|
Post by vicscrashedurcar on Jun 30, 2010 21:25:54 GMT 1
Not research, just first-hand experience.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Jun 30, 2010 21:33:15 GMT 1
Well done. Great memory.
|
|
|
Post by vicscrashedurcar on Jun 30, 2010 21:43:44 GMT 1
It's unfortunate that some people form an opinion on things they clearly know very little about.
Still, he probably deserved to lose his sight & Tomlinson, who incidently was in the National Front some years beforehand, is as white as the whitest purest snow.
|
|
|
Post by Dont believe the HYPE on Jul 1, 2010 8:10:14 GMT 1
Very poor. You seem so passionate about the cause,yet you offer very little in way of an argument. We had an obviously knowledgeable guest commenting on the situation yet you had no answers. Perhaps YOUR blind political beliefs have got in the way of the facts,easily done from the predictable left-wing B&A users,same old spiel,same old tired out rhethoric.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Jul 1, 2010 8:15:30 GMT 1
Very poor. You seem so passionate about the cause,yet you offer very little in way of an argument. We had an obviously knowledgeable guest commenting on the situation yet you had no answers. Perhaps YOUR blind political beliefs have got in the way of the facts,easily done from the predictable left-wing B&A users,same old spiel,same old tired out rhethoric. There is nothing more pointless than than debating with the closed mind brigade.
|
|
|
Post by Dont believe the HYPE on Jul 1, 2010 9:10:25 GMT 1
Very poor. You seem so passionate about the cause,yet you offer very little in way of an argument. We had an obviously knowledgeable guest commenting on the situation yet you had no answers. Perhaps YOUR blind political beliefs have got in the way of the facts,easily done from the predictable left-wing B&A users,same old spiel,same old tired out rhethoric. There is nothing more pointless than than debating with the closed mind brigade. I agree,you should learn to listen to other peoples points of view instead of blindly following your political beliefs, perhaps if you did then, you would not be going Saturday, just a thought
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Jul 1, 2010 9:37:02 GMT 1
I don't have the years of old Jamo, so I can't claim to have been there and done that in the '70s, but my memories of the miners strike, the BL walkouts and the winter of discontent are, albeit a little fuzzy, still with me.
There is nothing wrong in my mind with industrial action, work to rules, strikes or picket lines, but the fact that you're on strike doesn't give you the right to stop other people from working and that is just what flying pickets were doing. Many people had good employers back then, that would try to ensure that the worker were well paid and well treated and although there were some less than scrupulous bosses that only looked at the bottom line and screw the workers, these were IMO less prevalent than they are today. The only problems I can see is that back then there were strong unions that worked for the workers and got good pay rises, better conditions, less hours etc, there were also closed shops and if you went against the union, you'd had it as far they were concerned.
Thanks to people like Red Robbo and Arthur Scargill refusing to reach a compromise (and I totally agree that the bosses and the Thatcher govt. also refused to meet halfway and are equally if not more to blame) that led to stricter union laws and has now reduced the majority of companies to reject unions completely unless they are forced by ever more complicated and rigorous rules, therefore the unions in most companies are nothing more than an irritation.
Stricter laws were passed to stop flying pickets and Tomlinson and Warren were one of the many catalysts that led to this law change. If they'd stayed on Merseyside and kept out of the courts there would probably have not been any need for them to go to jail. They were made an example of and that's unfortunate, but if it hadn't been them it would have been someone else and that someone else probably wouldn't have become a successful actor and this would have just gone away.
IMO intransigence on both sides has led to weaker unions and therefore weaker workers with a few like the transport unions being able to dictate terms, but even their hand is weaker now, because of picketing and strike laws.
Back on thread, I believe that if Tomlinson were to give an honest and unconditional apology to the worker that was injured by the actions of those in his (nominal) control, he would have the greater backing of more people now.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Jul 1, 2010 12:58:33 GMT 1
Stricter laws were passed to stop flying pickets and Tomlinson and Warren were one of the many catalysts that led to this law change. If they'd stayed on Merseyside and kept out of the courts there would probably have not been any need for them to go to jail. They were made an example of and that's unfortunate, but if it hadn't been them it would have been someone else and that someone else probably wouldn't have become a successful actor and this would have just gone away. I don't remember Dessie Warren leaving jail and following a successful acting career ? He died a broken man as a direct result of his treatment. Also, who of the 24 targetted men were convicted of assault or any other violent act ? People keep banging on about Tomlinson being the instigator of, or participant in an act of violence that resulted in someone being hurt but they cannot ever point to the evidence to back this up. Yes, there were some unsavoury episodes to that dispute but the fact remains that 24 people were convicted unfairly and at the (in) direct hands of a governemnt that manipulated the judicial process for politcal reasons. That's why people will always campaign to have the sentences overturned.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Jul 2, 2010 10:27:16 GMT 1
Whilst I agree in principle that Warren and Tomlinson may have been convicted in dubious circumstances, the fact still stands that Tomlinson had the opportunity to apologise to the injured man and by all accounts appeared to decline to do so, therefore condoning the actions of the actual perpetrator.
