy wrote: »

In fairness the British have no right to preach about self determination. They denied it to this island long enough. Surely they can understand people fighting for self determination.

which people would those be?

indioblack

steddyeddy wrote: »

In fairness the British have no right to preach about self determination. They denied it to this island long enough. Surely they can understand people fighting for self determination.

What, none of them?

BalcombeSt4

Remember Orgreave!!!
Up The Beast of Bolsover

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqmRjfifuNI

Thatcher was one rotten, evil woman. So many tradgedies happened under her dictatorship leadership.

She really took her cue from Reagan when it came to the miners after he said about the Air Traffic Control Strike in 81 "if they do not report for work within 48 hours they have forfeited their jobs and will be terminated."
And the ultimate insult to the miners, to call these courageous people as the enemy within, how low can you sink?

The Irish Hunger Strike, The Maze was basically a concenration camp & Armagh Jail, Hillsborough, The Poll Tax, Race Riots 81, Sinking of the Belgrano, against Home Rule for Scotland & Wales, Virtually Privatized the whole of Britain & everything in it, Called the ANC which fought to end apartheid, as a "typical terrorist organisation", as late as 1987, Her support for General Pinochet & similar Latin style Fascist Dictators, supported & maybe even armed Saddam Hussien and called Bin Laden & Friends brave Freedom Fighters.

Then her secret death teams here in Ireland. She re-introduced the shoot-to-kill policy. The Stalker episodes, the murder of William & Ciaran Fleming & 2 others, Loughgall, Girbraltar, Drummnakilley, Cough, Clonoe, Cappagh, Pat Finucane. And alot of other shady stuff.

BalcombeSt4

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is what the islanders want. It is what britain wants. that is all that matters. how the british government spends its money is no concern of yours.

It's not what the Chagos Islanders want tho is it? What right did anyone have to remove people from their home on a island & turn it into a military base?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/16/chagos-islanders-cannot-return-home-uk-foreign-office-confirms

end of the road

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

It's not what the Chagos Islanders want tho is it? What right did anyone have to remove people from their home on a island & turn it into a military base?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/16/chagos-islanders-cannot-return-home-uk-foreign-office-confirms

i guess there was no election to be won the year that happened unlike in 1983 for which the 1982 falklands war was rather convenient.

markodaly

end of the road wrote: »

not odd at all. thatcher hated low earning and industrial workers and the poor. she hated workers rights and definitely hated those she saw as lower then her standing up for themselves. if you were a city worker or similar she liked you and did all sorts to insure her type benefited at the expence of everyone else. if you were one of the people she despised and still benefited it was luck on your part.
we know she used the police for political purposes but i would suspect it was a lot more regularly then we would know about.
she got ideas above her station and forgot where she actually came from.

ultimately a dangerous woman who's dangerousness (understandibly) couldn't be appreciated by most people.

Her type? People she despised? People lower then her?

You may as well just go all out and call her the Wicked Witch of OZ or the evil stepmother ala Hansel and Gretel as its fairy tale arguments, as what you posted is just misogynistic guff.

You do know her background right? She was a grocers daughter, who won a scholarship to Oxford.

When people question peoples motives off the bat they lost the argument. Joe Biden always said, "Questions people reasoning or logic, but never their motives" as its too easy to just cast them into the evil/bad/idiot category.

markodaly

On the coal miners themselves, well do people really think that Britain should still be mining as much coal in 2017 as 1984 with the push towards reducing carbon emissions in an effort to reduce climate change. In many ways, for different reasons of course, perhaps Thatcher was ahead of the game? She knew coal was a dead old industry.

end of the road

what i posted is as far from "misogynistic guff" as it gets. it's reality. deal with it.

markodaly wrote: »

On the coal miners themselves, well do people really think that Britain should still be mining as much coal in 2017 as 1984 with the push towards reducing carbon emissions in an effort to reduce climate change. In many ways, for different reasons of course, perhaps Thatcher was ahead of the game? She knew coal was a dead old industry.

thatcher was as far from being ahead of the game as it gets. she wanted to beat down the working classes and she did.
the closure of the coal fired power stations is going to remove a large amount of power from the grid with no replacement which in turn is going to lead to shortages, so frankly the stations should remain, and those which closed should have remained open. i don't care if coal is a "dirty old industry" it gave employment to people who wished to work and there is no viable replacement until new nuclear plants are built, which funnily enough won't be built by britain itself and won't be on stream for years after all the coalfire stations are gone.

a little tip. your death doesn't get celebrated on the streets if you are a good decent politician and prime minister.

c_man

end of the road wrote: »

a little tip. your death doesn't get celebrated on the streets if you are a good decent politician and prime minister.

