The SECRET plot by Thatcher's Tory government to sell out the Falkland's to Argentina

First topic message reminder :

From the SECRET Cabinet Papers - 1980



Astonishing

Here's the text;

[Text of the exploratory proposal handed by Mr Ridley in manuscript to Commodore Cavandoli on 11 September 1980.]
1. Titular sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas) and their maritime zone would be transferred to Argentina, with effect from the date of signature of the Agreement.

2. Continued British administration of the Islands and their maritime zone, with a guarantee to the Islanders and their descendants the uninterrupted enjoyment of their way of life under British institutions , laws and practices, would be simultaneously assured by means of a lease-back to the United Kingdom for a period of 99 years. The terms of the lease would be subject to periodic review, by agreement between the two parties.

3. The British and Argentine flags would be flown side by side on public buildings on the Islands.

4. The British Government would be represented by a Governor who, together with a locally elected Council, would be responsible for the administration of the Islands and their inhabitants.

5. The Argentine Government would be represented by a Commissioner-General

6. There would be a Joint Council to arrange co-operation over the economic development of the Islands and their maritime zone.l

Brasidas wrote wrote:Proof of your racism, which is more why this thread has been started because like some Scots you hate the English which is very clear, mainly I guess because maggie ended up saving many of their lives, by closing the Coal mines, which was bad for their long term health. You should be thanking her. :

You may like to recall that you have already been proven as a racist with your racially aggravated language. You even admitted to it on this very forum or did you just forget about it? It’s obvious now that you’re more natural home for political beliefs possibly lies with a party like UKIP or just as likely the English Defence League who would love you. If using the term 'Little Englander is racist then you had better let the Prime Minister know

The policies of Thatcher’s health record are laid bare in the period she was in office – absolutely shocking they were.

Brasidas wrote wrote:You answered fuck all with no views ytou could come up with but views from others in articles, which shows the failings in your arguments. :

All backed up with official documentation and the views of military chiefs like Sir Henry Leach. I have even shown them to you whereas yours are just your opinions and complete rubbish which you have cobbled together.

Brasidas wrote wrote:You avoided all my main points, so best you run away with your tail between your legs Jock. So we are back to something else again, now that I have easily refuted your two main points here.
The left are so pathetic and too easy to have fun with. :

You have no main points but even then I answered what you posted for what they were worth it’s just you that can’t accept the truth which led to you ending up frothing at the mouth, slavering and hammering away on a keyboard during a tirade of abuse in the middle of the night – the first resort for someone who’s argument has hit the buffers – classic case really. It was like watching a balloon being blown up and letting it go without tying a knot in the neck and seeing it whizz around the room emitting that ripping blurbing noise hitting off the ceiling and the walls before finally flopping down on the floor deflated. Never laughed so much in awe ma puff so thanks a bundle for that. I’ve even created a file of the worst bit and put it on the internet with the file name ‘Didge goes Daft on Newsfix’ so that it can be used as a reference point on how to spot a RW zealot having a full on blowout.

Here it is:  https://i.servimg.com/u/f38/15/81/77/69/didge_10.jpg

Brasidas wrote wrote:So there was no invasion plan in 1977 both sides playing a game of bluff, as the Argies had there main problems with Chile which nearly led to war in 1978, all of which the jock canbnot refute. Second the navy contingent in 1977 Operation Journeyman was clearly not strong enough and ordered to bail out if attacked and even did not remove the Argies from the Islands that had landed. Again he cannot refute the fact the Argies would have always invaded later, being they planned to do so after the Chile crises. Only a strong naval presence would have averted this which would have not been proable due to the logistics problems of maintaining such a force to permenantly defend the islands. :

Again, astonishing that you have access to Argentine military planning to know that there was no plan to invade the islands in 1977.  And you still haven’t come up with the detailed RoE set in 1977 or even 1982 and you also dismiss the JIC contingency plan to defend the islands with additional resources set further back in the Atlantic as if their existence was  a myth. And still waiting on your comments regarding the 1981 meeting; after all you do have all the files to hand so shouldn’t be too difficult to let me have your feedback on both at the same time.

And you are the only one who didn’t know about Operation Journeyman (good grief even the Germans knew about it) but you (our resident historian) didn’t and it was being exposed on that score that sent you over the top where you lost it completely  in a rant which was of epic proportions even by your own low standards.

Anyway, on with the show. Now read this because it’s very important;

Sir Henry Leach Admiral of the Fleet wrote:Two other factors arose in 1981 which were to have a profound influence on events to come: the UK’s Defence Review and the internal situation in Argentina. The UK’s Defence Review was conspicuous neither for its wisdom nor its statesmanship. So far as the South Atlantic was concerned it was planned to emasculate the Navy and withdraw the Ice Patrol ship. To the objective observer of the world scene this astonishing performance by an island nation, still dependent on the sea for 97 per cent of its imports and exports can only have one rational interpretation: the UK’s lack of interest in maritime matters in general and the South Atlantic in particular. And so it was deduced in the Argentine:

I’m sure that’s pretty much how the islanders would see it as well and that they didn’t trust the government as they cottoned on to the belief that they were being stitched up to give in and settle up with the proposal for the lease-back option and it’s really easy to see that they would think that – even for you.

You're still in the dock,,,,,but

So Irn thinks I am a racist


 


So you think I believe races are superior even though we are all one biological race?

What a twat ha ha ha

Second still no evidence for an invasion in 1977

Third, still no evidence to refute the fact the Argies would have invaded anyway


Fourth still no evidence that labour would have position a permanent fleet on the Island, which would have been the only thing to have stopped an invasion

Fifth your link does not work, ha ha

Sixth, I wind you too easily up you have created a file for me, job complete ha ha So woun d up he thinks I am now racist, the delusions of the left I guess, it is a disease.

Seventh I did know about operation Journeyman hence I knew the policy was to not engage and did nothing to remove the Argies from the Island 

Eighth Sir Henry Leech's opinion, great is that what you are hinging on?




Game over I guess
So nothing to back up your conspiracy theory and nothing to refute my points.

Oh and I forgot, so you think staying down in the mines is healthy for people do you Irn?

Seems she ended up prolonging the lives of thousands of miners, you should be thanking her, but even such a left wing loon cannot seen the point on that can you.


You are too easy, not even worth my attention really, but I like winding up the left, especially when they get their history all wrong

From a commie:


"Hate Thatcher for anything you like (there is not exactly a shortage of things here), but saying she fought the Falklands War of 1982 to bolster her popularity or chance of re-election, no matter how much it may have helped, is just lazy and inaccurate. She took the gamble of sending troops 12,000 miles, against unbelievable odds, to fight and win this war because she had no choice. And like Hitchens, Galloway and a whole host of many improbable others, I’m glad she did."

Brasidas wrote:Oh and I forgot, so you think staying down in the mines is healthy for people do you Irn?

Seems she ended up prolonging the lives of thousands of miners, you should be thanking her, but even such a left wing loon cannot seen the point on that can you.


You are too easy, not even worth my attention really, but I like winding up the left, especially when they get their history all wrong

you dont get credit for unintended "good"
she might well have saved some lives, but that wasnt her intent, and indeed she ended up saving them unto a life of impoverishment, and the generation after as well...in fact quite a few areas STILL havnt recovered.....
so thats stretching things a bit didge......

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Oh and I forgot, so you think staying down in the mines is healthy for people do you Irn?

Seems she ended up prolonging the lives of thousands of miners, you should be thanking her, but even such a left wing loon cannot seen the point on that can you.


You are too easy, not even worth my attention really, but I like winding up the left, especially when they get their history all wrong

you dont get credit for unintended "good"
she might well have saved some lives, but that wasnt her intent, and indeed she ended up saving them unto a life of impoverishment, and the generation after as well...in fact quite a few areas STILL havnt recovered.....
so thats stretching things a bit didge......

Did she?
She saved their lives, as the life down mines was appalling tot he point many contracted COPD.
Does not matter if it was intentional or not, she did end up prolonging many of their lives, which would have been cut short if the mines stayed open.

Brasidas wrote:From a commie:


"Hate Thatcher for anything you like (there is not exactly a shortage of things here), but saying she fought the Falklands War of 1982 to bolster her popularity or chance of re-election, no matter how much it may have helped, is just lazy and inaccurate. She took the gamble of sending troops 12,000 miles, against unbelievable odds, to fight and win this war because she had no choice. And like Hitchens, Galloway and a whole host of many improbable others, I’m glad she did."

thats hardly right ...the odds were stacked against the troops...not thatcher....

and whilst we had our fair share of casualties, as usual many were down to the "enemy at home " ...ie govt penny pinching....I mean...who the fuck puts aluminium superstructure on a feckin battleship, thats going to get live ammo expended on it???
We indeed had out heros as well, but you know what...these were not exactly elite troops our lads were facing and many many of them were almost out of action ...caused by the Islands themselves

you see,... Argentinians eat almost exclusively beef.....the islands have lamb...a few meals of the local meat soon reduced many of them to toilet soldiers

[quote="Brasidas"]So Irn thinks I am a racist


 

Brasidas wrote:So you think I believe races are superior even though we are all one biollogical race?

What a twat ha ha ha

You admitted you were a racist - on this forum. Not that long ago when you said you had learned your lesson. Surely you haven't forgotten already?

Brasidas wrote:Second still no evidence for an invasion in 1977

Because it didn't happen due to the commitment shown to defend the islands by force if necessary.

Brasidas wrote:Third, still no evidence to refute the fact the Argies would have invdaed anyway

Speculation on your part and as I've said all along just your opinion.

