# General > General >  Margaret Thatcher

## cptdodger

Just been reported on BBC News 24 - Margaret Thatcher died this morning.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22067155

----------


## cesare

suppose its end of a era for most of you now eh??

----------


## squidge

Gosh. This feels like quite a historical  moment.

----------


## Phill

Oooh, do we get a day off?

----------


## cptdodger

They have just said that her funeral will have the same status as the Queen Mother's or Diana's. Although at her own request, she will not lie in state. I worked for Tesco's at the time of Diana's funeral, I remember because it was my last day before maternity leave, and I know all the shops were closed until 2pm. As for the Queen Mother's funeral, I was working that day, so I do'nt know what will happen with this one.

----------


## midi2304

I'm not going to celebrate anyone dying but I certainly won't mourn either. An exceptionally important person in terms of British history even if it was all for the wrong reasons.

----------


## RecQuery

Argh, the media and internet are going to be unbearable for the next few days.

Obviously her funeral should be privatised as the private sector is more profitable. We don't want any more vile products of the welfare state!

----------


## M Swanson

I was sad to learn of the passing of Margaret Hilda. She was a woman of great courage and wisdom, who did her utmost to instill a passionate pride in Briton's for their country, as well as being respected and welcomed throughout the world. RIP MH, after a job well done.

----------


## rob murray

> I was sad to learn of the passing of Margaret Hilda. She was a woman of great courage and wisdom, who did her utmost to instill a passionate pride in Briton's for their country, as well as being respected and welcomed throughout the world. RIP MH, after a job well done.


How much were you paid to post this propaganda !

----------


## RecQuery

Obviously her funeral should be privatised as the private sector is more profitable. We don't want any more vile products of the welfare state!

----------


## piratelassie

Life is a compromise, that woman did'nt know the meaning of the word. She wo'nt be missed by me.

----------


## RecQuery

I don't think CNN got the memo they're running this picture with her obituary:

----------


## rob murray

Seriously, a state funeral, St Pauls Cathedral, full military honours....she was only a politician, and a divisive one at that, I mean come on !!!

----------


## golach

> I was sad to learn of the passing of Margaret Hilda. She was a woman of great courage and wisdom, who did her utmost to instill a passionate pride in Briton's for their country, as well as being respected and welcomed throughout the world. RIP MH, after a job well done.


Sorry M Swanson, got to disagree with you on this one, I for one had no time for the woman.

----------


## ducati

> Seriously, a state funeral, St Pauls Cathedral, full military honours....she was only a politician, and a divisive one at that, I mean come on !!!


One of a small handful of great military leaders. I'm sure our armed forces would want the opportunity to pay respects.

----------


## PantsMAN

My my, an 87 year old woman dies and the Nation (or a particular part of it) descends into the same choreographed grief that we had to endure after Prince Charles's first wife died.

Just managed to avoid most of the sycophantic, hour-long tripe on the BBC at 1; BBC Scotland had a much more pragmatic, brief and truthful 3 minutes.  This woman was poison for Scotland.  However we should be grateful that,with her policies, she destroyed any vestige of the Tory party in Scotland.

Her lasting legacy will include the debacle we now have with the bedroom tax as she initiated the selling-off of the local authority housing stock in Scotland, resulting in huge shortages of suitable homes.  That and the destruction of mining throughout Great Britain.

Any other legacies worth mentioning?

----------


## rob murray

> I was sad to learn of the passing of Margaret Hilda. She was a woman of great courage and wisdom, who did her utmost to instill a passionate pride in Briton's for their country, as well as being respected and welcomed throughout the world. RIP MH, after a job well done.


Sorry I thought that you meant Hilda Ogden from Corrie

----------


## rob murray

A conviction politician who should have been convicted herself lol

----------


## ducati

> My my, an 87 year old woman dies and the Nation (or a particular part of it) descends into the same choreographed grief that we had to endure after Prince Charles's first wife died.
> 
> Just managed to avoid most of the sycophantic, hour-long tripe on the BBC at 1; BBC Scotland had a much more pragmatic, brief and truthful 3 minutes.  This woman was poison for Scotland.  However we should be grateful that,with her policies, she destroyed any vestige of the Tory party in Scotland.
> 
> Her lasting legacy will include the debacle we now have with the bedroom tax as she initiated the selling-off of the local authority housing stock in Scotland, resulting in huge shortages of suitable homes.  That and the destruction of mining throughout Great Britain.
> 
> Any other legacies worth mentioning?


Lots and lots of Scots people owning their own homes. The end of the cold war. The retention of the Falklands by the Falklanders. The end of tyranny in the trade union movement. Gosh I'll go and write a long list if you like? The birth of the labour party in it's current form, (probably the Lib Dems too.)

----------


## golach

> One of a small handful of great military leaders. I'm sure our armed forces would want the opportunity to pay respects.


I do not think the 255 who were killed during the Falklands war will be able to or want to pay their respects, thousand of personell went down there with their redundancy notices in their pockets. How many were able to cash them in? She cut the troops, that eventually she used to boost her own standing

----------


## rob murray

> Lots and lots of Scots people owning their own homes. The end of the cold war. The retention of the Falklands by the Falklanders. The end of tyranny in the trade union movement. Gosh I'll go and write a long list if you like? The birth of the labour party in it's current form, (probably the Lib Dems too.)


Fine, your list will make good reading !

----------


## RecQuery

> Lots and lots of Scots people owning their own homes. The end of the cold war. The retention of the Falklands by the Falklanders. The end of tyranny in the trade union movement. Gosh I'll go and write a long list if you like? The birth of the labour party in it's current form, (probably the Lib Dems too.)


She was friends with and supported mass-murdering dictators such as Pinochet (Chile) and Suharto (Indonesia) as well as supporting the Apartheid regime in South Africa whilst dismissing Nelson Mandela as a terrorist. The Hilsborough cover-up, etc.

And I'm sure the current generation are equally grateful that she invested in so much affordable housing to replace the government property that she sold off... oh wait she didn't.

I can write my own list (with proper references and citations, if required).

----------


## rob murray

> One of a small handful of great military leaders. I'm sure our armed forces would want the opportunity to pay respects.


 Well you've nailed your colours firmly to the mast eh !

----------


## ducati

> She was friends with and supported mass-murdering dictators such as Pinochet (Chile) and Suharto (Indonesia) as well as supporting the Apartheid regime in South Africa whilst dismissing Nelson Mandela as a terrorist. The Hilsborough cover-up, etc.
> 
> And I'm sure the current generation are equally grateful that she invested in so much affordable housing to replace the government property that she sold off... oh wait she didn't.
> 
> I can write my own list (with proper references and citations, if required).


Knock yourself out. Really!

----------


## PantsMAN

> The end of the cold war.


The end of the Cold War..... methinks you're wearing the rose-tinted specs




> The end of tyranny in the trade union movement.


Should that not be The end of workers' rights?  Not to forget the rise of the 'Me, me, me' culture we enjoy now.




> The birth of the labour party in it's current form, (probably the Lib Dems too.)


You mean the birth of the OTHER Tory party?

----------


## ducati

> Well you've nailed your colours firmly to the mast eh !


Blimey, I've just accused you in another thread of not paying attention. I didn't realise how true it was  ::

----------


## rob murray

> Knock yourself out. Really!


Thought you did and had just come round !! Its acceptably recognised that she supported Pinochet, apartheid etc, facts, just as you quote "acceptable" facts ie council house sales, trade union reform, the spur to redefine Labour all accepted facts  etc, why dont you accept a balance here instead of using Nelsons eye !!

----------


## scorrie

I don't think this is one of those JFK or Lady Diana moments. In reality, many people who, when asked if they could remember where they were when they discovered Margaret Thatcher was dead, may well have replied:-

"Why of course I can, I was standing over her body holding a smoking gun"

I see the hypocrisy wagon is gathering speed already, with Tony Blair describing her as "A towering politician"

----------


## rob murray

> Blimey, I've just accused you in another thread of not paying attention. I didn't realise how true it was


 Yes you know the truth as always, oh all mighty, all seeing, unforgiving one : you've given me the best laugh in years : "one of a handful of great military leaders" ( along with the dads army platoon captain ? ) lol lol

----------


## Flynn

There's an army of flying monkeys just turned up at the job centre looking for a new boss.


There's a petition to say NO to a taxpayer funded funeral: https://submissions.epetitions.direc...etitions/45966

Let people pay for it privately if they want, but don't expect the taxpayer to stump up to put it in the ground.

----------


## ducati

> I do not think the 255 who were killed during the Falklands war will be able to or want to pay their respects, thousand of personell went down there with their redundancy notices in their pockets. How many were able to cash them in? She cut the troops, that eventually she used to boost her own standing


Sorry G. I really don't know how to respond to this. Are you saying we should have let the Falklands remain in Argentine hands? Or that we as a nation should not have the right to vary the strength of the Armed forces? Virtually every bit of kit sent was obsolete. Luckily, crewed, manned and operated by the most magnificent body of men and women.

Personally I'd have said to hell with it and nuked BA into a glass carpark. (That is why I'm not allowed to operate dangerous machinery.  :: )

----------


## PantsMAN

The meeja will no doubt try to whip up a frenzy of emotion....

----------


## rob murray

Bit harsh eh ! Televise it, flog adverts, ringtones, DVD's, t shirts etc raise some dosh, the country is on its knee's, one last push from the great war leader to help get us out of "our" mess : judging by some remarks on here, the demand for souvenir DVD's will create a couple of 100 jobs at Amazon !!

----------


## oldchemist

Scorrie - I can't figure out Tony's anagram "a towering politician". Must be offensive surely?

----------


## Flynn

> Sorry G. I really don't know how to respond to this. Are you saying we should have let the Falklands remain in Argentine hands? Or that we as a nation should not have the right to vary the strength of the Armed forces? Virtually every bit of kit sent was obsolete. Luckily, crewed, manned and operated by the most magnificent body of men and women.
> 
> Personally I'd have said to hell with it and nuked BA into a glass carpark. (That is why I'm not allowed to operate dangerous machinery. )


Well you will be happy Scameron has continued her policies and scrapped our aircraft carriers. If Argentina invade again there'll be nothing we can do about it, thanks to the continuation of her policies.

----------


## Flynn

Tweet of the day.

----------


## rob murray

> Sorry G. I really don't know how to respond to this. Are you saying we should have let the Falklands remain in Argentine hands? Or that we as a nation should not have the right to vary the strength of the Armed forces? Virtually every bit of kit sent was obsolete. Luckily, crewed, manned and operated by the most magnificent body of men and women.
> 
> Personally I'd have said to hell with it and nuked BA into a glass carpark. (That is why I'm not allowed to operate dangerous machinery. )


"Watch out, for as soon as it pleases them they’ll send you out to protect their gold in wars whose weapons, rapidly developed by servile scientists, will become more and more deadly until they can with a flick of the finger tear a million of you to pieces..."  never truer words spoke,  and who said that then ???

----------


## macadamia

RIP Margaret Thatcher.

----------


## mi16

Another disgusting outpouring of hatred and a total lack of respect for the deceased.
My concolences to Janet and Sir Mark for the loss of their mother.

----------


## rob murray

> Another disgusting outpouring of hatred and a total lack of respect for the deceased.
> My concolences to Janet and Sir Mark for the loss of their mother.


What hatred ? Thats your take on things ???

----------


## mi16

> What hatred ? Thats your take on things ???


"Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" If that is not hatred that I dont know what is.

----------


## John Little

Who's Janet? (Whisper)

----------


## golach

> Virtually every bit of kit sent was obsolete. Luckily, crewed, manned and operated by the most magnificent body of men and women.


I never inferred that we should not have gone to defend the Falkland Islanders, my main gripe was that her government had just put a set of cuts that was going to decimate our troops, and many had their redundancy in their lockers. I agree our troops did magnificently under dire duress, what galls me Maggie glorified herself, if the Falklands war had not happened at that opertune moment, she would not have served another term in power. She was warned that the Argies were up to skulduggery by the then Falklands guard ship HMS Endurance, but what was her answer .....scrap the Endurance.
http://www.thedockyard.co.uk/Netsite.../827/Falklands

----------


## PantsMAN

> Who's Janet? (Whisper)


Here she is - http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/staff/jthatcher

or is this her http://www.hanc.com/janet-thatcher/

teehee

----------


## ducati

> Well you will be happy Scameron has continued her policies and scrapped our aircraft carriers. If Argentina invade again there'll be nothing we can do about it, thanks to the continuation of her policies.


Apart from anhialating them with some really hi tech kit.

----------


## Flynn

> Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. 
> Where there is error, may we bring truth. 
> Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. 
> And where there is despair, may we bring hope.


0/4. See me.

----------


## Flynn

And Scameron thinks he'll get away with a publicly funded funeral? He'll do well to take a leaf from the American book and lose the cadaver at sea.

----------


## Anfield

There is enough crap in the sea without adding to it. Burn her, in public so that we can all see that she has gone

----------


## shazzap

I don't like to speak ill, of the dead. But I won't loose any sleep over her death.

----------


## Dialyser

In my opinion she was a vile and vindictive person and one of the poorest leaders we have had.
However I don't believe in gloating over someones death, so will stop at that.

----------


## Flynn

> I don't like to speak ill, of the dead.


Why? That didn't stop her speaking ill of the dead after Hilsborough.

----------


## shazzap

> Why? That didn't stop her speaking ill of the dead after Hilsborough.


She may not have any respect. But I do.

----------


## tonkatojo

[QUOTE=ducati;1019428]One of a small handful of great military leaders. I'm sure our armed forces would want the opportunity to pay respects.[/QUOT

Well this ex serviceman certainly does not, if the tory lot want her to have a semi state send off you lot should pay for it.

----------


## John Little

[QUOTE=tonkatojo;1019518]


> One of a small handful of great military leaders. I'm sure our armed forces would want the opportunity to pay respects.[/QUOTWell this ex serviceman certainly does not, if the tory lot want her to have a semi state send off you lot should pay for it.


That's a good idea.  Tories want a big funeral then Tories should pay for it.  Not with my taxes anyway.

----------


## PantsMAN

And now nearly every newsreader is wearing something black.

Who made that decision?

----------


## macadamia

I conducted a poll on Face Book, and included the Org in, to give a little Scottish flavour to it. Seeing the some of the shameful scrawlings above, I thought I'd share it with you here.

"De mortuis nil nisi bonum". I thought it would be interesting to gather all the comments from FB and other sites regarding positive and negative remarks so far regarding the late Margaret Thatcher, one of the most revolutionary UK and World politicians and stateswomen of her century. I even included comments as "negative" where the category should have read "product of a sick mind". Here, then, are the results of the UK Jury

 POSITIVE 124
 NEGATIVE 39 
 NEUTRAL 0

 Statistically, this means diddley-squat. But I think it does indicate that even in death the most controversial PM of the last 100 years still commands a 76% majority.

 Arthur Scargill, still alive, doesn't.

----------


## cptdodger

> Why? That didn't stop her speaking ill of the dead after Hilsborough.


Anybody that was involved in the cover up of that awful, awful tragedy, most certainly does not deserve a "ceremonial" funeral.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/hi...h-police-cover

----------


## Flynn

> I conducted a poll on Face Book, 
> 
>  Statistically, this means diddley-squat.



Fixed that for you.

----------


## John Little

> I conducted a poll on Face Book, and included the Org in, to give a little Scottish flavour to it. Seeing the some of the shameful scrawlings above, I thought I'd share it with you here.
> "De mortuis nil nisi bonum". I thought it would be interesting to gather all the comments from FB and other sites regarding positive and negative remarks so far regarding the late Margaret Thatcher, one of the most revolutionary UK and World politicians and stateswomen of her century. I even included comments as "negative" where the category should have read "product of a sick mind". Here, then, are the results of the UK Jury POSITIVE 124 NEGATIVE 39  NEUTRAL 0 Statistically, this means diddley-squat. But I think it does indicate that even in death the most controversial PM of the last 100 years still commands a 76% majority. Arthur Scargill, still alive, doesn't.


No.  It's an indication that she commands some support.  Full stop.

----------


## golach

> I
>  Arthur Scargill, still alive, doesn't.


I liked Arthur Scargill even less than Maggie

----------


## M Swanson

> Another disgusting outpouring of hatred and a total lack of respect for the deceased.
> My concolences to Janet and Sir Mark for the loss of their mother.


Well said, mi16.  I notice you always post to challenge nasty comments and it speaks much of you as a person.  But, the hatefulness and bitterness is not a measure of MH's failure, but testament of her amazing success as a strong, dedicated, leader.  It took incredible courage to crush the unions who were holding Britain to ransom and their supporters have never come to terms with their defeat. The insults wash as easily over me and hundreds of thousands of others as I'm confident they would the great lady herself. 

I won't labour any more points, because whilst your condolences are sincere and respectful, I'm not aware of your thoughts of her as a PM. 

I repeat, RIP, Baroness Thatcher.

----------


## Flynn

The Thatcher effect on the UK's Gini coefficient.

----------


## John Little

That's fairly conclusive.  To me anyway.  Inequality soared.

----------


## mi16

> Well said, mi16.  I notice you always post to challenge nasty comments and it speaks much of you as a person.  But, the hatefulness and bitterness is not a measure of MH's failure, but testament of her amazing success as a strong, dedicated, leader.  It took incredible courage to crush the unions who were holding Britain to ransom and their supporters have never come to terms with their defeat. The insults wash as easily over me and hundreds of thousands of others as I'm confident they would the great lady herself. I won't labour any more points, because whilst your condolences are sincere and respectful, I'm not aware of your thoughts of her as a PM. I repeat, RIP, Baroness Thatcher.


Why thank you sir (or madam)Mrs Thatcher had great success as the PM as well as many lows.However that was just her career.She wasn't a cold blooded killer, a rapist, a pedophile or and other such horror.She was the PM who was elected by us.In the past weeks, months and years though she was simply a unwell old woman at the end of her life. And to see folk saying good riddance etc is plain distasteful, I wonder what they would say if the same was said of their loved ones when they pass away?

----------


## RagnarRocks

> I do not think the 255 who were killed during the Falklands war will be able to or want to pay their respects, thousand of personell went down there with their redundancy notices in their pockets. How many were able to cash them in? She cut the troops, that eventually she used to boost her own standing


Having served in the armed forces during that time I respectfully suggest unless you served in the armed forces and saw combat in the Falklands you do not disrespect those who died names to glorify your political beliefs !

----------


## Flynn

> Why thank you sir (or madam)Mrs Thatcher had great success as the PM as well as many lows.However that was just her career.She wasn't a cold blooded killer, a rapist, a pedophile or and other such horror.She was the PM who was elected by us.In the past weeks, months and years though she was simply a unwell old woman at the end of her life. And to see folk saying good riddance etc is plain distasteful, I wonder what they would say if the same was said of their loved ones when they pass away?


She called Mandela a terrorist and refused to sanction South Africa over apartheid, and she was bezzie mates with Pinochet and Savile. I am glad she's dead, now I want to see an open casket funeral so I can see for myself the stake through her heart. Thousands disagree with you and are organising street parties the length of the country to celebrate the old witch pegging it.

----------


## mi16

> She called Mandela a terrorist and refused to sanction South Africa over apartheid, and she was bezzie mates with Pinochet and Savile. I am glad she's dead, now I want to see an open casket funeral so I can see for myself the stake through her heart. Thousands disagree with you and are organising street parties the length of the country to celebrate the old witch pegging it.


If there are thousands of folk with your opinion on a dead person then this country has really stooped to a new low.I have heard Fred west being remembered more fondly

----------


## Flynn

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...arties-1818618

----------


## RagnarRocks

But if you've ever eaten Mr Whippy Ice Cream and enjoyed it then thank Margaret Thatcher as she was part of the team that invented it prior to her political career. Also unlike our left wing former masters she did t leave the country on its knees and virtually bankrupt, her wars weren't illegal a la mode de Mr Blair nor did she employ the lies and spin of the Labour Party she wasn't perfect but she wasn't a devil either som eof her policies good some but I don't think she destroyed the unions they destroyed themselves and history has now shown that quite a few former union leaders where paid by the Russians so in other less liberal times they would be called traitors and hung. She sold the council house to the tenants who wanted to buy them no one was forced to buy them so please stop all silly political rubbish. At the end of the day I doubt any of you met her let alone knew her so you're all blathering,fed to you by the media political hogwash those who say the hate her etc etc obviously don't know what true hate is !

----------


## mi16

> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...arties-1818618


As stated earlier, we are at a new low.Be interested to see what morons attend the street party

----------


## Flynn

> But if you've ever eaten Mr Whippy Ice Cream and enjoyed it then thank Margaret Thatcher as she was part of the team that invented it prior to her political career. Also unlike our left wing former masters she did t leave the country on its knees and virtually bankrupt, her wars weren't illegal a la mode de Mr Blair nor did she employ the lies and spin of the Labour Party she wasn't perfect but she wasn't a devil either som eof her policies good some but I don't think she destroyed the unions they destroyed themselves and history has now shown that quite a few former union leaders where paid by the Russians so in other less liberal times they would be called traitors and hung. She sold the council house to the tenants who wanted to buy them no one was forced to buy them so please stop all silly political rubbish. At the end of the day I doubt any of you met her let alone knew her so you're all blathering,fed to you by the media political hogwash those who say the hate her etc etc obviously don't know what true hate is !

----------


## RagnarRocks

Nothing disgusts me more than armchair activists who sit spewing bile and hatred on their computers generally non of these will have done an awful lot for their country except maybe contributed to global warming with all their gas about how awful this that or the other person is or was and how the hard working people should give them everything free. My simple answer get a backbone and if you really feel our country is that bad feel free to emigrate to somewhere you feel life is better!

----------


## scorrie

> I conducted a poll on Face Book, and included the Org in, to give a little Scottish flavour to it. Seeing the some of the shameful scrawlings above, I thought I'd share it with you here.
> 
> "De mortuis nil nisi bonum". I thought it would be interesting to gather all the comments from FB and other sites regarding positive and negative remarks so far regarding the late Margaret Thatcher, one of the most revolutionary UK and World politicians and stateswomen of her century. I even included comments as "negative" where the category should have read "product of a sick mind". Here, then, are the results of the UK Jury
> 
>  POSITIVE 124
>  NEGATIVE 39 
>  NEUTRAL 0
> 
>  Statistically, this means diddley-squat. But I think it does indicate that even in death the most controversial PM of the last 100 years still commands a 76% majority.
> ...


After Stalin died grown men wept in the streets. The public love a good old funeral and it's seen as "nice" to soften towards someone previously hated once they die, or are diagnosed with a terminal illness. I would imagine many of Facebook's younger readers will not know a lot about Mr T's late wife and might be interested to hear what the representative of the Durham miners had to say regarding her passing on Sky News. Rightly or wrongly they made no pretense of anything other than being happy campers, which is their prerogative. Some will say "The Witch is dead" is a harsh statement, others will argue that there must be a spelling mistake in the second word of that quotation. I leave this debate with the words of the old wifie in the street who, on hearing that Mrs Thatcher had died following a stroke stated:-

"Serves her right for playing golf at her age"

----------


## Flynn

Can someone call Ragnar's mummy, he appears to have spit his dummy out the pram.  ::

----------


## RagnarRocks

> Can someone call Ragnar's mummy, he appears to have spit his dummy out the pram.


Oh come on do try a bit harder I've had kids say worse to me . And if I did spit my dummy you'd have a hole in your head :0)

----------


## Flynn

> Oh come on do try a bit harder I've had kids say worse to me . And if I did spit my dummy you'd have a hole in your head :0)


Typical right-winger, can't handle being on the losing end of an argument and so threatens violence instead.

----------


## Flynn



----------


## RagnarRocks

I'm neither right wing or left I'm a wonderfully sensible mixture of a bit right a bit left and a bit liberal which means I live firmly in the real world unlike you dear Flynn!But I do have a measure of your manliness .....I can read the headlines .... Grown man feels threatened by child's dummy!Fear not you can crawl out from behind your armchair and stop whimpering in fear to the best of my knowledge children's dummies have not been involved in ballistic damage to the human torso! Infact I do believe they come with a CE mark which means you're safe big man !

----------


## Flynn

> I'm neither right wing or left I'm a wonderfully sensible mixture of a bit right a bit left and a bit liberal which means I live firmly in the real world unlike you dear Flynn!But I do have a measure of your manliness .....I can read the headlines .... Grown man feels threatened by child's dummy!Fear not you can crawl out from behind your armchair and stop whimpering in fear to the best of my knowledge children's dummies have not been involved in ballistic damage to the human torso! Infact I do believe they come with a CE mark which means you're safe big man !


Hahaha! Try intimidating someone else son, it won't work with me.  ::

----------


## Flynn

“She created today’s housing crisis. She created the banking crisis. And she created the benefits crisis. It was her government that started putting people on incapacity benefit rather than register them as unemployed because the Britain she inherited was broadly full employment.

She decided when she wrote off our manufacturing industry that she could live with two or three million unemployed, and the benefits bill, the legacy of that, we are struggling with today. In actual fact, every real problem we face today is the legacy of the fact that she was fundamentally wrong.” - Ken Livingstone on Thatcher

----------


## RagnarRocks

> Hahaha1 Try intimidating someone else son, it won't work with me.


Are you really that delusional ? No ones tried intimidating you ! Up or change your meds they aren't working

----------


## RagnarRocks

> Typical right-winger, can't handle being on the losing end of an argument and so threatens violence instead.


So we shall ignore histories list of cant win an argument lefties and resort to violence err Stalin, Mao, Pol and Oooh isn't that North Korean chap wanting to nuke everyone a left winger. Nuff said comrade Flynn

----------


## Flynn

> So we shall ignore histories list of cant win an argument lefties and resort to violence err Stalin, Mao, Pol and Oooh isn't that North Korean chap wanting to nuke everyone a left winger. Nuff said comrade Flynn


Do you really want the thread to descend into Godwinism?

----------


## RagnarRocks

> Do you really want the thread to descend into Godwinism?


I refuse to use that to justify anything but nice attempt by you try !

----------


## Flynn

Well if you're going to start naming commie dictators it's only fair we mention the worst dictator and genocidal maniac in all history...

----------


## RagnarRocks

> Well if you're going to start naming commie dictators it's only fair we mention the worst dictator and genocidal maniac in all history...


 I think you'll find that Uncle Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao successfully managed to slaughter millions of their own countrymen behind closed doors you'll find history has rewritten the worst genocidal maniac of all time handbook and they feature right up the top now. The reality is genocidal maniacs use politics as a means to an end extremists of any persuasion are a bad thing And as for your mention of godwinism.While falling afoul of Godwin's law tends to cause the individual making the comparison to lose their argument or credibility, Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate

----------


## golach

> Having served in the armed forces during that time I respectfully suggest unless you served in the armed forces and saw combat in the Falklands you do not disrespect those who died names to glorify your political beliefs !


I am not disrespecting the fallen at all, I am just pointing out that her government sent hundreds of RN personell to the Falklands with their redundancy notices in their lockers, many were on terminal leave and were called back to man the Armada that was sent down.I wonder how many came back to collect their redundancy And yes I was a member of the forces in those days, a Royal Naval Reservist, but I never saw combat at that time, I did however serve at MOD HQ, but can tell you no more.

----------


## RagnarRocks

> Well if you're going to start naming commie dictators it's only fair we mention the worst dictator and genocidal maniac in all history...


German fascist  dictator about 17 million civiliansRussian Communist dictator about  26 million civilians And you're saying the German was worse ?

----------


## John Little

No.  The worst was probably Hong Xiuquan.

----------


## Flynn

> I think you'll find that Uncle Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao successfully managed to slaughter millions of their own countrymen behind closed doors you'll find history has rewritten the worst genocidal maniac of all time handbook and they feature right up the top now. The reality is genocidal maniacs use politics as a means to an end extremists of any persuasion are a bad thing And as for your mention of godwinism.While falling afoul of Godwin's law tends to cause the individual making the comparison to lose their argument or credibility, Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate


I mention Godwinism because it was you who resorted to it.

----------


## ducati

[QUOTE=John Little;1019519]


> That's a good idea. Tories want a big funeral then Tories should pay for it. Not with my taxes anyway.


Great idea, and only leftys fund the scro...er  ::

----------


## RagnarRocks

> I mention Godwinism because it was you who resorted to it.


Nope I've still not mentioned him despite your attempts to get me to I fact you are the one who mentioned that particular regime first so if the cap fits Flynn wear it don't be so shy !

----------


## John Little

[QUOTE=ducati;1019619]


> Great idea, and only leftys fund the scro...er


Lol.  The great irony of this is that you think I'm a "lefty".  such a convenient label. i hope you never meet a real one.

----------


## ducati

[QUOTE=John Little;1019621]


> Lol. The great irony of this is that you think I'm a "lefty". such a convenient label. i hope you never meet a real one.


So do I!  ::

----------


## RagnarRocks

> I am not disrespecting the fallen at all, I am just pointing out that her government sent hundreds of RN personell to the Falklands with their redundancy notices in their lockers, many were on terminal leave and were called back to man the Armada that was sent down.I wonder how many came back to collect their redundancy And yes I was a member of the forces in those days, a Royal Naval Reservist, but I never saw combat at that time, I did however serve at MOD HQ, but can tell you no more.


Well if you were RN reserve you weren't there nor where you a serving member of the regular armed forces and saying you worked at MOD HQ is well laughable in the regs you'd be called a REMF which I suppose is as suitable a term as I can muster. I'm fully aware of the official secrets act and if you're as old as you suggest but still can't say anything that would say everything so don't try the James Bond I can't say anything line as its baloney used by floor sweepers to sound big down the pub !

----------


## RagnarRocks

[QUOTE=ducati;1019624]


> So do I!


I've met a few funnily enough two arms two legs, eyes all the usual bits the same as the rest of us they really are nothing to be scared of :0)

----------


## secrets in symmetry

> 0/4. See me.


0/4 indeed.

Why though would you want her to come back and haunt you?

----------


## secrets in symmetry

> Typical right-winger, can't handle being on the losing end of an argument and so threatens violence instead.


Speaking of right wingers and the threat of violence, the retrodden one seems to have disappeared with his usual haste....

----------


## secrets in symmetry

> I don't think this is one of those JFK or Lady Diana moments.


I was on the forum, and I read about it in cesare's thread entitled thatcher dies.

I bet not many can tell their grandchildren that they learned the news by reading cesare on caithness.org!

I did my celebrating as a young loon when she died as a politician on November 22, 1990. Today's event was the sad death of a sick old lady.

----------


## ducati

[QUOTE=RagnarRocks;1019626]


> I've met a few funnily enough two arms two legs, eyes all the usual bits the same as the rest of us they really are nothing to be scared of :0)


Yes, just my little joke. Some of my best friends and all that..

----------


## golach

> Well if you were RN reserve you weren't there nor where you a serving member of the regular armed forces and saying you worked at MOD HQ is well laughable in the regs you'd be called a REMF which I suppose is as suitable a term as I can muster. I'm fully aware of the official secrets act and if you're as old as you suggest but still can't say anything that would say everything so don't try the James Bond I can't say anything line as its baloney used by floor sweepers to sound big down the pub !


What an insulting pratt you have turned out to be, Reservists be they RN, TA or RAF when called up are as much serving armed forces as you allegedly were, and still are in Afghanistan at the moment, where did I say I was trying to make myself a James Bond type, I just see no need to brag about what I did or did not do., OH I love my ignore button!!!

----------


## John Little

[QUOTE=RagnarRocks;1019626]


> I've met a few funnily enough two arms two legs, eyes all the usual bits the same as the rest of us they really are nothing to be scared of :0)


Ah, but there are quite a few of the left, as there are of the right, who would shoot you for disagreeing with them. 

Poor Duke is a hell of a nice chap and does not deserve to be shot. 

 Now me, I am a Social Democrat and look for balance in society.  They would shoot me too.

----------


## RagnarRocks

> What an insulting pratt you have turned out to be, Reservists be they RN, TA or RAF when called up are as much serving armed forces as you allegedly were, and still are in Afghanistan at the moment, where did I say I was trying to make myself a James Bond type, I just see no need to brag about what I did or did not do., OH I love my ignore button!!!


Reservist nowadays may play a role  and during the world wars but back then  in the 1980s it was not the case so my initial comment is correct you've served nowhere and done nothing, Therefor you do not have that particular right,revisionist history is unappealing at best So using the ultimate sacrifice of  fallen comrades to justify your  political points is unacceptable ! And should you ever wish to see a service record, medals earned and scars worn after I'd be more than happy to compare them against yours ! Of which I suspect you possess zero !

----------


## piratelassie

Thatcher was a wicked uncompromising tory bag. She supported dictators, called Nelson Mandela a terrorist and among other things did more damage to Brittish industry than Hitler ever managed.




> Why thank you sir (or madam)Mrs Thatcher had great success as the PM as well as many lows.However that was just her career.She wasn't a cold blooded killer, a rapist, a pedophile or and other such horror.She was the PM who was elected by us.In the past weeks, months and years though she was simply a unwell old woman at the end of her life. And to see folk saying good riddance etc is plain distasteful, I wonder what they would say if the same was said of their loved ones when they pass away?

----------


## secrets in symmetry

Don't forget that the worst of Thatcher's many appalling Chancellors was a northern Scot - and an even more northern one than (m)any of us!

----------


## theone

It amazes me the amount of people on here, on facebook and beyond who want to celebrate Thatcher's death.

Like her or not, she was voted in as PM 3 times through democratic process. Disagree with her policies - fair enough - but the fact is the majority of the electorate wanted her and her party in power at that time.

That's democracy. If you don't agree with it, offer a solution.

I've never voted conservative in my life, but the fact is her party was voted in following the "winter of discontent" when the voting public became fed up of being held to ransom by the trade unions. Although I don't agree, I can understand why.

She wasn't a dictator. She was what the public voted for. Mocking her or celebrating her death is, in my opinion, really is a bit sad.

----------


## macadamia

Amen to that. Grave-dancers demean only themselves.

----------


## Phill

Oh this is nice!
In other news, City won!

----------


## RagnarRocks

Why is it on this forum that the left wingers think it acceptable to personalise everything resort to name calling or direct personal attacks doesn't inspire me to feel they have valid points or a cause worthy of intellectual consideration!  There are aspects of socialism I embrace fully so the concept itself isn't all bad.But in this particular instance over the death of an elderly woman a mother and grandmother and our first female prime minister democratically elected and voted in 3 times any sane person must consider whether basic common decent behaviour is too much to ask for!

----------


## Flynn

> Why is it on this forum that the left wingers think it acceptable to personalise everything resort to name calling or direct personal attacks doesn't inspire me to feel they have valid points or a cause worthy of intellectual consideration!  There are aspects of socialism I embrace fully so the concept itself isn't all bad.But in this particular instance over the death of an elderly woman a mother and grandmother and our first female prime minister democratically elected and voted in 3 times any sane person must consider whether basic common decent behaviour is too much to ask for!


Chileans wouldn't mourn Pinochet, even though at the end he was a 'frail old man', and I strongly doubt Zimbabweans will mourn Mugabe, even though he will likely be a 'frail old man' at the end.  She's mother to a lawbreaking arms dealing son, and a bigoted racist daughter. Her legacy does indeed live on in her progeny.

Closed Britain's industries, privatised the utilities, privatised public transport, deregulated the stock market and banks, sold off social housing on the cheap.

How well did all that work out?

Let's see:

We still have mass unemployment first created by closing down Britain's industrial base. We had near full employment when she was first elected.
We have the most expensive gas, electricity, and water in Europe.
Our railways are now the most expensive in Europe, and buses only run profitable routes leaving millions with no bus services.
The country is bankrupt and in a deep recession due to deregulated money trading and banking.
We now have a massive housing shortage and an enormous housing benefit bill due to the lack of social housing because she wouldn't allow councils to build more social housing with the money they got from council house sales.


Great legacy

Elected three times. First time on the back of nationwide industrial unrest. The second on the back of an unnecessary war. The third on the back of selling people their council house on the cheap. Looks like one easy win and two bought elections to me. And let's not forget she wasn't voted out, _her own party_ got shot of her because they'd had enough of her.

----------


## squidge

I have been taken aback by the visceral nature of the comments made everywhere over the death of Margaret Thatcher. I am no supporter of her policies and I think her premiership led to  dreadful inequalities and hopelessness that we have struggled to rectify since. I could not bring myself to have a street party to celebrate the death of anyone. I read this yesterday on facebook and felt it is worth repeating here. I will not credit it with the persons name but in the midst of the whirlwind of vicious unpleasantness and hate I have read all day, I felt this person said somethings worth reading. 

"During the 1984/85 Miners' strike, Margaret Thatcher called my dad, my family & all our mining communities "the enemy within." That really hurt me a lot, as I was only young & had never before seen such vicious class hatred. We suffered a lot. Everybody did. My mum's health was vulnerable, so she had multiple heart attacks due to fuel poverty - no heating in the freezing cold, as the Tories tried to starve my dad back to work. (Mum became a cardiac cripple, was brain damaged & died a few years later, still in her 40s. My dad wasn't long behind her.)

When Norman Tebbit was pulled out of the rubble alive after the IRA Brighton Bombing the same year as the strike, my parents made me promise them that I would never let anger about Thatcherism cause me to lose my humanity. So I have sympathy for Mrs Thatcher's bereaved loved ones. Any loss is painful & it must have been hard for them to watch her deterioration as a frail old woman. 

