Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

What has any of the above got to do with the statement "If a few more of your union bretheren had borne that in mind, then perhaps fewer people would have been injured or killed during the worst strikes of the 1970s and 80s."? Does the actions of strike-breakers or rogue police render that statement untrue? Of course not.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

you forgot the usual pierre you forgot to call me a racist or a facist or a bnp supporter or a bigot you can call me what you like

Sticks and Stones etc etc.

I have news for you pierre the days of the dark satanic mills are on the way back,you've only got to look at the newspaper telling you about the working conditions in the food factories to see this,you've only got to look at tv progs like the ones about the immigrants with 5.am to 5 pm working days.this would never have been allowed in the 70's the potato factory would have had to have worked shifts 6am til 2pm and 2 pm til 10pm.
now they employ immigrants and make them work 12 hour days or they get the sack.
yes sir happy days are here again,if your a boss.

---------- Post added at 13:39 ---------- Previous post was at 13:31 ----------

Try telling this to the UAF supporters.

To be honest with you these cabin crew are wasting there time,you cant win a dispute with part time strikes and you can't win a strike when you have a government that are prepared to do anything to break the strike (miners strike).
and you will never win a strike with spineless people who strikebreak because they undermine the strikers every time.

---------- Post added at 13:43 ---------- Previous post was at 13:39 ----------

show me your evidence that apart from the taxi driver.who was killed as you infer during the strikes of the 70's and 80's.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

I hope some of your other 2000+ posts are better informed than this one. :erm:
There is a whole thread dedicated to the BA strike. Enlighten yourself by reading that thread.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

I'd happily tell them that. Resorting to the sort of unacceptable tactics used by the EDL (or anyone else for that matter) isn't the way to win round the silent majority and can be extremely counter-productive. Aggression and violence are not acceptable. We live in a democracy and we all have the option to 'fight' to change the law peacefully via the ballot box.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

Ballots can be fixed,just ask the people of Afghanistan or zimbabwe.

I'd also argue about us living in a democracy,we don't we live in a dictatorship.ok we can change our leader every 4 or 5 years but its still a dictatorship.try telling the one eyed scottish idiot or his minions there wrong,i bet you don't get anywhere.
Try asking for a referendum on anything.we only got rid of the poll tax because of the riots.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

yup not much democracy coming out of no 10 .

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

Are you insinuating that the ballot is systematically fixed in this country?Because this is what actually makes us a democracy.

In fact it's the lack of free and fair elections that makes a dictatorship and we are a hell of a long way from that.

It's also lack of free speech and the lack of any platform to mount an opposition that makes a dictatorship and we are a hell of a long way from that.

Now I think that the only detrimental aspect of our present situation is that our choices of political party are so sparse.The two party race is defunct as far as I'm concerned...:rolleyes:

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

a) If ballots can be fixed, as you state, that doesn't augur well for any votes on strike action, does it? ;)

b) I think you will find it was the mass default (up to 3 million at one time) that brought about the abolition, not the riots - but I suppose if you want to rewrite history, that is your prerogative (along with Militant and the SWP).:D

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

"It's also lack of free speech and the lack of any platform to mount an opposition that makes a dictatorship and we are a hell of a long way from that."

thats funny how they always try to stifle the free speech of nick griffin and the bnp most of the time,you only had to watch his appearance on question time to see this.
And what about nick clegg of the lib dems everytime he stands up to say anything at pmq's he gets shouted down by the bully boy mps of labour and the tory's.
Free speech,you make me laugh.try going to speakers corner and start talking about gays and homosexuals and how you don't like them,try denying the holocaust.you'll soon find yourself arrested.free speech,no such thing.

---------- Post added at 18:03 ---------- Previous post was at 18:00 ----------

you carry on living in wonderland matey,it was the riots that made thatcher give up on the poll tax,it wasn't the defaulters because the defaulters were made to pay.i should know i was one of them.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

Would you care to explain the logic of that statement?

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

Actually I thought that was a bad move.Just as I think it's a bad idea to try and ban them.Better they are seen to be as ineffectual as any other political party.

Free speech has never about castigating certain sections of the community...that's just nasty racist incitement to violence and hatred.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

you think your clever work it out for yourself.

---------- Post added at 18:10 ---------- Previous post was at 18:06 ----------

in my book its called free speech.who are you or anyone else for that matter to tell me what i can say or can't say.
you say we live in a land of free speech i say we don't.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

I'm clever enough to see that you're talking a pile of old cobblers. Just because they eventually got their money back off you, it does not follow that it was not the 3 million defaulters who eventually brought about the end of the Poll Tax.

The administrative cost of chasing people through the courts to pay the tax was vast, and unlike the riots, defaulting was far easier for larger numbers of protesters to maintain over the long term.

But if you're clever enough to know different, how about you post a convincing argument that it was the riots that ended the tax? By convincing argument, I mean something more substantial than you simply saying that was the way it was and expecting people to just accept it.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

The administrative cost of chasing people through the courts to pay the tax was vast, and unlike the riots, defaulting was far easier for larger numbers of protesters to maintain over the long term.

The administrative costs were added on to the poll tax debt that had to be payed back,believe me the government didn't lose money because of the defaulters.
Have you never heard of bailifs collecting debts then,or employers being made to pay peoples poll tax or council tax directly out of there wages.
it was the riots believe me.

Re: Back to the 1970s?
 

Well that's what democracy means.The majority have decided that being abusive to gays,people of differing races,religious persuasions is not going to be countenanced and those that say such things just can't.

It's not the fact that you feel we don't live in a democracy it's the fact that you don't have to right to live in your own dictatorship where you can incite hatred of others that don't meet with your approval.

Now having got your measure I've nothing more to discuss with you.

Good evening.