Brasidas wrote:Fourth still no evidence that labour would have position a permanent fleet on the Island, which would have been the only thing to have stopped an invasion

Never said they would

Brasidas wrote:Fifth your link does not work, ha ha

Works fine here but here it is anyway -just for you

Brasidas wrote:Sixth, I wind you too easily up you have created a file for me, job complete ha ha

Yes, I saw that with your epic blow-out in the middle of the night

Brasidas wrote:Seventh I did know about operation Journeyman hence I knew the policy was to not engage and did nothing to remove the Argies from the Island 

Ha ha ha ha

Brasidas wrote:Eighth Sir Henry Leech's opinion, great is that what you are
 

Are you suggesting he is wrong and that what he says didn't contribute to the decision by the Argentines' to invade the islands? You're deluded. He was Admiral of the fleet and the man that got Thatcher out the shit.

Brasidas wrote:Game over I guess
So nothing to back up your conspiracy theory and nothing to refute my points.

All refuted and  you still haven't come up with the RoE or commented on the 1981 meeting or refuted my views that their was a plot to sell out the islanders to Argentina and that the islanders suspected that all along.

You're still in the dock

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:From a commie:


"Hate Thatcher for anything you like (there is not exactly a shortage of things here), but saying she fought the Falklands War of 1982 to bolster her popularity or chance of re-election, no matter how much it may have helped, is just lazy and inaccurate. She took the gamble of sending troops 12,000 miles, against unbelievable odds, to fight and win this war because she had no choice. And like Hitchens, Galloway and a whole host of many improbable others, I’m glad she did."

thats hardly right ...the odds were stacked against the troops...not thatcher....

and whilst we had our fair share of casualties, as usual many were down to the "enemy at home " ...ie govt penny pinching....I mean...who the fuck puts aluminium superstructure on a feckin battleship, thats going to get live ammo expended on it???
We indeed had out heros as well, but you know what...these were not exactly elite troops our lads were facing and many many of them were almost out of action ...caused by the Islands themselves

you see,... Argentinians eat almost exclusively beef.....the islands have lamb...a few meals of the local meat soon reduced many of them to toilet soldiers  

She still took the decision though when the odds were stacked again, anyway not my words.
Sorry but you clearly have not read accounts of the battle and the argies clearly brought down enough fire power onto our advancing troops. Sorry that is poor to try to diminish their exploits to say the least Victor. Even worse when the BBC announced the attack that the Para's was going to make.
Very poor Victor

Irn Bru wrote:
You admitted you were a racist - on this forum. Not that long ago when you said you had learned your lesson. Surely you haven't forgotten already?
Never said they would
Works fine here but here it is anyway -just for you

Yes, I saw that with your epic blow-out in the middle of the night
Ha ha ha ha
Are you suggesting he is wrong and that what he says didn't contribute to the decision by the Argentines' to invade the islands? You're deluded. He was Admiral of the fleet and the man that got Thatcher out the shit.

All refuted and  you still haven't come up with the RoE or commented on the 1981 meeting or refuted my views that their was a plot to sell out the islanders to Argentina and that the islanders suspected that all along.

You're still in the dock

[/quote]



So again nothing to refute my points
You never placed me in the dock, just because you are a moderator does not mean you make the rules


I cannot believe you keep my comments

So again





First of all show me the invasion plans for 1977 by the Argentinians?
There was not any and again their problems were more with Chile.
Second why was the Submarine ordered to turn tail if attacked and not retaliate?
To save lives, so the whole operation was a bluff, because why you neglect is even the daft Labour Goverment at the time knew this small force if attacked would be in huge trouble against the full forces of the Argentinians. Hence why again the whole operation was a bluff, but then you only think two dimensionally and cannot see the flaws here.

The OP has been kicked out of the park as it was complete bollocks from the start. You are left with some desperate claim based on the war being averted which is complete babble on your part. The only way the invasion could have been stopped would have been a permenant strong naval presence or the Islands given to the Argies, neither of which would have happened.
It is easy to argue in hindsight about warnings and then claim something should have been done, hence why your argument falls also flat.
On every level you have as I always do give you a right drubbing on history, but then the English have always been good and giving the Scots a lesson.


Here are my poinst again for you to attempt to answer:



Fucking hilarious from the loony commie.
First of all I have said I would not blame the Labour Government for the conflict showing what a disingenuous left wing low life you really are Irn. I said unlike you I am not looking to blame any politics for the conflict. I was showing the facts to poor policies at the time by previous Labour Governments all of which no previous one had done anything to defend the Islands, which you claim they would have not allowed the Islands to be invaded. That is nothing short of pathetic and you have no evidence they would have prevented this other than the complete bullshit you keep spouting. You have presented fuck all facts but the deranged rantings of some fucked up commie so intent to demean the good name of a Great British Political leader you have spent your pathetic excuse of a life in some vain attempt to do so. It is not only comical it shows how pathetic you really are.


Your claim to them never allowing the Falkland Islands to fall in the first place is the biggest load of bullshit only a fucking deluded commie would come out with yet again based off no evidence. He still would have invaded no matter what political group was in power and no previous Labour Government had defended the Island so you are taking out of your arse.


It is nothing but comical your attempts to smear Maggie that not matter how much you try she is recogised as one of our best leaders and you do you know what I love most about her. How she took to task the wanker Unions for what they were. Lazy wankers. She took to task those wanker minors, who thought they could control our Governments. She tore them a new arse hole, and it was great. I love watching those pathetic miners get what was coming to them. She broke the back of the control Unions had in this country and brought about some sanity again in this nation, from where these pathetic commie unions thought they could control Governments. Well she wiped the floor with them, was that not great Irn ha ha ha ha. That was her greatest victory, sorting out those Miners. No doubt at the same time prolonging many of their lives.


Then we have Operation Journeyman as your next clueless point. As if this claim is evidence that the Islands would not have been invaded is again comical to say the least and again based on an assumption. You do know what an assumption is? I have no time for people like yourself who are clueless, who are as deluded and paranoid as Stassi. This is the problem with you left wing loons. That has to be the most comical assumption to date on your part, as if to claim it is evidence is again not understanding the resolve of Galtieri, who would have throw the last dice no matter what, being as he always intended to invade. We now know this in hindsight, at the tie they did not know this. So your claim is nothing short of a joke as it was more luck that anything else as the British Navy was sitting ducks all of which you elude to stating of course: The fact you ignore that Maggie had sent a submarine off towards the Islands and the Argies new this and still invading knowing this Submarine was on route. The only way such an invasion could have been prevented would only have been if a like I stated early a permanent heavily armed Navy presence was in continual defense of the islands. So your claims is not short of horse shit and comical. A permanent naval presence would have only averted such an invasions showing again your poor understanding of history and strategy


It was at this point that the Junta decided to bring forward their existing plans to invade the Falkland Islands. What they did not want was for the British to bring military assets to the region to deal with the escalating crisis in South Georgia but which might then be diverted to thwart any Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands. In particular, they were apprehensive about suggestions that the British might send a submarine to the area to enforce Argentine evacuation and support the activities of Endurance. The British were indeed contemplating sending the submarines but it would be a while before any could arrive. This made timing a severe issue for the Argentine Navy. The Navy had always been the most hawkish of the three armed services when it came to military intervention over the islands, and that desire was not diminished now. If it was going to launch an invasion, it had to be done whilst the islands were relatively undefended. HMS Endurance was a research vessel with a couple of 20mm cannons - a submarine would be a far more severe threat to an invasion force. With demonstrations breaking out on the streets of Argentina, the military Junta took the gamble to launch an invasion - before any submarine might arrive in the area. They agreed to launch the invasion at a meeting on the 26th of March.


In the article below Chris Cole, Supply Officer on “HMS Phoebe” at the time describes what it was like as one of those deployed on Operation Journeyman.


The day after sailing we commenced intensive training, testing every aspect of our responses to possible threats, carrying out major fire and damage drills and generally working the ship’s crew up into a fighting team. Although we had still not been told where we were going or why, the ship’s company deduced we were on a war footing. The main passageways had been filled with extra stores and they were not used to walking over cases of baked beans. In mid-Atlantic we rendezvoused with “HMS Alacrity”, RFAs “Resource” and “Owen” were to join us later, and somewhere beneath us was the nuclear submarine “Dreadnought”. At that stage the ship’s companies were briefed on our mission. We were told that Operation Journeyman had been ordered by the then Prime Minister, James Callaghan, as fifty Argentine “scientists” had landed on Southern Thule in the South Sandwich Islands, prompting fears of an Argentine invasion of the Falklands. Apparently the Argentines had set up a military base on Thule. Only the officers on the ships were briefed on the rules of engagement which were pretty defensive. They stated: Commanding Officers and aircraft captains are to respond to any aggression with tactful firmness and are to exhibit a determination to meet any escalation, though not to exceed that already carried out by the enemy. All use of force must be governed by the principle of using only the minimum force necessary to achieve the aim. Such force must be used only until evident that the immediate aim is being achieved and must in no way be retaliatory. The submarine commander was told that if attacked with anti-submarine weapons by Argentine forces he was to surface or withdraw at high speed submerged, whichever will be of least risk to life.

In effect we were sitting ducks, but the Argentines weren’t to know that! We were to set up a 50 mile security zone and any ships entering the zone were to be asked to identify themselves and state their intentions.

Our main problem was maintaining a discreet presence on station for an indefinite period as nobody had told us when we would be returning to UK. We had enough supplies to survive for 3 months, which, with the help of the RFAs, could be extended by a further six weeks. After that, serious logistical problems could have arisen. Keeping the submarine “Dreadnought” supplied was more problematical as she was only allowed to surface for about 5 minutes a week, during which time our Wasp helicopter had to lower supplies and deliver and collect the laundry (we had a Chinese laundry crew on board) in what was a very short space of time.