But my thoughts are elsewhere, with all those who have suffered or died before their time due to neo-liberalism - the new name for Thatcherism. They are too many to mention, but include young conscripted Argentinian sailors murderer in Thatcher's war crime on the Belgrano; the 'disappeared' who were thrown out of helicopters in Chile by Thatcher's great friend Pinochet. My thoughts are with all those who died in Reagan's wars. Also with the children in Libya who died when F1-11s based in the UK bombed Gadaffi. My thoughts are with my own relatives who died and with everyone in the former mining communities who is still hurting.My thoughts are also with those who are suffering throughout the world today due to the financial crisis caused by neo-liberal economics and due to imperialist wars.

In the UK there is a new 'enemy within' - anyone poor or disabled who is on benefits or has a spare bedroom. So enjoy your street parties, but I feel rather solemn & sad & don't feel like dancing on an old woman's grave. I'd rather have a quiet glass of champagne & resolve to step up my efforts to bury Thatcher's utterly failed, morally bankrupt ideology. I'll toast those who have gone before and all those throughout the world who have struggled against neo-liberalism. I'll mourn the utter betrayal of the working class by the UK Labour party. Wherever you are in the world, my thoughts are with you in your personal & political struggles. "

Now you may find the language too lefty for your liking but This person had their political views shaped and nurtured by the policies of Margaret Thatcher. Policies which were divisive and have led to dreadful inequalities. I cannot mourn her or feel sad but I cannot dance on her grave either.

----------


## M Swanson

You won't see it that way, but whether you like it, or not, in writing this post I've no doubt that you've joined the grave dancers and having a whale of a time. Somehow, I expected a little better from you Squidge. Ah! Well!

----------


## RecQuery

> The Thatcher effect on the UK's Gini coefficient.


I can also do charts, sans the misleading cherry picking.

Unemployment levels skyrocketed, and have never returned to pre-Thatcher levels.



GDP per capita was essentially the same as other European countries, who didn't have similar leaders.

Actually GDP started in a recession, left in a recession. She presided over a natural recovery, there's a similar Gini index graph for all western democracies at that time.



On a side note and as a point of order GDP is not the Economy.

http://www.neweconomyworkinggroup.org/visions/living-wealth-indicators/gdp-flawed-measure-progress




> Then there is also the fact that GDP takes no account of how income is distributed. There could be complete income equality with everyone's purchasing power growing equally. Or the society may be divided between a small minority of the extremely affluent and a majority of the extremely destitute---or anything in between. GDP gives no clue one way or the other. Growth in the incomes of a few billionaires can produce impressive growth in GDP even as a majority of people starve.
> 
> Underlying all these deficiencies is the simple fact that GDP is based on market transactions, which means GDP is a measure of the rate at which money is flowing through the economy. Anything that increases the flow is therefore treated as a positive, even if it is clearly a negative for the society. Furthermore, because money metrics make no distinction between phantom wealth and real wealth, activities that generate profits from purely financial transactions unrelated to the creation of anything of real value count as additions to GDP and presumably to national well-being.
> 
> That is why restructuring the economy to shrink the manufacturing sector and grow the financial sector could appear to make us richer as a nation, when in fact it reduced our capacity to produce real things in favor of giving priority to generating profits from the exchange of worthless financial assets.


Thatcher is only really liked by a certain type of person living in the home counties.

----------


## squidge

M Swanson you dont half post some nonsensical stuff.  How is it dancing on someone's grave to express a view that she was divisive and her policies led to inequalities? I thought this was a measured and unhysterical explanation of the view of someone who might well be expected to join in with the hysteria that is going on. A good way to balance things out. As for what YOU expect of me M Swanson.... I utterly do not care one iota for your opinion, good bad or indifferent I utterly do not care.

----------


## M Swanson

Nope! You just used someone elses bigotry to gate-crash the party, Squidge, imo.

----------


## secrets in symmetry

As I said last night...

I did my celebrating as a young loon when she died as a politician on November 22, 1990. Today's event was the sad death of a sick old lady.
I don't dance on her grave, but I don't denigrate those who do, because I too recall her appalling economic, monetary, and social records. She was the architect of our country's present day economic imbalance, and the architect of its inequality. Indeed, Michael Forsyth was beaming on TV this morning, whilst explaining exactly how she destroyed Scottish industry and replaced it with, err, ..., nothing. Well, not quite, she replaced it with unemployment, poverty, hopelessness and despair. Coal, steel, automobiles - she destroyed them all. Forsyth still doesn't understand what they did wrong, and I suspect the sick old lady didn't understand either.

Her successors Major, Blair and Brown, didn't do much to redress her industrial lunacy. If we want a strong woman leader who knows which way to drive the economy, we should reach out and steal Mrs Merkel - although I doubt we'd find much solace in many of her other policies....

----------


## M Swanson

If Margaret Hilda and her policies are as awful as you claim, SiS, then why, in 12 years governance did Labour do nothing to change them?

I wonder how many of you grew and prospered during her Premiership?

----------


## golach

> As I said last night...
> 
> I did my celebrating as a young loon when she died as a politician on November 22, 1990. Today's event was the sad death of a sick old lady.
> I don't dance on her grave, but I don't denigrate those who do, because I too recall her appalling economic, monetary, and social records. She was the architect of our country's present day economic imbalance, and the architect of its inequality. Indeed, Michael Forsyth was beaming on TV this morning, whilst explaining exactly how she destroyed Scottish industry and replaced it with, err, ..., nothing. Well, not quite, she replaced it with unemployment, poverty, hopelessness and despair. Coal, steel, automobiles - she destroyed them all. Forsyth still doesn't understand what they did wrong, and I suspect the sick old lady didn't understand either.
> 
> Her successors Major, Blair and Brown, didn't do much to redress her industrial lunacy. If we want a strong woman leader who knows which way to drive the economy, we should reach out and steal Mrs Merkel - although I doubt we'd find much solace in many of her other policies....


Have to agree with you on this one SiS, sorry M Swanson I do not think you will get many over this side of the border thinking as you do on the subject of Mrs T.

----------


## secrets in symmetry

> Actually GDP started in a recession, left in a recession.


A point of order - her first recession was entirely of her own making. Even Cameron and Osborne wouldn't copy the crimes against economics committed by Thatcher and Howe (aided and abetted by Keith Joseph).

Her second recession was mostly the fault of John Major - before and after he became PM.

----------


## M Swanson

No problem Golach ...... I was already aware of that, but my beliefs are my own and as valid as anyone elses. I'm not afraid to air them in even the most hostile of surroundings. Would you have me any different?  ::

----------


## shazzap

> Chileans wouldn't mourn Pinochet, even though at the end he was a 'frail old man', and I strongly doubt Zimbabweans will mourn Mugabe, even though he will likely be a 'frail old man' at the end.  She's mother to a lawbreaking arms dealing son, and a bigoted racist daughter. Her legacy does indeed live on in her progeny.
> 
> Closed Britain's industries, privatised the utilities, privatised public transport, deregulated the stock market and banks, sold off social housing on the cheap.
> 
> How well did all that work out?
> 
> Let's see:
> 
> We still have mass unemployment first created by closing down Britain's industrial base. We had near full employment when she was first elected.
> ...


 Although I do not like speaking ill of the dead, unless they are paedophiles, murderers, rapists or anyone else who fits into that type of category. I have to say I agree with what you, and all the others, who have said all of these things about her. She made it so the ordinary working man/woman could not have a decent standard of living. Because when it came to shall I feed my kids, or pay the Poll Tax, guess which I chose. We could not survive on what my husband was earning, and pay that as well.

----------


## M Swanson

> A point of order - her first recession was entirely of her own making. Even Cameron and Osborne wouldn't commit the crimes against economics made by Thatcher and Howe (aided and abetted by Keith Joseph).
> 
> Her second recession was entirely the fault of John Major - before and after he became PM.


And still the people returned her to office ....... three times. She never lost an election. Now, you tell me how Labour improved things and what policies they changed, SiS? 10, 9, 8.  ::

----------


## secrets in symmetry

> As I said last night...
> 
> I did my celebrating as a young loon when she died as a politician on November 22, 1990. Today's event was the sad death of a sick old lady.
> I don't dance on her grave, but I don't denigrate those who do, because I too recall her appalling economic, monetary, and social records. She was the architect of our country's present day economic imbalance, and the architect of its inequality. Indeed, Michael Forsyth was beaming on TV this morning, whilst explaining exactly how she destroyed Scottish industry and replaced it with, err, ..., nothing. Well, not quite, she replaced it with unemployment, poverty, hopelessness and despair. Coal, steel, automobiles - she destroyed them all. Forsyth still doesn't understand what they did wrong, and I suspect the sick old lady didn't understand either.
> 
> Her successors Major, Blair and Brown, didn't do much to redress her industrial lunacy. If we want a strong woman leader who knows which way to drive the economy, we should reach out and steal Mrs Merkel - although I doubt we'd find much solace in many of her other policies....


I forgot to add that Michael Forsyth is the inspiration, and indeed the economic guru, of many of the leading lights of the SDA. Vote SDA and get Thatcher's henchboy!

----------


## M Swanson

> Although I do not like speaking ill of the dead, unless they are paedophiles, murderers, rapists or anyone else who fits into that type of category. I have to say I agree with what you, and all the others, who have said all of these things about her. She made it so the ordinary working man/woman could not have a decent standard of living. Because when it came to shall I feed my kids, or pay the Poll Tax, guess which I chose. We could not survive on what my husband was earning, and pay that as well.


I'd be genuinely interested to know if you consider your quality of life improved at any time throughout Margaret Hilda's leadership, Shazz? We need to bear in mind that many of her policies still dominate today's policies, despite the opportunity for Labour to change things in a period of 12 years.

----------


## Flynn

As always Owen Jones hits the bullseye:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...s-8564858.html

----------


## shazzap

> I'd be genuinely interested to know if you consider your quality of life improved at any time throughout Margaret Hilda's leadership, Shazz? We need to bear in mind that many of her policies still dominate today's policies, despite the opportunity for Labour to change things in a period of 12 years.


No I can't say my quality of life improved.

----------


## M Swanson

> No I can't say my quality of life improved.


Thanks for the response Shazza. I'm sorry to read that.  :Frown:

----------


## John Little

> As always Owen Jones hits the bullseye:
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...s-8564858.html


I agree with that.

----------


## secrets in symmetry

> As always Owen Jones hits the bullseye:
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...s-8564858.html


That's a good article.

The last paragraph is a bit too old-fashioned left-wing for my liking, but I can live with it.

----------


## John Little

> That's a good article.
> 
> The last paragraph is a bit too old-fashioned left-wing for my liking, but I can live with it.


That's a good point actually.  The last thing we need is another polarizing government, and certainly not a dictatorship of the workers.

We need a government of the people, for the people and by the people.  Y'know - Democracy.

Not for the workers.  Not for the rich.  Not for the market.

For us.

Wonder if we'll ever get one?

----------


## mi16

You get what you vote for.

----------


## John Little

That is true.  But if the choice is not very wide then you may have to vote for something you don't really want in order to avoid getting something you really really don't want.

----------


## M Swanson

Don't fret John Little. Leave it to the likes of Owen Jones and his Communist, Trot, family background. He and his ilk will no doubt deliver the democracy goods. As history tells us.  :: 

Anyway, I'll look back later, when the Hinge & Bracket hour is over.  :: 

Have a good one, folks.

----------


## John Little

Aye - awa and enjoy yer book.  

Uncle Toms Cabin is it?  

I've telt ye already, I do not fret. 

 Stop projecting on me.

----------


## secrets in symmetry

> That is true.  But if the choice is not very wide then you may have to vote for something you don't really want in order to avoid getting something you really really don't want.


Indeed. I've voted for "the one most likely to beat Fat Eck (or his patsy)" in Holyrood and Council elections for years.

----------


## secrets in symmetry

> That's a good point actually.  The last thing we need is another polarizing government, and certainly not a dictatorship of the workers.
> 
> We need a government of the people, for the people and by the people.  Y'know - Democracy.
> 
> Not for the workers.  Not for the rich.  Not for the market.
> 
> For us.
> 
> Wonder if we'll ever get one?


Perhaps Obama would consider the job once his two terms in the White House are up.

----------


## tonkatojo

[QUOTE=ducati;1019619]


> Great idea, and only leftys fund the scro...er


The problem with your ideals are the so called "scr...er" will more than likely have paid for the pittance your lot want to pay them at some time in life, TBW was paid in taxes for the damage she did why pay for her funeral, as I said your lot should pay as well as her family ( I have prepaid my funeral expenses so no one has to) and have a contribution box if any others want to put up.

----------


## Flynn

Her funeral is set to cost the taxpayer £8,000,000. In honour of the ideologies of the cadaver they should have put it out to tender in the private sector. I reckon Cory Environmental could have done it for a couple of grand.

----------


## John Little

Well Flynn - that's only the weekly benefits of 150,943 people.

I'm sure we can afford it.

----------


## squidge

There are a lot of people complaining like M Swanson that people are being hateful towards a woman who was a wife a mother and a grandmother. The thing is we did not know Margaret Thatcher as a  Wife, a mother or a grandmother, we knew her as one of the most divisive prime minister of modern times. I admire some things about her, her drive to succeed in the face of sexism and snobbery is impressive. Her policies, her legacy is shameful. You know, we should not speak poorly of the dead but her dying does not absolve her of responsibility for the long term damage she did to our society. It does not change the role she played in condemning many people to a life of poverty and long term unemployment, it does not change the fact that the current government are continuing what she started. Have sympathy with those who loved her as a wife, a mother and a grandmother, a friend also but lets not be surprised that many people can only be glad to see the end of a woman who they believe destroyed a way of life they loved and were proud of.

----------


## mi16

> There are a lot of people complaining like M Swanson that people are being hateful towards a woman who was a wife a mother and a grandmother. The thing is we did not know Margaret Thatcher as a  Wife, a mother or a grandmother, we knew her as one of the most divisive prime minister of modern times. I admire some things about her, her drive to succeed in the face of sexism and snobbery is impressive. Her policies, her legacy is shameful. You know, we should not speak poorly of the dead but her dying does not absolve her of responsibility for the long term damage she did to our society. It does not change the role she played in condemning many people to a life of poverty and long term unemployment, it does not change the fact that the current government are continuing what she started. Have sympathy with those who loved her as a wife, a mother and a grandmother, a friend also but lets not be surprised that many people can only be glad to see the end of a woman who they believe destroyed a way of life they loved and were proud of.


Why would any person of sane mind celebrate the death of an ex politician who last held the PM's post over 20 years ago?the manifesto of current leaders is not her doing.Now I am no politician, Tory or Thatcherite, but as indicated earlier if the Tory policy of her premiership was so terribly wrong , why has no political party since repaired or even began to repair the damage done?

----------


## macadamia

Careful. mi16! Here be dragons! Could it be the same reason cubic miles of newsprint, and gigawatts of airtime have been expended in the last 24 hours on this allegedly evil person who said to the country and the world "we are not going down the toilet. We are a can do country, and we will do." I don't recall Labour - or anyone - rescinding her policies. And even when Labour was voted in in 1997, it stuck to the Thatcher formula. 

Of course we have sympathy with those who were left behind. In the same way we had sympathy for farriers, herring-gutters, wheelwrights and lamplighters when the demand for outdated and/or expensive processes disappeared. 

But Maggie took us, kicking and screaming, into the real world of national and international competition and private enterprise. 

As to celebrating her death, I say again "Grave dancers demean only themselves".

----------


## Flynn

> Why would any person of sane mind celebrate the death of an ex politician who last held the PM's post over 20 years ago?the manifesto of current leaders is not her doing.Now I am no politician, Tory or Thatcherite, but as indicated earlier if the Tory policy of her premiership was so terribly wrong , why has no political party since repaired or even began to repair the damage done?



If a certain German leader had survived the last Europe wide conflict, would you condemn people for celebrating when they eventually died? I hated Thatcher with a passion, just as she hated the working man. Her death didn't come soon enough for me.

Todays politics are deeply rooted in Thatcherism and the worship of private enterprise and profit above everything. She destroyed this country and made it one of the most unequal in the world. Before Thatcher we had near full employment, after she decimated British industry, sold everything off to foreign interests, we have had an unemployment level hovering around 3 million ever since.

At her funeral people lining the streets should, instead of flowers, throw lumps of coal in front of the cortege.

Wherever her remains finish up, I hope with all my being they are somewhere public enough I can one day go along and pay my 'respects'.

----------


## macadamia

Oh yes, before Thatcher we had full employment. Controlled by the Unions, who made certain their block votes commanded the heights of "democracy" and who, when crossed, withdrew labour in arbitrary strikes which came to a head in 1979, when the country woke up, said a resounding "NO" and brought in some fresh thinking and approaches. Unions killed the Print, Dockyards, the Coal and umpteen other industries. Not Mrs. Thatcher. That's why the country kept voting her back. That was a bit closer to democracy than the smoke-filled rooms of the Cartel of Union Barons holding a collective gun to the head tof the British taxpayer.

And, for your benefit, I repeat - Grave dancers demean only themselves. There is no bravery in post mortem bravura.

----------


## secrets in symmetry

> Careful. mi16! Here be dragons! Could it be the same reason cubic miles of newsprint, and gigawatts of airtime have been expended in the last 24 hours on this allegedly evil person who said to the country and the world "we are not going down the toilet. We are a can do country, and we will do." I don't recall Labour - or anyone - rescinding her policies. And even when Labour was voted in in 1997, it stuck to the Thatcher formula. 
> 
> Of course we have sympathy with those who were left behind. In the same way we had sympathy for farriers, herring-gutters, wheelwrights and lamplighters when the demand for outdated and/or expensive processes disappeared. 
> 
> But Maggie took us, kicking and screaming, into the real world of national and international competition and private enterprise. 
> 
> As to celebrating her death, I say again "Grave dancers demean only themselves".


I didn't have you down as an apologist for Thatcherite industrial mismanagement.

Repeat after me...

Germany!

----------


## secrets in symmetry

Blair and (especially) Brown were the architects of the great industrial sell-off (of what was left). Thatcher destroyed the bulk of our industries before anyone could buy them!

The unions had a big hand in our industrial demise, but she killed two birds with one giant brick.

----------


## macadamia

A bit of a difference between A. Hitler and M. Thatcher, I'm thinking? I doubt very much whether, even if invited, HM Queen or her predecessors would have attended A. Hitler's funeral, because he was a Bad Man and killed millions of people (as did J. Stalin, Head of East Wing, whose regime was even celebrated by the forward-looking UK  union barons and their flock. Her Queen IS attending M. Thatcher's funeral, because HMQ recognises M.Thatcher's contribution. As do the majority of the UK population.

----------


## M Swanson

Bravo Mac and spot-on the money. The only things I would add, is that Flynn forgets to mention, that prior to MH's intervention, Britain was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Before calling for the miner's strike, Scargill drew a year's salary knowing that his men and their families would not have an income. I wonder if Flynn will dance on that Commie's grave, when he passes away, for using his members in the most heartless way, to try and oust MH? He cared nothing for, and is responsible, more than anyone else, for the plight of the miners. And the same for Blair too, who took up MH's policies and ran with them, throughout his 12 years governance?

----------


## macadamia

"Scargill" (noun, substantive) i)  A substance found under the shoe after a stroll through a camel enclosure at the zoo ii) A vitriolic combover with a stunted vision of reality.  iii) Someone who voluntarily espouses victimhood when other options are available.

----------


## Flynn

> And, for your benefit, I repeat - Grave dancers demean only themselves. There is no bravery in post mortem bravura.


I fought while the hag was alive and in power. I marched with the miners, I stood in Trafalgar Square and watched in dismay as police on horseback bludgeoned innocent people. What did you do?

I'll dance on her grave and a do lot more than just dance as soon as I have the chance.

----------


## M Swanson

> I didn't have you down as an apologist for Thatcherite industrial mismanagement.
> 
> Repeat after me...
> 
> Germany!


LOL. Come on, now SiS. Let's have an answer to the question posted earlier. If MH's policies were as terrible as you claim, then why didn't the socialist Blair change them? He had years of opportunities to do so, but chose not to and in fact, was a fan of the great lady. Go on, post something of worth and try answering the question, SiS, please. I'll wait ........ shall I?  ::

----------


## Flynn

> LOL. Come on, now SiS. Let's have an answer to the question posted earlier. If MH's policies were as terrible as you claim, then why didn't the socialist Blair change them? He had years of opportunities to do so, but chose not to and in fact, was a fan of the great lady. Go on, post something of worth and try answering the question, SiS, please. I'll wait ........ shall I?


Because Blair was no socialist. He was a Thatcherite. The greatest misfortune that befell the Labour party was the premature death of John Smith and the rise of Blair and Mandelson.

----------


## M Swanson

> I fought while the hag was alive and in power. I marched with the miners, I stood in Trafalgar Square and watched in dismay as police on horseback bludgeoned innocent people. What did you do?
> 
> I'll dance on her grave and a do lot more than just dance as soon as I have the chance.


Sorry Flynn, but seriously, you need help. Nothing you could ever do would have touched MH, nor anyone with half an ounce of sense, who used it to support her. Three elections ...... three victories. The only one that is affected adversely by hate, is the poor soul who tries to live with it. I pity you .... I really do.  :Frown:

----------


## macadamia

Flynn - you have every right to do what you did. That's what a democracy is all about. I chose a different path. I voted for Maggie again and again as she was the only hope of breaking the back of the oppressive and stultifying unions.

However, whatever you did doesn't dilute my message. Grave dancers demean only themselves.

----------


## Flynn

> Sorry Flynn, but seriously, you need help. Nothing you could ever do would have touched MH, nor anyone with half an ounce of sense, who used it to support her. Three elections ...... three victories. The only one that is affected adversely by hate, is the poor soul who tries to live with it. I pity you .... I really do.


Three elections, first won through outright racism to fend off the National Front, the second won through outright jingoism, the third through bribery by selling houses at knock down prices.

----------


## M Swanson

> Because Blair was no socialist. He was a Thatcherite. The greatest misfortune that befell the Labour party was the premature death of John Smith and the rise of Blair and Mandelson.


As was Brown and the rest of the Labour Party, who rallied behind Blair, Flynn? And the voters who elected him three times? My goodness, MH was even greater and more popular than I remember. No wonder, many of her policies are still being used, to this day.  ::

----------


## M Swanson

> Well Flynn - that's only the weekly benefits of 150,943 people.
> 
> I'm sure we can afford it.


Or, put another way, John Little. The grand sum of 8p per capita. Cheap at half the price, I'd say.  ::

----------


## Flynn

> As was Brown and the rest of the Labour Party, who rallied behind Blair, Flynn? And the voters who elected him three times? My goodness, MH was even greater and more popular than I remember. No wonder, many of her policies are still being used, to this day.


You seem to be under the misapprehension that we live in a Presidency. We do not elect Prime Ministers, we elect political parties.

----------


## secrets in symmetry

> I voted for Maggie again and again as she was the only hope of breaking the back of the oppressive and stultifying unions.


Your true colours at last? I suppose it's consistent with your lack of understanding of climate change.

----------


## Flynn

Hope they're going to give us all a day off. If we're paying to put the evil old hag in the ground then we should get the day off.

----------


## macadamia

Hatred is a zero calorie diet. It provides no sustenance for the body, and about the same for the soul. as for climate change - one person's "lack of understanding" is anothers "binding vision".

----------


## M Swanson

> You seem to be under the misapprehension that we live in a Presidency. We do not elect Prime Ministers, we elect political parties.


Not this nonsense, a-g-a-i-n, Flynn. The Party elects its leader and having done so, the voters choose whether, or not, to elect them. In my example, for 12 years the voters and Party chose Blair, despite his refusal to change any of MH's policies. He knew when he was on to a winner. They all do ....... still!

----------


## secrets in symmetry

> Hope they're going to give us all a day off. If we're paying to put the evil old hag in the ground then we should get the day off.


I hope for her sake she's cremated. From what I've heard people threatening to do, they'd have to surround her grave with high security fences and a sewage works!

----------


## ducati

> I fought while the hag was alive and in power. I marched with the miners, I stood in Trafalgar Square and watched in dismay as police on horseback bludgeoned innocent people. What did you do?
> 
> I'll dance on her grave and a do lot more than just dance as soon as I have the chance.


I cheered the police.

I particularly enjoyed the mounted charges, very entertaining.

----------


## Flynn

> Hatred is a zero calorie diet. It provides no sustenance for the body, and about the same for the soul. as for climate change - one person's "lack of understanding" is anothers "binding vision".


Funny you should say that, seeing as it was Thatcher who introduced the need to combat global warming into the political arena.

----------


## secrets in symmetry

> Hatred is a zero calorie diet. It provides no sustenance for the body, and about the same for the soul. as for climate change - one person's "lack of understanding" is anothers "binding vision".


I've seen what you've written about climate change - the simple fact that you don't understand is as clear as day.

----------


## Flynn

> Not this nonsense, a-g-a-i-n, Flynn. The Party elects its leader and having done so, the voters choose whether, or not, to elect them. In my example, for 12 years the voters and Party chose Blair, despite his refusal to change any of MH's policies. He knew when he was on to a winner. They all do ....... still!


In all the years I've been a voter, I've never yet had a ballot paper asking to vote for anyone for the position of prime minister.

----------


## M Swanson

Oh! Puleeeeeeze, Flynn. Whoever said you, or anyone else, ever has? Doh!

----------


## Flynn

> Oh! Puleeeeeeze, Flynn. Whoever said you, or anyone else, ever has? Doh!



You did, in post #168. Has all that nonsense in the Daily Hate addled your brain so much you've already forgotten what you wrote just a few minutes ago?





> You seem to be under the misapprehension that we live in a Presidency. We do not elect Prime Ministers, we elect political parties.






> Not this nonsense, a-g-a-i-n, Flynn. The Party elects its leader and having done so, the voters choose whether, or not, to elect them.

----------


## M Swanson

> I cheered the police.
> 
> I particularly enjoyed the mounted charges, very entertaining.


Me too, Ducati. I will always choose the rule of Law, over mob rule.

----------


## Flynn

> I cheered the police.
> 
> I particularly enjoyed the mounted charges, very entertaining.


A scots Tory who supported the poll tax. Is there anything lower?

----------


## macadamia

SiS says I don't understand climate change (his superior judgment) so I'm not allowed to have opinions on Margaret Thatcher. Now, which part of the playground am I still allowed in, SiS? Be off with you, before I get my water-pistol out!

----------


## secrets in symmetry

> SiS says I don't understand climate change (his superior judgment) so I'm not allowed to have opinions on Margaret Thatcher. Now, which part of the playground am I still allowed in, SiS? Be off with you, before I get my water-pistol out!


Your vociferous lack of understanding of climate change is symptomatic of Tory philosphy - it was a simple observation, that's all.

----------


## M Swanson

> You did, in post #168. Has all that nonsense in the Daily Hate addled your brain so much you've already forgotten what you wrote just a few minutes ago?


Last word on this nonsense, Flynn. I vote for a Party and the Leader of that Party. If I didn't approve of the elected chief, I would not vote for that Party. Take for example, if Hesletine had ever succeeded in his treachery to replace MH. Would I have voted for the Tory Party. No way, Hosea. It's what most people do when they decide where to place their vote. Do you really believe, that millions of Labour supporters rejected Blair, or did they suck up to him, d'ya think? Was he not as popular as he and millions of others thought he was? I'm excluding the tactical voting Commies, Trots, of course.  :: 

Cut out the silly DM nonsense Flynn. It's much too juvenile and I thought you worthy of a little bit better behaviour. But, I could be wrong, of course.  :Grin:

----------


## mi16

> A scots Tory who supported the poll tax. Is there anything lower?


yes, a grave dancing moron

----------


## M Swanson

Game, set and match, mi16.  ::  Sadly, I have to spread it!

On that note, I'm away for lunch and then work.  ::

----------


## mi16

> Three elections, first won through outright racism to fend off the National Front, the second won through outright jingoism, the third through bribery by selling houses at knock down prices.


No Flynn, you are incorrect.
Three electrions, all won via the UK voting system.

----------


## Flynn

> Last word on this nonsense, Flynn. I vote for a Party and the Leader of that Party. If I didn't approve of the elected chief, I would not vote for that Party. Take for example, if Hesletine had ever succeeded in his treachery to replace MH. Would I have voted for the Tory Party. No way, Hosea. It's what most people do when they decide where to place their vote. Do you really believe, that millions of Labour supporters rejected Blair, or did they suck up to him, d'ya think? Was he not as popular as he and millions of others thought he was? I'm excluding the tactical voting Commies, Trots, of course. 
> 
> Cut out the silly DM nonsense Flynn. It's much too juvenile and I thought you worthy of a little bit better behaviour. But, I could be wrong, of course.


I've never voted for any party based on their leader. Like most intelligent non-Daily Mail/Sun/Express readers I look at their policies and manifestos and then decide which party gets my vote.

----------


## Flynn

> yes, a grave dancing moron


We'll see about that when a politician you despise dies.

----------


## mi16

> We'll see about that when a politician you despise dies.


You will be in your grave first Flynn, as it will not happen.

----------


## ducati

> A scots Tory who supported the poll tax. Is there anything lower?


I'm not Scots. Showing reruns on the news now. Very exciting

----------


## ducati

> A scots Tory who supported the poll tax. Is there anything lower?


You see your problem is although you pretend to want democracy, you don't believe anyone else has a right to an opinion. Particularly when you are wrong.  ::

----------


## Oddquine

> Me too, Ducati. I will always choose the rule of Law, over mob rule.


Unless the mob is the police breaking heads?  So if a mob is paid from the public purse, it is an entity exempt from the rules which are meant to regulate our behaviour....ergo, it follows that a mob of people on benefits paid by the taxpayer and a mob of officious policemen paid by the taxpayer are at liberty to kick the crap out of each other with impunity?

----------


## Humerous Vegetable

> But in this particular instance over the death of an elderly woman a mother and grandmother and our first female prime minister democratically elected and voted in 3 times any sane person must consider whether basic common decent behaviour is too much to ask for!


She was never "democratically elected and voted in 3 times" here in Scotland, which was why the introduction of the Poll Tax to Scotland, a year *before* it was introduced elsewhere in the UK, by a government not having a majority up here, has left a bitter aftertaste and has led to most Scots loathing everything about the Tory party. You seem not to have been here at the time, so perhaps don't understand the depth of feeling among those of us who were.
She and her London cohorts never made any attempt to understand Scotland, the North of England, Wales or N Ireland. She thought that having sad buffoons like Malcolm Rifkind in her cabinet would give her some kind of political credibility.
This is the death of an arrogant, self-seeking English politican, who has caused immeasurable damage to the economic stability of this and many other countries and taxpayers should not be told to pay for burying her.
Her son Mark, who appears to be a multi-millionaire, on the back of various apparently criminal activities should, if he wants to draw attention to his mother, fund the experience. When he got lost in the Sahara in 1982, she apparently made great play of paying £1,900 towards his rescue and subsequent bar bills.
God only knows what the real costs were and how much of that she claimed as "expenses", but it's time he started paying back some of the taxpayers money he has consumed over the years and not expect those of us who never voted for her and who loathe and despise her "legacy" to pay vast amounts for this ridiculous circus.

----------


## Flynn

When her carcass is paraded through London next week, good luck getting it done without riots:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-22077072

----------


## cesare

people need to get out more.....who cares....shes DEED  :Smile:  very few liked her only brown nosers and idiots IMHO

----------


## macadamia

Bearing a grudge is a voluntary activity. Some do, and stay with the past, and the past with them. Others also receive a slight, a hurt, or even a disaster, shrug it off, and move on. To bear a grudge is to perpetuate a past which cannot be changed, and therefore the bearing of a grudge can only be a a negative activity which weakens the bearer. It is like voluntarily picking up a bag of rotting offal, and carrying it around at great personal inconvenience, pushing it in peoples' faces, and insisting it is of some value. Eventually bearers of grudges find company and refuge only in the society of other grudge-bearers, where they are sentenced by themselves and each other to remember and even worship the negativity which holds them together. The energy wasted in bearing grudges is directly proportionate to wasted positive opportunities to progress.

Sadly, there are one or two such bitter souls having a pop in these columns. Wake up and smell the Starbucks! Life is too precious to hold on to yesterday's wrongs. Mark them, yes:  - but then let go, move on, and look to the future.

Incidentally, you're not the worst. Remember the line about the plane landing at Belfast Airport during the height of the Troubles? "Ladies and Gentlemen, in a few moments we'll be landing at Belfast International Airport. Kindly put your watches back 400 years......."

----------


## Humerous Vegetable

Illegalities such as Apertheid, Hillsborough and the Poll Tax are not "grudges" The past is what defines a person and a nation, however much you might want to ignore or denigrate that. All countries in the world are defined by their past, and even you appear to be able to remember (as quoted) the Falklands and Arthur Scargill. Surely those long past events do not have some kind of influence on your current postings?

----------


## scorrie

I heard that florists all over Britain have been inundated with orders for Lathyrus odoratus. I called Interflora to find out why and was told:-

"Lots of people have said that they want to leave a Sweet Pea at Margaret Thatcher's graveside"

----------


## macadamia

HV - there is a world of difference in *remembering* events which shaped the world, your country and your environment, and* obsessing* with them. Of course past events define the present, but our job is to move forward, rather than sit in the darkness muttering "no fair". What has happened, has happened. That can't be changed. And you know it.

----------


## Phill

Well well, how can anyone say she was devisive when, even in death, she is bringing the .Org together in a bitchfest.

----------


## macadamia

Any alien reading the above would deduce that this lady must have been a very important leader indeed to have this effect on people thirty years or so after she stepped down......... Bitchfest is good!

----------


## Humerous Vegetable

I, like most Scots, look forward to moving forward in the political process. There has been,as you say, a lot of obsessing in the current debate, much of which is centred on the "Let's Say Only Good Things About the Iron Lady, However Awful She Was"  History is written by historians, and not necessarily by those directly affected by events. Unfortunately history is currently being re-written by those in power, to reflect those things which will best reflect upon them.
She was an appalling politician and person, who inflicted dire consquences on those of us not resident in the South East of England. We are shaped by our memories, and I make no apologies for mine.
Why am I, as a taxpayer who has never voted for her, being penalised by the UK government to pay for her funeral?

----------


## M Swanson

Well, if Flynn's figure of £8 Million is correct, your share will be 8p and what, if anything, does that buy these days? Nothing to break most of our strides, I'm sure, Humerous.

No, I'm more concerned with the threats of the Commies, Trots, Socialists, Anarchists and other such dross, who are threatening to riot and cause as much damage as they can. I wonder how much that will cost us? One thing's for sure, MH won't be affected by any of the moronic behaviour and I suspect she wouldn't have been if it took place whilst she was still alive. Still, their behaviour is following a similar pattern to the 80's rioting, which did absolutely nothing to promote their loathesome ideology, but plenty to assemble the public behind Mrs. T.

----------


## M Swanson

> Well well, how can anyone say she was devisive when, even in death, she is bringing the .Org together in a bitchfest.


Yes, I hadn't thought of that Phill.  :Grin:

----------


## macadamia

HV, you are as personally being charged for MT's funeral as you are for roads you never use, schools you don't go to, hospital procedures you will never have, etc. You are a taxpayer, and your taxes go to the places the treasury says they go to. When you stop liking this, you vote for another government. Otherwise, all is swivel-eyed anarchy. Your personal wishes, like mine, are in the main irrelevant. And as for "an appalling politician and person, who inflicted dire consequences on those of us not resident in the South East of England" - that is beyond credibility. But you are entitled to think it. One of the perks of living in the UK!

----------


## Humerous Vegetable

> Well well, how can anyone say she was devisive when, even in death, she is bringing the .Org together in a bitchfest.



You are totally right, in that too much time is being spent on this sad individual. I'm away........

----------


## Phill

Unashamedly pinched from off of the interweb: "Tony Blair says Thatcher death parties are in poor taste. I'm sure the Blair death parties will be much more tasteful."

----------


## radiohead

selling-off of the local authority housing stock in Scotland

And the rest of the UK, resulting in a huge number of well off people who bought their houses for a song. Also as Mr Blair said last night, her Government brought about lots of policies that his Government built on, after all "New Labour" was just old Tory policies rehashed. As with all politicians she was never going to be liked by everyone, and I am sure that when "King Alec" shuffles off this mortal coil, equally as many people will love or hate him for his sucess/failures.

----------


## Flynn

> Well, if Flynn's figure of £8 Million is correct, your share will be 8p and what, if anything, does that buy these days? Nothing to break most of our strides, I'm sure, Humerous.
> 
> No, I'm more concerned with the threats of the Commies, Trots, Socialists, Anarchists and other such dross, who are threatening to riot and cause as much damage as they can. I wonder how much that will cost us? One thing's for sure, MH won't be affected by any of the moronic behaviour and I suspect she wouldn't have been if it took place whilst she was still alive. Still, their behaviour is following a similar pattern to the 80's rioting, which did absolutely nothing to promote their loathesome ideology, but plenty to assemble the public behind Mrs. T.


I don't care how much it is, I begrudge even a penny of my money paying to stick her in a hole. She was the champion of privatisation, then let her funeral be privatised.


There is only one good thing about her funeral being publicly funded: it will forever be known that she sponged her funeral off the taxpayer.

----------


## Flynn

> selling-off of the local authority housing stock in Scotland
> 
> And the rest of the UK, resulting in a huge number of well off people who bought their houses for a song.


And an even larger number of people trapped in the clutches of unscrupulous private landlords due to the lack of social housing.

----------


## macadamia

O Mighty Flynn, your cup sure runneth over! Bile tends to turn rancid within its own host. It rarely succeeds in changing peoples' perspectives! How terrible it must be to have to carry this angry little prison around with you.......

----------


## ducati

> When her carcass is paraded through London next week, good luck getting it done without riots:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-22077072


I'm sure the rozzers will put the kettle on

----------


## JimH

> I'm not going to celebrate anyone dying but I certainly won't mourn either. An exceptionally important person in terms of British history even if it was all for the wrong reasons.


