Grangemouth dispute makes C21 fascist MO clear

Tony Gosling tony at
Thu Oct 31 11:15:56 GMT 2013

David Cameron accused of smearing union official 
at centre of Grangemouth crisis
31 Oct 2013 01:23 - Daily Mirror
The PM called Unite's Stephen Deans a "rogue" but 
the union's boss Len McCluskey said he was a "decent" man

so what's this all about then?

Pretty simple really
Ineos a front company or 'cut out' for Big Oil 
cartel (Shell Exxon BP Total etc) who now run things, everything.
Give Cameron & EU Commission & ERT their orders (they ARE the ERT!) for example
Stuffed with swastika free Nazi directors as is the MO now

If you haven't read a book for the last 10 years read this
This is why the Nazis burned books

Jonathan Meades Jerry Building Unholy Relics of Nazi Germany

Shell were half Nazi in WW2 anyway - hedging their bets
Dutch royal former SS officer

The more specific City of London criminality now 
at the heart of the British establishment evidenced wonderfully here

Ineos behaving exactly like the Mafia - cult 
behaviour - secrecy makes lies easily & brings filthy money eh?
Thugs threatening good hard working people & extorting from taxpayers
Weak government easily bribed


Closing paragraphs of
STRANGE CONFLICT by Dennis Wheatley
First published by Hutchinson, 1941
Spoken by Wheatley's protagonist Monseigneur le 
Duc de Richleau, Knight of the Most Exalted Order 
of the Golden Fleece. The Duc is addressing his 
friends Simon Aron, Marie Lou, Rex Van Ryn and 
Richard Eaton who he's just helped rescue from a 
Nazi-Voodoo priest who has been remote viewing 
Britain's vital Atlantic convoy routes:

Whether or not Hitler and Mussolini themselves 
are great masters of Black Magic, nobody can 
possibly contest that it is through such 
ambitious and unscrupulous men, German, Italian 
and Japanese, that the Powers of Darkness are 
working and in recent years have acquired such a 
terrifying increase of strength upon our earth.
"The New World Order which they wish to bring 
about is but another name for Hell. If through 
them Evil prevailed, every man and woman of every 
race and colour would finally be enslaved, from 
the cradle to the grave. They would be brought up 
to worship might instead of right and would be 
taught to condone, or even praise, murder, 
torture and the suppression of all liberty as 
'necessary' to the welfare of 'the State'.
"Incontestable proof of that has already been 
given us by the way in which the young 
Nazi-educated Germans have behaved in Poland, 
Czechoslovakia, Norway, Holland, Belgium and 
France. They butchered old men, women and 
children who did not even seek to oppose them. 
That was part of the Plan, and they obeyed the 
order to commit these murders in cold blood 
without a single recorded instance of any protest 
against them by officers or men. Seven years of 
the Totalitarian poison has been enough for the 
Evil to grip five million German youths and with 
it their hearts have gone cold and stony.
   If they triumph, within seventy years such 
words as justice, toleration, freedom and 
compassion will have ceased to have a place in 
the vocabularies of the races of mankind.
"In the New World Order all family life will be 
at an end, except for the conquerors, and only 
the worst elements, spiritually, will be allowed 
to procreate fresh generations to populate a 
world divided into masters and slaves. The right 
to homes and children of their own would be 
reserved to the Overlords; the rest would be 
herded into barracks and reduced to the level of 
robots without the right to read or speak or even 
think for themselves. There could be no revolt, 
because every officer, priest, deputy, editor, 
magistrate, writer and other leader of free 
thought and action in the conquered countries 
would already have been executed by the 
firing-squads; and leaderless herds cannot 
prevail against tanks, tear-gas, bombs and machine-guns.
"And unless men are free how can they progress 
upon the great spiritual journey which all must make?
"This war is not for territory or gain or glory, 
but that Armageddon which was prophesied of old. 
That is why all the Children of Light. wherever 
they may be, captive or free, must hold on to 
their spiritual integrity as never before and 
must stick at nothing, physically, in the fight, 
lest the whole world fall under the domination of 
these puppets who are animated by the Powers of Darkness."
As he ceased speaking they knew that although it 
would be many days before their burns, weals and 
wounds were healed there had come into their 
hearts a little glow of warmth. The Battle was 
still far from being over, but they had done the 
thing which they had set out to do. Their Victory 
was an episode?no more-in the Titanic struggle 
that was in progress, but the flame which 
animated their spirits was burning an the 
brighter for it, and they were returning to fight 
on for the England that they loved.
It seemed that the Duke guessed their thoughts, 
for he spoke again. "As long as Britain stands 
the Powers of Darkness cannot prevail. On Earth 
the Anglo-Saxon race is the last Guardian of the 
Light, and I have an unshakable conviction that, 
come what may, our island will prove the Bulwark of the World."


