does that not just refer to the commision of “war crimes”?
I doubt that it would include maintaining supplies of a vital national resource (or as some would say, strike breaking)
From what I understand the “Principle” is accepted Universally.
Seem to recall I read somewhere a US Judge invoked it recently for a non “War Crime” offence.
Bringing the Armed forces into cover this strike come’s under the Military Aid to Civil Power act. (MACP)
It’s one of the many directives and duties they can be called upon.
Be quite funny to see the unions take the goverment to court for invoking something that is in UK law and has been used many times before.
stuh:
Be quite funny to see the unions take the goverment to court for invoking something that is in UK law and has been used many times before.
It’s a waste of time trying to take the government to court even if they are breaking the law.
Same go’s for thieving, lying, low-life MP’s that are also Barristers who refuse to pay for work they asked you to do.
Picture speaks for itself…
Cheers
Jonny 
stuh:
Bringing the Armed forces into cover this strike come’s under the Military Aid to Civil Power act. (MACP)It’s one of the many directives and duties they can be called upon.
Be quite funny to see the unions take the goverment to court for invoking something that is in UK law and has been used many times before.
Doesn’t seem to be anything within the remit of the MACP which covers the use of the armed forces to get involved and/or to break strikes between civilian employers and civilian employees who are not employed in doing jobs that aren’t the responsibility of a civil authority.So fire brigade yes but oil company sub contractor no. 
The principal is really very simple.
You’ve got a set of employees that are throwing their toys out of their prams, spitting dummies out on the floor whilst digging their own holes.
Let them get on with it. Good luck and all that good stuff.
Then on the other hand, you’ve got the employers looking at it, trying to keep a straight face and are legally more than entitled to make alternatve arrangements to get the work that needs doing done. Whether that be agency drivers at £7.00 per hour or army staff. The work gets done and those at one side of the picket line can’t do sod all about it other than wondering why they didn’t get paid for that day they are stood there like lemons.
What I was trying to say is, when you’re on a good number, you keep quite, very quite. You just get on with stuff and keep in the background.
It is not that they are expected to take a wage reduction now isn’t it?
interlog:
Then on the other hand, you’ve got the employers looking at it, trying to keep a straight face and are legally more than entitled to make alternatve arrangements to get the work that needs doing done. Whether that be agency drivers at £7.00 per hour or army staff. The work gets done and those at one side of the picket line can’t do sod all about it other than wondering why they didn’t get paid for that day they are stood there like lemons.
On that issue I agree with you with the exception of wether it is (or should be) legal/acceptable to use the army to get involved in and/or break a strike between a civilian employer and a civilian employee employed on a civilian job.The issue of employers defeating the unions just zb’s up the economy and incomes in general for everyone in the long term.Including the amount of taxpayers cash available to pay for army kit the next time they find themselves in the zb without the right tools for the job.
Who says the army is not charging for their duties?
interlog:
What I was trying to say is, when you’re on a good number, you keep quite, very quite. You just get on with stuff and keep in the background.It is not that they are expected to take a wage reduction now isn’t it?
If it’s such a ‘good number’ and terms and conditions aren’t being reduced then why the zb would anyone with any sense want to risk all that and blow all their wages by voting for strike action.Considering the general reliability and safety of the service the industry has provided so far they aren’t exactly a bunch of idiots who’d take such a decision for no reason. 
Unless I’ve got it all wrong. 
Carryfast:
If it’s such a ‘good number’ and terms and conditions aren’t being reduced then why the zb would anyone with any sense want to risk all that and blow all their wages by voting for strike action.Considering the general reliability and safety of the service the industry has provided so far they aren’t exactly a bunch of idiots who’d take such a decision for no reason.Unless I’ve got it all wrong.
Just one word:
GREED
interlog:
Who says the army is not charging for their duties?
Nothing to do with charging it’s the ability to pay the money they charge for their services wether it’s driving a tanker from refinery to garage or a battle in the Falklands or zb Afghanistan or Iran etc etc out of the ever reducing tax take from the ever reducing income levels in the economy as a whole.So tanker drivers wage levels gradually get reduced to £ 7-9 per hour where do we go from there.Assuming that I was an employer in the road transport industry or any other that hasn’t already been handed to foreign cheaper labour that is.
interlog:
Carryfast:
If it’s such a ‘good number’ and terms and conditions aren’t being reduced then why the zb would anyone with any sense want to risk all that and blow all their wages by voting for strike action.Considering the general reliability and safety of the service the industry has provided so far they aren’t exactly a bunch of idiots who’d take such a decision for no reason.Unless I’ve got it all wrong.
Just one word:
GREED
The problem I’ve got with that explanation is that I’ve already heard that applied to workers in regards to other industries like our car industry and our mining industry over the years.While tossers like the bankers pocketed loads a money telling those workers that they weren’t worth as much as German workers were.