I have watched the news, and heard all the opinions today, and this one seems to sum up some of the crap I seen. Margaret Thatcher, Bless her, will be highly delighted with the various reactions to her demise, and as she sits on the right hand of her God, she knows she will never be forgotten. If we had someone with her guts today, we would not be in the mess we are in with weak willed politicians in all our UK parliaments and parties. I am watching the polititions destroy the UK, I have watched the Unions destroy our industries, one after the other, Priced out of the markets, she fought them, she saw off the argies in the Falklands, and gave the working man the chance to be a homeowner, among many things. She was not always right in my humble opinion, but what she did, she did with belief and strength. Oh I wish for some of the spirit and belief now. This is not a dig at any opinion, it is just another laymans opinion of some of the crap I have witnessed today.

----------


## ducati

> I have watched the news, and heard all the opinions today, and this one seems to sum up some of the crap I seen. Margaret Thatcher, Bless her, will be highly delighted with the various reactions to her demise, and as she sits on the right hand of her God, she knows she will never be forgotten. If we had someone with her guts today, we would not be in the mess we are in with weak willed politicians in all our UK parliaments and parties. I am watching the polititions destroy the UK, I have watched the Unions destroy our industries, one after the other, Priced out of the markets, she fought them, she saw off the argies in the Falklands, and gave the working man the chance to be a homeowner, among many things. She was not always right in my humble opinion, but what she did, she did with belief and strength. Oh I wish for some of the spirit and belief now. This is not a dig at any opinion, it is just another laymans opinion of some of the crap I have witnessed today.


And it is those, pathalogically refusing to grasp the opportunities she gave us that now have such chips on shoulder and "it's someone elses fault" greet.

----------


## octane

Who's Margaret Thatcher

----------


## Oddquine

> HV, you are as personally being charged for MT's funeral as you are for roads you never use, schools you don't go to, hospital procedures you will never have, etc. You are a taxpayer, and your taxes go to the places the treasury says they go to. When you stop liking this, you vote for another government. Otherwise, all is swivel-eyed anarchy. Your personal wishes, like mine, are in the main irrelevant. And as for "an appalling politician and person, who inflicted dire consequences on those of us not resident in the South East of England" - that is beyond credibility. But you are entitled to think it. One of the perks of living in the UK!


Difference is roads we don't use, schools we don't attend, hospital procedures we don't have etc..are generally for the benefit of _all_ society, I get the benefits in my area as others do in theirs.

Thatcher's military funeral is nothing like that.....a better analogy would be the Millennium Dome..for London alone, paid for by the whole UK....or the London Sewage system upgrade..for London alone, and paid for by the whole UK. The problem is that there is no English Parliament, which would have meant England had to allocate _their_ 16% allocation from their input to the economy according to their priorities for the whole country...as it is, we in Scotland get less than we pay in....and England, because there is no Parliament with pocket money, gets to raid everybody's input to the economy to pay for their wish list..and gets to borrow, at taxpayer cost, to help finance it.

The funeral is simply an attempt by those who have benefited from her policies in one way or another, ie the likes of politicians, big business, banking, the rich (like Royalty) and maybe some of you posting on here, to try to persuade all of those she shafted with her sharpened broomstick that what she did worked and we have all benefited..which it patently didn't and we haven't.  

If we were to give fancy taxpayer funded funerals to _deserving_  PMs...the only one who *would* have deserved it was Clement Attlee, imo, the UK's greatest PM to date, because he bought the family silver Thatcher and her later clones were able to sell to buy votes and to benefit their pals...and  produce our current crappy world.  The UK Government, for example, made £5.3bn by selling off British Rail..and today, the subsidy we, the brain dead taxpayers, fork out is about £5.2 billion annually....so we got, in 1996, a one off  £5.3 billion ...and that £5.3 billion in our pocket then costs us, in subsidies as taxpayers, about £5.2 billion today and heaven knows how much over the piece...so the point of privatisation was what, exactly?  It certainly wasn't about saving the taxpayer money, more about making their pals rich. Maybe that is too simplistic....but how come the _everybody takes responsibility for himself_ is only a principle when applied to the ordinary punter and not to the bosses of ex-public companies who can now make the profits they feel they deserve, to pay themselves the wages and bonuses they erroneously think they have earned, and we subsidise them to do that, even with an average annual £6.2 billion  income paid in cash by paying customers added to the subsidy..and into the bargain we also subsidise their, (and the Government's) crap wages. 

It is pointless voting for another Government in the UK....and it has been since Thatcher's day....you couldn't, if you tried, get a Rizla between the mindsets of any UK party...and therefore their policies..so *whatever* we vote in the UK, we will get Tory policies to a large extent. 

If we vote for Independence in 2014..then the credit for that *has* to go to Thatcher...not any PM since her,...not Blair, Brown or even the Coalition...because just in Thatcher's first couple of years in power, Scotland lost 20% of its workforce...and that was before the miner's strike....and then she drove a cart and horses through the Treaty of Union (and not the first breach by a Westminster Parliament) by imposing the Poll Tax on Scotland a year ahead of the rest of the UK.

You can all have a go at rewriting history if you like...but if/when the UK breaks up, that will be Thatcher's real legacy!

----------


## Flynn

> I have watched the news, and heard all the opinions today, and this one seems to sum up some of the crap I seen. Margaret Thatcher, Bless her, will be highly delighted with the various reactions to her demise, and as she sits on the right hand of her God, she knows she will never be forgotten. If we had someone with her guts today, we would not be in the mess we are in with weak willed politicians in all our UK parliaments and parties. I am watching the polititions destroy the UK, I have watched the Unions destroy our industries, one after the other, Priced out of the markets, she fought them, she saw off the argies in the Falklands, and gave the working man the chance to be a homeowner, among many things. She was not always right in my humble opinion, but what she did, she did with belief and strength. Oh I wish for some of the spirit and belief now. This is not a dig at any opinion, it is just another laymans opinion of some of the crap I have witnessed today.


The unions didn't destroy British industry, Thatcher did, by her wholesale privatisations. Nearly ALL our industry is now foreign owned, our utilities are foreign owned, our public transport is foreign owned. And Thatcher did that. Go to France and Germany, they still own their industries, utilities, and transport. They also own ours, thanks to Thatcher.

----------


## sids

How should we get this Flynn idiot banned?  I just don't think he's "like us."

I'm convening a meeting of the clique, on the hidden subforum. 22.00hrs tonight. Agenda as above.

----------


## sids

Ah that didn't take long.

As minuted, we'll continue to report his every post, with or without reason. 

It's not been nice knowing him!

----------


## equusdriving

> Difference is roads we don't use, schools we don't attend, hospital procedures we don't have etc..are generally for the benefit of _all_ society, I get the benefits in my area as others do in theirs.
> the Millennium Dome..for London alone, paid for by the whole UK....or the London Sewage system upgrade..for London alone, and paid for by the whole UK.


http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/was...mans-club.html 
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/sc...-hours-1781469
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...he-nation.html
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/t...cheme.14668058
http://www.supplymanagement.com/news...sh-government/
http://www.zdnet.com/uk/scotland-get...ts-7000007035/
http://www.govopps.co.uk/56m-wasted-...udit-scotland/
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/...cle1211366.ece
http://action4equalityscotland.blogs...lic-money.html

and who paid for all this Scottish waste ? oh yeah  the same British Tax Payers  ::

----------


## piratelassie

There is no longer a Socialist Labour Party in UK politics. That is why the thatcherite policies have not been reversed.





> Why would any person of sane mind celebrate the death of an ex politician who last held the PM's post over 20 years ago?the manifesto of current leaders is not her doing.Now I am no politician, Tory or Thatcherite, but as indicated earlier if the Tory policy of her premiership was so terribly wrong , why has no political party since repaired or even began to repair the damage done?

----------


## mi16

> How should we get this Flynn idiot banned?  I just don't think he's "like us."I'm convening a meeting of the clique, on the hidden subforum. 22.00hrs tonight. Agenda as above.


I dunno, I quite enjoy reading his ramblings.Reminds me a bit of old Comical Ali

----------


## theone

> The unions didn't destroy British industry, Thatcher did, by her wholesale privatisations. Nearly ALL our industry is now foreign owned, our utilities are foreign owned, our public transport is foreign owned. And Thatcher did that. Go to France and Germany, they still own their industries, utilities, and transport. They also own ours, thanks to Thatcher.


This is nonsense on so many levels.

British industry was destroyed by cheaper competition and higher quality competition. "Industry" succeeds by selling a product, but it is the consumer who chooses what to buy. There's many reasons why Britain couldn't keep the price down - wages being one. There's many reasons why Britain didn't match the quality of the output from other countries, Germany and Japan for example. These problems were manifesting themselves long before Thatcher was voted into power 3 times.

"Foreign owned business"? It makes no little difference to me who "owns" our industry and infrastructure. What matters is getting the services I need at an acceptable price, not being held to ransom. What is a "British" business anyway? Johnny foreigner can buy shares in BP or Rolls-Royce just as easily as I can buy shares in Seimens or Texaco. Profits go to the shareolders, not the country where a company is based.



I admit, in a perfect world, utilities, transport etc would be run by government agencies as "not for profit", thus providing the service required at less cost to the public. But this isn't a perfect world, and it has been proved time and time again that nationalised industries cannot compete. They cost more and become less efficient. Why? - Many reasons, plenty of room for blame, but the fact is NONE of the major political parties want to re-nationalise these services. Why? - They all know it doesn't work.

Thatcher might be seen as being the evil one who did the dirty work, but the fact is the lack of effort shown by the opposition to reverse her policies is evidence that they acknowledge the dirty work needed doing.

----------


## Flynn

> This is nonsense on so many levels.
> 
> British industry was destroyed by cheaper competition and higher quality competition. "Industry" succeeds by selling a product, but it is the consumer who chooses what to buy. There's many reasons why Britain couldn't keep the price down - wages being one. There's many reasons why Britain didn't match the quality of the output from other countries, Germany and Japan for example. These problems were manifesting themselves long before Thatcher was voted into power 3 times.
> 
> "Foreign owned business"? It makes no little difference to me who "owns" our industry and infrastructure. What matters is getting the services I need at an acceptable price, not being held to ransom. What is a "British" business anyway? Johnny foreigner can buy shares in BP or Rolls-Royce just as easily as I can buy shares in Seimens or Texaco. Profits go to the shareolders, not the country where a company is based.
> 
> 
> 
> I admit, in a perfect world, utilities, transport etc would be run by government agencies as "not for profit", thus providing the service required at less cost to the public. But this isn't a perfect world, and it has been proved time and time again that nationalised industries cannot compete. They cost more and become less efficient. Why? - Many reasons, plenty of room for blame, but the fact is NONE of the major political parties want to re-nationalise these services. Why? - They all know it doesn't work.
> ...


Name one utility, just one, that is cheaper for the consumer since they were privatised. 

Rail is the most expensive almost anywhere. It costs more for a rail ticket from London to Edinburgh than it costs to fly to New York. Our railways are now mostly owned by the German state rail company. Our energy companies by the French. Profits from those foreign owned companies flow out of the country.

----------


## ducati

Ahh! I feel a quote coming on. "Socialism is fine until you run out of other people's money"

----------


## golach

> Name one utility, just one, that is cheaper for the consumer since they were privatised. 
> 
> Rail is the most expensive almost anywhere. It costs more for a rail ticket from London to Edinburgh than it costs to fly to New York. Our railways are now mostly owned by the German state rail company. Our energy companies by the French. Profits from those foreign owned companies flow out of the country.


Bus travel for Senior citizens is a lot cheaper these days  ::

----------


## Flynn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVWc8YwGYe0

----------


## Flynn

> Bus travel for Senior citizens is a lot cheaper these days


 Buses aren't a utility. Gas, electricity, water are utilities.

----------


## golach

> Buses aren't a utility. Gas, electricity, water are utilities.


Neither is rail travel yet you brought that subject into play

----------


## ducati

> Buses aren't a utility. Gas, electricity, water are utilities.


I pay for water combined with my (very reasonable) poll tax. In fact, I don't recall getting a bill for years.

----------


## theone

> Name one utility, just one, that is cheaper for the consumer since they were privatised.


You cannot blame privatisation on the rising price of utilities. The price of the resources that make our electricity, for example, are based upon global markets over which we have very little control. Gas and oil, as raw resources, are so much higher than 30 years ago.

Public transport? I have no doubt that is much more expensive than before, but again there's more than one reason for this, it's not all privatisation. Historic lack of investment (when state owned) is one.

But, in real response to your question, I would argue that the "cost to the consumer" is not about the price of a railway ticket. It is about the cost to the country as a whole. As a higher rate taxpayer, I would rather pay £10 for a ticket that used to cost £5, than still pay £5 and see my tax money ploughed into inefficent public owned companies being held to ransom by the unions.

How many years were labour in power after Thatcher without trying to change her policies? Their inaction tells the story............

----------


## Flynn

> Neither is rail travel yet you brought that subject into play


Two separate sentences. One a request, the other a statement. Do keep up.

----------


## Flynn

> You cannot blame privatisation on the rising price of utilities. The price of the resources that make our electricity, for example, are based upon global markets over which we have very little control. Gas and oil, as raw resources, are so much higher than 30 years ago.
> 
> Public transport? I have no doubt that is much more expensive than before, but again there's more than one reason for this, it's not all privatisation. Historic lack of investment (when state owned) is one.
> 
> But, in real response to your question, I would argue that the "cost to the consumer" is not about the price of a railway ticket. It is about the cost to the country as a whole. As a higher rate taxpayer, I would rather pay £10 for a ticket that used to cost £5, than still pay £5 and see my tax money ploughed into inefficent public owned companies being held to ransom by the unions.
> 
> How many years were labour in power after Thatcher without trying to change her policies? Their inaction tells the story............


Your tax money IS still ploughed into the railways. In fact the railways are more heavily subsidised by the taxpayer now than they ever were when they were state run.

----------


## golach

whats the cost of a Prescription these days Flynn?? I am sure they cost less now, but I am owld and slow so you tell me,  you may need to remind me.

----------


## JimH

> The unions didn't destroy British industry, Thatcher did, by her wholesale privatisations. Nearly ALL our industry is now foreign owned, our utilities are foreign owned, our public transport is foreign owned. And Thatcher did that. Go to France and Germany, they still own their industries, utilities, and transport. They also own ours, thanks to Thatcher.


 She will be pleased you credit her with this. I am old enough to have witnessed the likes of Red Robbo, and Scargil and co destroy their industries by Strike after strike for more and more pay for less and less work. Nationalised industries used 25 union members to do in a week, a job that one man could do in a day. I was there, I did not like it then, and I would'nt like it now. As i said before Margaret Thatcher will not be forgotten - like her or loathe her - She was a mountain of belief and strength until sold down the river by a bunch of wimps.

----------


## Flynn

> whats the cost of a Prescription these days Flynn?? I am sure they cost less now, but I am owld and slow so you tell me,  you may need to remind me.


Prescriptions are not a utility. In England they are now about £7.60 an item I believe, in Scotland I understand prescriptions are a state benefit subsidised by the taxpayer and therefore 'free'.

----------


## JimH

> Your tax money IS still ploughed into the railways. In fact the railways are more heavily subsidised by the taxpayer now than they ever were when they were state run.


 If they are State run, they are payed for by the State - I wonder who pays the State, could it be the tax payers by chance??????????????

----------


## theone

> Your tax money IS still ploughed into the railways. In fact the railways are more heavily subsidised by the taxpayer now than they ever were when they were state run.


Indeed it is. As it SHOULD be. Because a railway service is needed by the country as a basic element of infrastructure.

But the difference is that subsidy (and therefore cost) is being spent on maintenance and upgrades. Necessary expenditure. It is not being spent on ridiculously inflated wages, terms and conditions, a 2 man/1 job culture or massive final salary pension schemes that taxpayers in the private sector can only dream of.



Believe it or not, I've got no alliance with any political party. I haven't voted the same way twice in a row and I've probably missed more elections than I've voted in. But I've got more than one personal experience that has convinced me that the nationalised business and trade union models simply do not work. That's personal experience, not blinded by childhood indorctrination or political stance. 

The fact that nobody has tried to change Thatcher's policies is evidence to me that, although perhaps unpopular, the were necessary. It's been 23 years since she was in power.

----------


## theone

> She will be pleased you credit her with this. I am old enough to have witnessed the likes of Red Robbo, and Scargil and co destroy their industries by Strike after strike for more and more pay for less and less work. Nationalised industries used 25 union members to do in a week, a job that one man could do in a day.


That, among others, is my personal experience.

And history has proven it true.

British industry was helped towards ruin by a union mentality. Not the only reason, but a significant one.

----------


## Flynn

> If they are State run, they are payed for by the State - I wonder who pays the State, could it be the tax payers by chance??????????????


'theone' said; "I would rather pay £10 for a ticket that used to cost £5, than still pay £5 and see my tax money ploughed into inefficent public owned companies" in relation to the cost of rail tickets. I pointed out that even though they are now privatised the railways are now more heavily subsidised by the taxpayer than they were when they were state owned. The point being that when they were state owned all profit was ploughed back into the railways, so they were mostly self-funding and requiring less subsidy. Now they are privately owned only a percentage of profit goes back into the rail companies, the rest going to shareholders and owners, and government subsidy for the rail companies is now almost four times what it was before privatisation.



Do keep up.

----------


## Flynn

> Indeed it is. As it SHOULD be. Because a railway service is needed by the country as a basic element of infrastructure.
> 
> But the difference is that subsidy (and therefore cost) is being spent on maintenance and upgrades. Necessary expenditure. It is not being spent on ridiculously inflated wages, terms and conditions, a 2 man/1 job culture or massive final salary pension schemes that taxpayers in the private sector can only dream of.
> 
> 
> 
> Believe it or not, I've got no alliance with any political party. I haven't voted the same way twice in a row and I've probably missed more elections than I've voted in. But I've got more than one personal experience that has convinced me that the nationalised business and trade union models simply do not work. That's personal experience, not blinded by childhood indorctrination or political stance. 
> 
> The fact that nobody has tried to change Thatcher's policies is evidence to me that, although perhaps unpopular, the were necessary. It's been 23 years since she was in power.


That's odd because the rail companies keep telling us their above inflation fare increases every year are to cover investment in network improvements. Yet they still take a bigger subsidy from government than British Rail ever did.

I used the rail network for twenty years before privatisation. They were cheaper and easier to use than now. You could go to any station and buy a ticket to any station. You knew how much it would cost.

Now it's like buying airline tickets, there are hidden fares, differently priced fares for the same journey, and fares are extortionately high.

----------


## theone

> 'theone' said; "I would rather pay £10 for a ticket that used to cost £5, than still pay £5 and see my tax money ploughed into inefficent public owned companies" in relation to the cost of rail tickets. I pointed out that even though they are now privatised the railways are now more heavily subsidised by the taxpayer than they were when they were state owned. The point being that when they were state owned all profit was ploughed back into the railways, so they were mostly self-funding and requiring less subsidy. Now they are privately owned only a percentage of profit goes back into the rail companies, the rest going to shareholders and owners, and government subsidy for the rail companies is now almost four times what it was before privatisation.


NO NO NO!

The profit was NOT ploughed back into the railways. It was ploughed into the pockets of workers who demanded 2 or 3 times the realistic wage for what they were doing, taking liberties because of the protection being a government employee allowed.

They were NEVER self funding. They went for years without the required investment, maintenance, upgrades etc, hence why so much money needs to be spent now.

----------


## theone

> That's odd because the rail companies keep telling us their above inflation fare increases every year are to cover investment in network improvements. Yet they still take a bigger subsidy from government than British Rail ever did.


I've offered reaons for this elsewhere in this thread.




> I used the rail network for twenty years before privatisation. They were cheaper and easier to use than now. You could go to any station and buy a ticket to any station. You knew how much it would cost.
> 
> Now it's like buying airline tickets, there are hidden fares, differently priced fares for the same journey, and fares are extortionately high.


I agree that the pricing system is confusing, but we can't blame that on Thatcher. Can we?

As for "extortionately high", fair enough, the face value is up, but as highlighted above, the real "cost" is now being paid. There's no such thing as "free money" and whether the rail users pays, or the taxpayer subsides him, someone pays.

----------


## Flynn

http://fullfact.org/factchecks/taxpa...alisation-3391

----------


## Alrock

> You cannot blame privatisation on the rising price of utilities. The price of the resources that make our electricity, for example, are based upon global markets over which we have very little control. Gas and oil, as raw resources, are so much higher than 30 years ago............


30 years ago we had access to plenty of coal, a commodity that at the time was not profitable enough compared to the relative cheapness of oil & gas..... 
If all the mines were not closed & decommissioned then now that oil & gas are needing to be imported at great expense all that coal would be a handy thing to have....
It's called having an insurance policy against a possible future energy crisis (what we are having right now).

----------


## theone

> http://fullfact.org/factchecks/taxpa...alisation-3391


Very good.

It seems to prove my argument is true.

Subsidy has increased to fund the required investment that was lacking in the past. But this should reduce once the spending on the railtrack collapse is complete.

----------


## Flynn

This has been fun but now I must leave, I have an early start and long drive tomorrow.


I'm really looking forward to seeing the number one in the music charts next week. I'll now leave you all to your apoplexy.  :Wink:

----------


## Flynn

> Very good.
> 
> It seems to prove my argument is true.
> 
> Subsidy has increased to fund the required investment that was lacking in the past. But this should reduce once the spending on the railtrack collapse is complete.


'May' have increased is what it says. The reason is not conclusive.

And goodnight.  :Wink:

----------


## theone

> 30 years ago we had access to plenty of coal, a commodity that at the time was not profitable enough compared to the relative cheapness of oil & gas..... 
> If all the mines were not closed & decommissioned then now that oil & gas are needing to be imported at great expense all that coal would be a handy thing to have....
> It's called having an insurance policy against a possible future energy crisis (what we are having right now).


The good thing about fossil fuel resources is that they don't disappear with new governments.

The mines may well be shut down. If they weren't, then in that 30 years would have used the coal, now that they have been, we still have it. Catch 22. I have no doubt we'll be back to coal as a nation before too long. But using miner's who get remunerated and compensated like the rest of us.

The fact is, although we are an oil producing nation, we consume more oil than we produce. We are therefore reliant on imports from foreign, unsecure sources. Not a nice position, but would we rather have been on 3 day weeks, without electricity as the unions held us to ransom during the miners strikes?

----------


## theone

> 'May' have increased is what it says. The reason is not conclusive.
> 
> And goodnight.


Haha!

So you post a link in support of your argument and then doubt it's validity?

Never fear.

Safe drive tomorrow.

----------


## manloveswife

> NO NO NO!
> 
> The profit was NOT ploughed back into the railways. It was ploughed into the pockets of workers who demanded 2 or 3 times the realistic wage for what they were doing, taking liberties because of the protection being a government employee allowed.
> 
> They were NEVER self funding. They went for years without the required investment, maintenance, upgrades etc, hence why so much money needs to be spent now.


Sorry but thats shows a complete ignorance of reality, as a rail worker (now ex) under both BR and Privatised IMU's working on bridges, stations, tunnels etc, I can tell you the wage of a tradesman under BR was just a few pence more than the level at which you could get state help for low earnings, never mind 2 to 3 three time a reasonable wage for the job. 

Under privatisation it rose by about 50%, still I believe the old privatised railway that provided more jobs for the same labour cost was better for the country and employment.

You go on to state
*"
Very good.

It seems to prove my argument is true.

Subsidy has increased to fund the required investment that was lacking in the past. But this should reduce once the spending on the railtrack collapse is complete."*

The railtrack collapse was the collapse of a privatised company, this privatised company came in and took a maintenance holiday to the degree it was scary looking at the infrastructure while walking the line, bad rails, fish plates with missing bolts, bridges with brickwork held in place with wooden wedges, and they also raked in money through asset stripping by selling all the stations land / buildings they could get away with.

That had to end badly, and it did, but that was the privatised railway and not the old nationalised one, that is the bill we are paying now, along with the cost of all the private companies who came in to maintain the Railways while there was a quick pound to be made.

----------


## theone

> Sorry but thats shows a complete ignorance of reality, as a rail worker (now ex) under both BR and Privatised IMU's working on bridges, stations, tunnels etc, I can tell you the wage of a tradesman under BR was just a few pence more than the level at which you could get state help for low earnings, never mind 2 to 3 three time a reasonable wage for the job...................



I'm sure that's true, and although I may well be ignorant of the specifics in the rail system I believe I've seen enough, from personal experience, of the inherent, if not specfic, problems of state businesses.

There'll be many people here in Caithness (Nuclear) who will relate to this. Over many years the union power and mentality demanded the same wage rise (percentage) across the board - all grades of work. "All for one and one for all". I can understand the sentiment, it sounds okay.

But the fact is, after 5, 10 or 20 years, the amount of funding into the system cannot meet these demands.

To keep up, or compete with the private sector, the public sector has to pay its skilled employees (for example the tradesmen you mention) the "going rate". If they don't, the tradesmen leave to other industries, or maybe develop a poor working attitude with their employers that results in less effort and productivity.

There's a finite pot of money, and if unskilled or semi skilled workers are getting huge wages, the skilled workers wages must be reduced.





When the rail system was privatised, the tradesmens wages shot up. Of course they would, because they had been underpayed due to the lower grades being overpayed. All out of the same pot. Supply and demand. Skilled trades people are needed and so should demand higher wages.

There's a fine line between unionism and communism. If you're willing to reward the unskilled (or those lacking effort and ability) at the same rate as the skilled (and those putting in extra, required effort) then suddenly the incentive to try and achieve is lost.



Ignorant of individual sitations I may well be. Blinkered to reasonable logic I am not.

----------


## Oddquine

> http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/was...mans-club.html 
> http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/sc...-hours-1781469
> http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...he-nation.html
> http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/t...cheme.14668058
> http://www.supplymanagement.com/news...sh-government/
> http://www.zdnet.com/uk/scotland-get...ts-7000007035/
> http://www.govopps.co.uk/56m-wasted-...udit-scotland/
> http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/...cle1211366.ece
> http://action4equalityscotland.blogs...lic-money.html
> ...


Erm....no......the *Scottish* taxpayer out of the income *we* send to London........or at least the 16% of it we get back to pay for those issues which have been devolved..........or are you not aware that all of the above is paid for by the block grant?

Of course..we _also_ pay on top, from the 84% of our input the Treasury keeps, our share of the wastage illustrated below and likely a lot more......if I could be bothered to search it out
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ing-money.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9153956/Govenment-credit-cards-could-be-scrapped-after-National-Audit-Office-found-widespread-abuse.html

----------


## RagnarRocks

I assume by his ramblimgs that Flynn lives in a council owned property and works in the public sector and refuses point blank to embrace any form of capitalism which of course means he wouldn't be driving anywhere today but using public transport as a show of solidarity for his brothers. I mean house and car ownership are very capitalist principles same as working in the private sector, think im beginning to understand how such rank hypocrisy may leave one a little bitter.

----------


## RecQuery

Huge  increases in poverty, inequality, millions thrown out of work,  complicit genocides abroad, viciously anti-gay and anti-rights, a ruined  economy-Margaret Thatcher's real Legacy

Interesting article,  it just missed out her racism. She called Mandela "a grubby little  terrorist" and then there's this:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22087702

----------


## M Swanson

Ah! Right! So Nelson Mandela wasn't found guilty of terrorism?  I wonder why he confessed to it then?

----------


## M Swanson

I know one of the issues people often condemn Margaret Hilda for, is her decision to defend British citizens in the Falkland Islands who were invaded by a Fascist dictatorship.  I know the vast majority of our people supported this action and I remember waving off the lads as they sailed from Portsmouth Harbour. Anyway, I've Googled the thoughts and beliefs of many servicemen who risked all for this country and MH. Perhaps you may like to read an abridged account by just one soldier, but there's many more from others if you search. 

"Margaret Hilda Thatcher sent us to war, a just war. She wasn't perfect and she made mistakes, over the Poll Tax, her dealings with the EU, mind you she's been proven right about the Euro. MHT was my old boss, my hero, my mentor and I am hugely proud to have known her. I sit here holding a small whisky in her honour, with a tear in my eye. She was a lion in defence of this country. She wasn't really a right wing capitalist, she was an old-fashioned moralist. Right and wrong, good, or bad.

RIP Baroness, the class of 82 will never forget you. Rest easy, duty done."

This was not written by an armchair General. It was by a brave man, who loved his country and its leader. Measure this man against the current batch of punks who are roaming the streets, hell-bent on destruction. Measure MHT against the creature who sent us to war on a lie, which claimed the lives of thousands. Then decide for yourself, who own the truly evil politics and where your future lies with them.

----------


## M Swanson

> Haha!
> 
> So you post a link in support of your argument and then doubt it's validity?
> 
> Never fear.
> 
> Safe drive tomorrow.


You little belter, TheOne. I'm afraid poor old Flynn is no match for you.  ::  But for some unknown reason, I can't help but be fond of the old reprobate!  :Grin: 

Safe journey home, Flynn.

----------


## ducati

And another: (and the vegetables?) "They'll have the same"

----------


## M Swanson

Ooh! Er! Can you run this one past me again, please Ducati? I may be having a senior moment, 'cos I don't understand the post.  :Grin:

----------


## joxville

Ducati is referring to a classic Spitting Image scene, where Maggie and the Cabinet are out for dinner, the waitress is asking Maggie what she'd like to eat, then asks about the vegetables, to which Maggie gives the above reply :-)

----------


## M Swanson

::  Priceless, thanks Jox and Ducati.  ::

----------


## RecQuery

Lots of people are saying you shouldn't speak ill of the dead,   personally I think this is a load of crap. Just because someone is dead   doesn't mean they aren't still deserving of scorn.

Glenn Greenwald's article best summarises the situation - "That one   should not speak ill of the dead is arguably appropriate when a private   person dies, but it is wildly inappropriate for the death of a   controversial public figure, particularly one who wielded significant   influence and political power." These sentiments have also been made by  Conservatives - http://politicalscrapbook.net/2013/0...aret-thatcher/

I seem to recall reading that Thatcher hated her Spitting Image   portrayal - perhaps it was too close to the truth - must see if I can   find them to watch any where.

I find this nebulous 'Armchair General' stuff amusing, by that logic   anyone who isn't a soldier shouldn't be allowed to comment on military   policy or make decisions. Remind me which regiment Thatcher served with  again? Surely also that by that same logic a simple soldier should not be allowed to comment on large geo-political issues?

Glad to know that the military still has the absolute authority with  some right wing people... except of course when it comes to looking after  veterans.

----------


## Alice in Blunderland

Not sure if this link has been posted already 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=089OMk6ilxY

----------


## macadamia

Oh Rec - where to start? Because someone may be deserving of scorn in your eyes doesn't make it a good thing for you to articulate that scorn. Glenn Greenwald is a human being, not an ultimate authority. I say (in quotes) "No-one should pour scorn on an individual at the time of death, be they a private or public person. Pouring scorn only diminishes the person scorning. Grave-dancers demean only themselves".

Spitting Image - yes, it is the truth that the Good Lady disliked Spitting Image. So much so that she exercised all her massive political clout to have the programme taken off ? I think not.

Armchair Generals? Hell, Rec - we're all guilty of pronouncing loftily on events and people as if it really mattered. We are as little ants in the scheme of things. Live with it.

Which regiment did Thatcher serve with? Irrelevant. She, with the authority of Parliament, and on behalf of HMQ as Commander in Chief of all British Forces, gave a legitimate order to send a Task Force to the South Atlantic. I don't recall the Admirals and Generals asking by what right she was ordering them about?

Your last dig at the issue of looking after veterans? This issue is more in hand now than it has ever been in the past.

----------


## equusdriving

> Erm....no......the *Scottish* taxpayer out of the income *we* send to London........or at least the 16% of it we get back to pay for those issues which have been devolved..........or are you not aware that all of the above is paid for by the block grant?
> 
> Of course..we _also_ pay on top, from the 84% of our input the Treasury keeps, our share of the wastage illustrated below and likely a lot more......if I could be bothered to search it out
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ing-money.html
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9153956/Govenment-credit-cards-could-be-scrapped-after-National-Audit-Office-found-widespread-abuse.html



oh well, at least we agree that a Scottish government is just as likely to waste tax payers money   ::  as the British Government

----------


## equusdriving

> Erm....no......the *Scottish* taxpayer out of the income *we* send to London........or at least the 16% of it we get back to pay for those issues which have been devolved..........or are you not aware that all of the above is paid for by the block grant?
> 
> Of course..we _also_ pay on top, from the 84% of our input the Treasury keeps, our share of the wastage illustrated below and likely a lot more......if I could be bothered to search it out
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ing-money.html
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9153956/Govenment-credit-cards-could-be-scrapped-after-National-Audit-Office-found-widespread-abuse.html


"The basic facts are that Scotland accounts for 8.4% of the UK  population, 8.3% of the UK's total output and 8.3% of the UK's non-oil  tax revenues -  but 9.2% of total UK public spending".

----------


## ducati

> Not sure if this link has been posted already 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=089OMk6ilxY


Brilliant! Brought a tear to my eye.

----------


## squidge

> Brilliant! Brought a tear to my eye.


Crikey that took me back lol.

----------


## ducati

Anyone thinking of getting involved with pre-arranged riots next week, the law enforcement agencies are scowering social media looking for ringleaders to round up in pre-emptive strikes.

Further, long prison sentences will be the order of the day and who knows?, if the police completely lose control, they may er....react badly  ::

----------


## equusdriving

> Now it's like buying airline tickets, there are hidden fares, differently priced fares for the same journey, and fares are extortionately high.


and this kind of thing cant help!

http://money.aol.co.uk/2013/04/09/bo...6pLid%3D170383

----------


## M Swanson

LOL. I was a fan of Spitting Image. Check this classic one out folks. It's hilarious.  :Grin: 


Spitting Image - Tony Blair Interview - YouTube

----------


## squidge

Where Thatcher failed in many of her policies was that she never thought further than the end of her ( if you look at the spitting Image video) very long nose.  

She and her parliament, failed to think ahead, to give any thought to the human cost of many of their policies. The Tory government then - as now - didnt give a toss about the effect their policies would have in the long term. This was because they governed with ideological objectives and not for the benefit of society as a whole.  The right to buy was a clear example of that. A lot of people cite Margarets Thatcher's right to buy policy as one of  the greatest social changes ever and indeed it was.  A whole sector of  people for whom home ownership was a dream to which they could only  aspire and never realise found themselves able to take the step they had  dreamed of and buy their home.  Magnificent.  A northern lass from a  milltown in Lancashire I know fine well how important this policy was to friends, family and neighbours of ours.  My nana and grandpa would have loved to have  bought their council house.   I supported that policy and still do but it was flawed. 

Margaret Thatcher showed absolutely no interest in building new affordable homes for rent and so we have been playing catch up ever since.  The policy was designed to reduce the burden on the state  - the fact that it helped people own their own homes was a side effect not the objective.  If the objective was around people and social mobility then built into this policy would have been the need to build more housing to afford more people this opportunity in the future.  But it wasnt. So we have people who have no home, and in many areas no right to buy because there is insufficient social housing either to rent or to buy at affordable prices.

Industrial relations was another clear example.  Fight the unions - reduce their power and privatise state owned industries - She absolutely did that.  But she gave no thought to rebuilding damaged communities,no thought to how we replace lost jobs from heavy and traditional industries with other jobs. No thought to the price society had to pay. She destroyed, she did not seek to improve. What was it that Norman Lamont said under her leadership "Unemployment is a price worth paying". A price worth paying for a group of people to achieve their ideological objectives.  She is widely quoted as saying that "There is no such thing as society"this was in an Interview in woman's Own I think.  She said there are only people.  She completely failed to grasp that for people to be successful, have equality of opportunity and the chance to achieve their true potential then they had to live together in a real society where the richest and poorest are seen as equal and where policies try to help achieve that equality and minimise disadvantage.  Society isnt some abstract thing - it is the way we live together and look after each other. 

 M Swanson is a great fan of Margaret Thatcher and in a recent post on another thread she said  




> These are the  recipients of welfare benefits, by definition and are quite different to  the likes of us, imo.


 The likes of us!!!!!!  I rather think this was the way Margaret Thatcher thought too. That somehow if she had the wherewithall to rise out of her ever so humble background then so could everybody else. she had no understanding of the difficulties faced by people in their everyday lives  and this is clearly still seen in the comments on the threads about living on £53 per week.  Mrs Thatcher did not empathise.    If Mrs Thatcher cared about the effects on PEOPLE and therefore on SOCIETY then she would have had to do things differently but no - ideology was all in the Tory Governments of the 80s as it is today.  She talked about the miners as "the enemy within" but they were just people fighting for a way to earn a living and she destroyed that with her ideological agenda.  People DIED during and as a result of the Miners strike, poor, hungry, cold and demonised.  Do you know people are dying today as a result of welfare reforms? Poor hungry cold and demonised. We have another tory government and another  "Enemy Within" in those who are on welfare benefits. We have an ideological drive to reduce the welfare state. there is little or no thought given to the impact of the policies on the health and wellbeing of the poorest, most vulnerable people these policies affect.  

Margaret Thatcher changed the labour party too.  They were completely unelectable in the early 80s - Michael Foot although intelligent was no match for the Iron Lady, the problems of the Winter of Discontent too recent and they had no ideas other than backwards.  Neil Kinnock was better,  a step forward but with a foot in traditional socialist values but it was not enough.  Labour could only win by choosing a version of the path trodden by Margaret Thatcher - the path that led to votes from a Thatcher influenced "No such thing as society"  Me ME MEEEEEEEE generation who believed that society was nothing, that cohesion, state ownership and trade unions were an embarrassing part of their history rather than something which can be harnessed and changed to benefit everyone. We have a labour party who cannot find their Labour roots and so sway as much as a rootless bush in the winds of change. 