At 20:48 30/10/2013, you wrote:

>Re: Stevie Deans, as Tony I think said, the police investigation came
>up with nothing. However, after resigning yesturday, the police are
>now going through his emails that show he was 
>using company time to do Labour Party business - 
>though why that is a police matter seems
>extraordinary. So what, sackable offence to be doing something other
>than your actual work you are paid to do, but how is it breaking the
>Unite are accused of messing up, but they already capitulated some
>days before the company announced it was closing. They called off the
>strike over Dean's victimisation, as they described it. The Scottish
>Socialist Party: 'After talks broke down at 
>[mediation service] Acas, the company said they 
>intended to "go over the heads of the union" 
>straight to the workers to ask them to sign up 
>to new contracts on worse terms by 6pm on Monday 
>21 October. Unite and the shop stewards called 
>on workers to refuse to sign and over 70% of 
>trade union members at the site supported the 
>union's call. This indicates that pressure from 
>the shop floor and the stewards changed the union's direction at this stage.'
>I don't blame Unite here. They were powerless. What happened at
>Grangemouth was that the employer went on strike, and it looks like
>they manipulated a situation over Deans (knowing the union would hold
>a strike-ballot over their dialogue with him 
>which the union intepreted as victimisation, 
>suddenly presenting the workers with a 
>fait-accomplie over the workers pay and 
>conditions having walked away from ACAS 
>mediation and planning for the cold-shot down in 
>an orchestrated way over many months). SSP 
>again: 'There is clear evidence that Ineos, in 
>all likelihood in conjunction with the UK 
>government, had been preparing for a 
>confrontation with the union. The stockpiling 
>and the importation of fuel to mitigate the 
>impact of the strike and the inevitable shutdown 
>of the plant were at an advanced stage, even 
>before the strike was announced. This alongside 
>an attempt to decapitate the union leadership at 
>the plant indicated the lengths the company was prepared to go to.'
>'In the run-up to the 48-hour strike Ineos announced they were going
>to put the plant into a prolonged "cold shutdown" rather than a short
>hot shutdown. In other words, a signal that they intended to keep the
>plant closed, effectively a lockout of the workers.'
>In the run-up to the strike Ineos was claiming the plant was "in
>financial distress" and losing £10 million a month. SSP: 'Unite,
>however, asked Richard Murphy, an accountant and 
>a campaigner against corporate tax-dodging to 
>review Ineos' public accounts, which
>themselves will not tell the true story. Murphy found Ineos Chemicals
>Grangemouth Ltd has added one-off measures to 
>make the accounts look bad, including a 
>write-off in the valuation of the petrochemical plant
>- in other words it was worthless. The same petrochemical plant that
>is now described as having a bright future of at least 15 to 20 years.
>Ineos which is particularly opaque and labyrinthine through the
>deliberate use of sub companies, including the use of off-shore tax
>havens to hide profits and avoid tax. Already in 2010 Ineos moved its
>headquarters from Britain to Switzerland to cut its tax bill.'
>'Murphy found that Ineos' accounts imply that 
>they expect to make £500 million from 
>Grangemouth alone by 2017 and that operating profits grew
>by 56% last year. Murphy says that Grangemouth chemicals made £7
>million profit last year and £6 million the year before.'
>"Unlike any other company they decided to factor in investment as a
>loss", said Murphy. "They are using accounting rules I don't
>recognise. They are using numbers I can't find in any actual published
>accounts." Ineos internationally also made a profit of over £2 billion
>in 2012.
>As part of the deal Ineos will be bailed out to 
>the tune of £134 million in Scottish and UK 
>government grants and loan guarantees. The 
>company claims it needs this to ensure a £300 
>million investment at Grangemouth over the next few years.
>The reality of a billionaire hedge-fund owner 
>holding a whole country's fuel supply to ransom 
>is thought-provoking in the midst of a situation 
>where there is much talk of nationalisation of the energy market in the UK.
>In terms of the workers, perhaps the worst concession Unite have
>agreed to in backing down has been that they have also signed away an
>agreement that allowed for full time union representation on site.
>Another important issue is the ethics of Ineos' 
>new business strategy for the Grangemouth plant. 
>The new investment is to build a new gas 
>processing factory and tankers to ship shale gas 
>from the States, where the dash for shale-gas 
>without environmental controls has wrought 
>massive impacts on the water-courses and local 
>communities' health, not-to-mention the massive 
>effects of global warming from methane gas 
>released into the air. If this was a 
>nationalised plant, maybe through a campaign of 
