WeX Posted February 21, 2012 Author Share Posted February 21, 2012 Your timeline is off. The "winter of discontent" was 1978/79. The miners did not strike at that time. Arthur Scargill did not become president of the NUM until 1982. I had a nagging feeling I should check that, but forgot. Ill amend now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted February 21, 2012 Author Share Posted February 21, 2012 I'm sure that's a small price for the NUM's 1695 members to pay after such an illustrious time as their union's leader. I wouldn't say the man is respected for past achievements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted February 21, 2012 Author Share Posted February 21, 2012 Everyone knew of the supposed story 2 or 3 weeks ago and you've only just decided to post the story. supposed? Are you saying that this is false? and are you saying that this ruling happened 2-3 weeks ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevie1957 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 It seems the working mans hero Arthur Scargill is not happy with his lavish lifestyle paid for by his former union, he wants more and has just won a battle in Sheffield County Court, winning he rights to an additional car allowance of £12,000. I see no difference between Scargill and the jobs for the boys mentality of the conservatives when putting their retired members out to grass, or as its called The House of Lords (Labour cottoned onto this recently too). What did Scargill do for the NUM other than unemployment to tens of thousands and eventual defeat, while now he sits in his central London flat, paid for by the union, and now gets even more money! Arthur Scargill, a materialistic Marxist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Everyone knew of the supposed story 2 or 3 weeks ago and you've only just decided to post the story. Evidence of this? And the date of the OP's link is 21 February 2012 Last updated at 14:27 so I'd like to know how he could have posted any earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Evidence of this? And the date of the OP's link is 21 February 2012 Last updated at 14:27 so I'd like to know how he could have posted any earlier. If the judgment was handed down today, the court case must have been known about for some weeks. That said, though, I hadn't heard about it; just because knowledge is in the public domain doesn't necessarily mean it will be widely known. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I think it's more a case of Mecky having a dig at Wex and carrying on some fued or other from one of the other threads into this one instead of having the brains to take each thread individually. I've never seen any other posters who've commented on a recent news story be criticised in this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 From what I heard on Look North (or Look Leeds on here ) he was contracted back as a consultant to the union after he had left their employment, and was only being paid £35k for that. To be fair, that's pretty good value if you consider Bob Crowe is paid a salary of almost £100k (and still uses social housing ). If his contract said they'd pay expenses too and then stopped paying his expenses, looks like that is why he has won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Everyone knew of the supposed story 2 or 3 weeks ago and you've only just decided to post the story. This is about the decision. The article on the Star website says the decision is breaking news. Admittedly by the Star's standards that could be anytime in the last 2 years but I get the impression it's today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purdy Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 From what I heard on Look North (or Look Leeds on here ) he was contracted back as a consultant to the union after he had left their employment, and was only being paid £35k for that. To be fair, that's pretty good value if you consider Bob Crowe is paid a salary of almost £100k (and still uses social housing ). If his contract said they'd pay expenses too and then stopped paying his expenses, looks like that is why he has won. How does the NUM afford these amounts when membership is under 1700? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.