BoxRec

Take a look at these pictures.





This is whats left of a thriving mining village where I grew up as a kid. Like another poster has mentioned these pits were taking millions of pounds of coal each year and were closed with millions left to mine. The government closed the mines and bought coal from Europe which was cheaper.

These mines (Yorkshire Main Edlington) was the backbone of the village and I would say the biggest employer in the village at the time. Families depended on this income. When the strike happened it tore communities to pieces men had to cross picket lines to feed their starving kids, these men were abused and beaten up, their kids were too and wives ignored and spit upon.

Police were loving it, my uncle told me he was on a picket and the coppers were eating pack lunches and egging them on for a fight, talking about holidays and cars that they were going to buy with all the overtime they could get.

When the mines were closed the villages died, they could not recover. The mines did not close because there was no coal in them, they were closed because coal was shipped in cheaper from elsewhere. Men lost their lives, men committed suicide men were murdered. Houses were burned down. This strike went on for about a year I think so we are not talking about 1 or 2 weeks. Families suffered. The tories did not care and down 'Sarf' they did not care either.

dookus wrote: The rest of the country was financially propping the mines up. Perhaps if we hadn't had both sides butting heads trying to smash the other whatever the consequences (Scargill refusing to hold a ballot and sending his flying pickets around the country; Thatcher sending in the police and stocking up on coal for a strike she knew was coming, before shutting down every single unprofitable mine) a compromise could've been reached and most of the jobs would still be in existence. But the idea that if it weren't for Thatcher everything would have carried on hunky-dory is as unrealistic as the idea that she brought prosperity to the whole country.

That's not really true at all.

Though the mines were profitable, they couldn't compete with coal from Poland. Not a surprise is it.

The UK is one of the few countries in the world where industry and communities are linked. For example, the reason Burnley exists is because of the cotton industry. Now there is no cotton mills - Burnley is dying as we speak.

Now - if I was to bring Thatcherism to your life, I would bring in a fellow from Indonesia, pay him 2 pound an hour, and he would do a better job than you and for more hours but you would scream murder if someone did that to you.

The 'Polish Plumber' was Thatcherism in action - but everyone thought it was a bloody disgrace.

You destroy industry and replace it with nothing. You get what we are getting now.

dondada wrote:

chad wrote:Would it still be suitable if we where talking about the passing of Michael Norgrove?

Please indulge me and explain the parallel.

What is to explain? I think it's pretty clear what I'm suggesting. In fact I've already clarified my comments about 20 posts ago.

How long would the same poll about the passing of a boxer last on the site? I'm guessing not long as it would not be suitable. That's what makes the current poll, and its existence here even more puzzling. I just can't see how "The death of Maggie poll" fits in with boxing or how polling site members on their happiness that someone has passed away fits in with Boxrec in general. As soon as this type of thing is allowed into the boxing area of the forums once, you're going to invite all sorts of off topic debate.

It's not the debate element that I have an issue with, it's the fact we have a poll on the matter. There is already a thread dedicated to this in the off topic section:

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... 6&start=25

Fat Git wrote: That's not really true at all.

Though the mines were profitable, they couldn't compete with coal from Poland. Not a surprise is it.

In general, no they weren't. There would have been no reason to subsidise the crap out of them if they were profitable. British Coal, owned by the taxpayer, was losing hundreds of millions of pounds a year.

Fat Git wrote:The UK is one of the few countries in the world where industry and communities are linked. For example, the reason Burnley exists is because of the cotton industry. Now there is no cotton mills - Burnley is dying as we speak.

One of the few?! Pretty much ANYWHERE in the world where there is heavy industry it is linked to the community.

Fat Git wrote:Now - if I was to bring Thatcherism to your life, I would bring in a fellow from Indonesia, pay him 2 pound an hour, and he would do a better job than you and for more hours but you would scream murder if someone did that to you.

The 'Polish Plumber' was Thatcherism in action - but everyone thought it was a bloody disgrace.

No it wasn't, it's a central tenet of EU law that EU nationals are allowed to move around member nations freely. If you think leaving the EU to get around this would be a way of avoiding wages being cut, that's another argument. But now that capital and information are so easy to move around, it's pretty hard to escape basic economics - that someone who can do what you can do for less money and under worse conditions is going to get your work unless there some aspect you can do better. We've been having our arses kicked in this respect since at least the 70s by the Far East because of this. Thatcher did not create globalism, and trying to pretend it didn't exist by borrowing massive amounts of money to cushion those who would otherwise lose money because of it nearly led to our going bankrupt in the 70s.