>public information disclosing theses facts the 
>utilisation of this gas would not be sanctioned.
>The case for nationalisation and how the UK's membership of the EU
>prevents that, as well as the issue of labour flexibility in the
>global competitive race to the bottom has been eloquently described by
>former national president of the RMT Alex Gordon in Tuesday's edition
>of the Morning Star. I don't agree with everything he says, but do
>about nationalisation of public utilities (and industries/sectors in
>national strategic interest) and leaving the EU to have to do so. Read
>To Fight Austerity we must quit the EU, by Alex Gordon
>Tuesday 29th, Morning Star
>On Friday October 25 RMT members employed by outsourcing specialists
>Mitie to service and clean First Great Western trains mobilised 50
>noisy, exuberant strikers on a picket line at London’s Paddington
>They are demanding their employer raise pay rates from their current
>£6.37 an hour, which hardly covers the cost of travel to work and is
>barely above national minimum wage — upped 
>to £6.31 this month — to
>pay a London living wage, currently set at £8.55 an hour.
>It is a sobering fact that in order for a worker not to claim social
>security benefit a London living wage would need to be £10.70 an hour.
>Mitie, with revenues in excess of £2 billion last year, stands for
>“Management incentive through investment equity” and provides
>contracts for often comparatively small investors to achieve
>guaranteed returns — a business model that depends entirely on driving
>a vicious downward wage spiral.
>In September RMT members at Derby and other rail centres in the east
>Midlands, employed by Initial Cleaning Services at rates as low as
>£6.19 an hour, also struck for a living wage.
>The living wage outside London, set annually by the centre for
>research in social policy at Loughborough University, is currently
>£7.45 an hour.
>Cleaners employed by a roster of notorious, 
>multinational subcontractors have taken strike 
>action in recent months from London to Edinburgh 
>and Newcastle to Plymouth and Swansea, fighting 
>for dignity at work and a living wage.
>However, the low-wage employment model is extending its grip
>throughout transport, health, education and public services, driven by
>coalition government and EU austerity policies.
>As the Resolution Foundation recently showed, far from providing a
>safety net against poverty the national minimum wage, introduced 10
>years ago by new Labour, has become a pay ceiling for increasing
>numbers of workers — mainly women.
>A quarter of workers on minimum wage — some 320,000 people, 73 per
>cent of whom are women — have been stuck 
>there for at least five years, as it becomes a 
>permanent rate for workers seemingly destined
>for a lifetime of low pay.
>More and more workers are paid close to minimum 
>wage as competition to cut wage costs dovetails 
>with government attacks on social security
>Some 7.6 per cent of UK workers, 1.9 million, earned within 25p of the
>minimum wage in 2012 - twice the proportion in 2002.
>Some 140,000 workers â€7 per cent of all minimum wage earners €” have
>worked on it for least 10 years.
>Some 90,000 have earned close to the legal minimum since the policy
>was introduced in 2002.
>This means 5 per cent of minimum wage earners 
>have been caught in the poverty trap for 13 
>years since the policy was introduced.
>This year marked a historic regression for the British labour market.
>An economic recession longer and deeper than the Great Depression of
>the 1930s provided an excuse for employers to 
>slash wages and incomes, while new and insecure 
>forms of employment including so-called 
>'workfare', increasing use of outsourcing by local authorities,
>government departments and the NHS and 
>zero-hours contracts — moved to centre stage in the job market.
>The coalition government's strategy for growth through low wages
>ironically owes much to 'Hartz 4',€ the programme of the German Social
>Democratic government in the mid-1990s which 
>aimed to force workers to accept lower pay by 
>slashing social security spending and 
>deregulating employment conditions, leading to 
>the destruction of the very concept of permanent 
>jobs for a significant section of the working population.
>Our alternative to this low wage, insecure future in Britain must be
>to call for public investment, full employment and internationalism to
>combat the global race to the bottom.
>For Britain public-sector intervention in ownership of utilities from
>postal services, to railways and other public transport, to housing
>and energy is not just desirable but essential.
>“Osbornomics” is a result of the dominance of the financial sector,
>the City of London, which achieves profits through short-term
>speculation instead of long-term investment.
>Billions in cheap money from the Bank of England for “quantitative
>easing” has been hoarded by banks and does little to stimulate
>economic growth.
>Only direct public sector intervention through public ownership and