Even worse labour had instructed the Navy to turn tail and run if attacked, thank fuck they were not in power when the Islands were invaded. They ordered the Navy to not even defend itself.
So much for your claim of Labour being able to defend the Islands.
What a massive own goal on your part
So as seen it was more bluff than anything else that averted this incidence showing you have not the first clue what you are talking about and you thought stupidly you have the upper hand when you know fuck all about Military strategy ha ha. What an idiot you really are by the that massive poor claim. As seen the Argies would have invaded no matter what, unless there was a permanent strong military Presence of which HMS Endurance was certainly not. The Argies knew that a Submarine was going to be sent and yet they still invaded, showing their resolve to do so. So again your assumption to base this being averted is nothing short of comical on your part and as seen a load of bullshit on your part.


So I suggest if you want to address my points you start to do so which so far you have failed to do so.

Game over to the main claim of your thread. There clearly was no plot to sell out the Falklands, just ideas on how to resolve the issue. Clearly, what you want to talk about is how the Islands were undefended, based on hindsight after an event.


You have just admitted the Islanders were to be consulted and indeed we know that they were consulted over the proposal this whole thread started with. We know Ridley was moved on. Would the invasion have happened if the Submarine was there in time? Unlikely, but that is easy to say in hindsight, knowing that the Argies did invade. We also know some warned this could happen, which again was mistakenly not accepted, because many viewed Argentina had far bigger problems internally. The fact is Argentina has and had been threatening to invade for years off numerous different people in power. The other factor was the perilously poor state that Labour had left the country in, for the Tories to pick up the pieces. A less costly solution was to negotiate a deal that makes all parties happy.

So your view "The SECRET plot by Thatcher's Tory government to sell out the Falkland's to Argentina"

Is completely incorrect. What would be accurate:

"The SECRET proposal by Thatcher's Tory government to negotiate a deal over the Falkland's, where all parties were happy"

Now that you have mooted your own point, because as seen this proposal was placed before the Islanders. So there was no plot, there was an attempt to find a solution for all concerned.


Now if you want to go off in regard to defenses on the Falklands in hindsight of the invasion, be my guest. As no previous Government since the 1965 resolution was passed. Had placed a serious defense system for the Islands. So the present and all previous 3 Governments would be to blame for not properly equipping the Islands. There is a down side to doing this also, if you are meant to negotiating with each other. That you then go and fortify the Islands or have a well armed Royal Navy warship like a Destroyer or Frigate, in constant patrol. Is not going to lead to any successful negotiations by doing that. The Argies will view your intent to not negotiate with them, through such an action. Fortifying and spelling out Britain's intent to stay in control of the Islands.


So you really need to look at things further than just some papers Irn and factor in many elements. As I have just provided you. So as Britain was broke, trying to recover from a nightmare Labour Government. Now you could really blame Labour (if I wanted to) for why the then present Tory Government had very few options, constrained by costs. Though I am unlike you and not looking to point the finger at anyone here for the events that happened. As we know that the US started to set the IMF policy, and the Labour government discovered the money was running out. Which left the Tories having to use the most cost affective strategy. Which would be to help bring about a solution for all parties to be happy with. Arming the Islands, would have created a massive outcry from the Argies to the UN. Where they could claim that the British by such an action, have no intention of seceding the Islands. Now how would that look for Britain within the UN? If by such a move to defend the Islands, we would not be seen, as looking for a peaceful solution at all would we?


Once the invasion happened, Britain had no choice but to retrieve them. If they did not, prestige in the world would plummet for Britain. That is why your claim is poor and disingenuous. AS Britain would be seen as weak backing down from threats. Arms deals would no doubt fall through, as well as other business global deals, when the country needed to get back on its feet. Also no doubt Spain would have used such an opportunity to take Gibraltar, being as Britain has backed down from conflict over losing the Falklands. Yes sadly people had to die, you might want to point the finger in the right direction at the person responsible.

General Leopoldo Galtieri


Again you have addressed fuck all you commie loon. All you have done is made countless assumptions based on hindsight of an invent. You are just some jumped up idiotic Commie out to demean Maggie and fail badly at it. You constantly want to Political score which as seen if you read properly I did not do and blame anyone for the conflict, yet you choose to read otherwise because you are commie scum. Never again will I respect such a such an idiot who tries to insult the dead with ridiculous claims, which only a wet softie could come out with. What a left wing twat you are and is typical of the left wing, next they will be claiming it was Labour that won WW2 for us. In fact I have no doubt that Labour would have fucked up the invasion to retake the Islands and more would have died based off their utter incompetence. This is why we are lucky ithas been Tory Governments in power to major conflicts we have been involved in. If it was Labour no doubt we would be under the Nazi jackboot by now.


So on every level you are disrespecting the dead, which makes you a low life, making the worst bullshit claim and doing so on political point scoring all in defending your beloved Labour party who would have done nothing to have prevented this invasion without a permanent heavily armed naval presence.
So you just got schooled you simpleton ha ha, you trying to show me a lesson is comical to say the least.
I would not even score you on effort, but lets allow the lady to defeend herself against your woeful claims:

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:

you dont get credit for unintended "good"
she might well have saved some lives, but that wasnt her intent, and indeed she ended up saving them unto a life of impoverishment, and the generation after as well...in fact quite a few areas STILL havnt recovered.....
so thats stretching things a bit didge......

Did she?
She saved their lives, as the life down mines was appalling tot he point many contracted COPD.
Does not matter if it was intentional or not, she did end up prolonging many of their lives, which would have been cut short if the mines stayed open.

doesnt matter...if she could have got away with it she would have had the strikers machine gunned....

she didnt care about them ...in any sense....
in fact like ALL "manual working people" she hated them with a passion.....

and instead of copd how many died from stress, starvation and suicide in the aftermmath of maggies pogrom??????  ......enough
how many were driven from their homes, no longer being able to afford the mortgages maggie had tricked them into aquiring??.............enough
how mant good solid communities had their guts ripped out to feed maggies voracious tory pals??....too many.....

sorry didge ...I saw it ALL first hand, how folks were treated by police, the greedy tory bankers, the social security and the govt. How the govt sent military people in civvies to create "bovver" and then sent the same people in police uniforms to hand out beatings and instigate more riot
How the "MET" coppers were sent in to cause trouble and ill feeling with deliberate heavy handed and unnecessary police tactics to basically terrorise the local people.....

Oh yes your maggie was a heroine alright.....if you happen to subscribe to SS tacticts

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Did she?
She saved their lives, as the life down mines was appalling tot he point many contracted COPD.
Does not matter if it was intentional or not, she did end up prolonging many of their lives, which would have been cut short if the mines stayed open.

doesnt matter...if she could have got away with it she would have had the strikers machine gunned....

she didnt care about them ...in any sense....
in fact like ALL "manual working people" she hated them with a passion.....

and instead of copd how many died from stress, starvation and suicide in the aftermmath of maggies pogrom??????  ......enough
how many were driven from their homes, no longer being able to afford the mortgages maggie had tricked them into aquiring??.............enough
how mant good solid communities had their guts ripped out to feed maggies voracious tory pals??....too many.....

sorry didge ...I saw it ALL first hand, how folks were treated by police, the greedy tory bankers, the social security and the govt. How the govt sent military people in civvies to create "bovver" and then sent the same people in police uniforms to hand out beatings and instigate more riot
How the "MET" coppers were sent in to cause trouble and ill feeling with deliberate heavy handed and unnecessary police tactics to basically terrorise the local people.....

Oh yes your maggie was a heroine alright.....if you happen to subscribe to SS tacticts

That is your view of her, I see her very different, a woman who took back this country from the unions that were trying to control this country at the time. They were trying to enforce their left wing views over that of our democratic country. Yes some people did suffer, but imagine if the unions had gotten their ay again, or have you forgotten also the 1970's victor when they did get their way? Yes hard decisions were made and no matter what you say, she brought about control to the democratically elected government, which it should have been. I do not refute the fact she did some bad things, but she also did many good things for this country, one as I say reclaiming the country back from the unions who were nothing short of a mafia.
Because of her, my parents got their first council home, which for years they had to rent and then were able to buy this home which gave them money for their retirement. She looked after people who worked hard in my eyes and she tried to reward those who did.
So to me she was clearly one of our better leaders, in a time when women were still treated very much as second class in this country, She inspired many women or which on that you cannot refute either.

At least this is a better debate than the conspiracy crap Irn was spouting so thanks

@Didge, same old bluff and bluster that you have been coming out with on this thread. Nothing of substance and no credible evidence to back it up

You can't even comment on the 1981 meeting or comment on the RoE for 1977 or even 1982 and you think that the Admiral of the Fleet is a joke

And more importantly you can't refute my point that the government were plotting to sell out the islanders to Argentina and that the islanders suspected that all along.

Your a chancer just blowing away and rumbled when you can't even come up with the files that you say you have to hand.

That's it then.

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:

you dont get credit for unintended "good"
she might well have saved some lives, but that wasnt her intent, and indeed she ended up saving them unto a life of impoverishment, and the generation after as well...in fact quite a few areas STILL havnt recovered.....
so thats stretching things a bit didge......

