The post you are reporting:
GaryC, I was not trying to make a personal attack on you, so apologies if you thought I was, and I do understand how much this subject means to you too. I use aggresive and emotive language sometimes when writing about or even to, our so called betters. They aren't held to account nearly enough in my book, and as Keith and others will testify, I rather enjoy "going after them". Sometimes the language is necessary to get them to make any sort of response, although GP is clearly impervious to anything said about or to him by local voters.
Returning to your posting, you quoted the words, "police duty against the picket lines". Now that to me is a very emotive statement, suggesting the police were AGAINST pickets and not ensuring the law was obeyed, which is of course their job, one in which they do not have the luxury of strike action or freedom to refuse to obey orders.
I don't particularly care if it was a he or she that made the statement, their action was to get out of town and leave the struggle to others. Maybe I should have used the word "coward"? You didn't pack your bags and run away did you? No, you stood up for what you believed in and that will always command respect. Nevertheless I still think you were all misguided by your leadership. If you think the Union bosses of those days were not self-serving, egoistic and working to their own agendas, then maybe time hasn't helped us understand what really went on back in those days.
As for Betteshangar, Tilmanstone, Snowdon I don't know the economics much more than to say, there may be huge stocks of coal waiting to be mined, but what is the actual cost of getting it out of the ground? The nation has moved on from huge loss making job protection schemes, aka Nationlaised industry, so unless a profit can be earned it doesn't matter what tonnage is available, it ain't going to be shifted, and rightly so.
What those in the now defunct or privatised industries forget is the tax-payer was subsidising their living and for great swathes of the UK workforce, there is no-one subsidising theirs; so why should they have to pay their hard-earned money to keep others in work?
The counter argument is obviosuly going to be, better that than paying out benefits. Well, actually no it isn't. What we actually need is for our legislators to get those bouncey things used in tennis and amend the rules for employment in the UK to re-enfranchise the unemployed and dramatically cut the need for migrant workers.