>control can change this.
>Withdrawal from the EU is the prerequisite to enable Britain to
>address this and adopt an active industrial policy.
>By withdrawing on progressive terms, Britain would massively assist
>all those countries across the EU struggling to renegotiate terms and
>end the prospect of years of mass unemployment and falling wages.
>To mobilise a mass movement against austerity 
>the key demands are the protection of what 
>remains of the welfare state and policies to create
>secure, sustainable employment.
>Between now and 2017 the question of a referendum on Britain’s
>membership of the EU will increasingly dominate political discussion.
>Supporters of the British government’s right-wing austerity policies
>quickly point out that demands for a public ownership alternative are
>incompatible with Britain’s legal status within the EU — and this
>applies equally to the alternative economic strategies advanced by the
>TUC and the STUC, such as public ownership of Royal Mail or
>renationalisation of railways.
>Unless the left and the trade union movement challenges EU austerity,
>these policies will continue under future British governments.
>Social services will be decimated and the housing crisis will worsen —
>providing Ukip and the extreme right with the arguments on the ground
>for even more reactionary positions.
>In Europe the right is on the march. Support for pro-EU social
>democrats is collapsing. Racists and fascists are establishing bases
>within working-class communities and exploiting the EU for chauvinist
>This is why the left, the trade union movement and all those opposed
>to austerity must be able to put a clear alternative that links EU
>withdrawal to the fight for jobs and public services.
>EU withdrawal on progressive terms is the key unifying factor in
>providing a popular alternative to austerity, racism and xenophobia.
>The left has to make itself the champion of the democratic right for a
>referendum on EU membership — and use it to argue for a new society
>that can carry forward all the best achievements of the past century
>and realise the longer-term goals of those who fought for them.
>Alex Gordon is former national president of the RMT.
>On 28 Oct 2013 08:01:48 -0700
> >
> > nothing to do with landrights - but central issue to which every
> >other important issue including landrights in the UK is related to:
> >an article about the Grangemouth dispute written by Owen Jones from
> >yesturday9s Independent-on-Sunday >
> >
> > extracts from the article highlighted first: "..And so the workers
> >and Scotland as a whole had a pistol pointed at their head.
> >Capitulate on our terms, said Ineos, or the plant will go. It could
> >have blown away around 10% of the Scottish economy, triggering
> >economic ruin for entire communities." "..The whole episode raises
> >again an age-old question, not whispered enough, let alone asked
> >loudly: who runs Britain?"
> >
> >
> > The Grangemouth dispute makes it clear who really runs the country
> > The crisis has become an opportunity for the rich to acquire more
> >wealth and power
> >
> > by Owen Jones
> >
> > The Independent-on-Sunday
> > Sunday 27 October 2013
> > Ref:
> > 
> >
> >
> > A Swiss-based private company has held to ransom not just hundreds
> >of workers and their families, not just their community, but an
> >entire nation. The Grangemouth dispute was not some parochial,
> >localised affair, a potential tragedy for yet more livelihoods
> >sacrificed on the altar of global capitalism. It wasn’t just that
> >its closure would have had a shattering impact on the Scottish
> >economy, as well as frightening implications for Britain’s fuel
> >security. The whole episode raises again an age-old question, not
> >whispered enough, let alone asked loudly: who runs Britain?
> >
> > Inevitably, in a country with a media institutionally hostile to
> >what remains the country’s largest democratic movement, Fleet Street
> >has embraced a narrative of scapegoating trade unions and ignored
> >the fact that Ineos is the secretive, largest privately run company
> >that operates in Britain. Having fled Britain’s tax regime in 2010,
> >Ineos is a corporate giant that has legally saved millions from the
> >greedy clutches of schools and hospitals by operating in up to six
> >tax havens.
> >
> > It made up to $2bn profit last year, though the company is
> >reportedly saddled with debts from its insatiable take-over bids.
> >According to Ineos Chemicals Grangemouth Ltd accounts last year,
> >sales had grown by more than 50 per cent, and there was a gross
> >profit of nearly 20 per cent.
> >
> > That’s not to say Grangemouth is not confronted with real problems:
> >over the course of the past decade, North Sea gas arriving at the
> >site has declined by 60 per cent. But it was ludicrous to suggest
> >that labour costs – just 17 per cent of 
> the plant’s total costs –
> >were entirely responsible for Grangemouth’s plight. Workers had
> >better pay and conditions here than elsewhere, it was argued: in
> >modern Britain, that’s presented as an argument to trash them in an