Did she?
She saved their lives, as the life down mines was appalling tot he point many contracted COPD.
Does not matter if it was intentional or not, she did end up prolonging many of their lives, which would have been cut short if the mines stayed open.

doesnt matter...if she could have got away with it she would have had the strikers machine gunned....

she didnt care about them ...in any sense....
in fact like ALL "manual working people" she hated them with a passion.....

and instead of copd how many died from stress, starvation and suicide in the aftermmath of maggies pogrom??????  ......enough
how many were driven from their homes, no longer being able to afford the mortgages maggie had tricked them into aquiring??.............enough
how mant good solid communities had their guts ripped out to feed maggies voracious tory pals??....too many.....

sorry didge ...I saw it ALL first hand, how folks were treated by police, the greedy tory bankers, the social security and the govt. How the govt sent military people in civvies to create "bovver" and then sent the same people in police uniforms to hand out beatings and instigate more riot
How the "MET" coppers were sent in to cause trouble and ill feeling with deliberate heavy handed and unnecessary police tactics to basically terrorise the local people.....

Oh yes your maggie was a heroine alright.....if you happen to subscribe to SS tacticts

That's exactly how it was Victor. My old man died due to coal dust retention in the lungs - gone before his time. Many of the men were just fighting for their jobs and many of them hadn't a breath to draw. They were led by an incompetent union leadership and an equally incompetent government who used every tick in the book and even conned the media. The Met cops were up here and billited in Dreghorn barracks and the soldiers hated them for their bragging about the days events

Irn Bru wrote:@Didge, same old bluff and bluster that you have been coming out with on this thread. Nothing of substance and no credible evidence to back it up

You can't even comment on the 1981 meeting or comment on the RoE for 1977 or even 1982 and you think that the Admiral of the Fleet is a joke

And more importantly you can't refute my point that the government were plotting to sell out the islanders to Argentina and that the islanders suspected that all along.

Your a chancer just blowing away and rumbled when you can't even come up with the files that you say you have to hand.

That's it then.

That point was refuted ages ago and you had no leg to stand on, because as seen that was one proposal made, which was turned down by all sides including the British government when they got rid of Ridley.
The fact is your argument is all about trying to take some credit for the Falklands victory, for Labour which is comical based off Operation Journeyman, which is a joke, being as they were not to engage, but if fired on to retreat. They did not even remove the Argies that had landed, so it was one big dangerous bluff, which could have very much ended up in disaster, being as these navy warships and vessels were sitting ducks. The most important point of all was logistics here, where no naval presence could have been even obtained within operation Journeyman. That was limited. As seen Galtieri, was always going to invade and would have invaded even if Labour were in power. Only a continued string naval presence would have prevented an attack and there is no way you can claim Labour would have done so.
Hence why your whole argument was idiotic from the start and you set out as per usual on one of your hate Maggie threads, where instead your got burnt and rightly so. You made the worst assumptions on hindsight, that is what glory seekers try to do, when they ignore the facts, why you will never be very good at understanding history

well folks...I gotta get up and go tomorrow.....Jury duty

so I suppose i'd better get some kip so I'm bright eyed and bushy tailed in the morning....

I'll leave you two throwing fairy dust at each other
g'night....

Irn Bru wrote:

darknessss wrote:
doesnt matter...if she could have got away with it she would have had the strikers machine gunned....

she didnt care about them ...in any sense....
in fact like ALL "manual working people" she hated them with a passion.....

and instead of copd how many died from stress, starvation and suicide in the aftermmath of maggies pogrom??????  ......enough
how many were driven from their homes, no longer being able to afford the mortgages maggie had tricked them into aquiring??.............enough
how mant good solid communities had their guts ripped out to feed maggies voracious tory pals??....too many.....

sorry didge ...I saw it ALL first hand, how folks were treated by police, the greedy tory bankers, the social security and the govt. How the govt sent military people in civvies to create "bovver" and then sent the same people in police uniforms to hand out beatings and instigate more riot
How the "MET" coppers were sent in to cause trouble and ill feeling with deliberate heavy handed and unnecessary police tactics to basically terrorise the local people.....

Oh yes your maggie was a heroine alright.....if you happen to subscribe to SS tacticts

That's exactly how it was Victor. My old man died due to coal dust retention in the lungs - gone before his time. Many of the men were just fighting for their jobs and many of them hadn't a breath to draw. They were led by an incompetent union leadership and an equally incompetent government who used every tick in the book and even conned the media. The Met cops were up here and billited in Dreghorn barracks and the soldiers hated them for their bragging about the days events

He died because of the job he did, don;t try and pull the victim card on Maggie for that, as that is poor and low to say the least.
She rightly had to break the back of the mafia unions, who were trying to destroy this country and I am glad she did

darknessss wrote:well folks...I gotta get up and go tomorrow.....Jury duty

so I suppose i'd better get some kip so I'm bright eyed and bushy tailed in the morning....

I'll leave you two throwing fairy dust at each other  
g'night....

Night Victor, all the best.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:@Didge, same old bluff and bluster that you have been coming out with on this thread. Nothing of substance and no credible evidence to back it up

You can't even comment on the 1981 meeting or comment on the RoE for 1977 or even 1982 and you think that the Admiral of the Fleet is a joke

And more importantly you can't refute my point that the government were plotting to sell out the islanders to Argentina and that the islanders suspected that all along.

Your a chancer just blowing away and rumbled when you can't even come up with the files that you say you have to hand.

That's it then.

That point was refuted ages ago and you had no leg to stand on, because as seen that was one proposal made, which was turned down by all sides including the British government when they got rid of Ridley.
The fact is your argument is all about trying to take some credit for the Falklands victory, for Labour which is comical based off Operation Journeyman, which is a joke, being as they were not to engage, but if fired on to retreat. They did not even remove the Argies that had landed, so it was one big dangerous bluff, which could have very much ended up in disaster, being as these navy warships and vessels were sitting ducks. The most important point of all was logistics here, where no naval presence could have been even obtained within operation Journeyman. That was limited. As seen Galtieri, was always going to invade and would have invaded even if Labour were in power. Only a continued string naval presence would have prevented an attack and there is no way you can claim Labour would have done so.
Hence why your whole argument was idiotic from the start and you set out as per usual on one of your hate Maggie threads, where instead your got burnt and rightly so

No it wasn't. Read the memo written by Rex Hunt to London dated January 1982 which tells you all about what was going on. You have the files don't you.

You keep dismissing Operation Journeyman and you can't even tell me the RoE that applied or the JIC contingency plan that was in place.

You're rumbled as a chancer simply because you can't do that.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

darknessss wrote:
doesnt matter...if she could have got away with it she would have had the strikers machine gunned....

she didnt care about them ...in any sense....
in fact like ALL "manual working people" she hated them with a passion.....

and instead of copd how many died from stress, starvation and suicide in the aftermmath of maggies pogrom??????  ......enough
how many were driven from their homes, no longer being able to afford the mortgages maggie had tricked them into aquiring??.............enough
how mant good solid communities had their guts ripped out to feed maggies voracious tory pals??....too many.....

sorry didge ...I saw it ALL first hand, how folks were treated by police, the greedy tory bankers, the social security and the govt. How the govt sent military people in civvies to create "bovver" and then sent the same people in police uniforms to hand out beatings and instigate more riot
How the "MET" coppers were sent in to cause trouble and ill feeling with deliberate heavy handed and unnecessary police tactics to basically terrorise the local people.....

Oh yes your maggie was a heroine alright.....if you happen to subscribe to SS tacticts

That's exactly how it was Victor. My old man died due to coal dust retention in the lungs - gone before his time. Many of the men were just fighting for their jobs and many of them hadn't a breath to draw. They were led by an incompetent union leadership and an equally incompetent government who used every tick in the book and even conned the media. The Met cops were up here and billited in Dreghorn barracks and the soldiers hated them for their bragging about the days events

He died because of the job he did, don;t try and pull the victim card on Maggie for that, as that is poor and low to say the least.
She rightly had to break the back of the mafia unions, who were trying to destroy this country and I am glad she did

No-one is pulling the victim card. They died because of the job they did most of them not knowing the dangers that they would face in later life. You have reached a new low in what you have come out with because they worked down the pits long before Maggie Thatcher came along so don't go making up crap like that just to score a point in an argument. It's sick.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


That point was refuted ages ago and you had no leg to stand on, because as seen that was one proposal made, which was turned down by all sides including the British government when they got rid of Ridley.
The fact is your argument is all about trying to take some credit for the Falklands victory, for Labour which is comical based off Operation Journeyman, which is a joke, being as they were not to engage, but if fired on to retreat. They did not even remove the Argies that had landed, so it was one big dangerous bluff, which could have very much ended up in disaster, being as these navy warships and vessels were sitting ducks. The most important point of all was logistics here, where no naval presence could have been even obtained within operation Journeyman. That was limited. As seen Galtieri, was always going to invade and would have invaded even if Labour were in power. Only a continued string naval presence would have prevented an attack and there is no way you can claim Labour would have done so.
Hence why your whole argument was idiotic from the start and you set out as per usual on one of your hate Maggie threads, where instead your got burnt and rightly so

No it wasn't. Read the memo written by Rex Hunt to London dated January 1982 which tells you all about what was going on. You have the files don't you.

You keep dismissing Operation Journeyman and you can't even tell me the RoE that applied or the JIC contingency plan that was in place.

You're rumbled as a chancer simply because you can't do that.