Fat Git wrote:You destroy industry and replace it with nothing. You get what we are getting now.

Absolutely. It should have done far more intelligently and with a view to what was going to replace it apart from soul-crushing poverty.

Destroyed the North East and put us back 20 years, but RIP anyways you evil vile bitch

macaca wrote:Destroyed the North East and put us back 20 years, but RIP anyways you evil vile bitch

I grew up in Sunderland mate and it's safe to say, that she did nowt for our place.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

macaca wrote:Destroyed the North East and put us back 20 years, but RIP anyways you evil vile bitch

I grew up in Sunderland mate and it's safe to say, that she did nowt for our place.

Snap, Thorney Close, she fucked us up proper, the milk stealing manzed

dookus wrote:
In general, no they weren't. There would have been no reason to subsidise the crap out of them if they were profitable. British Coal, owned by the taxpayer, was losing hundreds of millions of pounds a year.

Well, according to many reports, they were, and the taxpayer is bailing out banks every 5 minutes, when do we let them shut down?

One of the few?! Pretty much ANYWHERE in the world where there is heavy industry it is linked to the community.

Do you know anything about this?

In China - for example - a city in the textile belt in Jiangsu - that town has always existed, they build a factory there and some of the people stop farming and become textile workers. Take away the textile factories, that town isn't going to die off, people will stay there and go back to what they did before, and certainly nobody is going to migrate there.

Now, because this is where the industrial revolution started, towns were built around industry
take Burnley for example, before the industrial revolution, the population was 1500 - 200 years
later - the population was 110000, that is because people flocked from all over the country
to work there. So if you take the industry away, you kill the town. In very few countries, that happened - the Soviets did it - built towns in Siberia where they made a certain product - and guess what? The town died when they stopped making the product. The UK, the Soviet Union - I can't think of many others to be honest.

No it wasn't, it's a central tenet of EU law that EU nationals are allowed to move around member nations freely. If you think leaving the EU to get around this would be a way of avoiding wages being cut, that's another argument. But now that capital and information are so easy to move around, it's pretty hard to escape basic economics - that someone who can do what you can do for less money and under worse conditions is going to get your work unless there some aspect you can do better. We've been having our arses kicked in this respect since at least the 70s by the Far East because of this. Thatcher did not create globalism, and trying to pretend it didn't exist by borrowing massive amounts of money to cushion those who would otherwise lose money because of it nearly led to our going bankrupt in the 70s.

She got the cheapest product and sold the 'family silver' that isn't competing with the Far East, shutting down and selling off ALL your industry to buy their shite. That was the plan was it? Buy coal from the Colombians who paid their child miners 15p an hour? Short term economic exploitation which has now got us a country with dire social problems, we make nothing, expensive housing and people can't get on the housing ladder, communities in terminal decline - well done Maggie!

Fat Git wrote:You destroy industry and replace it with nothing. You get what we are getting now.

Absolutely. It should have done far more intelligently and with a view to what was going to replace it apart from soul-crushing poverty.[/quote]

We agree on this one.

Fat Git wrote:

dookus wrote:
In general, no they weren't. There would have been no reason to subsidise the crap out of them if they were profitable. British Coal, owned by the taxpayer, was losing hundreds of millions of pounds a year.

Well, according to many reports, they were, and the taxpayer is bailing out banks every 5 minutes, when do we let them shut down?

I'd like to see these many reports. If they were profitable, why did they rely so heavily on state support to stay afloat?

Of course, we should be letting unprofitable banks shut down, but a little something called 'the systemic failure of the banking system' tends to make governments wary of doing things that inadvertantly end up so that nobody can get paid. Poncey's made a good post about this over in the Off-Topic forum on Brown's 1997 deregulation and how it led to our being held hostage by the financial sector.

Do you know anything about this?

In China - for example - a city in the textile belt in Jiangsu - that town has always existed, they build a factory there and some of the people stop farming and become textile workers. Take away the textile factories, that town isn't going to die off, people will stay there and go back to what they did before, and certainly nobody is going to migrate there.

Now, because this is where the industrial revolution started, towns were built around industry
take Burnley for example, before the industrial revolution, the population was 1500 - 200 years
later - the population was 110000, that is because people flocked from all over the country
to work there. So if you take the industry away, you kill the town. In very few countries, that happened - the Soviets did it - built towns in Siberia where they made a certain product - and guess what? The town died when they stopped making the product. The UK, the Soviet Union - I can't think of many others to be honest.