> >endless race-to-the-bottom, rather than dealing with the scandalous
> >plight of other workers. With suggestions that Ineos had saddled
> >external debts on the plant for tax purposes, there was clearly an
> >overwhelming case for the plant’s books to be laid open and
> >independently scrutinised, as well as for an HMRC investigation into
> >the company’s tax affairs.
> >
> > But this was not a company that wanted anything other than the
> >Unite union to be comprehensively crushed. As crucial negotiations
> >between Unite and the company were underway, Stevie Deans, the
> >senior Unite convenor, was placed under investigation for issues
> >related to Labour’s row in Falkirk. Unite had begged Ineos to
> >negotiate at the Acas conciliation service, which Ineos stomped away
> >from despite guarantees of no strike action. Indeed, in the end the
> >workers didn’t strike, it was the bosses, who promptly shut the
> > whole plant down.
> >
> > And so the workers and Scotland as a whole had a pistol pointed at
> >their head. Capitulate on our terms, said Ineos, or the plant will
> >go. It could have blown away around 10 per cent of the Scottish
> >economy, triggering economic ruin for entire communities dependent
> >on the plants. More radical voices wanting the sort of occupation
> >that the iconic Jimmy Reid led in the Upper Clyde in the early 1970s
> >will have noted the cheers of the workers at the announcement that
> >the site would be saved. They just wanted to keep their jobs.
> >
> > Clearly such a strategically vital asset should have been removed
> >from private control into public ownership. But London’s Tories –
> >bankrolled by hedge funds, banks and asset strippers as they are –
> >were hardly going to nationalise Grangemouth. Though the Scottish
> > Government recently took over Prestwick Airport to save jobs, taking
> > over Grangemouth was probably beyond its means even if it wanted to.
> >
> > “There’s class warfare, all 
> right,” said US billionaire Warren
> >Buffett a few years ago, “but it’s 
> my class, the rich class, that’s
> >making war, and we’re winning.” It is a point underlined by this
> >episode in Grangemouth. Since this economic crisis began, the
> >business elite has used it as an opportunity to shift wealth and
> >power even further in their direction. It is not just the fact of
> >the surge in the fortunes of the top 1,000 wealthiest Britons since
> >Lehman Brothers came crashing down, even as workers face the longest
> >fall in living standards since the reign of Queen Victoria. The
> >crisis has become an opportunity to further strip workers of
> >security, rights and power.
> >
> > Sound like a bonkers conspiracy theory? The business elite are
> >entirely open about their aims. In a 2009 report entitled The Shape
> >of Business over the next 10 years, the Confederation of British
> >Industry – the main bosses’ 
> organisation – called for businesses to
> >use the economic crisis to create a so-called “flexiforce”. This
> >would mean a “new employment model where the core of permanent staff
> >is smaller”, with ever growing dependence on temporary workers.
> >
> > And so the explosion of zero-hour contract workers, temporary
> >workers and the insecure self-employed is not a passing side-effect
> >of the economic crash. They are here to stay. It is being
> >accompanied by Government attempts to tip the balance further
> >towards employers, such as the assault on industrial tribunals.
> >Trade unions have faced a battering over the past generation, but
> >they have remained redoubts of strength that our business elite is
> >determined to defeat.
> >
> > So here is the choice that faces us. We can resign ourselves to
> >vast swathes of our economy under the control of economic
> >heavyweights, casually deciding the fates of entire nations from
> >multi-million pound yachts. We can accept that the stripping of
> >rights and security from working people is just one of those things,
> >a fact of life like the weather. We can passively sit back as wealth
> >and power is indefinitely shovelled in the direction of those who
> >already have too much of it. Or we can start asking fundamental
> > questions about how society is structured in Britain.
> >
> > The power exercised by the likes of Jim Ratcliffe depends on our
> >collective resignation, a sense of fatalism and powerlessness.
> >Grangemouth could be a turning point, a catalyst for other employers
> >to demolish what remaining power and rights working people have. Or
> >it could be a moment where enough of us realise what is happening to
> >modern Britain, and – in the finest 
> traditions of this country – do
> >something to challenge it.

+44 (0)7786 952037
Fear not therefore: for there is nothing covered 
that shall not be revealed; and nothing hid that 
shall not be made known. What I tell you in 
darkness, that speak ye in the light and what ye 
hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. Matthew 10:26-27
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Diggers350 mailing list