Anyway it would be interesting to find out what their German tanker driver counterparts are earning per hour and what running schedules they are under at present just to bring that old argument up to date.
stuh:
Bringing the Armed forces into cover this strike come’s under the Military Aid to Civil Power act. (MACP)It’s one of the many directives and duties they can be called upon.
Be quite funny to see the unions take the goverment to court for invoking something that is in UK law and has been used many times before.
Ummm! In recent years successive UK governments have only invoked the Act you quote when they know the Union Dispute can be covered and carried out by the Military.
They never even contemplated bringing in the Army when the Nurses threatened Industrial action.
Why was that do you think.
A clue. Look at the feasibility of the Act you quote and then think of how many nurses there are in the UK.
No win sir…not enough qualified troops to do the job Prime minister is the answer.
Solly:
stuh:
Bringing the Armed forces into cover this strike come’s under the Military Aid to Civil Power act. (MACP)It’s one of the many directives and duties they can be called upon.
Be quite funny to see the unions take the goverment to court for invoking something that is in UK law and has been used many times before.
Ummm! In recent years successive UK governments have only invoked the Act you quote when they know the Union Dispute can be covered and carried out by the Military.
They never even contemplated bringing in the Army when the Nurses threatened Industrial action.
Why was that do you think.
A clue. Look at the feasibility of the Act you quote and then think of how many nurses there are in the UK.No win sir…not enough qualified troops to do the job Prime minister is the answer.
The difference is that the nurses are one of the examples that actually don’t have the power,within the job that they do,to actually pose a threat to the government by stoppage.I think history shows that when push comes to shove,in any major dispute,which involves sectors of the economy like fuel and transport etc most governments will be prepared to do whatever it takes to stay in power.Although there seems to be an obvious difference in the way that Heath handled the 1973 miners strike in which he decided to do the right thing by settling the issue the democratic way by referring the issue to an election instead of using force,of one type or another,to break the strike.
Whereas Thatcher resorted to typical 1920’s style government force,intimidation and arrests during the 1984 miners strike which no doubt would probably have escalated to include the army,if the police had been shown unable to deal with the situation themselves,but in the intimidatory role not one of sending troops in to actually do the job of mining coal in that example.It seems obvious that dodgy Dave has the same mindset as Thatcher’s government had when it comes to dealing with any industrial threat to the government and as such it’s no suprise that the union in this case are being very cautious about the issue of actually getting involved in a strike which is probably likely to be defeated by the government.
I have to agree to disagree with you where the Nurses example is concerned.
No matter, I agree with most of the rest of your comment.
That said most would agree that there is something seriously wrong with any social structure when governments instruct the Armed Forces to intervene with it’s democracy, or it’s Industrial Disputes mechanism as in this case.
When this sort of intervention is entered into… democracy and it’s processes are being reduced to that of Fascism IMHO.
Let’s all face facts here. Dodgy Dave and his mendacious crew of ConDems are anything but a champion of democracy in any form.
On a lighter note. Good job we are not in a major world conflict or else who would be maintaining fuel supplies to our armed forces when their Transport corp or whatever it is called, is at the beck and call of our beloved governments Paymasters. 
Oh! Maybe they could persuade the Tanker Drivers to cover for them.
Solly:
I have to agree to disagree with you where the Nurses example is concerned.
No matter, I agree with most of the rest of your comment.That said most would agree that there is something seriously wrong with any social structure when governments instruct the Armed Forces to intervene with it’s democracy, or it’s Industrial Disputes mechanism as in this case.
When this sort of intervention is entered into… democracy and it’s processes are being reduced to that of Fascism IMHO.
Let’s all face facts here. Dodgy Dave and his mendacious crew of ConDems are anything but a champion of democracy in any form.
Without a system in which all decisions have to be passed by referenda and governments are subject to continuous review by the electorate with no set ‘term of office’ and in which the majority means a majority of the electorate not just of those who voted I don’t think that we’ve ever had any truly democratic system here regardless of the name on the title of whichever government we’ve got in.
The fact that no ‘Labour’ government has ever passed any laws outlawing exactly the type of military intervention in civilian industrial disputes as seems possible in this case and as took place in 1926,says everything about a system in which we just get a choice of the same dictatorship with a different label on the tin every 5 years.
2 things have struck me from this discussion:
-
No wonder the pay & conditions for the vast majority of drivers in this country are poor, and with the cowardly, “i’m all right jack” attitudes displayed here, it will NEVER get any better. NEVER. Do all the epetitions you want, unless drivers can learn to stick together and support each other nothing will ever change.The employers know this, the government know this, and the unions know this. Which is why they continually worsen pay rates & conditions, do nothing to force employers to better conditions and why they aren’t interested in representing drivers, respectively of course.
-
God help us all when the Police go out on strike! I have no doubt the Army will be used to enforce law & order.
with the cowardly, “i’m all right jack”
Sadly it’s even worse than that.
The majority of non supporters do not seem to actually claim that they are alright.
They mostly claim “I’m not alright and want to bring them down to my level”.