Mr Prime Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 You forgot about his London flat. All the best Marxists have a place in the city and a country retreat. Do all miners have the same or is that a perk of being a Marxist union leader? I suppose Joe Gormley and other 'sensible' union leaders lived in wigwams? At the end of the day the unions tend to provide homes in London for the leaders so their business is easier. If you find that shocking then have a whisky and calm down. Scargill was never the kind to say everyone should live on lentils. As I remember from reading all the interviews ever conducted with him his view was that everyone should have access to good cars and good clothes etc. e.g. he thought materialism was good as long as everyone had access. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 Shell spend on such things for all sorts of reasons. Because it attracts subsidy, because it reduces their tax charge, because they have to be seen to, because it's good political capital, because they are hedging their bets... They do the same with lots of things for similar reasons. You're right, it isn't cheap and it still doesn't work either from what I've seen and there is no known viable way to make it work commercially. In short, it's greenwash. It works in a number of power stations in Europe and in the US. Just wondering, do you think Thatcher trashed our mining industries because of environmental concerns? If so I would be interested to see your evidence for that as an excuse for her vandalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 It works in a number of power stations in Europe and in the US. Just wondering, do you think Thatcher trashed our mining industries because of environmental concerns? If so I would be interested to see your evidence for that as an excuse for her vandalism. Could you point us to those power stations where it works commercially? Your following question is just bizarre Wildcat. I'm guessing that it was just another excuse for a gratuitous dig? Pun intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 Could you point us to those power stations where it works commercially? Your following question is just bizarre Wildcat. I'm guessing that it was just another excuse for a gratuitous dig? Pun intended. The Great Plains Synfuels Plant, running since 1984 is the obvious example. http://www.dakotagas.com/index.html The second point is simply to establish the relationship of your argument to the thread, hardly gratuitous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 I don't think that meets the criteria of being commercially viable or technologically effective. It is the recipient of subsidy and the environmental impact is as yet unknown so it fails to impress on many counts. The DGC operation captures 3m tonnes pa which is only half of what they produce by burning hydrocarbons. For comparison Drax alone puts out around 20m tonnes from memory. Don't get me wrong here, I'm all for viable solutions but I don't see that carbon capture has really left the drawing board yet. Too much faith is being put in it by headline grabbing politicians for my liking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upinwath Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 I suppose Joe Gormley and other 'sensible' union leaders lived in wigwams? At the end of the day the unions tend to provide homes in London for the leaders so their business is easier. If you find that shocking then have a whisky and calm down. Scargill was never the kind to say everyone should live on lentils. As I remember from reading all the interviews ever conducted with him his view was that everyone should have access to good cars and good clothes etc. e.g. he thought materialism was good as long as everyone had access. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10252397 Mr Scargill was given use of the three-bedroom Barbican flat in 1982 when the NUM's headquarters were in London. The union, however, moved its head office to Sheffield the following year. What a greedy little Marxist he is. 4 legs good, 2 legs better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 Scargill was never the kind to say everyone should live on lentils. As I remember from reading all the interviews ever conducted with him his view was that everyone should have access to good cars and good clothes etc. e.g. he thought materialism was good as long as everyone had access.He was, in fact, so dedicated to the principle of people having access to luxuries that he used NUM funds to pay the mortgage on his very nice house in Ecclesall. Did union funds subsidise the mortgages on many miners' houses, to support his vision of everybody having the trappings of wealth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 He was, in fact, so dedicated to the principle of people having access to luxuries that he used NUM funds to pay the mortgage on his very nice house in Ecclesall. Did union funds subsidise the mortgages on many miners' houses, to support his vision of everybody having the trappings of wealth? This chapter of the Scargill saga is one that has escaped me. To my knowledge NUM officials tended to live in NUM owned houses. If you are saying the union paid for the house that is no shocker. The treelands mansion was paid for with his own money and the house previous to that was owned by the NUM and him though some dimwits still believe Cnl Gadaffi bought it for him. It's news to me he lived in Sheffield at all. He has been much criticised for not wanting to stray too far from Barnsley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10252397 What a greedy little Marxist he is. 4 legs good, 2 legs better? This is all bogstandard union practice that some bitter haters disagree with only in the case of Scargill. If it were uncle Joe Gormley or Sir Ken Jackson and other 'respectable' union leaders no one would give a toss. He lived in a bungalow outside Barnsley until he was 48 but heaven forbid he should have some of the standard trappings of office that all people in similar positions get. "Marxist Arthur should live in a shed I tell thee!" sups pint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted November 27, 2010 Share Posted November 27, 2010 This chapter of the Scargill saga is one that has escaped me. To my knowledge NUM officials tended to live in NUM owned houses. If you are saying the union paid for the house that is no shocker. The treelands mansion was paid for with his own money and the house previous to that was owned by the NUM and him though some dimwits still believe Cnl Gadaffi bought it for him. It's news to me he lived in Sheffield at all. He has been much criticised for not wanting to stray too far from Barnsley. I could show you the house, very nice too. Snout in trough, comrade Scargill caught bang to rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.