Tanker drivers dispute

[POSTMAN]

It takes a lot for 'anyone' to go on strike,lets be honest we've been there.
What we know and what the press report about us/various disputes are 2 completely different things.

[clashcityrocker]

So if they do strike and the soldiers start driving the tankers - does that become scab petrol/diesel/unleaded and would anyone be within their rights to refuse to fill their van up?

[DGP1]

So if they do strike and the soldiers start driving the tankers - does that become scab petrol/diesel/unleaded and would anyone be within their rights to refuse to fill their van up?

[cyclemech1]

I well remember the 2000 blockade.

Didn't really affect me as I used my bike as usual.

Quite a few of the private car drivers used bikes then as well. Some of them never went back to using their own cars after!

Now of course, most of the bikes have gone and the posties all drive around in their little vans. Wonder what happens if they can't find fuel for them?

I'm sure RM will have contingency plans (not)!

[Lounge Lizard]

So if they do strike and the soldiers start driving the tankers - does that become scab petrol/diesel/unleaded and would anyone be within their rights to refuse to fill their van up?

It makes the soldiers strike breakers, but with dressing up in police uniforms for Thatcher during the miners strike, it wouldn't be the first time their solidarity with the working (wo)man was somewhat lacking.

[jessicarabbit]

Will they still expect us to line the streets of Wooton Basset when one of theirs takes one in 'ghan?????????

[Stormproof]

Will they still expect us to line the streets of Wooton Basset when one of theirs takes one in 'ghan?????????

Wooton Basset is'nt the repatriation town anymore and to be honest that has nothing to do with the fuel strike

[jessicarabbit]

I know but that is still 'known' for that

[IcanthelpthewayIam]

I know but that is still 'known' for that

and armed forces DO NOT have any choice in the matter, if they are told to do it they MUST unless its breaking the law, Armed forces personnel are not allowed to be involved in politics, so they do as ordered, if they break refuse to support strikers that is a political message and thus against the law, them breaking the strike is not a political message by the soldiers themselves before anyone says it is, its also why serving officers in the TA are not allowed to join the union as they would be funding political parties which again they are not allowed to do

[IcanthelpthewayIam]

Will they still expect us to line the streets of Wooton Basset when one of theirs takes one in 'ghan?????????

they dont expect anyone to line any street for them

[BELIAL]

I know but that is still 'known' for that

and armed forces DO NOT have any choice in the matter, if they are told to do it they MUST unless its breaking the law, Armed forces personnel are not allowed to be involved in politics, so they do as ordered, if they break refuse to support strikers that is a political message and thus against the law, them breaking the strike is not a political message by the soldiers themselves before anyone says it is, its also why serving officers in the TA are not allowed to join the union as they would be funding political parties which again they are not allowed to do

Thats quite political

[IcanthelpthewayIam]

I know but that is still 'known' for that

and armed forces DO NOT have any choice in the matter, if they are told to do it they MUST unless its breaking the law, Armed forces personnel are not allowed to be involved in politics, so they do as ordered, if they break refuse to support strikers that is a political message and thus against the law, them breaking the strike is not a political message by the soldiers themselves before anyone says it is, its also why serving officers in the TA are not allowed to join the union as they would be funding political parties which again they are not allowed to do

Thats quite political

the acts might be political but its the polititians who decide to make them happen, joe bloggs soldier is no allowed to make a decision about it either way and must do what the politicians decide, the army/air force dont just rock up and say "hey david see this fuel strike/fire strike well if you like we can sort that for you" they are told to do it

[BELIAL]

I'm with Minister Maude on this one ,the government of the day has a moral imperative (not statutory) to ensure the continuance of "normal life".
How the hell can you have a decent riot without the necessary supplies of accelerant ? Quite intolerable that these dinosaur unions should threaten our great British traditions ,everyone should fill up a jerry can to preserve our way of life,doctors ;nurses;teachers;pensioners why not stash hazardous liquid under your stairs

[BELIAL]

I know but that is still 'known' for that

and armed forces DO NOT have any choice in the matter, if they are told to do it they MUST unless its breaking the law, Armed forces personnel are not allowed to be involved in politics, so they do as ordered, if they break refuse to support strikers that is a political message and thus against the law, them breaking the strike is not a political message by the soldiers themselves before anyone says it is, its also why serving officers in the TA are not allowed to join the union as they would be funding political parties which again they are not allowed to do

Thats quite political

the acts might be political but its the polititians who decide to make them happen, joe bloggs soldier is no allowed to make a decision about it either way and must do what the politicians decide, the army/air force dont just rock up and say "hey david see this fuel strike/fire strike well if you like we can sort that for you" they are told to do it

Thanks point is made. But cheers for clarifying your position. On a slightly more philosophical tack ,it does raise an interesting question - at what point does the interests of the "state" and their use of state security forces directly contradict the interests of the population of that state ? Timely no? Worth considering given the current ebb and flow worldwide

[TrueBlueTerrier]

So if they do strike and the soldiers start driving the tankers - does that become scab petrol/diesel/unleaded and would anyone be within their rights to refuse to fill their van up?

It makes the soldiers strike breakers, but with dressing up in police uniforms for Thatcher during the miners strike, it wouldn't be the first time their solidarity with the working (wo)man was somewhat lacking.

They may be sympathetic to the tanker drivers cause, they may even support it. However, if they refuse to drive the tankers when given a lawful order then they face much harsher penalties than any of us do.

They will charged under the appropriate act (Army Act, Navy Discipline Act or Air Force Act) and can face up to 2 years imprisonment, dismissal, and reduction in rank (will affect pension entitlements). (see http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ounds.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; for a similar case - refusing on moral grounds)

Now even if I think a dispute is worth me losing wages over, even an extended open ended strike, would I expect someone who has no direct understanding of the strike, or stake in it, to suffer just to show solidarity - No - the level of sacrifice for a cause has to be commensurate with the gains expected, I don't think in this case it would be.

Would I try to convince them to make the sacrifice - yes of course I would, but to convince someone to take an action you have to understand what the cost would be to them.