The fact also remains that flying pickets used bullying tactics to intimidate people that just wanted to go to work and provide for their families, Warren and Tomlinson helped to organise these people and are in my opinion at least partially culpable for any injuries sustained.
Jamo, are you really saying that it is right for one man to stop another from supporting his family? Also is it right to use, encourage or condone violence to do so?
I hope that you can answer no to both of these questions, as I believe you to be a man of principles, but your answers would go a long way to either proving or disproving my as sumption.
|
|
|
Post by monkee on Jul 2, 2010 10:45:58 GMT 1
Whilst I agree in principle that Warren and Tomlinson may have been convicted in dubious circumstances, the fact still stands that Tomlinson had the opportunity to apologise to the injured man and by all accounts appeared to decline to do so, therefore condoning the actions of the actual perpetrator. The fact also remains that flying pickets used bullying tactics to intimidate people that just wanted to go to work and provide for their families, Warren and Tomlinson helped to organise these people and are in my opinion at least partially culpable for any injuries sustained. Jamo, are you really saying that it is right for one man to stop another from supporting his family? Also is it right to use, encourage or condone violence to do so? I hope that you can answer no to both of these questions, as I believe you to be a man of principles, but your answers would go a long way to either proving or disproving my as sumption. why would someone apologise after a dubious conviction?
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Jul 2, 2010 10:49:30 GMT 1
Jamo, are you really saying that it is right for one man to stop another from supporting his family? Also is it right to use, encourage or condone violence to do so? No. I am not saying that at all. So called flying picketing is and was wrong in my opinion but the facts are that in the 70's it was not illegal, therefore the building workers were perfectly entitled to practice it as they saw fit. I never condone violence either.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Jul 2, 2010 10:51:24 GMT 1
why would someone apologise after a dubious conviction? Because it was the actions of people brought together by Warren and Tomlinson that caused the injury. If I got a bunch of thugs together to stop you from going to work and then walked away, while they beat the living daylights out of you, would I not be somewhat culpable?
|
|
|
Post by Dont believe the HYPE on Jul 2, 2010 10:52:42 GMT 1
Jamo, are you really saying that it is right for one man to stop another from supporting his family? Also is it right to use, encourage or condone violence to do so? No. I am not saying that at all. So called flying picketing is and was wrong in my opinion but the facts are that in the 70's it was not illegal, therefore the building workers were perfectly entitled to practice it as they saw fit. I never condone violence either. The flying pickets were wrong, the violence they used was wrong you have already stated you have full trust in the British legal system,who have found these men guilty at every level of appeal. Remind me what your marching for?
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Jul 2, 2010 10:53:09 GMT 1
No. I am not saying that at all. So called flying picketing is and was wrong in my opinion but the facts are that in the 70's it was not illegal, therefore the building workers were perfectly entitled to practice it as they saw fit. I never condone violence either. Maybe flying pickets were legal, but morally they stank.
|
|
|
Post by monkee on Jul 2, 2010 10:53:58 GMT 1
why would someone apologise after a dubious conviction? Because it was the actions of people brought together by Warren and Tomlinson that caused the injury. If I got a bunch of thugs together to stop you from going to work and then walked away, while they beat the living daylights out of you, would I not be somewhat culpable? if the conviction was a dubious one, how do you know that is what happened?