By all means admire Margaret Thatcher, she was indeed a formidable woman but she wasnt the saviour of Britain.  There is a thought that her death and the pantomime which will be her funeral will influence a rise in support of an Independent Scotland. I dont know but  We shall see.

----------


## RecQuery

I'd like to mention her state ceremonial funeral for a  moment. Ignoring its high cost, she in no way compares to Churchill or  the situation he had to deal with/unique state of the government at that  time.

  There's also the fact that they're _ignoring her wishes_ so  they can put on a spectacle - surprised her family aren't complaining,  but then some people do love their pomp,  bread and circuses and all  that. Easy thing to use as a distraction from  other more pressing  issues I suppose is the thinking.

----------


## sids

> the police completely lose control, they may er....react badly


"Bludgeoning" is a great word.

Will they bludgeon some "hags" (another great word)?

----------


## equusdriving

> Where Thatcher failed in many of her policies was that she never thought further than the end of her ( if you look at the spitting Image video) very long nose.  
> 
> She and her parliament, failed to think ahead,


 ahh a bit like the vote for Independence now, and wait and see how it really affects the country in 2016 philosophy.




> People DIED during the Miners strike, poor, hungry, cold and demonised


.
mmm a bit of a sweeping statement considering , Six picketers died during the strike, and three teenagers (Darren Holmes  aged 15 and Paul Holmes and Paul Womersley aged 14) died picking coal  from a colliery waste heap in the winter. The deaths of pickets David  Jones and Joe Green continue to be viewed with *suspicion*. Jones was  killed in , Nottinghamshire, by a flying brick during fighting between police, pickets, and non-striking miners,while Green was hit by a truck while picketing in Yorkshire. A taxi driver,  was killed on 30 November 1984. He had been taking a non-striking miner to work in the Merthyr Vale  Colliery, South Wales when two striking miners dropped a concrete post  onto his car from a road bridge above. He died at the scene. *two  miners served a prison sentence for manslaughter*.





> By all means admire Margaret Thatcher, she was indeed a formidable woman but she wasnt the saviour of Britain.  There is a thought that her death and the pantomime which will be her funeral will influence a rise in support of an Independent Scotland. I dont know but  We shall see.


well you can only hope , although it seems a bit like you are clutching at straws  ::

----------


## shazzap

> Where Thatcher failed in many of her policies was that she never thought further than the end of her ( if you look at the spitting Image video) very long nose.  
> 
> She and her parliament, failed to think ahead, to give any thought to the human cost of many of their policies. The Tory government then - as now - didnt give a toss about the effect their policies would have in the long term. This was because they governed with ideological objectives and not for the benefit of society as a whole.  The right to buy was a clear example of that. A lot of people cite Margarets Thatcher's right to buy policy as one of  the greatest social changes ever and indeed it was.  A whole sector of  people for whom home ownership was a dream to which they could only  aspire and never realise found themselves able to take the step they had  dreamed of and buy their home.  Magnificent.  A northern lass from a  milltown in Lancashire I know fine well how important this policy was to friends, family and neighbours of ours.  My nana and grandpa would have loved to have  bought their council house.   I supported that policy and still do but it was flawed. 
> 
> Margaret Thatcher showed absolutely no interest in building new affordable homes for rent and so we have been playing catch up ever since.  The policy was designed to reduce the burden on the state  - the fact that it helped people own their own homes was a side effect not the objective.  If the objective was around people and social mobility then built into this policy would have been the need to build more housing to afford more people this opportunity in the future.  But it wasnt. So we have people who have no home, and in many areas no right to buy because there is insufficient social housing either to rent or to buy at affordable prices.
> 
> Industrial relations was another clear example.  Fight the unions - reduce their power and privatise state owned industries - She absolutely did that.  But she gave no thought to rebuilding damaged communities,no thought to how we replace lost jobs from heavy and traditional industries with other jobs. No thought to the price society had to pay. She destroyed, she did not seek to improve. What was it that Norman Lamont said under her leadership "Unemployment is a price worth paying". A price worth paying for a group of people to achieve their ideological objectives.  She is widely quoted as saying that "There is no such thing as society"this was in an Interview in woman's Own I think.  She said there are only people.  She completely failed to grasp that for people to be successful, have equality of opportunity and the chance to achieve their true potential then they had to live together in a real society where the richest and poorest are seen as equal and where policies try to help achieve that equality and minimise disadvantage.  Society isnt some abstract thing - it is the way we live together and look after each other. 
> 
>  M Swanson is a great fan of Margaret Thatcher and in a recent post on another thread she said  
> ...


Well said.

----------


## squidge

> ahh a bit like the vote for Independence now, and wait and see how it really affects the country in 2016 philosophy.
> 
> . Six picketers died during the strike, and three teenagers (Darren Holmes  aged 15 and Paul Holmes and Paul Womersley aged 14) died picking coal  from a colliery waste heap in the winter.


You are absolutely right I wasnt specific enough with my comment - I have amended it.

----------


## rob murray

> "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" If that is not hatred that I dont know what is.


Well I just see it as someones opinion on the situation, I could spend all day on here pointing out what I perceive to be hatred.

----------


## equusdriving

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...6pLid%3D170555

----------


## rob murray

> I have been taken aback by the visceral nature of the comments made everywhere over the death of Margaret Thatcher. I am no supporter of her policies and I think her premiership led to  dreadful inequalities and hopelessness that we have struggled to rectify since. I could not bring myself to have a street party to celebrate the death of anyone. I read this yesterday on facebook and felt it is worth repeating here. I will not credit it with the persons name but in the midst of the whirlwind of vicious unpleasantness and hate I have read all day, I felt this person said somethings worth reading. 
> 
> "During the 1984/85 Miners' strike, Margaret Thatcher called my dad, my family & all our mining communities "the enemy within." That really hurt me a lot, as I was only young & had never before seen such vicious class hatred. We suffered a lot. Everybody did. My mum's health was vulnerable, so she had multiple heart attacks due to fuel poverty - no heating in the freezing cold, as the Tories tried to starve my dad back to work. (Mum became a cardiac cripple, was brain damaged & died a few years later, still in her 40s. My dad wasn't long behind her.)
> 
> When Norman Tebbit was pulled out of the rubble alive after the IRA Brighton Bombing the same year as the strike, my parents made me promise them that I would never let anger about Thatcherism cause me to lose my humanity. So I have sympathy for Mrs Thatcher's bereaved loved ones. Any loss is painful & it must have been hard for them to watch her deterioration as a frail old woman. 
> 
> But my thoughts are elsewhere, with all those who have suffered or died before their time due to neo-liberalism - the new name for Thatcherism. They are too many to mention, but include young conscripted Argentinian sailors murderer in Thatcher's war crime on the Belgrano; the 'disappeared' who were thrown out of helicopters in Chile by Thatcher's great friend Pinochet. My thoughts are with all those who died in Reagan's wars. Also with the children in Libya who died when F1-11s based in the UK bombed Gadaffi. My thoughts are with my own relatives who died and with everyone in the former mining communities who is still hurting.My thoughts are also with those who are suffering throughout the world today due to the financial crisis caused by neo-liberal economics and due to imperialist wars.
> 
> In the UK there is a new 'enemy within' - anyone poor or disabled who is on benefits or has a spare bedroom. So enjoy your street parties, but I feel rather solemn & sad & don't feel like dancing on an old woman's grave. I'd rather have a quiet glass of champagne & resolve to step up my efforts to bury Thatcher's utterly failed, morally bankrupt ideology. I'll toast those who have gone before and all those throughout the world who have struggled against neo-liberalism. I'll mourn the utter betrayal of the working class by the UK Labour party. Wherever you are in the world, my thoughts are with you in your personal & political struggles. "
> ...


Tend to agree with you here, an old senile lady has died, over 20 years since her own party ditched her, cant see why some people are calling for parties to celebrate her death, thats unseemingly disgusting. However people have memories and like you the phrase, as used after the Falklands, of dealing with the enemy within, was deliberately choosen to demonise people who didn't fit her framed script.  Thats the truth, she was divisive, no one nation tory, and her everlasting epitaph will be as the person who declared war on sections of her own country. ( the enemy within ) Oh, Neo liberalism pre dates Thatcher by decades, Schumpeter / hayek et all economic philosophers, was where the ideology came from, she ( tutored by Keith Joseph ) became a zealot of what we now know as neo Liberalism

----------


## jacko

i cant say i ever liked the iron lady, but i guess she stood up for the country far better than the lying twisted snivelling bunch we have had of late. 
but i dont agree with a state funeral . who s going to pay for all that pomp ..... us the taxpayer as per usual.

----------


## macadamia

William Hague mentioned a multi-billion pound sum which Mrs. T saved the country by refusing to pay it to the EU. Mr Hague's reasonable deduction from this was if she could save the country £65 billion pounds, then the cost of a funeral, even on this scale, was comparative peanuts.

I guess, even without a calculator, this makes some kind of sense?

----------


## tonkatojo

> William Hague mentioned a multi-billion pound sum which Mrs. T saved the country by refusing to pay it to the EU. Mr Hague's reasonable deduction from this was if she could save the country £65 billion pounds, then the cost of a funeral, even on this scale, was comparative peanuts.
> 
> I guess, even without a calculator, this makes some kind of sense?


I need a calculator to acknowledge what the country would have saved had we not entered the common market by guess whom's party.

----------


## tonkatojo

[QUOTE=equusdriving;1019997]and this kind of thing cant help!

http://money.aol.co.uk/2013/04/09/bo...6pLid%3D170383[/QUOT

Aye but this was why the torys privatised it, to pay the wealthy toffs huge directorship fees along with the share take ups and bonuses, they just swap around companys's when things go wrong and say "who me, no" , give me a Sir dom or a Lordship to go along with the other perks no one will notice.

----------


## Phill

> Anyone thinking of getting involved with pre-arranged riots next week, the law enforcement agencies are scowering social media looking for ringleaders to round up


Yes, saw the following cross my desk and I thought of the .org:    The Fixated Threat Assessment Centre (FTAC), a small group of police and psychiatrists, is monitoring known Thatcher obsessives.  They are concerned about those with mental health issues who have fallen through the care net.

----------


## M Swanson

::  Indeed Phill. I blame the failure of Care in the Community.  ::

----------


## M Swanson

> William Hague mentioned a multi-billion pound sum which Mrs. T saved the country by refusing to pay it to the EU. Mr Hague's reasonable deduction from this was if she could save the country £65 billion pounds, then the cost of a funeral, even on this scale, was comparative peanuts.
> 
> I guess, even without a calculator, this makes some kind of sense?


And the actual figure of 8p per capita, makes even more nonsense of the objections raised by the malcontents. I often wonder how many of the bleaters actually pay tax to begin with.  In my experience, they've usually got the loudest mouths.  :Grin: 

Anyway, I may need to reduce the 8p, because Mrs Thatcher's family are contributing to the pot. Anybody would think Margaret Hilda had ever asked for any of this.  ::

----------


## M Swanson

> I need a calculator to acknowledge what the country would have saved had we not entered the common market by guess whom's party.


Indeed. It was that old duffer and nasty piece of work, Heath wot done it. Mind you, I can't help wondering how much would have been saved, if Blair hadn't reneged on his pledge to give us an In/Out referendum, which he could have done anytime throughout 12 years in power. It's galling to think, that he campaigned to be an MP in Sedgfield, when he declared that remaining in the EU would be damaging to Britain's economy, jobs and industry.  We're still waiting.

----------


## rob murray

[QUOTE=M Swanson;1020053]And the actual figure of 8p per capita, makes even more nonsense of the objections raised by the malcontents. I often wonder how many of the bleaters actually pay tax to begin with.  In my experience, they've usually got the loudest mouths.  :Grin: 

In your experience...as what.... an ex chancellor / head of tax evasion services... how can you back this up !!! Im what you call a bleater...loud mouth ( in your book )  and have paid sheds loads of tax so I break your definition dont I ??

----------


## tonkatojo

[QUOTE=rob murray;1020058]


> And the actual figure of 8p per capita, makes even more nonsense of the objections raised by the malcontents. I often wonder how many of the bleaters actually pay tax to begin with.  In my experience, they've usually got the loudest mouths. 
> 
> In your experience...as what.... an ex chancellor / head of tax evasion services... how can you back this up !!! Im what you call a bleater...loud mouth ( in your book )  and have paid sheds loads of tax so I break your definition dont I ??



Your right, spot on Rob along with income tax there is a tax called VAT that everyone pays working or not. Some on here like to talk nonsense about the not so well off.

----------


## M Swanson

I think it's a wonderful gesture, that Falkland Island heroes are to be pall-bearers at Margaret Hilda's funeral. I'm sure that she would have approved. Such a nice touch.  ::

----------


## rob murray

> I think it's a wonderful gesture, that Falkland Island heroes are to be pall-bearers at Margaret Hilda's funeral. I'm sure that she would have approved. Such a nice touch.


How would you know..maybe she would have preferred a small quite funeral...seems to me that the funeral is being manipulated for political purposes

----------


## rob murray

[QUOTE=tonkatojo;1020060]


> Your right, spot on Rob along with income tax there is a tax called VAT that everyone pays working or not. Some on here like to talk nonsense about the not so well off.


To damn many for my liking I didnt know that the BUF were so active up in Caithness !

----------


## cptdodger

> Anyone thinking of getting involved with pre-arranged riots next week, the law enforcement agencies are scowering social media looking for ringleaders to round up in pre-emptive strikes.
> 
> Further, long prison sentences will be the order of the day and who knows?, if the police completely lose control, they may er....react badly


Regardless of how much it is going to cost to stage the "ceremonial" funeral, which I do not agree with. The mere fact that there is a threat of pre arranged riots (presumably on the day and route of the funeral?)  and also, the amount of hatred for her that has been reported on the news and in the media, should not be lost on the powers that be. Innocent bystanders could possibly get mixed up in all this, again. If her family had any sense, they would have buried her privately, because the choice must have been theirs.

----------


## tonkatojo

> How would you know..maybe she would have preferred a small quite funeral...seems to me that the funeral is being manipulated for political purposes


Apparently she didn't. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...?utm_hp_ref=uk

Lord Bell said: "She specifically did not want a state funeral and nor did her family. She particularly did not wish to lie in state as she thought that was not appropriate."And she didn't want a fly-past as she thought that was a waste of money - somewhat in character you might think.
"She expressed those views to me personally and she will get what she wanted."

----------


## Phill

> ...seems to me that the funeral is being manipulated for political purposes


Never!!!!!

----------


## tonkatojo

> I think it's a wonderful gesture, that Falkland Island heroes are to be pall-bearers at Margaret Hilda's funeral. I'm sure that she would have approved. Such a nice touch.


I agree, they could have been pall bearers at an ordinary funeral not costing over £6 million, and still have shown their wonderful gestures to her as they seem to want.

----------


## rob murray

> Apparently she didn't. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013...?utm_hp_ref=uk
> 
> Lord Bell said: "She specifically did not want a state funeral and nor did her family. She particularly did not wish to lie in state as she thought that was not appropriate."And she didn't want a fly-past as she thought that was a waste of money - somewhat in character you might think.
> "She expressed those views to me personally and she will get what she wanted."


Well there you go the wifey obviously had her feelings about her eventual demise /  funeral...all now being ignored, I was on the right track in assuming that it seemed to me that the funeral was being manipulated for political purposes by the establishment / ruling elite just as no doubt the rent a riot crew will manipulate the situation as well.

----------


## M Swanson

Well, I'll be one of a party of 27 "bystanders," and trust me Cpt, not one of us will be intimidated by the Commie mob. We're more concerned in paying our last respects to Baroness Thatcher and choose not to hide indoors for fear of any mob. That's a road to disaster and folks will find their life changed more so, than at any other time in their life. The 27 "are not for turning," or running away.  ::

----------


## rob murray

> Well, I'll be one of a party of 27 "bystanders," and trust me Cpt, not one of us will be intimidated by the Commie mob. We're more concerned in paying our last respects to Baroness Thatcher and choose not to hide indoors for fear of any mob. That's a road to disaster and folks will find their life changed more so, than at any other time in their life. The 27 "are not for turning," or running away.


WHo are the 27 bystanders..sounds like a secret society the way you put it, but your right in standing your ground...dont be daft now, it wont be a commie mob as you put it, more opportunistic trouble makers..there is  no "commie mob" anymore...she finished them off

----------


## M Swanson

> I agree, they could have been pall bearers at an ordinary funeral not costing over £6 million, and still have shown their wonderful gestures to her as they seem to want.


Look Tonka, let's get this into persepective. If you're worried about your 8p, I'll put it in for you. How's that?  I can't believe any of this nonsense is about a few pennies and .......... I don't.

----------


## rob murray

> Look Tonka, let's get this into persepective. If you're worried about your 8p, I'll put it in for you. How's that?  I can't believe any of this nonsense is about a few pennies and .......... I don't.


Look you know damn well fine that this entire issue is not about a few pennies....can you throw 8p in for me and 3 other millions when your at it !!

----------


## tonkatojo

> Look Tonka, let's get this into persepective. If you're worried about your 8p, I'll put it in for you. How's that?  I can't believe any of this nonsense is about a few pennies and .......... I don't.


Awfully kind of you, perhaps your willing to put in for the other millions who do not want to contribute as well, hope you have deep pockets.

----------


## M Swanson

> Awfully kind of you, perhaps your willing to put in for the other millions who do not want to contribute as well, hope you have deep pockets.


LOL. I knew I shouldn't! Goodbye cruel world.  ::

----------


## tonkatojo

> LOL. I knew I shouldn't! Goodbye cruel world.


Have you seen the light I wonder LOL. "cruel world" ? TBW cruel for sure.

----------


## Phill

Frankly, I am outraged. I cannot believe THEY have allowed this to happen, 15 pages and not a single mention of Portgower!

----------


## rob murray

Captain, Who are the 27 ? Can I join and make the numbers up to 28 ? WHere do I send my 8p and can you send me joining instructions ?

----------


## rob murray

> Frankly, I am outraged. I cannot believe THEY have allowed this to happen, 15 pages and not a single mention of Portgower!


Aha....so thats where the 27 come from...I get it now

----------


## cptdodger

> Well, I'll be one of a party of 27 "bystanders," and trust me Cpt, not one of us will be intimidated by the Commie mob. We're more concerned in paying our last respects to Baroness Thatcher and choose not to hide indoors for fear of any mob. That's a road to disaster and folks will find their life changed more so, than at any other time in their life. The 27 "are not for turning," or running away.


And I am not saying you should not go, what I am saying is, whoever that has arranged this funeral, should take into consideration the threat of violence. The world's media will be trained on London that day, and it is not going to show us (Britain) in a particularly good light if it all kicks off yet again. Personally, I have asked my daughter to stay away from London that day, because it's one thing saying you're not afraid of any mob and they are not going to intimidate you, but it's quite another having a brick launched at your head, because you just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

----------


## Phill

"Swanson's 27 The Thatcherite's last stand" could be a filum, comedy or tragedy though?

----------


## rob murray

> "Swanson's 27 The Thatcherite's last stand" could be a filum, comedy or tragedy though?


The 27...sounds like a great name for a band !! or indeed a tragic comedy

----------


## cptdodger

> Captain, Who are the 27 ? Can I join and make the numbers up to 28 ? WHere do I send my 8p and can you send me joining instructions ?


I never mentioned 27 anything.

----------


## macadamia

You might choose to join in with the 700 service personnel lining the route..........

----------


## rob murray

> I never mentioned 27 anything.


I know, M Swanson did.

----------


## cptdodger

> I know, M Swanson did.


Sorry, I thought you were referring to me !

----------


## squidge

> You might choose to join in with the 700 service personnel lining the route..........


ordered to line the route maybe?

----------


## M Swanson

> "Swanson's 27 The Thatcherite's last stand" could be a filum, comedy or tragedy though?


 ::  ::  It could be any of the three categories you nominate Phill, or all three. Will you be the Director?  :: 




> ordered to line the route maybe?


I can assure you Squidge, that none of the Swanson 27's were press-ganged into anything.  Volunteers one and all.

----------


## M Swanson

> And I am not saying you should not go, what I am saying is, whoever that has arranged this funeral, should take into consideration the threat of violence. The world's media will be trained on London that day, and it is not going to show us (Britain) in a particularly good light if it all kicks off yet again. Personally, I have asked my daughter to stay away from London that day, because it's one thing saying you're not afraid of any mob and they are not going to intimidate you, but it's quite another having a brick launched at your head, because you just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.


Thanks for the clarification Cpt and I can understand your concern over your daughter's safety, but if she lives in London, it comes with the territory and always has. Just one question, if you please. If the mob kick off, who will be responsible for showing Britain in a bad light, do you think?  One thing I can assure you, is that no genuine mourner who is there to pay their respects will cause a moment's problem for anybody else. It will be our right to attend and that's exactly what we'll be doing. It's the British way, imo.

----------


## ducati

> ordered to line the route maybe?


What? On pain of being firebombed out of their houses no doubt, These senior officers could learn a trick or two from Scargill eh?

----------


## squidge

> I can assure you Squidge, that none of the Swanson 27's were press-ganged into anything.  Volunteers one and all.


 I am sure they were. Do you think the servicemen and women had a choice not to volunteer.

----------


## macadamia

I think the combination of the Met, 700 members of the Armed Forces, and maybe up to (say) half a million people who thought that Mrs. T was a rather fine one-off aren't going to be particularly disturbed by the Usual Yuman Rites suspects crawling out of the woodwork.  We know the BBC TV cameras will spend far too much time focusing on the little nosewipes, but it IS a free country, and (sigh) we must let them show their feelings. The following day, they will be forgotten, and the Iron Lady will be etched into history. So it goes.

----------


## RecQuery

Here's a question: Lots of Thatcher supporters have said that Thatcher  died in the 90s and that we're celebrating the death of an old women...  if that's the case and if the woman who just died wasn't the woman who  was PM, why are we paying so much for her funeral?

Also how does one donate to the Swanson-27 charity organisation for the sad, delusional and out-of-touch? I hear just £2 a month buys enough writing supplies for them to send 50 outraged letters-to-the-editor. Of course that was before privatisation so the price has probably increased exponentially.

----------


## cptdodger

> Thanks for the clarification Cpt and I can understand your concern over your daughter's safety, but if she lives in London, it comes with the territory and always has. Just one question, if you please. If the mob kick off, who will be responsible for showing Britain in a bad light, do you think?  One thing I can assure you, is that no genuine mourner who is there to pay their respects will cause a moment's problem for anybody else. It will be our right to attend and that's exactly what we'll be doing. It's the British way, imo.


I'm very well aware of the dangers of living in London, I did, and just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time on the 17th of December 1983. As for who will be responsible for showing Britain in a bad light ? The problem is, people living in a foreign country where this is being shown, will not differentiate between genuine mourners and the mob. They will just see riots, again.

----------


## ducati

> I am sure they were. Do you think the servicemen and women had a choice not to volunteer.


I would guess that 700 is all they can fit in from the potential volunteers. Stick to what you think you know.

Do you not think she had a great deal of respect from service personel? (apart from the odd one on here) Her actions following Brighton if nothing else would assure that. You insult our armed forces and with comments like that. I won't be taking you seriously in future. In fact you make me sick.

----------


## equusdriving

> I am sure they were. Do you think the servicemen and women had a choice not to volunteer.


wow just when I thought I had heard it all, you find a new low to sink too  ::

----------


## foreigner!

I live in a foreign country! and we don't care 1 bit about her!  At the end of the day she was an English lady that put England first, and yet here we are on forums speaking about her as being British!

----------


## cptdodger

> I live in a foreign country! and we don't care 1 bit about her!  At the end of the day she was an English lady that put England first, and yet here we are on forums speaking about her as being British!


Margaret Thatcher was a British politician and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, not just England. We speak about her as being British, because she was.

----------


## Anfield

> Frankly, I am outraged. I cannot believe THEY have allowed this to happen, 15 pages and not a single mention of Portgower!


I think I will have a day trip to Portgower on the day that the witch is buried. At least there I will not have to put up with hearing about it 24/7

I hear that she wanted a State Funeral but that the Army top brass said no. They did not want a 21 gun salute fired into the coffin

----------


## equusdriving

> I live in a foreign country! and we don't care 1 bit about her!  At the end of the day she was an English lady that put England first, and yet here we are on forums speaking about her as being British!


do you think that might be because she was BRITISH?

----------


## macadamia

Dear Foreigner,

Apart from the English/British mistake, I'm a wee bit concerned that you have spent more than a few seconds thought and keystrokes to tell us you don't care about her. You clearly find this information vital,: so vital you have to waste space telling us you don't care. It may come as some surprise (and here I think I can speak for most) that we aren't too desperately concerned about you, either. If you had an opinion, you rather wasted the opportunity. Never mind.

----------


## squidge

> I would guess that 700 is all they can fit in from the potential volunteers. Stick to what you think you know.Do you not think she had a great deal of respect from service personel? (apart from the odd one on here) Her actions following Brighton if nothing else would assure that. You insult our armed forces and with comments like that. I won't be taking you seriously in future. In fact you make me sick.


I dont know Ducati, Thats why I asked. I was wondering  whether anyone else does. I wonder whether they were asked for volunteers or whether it was an order? Did they have a choice or did they have no choice? Do you know? What is the protocol? If you have an answer then I would be glad to hear it. If i make you sick for asking a question then here, have a bucket and stop being so touchy.

----------


## tonkatojo

> I dont know Ducati, Thats why I asked. I was wondering  whether anyone else does. I wonder whether they were asked for volunteers or whether it was an order? Did they have a choice or did they have no choice? Do you know? What is the protocol? If you have an answer then I would be glad to hear it. If i make you sick for asking a question then here, have a bucket and stop being so touchy.


The answer to that is you do as your told, if your in that detail that's what you do no if no buts and quite frankly that is the way it is and should be.

----------


## M Swanson

Squidge knew that already, of course Tonka, but it was good of you to post the info, in the highly unlikely event that somebody else didn't.

----------


## M Swanson

> Here's a question: Lots of Thatcher supporters have said that Thatcher  died in the 90s and that we're celebrating the death of an old women...  if that's the case and if the woman who just died wasn't the woman who  was PM, why are we paying so much for her funeral?
> 
> Also how does one donate to the Swanson-27 charity organisation for the sad, delusional and out-of-touch? I hear just £2 a month buys enough writing supplies for them to send 50 outraged letters-to-the-editor. Of course that was before privatisation so the price has probably increased exponentially.


Having read that utter bilge, I think you would do better to set up a charity for yourself, Rec. Your need is far, far greater than mine, or anyone I know.  ::

----------


## squidge

> Squidge knew that already, of course Tonka, but it was good of you to post the info, in the highly unlikely event that somebody else didn't.


How would I know? Its a ceremonial thing. I have a few friends in the RAF who were involved in something ceremonial and they were asked if they wanted to volunteer. Granted it was a smaller event but I was interested as to whether this was the same or different. 

Thanks Tonkatojo. I thought it might be different if it was a ceremonial thing.

----------


## crayola

Ding dong. March in spirit in wer' ranks wi' us!

----------


## givemecandy

The Labour Party initially proposed the idea of the right of tenants to own the house they live in, in its manifesto for the 1959 General Election which it subsequently lost.[1] Later, theConservative-controlled Greater London Council of the late 1960s was persuaded by Horace Cutler, its Chairman of Housing, to create a general sales scheme. Cutler disagreed with the concept of local authorities as providers of housing and supported a free market approach. GLC housing sales were not allowed during the Labour administration of the mid-1970s but picked up again once Cutler became Leader in 1977. They proved extremely popular, and Cutler was close to Margaret Thatcher (a London MP) who made the right to buy council housing a Conservative Party policy nationally.
In the meantime, council house sales to tenants began to increase. Some 7,000 were sold to their tenants during 1970, but in two short years that figure soared to more than 45,000 in 1972.[2]

You can see the right to buy would have been initiated in the 1959 Labour Manifesto had they have won. If Memory serves me correctly Thatcher came to power in 1979.

----------


## Alrock

> The Labour Party initially proposed the idea of the right of tenants to own the house they live in, in its manifesto for the 1959 General Election which it subsequently lost.[1] Later, theConservative-controlled Greater London Council of the late 1960s was persuaded by Horace Cutler, its Chairman of Housing, to create a general sales scheme. Cutler disagreed with the concept of local authorities as providers of housing and supported a free market approach. GLC housing sales were not allowed during the Labour administration of the mid-1970s but picked up again once Cutler became Leader in 1977. They proved extremely popular, and Cutler was close to Margaret Thatcher (a London MP) who made the right to buy council housing a Conservative Party policy nationally.
> In the meantime, council house sales to tenants began to increase. Some 7,000 were sold to their tenants during 1970, but in two short years that figure soared to more than 45,000 in 1972.[2]
> 
> You can see the right to buy would have been initiated in the 1959 Labour Manifesto had they have won. If Memory serves me correctly Thatcher came to power in 1979.


Few would disagree with the right to buy... But... As pointed out earlier in the thread, the problem is not so much the right to buy but more the lack of replacement housing for those properties sold...

----------


## George Brims

> Margaret Thatcher was a British politician and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, not just England. We speak about her as being British, because she was.


Technically she was British Prime Minister, but her heart wasn't in it. One of her (soon to be former) cabinet ministers, who was Scottish, told her during a discussion on the push for Scottish Devolution, that all we Scots are Scottish nationalists "with a small 'n' of course". Her reply was that she was an English Nationalist, with capital letters.

----------


## cptdodger

> Technically she was British Prime Minister, but her heart wasn't in it. One of her (soon to be former) cabinet ministers, who was Scottish, told her during a discussion on the push for Scottish Devolution, that all we Scots are Scottish nationalists "with a small 'n' of course". Her reply was that she was an English Nationalist, with capital letters.


I quite agree with you. I was just answering the person that thought it was amusing that we were referring to her being British

 (Originally Posted by *foreigner!*  				 				I live in a foreign country! and we don't care 1  bit about her!  At the end of the day she was an English lady that put  England first, and yet here we are on forums speaking about her as being  British!)

I firmly believe Margaret Thatcher, just used Scotland as a testing ground for her policies, like the poll tax, other than that, she did'nt give us a second thought.

----------


## Flynn

Gosh, so much vitriol from the Org's Thatcherites while I was earning a living today. Funny how they have all day to spend on this forum. Benefit scroungers perhaps?  :: 


Enjoy:





Would love to see the streets next Wednesday as sparse as those Labour benches. And I loved Bercow slapping down Fat Tory's 'point of order'.  :: 


And with that I'm off. I have another early start and another day's driving tomorrow.


Goodnight.

----------


## M Swanson

> Technically she was British Prime Minister, but her heart wasn't in it. One of her (soon to be former) cabinet ministers, who was Scottish, told her during a discussion on the push for Scottish Devolution, that all we Scots are Scottish nationalists "with a small 'n' of course". Her reply was that she was an English Nationalist, with capital letters.


Well, I've searched for any reference to your account George and I can't find any trace of it. Can you tell us the name of the cabinet minister; when this took place and Mrs Thatcher's response in direct quotes, please? 

However, my time wasn't wasted. In another article I read some very revealing information, surrounding the Poll Tax debacle. Did you know that this tax was conceived in Scotland? No? Nor me. And did you also know that it was Scot's Tory's who petitioned Margaret Hilda to introduce it in Scotland, a year earlier than rolling it out nationally?  I didn't! Anyway, perhaps you'll be interested to read this link. It was a real eye-opener to me!

Margaret Thatcher and Scotland: A Story of Mutual Incomprehension » Spectator Blogs

----------


## M Swanson

> Gosh, so much vitriol from the Org's Thatcherites while I was earning a living today. Funny how they have all day to spend on this forum. Benefit scroungers perhaps? 
> 
> 
> Would love to see the streets next Wednesday as sparse as those Labour benches. And I loved Bercow slapping down Fat Tory's 'point of order'. 
> 
> 
> And with that I'm off. I have another early start and another day's driving tomorrow.


Just in case you haven't read the news, the Swanson 29, (two more joined this evening), will be swelling the number of loyal, compassionate and decent supporters of Margaret Hilda to pay their respects. We're expecting a good turnout. S'pect you'll be there too Flynn, but mum's the word.  :: 

Night Flynn.  :Grin:

----------


## crayola

My former neighbour in Hampstead continues to reflect the traditional values that I was brought up with and which I continue to support. Glenda will remain forever more my sister in witchcraft upon the Heath that tops the hill at Hampstead.

----------


## M Swanson

Ah! Thanks for the memories, Crayola, of warm, pleasant evenings, spent at Kenwood House, listening to fine music and enjoying a cheese sandwich and bottle of pop, whilst the toffs sat in front, dining from their Fortnum & Mason, wicker picnic baskets. It was so bewitching.  :Grin: 

Does Glenda's handsome looks run in the family?  :Grin:

----------


## crayola

I shall purchase the bell from iTunes after the sun has risen from its slumber next x

----------


## MerlinScot

Who was Margaret Thatcher? Lol

----------


## Alrock

> I read some very revealing information, surrounding the Poll Tax debacle. Did you know that this tax was conceived in Scotland? No? Nor me. And did you also know that it was Scot's Tory's who petitioned Margaret Hilda to introduce it in Scotland, a year earlier than rolling it out nationally?


My understanding of it is that it was a Maggie policy, It was introduced in Scotland a year earlier than England at the request of the Scottish Tories because....
a) It was technically possible
b) The Rates was an unpopular system
c) The rate banding was due to be recalculated so it was a good time to do it
d) They where actually so delusional that they where convinced that it would be a popular vote winner... One of the biggest miscalculations they ever made.

----------


## David Banks

> Gosh, so much vitriol from the Org's Thatcherites while I was earning a living today. Funny how they have all day to spend on this forum. Benefit scroungers perhaps? 
> 
> Would love to see the streets next Wednesday as sparse as those Labour benches. And I loved Bercow slapping down Fat Tory's 'point of order'. 
> 
> 
> And with that I'm off. I have another early start and another day's driving tomorrow.
> 
> 
> Goodnight.


Thanks for the video link Flynn - I'm sure I would not have had the chance to enjoy it otherwise.

----------


## RecQuery

> Having read that utter bilge, I think you would do better to set up a charity for yourself, Rec. Your need is far, far greater than mine, or anyone I know.


ಠ_ಠ - Really? that's your comeback something which basically boils down to 'Nuh uh you are'... oh well.

----------


## macadamia

Ah well, another day of "incoming". What have we learned so far? The death of Margaret Thatcher has prompted a lively debate of a "Marmite" variety. There is little doubt that opinion falls neatly into two opposing camps:

a) Best thing since sliced bread

b) Devil incarnate

Having viewed the external evidence, I (so far) conclude

i) Those who dislike her tend to be less articulate than those who do.

ii) Those who dislike her sound - and look - ugly when they articulate their hatred (Glenda Jackson, and the sad man from the SNP yesterday, come to mind)

iii) Most governments, friendly or otherwise, recognise her greatness

iv) The Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, the Rt. Hon Ed Miliband, MP, came of age yesterday in his tribute to Margaret Thatcher, where he was able to recognise both her contribution, and his opposition to certain parts of her agenda.

v) Her Queen seems to be a fan. Good enough for me!

vi) There will be hundreds of thousands along the funeral route to see her off. There will be small pockets of the Usual Suspects "celebrating" her passing by destroying property, spraying graffiti, throwing rocks and making prats of themselves

After it is all over, the protestors will go back to looking for another excuse to display their victimhood, and Baroness Thatcher will have her place in history as the first woman Prime Minister, and the woman who slaughtered the evil of the Union Barons, their disgusting anti-democratic block vote and secondary/flying pickets, and their drag-anchor effect on progress.

----------


## Phill

Yawn. Still dead then is she?

----------


## Phill

> There will be hundreds of thousands along the funeral route to see her off.


No doubt press ganged North Korean stylee!  :Wink:

----------


## M Swanson

> Yawn. Still dead then is she?


Not in the minds of those who love Britain and recognise a great lady when they educate themselves, Phill.  :: 




> No doubt press ganged North Korean stylee!


Nope! That'll come a little further down the line, when the tragically gullible and terminally stupid find their thoughts, words and lives decided by the high presidium. It doesn't bode wellee.  :Wink:

----------


## M Swanson

> Ah well, another day of "incoming". What have we learned so far? The death of Margaret Thatcher has prompted a lively debate of a "Marmite" variety. There is little doubt that opinion falls neatly into two opposing camps:
> 
> a) Best thing since sliced bread
> 
> b) Devil incarnate
> 
> Having viewed the external evidence, I (so far) conclude
> 
> i) Those who dislike her tend to be less articulate than those who do.
> ...


Brilliant Mac. One of the best, insightful and accurate posts I've ever read on the Org. With your permission, I'd like to make copies of it, to distribute to interested parties. Sadly, I'm outta rep for you.

----------


## macadamia

M. Swanson - feel free!

----------


## golach

> Yawn. Still dead then is she?


I think Easter is passed, and still no second coming, yup thinks she is dead

----------


## M Swanson

> M. Swanson - feel free!


Many thanks Mac. I'll post the feedbacks I receive shortly.  :: 




> I think Easter is passed, and still no second coming, yup thinks she is dead


Here's an interesting thought, Golach. I wonder if all this fuelled-hatred and myth-selling garbage about MH will affect the support of the SNP? Personally, I think it could well make a big difference. The prospect of an independent Scotland, seems a little more possible to me now. S'pect Squidge is quietly optimistic.