Most of our industrial cities started out extremely small and grew up quickly because of the growth of industry, but there are plenty of decent-sized towns here that the Industrial Revolution didn't dominate (for example, Norwich and York) and as such have remained in decent prospects despite their own industries dwindling. Leeds is a good example of an industrial town that has managed to reinvent itself since deindustrialisation rather than dying on its arse as soon the industry disappeared. In any case, you could say the same in terms of spectacular population growth and dependence on industry for the majority of industrial cities worldwide - the fact that the Industrial Revolution happened here first doesn't make our circumstances unique.

The phenomena of 'company towns' has also happened all over the US (mostly in the 'rust belt'), and this is affecting the north of Japan as their heavy industries start to lose their mass employment of the last few decades. Anywhere that you have a dominant employer that pulls out of a relatively small community, the same situation occurs - this is not something that is unique to the UK. As for Chinese cities that are growing massively because of an influx of workers to fill these new industries there - how do we know what they'd do if the industries disappeared tomorrow? They've yet to deindustrialise. The idea that if all of their major factories pulled out they'd all just go back to tilling the rice paddies in their millions seems pretty unrealistic to me.

No it wasn't, it's a central tenet of EU law that EU nationals are allowed to move around member nations freely. If you think leaving the EU to get around this would be a way of avoiding wages being cut, that's another argument. But now that capital and information are so easy to move around, it's pretty hard to escape basic economics - that someone who can do what you can do for less money and under worse conditions is going to get your work unless there some aspect you can do better. We've been having our arses kicked in this respect since at least the 70s by the Far East because of this. Thatcher did not create globalism, and trying to pretend it didn't exist by borrowing massive amounts of money to cushion those who would otherwise lose money because of it nearly led to our going bankrupt in the 70s.

Fat Git wrote:She got the cheapest product and sold the 'family silver' that isn't competing with the Far East, shutting down and selling off ALL your industry to buy their shite. That was the plan was it? Buy coal from the Colombians who paid their child miners 15p an hour? Short term economic exploitation which has now got us a country with dire social problems, we make nothing, expensive housing and people can't get on the housing ladder, communities in terminal decline - well done Maggie!

It's a more sustainable plan than losing hundreds of millions pounds a year to prop up an industry that would not reform. It's a considerably less sustainable plan than trying to reform the industry without the aid of jackbooted policemen. I would argue that a country with a less inset culture of naked self-interest would have reached a more sensible compromise and closed the pits far less abruptly, perhaps even have made them profitable without the loss of tens of thousands of jobs (see, for example, how the Germans went from regularly having 9-10% unemployment through the 90s and early 2000s to their current massive exporter status; their unions agreed to wage freezes for the best part of a decade, something I cannot imagine Scargill's contemporaries ever agreeing to).
But that's what a rabid class war will do for the idea of co-operation.

As for us 'making nothing'; we still export half a trillion dollars worth of goods a year. Manufacturing still makes up a good 17% of GDP (more than, say, France, which subsidises a great deal of their industry). We're not finished yet on that front, not by a long shot. If we had continued to run industry the way we did in the 1970s, there really would be nothing left by now.

Callowland wrote:Which ironically the Labour Party allowed.

A new Labour much more akin to Conservatism than traditional Labour. They betrayed their voters time and again.

chad wrote:What is to explain? I think it's pretty clear what I'm suggesting. In fact I've already clarified my comments about 20 posts ago.

How long would the same poll about the passing of a boxer last on the site? I'm guessing not long as it would not be suitable. That's what makes the current poll, and its existence here even more puzzling. I just can't see how "The death of Maggie poll" fits in with boxing or how polling site members on their happiness that someone has passed away fits in with Boxrec in general. As soon as this type of thing is allowed into the boxing area of the forums once, you're going to invite all sorts of off topic debate.

It's not the debate element that I have an issue with, it's the fact we have a poll on the matter. There is already a thread dedicated to this in the off topiceffective.
http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... 6&start=25

Perhaps it's in this section because lots of people read and post here and not elsewhere. I rarely go into the OT section. Regardless, you need to spend less time worrying about how the site is run or how promptly news stories are added to the site. There's a report option for the former though which will be far more effective. The parallel you draw is both ludicrous and distasteful.

dookus wrote:We certainly did. The difference is that had we not done so, the financial system would have collapsed within days (and then nobody would be getting paid, whatever industry you worked in); such is the insidious influence of the financial system (way out of proportion to its actual importance) on everything else. And Labour spent 13 years in power not reversing this but extending it!

