Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
SarahBell

Scargil - The Shame Of His Luxury Lifestyle

Recommended Posts

Arthur Scargill is facing legal action from his union who want to oust him

from his luxury £1.5million London apartment.

The National Union of Mineworkers are paying £34,000 per year to keep their

former president in the property which has commanding views of the city.

The 73-year-old former miner - who led the union through the miner's strikes

of 1984-85 - claims he is entitled to stay in the home for life.

Mr Scargill, known as Old King Coal, has had the home at The Barbican since

1982 in addition to his detached cottage in his hometown of Barnsley.

Read more:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386730/Arthur-Scargill-faces-eviction-1-5m-luxury-apartment-NUM-launch-legal-action.html#ixzz1MFlxoHzl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was always in it for himself and his ego, never for the NUM membership.

Yep

i remember him saying before the miners strike that the goverment had a hit list and was going to close the majority of our coal mines,the goverment put him right by denying there was any such list. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep

i remember him saying before the miners strike that the goverment had a hit list and was going to close the majority of our coal mines,the goverment put him right by denying there was any such list. :lol:

Another one of Thatchers economic decisions. China have been buying coal and will continue to do so from anywhere ! Maybe we could sell then pound shops or most of the garbage that we see in our high streets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another one of Thatchers economic decisions. China have been buying coal and will continue to do so from anywhere ! Maybe we could sell then pound shops or most of the garbage that we see in our high streets.

Many mines were uneconomic. Confirmed when many fell into private hands and were closed due to unprofitability. Thatcher had the major overhang of dealing with clapped out nationalised industries, kept open by Labour. Though where it all went wrong of course, was that there wasn't much else to replace them. Hence the reliance on the City, banks, and real estate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many mines were uneconomic. Confirmed when many fell into private hands and were closed due to unprofitability. Thatcher had the major overhang of dealing with clapped out nationalised industries, kept open by Labour. Though where it all went wrong of course, was that there wasn't much else to replace them. Hence the reliance on the City, banks, and real estate.

They were only uneconomic because the CEGB decided to import child-mined coal from Colombia rather than use British coal, and China's demand had not yet grown to today's levels. Closing the mines was probably the biggest false economy ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were only uneconomic because the CEGB decided to import child-mined coal from Colombia rather than use British coal, and China's demand had not yet grown to today's levels. Closing the mines was probably the biggest false economy ever.

Yep.

Can't quite see how digging up what is essentially free stuff and then selling it can lose money, to be honest.

There has to be some extraneious factor....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nasty man. Not sure what animals have to do with this though ;)

IMO closing our mines was a mistake. Less to do with profitability and more to do with our softy, softy let's not see any of our brothers die down the pits.

Does it matter if they aren't making money so long as we are securing our own energy supply and this will be cone very apparent in the bear future when sterling becomes toast.

As a disclaimer - I would be more than willing to put my own life on the line and dig coal for a few years to enable my children to have a similar quality of life that I 'once' had. Only provisio is can I do it when my children have reached their 16th birthday :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another one of Thatchers economic decisions. China have been buying coal and will continue to do so from anywhere ! Maybe we could sell then pound shops or most of the garbage that we see in our high streets.

Exactly wots been going on

All our scrap metals are sent abroad for them to melt down (paid with our 'forced' carbon tax funds to Asia) then flog back shoddy goods to us

(in many metal items recycled metals are inferior to a new smelt with less impurities/alloy mix - watch a few tower blocks collapse in the following decades due to structural girder faults Gherkin etc!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many mines were uneconomic. Confirmed when many fell into private hands and were closed due to unprofitability. Thatcher had the major overhang of dealing with clapped out nationalised industries, kept open by Labour. Though where it all went wrong of course, was that there wasn't much else to replace them. Hence the reliance on the City, banks, and real estate.

That's because Thatcher and Conservatives gave Billions of Xtra North Sea oil revenues to subsidise the Gas and Nuclear Industries to 'undermine' & make coal look expensive. Do some homework.

The Conservatives also got UK Govt Agents to infiltrate the unions and stir up/cleverly agitate the miners to make them look like loonies to the public by making ludicrous demands.

(You have seen recently with the outing of 'sleeper' coppers - agitator/infitrators who stood up for the innocent people (peaceful protesters) the bent Police force were trying to place false convictions on and get jailed

http://www.independe...er-2180527.html

The Sheer lunacy of it all is - the coppers were supposedly 'protecting' COAL-fired power stations!

This is how the Establishment treat anyone who steps out of line - do you live in a 'free' democracy?)

These subsidies have been eroded away over the years and we all now pay the full whack and 'real' costs of gas powered electric/energy

Edited by erranta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though where it all went wrong of course, was that there wasn't much else to replace them.

