宣伝

敗北・負かすd? The unions are still
running Britain

By Peter Hitchens for The Mail on Sunday
Updated: 18:11 BST, 19 September 2009

Myth: Margaret Thatcher didn't 敗北・負かす the 貿易（する）s unions

One of the many falsehoods about Margaret Thatcher is that she 敗北・負かすd the 貿易（する）s unions. They have never been so powerful. But their 力／強力にする takes a new form.

Stringent 雇用法律s, 施行するd by 法廷s, 強要する all 雇用者s ? from hairdressers to oil 巨大（な）s ? to 行為／法令／行動する as if they have armies of 交戦的な shop stewards 永久的に breathing 負かす／撃墜する their necks.

This is 特に堅い on the small 商売／仕事s that used to be 大部分は union-解放する／自由な. Break the 支配するs and you can 直面する抱擁する刑罰，罰則s. Keep them and it will be hard to compete.

The big difference between then and now is that the main questions are all settled ? there is no need for ストライキs or pickets because the major 目的（とする）s of the unions have been won, often through EU 規則. Our unions memorably fell in love with Europe when Jacques Delors （機の）カム and 支持を得ようと努めるd them 支援する in 1988. They しっかり掴むd that Brussels would 軍隊 the British 政府 to 屈服する to their wishes.

The other big difference is Mrs Thatcher put paid to almost all our major 産業s, the ones where noisy, old-fashioned union militancy used to happen.

She and John Major left behind an enormous public 部門, the gargantuan NHS, a multitude of 疑わしい new ‘universities’, hundreds of thousands of 疑わしい職業s in 地元の政府 and the uncontrollable ジャングル of quangos. All these remain ひどく unionised, and bound by union 支配するs and 需要・要求するs.

But what about the pitifully 減らすd TUC, which used to 持つ／拘留する a monstrous 年次の決起大会／結集させる in Brighton or Blackpool, with ferocious old 社会主義者 warhorses 雷鳴ing from its 壇・綱領・公約, and now can barely fill a medium-size hall?

Where now are Jack Jones and Hughie Scanlon, Alan Fisher, Mick McGahey, Arthur Scargill and Ray Buckton?

井戸／弁護士席, most of them are gone but their work is done. Their ideas have 征服する／打ち勝つd Whitehall. Their 後継者s are in positions of 力／強力にする in the civil service, or in the EU 官僚主義, or are 大臣s in the 政府. The unions themselves, left with little to do, are 一般に長，率いるd by third-raters, as we see on the 鉄道s or in the 地位，任命する Office.

Many of the old union barons were 現実にかなりの men who would have risen to the 最高の，を越す in any field they chose. Not this lot. Their 職業, if only they understood it, is to collect money for the 労働 Party, ロビー for 労働政策s and be 感謝する.

Problems arise おもに when EU 規則s ? which are 運動ing the 破壊 of the 王室の Mail ? turn out to 傷つける particular groups. This is yet another way in which 従来の知恵 about our 最近の history is 完全に wrong. I do wish people would 支払う／賃金 more attention.

The Nazi movie with a message for the Left

Nazis are a good Hollywood stand-by when film-製造者s run out of ideas. A hint of jackboots and a few swastikas will 一般に pull in the punters.

大きくする ?

Good, starring Viggo Mortensen and Jodie Whittaker

This helps to explain the 高くつく／犠牲の大きい making and 解放（する） of two feeble films this year ? Valkyrie, a woefully thin account of the 陰謀（を企てる） to kill Hitler, and The Reader, squirm-making, incredible drivel about a woman who seems more embarrassed about 存在無学の than having been a guard at a 集中（軍の）野営地，陣営.

Another rather more 利益／興味ing film did not get this sort of 支援, was made on the cheap and has gone straight to DVD. Good, starring Viggo Mortensen and Jodie Whittaker, is about a nice, civilised academic who is slowly seduced into the Nazi Party and then the SS by ambition, flattery and his own anti-Christian moral liberalism.

He betrays his wife for an Aryan floozy and supports 安楽死, to the joy of Hitler and Himmler alike. 流行の／上流の左派の（人）s wouldn’t want to be remind ed that the 国家の社会主義者s 株d やめる a few of their 見解（をとる）s.

罠にかける in a web of 偽の安全

We all think that the cobweb of silly 規則s which 要求する前科 checks on anyone who so much as comes within 10ft of a child are in some way 正当化するd by the Ian Huntley 事例／患者.

Chris Stevenson, a 上級の officer in the Soham 殺人調査, has now utterly 破壊するd this idea. This 法律 would not have saved anyone.

Huntley did not work in the school …に出席するd by Holly 井戸／弁護士席s and Jessica Chapman. If his 記録，記録的な／記録する had been discovered, and he had been banned from that 職業, it would not have saved the two girls.

As Mr Stevenson says: ‘Huntley was 任命するd a school 管理人 in Soham. Did that give him 接近 to children? Yes, hundreds. Did he 乱用 them? No. What Huntley did to Holly and Jessica was as bad as it gets but did he come into 接触する with them through 存在 a 管理人? Not 正確に／まさに ? he was 管理人 of Soham Village College, a school for the over-11s. The two girls …に出席するd St Andrew’s Junior School. Different building, different 管理人. Huntley had 接触する with them because Maxine Carr was 雇うd at St Andrew’s as a classroom assistant. She worked in a class with Holly and Jessica, who both liked her.

‘Out for a ramble around Soham, they stopped outside Huntley and Carr’s house to ask after Carr. Tragically, she was away, visiting her family.’

Huntley could have been a lorry driver, anything, and the girls would still have gone to the house because they liked Maxine Carr, who had no 記録，記録的な／記録する of any 肉親，親類d.

Like the ludicrous gun 禁止（する）器具／実施するd after the Dunblane 大虐殺, these intrusive 規則s look to me like a 明言する／公表する using any excuse to 増加する its 力／強力にする over us, often after its own 無資格／無能力 has been 論証するd.

We have plenty of ‘安全’, yet we are not 安全な.

So how’s this for moral panic

Those who 告発する／非難する me of spreading ‘moral panic’ about the 決裂／故障 of our civilisation might care to 熟考する／考慮する the 検死 on Fiona Pilkington and her daughter Frankie, 述べるd as having ‘厳しい learning difficulties’.

Fiona Pilkington appears to have 燃やすd herself and her daughter to death in utter despair, after 耐えるing years of 石／投石する-age, merciless 迫害 from children and 青年s. If you have an imagination, you will feel sick at the thought of what this must have been like. The police, you will be unsurprised to learn, had ‘no 資源s’ to help them. And I would guess that Fiona Pilkington 恐れるd that our feeble 犯罪の司法（官） system would only manage to bring more trouble on her house.

Mind you, if she’d 発射 an empty airgun at the pavement to 脅す the louts away, she’d have been sent to 刑務所，拘置所, like Linda Walker.

*********************
It is now （疑いを）晴らす that Muntadhar al-Zeidi, the Iraqi who threw his shoes at the pitiful George W. Bush, was 厳しく and shamefully 拷問d while in 保護／拘留. Leave aside the question of whether this man should even have been 起訴するd for a 正当と認められる and 害のない抗議する. Where are all the smug 支持するs of the Iraq War, who told us it would bring ‘僕主主義’ to Baghdad? Why are they not 抗議するing 怒って against this 虐待? Yes, I know Saddam was worse. But nobody pretended he was a 民主主義者 and Western 兵士s did not die to 任命する／導入する him in 力／強力にする.