Agreed on most of this. But the indulgent way it was handled was at the polar opposite of the way heavy industry was dealt with. They were ultra kind to criminals and incompetent millionaires yet smashed whole communities in the other instance.

dondada wrote:

Callowland wrote:Which ironically the Labour Party allowed.

A new Labour much more akin to Conservatism than traditional Labour. They betrayed their voters time and again.

Absolutely true. If a similar poll is conducted for Anthony Charles Lynton Blair upon his death, I think most people will find they loved Maggie more than they thought.

I personally have no feelings either way on her death.

this is my fave reason someone said they are glad maggie is dead

my dad couldn't stand her so that was good enough for me...

Hagler2002 wrote:

just about sums it up

macaca wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

macaca wrote:Destroyed the North East and put us back 20 years, but RIP anyways you evil vile bitch

I grew up in Sunderland mate and it's safe to say, that she did nowt for our place.

Snap, Thorney Close, she fucked us up proper, the milk stealing manzed

I went to Thorney Close juniors in the late 70's.

dondada wrote:

chad wrote:What is to explain? I think it's pretty clear what I'm suggesting. In fact I've already clarified my comments about 20 posts ago.

How long would the same poll about the passing of a boxer last on the site? I'm guessing not long as it would not be suitable. That's what makes the current poll, and its existence here even more puzzling. I just can't see how "The death of Maggie poll" fits in with boxing or how polling site members on their happiness that someone has passed away fits in with Boxrec in general. As soon as this type of thing is allowed into the boxing area of the forums once, you're going to invite all sorts of off topic debate.

It's not the debate element that I have an issue with, it's the fact we have a poll on the matter. There is already a thread dedicated to this in the off topiceffective.
http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... 6&start=25

Perhaps it's in this section because lots of people read and post here and not elsewhere. I rarely go into the OT section. Regardless, you need to spend less time worrying about how the site is run or how promptly news stories are added to the site. There's a report option for the former though which will be far more effective. The parallel you draw is both ludicrous and distasteful.

That's exactly why I put it here, I never go onto any other topic thread apart from 'Boxers of the Past' maybe once or twice a year.

Also this thread has more words in it now than possibly any thread on the 'British and Irish' section. That's is the reason I put it here, also I understand that it could open the floodgates with daft topics popping up but that's for the MODS to either remove and give a warning to the 'op' and for us to ignore it.

We aren't just talking about a daft topic here, this is the most talked about topic in the last 24 hours all over the UK

dondada wrote:

dookus wrote:We certainly did. The difference is that had we not done so, the financial system would have collapsed within days (and then nobody would be getting paid, whatever industry you worked in); such is the insidious influence of the financial system (way out of proportion to its actual importance) on everything else. And Labour spent 13 years in power not reversing this but extending it!

Agreed on most of this. But the indulgent way it was handled was at the polar opposite of the way heavy industry was dealt with. They were ultra kind to criminals and incompetent millionaires yet smashed whole communities in the other instance.

Absolutely. It would have been nice to to see a leader with Thatcher's ruthlessness deal with the banks in 2008 and a different leader with more of an ability to plan ahead deal with the questions of the mines and what was to replace mining in 1984.

G0mez wrote:She caused all sorts of misery in the area I grew up. Obviously the middle class and privately educated won't have felt the wrath of her actions and won't agree. Nor will the immigrants who landed 5 minutes ago.

I remember my mum gave some of the neighbour's kids some selection boxes one Christmas during the miners strike, and in later years the lad told me that is all they ate on Xmas day.

Those who broke and went back to work, were outcast by their own brothers in our pit village. Kids fighting in the playground, houses that were unlit at night along our street because they didn't put money in their electric meter.

The whole "carbon footprint" was her argument for her to shut down these "dirty coal mines" and develop nuclear power stations instead. Now it's been adopted at yet another way to tax the eff out of us and the companies that we work for.

Then she created the current benefits system, in particular "incapacity" benefit, which led to millions of scroungers feigning bad backs and other ailments to get a free payout, a free car and reduced living costs.

Spot on, same in my area. Scabs are STILL treated as such by ex-miners. As you say the middle classes loved her, because she left them alone and targetted the poor

Chambers2 wrote:

G0mez wrote:She caused all sorts of misery in the area I grew up. Obviously the middle class and privately educated won't have felt the wrath of her actions and won't agree. Nor will the immigrants who landed 5 minutes ago.

