IMGpapers 1980–83

Newspapers of the International Marxist Group and its forerunners, 1980–83

HANDS

· Socialist Challenge No. 234, 25 February 1982 · pp. 13-14 of the scan · 182 words

The scan: sc-no234.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 13 of the scan

Badges: 20p+ 11%

p&p. Bulk London EnClOsE ques? postor orner made Socialist Challenge: pamphlet on planning for jobs need. Noncertle coin coinciding Northern ference on 6 February.

the conference Terry warsland of Tobacco Workers explain ed in a kevnote speech. how her union was back Stewards had organised factory Hoor education on nuclear Carmanen 20174 teeth of management at gag political discussions The pamphlet will give valuable multants wantnu to tollov her union's led lt is in tended to show practically Socialist Challenge PAMPHLET 2000 copies said in firs week! Order your copies now of the second edition. Just 25p or 20p for sup porters groups orders.

Atma Singh looks at a new anti-nuclear and A timely pamphlet has been produced in the successful Labour movement conhow arms production facilities could be conneedsthough it deals with explicitly argues against regional. ism so typical of Labour Party bureaucrats: In no sense, # says. SHOUTS examples relating to Tuneside be mleroreted as pleading a special case possibilities in production by taking into account the type of arms and nuclear energy pro

← Miners should backSolidarity round-up →

Something wrong on this page?