erebus Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 In order to have a self regulated market place, in all areas of work and production, the unions had to be dismantled. Samson needed a haircut. Having strength in numbers was seen as a threat, and finding an excuse was necessary, as the cult of being a self important individual really took shape, under the cloak of Thatcher. Thatcher was just another pawn a focus for the plebs, she obeyed her ideological masters. Divide and rule, which is how we are now governed, and no one has a say in our new democracy, where one politician got a science degree, and the rest in academic nonsense. Career politicians who know nothing about the world except in theory, as they are from the privileged side of our society, whichever party you want to pick. They are all wined and dined by corporate interests, seduced by position and sense of importance. They are slick, confidence tricksters, who would do anything for a quick buck, in the cesspool of corruption we call political life. Few escape without a smear of the filth they wallow in. They are bought and owned, by corporate interests, they are not working for you at all, their words are all lies.. They fill the corporate coffers with your money, your life's work, so some people can be paid millions, a few billions, so they can then accuse you all of envy! Whichever way you try the cards are stacked against you, the individual. Yes, we are over the strike, but its design, and reason, we might escape from in a 100 years, only if people say they have had enough of exploitation and start to join together, to fight the insidious enemy ripping us all off. But beware they are powerful, they use deadly persuasion directed through their foot soldiers, politicians, and their subordinate enforcers the police, security services and other petty officials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gym_rat Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 she obeyed her ideological masters. . who were? ............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jane2008 Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 I remember it. I wasn't directly affected by it. I remember visiting in laws who lived in Dinnington and the ice cream van pealing it's chimes. All the kids I was with looked longingly but knew their parent's couldn't afford to buy them an ice cream and didn't ask for one. I was in a position to be able to buy them one and did so. There was probably 7 kids there. They were so grateful and so was the ice cream van man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tradescanthia Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 In order to have a self regulated market place, in all areas of work and production, the unions had to be dismantled. Samson needed a haircut. Having strength in numbers was seen as a threat, and finding an excuse was necessary, as the cult of being a self important individual really took shape, under the cloak of Thatcher. Thatcher was just another pawn a focus for the plebs, she obeyed her ideological masters. Divide and rule, which is how we are now governed, and no one has a say in our new democracy, where one politician got a science degree, and the rest in academic nonsense. Career politicians who know nothing about the world except in theory, as they are from the privileged side of our society, whichever party you want to pick. They are all wined and dined by corporate interests, seduced by position and sense of importance. They are slick, confidence tricksters, who would do anything for a quick buck, in the cesspool of corruption we call political life. Few escape without a smear of the filth they wallow in. They are bought and owned, by corporate interests, they are not working for you at all, their words are all lies.. They fill the corporate coffers with your money, your life's work, so some people can be paid millions, a few billions, so they can then accuse you all of envy! Whichever way you try the cards are stacked against you, the individual. Yes, we are over the strike, but its design, and reason, we might escape from in a 100 years, only if people say they have had enough of exploitation and start to join together, to fight the insidious enemy ripping us all off. But beware they are powerful, they use deadly persuasion directed through their foot soldiers, politicians, and their subordinate enforcers the police, security services and other petty officials. You tell it 'how it is' my friend. Some of us have never had the wool pulled over our eyes.......................maybe one day we will 'get thru' to the majority...........but I wont hold my breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 Erebus, are you a libertarian? Because they wouldn't have kept the mines open any more than the Tories did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marx Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 No, it's valid in my appendix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boothybabe Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 the unions killed the industry, Thatcher just cleaned up after the party. Well said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tradescanthia Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 Well said Another poor mis informed individual. Go to Specsavers, open eyes and think "What do the government want me to believe ?" ---------- Post added 26-01-2013 at 00:38 ---------- Erebus, are you a libertarian? Because they wouldn't have kept the mines open any more than the Tories did. The mines would have had to change, but not the mass destruction Maggie imposed. Maggie also said Banking, Insurance and retail was the future. How wrong could she have been............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 They were more the future than mining was. Why subsidise British pits when coal could be bought far more cheaply from elsewhere? It makes no sense on any level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 They were more the future than mining was. Why subsidise British pits when coal could be bought far more cheaply from elsewhere? It makes no sense on any level. To maintain the thriving mining communities? Money paid to UK miner's continued to circulate and vitalise the UK economy as they spent and saved. Money paid to coal producers abroad stayed abroad. Once thriving villages and cities turned into economic ghost towns was not in the best interest of this country. Price and value are two very different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.