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Jul 2, 2010 11:15:57 GMT 1
Because it was the actions of people brought together by Warren and Tomlinson that caused the injury. If I got a bunch of thugs together to stop you from going to work and then walked away, while they beat the living daylights out of you, would I not be somewhat culpable? if the conviction was a dubious one, how do you know that is what happened? www.building.co.uk/comment/the-truth-about-ricky/3031867.articleThere are usually at least two side to every story, but most of the stories tend to portray Warren and Tomlinson as peaceful men trying to get the best for others in their industry. Nice to look at it from other side. If you are capable of being objective it is worth a read. As I said earlier the convictions MAY have been dubious, but there has not even been a hint of regret or sympathy about what occured that day from Tomlinson.
|
|
|
Post by monkee on Jul 2, 2010 12:35:11 GMT 1
if the conviction was a dubious one, how do you know that is what happened? www.building.co.uk/comment/the-truth-about-ricky/3031867.articleThere are usually at least two side to every story, but most of the stories tend to portray Warren and Tomlinson as peaceful men trying to get the best for others in their industry. Nice to look at it from other side. If you are capable of being objective it is worth a read. As I said earlier the convictions MAY have been dubious, but there has not even been a hint of regret or sympathy about what occured that day from Tomlinson. MORE THAN CApable of being objective, thats why i havent offered an opinion, just asked questions. I would question the objectivity of the link you gave me as it came from a contractor who is obviously very bitter. all it seems to suggest is that tomlinson told the contractor to eff off, nothing about the alledged offence. people who believe themselves to be innocent are not going to apologise as it is taken and used as an admission of guilt. thats something people tell you if you get involved in a car crash, never say sorry as it implies guilt.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Jul 2, 2010 13:20:51 GMT 1
Sorry you feel that way, but I don't feel guilty about how you feel. An expression of regret or sympathy does not imply guilt. One day a friends or neighbours cat will die of natural causes and I hope you can bring yourself to express sorrow and sympathy without feeling or appearing guilty.
We could go in circles for days on this, but quite frankly I can't be bothered, as you are being totally intractable. A curse of the far left I'm afraid as well as the far right.
|
|
|
Post by monkee on Jul 2, 2010 13:28:59 GMT 1
Sorry you feel that way, but I don't feel guilty about how you feel. An expression of regret or sympathy does not imply guilt. One day a friends or neighbours cat will die of natural causes and I hope you can bring yourself to express sorrow and sympathy without feeling or appearing guilty. We could go in circles for days on this, but quite frankly I can't be bothered, as you are being totally intractable. A curse of the far left I'm afraid as well as the far right. if me asking a few questions makes you walk away from the table, your argument must be pretty weak. Bringing next doors cat into it shows you either dont understand the point being made, or you do and you are trying to muddy the water. you know i was talking about a legal context, not a social one. you obviously dont understand the nature of the media in this country. they regularly ask people for apologies so they can blame somebody. as we are talking about a legal matter, apologising would be the stupidest thing he could possibly do.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Jul 2, 2010 13:39:57 GMT 1
Would the phrase ''Although I was in no way involved with the attack on Mr Grocott, I was one of those involved in encouraging other similar tradespeople to join the union that I was involved in. The fact that Mr Grocott was injured during disagreements with some other members of my party is a great regret of mine and I wish to apologise for any part that I may have inadvertantly played in this incident'', be an admission of guilt?
|
|
|
Post by Dont believe the HYPE on Jul 2, 2010 13:43:45 GMT 1
Sorry you feel that way, but I don't feel guilty about how you feel. An expression of regret or sympathy does not imply guilt. One day a friends or neighbours cat will die of natural causes and I hope you can bring yourself to express sorrow and sympathy without feeling or appearing guilty. We could go in circles for days on this, but quite frankly I can't be bothered, as you are being totally intractable. A curse of the far left I'm afraid as well as the far right. if me asking a few questions makes you walk away from the table, your argument must be pretty weak. Bringing next doors cat into it shows you either dont understand the point being made, or you do and you are trying to muddy the water. you know i was talking about a legal context, not a social one. you obviously dont understand the nature of the media in this country. they regularly ask people for apologies so they can blame somebody. as we are talking about a legal matter, apologising would be the stupidest thing he could possibly do. In your opinion was Thomilson guilty of any crime, or was it all a conspiracy? I suggest that you have no idea, yet a court of law with all the facts present has found him guilty, in my eyes end of story. He is nothing more than a thug who orchestrated violence against the very people he was meant to be representing, hero my arse!