----------


## Flynn

Margaret Thatcher was the most divisive and polarising politic leader of the last century. This is an incomplete list of why many of us fall on the side that does not regard her with anything other than odium.

1. She supported the retention of capital punishment
2. She destroyed the country's manufacturing industry
3. She voted against the relaxation of divorce laws
4. She abolished free milk for schoolchildren ("Margaret Thatcher, Milk Snatcher")
5. She supported more freedom for business (and look how that turned out)
6. She gained support from the National Front in the 1979 election by pandering to the fears of immigration
7. She gerrymandered local authorities by forcing through council house sales, at the same time preventing councils from spending the money they got for selling houses on building new houses (spending on social housing dropped by 67% in her premiership)
8. She was responsible for 3.6 million unemployed - the highest figure and the highest proportion of the workforce in history and three times the previous government. Massaging of the figures means that the figure was closer to 5 million
9. She ignored intelligence about Argentinian preparations for the invasion of the Falkland Islands and scrapped the only Royal Navy presence in the islands 
10. The poll tax
11. She presided over the closure of 150 coal mines; we are now crippled by the cost of energy, having to import expensive coal from abroad
12. She compared her "fight" against the miners to the Falklands War
13. She privatised state monopolies and created the corporate greed culture that we've been railing against for the last 5 years
14. She introduced the gradual privatisation of the NHS
15. She introduced financial deregulation in a way that turned city institutions into avaricious money pits
16. She pioneered the unfailing adoration and unquestioning support of the USA
17. She allowed the US to place nuclear missiles on UK soil, under US control
18. Section 28
19. She opposed anti-apartheid sanctions against South Africa and described Nelson Mandela as "that grubby little terrorist"
20. She support the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and sent the SAS to train their soldiers
21. She allowed the US to bomb Libya in 1986, against the wishes of more than 2/3 of the population
22. She opposed the reunification of Germany
23. She invented Quangos
24. She increased VAT from 8% to 17.5%
25. She had the lowest approval rating of any post-war Prime Minister
26. Her post-PM job? Consultant to Philip Morris tobacco at $250,000 a year, plus $50,000 per speech
27. The Al Yamamah arms contract with the Saudi Arabian dictatorship
28. She opposed the indictment of Chile's General Pinochet
29. Social unrest under her leadership was higher than at any time since the General Strike
30. She presided over interest rates increasing to 15%
31. BSE
32. She presided over 2 million manufacturing job losses in the 79-81 recession
33. She opposed the inclusion of Eire in the Northern Ireland peace process
34. She supported sanctions-busting arms deals with South Africa
35. Cecil Parkinson, Alan Clark, David Mellor, Jeffrey Archer, Jonathan Aitkin
36. Crime rates doubled under Thatcher
37. Black Wednesday - Britain withdraws from the ERM and the pound is devalued. Cost to Britain - £3.5 billion; profit for George Soros - £1 billion
38. Poverty doubled while she opposed a minimum wage
39. She privatised public services, claiming at the time it would increase public ownership. Most are now owned either by foreign governments (EDF) or major investment houses. The profits don't now accrue to the taxpayer, but to foreign or institutional shareholders.
40. She cut 75% of funding to museums, galleries and other sources of education
41. In the Thatcher years the top 10% of earners received almost 50% of the tax remissions
42. 21.9% inflation

Most people recognise the massive changes that evolved during the 1980s. However, to ascribe the positive changes to one person, as though they never would have happened in her absence, is laughable.



As for a Falklands themed funeral, I think that idea is the worst kind of Tory jingoism and an insult to those who died fighting the Falklands war. However, I'm all for it if it looks like this:



And that's my 45 minute break almost don.e Later people, I'll leave all you Tory benefit scroungers to run me down all day again. Toodlepip.  ::

----------


## John Little

Whatever else may be said about Mrs Thatcher, one thing is absolutely clear as must be apparent to all.  She did not 'do' consensus. 

 This being so I cannot see why anyone should expect consensus on this thread.  

Eventually it will, like a First World War battle, grind itself to a halt in mud, rain and blood and all that will be left will be wigs on the green.  

What is the end here?

----------


## macadamia

Flynn - you're a laugh a minute. You list 42 points which you lay solely at the feet and or the direct influence of the Iron Lady.

You then balance this with

"Most people recognise the massive changes that evolved during the 1980s. However, to ascribe the positive changes to one person, as though they never would have happened in her absence, is laughable."

Well, if you don't see a bit of a joke in what you're really saying, then I am a Flying Dutchman. "Everything bad was directly down to her, but anything good can't be ascribed to her."

Bit of a logic shift. Still, never mind. No doubt you are right "because all my friends think the same as I do".

----------


## Phill

> What is the end here?


No end, just sore fingers and broken keyboards of Internet warriors.

----------


## Phill

Mac, yer just another Tory benefit scrounger!

----------


## macadamia

If you say so!  :Wink:

----------


## ducati

> Many thanks Mac. I'll post the feedbacks I receive shortly. 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an interesting thought, Golach. I wonder if all this fuelled-hatred and myth-selling garbage about MH will affect the support of the SNP? Personally, I think it could well make a big difference. The prospect of an independent Scotland, seems a little more possible to me now. S'pect Squidge is quietly optimistic.


I'm changing my vote, I want Scotland out of the UK ASAP. If Eck wants out he should let the English vote  ::

----------


## squidge

Squidge is neither optimistic nor pessimistic. The referendum is a year away and as I have already said .... We shall see. You may have a quieter time at the funeral than many are worried about. Its being @WingsScotland: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they come to fight you, and then you win." Its being mentioned on Twitter that the police are rounding up known " dissidents" and detaining them. I have no idea how true that is but if the police are all busy holding people who hate Margaret Thatcher they are probably hoping no one is planning a daring bank heist!

----------


## RecQuery

There's a real irony in seeing so many people treat Thatchers death    like the death of a dictator. All this over-the-top mourning  of her   death and ridiculous policing of who's mourning her and who  isn't. This   isn't North Korea for for crying out loud, put it away.

  If you want to pay tribute to her then do so. Just stop acting like   she's a god who deserves to be worshiped or deserves to be treated   different than any other ex-Prime Minister - Churchill being a special   case under unique circumstances.

Just because she's popular amongst the Tories doesn't mean everybody has to join in...

Also given the eight different ways I've seen of people referring to  Thatcher. I'm going to use the: Margaret Thatcher, Milk Snatcher one  from now on. Hey if you can't beat them join them.

----------


## M Swanson

> Flynn - you're a laugh a minute. You list 42 points which you lay solely at the feet and or the direct influence of the Iron Lady.
> 
> You then balance this with
> 
> "Most people recognise the massive changes that evolved during the 1980s. However, to ascribe the positive changes to one person, as though they never would have happened in her absence, is laughable."
> 
> Well, if you don't see a bit of a joke in what you're really saying, then I am a Flying Dutchman. "Everything bad was directly down to her, but anything good can't be ascribed to her."
> 
> Bit of a logic shift. Still, never mind. No doubt you are right "because all my friends think the same as I do".


LOL. Mac, I don't know what to say about this one. I'm running out of positive adjectives. How I enjoyed this post, thanks.




> Mac, yer just another Tory benefit scrounger!


LOL. Phill. That's as maybe, but isn't he something really special!  He's worth every penny he gets and then some.  :: 




> I'm changing my vote, I want Scotland out of the UK ASAP. If Eck wants out he should let the English vote


When I joined the Org, I never thought I'd find myself agreeing with this, but guess what? I'm joining ya, Ducati.  ::

----------


## M Swanson

> Most people recognise the massive changes that evolved during the 1980s. However, to ascribe the positive changes to one person, as though they never would have happened in her absence, is laughable.


Flynn, would you join me and millions of other civilised Britons, in denouncing the use of violence, at Baroness Thatcher's funeral next Wednesday?

----------


## RecQuery

> Flynn, would you join me and millions of other civilised Britons, in denouncing the use of violence, at Baroness Thatcher's funeral next Wednesday?


Even if such a thing were to happen, it would still be nicer than mounted Police charges et al.

Nice to see you've prejudged a legitimate protest to automatically include violence BTW, speaks volumes about your mindset.

----------


## sids

> Nice to see you've prejudged a legitimate protest to automatically include violence BTW, speaks volumes about your mindset.


Speaks volumes about what we've seen before.

----------


## Anfield

> Flynn, would you join me and millions of other civilised Britons, in denouncing the use of violence, at Baroness Thatcher's funeral next Wednesday?


I am sure that the Police authorities will tell the police that the eyes of the world are on them and to refrain from beating up peaceful protesters & newspaper vendors

----------


## RecQuery

> I am sure that the Police authorities will tell the police that the eyes of the world are on them and to refrain from beating up peaceful protesters & newspaper vendors


They'll just do what they always do: plant not very well concealed agents provocateurs to make themselves look useful and less like jackbooted government thugs.

----------


## Anfield

BREAKING NEWS

Atos declare that Thatcher is fit for work

----------


## macadamia

Hurrah for ATOS! They got it right this time. Even after her passing, the Iron Lady's influence and legacy, when measured against the positive things that the protestors have done for society, continues from beyond the tomb. and currently gives a score line of:

Lots - Nil

In favour of the Lady, and her myriad of followers from all walks of life.

----------


## M Swanson

> Hurrah for ATOS! They got it right this time. Even after her passing, the Iron Lady's influence and legacy, when measured against the positive things that the protestors have done for society, continues from beyond the tomb. and currently gives a score line of:
> 
> Lots - Nil
> 
> In favour of the Lady, and her myriad of followers from all walks of life.


LOL. It's a walkover, Mac. 

On the regional News, the television crew tried to find the creature Scargill, to solicit his thoughts regarding the demise of Margaret Hilda.  He didn't answer and when that happens one must be deeply suspicious. 

Anyway, the report also mentioned the wrangle Scargill is having with the NUM, who are accusing him of trying to destroy the Union.  Well come on, they're over 30 years too late with that one. They should have listened to Mrs T then, before he single-handedly, very nearly destroyed them and the miners, but only after drawing a years pay, prior to calling his political strike.  Shame about the miners!  I feel sorry, that after all this time, the men must have woken up to the knowledge that Scargill shafted them. What a vile man.

----------


## RecQuery

"Ding-Dong The Witch is Dead" is now #1 in the iTunes UK Singles Chart

http://www.apple.com/euro/itunes/charts/top10songs.html

----------


## piratelassie

Clement Atlee did'nt have a state funeral and he deserved one. And thatcher is having one, in all but name.

----------


## Flynn

I see M Swanson has spent all day playing on the internet again. Nice to know my taxes are supporting her lazing at home all day.




> Flynn,would you join me and millions of other civilised Britons, in denouncing the use of violence, at Baroness Thatcher's funeral nextWednesday?


 Absolutely, I will always denounce police brutality.



 An interesting article here about why giving Thatcher a state funeral, and the Queen attending that funeral, is a big mistake and very damaging for politics in the UK:




> MargaretThatcher: This is a state funeral, and that’s a mistake
> The decision to acknowledge LadyThatcher, but not Clement Attlee, makes the Queen appear partisan andis out of kilter with the impartiality of the modern monarchy
> 
> 
> The official line from BuckinghamPalace and Downing Street is that Margaret Thatcher is not beinggranted a state funeral. And it is true that the Baroness will notlie in state at Westminster Hall, as Sir Winston Churchill did almost50 years ago.
> In almost every other respect, however,this is the real thing. Next Wednesday, her body will be taken by guncarriage from St Clement Danes in the Strand, down Fleet Street andinto St Paul’s Cathedral.
> There will be a gun salute at the Towerof London. And the cost of the event will be borne in large part bythe taxpayer. Most important of all, the Queen is to attend.
> If something looks, smells and tasteslike a state funeral, then it is reasonable to conclude that it isone. The truth is that Lady Thatcher is getting very similartreatment to Diana, Princess of Wales in 1997 or the Queen Mother in2002.
> Many decent people will feel there islittle question that Lady Thatcher was a great prime minister, andtherefore that nothing could be more natural and fitting than nextweek’s splendid send-off. But the issue is not nearly as simple asthat. The decision to advise the Queen to award Lady Thatcher what isofficially being called a “ceremonial” funeral will create veryserious problems. This is because the advice marks a betrayal of oneof the most essential principles of the British state: the divisionbetween the executive and ceremonial functions.
> ...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...a-mistake.html

And another article here showing how Thatcher is the author of the something-for-nothing culture in the UK:

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourking...-or-red-bricks

And let's not forget that M Swanson's heroine of 'democracy' sent SAS troops to Cambodia in 1983 to train the Khmer rouge.









Now I'm off to bed, another early start and long drive tomorrow. No rest for the workers.


Oh, a quick Ps.

You really couldn't make this up if you tried. The Met are asking people who plan to demonstrate to let them know in advance so their 'right to protest can be protected'. Yeah, right.

----------


## Phill

> You really couldn't make this up if you tried. The Met are asking people who plan to demonstrate to let them know in advance so their 'right to protest can be protected'. Yeah, right.


Many of the rights to protest were eroded by Labour, ironic really.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-1627054.html

----------


## Pedro Hopper

Well, I've lived through many Prime Ministers and every one of them has done as terrible a job as the other. They've all run this country in to the ground and not one of them has made it better, so what does it matter who's in power?

The same thing is happening in the States - Kennedy was the only honourable and selfless President that country has ever seen and look what happened when he deviated from the agenda of those who really control things?

BOOM HEADSHOT

----------


## gaza

The start of this thread was about the death and peoples opinions of  M.T. but it has turned into a verbal assassination against Flynn,   because of his dislike and hatred of her, so bear that in mind M Swanson..... after YOUR post about Scargill stating WHAT A VILE MAN, (you have also used that same statement toward a celebrity in a previous Thread)  .. that is many peoples feelings about Thatcher so take that on board and please stop your bullying tactics along with Macadamin against Flynn and people who have a different opinion to yours. I to can pull up statements and paragraphs to argue one point against another but the fact is you will never change a persons mind  if that's what he/she believes, by your oppressive remarks...  you of all people should know that, with your deep belief in God. BEFORE you retaliate take time out to remind yourself just what has been said on this thread READ the 19 pages ..................................................  .......... ::  

To the MODERATOR some statements and tactics in the past 373 posts have offended.

----------


## cptdodger

Gaza, I started this thread just to let people, who may have not seen the news at that point, know that Margaret Thatcher was dead. Your points are valid, let me know and I think I can close it, but I would just have to work out how. It was not my intention when I posted this thread to offend anybody.

----------


## John Little

> Clement Atlee did'nt have a state funeral and he deserved one. And thatcher is having one, in all but name.


. 

Let every nation know. 

Whether it wish us good or ill.

 I agree with Pirate Lassie.  

Which is a great surprise to me - but there ye go.

----------


## gaza

Sorry cptdodger this was not directed at you but to let the moderator know that some posts have caused offence.

----------


## mi16

No point in closing as another will pop up soon after.Yes it has derailed a tad but it wouldn't be the first time threads have gone off topic a bit.

----------


## golach

> Sorry cptdodger this was not directed at you but to let the moderator know that some posts have caused offence.


If you find any posts offensive use the proper method of reporting the said post, use the triangle at the bottom left of said post

----------


## cptdodger

> Sorry cptdodger this was not directed at you but to let the moderator know that some posts have caused offence.


No, that's fine, but if any of you change your mind let me know and I will close it. Although, mi16's probably right, they will just start again on another thread !

----------


## Phill

> BOOM HEADSHOT


Thursday night, the drink is kicking, should get tasty now.



Ding Ding, all aboard!
Next stop, Outrage.

----------


## crayola

Raise high the flag, The ranks are closed and tight. And so on.....?

----------


## mi16

> I'll leave all you Tory benefit scroungers to run me down all day again. Toodlepip.


Flynn, in the benefits thread you are slating folk who are hard on the recipients of benefits, yet on here you call them scroungers, what's that all about?

----------


## Flynn

> Flynn, in the benefits thread you are slating folk who are hard on the recipients of benefits, yet on here you call them scroungers, what's that all about?


It's called irony. The very people who were attacking those who claim benefits are spending all day every day playing on the internet instead of working. I'm simply highlighting their hypocrisy by using their own language against them.

----------


## ducati

> It's called irony. The very people who were attacking those who claim benefits are spending all day every day playing on the internet instead of working. I'm simply highlighting their hypocrisy by using their own language against them.


100% successful then?  ::

----------


## Oddquine

> You won't see it that way, but whether you like it, or not, in writing this post I've no doubt that you've joined the grave dancers and having a whale of a time. Somehow, I expected a little better from you Squidge. Ah! Well!


So anyone who doesn't agree with your personal perception of things automatically becomes a grave dancer?  Is that not personal abuse and against forum rules, M Swanson?   There are thousands, if not millions, of people in the UK who think much the same, though maybe for different reasons, as the person quoted in Squidge's post. 

  Thatcher may have accomplished some good things..though seeing the effects of her policies on the UK since 1979, I am struggling to find any which are greater than the damage she has _done_ to the UK.  Can you offer some......any *good* things she did which enhanced the UK at the time, and continues to do so today?  Ducati previously offered a list of her accomplishments, though it still has to materialise. Can you do any better?  

 A  couple of quotes from here....... http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/i...ting#undefined ....ring true. 

The first is what you and others are doing......_those who admire the deceased public figure (and their politics) aren't  silent at all. They are aggressively exploiting the emotions generated  by the person's death to create hagiography. 
_And secondly_........
Demanding that no criticisms be voiced to counter that hagiography is to  enable false history and a propagandistic whitewashing of bad acts,  distortions that become quickly ossified and then endure by virtue of no  opposition and the powerful emotions created by death. When a political  leader dies, it is irresponsible in the extreme to demand that only  praise be permitted but not criticisms. 
_

----------


## joxville

As a kid in the 70's I can remember it as being a decade of strikes, of unions holding management and the country to ransom, with bin men on strike, or car workers, or miners, the three day week, power supplies being cut, especially in winter when we needed it most, hardly a week went by without there being a strike, and after the 1978/79 Winter of Discontent then I honestly think a pig on a stick could have been voted in to parliament, given the state of the country back then, so the Tories got in due to the incompetence of others and the greed of the unions.

And that greed was to manifest itself in other ways, with the Tories making themselves and their cronies even richer at the countries expense. For sure, some working class people benefitted by being able to buy their homes and sell at a massive profit, but ultimately, they, and we, are paying the price for that greed now. Her 3 terms in power were due in part to the idiots leading the opposition, and because the UK's biggest electorate living in England had become well off under her policies. Thatcher, (and other PM's since), have continually flaunted a false economy, sold off what they could, stolen people's lives, their jobs, their pensions, ripped the hearts out of communities, taxed us to the hilt, to suit their own agenda, and sod you Jack I'm all right. Manufacturing has almost been wiped out, we've gone from being an industrial giant to an also-ran; and almost every major company or utility is foreign owned, yet this is the woman who supposedly was proud to be British, who stood up for Britain, fought for British rights in Europe, but sold the country from under our feet. Her Britishness, capitalist and free market ideals mean diddly squat now that we have nothing left.

She was forewarned about the Falkland's crisis and sat back, knowing that winning that war would make her look good, when in all honesty, regardless of which party governed the country, the Argies were never going to win anyway. Some are saying it's wrong to speak ill of the dead, but that woman didn't give a tuppenny damn about the old or the poor in this country, and even now, over 20 years since she lost power, people are having to decide whether to heat or eat. This is the 21st Century, we shouldn't be in this mess. But we are due to the changes she made or the processes she started, and it continued under The Grey Man and Bliar. 

I was born and lived in Scotland until 1987 before moving to Hampshire so I can see both sides of how the country was affected during her time in office, how one part of the country was on it's knees while the other was enjoying the good times. It was an eye-opener coming down here and seeing thirty pages of jobs in the local paper, yet in Scotland at that time you'd be lucky to find even thirty jobs advertised, such was the state of the Union. So I can understand how she is reviled. People are attacking her for good reason. 

Politics changed when she came to power, using image consultants and pushing a 'brand', (a concept that Blair took to another level), politics became slick, with sound bites, rubbishing anyone who didn't conform to their ideals, but underneath a total disregard and contempt for the electorate.  She put herself up for public office, and with it comes the criticism, as well as the plaudits. Even when alive people had good reason to hate her, why should they feel any different now that she's dead? Years from now when she is long dead, people will still be paying the price for her failures. 

There's a saying often used when someone dies, that "we are all the poorer for her loss", in this case I believe we are all the poorer for her wins.

----------


## joxville

She should die more often, she's kept those bliddy ecomentalists quiet this week :-)

----------


## ducati

> So anyone who doesn't agree with your personal perception of things automatically becomes a grave dancer?  Is that not personal abuse and against forum rules, M Swanson?   There are thousands, if not millions, of people in the UK who think much the same, though maybe for different reasons, as the person quoted in Squidge's post. 
> 
>   Thatcher may have accomplished some good things..though seeing the effects of her policies on the UK since 1979, I am struggling to find any which are greater than the damage she has _done_ to the UK.  Can you offer some......any *good* things she did which enhanced the UK at the time, and continues to do so today?  Ducati previously offered a list of her accomplishments, though it still has to materialise. Can you do any better?  
> 
>  A  couple of quotes from here....... http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/i...ting#undefined ....ring true. 
> 
> The first is what you and others are doing......_those who admire the deceased public figure (and their politics) aren't  silent at all. They are aggressively exploiting the emotions generated  by the person's death to create hagiography. 
> _And secondly_........
> Demanding that no criticisms be voiced to counter that hagiography is to  enable false history and a propagandistic whitewashing of bad acts,  distortions that become quickly ossified and then endure by virtue of no  opposition and the powerful emotions created by death. When a political  leader dies, it is irresponsible in the extreme to demand that only  praise be permitted but not criticisms. 
> _


I don't think you are being fair here Oddquinn. reviewing the thread, it looks pretty even in terms of fors and antis.

----------


## M Swanson

> Thursday night, the drink is kicking, should get tasty now.
> 
> Ding Ding, all aboard!
> Next stop, Outrage.


LOL. So, that's why everybody loves a Thursday night, then Phill?  Thanks for the heads-up!  ::  I didn't quite get your humour when I first arrived on the Org, but now I do, you're right up there.  :: 




> Raise high the flag, The ranks are closed and tight. And so on.....?


Did you purchase "the bell," Crayola? It's naff, but I suppose it's a symbolic gesture. Pull up the drawbridge.  ::  x

----------


## M Swanson

> She should die more often, she's kept those bliddy ecomentalists quiet this week :-)


So, there is a silver lining, after all, Jox!  :Grin:  A tenner says it won't last, much past next Wednesday, though. Gather ye rosebuds .......... !  :Wink:

----------


## M Swanson

> I don't think you are being fair here Oddquinn. reviewing the thread, it looks pretty even in terms of fors and antis.


I agree Ducati. The balance is about right, imo. Having said that, let's tip the scales a little.  :: 

Folks sometimes ask what MH did for Britain? Well, for a start she modernised Britain and at the end of her 11 years there was foreign investment flooding into manufacturing and finance. Britain went from teetering on the edge of bankruptcy to being the most dynamic economy in Europe. Certainly the Labour Party bought into her policies, or why didn't they use their 12 years in office to dismantle them? Many survive to this day and that won't change if we find ourselves back to square one, with a Labour Party in power in 2015 and I can't see them changing anything then, either. It'll be the same old story of them wrecking the economy and leaving it for somebody else to put right. That's my take, anyway. It's all very well to criticise MH, but what would have happened without her?

----------


## macadamia

There is little in the way of balance. At the risk of being accused of "bullying" (having an opinion different to some others) let me just chuck into the mix a little of Lord Palmerston's blog - and I have checked other sources, too!

"_More coal mines closed under Harold Wilson’s__ governments than under Margaret Thatcher’s, and I owe him an apology__ for not having credited him sooner, given the number of retweets I got__ for passing that on earlier.  Based on these figures from the__ government about 290 mines closed under Wilson in all his time in__ office, and about 160 under Thatcher.  Because the figures are based__ on year end totals of pits operating, it’s not possible to be precise,__ but the relative scale of those numbers is clear.  So why isn’t Wilson__ execrated by the Left for his part in the decline of coal mining?_That is a fair question_.
_
Do the Left seriously claim that Harold Wilson was accepting economic realities while Margaret Thatcher was motivated by sheer spite?"

----------


## mi16

> It's called irony. The very people who were attacking those who claim benefits are spending all day every day playing on the internet instead of working. I'm simply highlighting their hypocrisy by using their own language against them.


Irony and sarcasm don't come across too well in print.

----------


## RecQuery

> There is little in the way of balance. At the risk of being accused of "bullying" (having an opinion different to some others) let me just chuck into the mix a little of Lord Palmerston's blog - and I have checked other sources, too!
> 
> "_More coal mines closed under Harold Wilson’s__ governments than under Margaret Thatcher’s, and I owe him an apology__ for not having credited him sooner, given the number of retweets I got__ for passing that on earlier.  Based on these figures from the__ government about 290 mines closed under Wilson in all his time in__ office, and about 160 under Thatcher.  Because the figures are based__ on year end totals of pits operating, it’s not possible to be precise,__ but the relative scale of those numbers is clear.  So why isn’t Wilson__ execrated by the Left for his part in the decline of coal mining?_That is a fair question_.
> _
> Do the Left seriously claim that Harold Wilson was accepting economic realities while Margaret Thatcher was motivated by sheer spite?"


Still not getting your point, perhaps you could use a red colour, change the font to Comic Sans and maybe even use a blink tag or create an animated gif. To coin a phrase(!): "Citation needed".

----------


## M Swanson

> There is little in the way of balance. At the risk of being accused of "bullying" (having an opinion different to some others) let me just chuck into the mix a little of Lord Palmerston's blog - and I have checked other sources, too!
> 
> "_More coal mines closed under Harold Wilson’s__ governments than under Margaret Thatcher’s, and I owe him an apology__ for not having credited him sooner, given the number of retweets I got__ for passing that on earlier.  Based on these figures from the__ government about 290 mines closed under Wilson in all his time in__ office, and about 160 under Thatcher.  Because the figures are based__ on year end totals of pits operating, it’s not possible to be precise,__ but the relative scale of those numbers is clear.  So why isn’t Wilson__ execrated by the Left for his part in the decline of coal mining?_That is a fair question_.
> _
> Do the Left seriously claim that Harold Wilson was accepting economic realities while Margaret Thatcher was motivated by sheer spite?"


A very interesting question, but yet another one that I believe will go unanswered, Mac. The "balance," Ducati and I referred to, was confined to the number of "pro's and anti's," posting their thoughts on this topic. Thought I'd just mention that. And the "bullying," which undoubtedly does take place, is largely because we have the temerity to ask the questions the opposition would much rather we didn't. 

Another example of double-standards I always find, is the speed at which some folks criticise MH for defending British citizens in the Falklands War conflict. They're so quick to mention the casualties, but let's compare the total number of, 1219, with the number from Blair's Iraq War. The figures aren't conclusive, but begin at 90,000, rising to 1.2 million. And ........ Mrs Thatcher had almost full support from the people and Blair didn't. I only mention this, because the left use the Falklands as a weapon against her, (very unfairly imo), whilst not referencing the appalling record of those who replaced her.

----------


## M Swanson

> Irony and sarcasm don't come across too well in print.


Quite right, mi. Especially when it contains a loada chuff!  :Grin:

----------


## M Swanson

> Gaza, I started this thread just to let people, who may have not seen the news at that point, know that Margaret Thatcher was dead. Your points are valid, let me know and I think I can close it, but I would just have to work out how. It was not my intention when I posted this thread to offend anybody.


Why would you think anyone would be offended, Cpt? You started the thread, but are not responsible for anything, anyone posts, apart from yourself.  :: 

Anyway. Having flicked a duster, made breakfast and walked the dogs, I'm now off to work.  :Grin:  HAGO all.

----------


## macadamia

Rec Query - I actually picked up the coal mine closure figures from yesterday's "The Times", and looked for a variety of sources (which you can too!) to confirm the truth of this story, which clearly flies in the face of popular received legend. I do have a sense of humour, so I'm having a wee chuckle - it seems I'm NOT the one who should be using a comic font. It's clearly the one you might have been christened in. (My apologies if you're a Dawkins!)

The point, incidentally is to "bully" people to take some duty of care over mouthing popular demonising slogans, which are right up there with a mob attacking a paediatrician's house.

Mrs Thatcher had flaws, made mistakes, but made a country fit for purpose.

----------


## cptdodger

> Why would you think anyone would be offended, Cpt? You started the thread, but are not responsible for anything, anyone posts, apart from yourself. 
> 
> Anyway. Having flicked a duster, made breakfast and walked the dogs, I'm now off to work.  HAGO all.


The problem, is I do'nt know how this forum works as such, I started the thread, so I do'nt know if I am supposed to close it if things, shall we say, get a bit out of hand. I honestly do'nt know if it's my responsibility, or whoever it is that controls (for want of a better word) the Org to do that.

----------


## joxville

There's no need to close the thread, I think its been a rather good debate so far and it hasn't got too personal. Believe me, an issue this contentious will be getting monitored by the Mods and if they think it's getting out of hand then they will close it. However that said, you are free to close it anytime you wish.


Thanks John a little and Squidge for the good rep.

----------


## Flynn

> Quite right, mi. Especially when it contains a loada chuff!


I notice you have ignored the Telegraph article which points out, quite rationally, that a taxpayer funded state funeral attended by the queen is a big mistake and very damaging for democracy in the UK.

Funny how your constant theme on the Org is accusing others of 'not answering questions and points raised', yet all you do is refuse to answer and address points raised by those you disagree with.

Come on, answer the point, do you agree with the Daily Telegraph that next week's twelve-hour Tory party political broadcast will be damaging for UK democracy, and more damaging for the queen because she will be shown to be partisan and not neutral in her politics?


And that's my 45 minute break done. I'll check back in later to read your bluster.

Oh, and I'd just like to add, Ding dong, heading for number one next week. After Leveson and all the protest against censorship, I do hope you will join with me in decrying those calls from the right for the song to be censored out of the charts next week. After all, we don't live in North Korea, we live in a free democracy, with free expression, and a democratic right of free protest and free speech.

----------


## ducati

This has been bugging me. I can understand socialists being angry with Maggie if they disagreed with the policies she persued. I don't really get the anger coming out when she is dead, 20 odd years after she was last in charge.

If I were a socialist, I'd be even angrier with subsequent socialist governments that not only didn't reverse many of these policies but actively persued some of them.

Is that a fair point?

----------


## John Little

Not really.  There have been no Socialist governments since 1979.

Clause 4 of the Labour Party constitution was ditched in 1997.

The old Clause 4 committed the party to doing certain things.  The new clause 4 defines Labour as 'Democratic Socialist' and commits to nothing - just a statement of belief but not intention.

----------


## RecQuery

> This has been bugging me. I can understand  socialists being angry with Maggie if they disagreed with the policies  she persued. I don't really get the anger coming out when she is dead,  20 odd years after she was last in charge.
> 
> If I were a socialist, I'd be even angrier with subsequent socialist  governments that not only didn't reverse many of these policies but  actively persued some of them.
> 
> Is that a fair point?


First not everyone who disagrees with you or Thatcher is a 'socialist' I  imagine you consider that an insult or slur; like the UK equivalent of  being called a 'liberal' in the US.

There are some thing which once done are extremely difficult or impossible to reverse.

As I've said already:




> There's a real irony in seeing so many Thatcher supporters treat  her death in the same was as the supporters of a dictator. All this  over-the-top mourning of her death and ridiculous policing of who's  mourning her and who isn't. This isn't North Korea.
> 
> If they want to pay tribute to her then do so. Just stop acting like  she's a god who deserves to be worshipped or deserves to be treated  different than any other ex-Prime Minister - Churchill being a special  case under unique circumstances.
> 
> Just because she's popular amongst the Tories doesn't mean everybody has to join in...
> 
> While I'm talking about this, here's another point: Lots of Thatcher   supporters have said that Thatcher died in the 90s and that we're   celebrating the death of an old women... if that's the case and if the   woman who just died wasn't the woman who was PM, why are we paying so   much for her funeral?


I'd like to add to that, that just because you're old, sick or dead,  doesn't mean you suddenly stop being a divisive person who snatches milk  from children and that's probably the least of the stuff she did to be  upset over.

Just because Thatcher has passed away, it doesn't mean people shouldn't   be allowed to raise their objections to her premiership. She may have   done great things for one group of people, but it's clear she destroyed   the lives of an equally large group, and that shouldn't be forgotten or   brushed under the carpet just because she's no longer with us. Surely   those who say otherwise are trying to deny freedom of speech

I suspect a lot of this anti-Thatcher sentiment stems from the  Conservative party and through them the media trying to beatify her - here's a good example  - seriously though, everyone in support of her seems to act like she's  the messiah, I'm waiting for David Cameron to announce when he thinks  her second coming will be and when she will lead them all to the  promised land

I'm also kind of annoyed by this idea that the people  involved in  protests and parties are somehow un-British (they can't be - it's  British people  participating in them), "animalistic" (animals don't  celebrate deaths  AFAIK), or "sub-human" (you see where this is going).

My guess is the people doing things like holding parties and downloading  a song are only encouraged by the outpouring of moral outrage seen   over the last few days, and I'd consider winding people up just to get a   reaction to be _extremely_ 'British' behaviour, if such a thing does indeed exist.

----------


## Oddquine

> I don't think you are being fair here Oddquinn. reviewing the thread, it looks pretty even in terms of fors and antis.


Thing is the antis are detailing the stuff she has done which has damaged the UK and is still damaging it today.......not least of which was her influence on Nulabour which leaves no real choice in UK elections anymore..at least there is still a choice in elections, but no real choice between blue Tweedledee or red Tweedledum when it comes to Government.

The pros are just saying what a good job she did for the UK......and not telling us what they were/are, but reviling us for our objections to her aggrandisement on death. She certainly did good things for those who benefited, but not for the majority of the country.  

A few combat our opinions by saying PMs before her did a thing or two as bad as she did...........but the whole point is that _they didn't get a taxpayer funded funeral costing millions_..and all the pros are being asked to do is to justify the taxpayer bearing that cost.

----------


## macadamia

Carrying on with our lengthy series "Truth or Legend?" Margaret Thatcher in the Spotlight. Number Two, "Milk Snatcher". 

The Heath government was charged with yet another austerity and cost-cutting campaign. Free milk was in the headlights. Mrs T was Education Secretary. Free milk as an entitlement was withdrawn from the over fives. Todays "Independent" newspaper takes up the story -

"What is little known is that Mrs Thatcher actually opposed ending school milk and was forced into the position by the Treasury. She was so upset by the public response that she considered quitting politics. In her autobiography, she wrote: "I learned a valuable lesson. I had incurred the maximum of political odium for the minimum of political benefit." Mr Cameron is likely to have read those words.
*
School milk controversy*
*
Introduced in wartime
*
*Free milk began in 1940 to ensure that young children had strong bones and teeth at a time of food shortages. The policy continued until the 1970s when, as Edward Heath's government struggled to control public finances, the Education Secretary Margaret Thatcher scrapped free milk for seven- to 11-year-olds. Despite the "Milk snatcher" moniker, she had privately opposed the plan and successfully argued for keeping free nursery milk.

*
*One third of a pint a day

Labour revived and then abandoned free milk for older children, but under-fives have always had it. Children under five in approved day care receive 189ml (one third of a pint) each day, while babies under 12 months can receive dried baby milk made up to 189ml. Healthy Start food vouchers are available to poor parents."

Never let the truth get in the way of a good slogan!

*

----------


## rob murray

Less we forget, Thatcher was kicked out of the Prime Minster ship over 20 years ago by her own house of commons MP's / tory voting system, she never lost power via the ballot box, and its sickening to hear her so called contemporaries lining up to call her praises, the majority stabbed the women. But what do you expect eh, how many Tory MPS's actually really supported her cause, and how many were along for the ride / career advancement. When it came to it only a small handful stood by her..a very British coup !!!

----------


## John Little

The power to Local Education Authorities to provide free school milk was given in the Education (provision of free school meals) Act of 1906.  It was identified as one of a number of foods valuable to nutrition, so the permanent secretary Robert Morant tagged it onto the draft bill before it came to the Commons - and there it stayed.  About half the Education Authorities in the country availed themselves of the power to provide it - the ones who did not tended to be of the Opposition.

I believe it was made compulsory in 1921.

I forgot to say - Morant did it because he was a practicing and devout Christian.

Just because something is in a newspaper, as I have learned well lately, does not mean that it's true.

----------


## John Little

> There is little in the way of balance. At the risk of being accused of "bullying" (having an opinion different to some others) let me just chuck into the mix a little of Lord Palmerston's blog - and I have checked other sources, too!
> 
> "_More coal mines closed under Harold Wilsons__ governments than under Margaret Thatchers, and I owe him an apology__ for not having credited him sooner, given the number of retweets I got__ for passing that on earlier.  Based on these figures from the__ government about 290 mines closed under Wilson in all his time in__ office, and about 160 under Thatcher.  Because the figures are based__ on year end totals of pits operating, its not possible to be precise,__ but the relative scale of those numbers is clear.  So why isnt Wilson__ execrated by the Left for his part in the decline of coal mining?_That is a fair question_.
> _
> Do the Left seriously claim that Harold Wilson was accepting economic realities while Margaret Thatcher was motivated by sheer spite?"


No I think that position would be untenable.  In 1914 the coal industry employed 1.1 million people and was the biggest employer in the country.  It produced circa 190 million tonnes of coal a year of which about 100 million were for domestic use.

