Thatcher Government's use of police to control demonstration

the police were used to protect the rights of those people who LEGALLY WANTED TO GO TO WORK and who would otherwise have been prevented by scargill and his gang of bully boys. At the time, the strikes mentioned were NOT democratically voted for by the membership, something Thatcher changed. Noted that you did not mention the print unions versus News International - presumably you consider this was a valid strike to protect the rights of union members who had been corruptly claiming the pay of ghost workers for years and who were just "protecting their jobs" . And yes, I think Thatcher was the best prime minister we have had since the war, and yes, I think Ronnie Reagan was fantastic too.

However, I am always willing to learn. So please Udonuk1, please explain your theory that Thailand and Burma are governed in the same way. Thailands democracy isn't perfect - neither is the UK's and we have had a lot more practice. Hopefully the hot heads on both sides in the current Thai dispute will be cooled down by their colleagues and debate can continue. If not, the history books are full of examples when North v South, Poor v Rich, Commie v Capitalist come to blows.

When all was dead and dusted , Scargill was 100% correct about Thatcher's motives about the mining industry and indeed the unions.
You may not have thought that Thatcher used police as a political weapon, but it is very very obvious to me, secret service was also used to infiltrate Briish Leylald workers. Print unions ? That was entirely different, that was private company (again STATING THE BLEEDING OBVIOUS) . I am discussing governments using police and army AGAINST democratic groups. I was drawing parallels between the police being brought in from other parts of the country, bribing them with massive overtime payments (Spanish practices learnt then are still being used by the UK cops) , all because Thatcher wanted to detroy the miners union.

Since then workers salaries have been severly diminished, IT IS NO CONCIDENCE. Since that time, the bankers etc have succeeded in taking a greater share of the nation's wealth. You may thnk that that is great thing, but it is all beginning to unwind, the credit bubble etc, and YOU AINT NOTHING YET !

Hmm, you must have lived in the South East of england, you never saw the complete wastelands that she caused to industry. She created a big credit bubble later in her "reign" too, that was clever too .

Yes Thailand AND Burma and both military dictatorships, there is no democracy in Thailand, maybe you must study about the country further. "Debate" has being going on for years, the elite billionaires living in Bangkok will never give up their wealth willingly, the poor must always fight for rights. Thailand's people are making progress in this matter, but in UK and the West, things are going backwards

Udonuk 1, please live in the real world, those who break the law in England are prosecuted to the full extent of the law. No matter whom they are, I was at the miners strike and it was the same as here, one or two loudmouths mobilising the masses to do their bidding , many miners I spoke to actually did not agree with Scargill but belonged to the Union, what miners did to miners who defied the Union edict is not printable.
As for the rich getting richer as with so many things there are two sides, what about the Unions demanding more pay with no more productivity, as for me O recieved less pay during the miners strike than most miners, or for that matter most workers. It was not until a full Royal commision did we recieve anything like the pay we later were to recieve. WE COULD NOT STRIKE ALTHOUGH WE WANTED TOO.
In fact the police in the UK still cannot strike we are their for the people not for the elected government I had the discretion to arrest anyone apart from the Queen and on the odd that was almost put into practice. Commonsense on behalf of the offender prevailed, and I didn't.
So speak the truth not half-truths.

udonuk1 wrote:Thatcher in the 80s UK miners' strike knew that she would not be able to count on the support of the local police in Durham, Wales and the other mining areas, .

Not in Nottingham, Udonuk1, hence the formation of the UDM. Dame Margaret Thatcher did not destroy the NUM, they destroyed themselves from within.
Believe me it was a good, good time back in 1984 seeing King Arthur getting what he deserved having left the country in misery a decade earlier, holding the country to ransom and forcing out the Heath government. He tried it again and the "Thin Blue Line" held out for democracy and Rule of Law (not the incumbent government).
The police stood up for democracy in the '70s aswell when all parties on the left tried their heavy handed tactics at Grunwick. Despite there being an incumbent Labour government George Ward stuck to his guns and won through the high courts. So; why didn't Jim Calaghan use the police there to force union recognition??
I am sorry PARROT for drifting back off topic, but it is tedious when a whinging leftie decides upon hi-jacking a thread.
And yes, Hairy Harry was right; Dame Margaret Thatcher was the best, decisive and most effective UK PM since WWII.

I wouldn't hold up Grunwick as a model company fighting union legislation. They mainly employed immigrant labour (cheaper) and defrauded VAT for the benefit of the directors (there by stealing from the government and the taxpayers). They were one of the modern companies that made the rich richer and the poor poorer - very Thatcherite.

I have no love of the miners, Scargill or the Labour party but there was as much evil on the other side too.

Barstool wrote:

udonuk1 wrote:Thatcher in the 80s UK miners' strike knew that she would not be able to count on the support of the local police in Durham, Wales and the other mining areas, .

Not in Nottingham, Udonuk1, hence the formation of the UDM. Dame Margaret Thatcher did not destroy the NUM, they destroyed themselves from within.
Believe me it was a good, good time back in 1984 seeing King Arthur getting what he deserved having left the country in misery a decade earlier, holding the country to ransom and forcing out the Heath government. He tried it again and the "Thin Blue Line" held out for democracy and Rule of Law (not the incumbent government).
The police stood up for democracy in the '70s aswell when all parties on the left tried their heavy handed tactics at Grunwick. Despite there being an incumbent Labour government George Ward stuck to his guns and won through the high courts. So; why didn't Jim Calaghan use the police there to force union recognition??
I am sorry PARROT for drifting back off topic, but it is tedious when a whinging leftie decides upon hi-jacking a thread.
And yes, Hairy Harry was right; Dame Margaret Thatcher was the best, decisive and most effective UK PM since WWII.