|
|
|
Post by monkee on Jul 2, 2010 13:51:35 GMT 1
if me asking a few questions makes you walk away from the table, your argument must be pretty weak. Bringing next doors cat into it shows you either dont understand the point being made, or you do and you are trying to muddy the water. you know i was talking about a legal context, not a social one. you obviously dont understand the nature of the media in this country. they regularly ask people for apologies so they can blame somebody. as we are talking about a legal matter, apologising would be the stupidest thing he could possibly do. In your opinion was Thomilson guilty of any crime, or was it all a conspiracy? I suggest that you have no idea, yet a court of law with all the facts present has found him guilty, in my eyes end of story. He is nothing more than a thug who orchestrated violence against the very people he was meant to be representing, hero my arse! I have as much idea as you do, but i accept that courts get it wrong, the police make mistakes and sometimes even fabricate evidence. the birmingham six and the guildford 4 were high profile cases that were overturned that also happened in the same era. they were convicted by a court, the same as Tomlinson but that was a miscarriage of justice. we also had the west mids serious crime bods who were less than pure. i am not saying he is innocent, never said that, i just have an open mind, i suggest you try it
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Jul 2, 2010 13:58:29 GMT 1
In your opinion was Thomilson guilty of any crime, or was it all a conspiracy? I suggest that you have no idea, yet a court of law with all the facts present has found him guilty, in my eyes end of story. I think the main problem is the fact that he wasn't found guilty, but pleaded guilty on the understanding that he would be treated leniently. The judge at the time decided not to treat him and Warren leniently and because of that he does have some argument, but without seeing all the facts we can only speculate on what did actualy happen. Just reread a couple of your posts monkee and in one you stated that the link I found was by a non objective and bitter contractor, please find me a truly unbiased report and I'll happily have a look and I might even be persuaded to see your point of view, but in the meantime I'll try to look at both sides of the argument and take what I can from both sides. There was wrongdoing on both sides, but as far as I'm aware two wrongs have never made a right.
|
|
|
Post by monkee on Jul 2, 2010 14:06:04 GMT 1
In your opinion was Thomilson guilty of any crime, or was it all a conspiracy? I suggest that you have no idea, yet a court of law with all the facts present has found him guilty, in my eyes end of story. I think the main problem is the fact that he wasn't found guilty, but pleaded guilty on the understanding that he would be treated leniently. The judge at the time decided not to treat him and Warren leniently and because of that he does have some argument, but without seeing all the facts we can only speculate on what did actualy happen. Just reread a couple of your posts monkee and in one you stated that the link I found was by a non objective and bitter contractor, please find me a truly unbiased report and I'll happily have a look and I might even be persuaded to see your point of view, but in the meantime I'll try to look at both sides of the argument and take what I can from both sides. I dont really have a point of view on this, actually sounds like we are both adopting a position in the middle. The problem is, as you say, there isnt a non biased view on this, all the parties seem to have some sort of vested interest, so it comes down to what you choose to believe. the only reason i got involved is that i think it is unlikely that any sort of remorse will be seen, his solicitors will be telling him not to.
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Jul 2, 2010 14:12:27 GMT 1
I dont really have a point of view on this, actually sounds like we are both adopting a position in the middle. The problem is, as you say, there isnt a non biased view on this, all the parties seem to have some sort of vested interest, so it comes down to what you choose to believe. the only reason i got involved is that i think it is unlikely that any sort of remorse will be seen, his solicitors will be telling him not to. Maybe his conscience will over ride his solicitors advice one day.
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Jul 2, 2010 16:26:17 GMT 1
I suggest that you have no idea, yet a court of law with all the facts present has found him guilty, in my eyes end of story. ! Colin Stag, Angela Cannings, Sally Clark, Derek Bently, Stephen Downing, Stefan Klisko, The Cardiff 3, Guildford 4, Birmingham 6. etc etc etc...... All convicted by courts of law that have been presented with all the facts...end of story. But of course it wasn't. Good job the legal system of this country doesn't rely on your eyes!
|
|
|
Post by Dont believe the HYPE on Jul 3, 2010 18:18:15 GMT 1
How many of the great unwashed were there today?
|
|
|
Post by heavenlyshrew on Jul 3, 2010 18:27:05 GMT 1
How many of the great unwashed were there today? I seen jamo getting filmed by midlands today.That disguise did the trick jamo i had to look twice to see it was you
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Jul 4, 2010 17:51:00 GMT 1
img205.imageshack.us/img205/7313/demo027.jpgThe workers champion addresses the masses What a fantastic day, wonderful attendance from all over the country and great speeches by the two keynote attendees. Great to se so many from B& A there as well ( we may need to set up our own socialist sub board at this rate) good to put some faces to names. Next year, bigger and better
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Jul 4, 2010 20:11:18 GMT 1
Great speech from Bob Crow and enjoyed the other speeches as well.
I fear we could again see workers criminalised for exercising their trade union rights as people resist the unfair austerity measures the Con Dems intend to inflict on us.
|
|