Jeffrey Shaw Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Neither of us- you and I- has seen any contract. The Court has seen it, of course; it has heard both sides' evidence; and it has reached a decision. So that's nothing to do with the establishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Scargill is scum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banjodeano Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Neither of us- you and I- has seen any contract. The Court has seen it, of course; it has heard both sides' evidence; and it has reached a decision. So that's nothing to do with the establishment. well, if you believe that you will believe anything..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Scargill is scum. Another well reasoned, and not at all reactionary comment from yourself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banjodeano Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Scargill is scum. thanks for that well thought out post, if you have anything else that may seem relevant, please dont hesitate to let us all know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 [/color] well, if you believe that you will believe anything..... So you don't hold with Courts at all? How odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1978 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 But wasnt there an agreement/contract between Mr Scargil and the union that they should fund his expenses...rightly or wrongly....and now the judge has reserved this contract....as said in mt previous post, it was not going to be a fair trial, were not the establishment against him..? and him them.? With the benefit of being able to examine all the legal paperwork, and associated documentation, surrounding the agreement to provide the flat, the court found against Arthur and for the NUM. If it had found the other way I would have felt it was grossly unfair, even if it had been held to be legal. When Arthur took office the union had a massive membership to share the cost. No matter what the reasons may be, the membership is now so small that too much was having to come out of each members subscriptions to pay for that flat. It should never have had to go to court. A real leader of hard done by miners would have voluntarily accepted his share of the hardship without the need to add yet more costs to be paid from their dues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banjodeano Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 With the benefit of being able to examine all the legal paperwork, and associated documentation, surrounding the agreement to provide the flat, the court found against Arthur and for the NUM. If it had found the other way I would have felt it was grossly unfair, even if it had been held to be legal. When Arthur took office the union had a massive membership to share the cost. No matter what the reasons may be, the membership is now so small that too much was having to come out of each members subscriptions to pay for that flat. It should never have had to go to court. A real leader of hard done by miners would have voluntarily accepted his share of the hardship without the need to add yet more costs to be paid from their dues. Totally agree....i am not saying he is right or wrong...I am just thinking that a contract is a contract....The Unions and Mr Scargil would have been happy with the contract when it was agreed......but times move on and people change....but agreements dont Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Totally agree....i am not saying he is right or wrong...I am just thinking that a contract is a contract....The Unions and Mr Scargil would have been happy with the contract when it was agreed......but times move on and people change....but agreements dont Looking at the judges comments it seems there never was an agreement, it never was properly authorised. The judge went on to note that the union had not paid the rent on the flat for a six-year period from 1985, and that Scargill had decided in 1991 that he did not want to take up the housing benefit to which he had been entitled since 1982, preferring the union to resume paying the rent on the flat. What Scargill should then have done, he said, was go back to the union and get authorisation for the arrangement. Instead, without obtaining the NUM's blessing, he had sought legal advice, which supported his right to have the union pay for the flat. "None of this was disclosed to the NEC," said the judge. "The legal advice was based on information provided by him which did not give the full picture; and anyway it could not make up for the absence of NEC authorisation." As a result, he concluded, the contract appearing to give Scargill the right to have the NUM carry on paying the rent after he retired was not effective as the NEC had not approved it in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Neither of us- you and I- has seen any contract. The Court has seen it, of course; it has heard both sides' evidence; and it has reached a decision. So that's nothing to do with the establishment. I thought judges formed the core of the establishment as they interpret and apply our laws.Courts do not make the decisions,its the personnel within who wield the power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.