I remember my mum gave some of the neighbour's kids some selection boxes one Christmas during the miners strike, and in later years the lad told me that is all they ate on Xmas day.

Those who broke and went back to work, were outcast by their own brothers in our pit village. Kids fighting in the playground, houses that were unlit at night along our street because they didn't put money in their electric meter.

The whole "carbon footprint" was her argument for her to shut down these "dirty coal mines" and develop nuclear power stations instead. Now it's been adopted at yet another way to tax the eff out of us and the companies that we work for.

Then she created the current benefits system, in particular "incapacity" benefit, which led to millions of scroungers feigning bad backs and other ailments to get a free payout, a free car and reduced living costs.

Spot on, same in my area. Scabs are STILL treated as such by ex-miners. As you say the middle classes loved her, because she left them alone and targetted the poor

The stigma of being a scab, or having a scab in the family over 25 years ago still is raw and still families do not talk. All those friends that grew up together and went to the mine together and now do not speak even after all these years.

Yorkshire people are different to Southerners, and I do not mean this to be detrimental but Yorkshire folk have principles. They come from homes where they said 'you could leave your front door unlocked at night' You could not do that in London?

I'm not old enough really to comment on the impact she had or her legacy, but from what little I do know about her I believe she was passionate about Britain and being British, and she definitely had a backbone. As someone said earlier on here it would have been interesting to see what such a PM would have done with the bankers.

Mensa07 wrote:I'm not old enough really to comment on the impact she had or her legacy, but from what little I do know about her I believe she was passionate about Britain and being British, and she definitely had a backbone. As someone said earlier on here it would have been interesting to see what such a PM would have done with the bankers.

passionate about Britain and being British

If that was the case she would have made a deal to keep the coal coming up rather than buying from aboard. The cost of the strike outnumbered the cost of the coal from Poland

mimmy123 wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:

G0mez wrote:She caused all sorts of misery in the area I grew up. Obviously the middle class and privately educated won't have felt the wrath of her actions and won't agree. Nor will the immigrants who landed 5 minutes ago.

I remember my mum gave some of the neighbour's kids some selection boxes one Christmas during the miners strike, and in later years the lad told me that is all they ate on Xmas day.

Those who broke and went back to work, were outcast by their own brothers in our pit village. Kids fighting in the playground, houses that were unlit at night along our street because they didn't put money in their electric meter.

The whole "carbon footprint" was her argument for her to shut down these "dirty coal mines" and develop nuclear power stations instead. Now it's been adopted at yet another way to tax the eff out of us and the companies that we work for.

Then she created the current benefits system, in particular "incapacity" benefit, which led to millions of scroungers feigning bad backs and other ailments to get a free payout, a free car and reduced living costs.

Spot on, same in my area. Scabs are STILL treated as such by ex-miners. As you say the middle classes loved her, because she left them alone and targetted the poor

The stigma of being a scab, or having a scab in the family over 25 years ago still is raw and still families do not talk. All those friends that grew up together and went to the mine together and now do not speak even after all these years.

Yorkshire people are different to Southerners, and I do not mean this to be detrimental but Yorkshire folk have principles. They come from homes where they said 'you could leave your front door unlocked at night' You could not do that in London?

Don't turn this into a north south divide argument too say that Yorkshire folk have principles and southerners don't is moronic. I have spent half my life up north and half down south I work allover Britain people are people trust me. Most have a moral code but you get scabs everywhere in all walks of life . Up until the late 60's you could leave your door open anywhere.
I know Maggie was a pudendum with an agenda you don't have to have been a Yorkshire miner to have suffered under Thatcher .We are all still feeling the effects now.

[/quote]

Don't turn this into a north south divide argument too say that Yorkshire folk have principles and southerners don't is moronic. I have spent half my life up north and half down south I work allover Britain people are people trust me. Most have a moral code but you get scabs everywhere in all walks of life . Up until the late 60's you could leave your door open anywhere.
I know Maggie was a pudendum with an agenda you don't have to have been a Yorkshire miner to have suffered under Thatcher .We are all still feeling the effects now.[/quote]

Up until the late 60s people had a lot more respect, greater personal values and fear of authorities and punishments .... now ......... well

There is a 100% legit case to talk about a North South divide since it is completely relevant to this thread on many levels