Oh you really are becoming a right whinger now, because I tore apart your poor argument.
I have taken everything into consideration with Operation Journeyman, which gain was a limited logistically, all of which you neglect. Again he was going to invade and would have waited for the opportune moment as his view was once they had the Islands, the British would not attempt to retake them. This was backed up even more by Operation Journeyman, because they did not expel the military based on Thule. That more than anything gave the view the British would do nothing. Now he knew that an invasion would be difficult with a string British naval presence, but also knew that the British even under Labour did not commit to having a permanent one. Thus he would have invaded no matter who was in power and there is no way you can predict whether Labour would have kept a permanent string naval presence there if in power, They certainly did not even with Operation Journeyman.
So on all counts you do not have a leg to stand on. The view was once invaded, the British would not attempt to take back just like when Goa was lost and the same with the Suez crisis. The view was the British did not have the resolve to do so.
They did not bank on Thatcher though and hence why they made a big mistake, because she did reclaim them. The fact is this was one proposal all of which Ridley was moved aside over, so your whole thread is in a shambles

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

He died because of the job he did, don;t try and pull the victim card on Maggie for that, as that is poor and low to say the least.
She rightly had to break the back of the mafia unions, who were trying to destroy this country and I am glad she did

No-one is pulling the victim card. They died because of the job they did most of them not knowing the dangers that they would face in later life. You have reached a new low in what you have come out with because they worked down the pits long before Maggie Thatcher came along so don't go making up crap like that just to score a point in an argument. It's sick.

She no doubt did prolong lives for many who had not worked as many years where it had taken too much affect on their longs to the point of contracting lung diseases, so that is not a low but 100% correct, whether you like it or not. I care little about some left wing weasel out to mock a great leader at every turn, as seen you will always come up short and battered on history.
You have no leg to stand on claiming ethical views, even more so comically when you claimed I was racist, that just shows how daft the left are when losing a debate, being as I am one of the biggest defenders against racism, but hey, you have become very desperate in your debate to shriek about Maggie

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


That point was refuted ages ago and you had no leg to stand on, because as seen that was one proposal made, which was turned down by all sides including the British government when they got rid of Ridley.
The fact is your argument is all about trying to take some credit for the Falklands victory, for Labour which is comical based off Operation Journeyman, which is a joke, being as they were not to engage, but if fired on to retreat. They did not even remove the Argies that had landed, so it was one big dangerous bluff, which could have very much ended up in disaster, being as these navy warships and vessels were sitting ducks. The most important point of all was logistics here, where no naval presence could have been even obtained within operation Journeyman. That was limited. As seen Galtieri, was always going to invade and would have invaded even if Labour were in power. Only a continued string naval presence would have prevented an attack and there is no way you can claim Labour would have done so.
Hence why your whole argument was idiotic from the start and you set out as per usual on one of your hate Maggie threads, where instead your got burnt and rightly so

No it wasn't. Read the memo written by Rex Hunt to London dated January 1982 which tells you all about what was going on. You have the files don't you.

You keep dismissing Operation Journeyman and you can't even tell me the RoE that applied or the JIC contingency plan that was in place.

You're rumbled as a chancer simply because you can't do that.

Oh you really are becoming a right whinger now, because I tore apart your poor argument.
I have taken everything into consideration with Operation Journeyman, which gain was a limited logistically, all of which you neglect. Again he was going to invade and would have waited for the opportune moment as his view was once they had the Islands, the British would not attempt to retake them. This was backed up even more by Operation Journeyman, because they did not expel the military based on Thule. That more than anything gave the view the British would do nothing. Now he knew that an invasion would be difficult with a string British naval presence, but also knew that the British even under Labour did not commit to having a permanent one. Thus he would have invaded no matter who was in power and there is no way you can predict whether Labour would have kept a permanent string naval presence there if in power, They certainly did not even with Operation Journeyman.
So on all counts you do not have a leg to stand on. The view was once invaded, the British would not attempt to take back just like when Goa was lost and the same with the Suez crisis. The view was the British did not have the resolve to do so.
They did not bank on Thatcher though and hence why they made a big mistake, because she did reclaim them. The fact is this was one proposal all of which Ridley was moved aside over, so your whole thread is in a shambles

You're deluded on almost every point because you have no evidence to back up anything and no understanding of why decisions were made. The folk on South Thule could rot and an exclusion zone was set up round the islands with additional support available in the Atlantic if necessary.

Contrast that with Thatcher's time when nothing was done and no contingency plan in place either just bewilderment when the news broke that the islands had been invaded 'What can we do? What can we do'? she said. What a mess.

Have you read the Rex Hunt memo or found the RoE for 1977 task force set up by Sir Henry Leach or the JIC contingency plan or the minutes of the 1981 meeting? No!! you have all the files don't you?

You're rumbled chum big time and it shows

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

He died because of the job he did, don;t try and pull the victim card on Maggie for that, as that is poor and low to say the least.
She rightly had to break the back of the mafia unions, who were trying to destroy this country and I am glad she did

No-one is pulling the victim card. They died because of the job they did most of them not knowing the dangers that they would face in later life. You have reached a new low in what you have come out with because they worked down the pits long before Maggie Thatcher came along so don't go making up crap like that just to score a point in an argument. It's sick.

She no doubt did prolong lives for many who had not worked as many years where it had taken too much affect on their longs to the point of contracting lung diseases, so that is not a low but 100% correct, whether you like it or not. I care little about some left wing weasel out to mock a great leader at every turn, as seen you will always come up short and battered on history.
You have no leg to stand on claiming ethical views, even more so comically when you claimed I was racist, that just shows how daft the left are when losing a debate, being as I am one of the biggest defenders against racism, but hey, you have become very desperate in your debate to shriek about Maggie

And you care even less about the miners, in fact you said you loved seeing them getting battered.

Disgusting by any standards that anyone could say that about working men.

You said you were a racist but that you had learned your lesson - remember?

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Oh you really are becoming a right whinger now, because I tore apart your poor argument.
I have taken everything into consideration with Operation Journeyman, which gain was a limited logistically, all of which you neglect. Again he was going to invade and would have waited for the opportune moment as his view was once they had the Islands, the British would not attempt to retake them. This was backed up even more by Operation Journeyman, because they did not expel the military based on Thule. That more than anything gave the view the British would do nothing. Now he knew that an invasion would be difficult with a string British naval presence, but also knew that the British even under Labour did not commit to having a permanent one. Thus he would have invaded no matter who was in power and there is no way you can predict whether Labour would have kept a permanent string naval presence there if in power, They certainly did not even with Operation Journeyman.
So on all counts you do not have a leg to stand on. The view was once invaded, the British would not attempt to take back just like when Goa was lost and the same with the Suez crisis. The view was the British did not have the resolve to do so.
They did not bank on Thatcher though and hence why they made a big mistake, because she did reclaim them. The fact is this was one proposal all of which Ridley was moved aside over, so your whole thread is in a shambles

You're deluded on almost every point because you have no evidence to back up anything and no understanding of why decisions were made. The folk on South Thule could rot and an exclusion zone was set up round the islands with additional support available in the Atlantic if necessary.

Contrast that with Thatcher's time when nothing was done and no contingency plan in place either just bewilderment when the news broke that the islands had been invaded 'What can we do? What can we do'? she said. What a mess.

Have you read the Rex Hunt memo or found the RoE for 1977 task force set up by Sir Henry Leach or the JIC contingency plan or the minutes of the 1981 meeting? No!! you have all the files don't you?

You're rumbled chum big time and it shows

Operation Journeyman was a Royal Navy operation in which a naval taskforce was sent to the Falkland Islands in November 1977 to prevent an Argentine invasion.

The operation was ordered by James Callaghan after fifty Argentine "scientists" landed on Southern Thule prompting fears of an Argentine invasion of the Falklands. The Argentinians set up a military base on Thule. It is likely the prompt action prevented a more serious attack. The force planned under heavy security was led by the nuclear submarine Dreadnought and also consisted of two frigates, Alacrity and Phoebe, and the auxiliaries Resource and Olwen as support vessels. The Argentines rapidly became aware of the taskforce's presence but their forces remained on Thule and Callaghan decided against the use of force to evict them.





Seriously if you cannot address my points, go and have a good cry and hug with stassi son

One last chance


Oh you really are becoming a right whinger now, because I tore apart your poor argument.
I have taken everything into consideration with Operation Journeyman, which gain was a limited logistically, all of which you neglect. Again he was going to invade and would have waited for the opportune moment as his view was once they had the Islands, the British would not attempt to retake them. This was backed up even more by Operation Journeyman, because they did not expel the military based on Thule. That more than anything gave the view the British would do nothing. Now he knew that an invasion would be difficult with a string British naval presence, but also knew that the British even under Labour did not commit to having a permanent one. Thus he would have invaded no matter who was in power and there is no way you can predict whether Labour would have kept a permanent string naval presence there if in power, They certainly did not even with Operation Journeyman.
So on all counts you do not have a leg to stand on. The view was once invaded, the British would not attempt to take back just like when Goa was lost and the same with the Suez crisis. The view was the British did not have the resolve to do so.
They did not bank on Thatcher though and hence why they made a big mistake, because she did reclaim them. The fact is this was one proposal all of which Ridley was moved aside over, so your whole thread is in a shambles

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


She no doubt did prolong lives for many who had not worked as many years where it had taken too much affect on their longs to the point of contracting lung diseases, so that is not a low but 100% correct, whether you like it or not. I care little about some left wing weasel out to mock a great leader at every turn, as seen you will always come up short and battered on history.
You have no leg to stand on claiming ethical views, even more so comically when you claimed I was racist, that just shows how daft the left are when losing a debate, being as I am one of the biggest defenders against racism, but hey, you have become very desperate in your debate to shriek about Maggie

And you care even less about the miners, in fact you said you loved seeing them getting battered.

Disgusting by any standards that anyone could say that about working men.

