I'm confused after reading this? So during this strike, a court ordered the union to pay some money, instead the union moved its money into overseas accounts, and a politicians worked with MI5 to track these accounts down and freeze them?
Like I fully support the union, but I thought it was going to be something serious such as MI5 infiltrating the union and becoming agent provocateurs, this just seems rather tame and less shocking than I expected.
Although your summary seems correct, it probably omits how vital funds were to the strike, how legal (seems like not very much) was taking help from MI5, and the point that's also omitted from the article which is if the court decision to fine the union was legit in the very beginning.
I'm not familiar with anything related to that strike, but that very much looks like breaking checks and balances and going the totalitarian "we know better" way, even if not to the very depth of it
Not really shocking, but very well outside of the jurisdiction of MI5 and an abuse of power by the politicians.
Yes the headline is click bait. Even though this comm has no rule against editorialising headlines I tend to not do that. If anyone suggests a better title I'll change it.
holy smokes that headline sucks
A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.
Our Philosophies:
Our Goals