Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh
i agree that is the problem .It was very shortsighted of the gov. to allow this to happen some of the larger pits should have been maintained .I do remember it was a big political issue at the time (shortley after the strike and the pits started to close ) but as usual maggie got her way and had them closed instead of mothballed
maybe the gov. should look at long term spending over say 10-15yrs to re-open some of the larger ones or even sink new shafts in new fields ..if there are new fields to be found
|
Lol shortsighted, more like the actions of a vengeful few who knew exactly what they were doing.
---------- Post added at 16:56 ---------- Previous post was at 16:51 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by foreverwar
a) The "evidence" is hearsay, supplied by Mr Scargill, not exactly an uninterested party in the dispute, who may have an interest in rewriting history to perhaps show him in a more favourable light. 
b) "changing the law to suit her agenda" - supposition, not fact - I beg to differ on your premise. Under that viewpoint, it would be equally as valid to state that even if Arthur Scargill had held a ballot and lost, he would still have held an illegal strike - it is too easy to rewrite history to support one side or the other of a viewpoint by changing facts. |
Hold on Tory Boy
When the strike was called it was legal, the court of appeal even said so previously. If those in the so called 'safe pits' had listened and shown some unity we might still have a coal industry today, after all where are their safe jobs now? And of course there is also the question of whether they were forced into strike action by the government as well.