I take it you are with the yellow shirts, then ?

Well I openly support the north sometimes......COME ON CHELSEA

Khun Paul wrote:I don't think so, we as foreigners should I feel stay well away from Thai Politics and in fact offer really no views either way. It is sad that Thais seem intent on destroying themselves, but that is what they are doing, notwithstanding probably perfectly goods reasons , or so they state.
We are arguing about the years in which the Govt of the day took on the Unions in the UK who were attempting to rule by default.
Luckily for us and in many countries in Europe and in the Usa and canada, in fact most free thinking democratic countries, the forces of law and order do prevail upholding the law no matter who is the perpretrator. In this country however it is a different matter hence the word of caution, discuss yes, state your views yes, but do not actively act, just watch and wait etc:-

Of course Thatcher completely destroyed manufacturing, and industry in England. For the first half of her reign, "monetarism" brought MASSIVE unemployment.

By creating a massive credit bubble, her government gave the illusion of creating wealth (largely for London bankers not industry), in the same way as someone who borrows a big amount from the bank can indulge himself for a while. Of course this is only beginning to be recognised as such, but it is not the bankers who have had to repay the credit , it is the workers again.

I have to say that your views are breathtakingly naive and trusting of laws ALL made by a bunch of self-serving, expense fiddling politicians (and implemented by expense fiddling UK police). Personal ideology depends on life experience and beliefs of course, but one thing i CAN tell you is that sending in the army against a group of protestors will NEVER solve anything, it will only make things worse in Thailand.

udonuk1 wrote:Of course Dame Thatcher completely destroyed manufacturing, and industry in England. For the first half of her reign, "monetarism" brought MASSIVE unemployment.

Yes but look on the bright side; you have some wonderful Brass Bands up there

Well I for one can thank Maggie for being where I am today ........In Udon.

If she hadn't given the huge subsidies to the Electricity/Gas Industries to cripple the coal mines in Britain, we wouldn't have been buying all our coal from Eastern Europe, and they probably wouldn't have been able to afford to join the EU. If Poland and the likes wern't in the EU, their citizens wouldn't have been able to flood into Britain on their EU Passports. There would still have been a British Coal industry owned by the British People, there would still have been a British Railways Industry owned by the British People, there would still have been a Postal & Telecoms service owned by the British people and and airline owned by the British people. What do we have now thanks to Maggie and her ilk? All of the above industries, employing about 20% of the people, and charging a small fortune for their services which goes to pay the huge salaries of their CEO's etc. And what of the other 80% of people that used to take pride in the fact that they had a job to support their families ......... most were put on the scrapheap, claiming dole money paid for by ........ the British taxpayer. We now have next to no coalmines (as predicted by Arthur Scargill at the start of the dispute), we have a rail industry that has next to no freight traffic (over 70% of freight traffic was generated by the coal mines), and a passenger service where only companies can afford to pay for the tickets.

The work of millions of working men and women over a period of 200+ years, who fought to get the right to be respected as an individual and not just a slave of the local squire undone in a few short years by one (I CAN"T EVEN CALL HER A WOMAN) well yes ............ . THANK YOU MAGGIE THATCHER

And I'm from the South

NO wonder Dennis was an out and out Alcoholic

and her son got lost on rallies


(btw well said statto)

And her daughter failed to pay her Poll Tax on time ..... my god, Dame Thatcher didn't really have much going for her, did she?

The early years of her premiership were harsh on her people as she was facing the realities and rectifying the mess of the socialist experimental dream (why is socialism now dead??)

British Rail had the chance to get it right but they didn't, they botched it. There was even an advertising logo during the '70s stating "We're Getting There" implying that after decades of nationalisation they were still striving to be an effective industry. SNCF - public owned - could and can do it, why couldn't the Brits. I was pleasantly surprised 4 months ago when in UK how clean and punctual was the rail system. Well done, Private companies. We have just had 13 years of Labour during which they could have re-nationalised but they didn't, not cost effective so common sense prevailed.

Get over it lads, the 13 years of Toryism paved the way for a better future for the UK citizens.
Dame Thatcher was the most effective TORY PM since WWII; Tony Blair was the next.

Quoe from Udonuk1: but one thing i CAN tell you is that sending in the army against a group of protestors will NEVER solve anything, it will only make things worse in Thailand......end quote

You are what a political whizz kid or jsut a self serving person whose life apparantly got upset by a Birtish PM who you don't happen to like.

Not a;;laws are right nor are they in reality justly executed but one has to start somewhere . Naive am I ,well may be I am or maybe I am not , BUT one thing I am not is a self serving loudmouth who attempts to shove my views down other peoples throats, everyone has decisions to make you have made yours but do not try to influence other peole with your onesided bigoted views about the English justice system or for that matter matters relating to any form of martial law.

Margaret Thatcher was great. She allowed me to buy my Grandmothers council house in South London for ten grand, which I sold on for just under seventy grand a few years later when my gran passed.

OT....