It was also hopelessly outdated, plagued by restrictive practices and lack of investment.  This situation got a lot worse after the First World War when oil powered ships became the norm, increasingly.

When the Mines were nationalised after the Second War things had not changed that much from an economic point of view - foreign competition could undercut the price of British Coal easily.  

The need for rationalisation was obvious.

So yes - under Wilson lots of small and uneconomical mines closed and available resources were put into the remaining ones.  There was resistance from a work force which was labour intensive  and there were strikes and difficult times in the coalfields.

But there is a vast difference between rationalising an industry and destroying it. The scale of things is also different - between a gradual making of good economies, and the gutting of communities and the throwing of a generation into the dole queues.

Whatever the problems with the unions, the destruction of the manufacturing sector and the coal and steel sectors etc could be seen as rather an over-reaction and avoidable.  The lack of empathy in the process I always saw as rather Autistic.

I think the coal mines issue with Thatcher is not one where I would go to the wall to defend the status quo of 1979 - I think she went much too far.


There was an industry to be saved. Communities to be diversified.

She saw destruction as being the only way.

Patently it is not.

----------


## rob murray

John, these work shy miners, propped up by communist leaders, milked the country dry, we almost bled to death such was the money they extracted, they pulled down a tory government.....need I go on....they needed dealt with and dealt with they were, once and for all, never ever to be a force in any way again, and damn the consequences of devastated communities.... l  ( a fairy tale...but with a true ending )

----------


## John Little

It's really quite simple Rob and the ancient Romans knew it too;

Salus Populi Suprema Est Lex: 

The welfare of the people is the supreme law.

----------


## golach

> John, these work shy miners, propped up by communist leaders, milked the country dry, we almost bled to death such was the money they extracted, they pulled down a tory government.....need I go on....they needed dealt with and dealt with they were, once and for all, never ever to be a force in any way again, and damn the consequences of devastated communities.... l  ( a fairy tale...but with a true ending )


Typical white collar tory reaction, A friend of mine was a Miner at Seafield colliery at Kirkcaldy, wanting to be paid £120.00 a week at those times, oh shock horror, he was a coal face worker, the coal face was 1000 feet down, 4 miles below the river Forth, and was 4 feet high, temperatures were in the high 40c. I did not grudge him his pay

----------


## cptdodger

> Less we forget, Thatcher was kicked out of the Prime Minster ship over 20 years ago by her own house of commons MP's / tory voting system, she never lost power via the ballot box, and its sickening to hear her so called contemporaries lining up to call her praises, the majority stabbed the women. But what do you expect eh, how many Tory MPS's actually really supported her cause, and how many were along for the ride / career advancement. When it came to it only a small handful stood by her..a very British coup !!!


I have to agree with that. I heard a bit of what Norman Tebbit was saying about her in the House Of Commons, or Lords the other day (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...t-8567947.html). I will never forget seeing that poor man being dragged out of that Brighton Hotel after the IRA did their best to kill  Margaret Thatcher. His poor wife, If I remember correctly, was left wheelchair bound. I have never voted Conservative in my life, but she stood by Norman Tebbit, she could have replaced him, but did not.  And I also felt sorry for her the day she got booted out of office by her own people, as it turned out, they were the "enemy within". Regardless of who you are, it is not nice being betrayed by the people you trust.  
Now, I am just talking about the person, not the politics, but as Rob says, listening to the people who stabbed her in the back, singing her praises, seems to me to be very two faced. Like Scargill, they should have just kept quiet.

----------


## rob murray

> I have to agree with that. I heard a bit of what Norman Tebbit was saying about her in the House Of Commons, or Lords the other day (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...t-8567947.html). I will never forget seeing that poor man being dragged out of that Brighton Hotel after the IRA did their best to kill  Margaret Thatcher. His poor wife, If I remember correctly, was left wheelchair bound. I have never voted Conservative in my life, but she stood by Norman Tebbit, she could have replaced him, but did not.  And I also felt sorry for her the day she got booted out of office by her own people, as it turned out, they were the "enemy within". Regardless of who you are, it is not nice being betrayed by the people you trust.  
> Now, I am just talking about the person, not the politics, but as Rob says, listening to the people who stabbed her in the back, singing her praises, seems to me to be very two faced. Like Scargill, they should have just kept quiet.


Yep its obvious, I am no Thatcher fan...but she was stabbed in the back and was dead in the water the day Howe resigned : she only really, ever had a small hard core of supporters in her party, Michael Forsyth being one...as for Malcom  Rifkind pontificating all over the radio / Tv...he was one of the key knifers....revenge pay back for mistreating their pal Howe : oh and by the way she had a good personal relationship with Dennis Skinner, notorious left winger, who if some can remember had a right go at her so called party, on her last commons appearance, he despised her politics but admired her conviction....wanted the same from a left wing leader ( would / will never happen )  if I remember right he loudly accused her of being more man than the cowards sitting behind her !!!!!

----------


## John Little

Rob - it could happen on the Left but it would have to be so far to the Left as to be a dictatorship.

The basic problem I have with Thatcherism is that I do not regard it as the sort of Democracy I wish to see.  Before the First World War the idea of a Presidential Prime Minister was foreign to Britain.  The Prime Minister was seen as first among equals.

Under the pressures of the First world war the office of PM became rather more dictatorial (Not my word but that of Bonar Law the Tory leader)
The British came to define a 'good' Prime Minister as one who was able to dominate and boss their Cabinet around and to force their agenda through in the face of whatever opposition.  

Inevitably this form of government polarises a nation, and is not, imho, of the best.  When Gordon Brown became PM he caused me to cheer quietly in his search for consensus because I would like to live in a society where change takes place with the maximum possible consent.

My problem with Thatcher is that she did not want or seek consensus.  She wanted her way and her will - and was quite happy to impose.

It is quite terrifying how many commentators have been lauding her for imposing 'discipline' on the nation this last few days.  Punishing the Left, taming the Unions, coming down on scroungers etc and 'making Britain great' again.

That's not the language of Democracy.

That's the language of Elective Dictatorship.

----------


## M Swanson

> Carrying on with our lengthy series "Truth or Legend?" Margaret Thatcher in the Spotlight. Number Two, "Milk Snatcher". 
> 
> The Heath government was charged with yet another austerity and cost-cutting campaign. Free milk was in the headlights. Mrs T was Education Secretary. Free milk as an entitlement was withdrawn from the over fives. Todays "Independent" newspaper takes up the story -
> 
> "What is little known is that Mrs Thatcher actually opposed ending school milk and was forced into the position by the Treasury. She was so upset by the public response that she considered quitting politics. In her autobiography, she wrote: "I learned a valuable lesson. I had incurred the maximum of political odium for the minimum of political benefit.
> *
> Never let the truth get in the way of a good slogan!
> 
> *


Well done Mac. Another leftwing myth bites the dust. I can't wait for the next one!  :Grin:

----------


## M Swanson

> A few combat our opinions by saying PMs before her did a thing or two as bad as she did...........but the whole point is that _they didn't get a taxpayer funded funeral costing millions_..and all the pros are being asked to do is to justify the taxpayer bearing that cost.


 ::  Yes! Yes! But at 10p per capita, it won't break anyone's bank. And let's be honest, for once, if the vast majority of this sum  wasn't needed to provide security, because of the predicted, violence and damage caused by rent-a-mob, it could have been much, much less. Where were all these bravehearts when MH lived and a demonstration may actually have counted for something? And let's face it millions of MH supporters will welcome her send-off with full honours. We're discussing a funeral, for goodness sake. Doh!

----------


## M Swanson

> Inevitably this form of government polarises a nation, and is not, imho, of the best.  When Gordon Brown became PM he caused me to cheer quietly in his search for consensus because I would like to live in a society where change takes place with the maximum possible consent.


Ay? Are you referring to the Gordon Brown who worked hard to privatise the Post Office; more of the NHS, Law & Order and Job Centres? And the same GB who left us the legacy of a huge budget deficit that we're still trying to pay off ......... and losing? And all, or any of us, were given any say in the process? Yeah! Right! He was a champion of consensus, our Gordon.  :: 

Sorry if I haven't answered anyone who wrote to me. Time is of the essence and Flynn demands I work harder to justify the farthing a year he contributes to my pension, that I worked for all my life.  ::

----------


## John Little

> Ay? Are you referring to the Gordon Brown who worked hard to privatise the Post Office; more of the NHS, Law & Order and Job Centres? And the same GB who left us the legacy of a huge budget deficit that we're still trying to pay off ......... and losing? And all, or any of us, were given any say in the process? Yeah! Right! He was a champion of consensus, our Gordon. 
> 
> Sorry if I haven't answered anyone who wrote to me. Time is of the essence and Flynn demands I work harder to justify the farthing a year he contributes to my pension, that I worked for all my life.


Where have I said I supported anything that Gordon Brown did other than cheer his call for consensus?

Did he call for consensus or not?

----------


## John Little

> Well done Mac. Another leftwing myth bites the dust. I can't wait for the next one!


A left wing myth?

Well let's ask the question.

Did Margaret Thatcher, when Education Secretary, end the provision of free school milk or not?

The fact that she may have been reluctant is neither here nor there.

Did she do it?

----------


## macadamia

Yes, Margaret Thatcher took responsibility for the ending of the provision of free milk for those over 5 years old. In the same way that Gordon Brown took responsibility for selling the UK's gold at rock bottom prices and destroyed pension provision even before the banks finished off the job, and in the same way that Tony Blair dragged the UK into war.  The fact they may have been reluctant is neither here nor there. Yes, I know the last two don't fit your paradigm of socialism - but it was under socialism's umbrella that New Labour flourished, and, were you to carry out a cost-benefit analysis, you'll find that the entire country could have bathed in free milk for a decade or so if the money they's wasted was spent that way!

The reason that socialism declined was simply that people could no longer stomach the equality of misery which the creed demanded.The fact they may have been reluctant to cease supporting Old Labour is neither here nor there. They stopped voting for it in enough numbers to maintain its viability. I'm not saying rampant capitalism is the answer, but in a revolution, the pendulum swings suddenly, and with breathtaking force......

I am reluctant to state this. But that's neither here nor there. Bit of a dismissive line, that?

----------


## John Little

Mac - No no really.  Neither here nor there is a phrase which points out that something introduced into an argument actually has nothing to do with the main question.  In the case of milk reluctance is not relevant to whether it was done or not.

The axe murderer who benefits from the will may have been reluctant to murder his elder brother- but still did it.  His reluctance is neither here nor there - it is not a mitigation.

New Labour flourished, not under socialism but under Labour.  Those are two different things.  Like the Conservatives Labour has never been one party but draws on several strands of thought which reflect in the divergent opinion within it.  The Socialists are still there but have been submerged by their own right wing.

You will not find me defending Blair or Brown either - they were not consensus politicians either.

But one thing is for sure.  If Labour attempts to give the victor of the Iraq War a ceremonial funeral mostly at tax-payers' expense and use it as political fodder to boost their flagging ratings and garner support then I shall be just as unhappy with them as I am with the current lot.

----------


## macadamia

So much, so accurate. Let's put it on a simpler footing. Old Labour failed. Then came the "Elected Dictatorship". It worked on a national scale, but with many casualties. Then New Labour - failed.......

----------


## John Little

Which fuels the rage of Nationalists and signals the end of the UK as much of this nonsensical triumphalism seems to reinforce.... Or signals that we need to examine the very nature of our Democracy and get something better.  

For the Union to survive we need consensus.  

New Labour was no answer.  

Nor is UKIP.  

Without consensus we have no true Democracy just imposition.  
And that way lies fragmentation.  

We are not warring tribes.  

Are we?

----------


## Oddquine

> I agree Ducati. The balance is about right, imo. Having said that, let's tip the scales a little. 
> 
> Folks sometimes ask what MH did for Britain? Well, for a start she modernised Britain and at the end of her 11 years there was foreign investment flooding into manufacturing and finance. Britain went from teetering on the edge of bankruptcy to being the most dynamic economy in Europe. Certainly the Labour Party bought into her policies, or why didn't they use their 12 years in office to dismantle them? Many survive to this day and that won't change if we find ourselves back to square one, with a Labour Party in power in 2015 and I can't see them changing anything then, either. It'll be the same old story of them wrecking the economy and leaving it for somebody else to put right. That's my take, anyway. It's all very well to criticise MH, but what would have happened without her?


You know...did she really modernise Britain.............or did she preside over a slide backwards to the Victorian Era...but perhaps that what she meant by  bringing back Victorian values.......bringing back unregulated capitalism, the great income gaps between the rich and the poor, homelessness, employers controlling employees, rioting and looting......and charities and the church (and private businesses) providing welfare services.  It was those same  Victorian values which gradually gave the impetus which produced Socialism in the first place.  However...we'll never have a Labour Party back in power in the UK....because there _is_ no Labour Party now...you can't dignify NuLabour with that name. The UK, since Thatcher, has been governed by political parties only distinguishable from each other by the colour of their rosettes, not their policies.....and that move to the right to be electable also Thatcher's legacy 

The _country_ maybe got floods of foreign investment, ( though manufacturing as a proportion of GDP, despite that flood, dropped about 2 percentage points during her tenure), and maybe became the most dynamic economy in Europe but that is neither here nor there if the lives of large swathes of the population, _despite_ that success, got worse.  And of course, could any of it have happened without the oil income she squandered on unemployment benefits while she was driving down the living conditions of the working class to drive up profits for capitalists...and used on giving people discounts to buy their council houses and shares in what was once the family silver.  She maybe did do well for the _country_ regarding its place and prestige in the world....and for those who bought their council houses and/or shares (a minority)........but she didn't do much for the majority of us.  Her policies only started impinging on me directly as the electricity oligopolies started raising prices..but I saw what they did to many of those around me......though I did find later on that my union was as much use as a chocolate teapot on a hot stove when it came to standing up for individual members..and I guess that was down to her as well.

----------


## Oddquine

> Yes! Yes! But at 10p per capita, it won't break anyone's bank. And let's be honest, for once, if the vast majority of this sum  wasn't needed to provide security, because of the predicted, violence and damage caused by rent-a-mob, it could have been much, much less. Where were all these bravehearts when MH lived and a demonstration may actually have counted for something? And let's face it millions of MH supporters will welcome her send-off with full honours. We're discussing a funeral, for goodness sake. Doh!


Breaking the bank is not the point......the fancy funeral for the most divisive PM in my memory is the point...........it is inappropriate....and of itself just as divisive as the lady was in life.  I would have no problem if all those who thought she deserved it stuck their hands in their own pockets, instead of everybody's and found the £8 million or so to pay for it.

----------


## John Little

> You know...did she really modernise Britain.............or did she preside over a slide backwards to the Victorian Era...but perhaps that what she meant by  bringing back Victorian values.......bringing back unregulated capitalism, the great income gaps between the rich and the poor, homelessness, employers controlling employees, rioting and looting......and charities and the church (and private businesses) providing welfare services.  It was those same  Victorian values which gradually gave the impetus which produced Socialism in the first place.  However...we'll never have a Labour Party back in power in the UK....because there _is_ no Labour Party now...you can't dignify NuLabour with that name. The UK, since Thatcher, has been governed by political parties only distinguishable from each other by the colour of their rosettes, not their policies.....and that move to the right to be electable also Thatcher's legacy 
> 
> The _country_ maybe got floods of foreign investment, ( though manufacturing as a proportion of GDP, despite that flood, dropped about 2 percentage points during her tenure), and maybe became the most dynamic economy in Europe but that is neither here nor there if the lives of large swathes of the population, _despite_ that success, got worse.  And of course, could any of it have happened without the oil income she squandered on unemployment benefits while she was driving down the living conditions of the working class to drive up profits for capitalists...and used on giving people discounts to buy their council houses and shares in what was once the family silver.  She maybe did do well for the _country_ regarding its place and prestige in the world....and for those who bought their council houses and/or shares (a minority)........but she didn't do much for the majority of us.  Her policies only started impinging on me directly as the electricity oligopolies started raising prices..but I saw what they did to many of those around me......though I did find later on that my union was as much use as a chocolate teapot on a hot stove when it came to standing up for individual members..and I guess that was down to her as well.


Fine post - agree every word.

And I had the same experience with my own union which taught me not to put my faith in straw men - or women.

Looking at what is on offer it is little wonder that folk look to alternatives.  Where is the party that will put we the people before the market, the economy or political opportunism?   No wonder that people stay at home during elections!

In the meantime half the nation grinds its teeth in impotence as the other half elevates a secular saint, writes its own hagiographic version into what passes as 'official' history and justifies the transplantation of Right-Republicanism into Britain.

Next week's pantomime divides the nation, damages the unity of the UK, damages the Monarchy and provokes hubris before the Gods.

I'll be glad when it's over and a shameful spectacle may be buried in the passing of time.

Let's move on.

----------


## ducati

Well I'm looking forward to it. I wish we were getting a day off but some have to keep the wheels grinding.  :Grin: 

I think all the outrage over the cost is a bit thin. The song is a laugh and I think it might have given her a giggle. Although as a measure of outrage it is a bit damp, about thirty thousand peeps have coughed up about 10p for a download.  ::

----------


## John Little

I can't help getting a sneaking feeling that somehow you're missing the point.

Or ignoring it?

----------


## ducati

> I can't help getting a sneaking feeling that somehow you're missing the point.
> 
> Or ignoring it?


Ah John. So many points, so little time. I have to go and build a house now as no-one wants to give me one. ::

----------


## John Little

The point is a simple one.

It appears that half the nation does not want this event next week and thinks it not appropriate.

And the other half does not care.

That's the point.  And it's very worrying indeed.

----------


## ducati

> The point is a simple one.
> 
> It appears that half the nation does not want this event next week and thinks it not appropriate.
> 
> And the other half does not care.
> 
> That's the point. And it's very worrying indeed.


Has anyone actually had a pole? I did see one, not sure of the source, yougov I think, it was about 2/3rds in favour.

----------


## Rheghead

I didn't agree with all of her politics but I really admired Margaret Thatcher's public understanding of the photochemistry and economic aspects of Anthropological Global Warming.  Her status as an educated conservative politician from the _nouveau riches_ classes rather than one from the landed gentry put her in a unique position which helped to get the green movement started.  She certainly would have seen the value of promoting the development of renewable energy within UK shores rather than paying foregners for fossil fuels.  She certainly would have given short shrift to any member of the 1922 committee who complains about the aesthetic value of windfarm  developments near their 10,000 acre estates in the face of the greater good!!

----------


## macadamia

Ducati - here's the YouGov poll.which interviewed 1893 UK adults between 8th-9th April 2013. Results are weighted to represent the Country

Thinking back to Margaret Thatcher's time in office, do you think she was a good or bad Prime Minister?

Terrible            23%
Poor                    7%
Good                 27%
Great                25%    

Those who thought she was bad for Britain

70% Lab voters
42% Middle age
41% Scots
25% Lib Dems

Those who thought she was good for Britain

88% Conservatives
57% Pensioners
53% Londoners
52% Lib Dems

----------


## ducati

> Ducati - here's the YouGov poll.which interviewed 1893 UK adults between 8th-9th April 2013. Results are weighted to represent the Country
> 
> Thinking back to Margaret Thatcher's time in office, do you think she was a good or bad Prime Minister?
> 
> Terrible 23%
> Poor 7%
> Good 27%
> Great 25% 
> 
> ...


It may have been that one, it just briefly caught my eye.

----------


## John Little

Well thank goodness we do not cite the poll in the Sun which shows 2/3 in favour of her, versus the one in the Mirror which shows 2/3 against.

I would like to know where the Aussies got this from:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-d...-1226619437796

MSN Poll

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/margaret-t...ribute-261788/

----------


## John Little

Mac - the issue at hand as far as I am concerned is not whether she was a good Prime Minister or not. 

 That discussion may be had of any Prime Minister and it depends on your politics.  My thought is that the public spectacle of her funeral splits the nation in a partisan and divisive way: that it is a political statement which about half the nation does not like.  This seems to be borne out in the available polls.  

If such an event splits the nation and is an imposition on the half that do not want it, then IMHO it should not happen in this way.  

She was not Churchill.  

He created a national consensus in time of total war and led the way to victory: he unified and strengthened, and rose above politics.  

After the war his politics were rejected.  

When he died most of the nation mourned. 

This case is rather different.

----------


## macadamia

YouGov has no affiliations, nor axe to grind. It is considered to be the "Which?" of all polls. But, according to you, the Wicked "Which?" is dead!

Polls have an alarming effect on people. If the numbers add up to what they want to hear, then they are the ultimate arbiter of the truth and a reliable indicator of all that is noble and honest.

If the numbers go against your personal opinion, then the polls are skewed, twisted, partisan, unrepresentative, or just wrong.

The truth is what is left after both/all sides have wielded the sledgehammer of truth, and that then becomes "history".

----------


## John Little

I have not said anything of Yougov.  

I point out that the  Yougov poll you cite was not about the funeral.  

I refrained from pointing out that the latest Yougov poll shows a dramatic fall in support for the Tories.  

I have not downloaded the Ding Dong song.  

What you say about polls and History is true.  The main casualty, in the end, is the whimpering figure of Truth.

----------


## macadamia

Oh dear. I didn't say you had said anything of YouGov. Your point, as I understand it, was a general one saying in effect polls come up with differing results. Mt conclusion from that offering was that you were saying if polls say different things, then they are not to be trusted, on which basic my remarks were predicated. I would not trust a poll in the Daily Mirror of the Sun or the Daily Mail, unless its provenance was of the quality of YouGov.

I am sorry that my poll citation was NOT about the funeral. However, I believe there to be elements of relevance and association.

I am content with the fact that the latest YouGov poll shows a dramatic fall for the Tories. I accept this as a bona fide result,

My poor attempt at whimsy -  "Wicked 'Which?- ' " was a sad attempt at a play on words. I would NEVER have considered you the kind of person who would waste time, money and good taste on following the nihilistic herd.

So it won't be the whimpering figure of truth you hear. It'll be me, attempting somehow, in a Land hard-wired to hate a controversial figure, and to sadly celebrate her death as a Good Thing, to attempt to apply some counterweight, balance, and human sympathy.

.

----------


## John Little

I do not grudge you that if such be your politics, your conviction and your beliefs.  

But for the party you follow to expect the nation to follow their lead with similar sentiment and to pay for it, is a little over the top I feel.  

It ain't the money but the principle.  

Official mourning may not be enforced, but the public purse will pay most.  And I feel that you must allow that a substantial number of the public, with some reason, do not like it and regard it as an imposition. 

 I think that it is a gross political error.

----------


## Flynn

I agree with that John Little. It seems her supporters here are ignoring that fact that a great many believe this state funeral to be a very bad idea and exremely damaging, not only to politics but also to the monarchy.

I don't often agree with the Torygraph, but this article said it well:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...a-mistake.html

----------


## M Swanson

> You know...did she really modernise Britain.............or did she preside over a slide backwards to the Victorian Era...but perhaps that what she meant by  bringing back Victorian values.  However...we'll never have a Labour Party back in power in the UK....because there _is_ no Labour Party now...you can't dignify NuLabour with that name. The UK, since Thatcher, has been governed by political parties only distinguishable from each other by the colour of their rosettes, not their policies.....and that move to the right to be electable also Thatcher's legacy 
> 
> though I did find later on that my union was as much use as a chocolate teapot on a hot stove when it came to standing up for individual members..and I guess that was down to her as well.


Poppycock!

----------


## Flynn

> The song is a laugh and I think it might have given her a giggle. Although as a measure of outrage it is a bit damp, about thirty thousand peeps have coughed up about 10p for a download.



Perhaps you are unaware of the full lyrics of the song. I've highlighted the pertinent parts:

*Ding dong! The Witch is dead
Which old witch, the Wicked Witch!
Ding dong! The Wicked Witch is dea*d

Wake up, you sleepy-head
Rub your eyes, get out of bed
Wake up, the Wicked Witch is dead

*She's gone where the goblins go, below
Below, below, yo-ho*
Let's open up and sing
And ring the bells out

*Ding dong! The merry-oh
Sing it high, sing it low
Let them know the Wicked Witch is dead!*


Also very damaging to democracy is the news that the BBC has said it will not play the full song during the chart show this week. So much for impartiality at the BBC. There will be a lot of people this weekend looking at that decision and questioning why they pay a licence fee.

Here's the blog of Ben Cooper, head of Radio 1, trying to justify this censorship:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/abouttheb...-14-April-2013

You will notice the comments below are unanimous in their condemnation of this politically biased decision.

----------


## macadamia

It is right and proper that there should be differing views, and indeed, differing views expressed, in a democracy. On my side of the fence I think now that we know that grave-dancing is not offensive, that the song should be played in full. It's good to know that the movers and shakers of the left-leaning BBC have managed to achieve the worst of ALL worlds with the "5 second clip" idea, which is a cock-up of Brobdignagian proportions. I am also delighted that 

With the funeral - the 20p it is personally costing my household we don't begrudge. In the same way  that 30,000 people aren't bothered at spending 10p a pop for a 51 second song of dubious artistic merit - that's £3,000 of cash which otherwise may have been wasted on such fripperies as food and shelter.......

a) It's going to happen, anyway. And a fine spectacle it will be too.

b) There will also be some cabaret along the way from angry young people incited to protest by nihilist older people who are above the democratic process and beyond societal redemption. With their usual one way sensitivities, they will vandalise, incite hatred, upset lawful progress, run at police barricades, and then shout "foul" the second they are corralled somewhere neutral for the safety of all.

c) After its all over, as I say, history will be the judge, long after we are all dead.

----------


## sids

What does it say about Flynn, that he has appointed himself interpreter of a nursery rhyme, for the benefit of we who were baffled by the obscure lyric?

With the goblin bit highlighted!

----------


## M Swanson

> However...we'll never have a Labour Party back in power in the UK....because there _is_ no Labour Party now...you can't dignify NuLabour with that name. The UK, since Thatcher, has been governed by political parties only distinguishable from each other by the colour of their rosettes, not their policies.....and that move to the right to be electable also Thatcher's legacy 
> 
> Her policies only started impinging on me directly as the electricity oligopolies started raising prices..but I saw what they did to many of those around me......though I did find later on that my union was as much use as a chocolate teapot on a hot stove when it came to standing up for individual members..and I guess that was down to her as well.


So, MH is responsible for the shape and form of other political parties, is she? Whatever the Labour Party was to become, was of their own making. And Mrs T is to be blamed for that? Get away.  :: 

Mrs T only did what the people wanted. We were sick and tired of being held to ransom by a traitorous group of Unionists, Commies and Trots. I lived through the Winter of Discontent and I suffered at their hands, along with everyone else. Until that time, I had been a staunch Socialist, but the likes of Hatton, Scargill and Red Robbo changed all that. And I believe that held true for many of us. Britain was a basket case, with strikes being called with monotonous regularity, with little, to no justification. The classic case for me, was when a strike was called, because a man was asked to pick up a hammer, instead of a screwdriver, at Ford, Dagenham. You can believe it if you choose .... I care not a jot. If there's one word that pops out at me, it was "differentials." It was an neverending excuse to down tools and plunge the country into even worse economic gloom. What's more, the Commies were winning. The Labour Party couldn't stop the Union barons and nor could anyone else, with the exception of ............ the great lady, Mrs Thatcher. If you don't agree OQ, then whom else would have pulled Britain back from the edge of disaster? One commentator recently wrote, that without her, Britain would have been Cuba, without the sunshine. How true.

----------


## Flynn

> It is right and proper that there should be differing views, and indeed, differing views expressed, in a democracy. On my side of the fence I think now that we know that grave-dancing is not offensive, that the song should be played in full. It's good to know that the movers and shakers of the left-leaning BBC have managed to achieve the worst of ALL worlds with the "5 second clip" idea, which is a cock-up of Brobdignagian proportions. I am also delighted that 
> 
> With the funeral - the 20p it is personally costing my household we don't begrudge. In the same way  that 30,000 people aren't bothered at spending 10p a pop for a 51 second song of dubious artistic merit - that's £3,000 of cash which otherwise may have been wasted on such fripperies as food and shelter.......
> 
> a) It's going to happen, anyway. And a fine spectacle it will be too.
> 
> b) There will also be some cabaret along the way from angry young people incited to protest by nihilist older people who are above the democratic process and beyond societal redemption. With their usual one way sensitivities, they will vandalise, incite hatred, upset lawful progress, run at police barricades, and then shout "foul" the second they are corralled somewhere neutral for the safety of all.
> 
> c) After its all over, as I say, history will be the judge, long after we are all dead.


If the BBC was left-leaning as you claim, this kowtowing to tabloid Conservative 'outrage' would not have happened.

20p. It isn't about the cost, it's the principle. Would you be happy to be forced to pay for Tony Blair's funeral against your will, and against your beliefs?

We live in a democracy, protest is a legitimate and healthy part of democracy. As soon as protest is deemed 'illegal' then we no longer live in a democracy.

I will not be watching next Wednesday. I am not a North Korean, and I will not partake in North Korean behaviours.

----------


## M Swanson

> What does it say about Flynn, that he has appointed himself interpreter of a nursery rhyme, for the benefit of we who were baffled by the obscure lyric?
> 
> With the goblin bit highlighted!


What it says to me, is that Flynn is losing it big time! He's desperately clutching at any straw, but he really doesn't get it. All that has happened since MH's demise and what may well happen today and until the funeral, will do the Commie, Trot, leftwing cause no good at all, imo. They've come out from hiding in their dark places too soon and the vileness they employ will be counter-productive. The fact that they're reduced to clinging on to a nursery rhyme proves it all. Poor Flynn. Still on the losing side.  ::

----------


## Flynn

> The classic case for me, was when a strike was called, because a man was asked to pick up a hammer, instead of a screwdriver, at Ford, Dagenham.


I was an HGV driver for Ford Dagenham for 25 years. I had to liaise with people in the PTA, engine, and body plants, and the foundry. I can categorically state that what you claim never happened. Choose your lies more carefully.

----------


## John Little

> What it says to me, is that Flynn is losing it big time! He's desperately clutching at any straw, but he really doesn't get it. All that has happened since MH's demise and what may well happen today and until the funeral, will do the Commie, Trot, leftwing cause no good at all, imo. They've come out from hiding in their dark places too soon and the vileness they employ will be counter-productive. The fact that they're reduced to clinging on to a nursery rhyme proves it all. Poor Flynn. Still on the losing side.


I am on the point of conversion to the cause of Scottish Independence.

----------


## sids

> I was an HGV driver for Ford Dagenham for 25 years. I had to liaise with people in the PTA, engine, and body plants, and the foundry. I can categorically state that what you claim never happened. Choose your lies more carefully.


 Unless the entire plant was run by delivery boy Flynn, it might have happened outside your knowledge.

----------


## Flynn

> What it says to me, is that Flynn is losing it big time! He's desperately clutching at any straw, but he really doesn't get it. All that has happened since MH's demise and what may well happen today and until the funeral, will do the Commie, Trot, leftwing cause no good at all, imo. They've come out from hiding in their dark places too soon and the vileness they employ will be counter-productive. The fact that they're reduced to clinging on to a nursery rhyme proves it all. Poor Flynn. Still on the losing side.



You are still avoiding my question, so I will ask a third time:

You have ignored the Telegraph article which points out, quite rationally, that a taxpayer funded state funeral attended by the queen is a big mistake and very damaging for democracy in the UK.

Come on, answer the point, do you agree with the Daily Telegraph that next week's twelve-hour Tory party political broadcast will be damaging for UK democracy, and even more damaging for the monarchy because it will now be shown to be partisan and not in the least politically neutral?

----------


## Flynn

> Unless the entire plant was run by delivery boy Flynn, it might have happened outside your knowledge.


Impossible, I was T&G member just like everyone else in Dagenham. If a strike was called I, like everyone else on the shop floor, would have been called to a meeting and balloted on the issue.

Choose your liars more carefully.

----------


## M Swanson

> If the BBC was left-leaning as you claim, this kowtowing to tabloid Conservative 'outrage' would not have happened.
> 
> 20p. It isn't about the cost, it's the principle. Would you be happy to be forced to pay for Tony Blair's funeral against your will, and against your beliefs?
> 
> We live in a democracy, protest is a legitimate and healthy part of democracy. As soon as protest is deemed 'illegal' then we no longer live in a democracy.
> 
> I will not be watching next Wednesday. I am not a North Korean, and I will not partake in North Korean behaviours.


Not about the money, John Little?  ::  It's everything to do with the 10p. Never has leftwing opportunities come so cheaply. Doh!

Nobody could detest Blair more than I do. But, rest assured, that when his time comes, I will maintain a dignified silence and never join any mob who decide to act as cruelly and vile as some have at the passing of MH. It's called being civilised and I'm not in the business of going down to anyone elses level. Certainly not the Commies and Trots. Blair is welcome to my 10p contribution. I don't need any old excuse to be inhuman. I'll leave that to the current mob.

This group of malcontents have had 23 years to protest in a democratic fashion and have chosen not to. Such bravehearts, huh?

----------


## Flynn

> Not about the money, John Little?  It's everything to do with the 10p. Never has leftwing opportunities come so cheaply. Doh!
> 
> Nobody could detest Blair more than I do. But, rest assured, that when his time comes, I will maintain a dignified silence and never join any mob who decide to act as cruelly and vile as some have at the passing of MH. It's called being civilised and I'm not in the business of going down to anyone elses level. Certainly not the Commies and Trots. Blair is welcome to my 10p contribution. I don't need any old excuse to be inhuman. I'll leave that to the current mob.
> 
> This group of malcontents have had 23 years to protest in a democratic fashion and have chosen not to. Such bravehearts, huh?



Civilised? Ah, like your bible, the Daily Heil was 'civilised' when Michael Foot died you mean...



You are still avoiding my question, so I will ask a fourth time:

You have ignored the Telegraph article which points out, quite rationally, that a taxpayer funded state funeral attended by the queen is a big mistake and very damaging for democracy in the UK.

Come on, answer the point, do you agree with the Daily Telegraph that next week's twelve-hour Tory party political broadcast will be damaging for UK democracy, and even more damaging for the monarchy because it will now be shown to be partisan and not in the least politically neutral?

----------


## M Swanson

[QUOTE=John Little;1020735]I am on the point of conversion to the cause of Scottish Independence.[/QUOTE/]

So?

----------


## sids

> Impossible, I was T&G member just like everyone else in Dagenham. If a strike was called I, like everyone else on the shop floor, would have been called to a meeting and balloted on the issue.
> 
> As I said, choose your lies more carefully.


Oh right- I'm lying too now.

Well, maybe it was unofficial.  You can't prove a negative, you know, not even by ranting on the Internet.

Frankly, I'd be surprised if you were at every union meeting from 1931, to date.

----------


## sids

> Come on, answer the point, [/COLOR][/COLOR]


Ask questions that people are interested in and you'll get answers. Dish out orders and nobody will give a toss about you.

----------


## macadamia

M Swanson - on the button, as ever. But be careful! You're displaying inappropriate behaviour (i.e. opinions which go against the grain in certain circles.) Sadly, you will be doomed to be right once this outburst of negativity is over.

Flynn - to answer yours one by one.

The BBC is NOT kow-towing to Conservative outrage. As the BBC man said, they are trying to balance sensitivities. Being the BBC, they don't know how to do it. I now think on balance it should have been played in full, done and dusted, over. As it is, it has now become a further cause celebre for the swivel-eyed.

Principle? Principle? The same principle which allowed Lady T's policy to continue for decades after she had left power? Where was the screaming and shouting when she was still alive? How brave are these men and women of principle that they should celebrate a corpse?

We do indeed live in a democracy. Protest IS a healthy part of democracy. I dislike intensely the manipulators who will be orchestrating any protest in the same way I detest the mad mullahs who indoctrinate suicide bombers and bid them do God's work while staying very comfortably behind. I love democracy so much that I voted in three consecutive legitimate General Elections for the Conservative Party, which appeared to win three times, and form three governments of democratically elected representatives to govern the United Kingdom.

That you attempt to equate this country with North Korea shows breathtaking delusion. I'm afraid if there was any legitimacy to your arguments, this line alone has dented your credibility.

----------


## Flynn

[QUOTE=M Swanson;1020741]


> I am on the point of conversion to the cause of Scottish Independence.[/QUOTE/]
> 
> So?


You are still avoiding my question, so I will ask a fifth time:

You have ignored the Telegraph article which points out, quite rationally, that a taxpayer funded state funeral attended by the queen is a big mistake and very damaging for democracy in the UK.

Come on, answer the point, do you agree with the Daily Telegraph that next week's twelve-hour Tory party political broadcast will be damaging for UK democracy, and even more damaging for the monarchy because the queen is now exposed as partisan and not in the least politically neutral?

----------


## M Swanson

> You are still avoiding my question, so I will ask a third time:
> 
> You have ignored the Telegraph article which points out, quite rationally, that a taxpayer funded state funeral attended by the queen is a big mistake and very damaging for democracy in the UK.
> 
> Come on, answer the point, do you agree with the Daily Telegraph that next week's twelve-hour Tory party political broadcast will be damaging for UK democracy, and even more damaging for the monarchy because it will now be shown to be partisan and not in the least politically neutral?


I should waste my time, Flynn. You still have nothing and until, or if, that changes I'll write my own scripts, thank you.  ::  Keep asking whatever you like, that's your choice and I should care if you grow old demanding answers to questions. I stopped expecting any answers to questions I've put to you, a l-o-n-g time ago. Give it up bud.

----------


## Flynn

> I should waste my time, Flynn. You still have nothing and until, or if, that changes I'll write my own scripts, thank you.  Keep asking whatever you like, that's your choice and I should care if you grow old demanding answers to questions. I stopped expecting any answers to questions I've put to you, a l-o-n-g time ago. Give it up bud.