And the reason for that was militant marxist loonies like Scargil crippled our domestic industries and scared off foreign investment. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the reason for that was militant marxist loonies like Scargil crippled our domestic industries and scared off foreign investment. :(

You don't need foregin investment to go to a hillside, dig out the free stuff and sell it on at a profit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the reason for that was militant marxist loonies like Scargil crippled our domestic industries and scared off foreign investment. :(

Wrong - It was a head on attack of establishment(via Conservatives) vs people of the UK - even Tebbit admitted that their sole purpose of that Govt was to smash the Unions

(he got his come-uppance for defrauding the people by having to look after his disabled wife (penance?) who was caught by an IRA bomb meant for him)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were only uneconomic because the CEGB decided to import child-mined coal from Colombia rather than use British coal, and China's demand had not yet grown to today's levels. Closing the mines was probably the biggest false economy ever.

Nope, they were uneconomic because the NUM (which at the time had what, 150,000 members?) was intent on using its power to preserve Spanish practices; it had already essentially deposed one democratically elected government (Heath) and had given notice of its intention to repeat the exercise with Thatcher. Breaking the union stranglehold on the economy with the brothers' demands that dying industries be propped up was vital.

Two other points - one, I am qualified to talk on this subject and have worked for British Coal and two, within two years coal output in this country was back up to pre-strike levels but this was being done at a fraction of the cost using a third as much labour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many mines were uneconomic. Confirmed when many fell into private hands and were closed due to unprofitability. Thatcher had the major overhang of dealing with clapped out nationalised industries, kept open by Labour. Though where it all went wrong of course, was that there wasn't much else to replace them. Hence the reliance on the City, banks, and real estate.

Err no. At that point in time our coal mining technology was world leading. The issue was that our european neighbours massively subsidized their coal mines, meaning that without subsidies our coal mines were unable to compete on price. It was a short term economic and political decision for which we have paid heavily in future decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he got his come-uppance for defrauding the people by having to look after his disabled wife (penance?) who was caught by an IRA bomb meant for him

The compasionate socialist in action - taking pleasure in the crippling of an innocent bystander because she happened to be married to someone who wasn't a socialist.

Edited by Goat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, they were uneconomic because the NUM (which at the time had what, 150,000 members?) was intent on using its power to preserve Spanish practices; it had already essentially deposed one democratically elected government (Heath) and had given notice of its intention to repeat the exercise with Thatcher. Breaking the union stranglehold on the economy with the brothers' demands that dying industries be propped up was vital.

Two other points - one, I am qualified to talk on this subject and have worked for British Coal and two, within two years coal output in this country was back up to pre-strike levels but this was being done at a fraction of the cost using a third as much labour.

If you worked in the mining industry why is your post so wrong then?

Coal production was substantially lower 2 years after the strike, and while they laid off workers it certainly wasnt 66% within two years. The process was an extremely gradual one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
within two years coal output in this country was back up to pre-strike levels but this was being done at a fraction of the cost using a third as much labour.

Scargil was doing what he was being paid to do- protect the interests of his VI's- the coal miners. You can criticise the man for having two nice homes but to criticise a union leader for defending the interests of his membership is just daft.

The major difference between Thatcher and Scargil was that she was supposed to be representing the interests of the whole country, not just a southern clique.

The truth is that the demolition of our industrial base does not look quite as clever now as it did back then- now that we discover that shuffling money around in air conditioned offices does not itself an economy make.

I think thatcher was right to take on the unions- they had grown too powerful- but her 'scorched earth' approach to British industry was wrong- short sighted and based on a parochial class biased view of where true value could be created in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scargil was doing what he was being paid to do- protect the interests of his VI's- the coal miners. You can criticise the man for having two nice homes but to criticise a union leader for defending the interests of his membership is just daft.

The major difference between Thatcher and Scargil was that she was supposed to be representing the interests of the whole country, not just a southern clique.

The truth is that the demolition of our industrial base does not look quite as clever now as it did back then- now that we discover that shuffling money around in air conditioned offices does not itself an economy make.

I think thatcher was right to take on the unions- they had grown too powerful- but her 'scorched earth' approach to British industry was wrong- short sighted and based on a parochial class biased view of where true value could be created in the future.

And arguably prepared the ground for a society where we all expect to make a living selling each other over priced coffee.In truth Thatcherism led to the rise of the banking classes and the property exploiters.It was an ethos that quite shamelessly set about making a minority wealthy at the expense of the majority and left them working longer hours in crap jobs to be able to buy things that they were persuaded that they wanted.Personally I am pleased not to be part of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 309 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.