This Is For The Poor *
A wonderful and merry May Day to one and all. This is the day when we not only celebrate our past labour victories but one in which we demand our rights. And, here in Britain, we, or some of us, demand the repeal of ALL the old Tory and now new Labour, anti-union laws. The unions certainly do need governed, but this is and should be done by their own rule books.
SOLIDARITY forever sisters and brothers! And thanks to the Sydney branch of the Communist Party of Australia for the graphic.
* The Others - a song which sparked a really annoying, irritating and embarrasing article in the Guardian guide last weekend (or was it the previous week?). I may revisit this issue at a later date, if I can be bothered.
posted by Reidski @ 6:09 pm
13 Comments:
"The unions certainly do need [to be] governed, but this is and should be done by their own rule books."
Am I right, therefor, to assume that the law of the land passed by a democratically elected parliament is never to have any sway over a union?
Just asking for clarification purposes.
For clarification, the point is that there should not be any laws to govern how or why a union conducts its business unless it is a criminal act. So, of course the laws which are passed by our democratically elected government hold sway, but some of those laws are an ass and should be repealed.
Forgive me, I'm confused - yet again!
You write that wih the exception of the criminal law ".. there should not be any laws to govern how or why a union conducts its business." Then you state that ".. *some* of those [existing] laws are an ass and should be repealed", (my emphasis). The second contradicts the first. Either they *all* go, or, we stick to the status quo in which parliament can interfere as it sees fit. Which is it?
If your response is that no law (except criminal law) can ever interfere in the activities of a trade union, then does the same hold good for corporations, and if not, why not?
Because I say so! Now, fuck off! You're so boring, it's unbelievable.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Thank you. I think you have, albeit inadvertantly, answered my question.
Looks like you have a new prat as a reader. Pseudo intellectual tory scumfuck. Where the fuck do they get off thinking you might want to debate with them?
Exactly.
While I am always open to an argument, this one just wound me up.
I know how much you value truth on this site, so just for the record, Jim, I am not an intellectual, pseudo or otherwise, not am I a Tory, and nor was I looking for a "debate". I was simply asking some questions to clarify precisely the nature of Reidski's apparent contradictions.
But, as always, your colouful prose style says more about you than me.
Tee hee! What a laugh! Anyone who uses the phrase "Alas, dear reader" in their blog is immediately suspect, in my view. Though I am willing to debate it, of course, without resorting to colourful language. No, I take that back. The Big Blowdown: The Site That Values the Truth!
Alas, dear Messalina (ooops!), you are probably right, but suspected of what precisely?
Messalina, If he's not as he claims, then the downright rude intrusion into reidski's blog is simply a ruse to attract visitors to his own pitiful effort and you fell for it. If the quality of drivel he's entered here in the past couple of days is remotely echoed in his own blog it must be a barrel of kak. As always my colourful prose style works for me.
No, Jim, perhaps your best friends won't tell you, but your "colourful prose style" does not work for you. In fact it says more about you than perhaps you realise.
Also, you might try and re-read my comments again when you will realise that all I did was ask, politely, two questions. Quite why that should bring down a torrent of foul-mouthed abuse is beyond me. But, as some-one or other once said, it's a funny, old world.
Oh, and please do *not* feel under any compuction to come within a million miles of my blog.
Post a Comment
<< Home