You said you were a racist but that you had learned your lesson - remember?

I did when they killed David Wilike, they were scum, as what did he ever do to the miners?
So you are not disgusted at killers then?
As to being racist, you have no idea you little boy, about my early life which I would happy to share with others, but not some demented left wing loon
If you want to call me racist, be my guest, it just makes you look an even bigger twat, so happy days

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Orgreave


Verdict on the miners here

Scum

The new book on the miners of Britain deals with the story of the mining community from early times to the present days, covering both coal mines and metal mines. It turns out to be a timely publication, as the infamous Battle of Orgreave during the strike of 1984 is now being reinvestigated as the result of overwhelming evidence that the police falsified their accounts

http://anthonygburton.co.uk/anthonygburton.co.uk/More.html

Just like Hillsborough

risingsun wrote:The new book on the miners of Britain deals with the story of the mining community from early times to the present days, covering both coal mines and metal mines. It turns out to be a timely publication, as the infamous Battle of Orgreave during the strike of 1984 is now being reinvestigated as the result of overwhelming evidence that the police falsified their accounts

http://anthonygburton.co.uk/anthonygburton.co.uk/More.html

Just like Hillsborough

Initially the strike played out like most others, and the strikers played football for a while. However, as more numbers arrived on both sides, tensions began to rise. The commander of the police presence, Assistant Chief Constable Anthony Clement, deployed a protective cordon of long-shielded police in front of his standard officers, a fairly standard practice in such encounters.
At much the same time, the lorries arrived to fetch the coal. This was the cue for the "push", in which the miners charged towards the police in an attempt to break the lines. Shortly afterwards, Clements ordered the mounted police forwards. This tactic successfully delivered a retreat by the striking miners, and the horses stopped about 30 yards (30 m) ahead of the police line before withdrawing. This allowed a space for the lorries to pass on their business and escalated the tension on the field.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Orgreave


Verdict on the miners


Scum

30 years on, police face inquiry over Battle of Orgreave

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2548413/30-years-police-face-inquiry-Battle-Orgreave-Fury-Hillsborough-style-probe-miners-strike.html#ixzz3Qp46NeI3
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

risingsun wrote:30 years on, police face inquiry over Battle of Orgreave

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2548413/30-years-police-face-inquiry-Battle-Orgreave-Fury-Hillsborough-style-probe-miners-strike.html#ixzz3Qp46NeI3
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Yeah you can see all the evidence you need of the throwing rocks at the Police

Wow

Verdict scum

Brasidas wrote:

risingsun wrote:30 years on, police face inquiry over Battle of Orgreave

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2548413/30-years-police-face-inquiry-Battle-Orgreave-Fury-Hillsborough-style-probe-miners-strike.html#ixzz3Qp46NeI3
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Yeah you can see all the evidence you need of the throwing rocks at the Police

Wow

Verdict scum

Orgreave and the killing of Wilke which was a dastardly act are quite separate. Different dates, different people. Do you judge all by the action of two? Tar everyone with the same brush, is that what you do?

Perhaps you judge all police by the action of this one

David James Wilkie (9 July 1949 - 30 November 1984) was killed during the miners' strike in the United Kingdom, when two striking miners dropped a concrete block from a footbridge onto his taxi whilst he was driving a strike breaking miner to his workplace. The attack caused a widespread revulsion at the extent of violence in the dispute. The two miners were convicted of murder but the charge was reduced to manslaughter on appeal, becoming a leading case on the issue of the difference between the two offences.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_David_Wilkie

Brasidas wrote:Official reports state that during the course of the confrontation, 93 arrests were made, with 51 picketers and 72 policemen injured.


Says it all and they had protective gear, so maybe you can explain why more Police were injured then?

I wouldn't try, leave things like that to the enquiry. Speculation by people who know nothing is worthless

Brasidas wrote:David James Wilkie (9 July 1949 - 30 November 1984) was killed during the miners' strike in the United Kingdom, when two striking miners dropped a concrete block from a footbridge onto his taxi whilst he was driving a strike breaking miner to his workplace. The attack caused a widespread revulsion at the extent of violence in the dispute. The two miners were convicted of murder but the charge was reduced to manslaughter on appeal, becoming a leading case on the issue of the difference between the two offences.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_David_Wilkie

As I said, vile. But I don't judge anyone but the two that did it. It appears you judge all by their actions. Hope you don't do that to any other group.

risingsun wrote:

Brasidas wrote:David James Wilkie (9 July 1949 - 30 November 1984) was killed during the miners' strike in the United Kingdom, when two striking miners dropped a concrete block from a footbridge onto his taxi whilst he was driving a strike breaking miner to his workplace. The attack caused a widespread revulsion at the extent of violence in the dispute. The two miners were convicted of murder but the charge was reduced to manslaughter on appeal, becoming a leading case on the issue of the difference between the two offences.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_David_Wilkie

As I said, vile.  But I don't judge anyone but the two that did it.  It appears you judge all by their actions.  Hope you don't do that to any other group.

Really how about these 700 who did?

The life sentences caused an outcry among the striking miners, who felt that the death of Wilkie was not a deliberate act; the strike had ended by the time the verdict was brought in, but 700 miners at Merthyr Vale walked out on hearing the news

risingsun wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Official reports state that during the course of the confrontation, 93 arrests were made, with 51 picketers and 72 policemen injured.


Says it all and they had protective gear, so maybe you can explain why more Police were injured then?

I wouldn't try, leave things like that to the enquiry.  Speculation by people who know nothing is worthless

That does not answer the question.
How is Police in protective riot gear can have far more numbers injured?
Are you saying medical records are lying now?
Why did the ambulance crews also have to wear protective gear?

People have  right to protest and strike, but not commit violence to those who want to work, no matter what you think of them, hence why many of the miners were scum, and their Fuhrer Scargill was the biggest scum of them all

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


Oh you really are becoming a right whinger now, because I tore apart your poor argument.
I have taken everything into consideration with Operation Journeyman, which gain was a limited logistically, all of which you neglect. Again he was going to invade and would have waited for the opportune moment as his view was once they had the Islands, the British would not attempt to retake them. This was backed up even more by Operation Journeyman, because they did not expel the military based on Thule. That more than anything gave the view the British would do nothing. Now he knew that an invasion would be difficult with a string British naval presence, but also knew that the British even under Labour did not commit to having a permanent one. Thus he would have invaded no matter who was in power and there is no way you can predict whether Labour would have kept a permanent string naval presence there if in power, They certainly did not even with Operation Journeyman.
So on all counts you do not have a leg to stand on. The view was once invaded, the British would not attempt to take back just like when Goa was lost and the same with the Suez crisis. The view was the British did not have the resolve to do so.
They did not bank on Thatcher though and hence why they made a big mistake, because she did reclaim them. The fact is this was one proposal all of which Ridley was moved aside over, so your whole thread is in a shambles

You're deluded on almost every point because you have no evidence to back up anything and no understanding of why decisions were made. The folk on South Thule could rot and an exclusion zone was set up round the islands with additional support available in the Atlantic if necessary.

Contrast that with Thatcher's time when nothing was done and no contingency plan in place either just bewilderment when the news broke that the islands had been invaded 'What can we do? What can we do'? she said. What a mess.

Have you read the Rex Hunt memo or found the RoE for 1977 task force set up by Sir Henry Leach or the JIC contingency plan or the minutes of the 1981 meeting? No!! you have all the files don't you?

You're rumbled chum big time and it shows

Operation Journeyman was a Royal Navy operation in which a naval taskforce was sent to the Falkland Islands in November 1977 to prevent an Argentine invasion.

The operation was ordered by James Callaghan after fifty Argentine "scientists" landed on Southern Thule prompting fears of an Argentine invasion of the Falklands. The Argentinians set up a military base on Thule. It is likely the prompt action prevented a more serious attack. The force planned under heavy security was led by the nuclear submarine Dreadnought and also consisted of two frigates, Alacrity and Phoebe, and the auxiliaries Resource and Olwen as support vessels. The Argentines rapidly became aware of the taskforce's presence but their forces remained on Thule and Callaghan decided against the use of force to evict them.





Seriously if you cannot address my points, go and have a good cry and hug with stassi son

One last chance


Oh you really are becoming a right whinger now, because I tore apart your poor argument.
I have taken everything into consideration with Operation Journeyman, which gain was a limited logistically, all of which you neglect. Again he was going to invade and would have waited for the opportune moment as his view was once they had the Islands, the British would not attempt to retake them. This was backed up even more by Operation Journeyman, because they did not expel the military based on Thule. That more than anything gave the view the British would do nothing. Now he knew that an invasion would be difficult with a string British naval presence, but also knew that the British even under Labour did not commit to having a permanent one. Thus he would have invaded no matter who was in power and there is no way you can predict whether Labour would have kept a permanent string naval presence there if in power, They certainly did not even with Operation Journeyman.
So on all counts you do not have a leg to stand on. The view was once invaded, the British would not attempt to take back just like when Goa was lost and the same with the Suez crisis. The view was the British did not have the resolve to do so.
They did not bank on Thatcher though and hence why they made a big mistake, because she did reclaim them. The fact is this was one proposal all of which Ridley was moved aside over, so your whole thread is in a shambles

You are an out and out chancer on this Didge, bluffing your way through this on the basis that you were some sort of expert on the Falklands Islands war. You were caught out lying when you said that Labour hadn't done anything only to be proved wrong when confronted with the details of Operation Journeyman which sent you over the top and into a mind-boggling tirade of abuse in the middle of the night. You then went on to say that you knew about it which is a lie because if you had you would never have said what you did. You say you have all the files but you can't come up with the very one's that I have asked you to which proves you didn't have them at all. All bluff and bluster and nonsense because you can't even tell me what the RoE engagement were, what the JIC contingency plan was or comment on Rex Hunts memo to London or the 1981 meeting.