Interesting you should say that, considering one of your main mantras since joining the Org has been accusing others of avoiding questions.

So I will ask a sixth time:

Do you agree with the Daily Telegraph that next week's twelve-hour Tory party political broadcast will be damaging for UK democracy, and even more damaging for the monarchy because the queen is now exposed as partisan and not in the least politically neutral?

----------


## Flynn

> M Swanson - on the button, as ever. But be careful! You're displaying inappropriate behaviour (i.e. opinions which go against the grain in certain circles.) Sadly, you will be doomed to be right once this outburst of negativity is over.
> 
> Flynn - to answer yours one by one.
> 
> The BBC is NOT kow-towing to Conservative outrage. As the BBC man said, they are trying to balance sensitivities. Being the BBC, they don't know how to do it. I now think on balance it should have been played in full, done and dusted, over. As it is, it has now become a further cause celebre for the swivel-eyed.
> 
> Principle? Principle? The same principle which allowed Lady T's policy to continue for decades after she had left power? Where was the screaming and shouting when she was still alive? How brave are these men and women of principle that they should celebrate a corpse?
> 
> We do indeed live in a democracy. Protest IS a healthy part of democracy. I dislike intensely the manipulators who will be orchestrating any protest in the same way I detest the mad mullahs who indoctrinate suicide bombers and bid them do God's work while staying very comfortably behind. I love democracy so much that I voted in three consecutive legitimate General Elections for the Conservative Party, which appeared to win three times, and form three governments of democratically elected representatives to govern the United Kingdom.
> ...



Really?

We have the state broadcaster actively censoring the dissenting view, that same broadcaster is being comprehensively revisionist in it's reporting of history, and next week we have a politically motivated state-funded spectacle being staged for the Party faithful. They could save themselves some money and just broadcast this next week:

----------


## M Swanson

> M Swanson - on the button, as ever. But be careful! You're displaying inappropriate behaviour (i.e. opinions which go against the grain in certain circles.) Sadly, you will be doomed to be right once this outburst of negativity is over.


Many thanks Mac. Coming from you, those words mean a lot to me.  :: 

You're a bit too late with the warning, though. The right label was given out like confetti to anyone who disagreed with the Labour elite, many moons ago. I wear my badge with pride, though. BTW I'm not even a Tory.  ::

----------


## macadamia

Here is the answer of the Brigadonian Jury - 

Next week's ceremonial funeral, whilst not following previous constitutional parameters, is nevertheless a unique occasion with the imprimatur and approval of the great, the good, and the ordinary.

It is NOT a 12 hour Tory party political broadcast. I believe several senior figures from other political parties will be attending, including Blair, Brown, Miliband, Clegg, and above all, Her Queen, who may from time to time exercise her discretion over the interpretation of the as yet unwritten Constitution of which she is Protector.

----------


## Flynn

> Here is the answer of the Brigadonian Jury - 
> 
> Next week's ceremonial funeral, whilst not following previous constitutional parameters, is nevertheless a unique occasion with the imprimatur and approval of the great, the good, and the ordinary.
> 
> It is NOT a 12 hour Tory party political broadcast. I believe several senior figures from other political parties will be attending, including Blair, Brown, Miliband, Clegg, and above all, Her Queen, who may from time to time exercise her discretion over the interpretation of the as yet unwritten Constitution of which she is Protector.





> Our constitution is defined by a rigorous separation between the head of state (the monarch) and the head of government (the prime minister). This marks us out from other countries, such as the United States of America, where the head of state and chief executive are merged in one person. As Anthony Sampson wrote in the Anatomy of Britain, the advantage of the British system is that “the head of state could represent the nation with all its traditional pomp and splendour, while the head of government appeared in a more workaday role”.The monarchy’s symbolic position at the apex of the British state is much more than just a quaint survival. It is based on deep wisdom, as even a socialist such as George Orwell realised. “It is at any rate possible,” wrote Orwell in 1944, “that while this division of functions exists, a Hitler or a Stalin cannot come to power.” Orwell discerned the ease with which an unscrupulous populist leader would exploit the pomp of the state to project his or her personal power.
> The decision to give Lady Thatcher what amounts to a state funeral will not lead to fascism. But it nevertheless badly damages the British system of representative democracy, and as such will lead to a series of debilitating practical problems. The most serious of them concerns damage to the reputation of the monarch for scrupulous impartiality. During her long reign, the Queen has avoided attending the funerals of all her prime ministers, apart from that of Churchill, who had led the national government of a united Britain in the great common struggle against Nazi Germany. This is why he was the sole exception to the rule that former prime ministers do not get state funerals.



All of that is thrown away next week.

----------


## macadamia

Flynn, let me go one stage further. Comparing the UK to North Korea shows how naive and silly you are. That's about as daft as the Trade Union cohorts who spent the fifties and sixties praising the Soviet USSR to the skies - a land of milk and honey where each worker was equal to the next, and highly valued. A state where genocide and labour camps were the underlying reality. They were the delusional then, and the trait hasn't disappeared.

----------


## Flynn

> Flynn, let me go one stage further. Comparing the UK to North Korea shows how naive and silly you are. That's about as daft as the Trade Union cohorts who spent the fifties and sixties praising the Soviet USSR to the skies - a land of milk and honey where each worker was equal to the next, and highly valued. A state where genocide and labour camps were the underlying reality. There were the delusional then, and the trait hasn't disappeared.


The delusional will be lining the route next Wednesday in this stage-managed spectacle on behalf of the Tory party. This Tory deification of Thatcher and the queen coming out as a dyed in the wool tory persuade me that Scotland should go it alone.

----------


## macadamia

A good riposte! Repetition is the final refuge of an exhausted argument.

----------


## Flynn

> A good riposte! Repetition is the final refuge of an exhausted argument.


I repeat it because you repeat yourself. You say this political spectacle next week is a good idea, I say it is a bad idea. There are only so many ways I can respond to you repeatedly stating it's a good thing.

I notice that neither you nor your vacuous cheerleader have yet commented on the Telegraph piece explaining why this spectacle is a very damaging for democracy and the monarchy.

----------


## macadamia

I gave you my answer re the Telegraph item. I am sure you are not often given to quoting the Telegraph as your own personal Holy Grail!

I notice silence on the North Korean comments, and their resonance with the brainless adulation of the USSR by the Left in the 50s and 60s (extending beyond that to a lesser degree as proof of Stalin as a mass murderer became more available)

But then again, that doesn't fit your matrix, does it?

----------


## Flynn

> Many thanks Mac. Coming from you, those words mean a lot to me. 
> 
> You're a bit too late with the warning, though. The right label was given out like confetti to anyone who disagreed with the Labour elite, many moons ago. I wear my badge with pride, though. BTW I'm not even a Tory.


You whine about labels being bandied about while throwing about terms like trots, commies etc. in reference to anyone who does not share your view, and at the same time Macadamia likens dissenters to Islamic terrorists. It seems your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

----------


## macadamia

Why its almost the same as Flynn equating the UK to North Korea. His hypocrisy knows no starting point, etc.

Oooh - nearly missed that one! I do NOT liken dissenters to Islamic terrorists. I liken the manipulators of dissenters, the ones who keep deep in the shadows, to the manipulators of terrorists, who persuade the naive and foolish to carry out deeds they would not do themselves. Bit of a difference, isn't it, Kim Il-Flynn?

----------


## Flynn

> Why its almost the same as Flynn equating the UK to North Korea. His hypocrisy knows no starting point, etc.


There's a big difference, I'm likening the behaviour of our 'establishment' to North Korea, you and your little cheerleader are likening contributors to this thread to Islamic terrorists, and labelling people as 'trots, commies etc'. State-funded and organised mourning for a supposed 'great leader', by a single political party. That behaviour is about as North Korean as you can get.

----------


## sids

> That behaviour is about as North Korean as you can get.


More lies you lying liar!

You can actually get much more North Korean than that.

----------


## macadamia

Congratulations to Comrade Kim Il-Flynn for his Mighty Victory against the Forces of Oppression, as evidenced by the Right Wing Establishment single-handedly ripping crusts from the mouths of the reluctant British public to pay for a 12 hour travesty of democracy just because most people want it, but are uneducated in the true ways of democracy! We salute his indefatigability, and his adhesion to the truth in all matters! Thanks to a recently enacted law, having been crushed like a meddlesome insect at the powerful heel of mighty Comrade Kim Il-Flynn, I must now retire from this debate, which I was bound to lose, and spend time at the Liverpool Home for Aspiring Revanchists, where I can consider my State Crimes until such time as the Ministry for the Inferior feels free to release me.

Again, well done, Comrade Kim Il-Flynn! Your place in history will be assured, long after the Iron Lady has been planted and forgotten.......

----------


## ducati

> I repeat it because you repeat yourself. You say this political spectacle next week is a good idea, I say it is a bad idea. There are only so many ways I can respond to you repeatedly stating it's a good thing.
> 
> I notice that neither you nor your vacuous cheerleader have yet commented on the Telegraph piece explaining why this spectacle is a very damaging for democracy and the monarchy.


I tell you what. Tell us at the end of next week how and why UK democracy has been damaged and how you will repair it.

Personally I think it has proved quite robust in the past.

----------


## tonkatojo

> I tell you what. Tell us at the end of next week how and why UK democracy has been damaged and how you will repair it.
> 
> Personally I think it has proved quite robust in the past.


The damage to democracy is simple, the spectacle is being forced upon the whole country with only the tory lot forcing it, if democracy was applied there would have been a ballot/referendum the torys have been banging on for months what they intended doing no if no buts no public opinion asked. As for the repairing that will be left for the next government, God help them.

----------


## M Swanson

> You whine about labels being bandied about while throwing about terms like trots, commies etc. in reference to anyone who does not share your view, and at the same time Macadamia likens dissenters to Islamic terrorists. It seems your hypocrisy knows no bounds.


Oh! Really, Flynn? Show me where I've "whined," about labels?  The only reference I've made, is to truthfully state that I've been labelled as being on the "right," for years, along with everyone else who dares to challenge anything that the left are responsible for, irrespective of the wishes of the people. One statement of fact does not a whine make! In fact, I couldn't give a rats' nonkers, how any smart ass sees me! I think you may have mixed me up with John Little, who has a problem with labels. If my memory serves me well, only when they're pinned to lefties, of course!

----------


## Flynn

> Congratulations to Comrade Kim Il-Flynn for his Mighty Victory against the Forces of Oppression, as evidenced by the Right Wing Establishment single-handedly ripping crusts from the mouths of the reluctant British public to pay for a 12 hour travesty of democracy just because most people want it, but are uneducated in the true ways of democracy! We salute his indefatigability, and his adhesion to the truth in all matters! Thanks to a recently enacted law, having been crushed like a meddlesome insect at the powerful heel of mighty Comrade Kim Il-Flynn, I must now retire from this debate, which I was bound to lose, and spend time at the Liverpool Home for Aspiring Revanchists, where I can consider my State Crimes until such time as the Ministry for the Inferior feels free to release me.
> 
> Again, well done, Comrade Kim Il-Flynn! Your place in history will be assured, long after the Iron Lady has been planted and forgotten.......



That's funny, I'm not the one who will be standing at the roadside like a good little North Korean next Wednesday. As for taking food from mouths, that's exactly what it is.

----------


## Flynn

> Oh! Really, Flynn? Show me where I've "whined," about labels?  The only reference I've made, is to truthfully state that I've been labelled as being on the "right," for years, along with everyone else who dares to challenge anything that the left are responsible for, irrespective of the wishes of the people. One statement of fact does not a whine make! In fact, I couldn't give a rats' nonkers, how any smart ass sees me! I think you may have mixed me up with John Little, who has a problem with labels. If my memory serves me well, only when they're pinned to lefties, of course!



For the seventh time:

Do you agree with the Daily Telegraph that next week's twelve-hour Tory party political broadcast will be damaging for UK democracy, and even more damaging for the monarchy because the queen is now exposed as partisan and not in the least politically neutral?

Why are you running away from the question? Could it be because I'm correct, and your deification of Thatcher next Wednesday is going to damage democracy and the monarchy? I think so, hence your refusal to answer the question.

----------


## Flynn

Ps. I'd just like to thank everyone who has given me Rep points throughout this thread. Thank you all.

----------


## sids

> Ps. I'd just like to thank everyone who has given me Rep points throughout this thread. Thank you all.


Don't mention it.

----------


## M Swanson

Flynn declared:-

"That's funny, I'm not the one who will be standing at the roadside like a good little North Korean next Wednesday."

There's hope for you yet, then Flynn. Like you, I won't be standing at the roadside like "a good little North Korean." I'll be a typical Briton; showing respect to a lady who did so much to save our country and hopefully not having to witness the bad little North Korean bedfellows shaming Britain, by rioting and trying to force their evil politics on the rest of us. I'll save a place for you on the pavement, whilst making sure it's far away from those in the gutter. I knew you'd see sense, Flynn.  ::

----------


## sids

> For the seventh time:
> 
> Do you agree with the Daily Telegraph that next week's twelve-hour Tory party political broadcast will be damaging for UK democracy, and even more damaging for the monarchy because the queen is now exposed as partisan and not in the least politically neutral?
> 
> Why are you running away from the question? Could it be because I'm correct, and your deification of Thatcher next Wednesday is going to damage democracy and the monarchy? I think so, hence your refusal to answer the question.


Seventh time for the forgotten important question. I think we're going to find out how high you can count.

Hey- Who'd have thought the Queen would be a Tory!

----------


## M Swanson

> Don't mention it.


LOL. Repped.  ::

----------


## Flynn

> Flynn declared:-
> 
> "That's funny, I'm not the one who will be standing at the roadside like a good little North Korean next Wednesday."
> 
> There's hope for you yet, then Flynn. Like you, I won't be standing at the roadside like "a good little North Korean." I'll be a typical Briton; showing respect to a lady who did so much to save our country and hopefully not having to witness the bad little North Korean bedfellows shaming Britain, by rioting and trying to force their evil politics on the rest of us. I'll save a place for you on the pavement, whilst making sure it's far away from those in the gutter. I knew you'd see sense, Flynn.



North Koreans don't riot, they stand at the kerbside and clap and wave and do and think as they are told by their masters because they are incapable of seeing political propaganda for what it is.
Have a good time waving your little flag like an obedient little servant of the Conservative party.

For the eighth time:

Do you agree with the Daily Telegraph that next week's twelve-hour Tory party political broadcast will be damaging for UK democracy, and even more damaging for the monarchy because the queen is now exposed as partisan and not in the least politically neutral?

Why are you running away from the question? Could it be because I'm correct, and your deification of Thatcher next Wednesday is going to damage democracy and the monarchy? I think so, hence your refusal to answer the question.

----------


## M Swanson

> North Koreans don't riot, they stand at the kerbside and clap and wave and do and think as they are told by their masters because they are incapable of seeing political propaganda for what it is.
> Have a good time waving your little flag like an obedient little servant of the Conservative party.


Of course N Koreans don't riot. I'd agree with you there. It's the price they have to pay for living in a Communist State. You know, the kind of place totalitarian psycho's would have us live in, Flynn.  :Grin: 

Actually, the Swanson 29 has grown in number and we're working on a second coach. You see, there are many decent, compassionate and true-Brits around.  ::

----------


## Oddquine

> Poppycock!


Usual intelligent response to a truncated quote of a post which _would_ have allowed you to offer some facts to prove my perception of her premiership and influence on the current UK was erroneous.

But just in case you missed it.....here it is again....._.bringing back unregulated capitalism, the great income gaps between the  rich and the poor, homelessness, employers controlling employees,  rioting and looting......and charities and the church (and private  businesses) providing welfare services.  It was those same  Victorian  values which gradually gave the impetus which produced Socialism in the  first place._ 

Care to show me where none of that is the case in Thatcher's legacy Britain?

----------


## Flynn

> Of course N Koreans don't riot. I'd agree with you there. It's the price they have to pay for living in a Communist State. You know, the kind of place totalitarian psycho's would have us live in, Flynn. 
> 
> Actually, the Swanson 29 has grown in number and we're working on a second coach. You see, there are many decent, compassionate and true-Brits around.


For the ninth time:

Do you agree with the Daily Telegraph that next week's twelve-hour Tory party political broadcast will be damaging for UK democracy, and even more damaging for the monarchy because the queen is now exposed as partisan and not in the least politically neutral?

Why are you running away from the question? Could it be because I'm correct, and your deification of Thatcher next Wednesday is going to damage democracy and the monarchy? I think so, hence your refusal to answer the question.

----------


## John Little

[QUOTE=M Swanson;1020741]


> I am on the point of conversion to the cause of Scottish Independence.[/QUOTE/]So?


The question might be why?  But because it is 'so'?  You answer your own question.

----------


## Flynn

> Usual intelligent response to a truncated quote of a post which _would_ have allowed you to offer some facts to prove my perception of her premiership and influence on the current UK was erroneous.
> 
> But just in case you missed it.....here it is again....._.bringing back unregulated capitalism, the great income gaps between the  rich and the poor, homelessness, employers controlling employees,  rioting and looting......and charities and the church (and private  businesses) providing welfare services.  It was those same  Victorian  values which gradually gave the impetus which produced Socialism in the  first place._ 
> 
> Care to show me where none of that is the case in Thatcher's legacy Britain?


M Swanson doesn't deal in facts, she only deals in Daily Mail soundbites, the incoherent ravings of UKIP, and unthinking Tory jingoism. When confronted with cogent argument they run away and hide behind labels, Daily Mail soundbites, and the ravings of UKIP.

----------


## M Swanson

Actually, I hit the wrong button and this one floated off into the ether, before I'd hardly started it. I rectified this a few posts later, which you, of course, didn't respond to, OQ.  Apologies for that folks.

----------


## M Swanson

> M Swanson doesn't deal in facts, she only deals in Daily Mail soundbites and the ravings of LoonyKIP. When confronted with cogent argument they run away and hide behind labels, Daily Mail soundbites, and the ravings of UKIP.


LOL. The only one, throughout nearly 500 posts to mention the DM, or UKIP, is ................... YOU, Flynn. You're wasted driving a truck. You'd be a good salesman! You may even be the difference between profit and loss for the DM.  ::

----------


## M Swanson

[QUOTE=John Little;1020806]


> The question might be why?  But because it is 'so'?  You answer your own question.


So, you'd rather not answer. That's fine by me, John Little.  ::

----------


## Flynn

> LOL. The only one, throughout nearly 500 posts to mention the DM, or UKIP, is ................... YOU, Flynn. You're wasted driving a truck. You'd be a good salesman! You may even be the difference between profit and loss for the DM.





> So, you'd rather not answer. That's fine by me, John Little.


You hypocrite.

For the tenth time:

Do you agree with the Daily Telegraph that next week's twelve-hour Tory party political broadcast will be damaging for UK democracy, and even more damaging for the monarchy because the queen is now exposed as partisan and not in the least politically neutral?

Why are you running away from the question? Could it be because I'm correct, and your deification of Thatcher next Wednesday is going to damage democracy and the monarchy? I think so, hence your refusal to answer the question.


If you don't answer this time I think it that makes plain for all to see, I am correct and you have lost the argument.

----------


## M Swanson

> For the tenth time:
> 
> Do you agree with the Daily Telegraph that next week's twelve-hour Tory party political broadcast will be damaging for UK democracy, and even more damaging for the monarchy because the queen is now exposed as partisan and not in the least politically neutral?
> 
> Why are you running away from the question? Could it be because I'm correct, and your deification of Thatcher next Wednesday is going to damage democracy and the monarchy? I think so, hence your refusal to answer the question.
> 
> 
> If you don't answer this time I think it that makes plain for all to see, I am correct and you have lost the argument.


How can anyone lose an argument they have never participated in, Flynn? It can rage on without me!  ::

----------


## Flynn

> How can anyone lose an argument they have never participated in, Flynn? It can rage on without me!



You've been involved in this argument right through the thread. Now you're refusing to answer a question because you know I'm right. 

Do you agree with the Daily Telegraph that next week's twelve-hour Tory party political broadcast will be damaging for UK democracy, and even more damaging for the monarchy because the queen is now exposed as partisan and not in the least politically neutral?

----------


## M Swanson

[QUOTE=Flynn;1020812]


> *So, you'd rather not answer. That's fine by me, John Little. [/*QUOTE]
> 
> You hypocrite.


LOL. So, I respect John Little's right not to answer anything he doesn't choose to and that makes me a "hypocrite?"  :: 

Sorry to be a party pooper, but it's lunchtime. I've eaten the first course and now I'm on to the afters! It's been fun, thanks Flynn.  :Grin: 

PS. Show me any post in which I've mentioned anything about the Telegraph article, you keep trying and failing to force me to contribute to. You can't, of course!  ::

----------


## Flynn

Ok, I've fed the M Swanson troll for long enough. Time to put it on ignore.

----------


## John Little

[QUOTE=M Swanson;1020811]


> So, you'd rather not answer. That's fine by me, John Little.


I did answer your question, but as you plainly do not do subtle I guess I'd better spell it out for you.

I made an assertion that I might convert to the cause of Scottish Independence.  My thought was that if Scotland was faced with the massed ranks of English voters who think as you do, then they might feel that their wishes and thoughts were not being given the attention due to them in a modern Democracy.  They might wish to go it alone.

That being so, to sit in a Right wing trench throwing dung-hill cock-crowing at all and sundry who disagreed with you might conceivably be damaging to the United Kingdom - damaging to Britain.

I find myself arguing on the same side as committed and dedicated Nationalists.

Why should that be?

Well the main reason is because you did not ask me why.

You said 'So?'

In other words you do not care.  You do not give a damn.

Your lot can have their way, the charade will be played out and you will have triumphed over a mob of lefties, commies, trades unions, scroungers, socialists and pinkos.

Hip-hip hooray - you will have won - game, set and match.

Except that the people you crow over are your fellow citizens in what is supposed to be a functioning modern democracy.

Not to you though.

Combative, triumphalist and partisan, you don't give a damn about the UK, the views of a significant number of its people and assert apparently that you have a monopoly on compassion.

So yes - were I Scottish and reading your one sided tirades I could quite easily vote for the SNP and have done with the sort of government that can pull off something as stupidly divisive and as heedless of national unity as this charade.


Thankfully it is my belief that most of the citizens of this United Kingdom do not think as you.

If they do then down with it.

----------


## sids

If I thought Bridget was serious, I'd phone two doctors.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zYHnbMPXtdU

----------


## Flynn

Hear hear, JL.

----------


## orkneycadian

This thread is getting as dull and repetitive as one of Ywindytheseconds anti windmill threads....

Anyone got any Margaret Thatcher jokes they can post to brighten up the proceedings a bit?  And before anyone posts it, no, just saying "1979-1990" is not a good enough effort....

----------


## Flynn

> This thread is getting as dull and repetitive as one of Ywindytheseconds anti windmill threads....


With the utmost respect, no-one is forcing you to read it.

----------


## John Little

Further to the comparison with Korea.

Korea is not unique and perhaps not the best example, but it is not entirely invalid.  Ridiculing the analogy on the grounds of Forced Labour Camps, secret police etc is one thing.  The cult of personality is another.

Why?

Because the notion of cult of personality is not unique to North Korea but is something common in History and not just in totalitarian regimes- it goes back to ancient times.

If a faction in a state can imbue its leaders with certain attributes of infallibility then they gain a status that ordinary folk do not have; it sets them apart. 

Benjamin Disraeli was 'Dizzy' to his supporters and endowed with a certain wily cunning that stood us in good stead.
William Gladstone was the GOM - the Grand Old Man and received a ceremonial funeral, though not one to rival what is planned for next week. 
Lloyd George was 'the man who won the war' and is still greatly revered, though in reality he was a charlatan and a sneak.

There are even people who suspect Mr Salmond of having a certain personality cult ... I wonder if he will merit a ceremonial funeral.

I'm sure we all know what is going on here - don't we?

So suspecting the Tory party of 'bigging up' the memory of their past leaderine (Norman St John Stevas's word) into a sort of personality cult is not as far fetched as might at first appear.  Once that status has been achieved then other things become possible.

At least she has not, like Roman emperors, been made a god...

Personally I like the little poem penned by Lord Beaverbrook, a noted Conservative, when he heard that Lloyd George had died.  The Welshman who led us during WW1 and after was hauled to his grave in a simple wooden coffin on a farm cart along the tracks of a North Wales village whilst those who wished to come stood by the road to pay their respects.

Compare and Contrast.

_Lloyd George no doubt 
when his life ebbs out 
will ride in a flaming chariot_
_Seated in state 
on a red hot plate 
between Satan and Judas Iscariot_
_Ananias that day
 to the devil will say
 my plans to precedence fails_
_So move me up higher,
 away from the fire, 
To make room for this B****** from Wales._

----------


## sids

> no-one is forcing you to read it.


Yeah, we're not in some left-wing dictatorship yet!

----------


## joxville

> Ps. I'd just like to thank everyone who has given me Rep points throughout this thread. Thank you all.


My thanks also to you for the good rep.

----------


## Oddquine

> So, MH is responsible for the shape and form of other political parties, is she? Whatever the Labour Party was to become, was of their own making. And Mrs T is to be blamed for that? Get away.


And there was me thinking I was agreeing with your own posts........because *you* appear to think she is responsible for the shape and form of NuLabour, at least........

_If Margaret Hilda and her policies are as awful as you claim, SiS, then why, in 12 years governance did Labour do nothing to change them?_ post 117

_Now, you tell me how Labour improved things and what policies they changed, SiS? 10, 9, 8._  post 122

_We need to bear in mind that many of her policies still dominate today's policies, despite the opportunity for Labour to change things in a period of 12 years._  post 124

_And the same for Blair too, who took up MH's policies and ran with them, throughout his 12 years governance?_  post 148

_If MH's policies were as terrible as you claim, then why didn't the socialist Blair change them? He had years of opportunities to do so, but chose not to and in fact, was a fan of the great lady._   post 151

_In my example, for 12 years the voters and Party chose Blair, despite his refusal to change any of MH's policies. He knew when he was on to a winner. They all do ....... still!_   post 162




> Mrs T only did what the people wanted. We were sick and tired of being held to ransom by a traitorous group of Unionists, Commies and Trots. I lived through the Winter of Discontent and I suffered at their hands, along with everyone else. Until that time, I had been a staunch Socialist, but the likes of Hatton, Scargill and Red Robbo changed all that. And I believe that held true for many of us. Britain was a basket case, with strikes being called with monotonous regularity, with little, to no justification. The classic case for me, was when a strike was called, because a man was asked to pick up a hammer, instead of a screwdriver, at Ford, Dagenham. You can believe it if you choose .... I care not a jot. If there's one word that pops out at me, it was "differentials." It was an neverending excuse to down tools and plunge the country into even worse economic gloom. What's more, the Commies were winning. The Labour Party couldn't stop the Union barons and nor could anyone else, with the exception of ............ the great lady, Mrs Thatcher. If you don't agree OQ, then whom else would have pulled Britain back from the edge of disaster? One commentator recently wrote, that without her, Britain would have been Cuba, without the sunshine. How true.


I wouldn't have said the Labour Party couldn't stop the Union "barons"..I rather think it was more that the Union "barons" couldn't control the Union members after the pay increase limits in the Social Contract came in well under inflation.  It was more of a grassroots reaction to that than any Union hierarchy intention.  Everybody doesn't always do as they are told even when they are told..maybe it's the _told_ which irritates them. 

 I was one of the people as well as you....and I didn't want *all* of it by any means. In general, apart from the Three Day week and the Winter of Discontent, I can't say that I noticed strikes happening with monotonous regularity..though I suppose it depends on how you define regularity. 

I thought a lot of what she instituted, bit by bit, while she was decimating industry and throwing Union members out of work, was OTT. Some parts of what she did I could agree with..as it was necessary....but not all of it....a lot of it was ideology for ideology's sake....and I did not agree with the way she accomplished it at the expense of millions of unemployed.

----------


## ducati

> The damage to democracy is simple, the spectacle is being forced upon the whole country with only the tory lot forcing it, if democracy was applied there would have been a ballot/referendum the torys have been banging on for months what they intended doing no if no buts no public opinion asked. As for the repairing that will be left for the next government, God help them.


Horse Manure! Since when did we ever get to vote about anything the Gov. decided to do once we've elected 'em? And a bit short of time for a referendum when you're in a bit of a rush to plant the old burd. 
Eck's taking 2 years to organise his.

----------


## ducati

[QUOTE=John Little;1020822]


> I did answer your question, but as you plainly do not do subtle I guess I'd better spell it out for you.
> 
> I made an assertion that I might convert to the cause of Scottish Independence. My thought was that if Scotland was faced with the massed ranks of English voters who think as you do, then they might feel that their wishes and thoughts were not being given the attention due to them in a modern Democracy. They might wish to go it alone.
> 
> That being so, to sit in a Right wing trench throwing dung-hill cock-crowing at all and sundry who disagreed with you might conceivably be damaging to the United Kingdom - damaging to Britain.
> 
> I find myself arguing on the same side as committed and dedicated Nationalists.
> 
> Why should that be?
> ...


Er.. it was sids that said so.  ::

----------


## Oddquine

> Er.. it was sids that said so.


Er......no it wasn't.....though sids might have said it as well......it was M Swanson...post 458 I think.

----------


## M Swanson

So, you believe that although the Labour Party could have changed as many things as they wanted to over a 12 year period, but chose to keep many of MH's policies, that was somehow HER fault? No way, Jose!

Let me give you a prime example of what I mean by "monotonous regularity," OQ. In my home town there was a very large factory, called 'Metal Box,' which employed hundreds of folks, to include some of my family members. The pay and conditions were favourable and generally, the staff were happy in their work. But not so the Union. Time after time, over a relatively short period, they made more and more demands on the owner, under the threat of strike action. Each time the bosses acquiesced, until finally they ran out of patience and issued their own ultimatum. They agreed to the latest pay demand, but warned that it would be the last one, for a year, that they would accept. Failure to reach agreement would result in the company shutting down and transferring their operation elsewhere. By now, the staff were becoming alarmed and held their own meetings when they voiced their genuine concerns to the Union reps, who took their fears on board and accepted the settlement on their behalf. Great! Only one problem. Before the ink was dry on the agreement, the Union immediately submitted another demand. That was it! The company relocated to Wales. Hundreds, who were happy in their jobs, were out of work. I know, that to this day, some folks still remember with bitterness being sold out by the Union. 

This is what was happening and it reminds me of the similar plight of the miners, in the Winter of Discontent.  I've recently read a report, (as I've previously mentioned) that states that the victims now recognise that it was Scargill who threw away their jobs. Thirty odd years too late, unfortunately. This was the mess that MH had to clean up and she did. I know she never got everything right, but who else could have done better, do you think?

----------


## M Swanson

[QUOTE=ducati;1020887]


> Er.. it was sids that said so.


So what?  ::

----------


## sids

[QUOTE=John Little;1020822]


> I did answer your question, but as you plainly do not do subtle I guess I'd better spell it out for you.
> 
> I made an assertion that I might convert to the cause of Scottish Independence.  My thought was that if Scotland was faced with the massed ranks of English voters who think as you do, then they might feel that their wishes and thoughts were not being given the attention due to them in a modern Democracy.  They might wish to go it alone.
> 
> That being so, to sit in a Right wing trench throwing dung-hill cock-crowing at all and sundry who disagreed with you might conceivably be damaging to the United Kingdom - damaging to Britain.
> 
> I find myself arguing on the same side as committed and dedicated Nationalists.
> 
> Why should that be?
> ...


[QUOTE=ducati;1020887]


> Er.. it was sids that said so.


I'm not going to read all that just to see what I said.

----------


## Flynn

Live coverage of the Trafalgar Square celebrations via the Occupy News Network:

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/occupy..._medium=social

----------


## John Little

[QUOTE=sids;1020910][QUOTE=John Little;1020822] 


> I'm not going to read all that just to see what I said.


  You did not say it.  He is wrong.

----------


## M Swanson

[QUOTE=sids;1020910][QUOTE=John Little;1020822]




> I'm not going to read all that just to see what I said.


I don't blame you Sids. I don't think you actually said anything and I certainly didn't post that long diatribe. I haven't the time to untie that Gordian Knot, so I'm moving on too.  :Grin:

----------


## ducati

[QUOTE=John Little;1020912][QUOTE=sids;1020910]


> You did not say it.  He is wrong.


Oh blimey, I'm going to have to go through the whole bloomin' thread now 'cos he def. did. Sids, if you have deleted it you are a dead man!  ::

----------


## Flynn

> Originally Posted by John Little
> 
> I am on the point of conversion to the cause of Scottish Independence.
> 
> 
> So?



Here it is.

----------


## ducati

> Here it is.


Hands up, my mistake, sorry sids. The quoty thing has gone funny making it very difficult to see who said what on this thread.

Very interesting prog. on Channel 4 now Margeret: Death of a Revolutionary

----------


## Flynn

More interesting programme here:

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/occupy..._medium=social


Live coverage of the Trafalgar Square celebrations.

----------


## ducati

> Further to the comparison with Korea.
> 
> Korea is not unique and perhaps not the best example, but it is not entirely invalid.  Ridiculing the analogy on the grounds of Forced Labour Camps, secret police etc is one thing.  The cult of personality is another.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because the notion of cult of personality is not unique to North Korea but is something common in History and not just in totalitarian regimes- it goes back to ancient times.
> 
> If a faction in a state can imbue its leaders with certain attributes of infallibility then they gain a status that ordinary folk do not have; it sets them apart. 
> ...


John, have you lost sight of the fact that this very very long stramash of a thread was sparked by vile, bullying posts being unbelievebly insulting and outright disgusting in their treatment of the death of an ex politician. Mass murderers have had better press. This prompted me well before you, to change my mind about Independence for the reason if the posters on this thread are representative then they don't deserve to be part of the UK. After casting my Yes vote I shall step smartly across the border.

----------


## orkneycadian

No word of the Wizard of Oz song in this weeks Scottish Chart which has just finished airing on MFR.Guess Maggie is loved in Scotland after all!

----------


## John Little

Just looked at the first page.  Not one vile post among them.  As to Independence, I don't exactly see a Thatcherite Scotland so I guess you'll be moving back to England?

----------


## sids

> No word of the Wizard of Oz song in this weeks Scottish Chart which has just finished airing on MFR.Guess Maggie is loved in Scotland after all!


It costs 10p.

----------


## JimH

> So, you believe that although the Labour Party could have changed as many things as they wanted to over a 12 year period, but chose to keep many of MH's policies, that was somehow HER fault? No way, Jose!
> 
> Let me give you a prime example of what I mean by "monotonous regularity," OQ. In my home town there was a very large factory, called 'Metal Box,' which employed hundreds of folks, to include some of my family members. The pay and conditions were favourable and generally, the staff were happy in their work. But not so the Union. Time after time, over a relatively short period, they made more and more demands on the owner, under the threat of strike action. Each time the bosses acquiesced, until finally they ran out of patience and issued their own ultimatum. They agreed to the latest pay demand, but warned that it would be the last one, for a year, that they would accept. Failure to reach agreement would result in the company shutting down and transferring their operation elsewhere. By now, the staff were becoming alarmed and held their own meetings when they voiced their genuine concerns to the Union reps, who took their fears on board and accepted the settlement on their behalf. Great! Only one problem. Before the ink was dry on the agreement, the Union immediately submitted another demand. That was it! The company relocated to Wales. Hundreds, who were happy in their jobs, were out of work. I know, that to this day, some folks still remember with bitterness being sold out by the Union.
> 
> 
> This is what was happening and it reminds me of the similar plight of the miners, in the Winter of Discontent.  I've recently read a report, (as I've previously mentioned) that states that the victims now recognise that it was Scargill who threw away their jobs. Thirty odd years too late, unfortunately. This was the mess that MH had to clean up and she did. I know she never got everything right, but who else could have done better, do you think?


Argue with that if you want - IT IS FACT!! and I can tell similar tales  from first hand knowledge., but I said my piece earlier in the thread.

----------


## gaza

I have worked and paid tax all my life, I have volunteered and done my best for the community and this country, every job I did and do I put 100% effort into and many have written and said so, but not every one will agree, THAT'S LIFE. I have just been doing a job. Just like Margaret Thatcher. When I die will you and the state pay £10 million for my ceremony. I think NOT. so why should "I" a voter and citizen of this country agree to spend this amount of OUR money on a persons funeral who was only doing a job that I was contributing to paying her to do.

WAKE UP BRITAIN THIS MONEY "OUR MONEY" SHOULD BE SPENT ELSE WHERE

----------


## ducati

> Just looked at the first page.  Not one vile post among them.  As to Independence, I don't exactly see a Thatcherite Scotland so I guess you'll be moving back to England?


What did I just say? 

This thread has been mucked about with, three rolled into one, some of the more extreme posts may well have been removed.

----------


## John Little

Why you said this:

 " John, have you lost sight of the fact that this very very long stramash of a thread was sparked by vile, bullying posts being unbelievebly insulting and outright disgusting in their treatment of the death of an ex politician. Mass murderers have had better press. This prompted me well before you, to change my mind about Independence for the reason if the posters on this thread are representative then they don't deserve to be part of the UK. After casting my Yes vote I shall step smartly across the border."

----------


## ducati

> Why you said this:
> 
>  " John, have you lost sight of the fact that this very very long stramash of a thread was sparked by vile, bullying posts being unbelievebly insulting and outright disgusting in their treatment of the death of an ex politician. Mass murderers have had better press. This prompted me well before you, to change my mind about Independence for the reason if the posters on this thread are representative then they don't deserve to be part of the UK. After casting my Yes vote I shall step smartly across the border."


So the last bit then.  ::

----------


## John Little

Yes but that rather depends in which side of it you are standing at the time.  And whichever border you are at.