Most of the knob-jockeys organising that near me at the time (in Scotland) were definitely not alive when she was about, most seemed to be drawn from the "usual" socs in college and looked to be completely ignorant of the huge swathes of blue which Scotland consistently returned in every Thatcher led election.

I remember one such placard,

"Dictator Thatcher Dead! Freedom for Scotland!"

Moron.

end of the road

a

c_man wrote: »

Most of the knob-jockeys organising that near me at the time (in Scotland) were definitely not alive when she was about, most seemed to be drawn from the "usual" socs in college and looked to be completely ignorant of the huge swathes of blue which Scotland consistently returned in every Thatcher led election.

I remember one such placard,

"Dictator Thatcher Dead! Freedom for Scotland!"

Moron.

those were in a minority. the majority of the protests were either by those who were alive and who do remember and others who actually knew their stuff and had bothered to research. at every protest you will get the odd clueless moron that's part of life. but that doesn't change the facts.

c_man

The fact was that in the only protest/party I saw, in one of the major UK cities, consisted mostly of college kids.

I'm not saying she was great or anything, just that ignoring her consistent support across the country during her time (we've this again and again in this thread), the real difficulties the UK was facing in the 70s, what the alternative offered was, and judging her legacy on the basis of what a bunch of college lefties decide to do on a Wednesday afternoon is pretty stupid.

end of the road

c_man wrote: »

The fact was that in the only protest/party I saw, in one of the major UK cities, consisted mostly of college kids.

I'm not saying she was great or anything, just that ignoring her consistent support across the country during her time (we've this again and again in this thread), the real difficulties the UK was facing in the 70s, what the alternative offered was, and judging her legacy on the basis of what a bunch of college lefties decide to do on a Wednesday afternoon is pretty stupid.

except nobody is "judging her legacy on the basis of what a bunch of college lefties decide to do on a Wednesday afternoon" .
first of all, you have no evidence the people you are referring to were "lefties" and there is plenty of examples which still remain the case today to judge her legacy on. the people you are talking about were a minority. the majority at the protests either were alive or had done their research. i remember the coverage at the time.

c_man

end of the road wrote: »

except nobody is "judging her legacy on the basis of what a bunch of college lefties decide to do on a Wednesday afternoon".

...

a little tip. your death doesn't get celebrated on the streets if you are a good decent politician and prime minister.

first of all, you have no evidence the people you are referring to were "lefties"

I have just as much "evidence" (lol) as you do for the following

the people you are talking about were a minority. the majority at the protests either were alive or had done their research.

Can I get a hold of your roster of the people in attendance at the events? I can cross reference it with my location, and then you can have your "evidence".


Of course I could be mistaken, non-lefties go around waving alphabet-soup red flags with hammers-and-sickles all the time.

Fratton Fred

steddyeddy wrote: »

The British working class are treated like dirt. Working families are using food banks.

yep. everyone who isn't a titled Lord is relying in food banks week in week out:rolleyes:

cop on will you?

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

yep. everyone who isn't a titled Lord is relying in food banks week in week out:rolleyes:

cop on will you?

Not everyone but things are getting significantly harder for those at the bottom. A simple fact is that the number of people relying on food banks has risen substantially.

ohnonotgmail

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

It's not what the Chagos Islanders want tho is it? What right did anyone have to remove people from their home on a island & turn it into a military base?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/16/chagos-islanders-cannot-return-home-uk-foreign-office-confirms

So because they ****ed up with the chagos you think they should repeat the mistake?