SocialistAction 1983–88

The paper of the Socialist League, formerly the International Marxist Group, 1983–88

No gains

Socialist Action No. 132, 28 February 1986 · p. 5 of the scan · 189 words

The scan: 132-feb-28-1986-SA-UK.pdf (PDF, Marxists Internet Archive, opens at this page)

Uncorrected machine reading. This text was read by machine (Apple Vision OCR) from a scan of a newspaper page, and the page was cut into articles by machine, at the headlines found by their type size. Nothing has been corrected: expect misread words, text from a neighbouring article, and titles that are the machine reading of the headline, some of them only fragments. Quote from the scan, not from this page.
How this article was cut and titled: headline found by type size in the OCR geometry (split_tabloid.py); 1-1 of 7; machine-segmented newspaper page; uncorrected Vision OCR.

page 5 of the scan

This, combined with further threats of disciplinary action, is designed to create a reign of terror in the Notts The NCB setting militants and to trample basic rights unlull underfoot in the process.

• neir objective is simple. It is to bolster the flagging fortunes of the UDM 1o undercut the rebuilding of the NU'M in Notts.

clear that trouble. The initial momentum the breakaway has been lost as the UDM failed out of Notts. The overwhelming vote in the NÚM Leicestershire coalfield rocked Lynk. £21,000 bulaing himse en widely known to be in serious financial straits. Silverhill branch minutes contain an appeal lo pur democracy DaCK into the UDM'! Attacks At pit level, UDM officials have turned a blindeye while management oreak proccaures and ury push down bonus payments by fiddling the igureş. It has fallen to th IUM'to challenge such at-s tacks.

This has prompted a growing number of men to come back over the NUM. Al Ollerton last week. for example, men were recruited to ihe on ine arternoon shift alone.

Faced with these proERS *URN AVE IRGREAT fighting underground have not been disciplined.

← SOLIDARITY ROUND UPSuspensions →

Something wrong on this page?