purdy Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Arthur Scargill in NUM court battle over London flat £34,000 year costs http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19806014 Former miners' leader Arthur Scargill has gone to the High Court to fight an attempt by his union to stop paying the cost of his London flat. Mr Scargill, 74, says he was given use of the rented three-bed Barbican flat for life when he became president of the National Union of Mineworkers in 1982, a tenure that lasted 20 years. He says under the union's rental terms he should have use of it until he dies. The NUM says maintaining the flat costs £34,000 a year, which it cannot afford. I'm not really sure how many members still pay subs to the NUM, but I would imagine most of it is getting used to pay for Arthur. Isn't it time he backed down before the NUM goes down the plug? Or was it Scargill's plan all along to destroy the union? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Good old Arthur is a shining light to socialism (more like communism in his case). Like almost all left-wingers, a hypocrite who preaches dividing of wealth but doesn't think it should apply to his own assets. He also scammed the NUM to cover mortgage interest on his own property for years, and the records were lost when that came to light and was investigated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T 42 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Arthur Scargill in NUM court battle over London flat £34,000 year costs http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19806014 Former miners' leader Arthur Scargill has gone to the High Court to fight an attempt by his union to stop paying the cost of his London flat. Mr Scargill, 74, says he was given use of the rented three-bed Barbican flat for life when he became president of the National Union of Mineworkers in 1982, a tenure that lasted 20 years. He says under the union's rental terms he should have use of it until he dies. The NUM says maintaining the flat costs £34,000 a year, which it cannot afford. I'm not really sure how many members still pay subs to the NUM, but I would imagine most of it is getting used to pay for Arthur. Isn't it time he backed down before the NUM goes down the plug? Or was it Scargill's plan all along to destroy the union? 1500 by all accounts. So each would give Arthur £20 towards his London flat. I'm not sure how much they each pay towards his pension, his car or his other homes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wednesday1 Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 Arthur Scargill in NUM court battle over London flat £34,000 year costs http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19806014 Former miners' leader Arthur Scargill has gone to the High Court to fight an attempt by his union to stop paying the cost of his London flat. Mr Scargill, 74, says he was given use of the rented three-bed Barbican flat for life when he became president of the National Union of Mineworkers in 1982, a tenure that lasted 20 years. He says under the union's rental terms he should have use of it until he dies. The NUM says maintaining the flat costs £34,000 a year, which it cannot afford. I'm not really sure how many members still pay subs to the NUM, but I would imagine most of it is getting used to pay for Arthur. Isn't it time he backed down before the NUM goes down the plug? Or was it Scargill's plan all along to destroy the union? No it was the Milk Snatcher who closed all the pits, along with most of the rest of British industry. You shouldn't allow your dislike of Scargill to colour your objectivity! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 1500 by all accounts. So each would give Arthur £20 towards his London flat. I'm not sure how much they each pay towards his pension, his car or his other homes. 1500? I can well imagine the NUM has a lot of teeth. I'd be inclined to dump my membership and start another union with the other 1499 members. Surely Scargill can only be subsidized if the NUM exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 1500? I can well imagine the NUM has a lot of teeth. I'd be inclined to dump my membership and start another union with the other 1499 members. Surely Scargill can only be subsidized if the NUM exist? An organisation has a legal obligation to honour its contracts;if it were to wind up its assets would be siezed to cover liabilities.He has done nothing wrong as the court will confirm.People who attack people like Scargill choose to attack the person knowing they cannot challenge their ideas-its a lazy short cut that often lands them in an intellectual cul de sac. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Good old Arthur is a shining light You're back. Genuinely pleased to see that. Two sides of this story, and very little to do with politics. Side one; the union agreed to it and should stick to it. Side two; the union can't afford it anymore and Scargill should give it up. Both of those are true, and they're in conflict with one another. I'd go with side two. Scargill will only lose the flat anyway if all the money runs out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 You're back. Genuinely pleased to see that. Two sides of this story, and very little to do with politics. Side one; the union agreed to it and should stick to it. Side two; the union can't afford it anymore and Scargill should give it up. Both of those are true, and they're in conflict with one another. I'd go with side two. Scargill will only lose the flat anyway if all the money runs out. It would be gracious of Arthur to forgo his flat,and his obstinacy has sometimes proved counterproductive and contributed to a negative image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 1500? I can well imagine the NUM has a lot of teeth. I'd be inclined to dump my membership and start another union with the other 1499 members. Surely Scargill can only be subsidized if the NUM exist? If I was them I'd so the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riannon Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 1500? I can well imagine the NUM has a lot of teeth. I'd be inclined to dump my membership and start another union with the other 1499 members. Surely Scargill can only be subsidized if the NUM exist? More to the point if I were an NUM member seeing my subs syphoned off to pay for Arthur's luxury lifestyle I would probably think about looking for a new union to join. Perhaps many already have which is why only 1500 are still coughing up their hard earned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.