There was a plot to sell out the islanders to Argentina and I have offered you up the files to prove it.

Your rumbled.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Operation Journeyman was a Royal Navy operation in which a naval taskforce was sent to the Falkland Islands in November 1977 to prevent an Argentine invasion.

The operation was ordered by James Callaghan after fifty Argentine "scientists" landed on Southern Thule prompting fears of an Argentine invasion of the Falklands. The Argentinians set up a military base on Thule. It is likely the prompt action prevented a more serious attack. The force planned under heavy security was led by the nuclear submarine Dreadnought and also consisted of two frigates, Alacrity and Phoebe, and the auxiliaries Resource and Olwen as support vessels. The Argentines rapidly became aware of the taskforce's presence but their forces remained on Thule and Callaghan decided against the use of force to evict them.





Seriously if you cannot address my points, go and have a good cry and hug with stassi son

One last chance


Oh you really are becoming a right whinger now, because I tore apart your poor argument.
I have taken everything into consideration with Operation Journeyman, which gain was a limited logistically, all of which you neglect. Again he was going to invade and would have waited for the opportune moment as his view was once they had the Islands, the British would not attempt to retake them. This was backed up even more by Operation Journeyman, because they did not expel the military based on Thule. That more than anything gave the view the British would do nothing. Now he knew that an invasion would be difficult with a string British naval presence, but also knew that the British even under Labour did not commit to having a permanent one. Thus he would have invaded no matter who was in power and there is no way you can predict whether Labour would have kept a permanent string naval presence there if in power, They certainly did not even with Operation Journeyman.
So on all counts you do not have a leg to stand on. The view was once invaded, the British would not attempt to take back just like when Goa was lost and the same with the Suez crisis. The view was the British did not have the resolve to do so.
They did not bank on Thatcher though and hence why they made a big mistake, because she did reclaim them. The fact is this was one proposal all of which Ridley was moved aside over, so your whole thread is in a shambles

You are an out and out chancer on this Didge, bluffing your way through this on the basis that you were some sort of expert on the Falklands Islands war. You were caught out lying  when you said that Labour hadn't done anything only to be proved wrong when confronted with the details of Operation Journeyman which sent you over the top and into a mind-boggling tirade of abuse in the middle of the night. You then went on to say that you knew about it which is a lie because if you had you would never have said what you did. You say you have all the files but you can't come up with the very one's that I have asked you to which proves you didn't have them at all. All bluff and bluster and nonsense because you can't even tell me what the RoE engagement were, what the JIC contingency plan was or comment on Rex Hunts memo to London or the 1981 meeting.

There was a plot to sell out the islanders to Argentina and I have offered you up the files to prove it.

Your rumbled.

You have had your last chance, not going to entertain an idiot any longer who does not address the facts as I have laid them out to you.
You have proved one thing to me over this debate, in that you really are clueless tit, that is for sure and how you are incapable of looking at anything objectively.
Hey ho, to be honest I found it easy and that is because you have not the first clue how to present a historical hypothesis.
As stated already and for allto see, you have no response to the following:
I have taken everything into consideration with Operation Journeyman, which gain was a limited logistically, all of which you neglect. Again he was going to invade and would have waited for the opportune moment as his view was once they had the Islands, the British would not attempt to retake them. This was backed up even more by Operation Journeyman, because they did not expel the military based on Thule. That more than anything gave the view the British would do nothing. Now he knew that an invasion would be difficult with a string British naval presence, but also knew that the British even under Labour did not commit to having a permanent one. Thus he would have invaded no matter who was in power and there is no way you can predict whether Labour would have kept a permanent string naval presence there if in power, They certainly did not even with Operation Journeyman.
So on all counts you do not have a leg to stand on. The view was once invaded, the British would not attempt to take back just like when Goa was lost and the same with the Suez crisis. The view was the British did not have the resolve to do so.
They did not bank on Thatcher though and hence why they made a big mistake, because she did reclaim them. The fact is this was one proposal all of which Ridley was moved aside over, so your whole thread is in a shambles

So the only thing you rumbled was the whole forum with your constant verbal farting which has been consistent throughout this debate. There was no plot to sell out anything as seen already the Islanders were aware of the proposals made by Ridley which oots your claim altogether.
Let this be  another lesson to you, that you clearly have much to learn historically and even embarrassingly more so about our own country



Verdict


Epic fail


Checkmate

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


She no doubt did prolong lives for many who had not worked as many years where it had taken too much affect on their longs to the point of contracting lung diseases, so that is not a low but 100% correct, whether you like it or not. I care little about some left wing weasel out to mock a great leader at every turn, as seen you will always come up short and battered on history.
You have no leg to stand on claiming ethical views, even more so comically when you claimed I was racist, that just shows how daft the left are when losing a debate, being as I am one of the biggest defenders against racism, but hey, you have become very desperate in your debate to shriek about Maggie

And you care even less about the miners, in fact you said you loved seeing them getting battered.

Disgusting by any standards that anyone could say that about working men.

You said you were a racist but that you had learned your lesson - remember?

I did when they killed David Wilike, they were scum, as what did he ever do to the miners?
So you are not disgusted at killers then?
As to being racist, you have no idea you little boy, about my early life which I would happy to share with others, but not some demented left wing loon
If you want to call me racist, be my guest, it just makes you look an even bigger twat, so happy days

Yes, the people that killed David Wilkie were scum but you made no exceptions when you said you loved seeing the miners battered. You meant them all which would have meant my old man and my 3 brothers.

It was a new low for you and just as bad as the guy from another forum telling me that he hoped I died in agony like that old Scotsman you called daddy (never called him that). Take your place along with comments like that because with what you have come out with it's where you truly belong.
As for being a racist: you said yourself you were one for the language you used adding that you had since learned your lesson so don't go calling me one and we'll get along just fine on that score.

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:

Operation Journeyman was a Royal Navy operation in which a naval taskforce was sent to the Falkland Islands in November 1977 to prevent an Argentine invasion.

The operation was ordered by James Callaghan after fifty Argentine "scientists" landed on Southern Thule prompting fears of an Argentine invasion of the Falklands. The Argentinians set up a military base on Thule. It is likely the prompt action prevented a more serious attack. The force planned under heavy security was led by the nuclear submarine Dreadnought and also consisted of two frigates, Alacrity and Phoebe, and the auxiliaries Resource and Olwen as support vessels. The Argentines rapidly became aware of the taskforce's presence but their forces remained on Thule and Callaghan decided against the use of force to evict them.





Seriously if you cannot address my points, go and have a good cry and hug with stassi son

One last chance


Oh you really are becoming a right whinger now, because I tore apart your poor argument.
I have taken everything into consideration with Operation Journeyman, which gain was a limited logistically, all of which you neglect. Again he was going to invade and would have waited for the opportune moment as his view was once they had the Islands, the British would not attempt to retake them. This was backed up even more by Operation Journeyman, because they did not expel the military based on Thule. That more than anything gave the view the British would do nothing. Now he knew that an invasion would be difficult with a string British naval presence, but also knew that the British even under Labour did not commit to having a permanent one. Thus he would have invaded no matter who was in power and there is no way you can predict whether Labour would have kept a permanent string naval presence there if in power, They certainly did not even with Operation Journeyman.
So on all counts you do not have a leg to stand on. The view was once invaded, the British would not attempt to take back just like when Goa was lost and the same with the Suez crisis. The view was the British did not have the resolve to do so.
They did not bank on Thatcher though and hence why they made a big mistake, because she did reclaim them. The fact is this was one proposal all of which Ridley was moved aside over, so your whole thread is in a shambles

You are an out and out chancer on this Didge, bluffing your way through this on the basis that you were some sort of expert on the Falklands Islands war. You were caught out lying  when you said that Labour hadn't done anything only to be proved wrong when confronted with the details of Operation Journeyman which sent you over the top and into a mind-boggling tirade of abuse in the middle of the night. You then went on to say that you knew about it which is a lie because if you had you would never have said what you did. You say you have all the files but you can't come up with the very one's that I have asked you to which proves you didn't have them at all. All bluff and bluster and nonsense because you can't even tell me what the RoE engagement were, what the JIC contingency plan was or comment on Rex Hunts memo to London or the 1981 meeting.

There was a plot to sell out the islanders to Argentina and I have offered you up the files to prove it.

Your rumbled.

You have had your last chance, not going to entertain an idiot any longer who does not address the facts as I have laid them out to you.
You have proved one thing to me over this debate, in that you really are clueless tit, that is for sure and how you are incapable of looking at anything objectively.
Hey ho, to be honest I found it easy and that is because you have not the first clue how to present a historical hypothesis.
As stated already and for allto see, you have no response to the following:
I have taken everything into consideration with Operation Journeyman, which gain was a limited logistically, all of which you neglect. Again he was going to invade and would have waited for the opportune moment as his view was once they had the Islands, the British would not attempt to retake them. This was backed up even more by Operation Journeyman, because they did not expel the military based on Thule. That more than anything gave the view the British would do nothing. Now he knew that an invasion would be difficult with a string British naval presence, but also knew that the British even under Labour did not commit to having a permanent one. Thus he would have invaded no matter who was in power and there is no way you can predict whether Labour would have kept a permanent string naval presence there if in power, They certainly did not even with Operation Journeyman.
So on all counts you do not have a leg to stand on. The view was once invaded, the British would not attempt to take back just like when Goa was lost and the same with the Suez crisis. The view was the British did not have the resolve to do so.
They did not bank on Thatcher though and hence why they made a big mistake, because she did reclaim them. The fact is this was one proposal all of which Ridley was moved aside over, so your whole thread is in a shambles

So the only thing you rumbled was the whole forum with your constant verbal farting which has been consistent throughout this debate. There was no plot to sell out anything as seen already the Islanders were aware of the proposals made by Ridley which oots your claim altogether.
Let this be  another lesson to you, that you clearly have much to learn historically and even embarrassingly more so about our own country



Verdict


Epic fail


Checkmate

If you want to bail out then fine but please don't leave before you come up with the files that prove that there was a plot to sell out the Falklands to Argentina. You have all the files so lets see the RoE, the minutes of the 1981 meeting and the Rex Hunt memo for starters because they all prove that I am right. You have bluffed long enough and caught out lying as well. Thatcher had no plan, did nothing, no contingency nothing. You made your bed now go lie in it

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



I did when they killed David Wilike, they were scum, as what did he ever do to the miners?
So you are not disgusted at killers then?
As to being racist, you have no idea you little boy, about my early life which I would happy to share with others, but not some demented left wing loon
If you want to call me racist, be my guest, it just makes you look an even bigger twat, so happy days

Yes, the people that killed David Wilkie were scum but you made no exceptions when you said you loved seeing the miners battered. You meant them all which would have meant my old man and my 3 brothers.

It was a new low for you and just as bad as the guy from another forum telling me that he hoped I died in agony like that old Scotsman you called daddy (never called him that). Take your place along with comments like that because with what you have come out with it's where you truly belong.  
As for being a racist: you said yourself you were one for the language you used adding that you had since learned your lesson so don't go calling me one and we'll get along just fine on that score.

No you have invented that, which is really low on you. My view is on the miners who were rioting, so I expect an apology for your shameful claim, of which you have wrongly taken to something I stated, which was about those who rioted.
Also as seen many supporter the scum who killed David, which was disgusting on every level.
My view was on those who rioted, which is what I meant, so lets here your view.


So I have watched you as a moderator have both sassy and Nems ridicule my late father and you said nothing and did nothing to stop them on speakfree, so spare me the violin on that to try and claim I said anything about your family.


You have really reached a new low to equate me to something that Dean said, which shows even more how desperate you are on losing this whole debate.


I suggest you resign from your position as I do not recognise you now to be in such a position when you falsely claim me of something I never directly stated to your family

Best you put in your resignation

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



You have had your last chance, not going to entertain an idiot any longer who does not address the facts as I have laid them out to you.
You have proved one thing to me over this debate, in that you really are clueless tit, that is for sure and how you are incapable of looking at anything objectively.
Hey ho, to be honest I found it easy and that is because you have not the first clue how to present a historical hypothesis.
As stated already and for allto see, you have no response to the following:
I have taken everything into consideration with Operation Journeyman, which gain was a limited logistically, all of which you neglect. Again he was going to invade and would have waited for the opportune moment as his view was once they had the Islands, the British would not attempt to retake them. This was backed up even more by Operation Journeyman, because they did not expel the military based on Thule. That more than anything gave the view the British would do nothing. Now he knew that an invasion would be difficult with a string British naval presence, but also knew that the British even under Labour did not commit to having a permanent one. Thus he would have invaded no matter who was in power and there is no way you can predict whether Labour would have kept a permanent string naval presence there if in power, They certainly did not even with Operation Journeyman.
So on all counts you do not have a leg to stand on. The view was once invaded, the British would not attempt to take back just like when Goa was lost and the same with the Suez crisis. The view was the British did not have the resolve to do so.
They did not bank on Thatcher though and hence why they made a big mistake, because she did reclaim them. The fact is this was one proposal all of which Ridley was moved aside over, so your whole thread is in a shambles

So the only thing you rumbled was the whole forum with your constant verbal farting which has been consistent throughout this debate. There was no plot to sell out anything as seen already the Islanders were aware of the proposals made by Ridley which oots your claim altogether.
Let this be  another lesson to you, that you clearly have much to learn historically and even embarrassingly more so about our own country



Verdict


Epic fail


Checkmate

If you want to bail out then fine but please don't leave before you come up with the files that prove that there was a plot to sell out the Falklands to Argentina. You have all the files so lets see the RoE, the minutes of the 1981 meeting and the Rex Hunt memo for starters because they all prove that I am right. You have bluffed long enough and caught out lying as well. Thatcher had no plan, did nothing, no contingency nothing. You made your bed now go lie in it

You lost sunshine and I after your disgusting claim made onto me it is evident you have lost the debate to claim I am making views on your family.
That just proves that you really are low life scum, which proves why you sat back and allowed nems and Sassy to insult my dead father, which in their insults insulted my two sister, one of which is also now deceased, by the view they never would have been born due to the remarks sassy made.
No surprise that it is always left wing scum that stoop so low

Bow your head in shame and do not ever try to claim something I have not said about your family.
That shows what a disingenuous little twat you are, just because you lost a debate

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:



I did when they killed David Wilike, they were scum, as what did he ever do to the miners?
So you are not disgusted at killers then?
As to being racist, you have no idea you little boy, about my early life which I would happy to share with others, but not some demented left wing loon
If you want to call me racist, be my guest, it just makes you look an even bigger twat, so happy days

Yes, the people that killed David Wilkie were scum but you made no exceptions when you said you loved seeing the miners battered. You meant them all which would have meant my old man and my 3 brothers.

It was a new low for you and just as bad as the guy from another forum telling me that he hoped I died in agony like that old Scotsman you called daddy (never called him that). Take your place along with comments like that because with what you have come out with it's where you truly belong.  
As for being a racist: you said yourself you were one for the language you used adding that you had since learned your lesson so don't go calling me one and we'll get along just fine on that score.

No you have invented that, which is really low on you. My view is on the miners who were rioting, so I expect an apology for your shameful claim, of which you have wrongly taken to something I stated, which was about those who rioted.
Also as seen many supporter the scum who killed David, which was disgusting on every level.
My view was on those who rioted, which is what I meant, so lets here your view.


So I have watched you as a moderator have both sassy and Nems ridicule my late father and you said nothing and did nothing to stop them on speakfree, so spare me the violin on that to try and claim I said anything about your family.


You have really reached a new low to equate me to something that Dean said, which shows even more how desperate you are on losing this whole debate.


I suggest you resign from your position as I do not recognise you now to be in such a position when you falsely claim me of something I never directly stated to your family

Best you put in your resignation

Oh here we go with that old chestnut that I'm using my moderator status to gain an advantage or ignoring insults made against your late father. Not the first time you have called for my resignation and if Ben feels it's justified then I'd be happy to do just that.

Pathetic.

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


No you have invented that, which is really low on you. My view is on the miners who were rioting, so I expect an apology for your shameful claim, of which you have wrongly taken to something I stated, which was about those who rioted.
Also as seen many supporter the scum who killed David, which was disgusting on every level.
My view was on those who rioted, which is what I meant, so lets here your view.


So I have watched you as a moderator have both sassy and Nems ridicule my late father and you said nothing and did nothing to stop them on speakfree, so spare me the violin on that to try and claim I said anything about your family.


You have really reached a new low to equate me to something that Dean said, which shows even more how desperate you are on losing this whole debate.


I suggest you resign from your position as I do not recognise you now to be in such a position when you falsely claim me of something I never directly stated to your family

Best you put in your resignation

Oh here we go with that old chestnut that I'm using my moderator status to gain an advantage or ignoring insults made against your late father. Not the first time you have called for my resignation and if Ben feels it's justified then I'd be happy to do just that.

Pathetic.

You have 48 hours to apologise as I am not going to stand by why you make such utter lies up about me and to even place me net to what some other poster said to you is disgusting. I expect nothing less from the left, as this is the level they descend to when they lose debates and that is what is utterly pathetic.

You have gone too far and you know it and over nothing a debate where we all rip the shit out of each other but you have to be a complete ---- it seems

Brasidas wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Brasidas wrote:


No you have invented that, which is really low on you. My view is on the miners who were rioting, so I expect an apology for your shameful claim, of which you have wrongly taken to something I stated, which was about those who rioted.
Also as seen many supporter the scum who killed David, which was disgusting on every level.
My view was on those who rioted, which is what I meant, so lets here your view.


So I have watched you as a moderator have both sassy and Nems ridicule my late father and you said nothing and did nothing to stop them on speakfree, so spare me the violin on that to try and claim I said anything about your family.


You have really reached a new low to equate me to something that Dean said, which shows even more how desperate you are on losing this whole debate.


I suggest you resign from your position as I do not recognise you now to be in such a position when you falsely claim me of something I never directly stated to your family

Best you put in your resignation

Oh here we go with that old chestnut that I'm using my moderator status to gain an advantage or ignoring insults made against your late father. Not the first time you have called for my resignation and if Ben feels it's justified then I'd be happy to do just that.

Pathetic.

You have 48 hours to apologise as I am not going to stand by why you make such utter lies up about me and to even place me net to what some other poster said to you is disgusting. I expect nothing less from the left, as this is the level they descend to when they lose debates and that is what is utterly pathetic.

You have gone too far and you know it and over nothing a debate where we all rip the shit out of each other but you have to be a complete ---- it seems

Got the files on the plot? No!! thought so.

Your overnight tirade against me was way over the top and uncalled for and you bloody well deserved the response you got.

How pathetic that you now come calling asking for an apology.

Off you go crying into your pillow then