----------


## ducati

> Yes but that rather depends in which side of it you are standing at the time.  And whichever border you are at.


I'd have a word with nurse if I were you. Actually, property prices will probably plummet to the extent we'll be stuck forever.  ::

----------


## John Little

Nursey thinks you could be clearer in how you put it.  

And if you vote Yes ( I have ma doots) then ethically, having cast your lot in with Secession, you should stand the hazard of the die.

----------


## RecQuery

> I agree with that John Little. It seems her   supporters here are ignoring that fact that a great many believe this   state funeral to be a very bad idea and exremely damaging, not only to   politics but also to the monarchy.
> 
> I don't often agree with the Torygraph, but this article said it well:
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...a-mistake.html


As has been said before by a few people: The whole thing is basically  going to be a Conservative Party Broadcast, I think that it'll damage them  and they'll pay for that in the long run...

... actually, wait disregard everything I've said up until this point. I  praise our glorious former leader, we can not spend enough on her  funeral. Personally I think it should be a three day long extravaganza  with all media covering nothing but it. Anyone opposing it should be shot or rounded up into camps for their own safety.

----------


## sids

Well, now we're getting somewhere.

----------


## ducati

> As has been said before by a few people: The whole thing is basically going to be a Conservative Party Broadcast, I think that it'll damage them and they'll pay for that in the long run...
> 
> ... actually, wait disregard everything I've said up until this point. I praise our glorious former leader, we can not spend enough on her funeral. Personally I think it should be a three day long extravaganza with all media covering nothing but it. Anyone opposing it should be shot or rounded up into camps for their own safety.


Blimey Req.......... is that how you spell extravaganza?

----------


## ducati

> And if you vote Yes ( I have ma doots) then ethically, having cast your lot in with Secession, you should stand the hazard of the die.


Tactical voting, invented by Labour, but I may be wrong. In fact I'm sure I am and you will tell me precisely by whome and when.  :Grin:

----------


## ducati

> As has been said before by a few people: The whole thing is basically going to be a Conservative Party Broadcast, I think that it'll damage them and they'll pay for that in the long run...
> 
> ... actually, wait disregard everything I've said up until this point. I praise our glorious former leader, we can not spend enough on her funeral. Personally I think it should be a three day long extravaganza with all media covering nothing but it. Anyone opposing it should be shot or rounded up into camps for their own safety.


For the sake of balance, the opposition should be allowed to kill one of their ex leaders and have the funeral the same week.

_I should not drink and post!_

----------


## John Little

> Tactical voting, invented by Labour, but I may be wrong. In fact I'm sure I am and you will tell me precisely by whome and when.


Nope.  Tactical voting is as old as Democracy itself so can't tell you even the earliest examples.

Drinking and posting is not wise - you are right.

----------


## Oddquine

> So, you believe that although the Labour Party could have changed as many things as they wanted to over a 12 year period, but chose to keep many of MH's policies, that was somehow HER fault? No way, Jose!
> 
> Let me give you a prime example of what I mean by "monotonous regularity," OQ. In my home town there was a very large factory, called 'Metal Box,' which employed hundreds of folks, to include some of my family members. The pay and conditions were favourable and generally, the staff were happy in their work. But not so the Union. Time after time, over a relatively short period, they made more and more demands on the owner, under the threat of strike action. Each time the bosses acquiesced, until finally they ran out of patience and issued their own ultimatum. They agreed to the latest pay demand, but warned that it would be the last one, for a year, that they would accept. Failure to reach agreement would result in the company shutting down and transferring their operation elsewhere. By now, the staff were becoming alarmed and held their own meetings when they voiced their genuine concerns to the Union reps, who took their fears on board and accepted the settlement on their behalf. Great! Only one problem. Before the ink was dry on the agreement, the Union immediately submitted another demand. That was it! The company relocated to Wales. Hundreds, who were happy in their jobs, were out of work. I know, that to this day, some folks still remember with bitterness being sold out by the Union. 
> <br>
> This is what was happening and it reminds me of the similar plight of the miners, in the Winter of Discontent.  I've recently read a report, (as I've previously mentioned) that states that the victims now recognise that it was Scargill who threw away their jobs. Thirty odd years too late, unfortunately. This was the mess that MH had to clean up and she did. I know she never got everything right, but who else could have done better, do you think?


Good grief ,woman.you have spent umpteen posts out of the 75 or so you have made on this thread crowing about the fact that nobody has dared do anything to roll back Thatcher's policies. Why would you do that if you didn't think she had changed the mindset of those who came after her? I don't think I said it was her fault precisely...but I may have said it was an appreciable part of her legacy....to make the MPs of whichever party into quasi-Tories in order to be elected in England.  You can't deny it (though i'm sure you will try)..you said it yourself! Where _else_ did they get their ideas, out of interest?

How does one incident equate to monotonous regularity, pray explain? That incident would have been stopped by balloting before a strike would it not?  I have no problems with ballots, it was one of her decisions with which I did agree...but Thatcher made participation in the process more complicated, cumbersome and expensive than necessary and produced so many boxes the ballot had to tick to be legal that it often allowed room for employers to contest the result in court. I, personally, have no use for Unions....I was a member of one all my working life and it cost me a lot in dues..but when it came to the crunch....it was unable to stand up for me. Until you need a Union to do what you thought it was meant to do...and it doesn't...you didn't feel the Thatcher effect. Unions are not _just_ for strikes..they are also protection for individual workers against employers..and that has gone as well bar in discrimination cases, which was a post Thatcher addition..though the EU might have changed the way Unions work for individuals now...but much too late for me.

Never liked Scargill or his actions....but he did what he did i_n spite of_ the legislation Thatcher had introduced into law. Or are you not aware that she had *already* produced _three_ Industrial Relation Acts by the time of the Miner's Strike as she threw Union members on the dole by closing industries to let her add yet another "Trash the Unions" bill into law?  Scargill ignored the law...but unfortunately it was the Union finances which took the hit.

To a large extent you remind me of those Union members who continued irrationally to support Scargill even after he trashed the Union, because you continue to support Thatcher even after she trashed the lives of so many of us...but obviously she did not trash your life, just as she didn't trash mine, but she didn't improve it either......but the difference between me and you is that you don't appear to care about those whose lives she _did_ trash, and I do....you are an archetypal Tory of the same kind which stopped Scotland voting Tory and reduced a majority of Scottish Tory MPs to one solitary token member...and I am not.

----------


## Oddquine

> For the sake of balance, the opposition should be allowed to kill one of their ex leaders and have the funeral the same week.
> 
> _I should not drink and post!_


Yeah! I vote for Bliar to be removed from the world!

(and neither should I!)

----------


## John Little

OQ - if I remove my tin foil hat the strange thought enters my head that Ms Swanson is an agent provocateur cunningly planted by the Yes campaign to put the maximum number of Scots off the UK government.  If so tis devilish cunning and I think it is working.... It's certainly working on me!

----------


## gaza

You've ALL lost the plot.................. ::

----------


## Oddquine

> OQ - if I remove my tin foil hat the strange thought enters my head that Ms Swanson is an agent provocateur cunningly planted by the Yes campaign to put the maximum number of Scots off the UK government.  If so tis devilish cunning and I think it is working.... It's certainly working on me!


ROFLMAO!  If I'd had come up with that agent provocateur idea I'd be preening!  She'll have large swathes of Caithness changing their opinion. however much they hate Salmond with another 70 odd posts in the same vein!

----------


## Phill

Apologies all, skipped a few pages. What's the concensus, do I need to go and sign on ....err turn in for work on Wednesday or not?

PS: Since when has the BBC started promoting tunes from old filums?

----------


## Oddquine

> You've ALL lost the plot..................


Was there a plot?  Who lost it?  Was it carelessness or a conspiracy?  Am I slightly smashed?

----------


## gaza

> Was there a plot?  Who lost it?  Was it carelessness or a conspiracy?  Am I slightly smashed?


NO PLOT....... just that, who gives a flying duck how bad or how good she was, its our country, our taxes our right to agree on how our life commitment and dedication to this country can be over ruled on our spending budget. she was doing a JOB we paid her. THAT'S it, END OF

WAKE UP BRITAIN ITS OUR MONEY, SPEND IT WISELY, "OR GIVE IT TO THE BANKERS"

But no, ... lets have a meaning less discussion on why she was good and why she was bad,.... TO NECKING LATE.


Now she's dead.......... what skeleton's will come out of the closet.............so many great people and celebs have hit there demise once they have gone. ?


Mmmmmmm I wonder .....

----------


## Aaldtimer

I think it's very appropriate that she will be be cremated...they used to burn witches! Ding Dong....

----------


## ducati

If you like the funeral you're going to love the Thatcher Memorial Library

----------


## Flynn

> Yeah! I vote for Bliar to be removed from the world!
> 
> (and neither should I!)



Fine by me, Blair is a tory.

Why Thatcher deserves no tribute: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...serves-1829090

----------


## Flynn

> If you like the funeral you're going to love the Thatcher Memorial Library


More North Korean style cult-of-personality nonsense for the unthinking.

Last night I watched Return Of The Jedi. Disgusted by the distasteful scenes at the end where everyone is celebrating the death of Emperor Palpatine. He may have been divisive, but he was strong and he made decisions and stuck to them, and I think he should get a bit of respect. He was, after all, a little old man who died, when you remove any other context whatsoever.

----------


## M Swanson

[QUOTE=M Swanson;1020741]


> I am on the point of conversion to the cause of Scottish Independence.[/QUOTE/]
> 
> So?


I've just scanned yesterday's posts and as incredulous as it may seem, here we have it folks. The post that sparked such controversy was ..................... "So?"
Go figure.  ::  ::

----------


## M Swanson

> Argue with that if you want - IT IS FACT!! and I can tell similar tales  from first hand knowledge., but I said my piece earlier in the thread.


Yes, it certainly is fact and just one of hundreds of examples either one of us could give, Jim. Nobody who lived through the 70's could deny the havoc wreaked on Britain by out of control Unions. That's not just people like us, but political pundits both here and abroad, across the political spectrum. I don't know if you watch Question Time, but last week's one was dedicated to Margaret Hilda and surprisingly, I thought it was fair and balanced. See what the BBC can do when it drops its bias?  :Grin:  I'll leave a link for those who may have missed the programme, 'cos it's well worth viewing. I thought Ming Campbell, in particular, worth listening to.  :: 

BBC iPlayer - Question Time: 11/04/2013

Well, it's a beautiful, bright morning and I'm awa' tae the Booty. I hope I get lucky.  :Grin:

----------


## John Little

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22077919. 

60 per cent opposition according to this poll.

Page 85 onwards.  Though some of the other responses are interesting too.

http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/IoS_SM...April_2013.pdf

----------


## shazzap

> Yes, it certainly is fact and just one of hundreds of examples either one of us could give, Jim. Nobody who lived through the 70's could deny the havoc wreaked on Britain by out of control Unions. That's not just people like us, but political pundits both here and abroad, across the political spectrum. I don't know if you watch Question Time, but last week's one was dedicated to Margaret Hilda and surprisingly, I thought it was fair and balanced. See what the BBC can do when it drops its bias?  I'll leave a link for those who may have missed the programme, 'cos it's well worth viewing. I thought Ming Campbell, in particular, worth listening to. 
> 
> BBC iPlayer - Question Time: 11/04/2013
> 
> Well, it's a beautiful, bright morning and I'm awa' tae the Booty. I hope I get lucky.


 I saw this, and thought they were hand picked. MO.

----------


## golach

> I saw this, and thought they were hand picked. MO.


Of course the questions and panel were hand picked it was so obvious  ::

----------


## Flynn

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22077919. 
> 
> 60 per cent opposition according to this poll.
> 
> Page 85 onwards.  Though some of the other responses are interesting too.
> 
> http://www.comres.co.uk/polls/IoS_SM...April_2013.pdf



http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...st-one-1830638


I found this interesting:




> They come as security was tightened this weekend over fears of a tide of protests.Yesterday a ring of steel was being erected along the route from London’s Westminster to St Paul’s Cathedral, where the service will be held, in the biggest security operation since the Olympics.Crack SAS and SBS troops will be on stand by while covert snipers will be deployed on rooftops. Undercover officers will be immersed in the crowd and uniformed officers and sniffer dogs will line the route. Helicopter crews will carry out surveillance from the air. Riot police will also be on standby.



 That doesn't sound to me like the funeral of someone who was well-loved and popular.

And there are calls from Tory MPs for even more North Korean style cult-of-personality nonsense:




> MPs yesterday called for another show of respect by getting Big Ben to chime 87 times at her funeral, once for each year of her life.

----------


## John Little

Covert snipers!  Is this Britain?

Well that might put a few off...

----------


## ducati

Well I've observed some of the protesters and it is blindingly obvious that very few of them could have been around at the time, I myself was very young  :Grin:  so I can only assume they are rent a mobs, cannot have a valid opinion and can be safely ignored.

----------


## ducati

I can see John Little's head exploding as he realises he is in a position that would require criticising a library.  ::

----------


## tonkatojo

> I can see John Little's head exploding as he realises he is in a position that would require criticising a library.


A bit ironic when there are hundreds having to close because of tory policy.

----------


## ducati

> A bit ironic when there are hundreds having to close because of tory policy.


Privately funded I'm afraid.

----------


## Flynn

> Well I've observed some of the protesters and it is blindingly obvious that very few of them could have been around at the time, I myself was very young  so I can only assume they are rent a mobs, cannot have a valid opinion and can be safely ignored.


I watched live coverage of Trafalgar Square last night, and almost everyone who was interviewed were in their late 40s to their 60s.

----------


## tonkatojo

> Privately funded I'm afraid.


That makes a bloody change then doesn't it, pity the debacle next Wednesday isn't private funded then this thread would not be necessary .

----------


## Flynn

> Privately funded I'm afraid.



Still ironic. A private library dedicated to the architect of the destruction of public libraries.

----------


## John Little

> I can see John Little's head exploding as he realises he is in a position that would require criticising a library.


. 

My head is in no danger of exploding thank you for reasons explained by Flynn and Tonkatojo.  
Yours should be though.  

The leader of your party has shown and continues to show the most gross lack of political judgment possible in these circumstances.  Self indulgent wallowing in an exercise usually designed to pull the nation together.  

You are probably witnessing the swan song ( or the Swanson songs) of your party...  

Enjoy your day.  

I doubt there will be another like it.

Will Hutton in the Observer reports a rumour that the Royal family are a bit uneasy - apparently some of them think that Wednesdays events may be a little over the top...

----------


## M Swanson

So, let's just check out some of the FACTS about Margaret Hilda's leadership. They're provided by Fact Check and titled, 'The Thatcher Myths.' This site comes well recommended.  :Grin:  Not one for those looking for somewhere to cultivate their hatred.  :: 

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/...er-myths/13236

----------


## M Swanson

> I saw this, and thought they were hand picked. MO.


Thanks for this one Shazza. It prompted me to take another look at the Question Time programme to look deeper into why I was "surprised," by the "fairness and balance." I decided, that so many of us are conditioned to the leftwing bias of the BBC, particularly on QT, ('though not exclusively,) that the difference threw me. I wasn't used to an even playing field, both with the panel and audience. If Aunty would continue in the same vein, I'm sure it would do much to increase the popularity of the programme.  ::

----------


## M Swanson

> That makes a bloody change then doesn't it, pity the debacle next Wednesday isn't private funded then this thread would not be necessary .


Any idea what last nights' damp-squib of a party in Trafalgar cost us, Tonka? Add this to the cost of providing security to protect the innocent on Wednesday and we're looking at millions. That will, of course, be used to enable a few from rent-a-mob to demonstrate. The funeral itself will cost very little, in real terms. Do you resent taxpayers money being used to uphold the law? Because that's what we're paying for.

----------


## squidge

You know something. This thread has many people from both sides extolling the virtues of Margaret Thatcher and saying she changed politics. There doesnt seem to be any dispute on either side yhat she did that. No dispute that Mrs Thatcher's legacy lives on, whether that is for good or ill depends on your viewpoint. 

Given that fact, it seems really stupid to condemn protesters for being too young.

We ALL still feel the effects of the Thatcher years, we have a government committed to continuing thatcherism and determined to whip up a frenzy with Wednesdays coverage of the pantomime which will be her funeral. 

Given this, how is it surprising that young people will join in these protests. Why SHOULDNT they? We should be glad they are expressing their political views and not watching x factor, or big brother or some other inane rubbish.

As for the cost of last nights protesting, well when it reaches 8 million quid plus however much wednesdays nonsense will cost then start complaining. Its ok to say its being spent to uphold the law but if the government hadnt chosen this ridiculously over the top parade then the costs would be far less.

----------


## Flynn

I tried to rep you for that post Squidge, but apparently I have to sread some around before I can rep you again. So consider yourself repped!  :Smile:

----------


## M Swanson

> You know something. This thread has many people from both sides extolling the virtues of Margaret Thatcher and saying she changed politics. There doesnt seem to be any dispute on either side yhat she did that. No dispute that Mrs Thatcher's legacy lives on, whether that is for good or ill depends on your viewpoint. 
> 
> Given that fact, it seems really stupid to condemn protesters for being too young.
> 
> We ALL still feel the effects of the Thatcher years, we have a government committed to continuing thatcherism and determined to whip up a frenzy with Wednesdays coverage of the pantomime which will be her funeral. 
> 
> Given this, how is it surprising that young people will join in these protests. Why SHOULDNT they? We should be glad they are expressing their political views and not watching x factor, or big brother or some other inane rubbish.
> 
> As for the cost of last nights protesting, well when it reaches 8 million quid plus however much wednesdays nonsense will cost then start complaining. Its ok to say its being spent to uphold the law but if the government hadnt chosen this ridiculously over the top parade then the costs would be far less.


Fair comment Squidge. 'Though I think it's worth pointing out that Labour, throughout their 12 years goverance also continued Thatcherism.

That aside, I completely agree with you about young people. Several of them spoke on Question Time and I was very impressed with the way they conducted themselves. They had something to say and I enjoyed listening to their opinions ........ both for and against.  ::

----------


## M Swanson

You edited your post, after I had written my first response, so I'll add to it. Do you think, that even if it was remotely possible Mrs Thatcher could have had a private burial, in a quiet village, that Communists and Anarchists, (who are on record as stating they planned their response to MH's death two years ago),expensive security, running into taxpayer millions, wouldn't have been needed? 

Another point, is that MH was admired worldwide and this is reflected in many hundreds of overseas, political representatives, coming to Britain to pay their last respects to her. How would a private, family funded funeral have accommodate these folks? Her popularity, both home and abroad merited some form of State ceremony. All will out on Wednesday.

----------


## golach

> Her popularity, both home and abroad merited some form of State ceremony. All will out on Wednesday.


I wonder how many prominent Scots will be clamouring to attend? My TV will be getting a rest on Wed, and if the weather is good I will be out. Sorry M Swanson, I know Oor eck is planning to attend, he would, him and his lot are just Tartan Tories anyway.

----------


## squidge

Now M Swanson, im not suggesting it was all or nothing. The parade through the streets of london is extreme. A small family funeral is the other extreme. There is a happy medium. 

A funeral in St Pauls without the parade and the nonsense would have been acceptable to me. 700 service personnel linkng the route is over the top. The pall bearers from the services and the invitation of particular members of the armed forces with connections to the Falklands Conflict would have been honour enough surely. It would have recognised her unique place in history without costing more than the queen mothers funeral. I am Not particularly a royalist but that was a woman who was thrust into a position not of her choosing and yet she cared about and helped to UNITED a country at some of its darkest times. Thatcher chose a course which divided a country and did not care one iota about those who suffered as a result. 

Its insulting to parade her through the streets like some beloved leader. She was not!

Golach, it is absolutely right that Salmond should attend, he is Scotland's first minister and as such he represents all of Scotland particularly those who supported and liked her, and there are some. Besides.... Someone has to check she is really dead!

----------


## Flynn

> I wonder how many prominent Scots will be clamouring to attend? My TV will be getting a rest on Wed, and if the weather is good I will be out. Sorry M Swanson, I know Oor eck is planning to attend, he would, him and his lot are just Tartan Tories anyway.


I will be having a day off on Wednesday. If the weather is good I'll go out. If it's bad I will watch the full series of Our Friends In The North and Boys From The Black Stuff.

----------


## ducati

> . 
> 
> My head is in no danger of exploding thank you for reasons explained by Flynn and Tonkatojo. 
> Yours should be though. 
> 
> The leader of your party has shown and continues to show the most gross lack of political judgment possible in these circumstances. Self indulgent wallowing in an exercise usually designed to pull the nation together. 
> 
> You are probably witnessing the swan song ( or the Swanson songs) of your party... 
> 
> ...


Nah, the whole thing is a storm in a teacup. The world would be amazed if we didn't have some kind of state celebration of Mrs T. The whole thing has been blown out of all proportion by a bunch of whinging babies. Two weeks you'll have found something else to moan about. 

Sheesh! I think I'll give the org a rest for a bit. Busy times ahead.  :Grin:

----------


## Rheghead

I think this funeral with all its expensive and double standards is going to be the best Scottish Independence propaganda in years.  Alex Salmond must be rubbing his hands with glee.  I'm so disappointed that David Cameron has misread the mood of the nation with respect to state funded expense in times of austerity.  Margaret Thatcher should have been the first to see the value of providing for one's own funeral expenses.  It wasn't as if the Thatchers didn't have enough of their own money to cover it, is it?

----------


## Flynn

> I think this funeral with all its expensive and double standards is going to be the best Scottish Independence propaganda in years.  Alex Salmond must be rubbing his hands with glee.  I'm so disappointed that David Cameron has misread the mood of the nation with respect to state funded expense in times of austerity.  Margaret Thatcher should have been the first to see the value of providing for one's own funeral expenses.  It wasn't as if the Thatchers didn't have enough of their own money to cover it, is it?



Indeed. She was living for free at the London Ritz Hotel as a guest of the Barclay brothers, and she has an estimated fortune of over £30million. But then it's the Tory way to make the taxpayer pay for millionaires freebies.

----------


## M Swanson

And still you miss the point Squidge. No matter what form her funeral took, large, medium, or small, the cost of security would still cost millions. This would be for upholding the law and I see no reason why MH's family should foot the bill for that. Not only that, she didn't ask for a State funeral. The taxpayer isn't actually paying for all of the burial ......... the family are contributing too and let's face it, it's all a fraction of the cost of what is planned. Why aren't the gripers moaning about the cost of the demonstration?  That's where the lion's share of the taxpayers 10p per capita is being spent?

She may not have been a beloved leader to you, but she was to many of us. I'll be there on Wednesday to pay my respects.  ::

----------


## M Swanson

> Indeed. She was living for free at the London Ritz Hotel as a guest of the Barclay brothers, and she has an estimated fortune of over £30million. But then it's the Tory way to make the taxpayer pay for millionaires freebies.


10p in the post, Flynn!  ::

----------


## squidge

> And still you miss the point Squidge. No matter what form her funeral took, large, medium, or small, the cost of security would still cost millions. This would be for upholding the law and I see no reason why MH's family should foot the bill for that. Not only that, she didn't ask for a State funeral. The taxpayer isn't actually paying for all of the burial ......... the family are contributing too and let's face it, it's all a fraction of the cost of what is planned. Why aren't the gripers moaning about the cost of the demonstration?  That's where the lion's share of the taxpayers 10p per capita is being spent?She may not have been a beloved leader to you, but she was to many of us. I'll be there on Wednesday to pay my respects.


That seems to be you that doesnt get the point M swanson. Without an over the top parade through london the security costs would be less. I am not begrudging her a funeral as befits an ex prime minister but I do begrudge her a funeral fit fir a queen mother. The other point that you dont seem to get is that protest, demonstration and dissent are legal and necessary in a democracy. The job of the police SHOULD be to police them. Complaining about the cost of policing protests when the choice has been made to do something which is over the top and unecessary and could be predicted to be divisive by anyone with a modicum of nouse about them is a bloody cheek!

----------


## golach

> That seems to be you that doesnt get the point M swanson. Without an over the top parade through london the security costs would be less. I am not begrudging her a funeral as befits an ex prime minister but I do begrudge her a funeral fit fir a queen mother. The other point that you dont seem to get is that protest, demonstration and dissent are legal and necessary in a democracy. The job of the police SHOULD be to police them. Complaining about the cost of policing protests when the choice has been made to do something which is over the top and unecessary is a bloody cheek!


Cannot good rep you for the usual reasons Squidge, consider this on account xx

----------


## gaza

> And still you miss the point Squidge. No matter what form her funeral took, large, medium, or small, the cost of security would still cost millions. This would be for upholding the law and I see no reason why MH's family should foot the bill for that. Not only that, she didn't ask for a State funeral. The taxpayer isn't actually paying for all of the burial ......... the family are contributing too and let's face it, it's all a fraction of the cost of what is planned. Why aren't the gripers moaning about the cost of the demonstration?  That's where the lion's share of the taxpayers 10p per capita is being spent?
> 
> She may not have been a beloved leader to you, but she was to many of us. I'll be there on Wednesday to pay my respects.



And still YOU miss the point Ms Swanson. M T HER death is here family's costs NOT OURS she did a job that we paid her to do she was sacked with a big pay off of OUR money and lived of us ever since, If WE were not paying for this funeral, then there would be no ill feeling of the cost, therefore no need for the street demo, so no need for police and the army, so no need to STEAL OUR MONEY

----------


## Flynn

> And still YOU miss the point Ms Swanson. M T HER death is here family's costs NOT OURS she did a job that we paid her to do she was sacked with a big pay off of OUR money and lived of us ever since, If WE were not paying for this funeral, then there would be no ill feeling of the cost, therefore no need for the street demo, so no need for police and the army, so no need to STEAL OUR MONEY


Agreed. It does make me smile that all these Tories - who hate the welfare state, and hate their taxes paying to help the disabled, the sick, the elderly, the unemployed - are perfectly happy with a dead multi-millionaire's family sponging a funeral off the taxpayer to the tune of £10,000,000.

----------


## M Swanson

> That seems to be you that doesnt get the point M swanson. Without an over the top parade through london the security costs would be less. I am not begrudging her a funeral as befits an ex prime minister but I do begrudge her a funeral fit fir a queen mother. The other point that you dont seem to get is that protest, demonstration and dissent are legal and necessary in a democracy. The job of the police SHOULD be to police them. Complaining about the cost of policing protests when the choice has been made to do something which is over the top and unecessary and could be predicted to be divisive by anyone with a modicum of nouse about them is a bloody cheek!


Doh! Firstly, MH didn't ask for a State funeral. I've no doubt, that as far as the actual funeral costs are concerned, it's coming out of her estate. Because you don't think it's fitting that she has a grand send-off, others do. You're also forgetting, that two years prior to MH passing away, plans had already been drawn up by Commies and anarchists. Regardless of what kind of funeral was decided, they were still organising a protest, that was bound to cost the taxpayer dearly. But if you see it that that's their right, (I'll withhold judgment until Wednesday), to incur that, then fine. It's coming out of the £8 million budgeted and I can't break my stride about 10p. 

We can always agree to differ.  ::  That's what I'm settling for!  ::

----------


## M Swanson

> And still YOU miss the point Ms Swanson. M T HER death is here family's costs NOT OURS she did a job that we paid her to do she was sacked with a big pay off of OUR money and lived of us ever since, If WE were not paying for this funeral, then there would be no ill feeling of the cost, therefore no need for the street demo, so no need for police and the army, so no need to STEAL OUR MONEY


Well, what can I say, Gaza? If you seriously believe that there would have been no ill feelings, if the State had been asked to contribute even 2p, to police the streets of Britain, then you live in a dream world. As each day dawns more MH myths are exploded. That's not good news for the haters. Gotta have something to gripe about, I suppose.

Ah! Well!  :Grin:

----------


## orkneycadian

Bit of a poor showing for the Wizard of Oz song on the Network Chart this week.  A mere number 9.  I hear you can get into the top 3 with just 15,000 downloads these days.

----------


## gaza

> Well, what can I say, Gaza? If you seriously believe that there would have been no ill feelings, if the State had been asked to contribute even 2p, to police the streets of Britain, then
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				 you live in a dream world.
> 			
> 		
> 
> ...


It is up to you Ms SWANSON to believe what you read and are fed. its a free world, but as most of your posts and threads seem to turn into a dictators rant 
I fear you are blinkerd.

But please feel free to bombard and attack me on a personal level like the many others you have oppressed on this forum  

IT DONT BOVER ME   :Wink: 


PS... I said.... "no ill feelings to the cost".... NOT no ill feelings to MH

----------


## Flynn

> Bit of a poor showing for the Wizard of Oz song on the Network Chart this week.  A mere number 9.  I hear you can get into the top 3 with just 15,000 downloads these days.



It's at number two. Not bad, and 34 places higher in the chart than the song the Tories were trying to push to number one.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/singles

----------


## shazzap

> It's at number two. Not bad, and 34 places higher in the chart than the song the Tories were trying to push to number one.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/singles


  What were they hoping to get to number 1 Flynn

----------


## Flynn

> What were they hoping to get to number 1 Flynn



The Notsensibles. Funny thing about their song choice is the Notsensibles song is actually an 80s punk anti-Thatcher song. Tories, not a brain cell between them!  ::

----------


## gleeber

I remember the day Maggie got elected. I was talking to my neighbour about the results. I recall saying to him that something needed to be done about the unions and maybe Maggie would tackle it. He was an elderly bloke and I noticed a marked difference in his demeanor when I suggested it. When I implied he sounded like a communist his demeanor changed again and he said NO, I'm a Marxist.  :: 
He introduced me to Marxism and Thatcherism that day. They were both troublemakers and have caused trouble wherever they went. Hitler was another one but his vision was warped by prejudice.
I admired Maggie but I enjoyed her tears when she got the boot. It was odd and sad to see her frailty develop over the years but she was only human.
The row about her funeral is little more than interesting but it's going to generate good business for London on Wednesday.
I hope nothing serious happens.

----------


## shazzap

I will just be glad when it's all over, and not getting rammed down my throat 24/7. I cannot understand why some are so upset about her death or any other person in the lime light, as it's not as if they knew them personally. It's just mass hysteria.

----------


## Flynn

> I will just be glad when it's all over, and not getting rammed down my throat 24/7. I cannot understand why some are so upset about her death or any other person in the lime light, as it's not as if they knew them personally. It's just mass hysteria.


No, the mass hysteria happens next Wednesday when all those good little Tory North Koreans line the streets of London to worship the corpse of their deity.

----------


## squidge

> Doh! Firstly, MH didn't ask for a State funeral.


Doh yourself! I didnt expect she did. Her supporters make much of her origins as a grocers daughter. Well i rather think that as a grocers daughter she would be appalled at a waste of money as would her father I expect. The cheek lies with the government, this out of touch bunch of wealthy folk who have never had to worry about being theifty their whole lives and for whom spending 10 million on a funeral to use as a 3 hour long party political broadcast is ill judged, and extravagant.

----------


## Oddquine

> Doh! Firstly, MH didn't ask for a State funeral. I've no doubt, that as far as the actual funeral costs are concerned, it's coming out of her estate. Because you don't think it's fitting that she has a grand send-off, others do. You're also forgetting, that two years prior to MH passing away, plans had already been drawn up by Commies and anarchists. Regardless of what kind of funeral was decided, they were still organising a protest, that was bound to cost the taxpayer dearly. But if you see it that that's their right, (I'll withhold judgment until Wednesday), to incur that, then fine. It's coming out of the £8 million budgeted and I can't break my stride about 10p. 
> 
> We can always agree to differ.  That's what I'm settling for!


But she's not *getting* a State Funeral is she?   She knew fine there were degrees of pomp and ceremony in the UK around funerals from the State version downwards and just about everything else Parliament has a hand in...she was PM long enough to learn that...so saying no _State_ funeral implies she _did_ want some kind of recognition short of that. She *could * just have said she wanted the same acknowledgement for doing her job as all other PMs bar Churchill have had...a memorial service........couldn't she?  They are following her wishes re music ro be played at it.....so you really think if people _had_ thought for a second that no State funeral meant she wanted "just the same as everybody else who had occupied my job got when they died" we'd be having the conversation?

----------


## Phill

Breaking News: Thatcher still dead, City win, popular music charts gone tits up and it is understood LAB Ldr Mr Miliband needed painkillers during Wednesday's Commons debate on Baroness Thatcher. (#actuallols)

----------


## John Little

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/fu...f-lloyd-george

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,,1535846,00.html

----------


## Flynn

http://www.china.org.cn/opinion/2013...t_28487733.htm

 :Wink:

----------


## M Swanson

> Breaking News: Thatcher still dead, City win, popular music charts gone tits up and it is understood LAB Ldr Mr Miliband needed painkillers during Wednesday's Commons debate on Baroness Thatcher. (#actuallols)


 ::  Well, at least it's good news about City, Phill. You can't have everything.  ::

----------


## M Swanson

Where there is disrespect, let there be civility.
Where there is envy, let there be kindness.
Where there is hatred, let there be compassion.  ::

----------


## Oddquine

> Where there is disrespect, let there be civility.
> Where there is envy, let there be kindness.
> Where there is hatred, let there be compassion.


And your point is?  That you can come up with a parody of St Francis to which you don't adhere.....like the Leaderene never managed to live up to the original?

----------


## John Little

I see that the police are planning to arrest people before they've done anything...

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-ahead-1832813

----------


## shazzap

This action, will probably incite trouble. That was never going to happen.

----------


## Flynn

> I see that the police are planning to arrest people before they've done anything...
> 
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-ahead-1832813


As befits the funerals of all the best dictators.

----------


## M Swanson

> I see that the police are planning to arrest people before they've done anything...
> 
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-ahead-1832813


Very worrying indeed, John Little. Especially for those like me, who wish to pay their last respects, in a civilised way and without any thought of creating violent mayhem, or being on the wrong end of any.  

I suppose, that in view of many foreign dignatries attending the funeral, there is always the potential threat of terrorism, to be considered. Couple this with the arrival of foreign Communists and anarchists, and innocent people must be protected. Not an easy one!

Can anyone believe that we're discussing a funeral here? How far down has Britain sunk? Why use the death of anyone as an excuse to protest? They've had over 20 years to do that, whilst MH lived. Or, it could have been done after the funeral. Such bravehearts.

----------


## Oddquine

> I see that the police are planning to arrest people before they've done anything...
> 
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-ahead-1832813


Seems about right for the Establishment...........arrest those ordinary people distressed by the inappropriateness, hypocrisy, the waste of scarce resources etc, in order that they don't cause distress to the members of the Establishment.

----------


## M Swanson

The "Establishment," cannot be blamed for allocating resources to provide security for innocent, law-abiding folks, whilst upholding the Rule of Law. Strewth! It ain't rocket science. Doh!

----------


## John Little

This is Britain.  We are supposed to have Civil Liberties.

If people can be arrested for what they _might_ do then they are being arrested for what they think.

Terrorism is used to justify the erosion of our liberty.  

As Britons we are supposed to be better than that.  Above that. A Democracy.

If we are just another place where people may be held without trial, applauded by a section of society who are happy to connive at abuse of power because it suits their own particular view, then we have no messages to teach the world.  Nothing worth fighting for. Nothing to be proud of.

And people who approve of this cannot see that they have become what Britain does not stand for.

Our values turn to ash and being British is nothing to be proud of - merely a statement of Geography. 

A watered down tin-pot tyranny.

Is that what we have become?

----------


## golach

Why does she deserve a ceremonial funeral any way, Benjamin Disraeli was offered the honour of a state funeral, but refused it in his will. Florence Nightingale was also offered a state funeral, but her family opted for a private ceremony. Charles Darwin was honoured by a major funeral in Westminster Abbey, attended by state representatives, but this does not seem to have been a state funeral in the formal sense. Winston Churchhill was the only prime minister on record to have a state funeral, deservedly so,  so again I ask why is she getting a ceremonial funeral?

----------


## M Swanson

So, is such action by the police illegal, when there's a threat of terrorism. And if the answer's yes, who introduced the law, John Little?

----------


## John Little

To arrest people without charge is illegal.

If these people are detained in dawn raids, what will the charges be?

----------


## M Swanson

I've no idea, which is why I asked you?

Is detaining, whilst being investigated the same as being charged?

----------


## John Little

No.  You are entitled under British law to ask upon what charge you are being detained.  If no charge is given then in theory you can refuse to accompany the police.   The exception is Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures which the Police use to detain terrorists under investigation.

This is being challenged by Civil Liberty Groups who contend, rightly, that it contradicts the fundamental underpinning of UK Law - that a person is innocent until proven guilty.  TPIMs are also not in accord with the European Convention on Human Rights.  The announcement that the Convention was no longer to be upheld was made under Blair in 2001. (I don't like him either)

The Police have been using these anti-Terror powers against ordinary people rather too much as a catch all - tens of thousands of stoppings a year.  I myself was stopped on the M5 some years ago under these measures because the officer involved thought my car might be over-loaded (it was not).

To raid the homes of people at Dawn who have done nothing and detain them because of what they might do is contrary to custom, tradition and historical usage.  Defend it and you defend that which is unBritish, oppressive and arbitrary.

Please be very careful in how you answer.

----------


## shazzap

> The "Establishment," cannot be blamed for allocating resources to provide security for innocent, law-abiding folks, whilst upholding the Rule of Law. Strewth! It ain't rocket science. Doh!


 Are you Homer, masquerading as M Swanson.  :Wink:

----------


## M Swanson

Oh! Right! Thanks for the info, John Little. Of course, with so many foreign dignitries attending the funeral that would explain the terrorism element. I didn't realise Blair was responsible for it, but I'm not surprised. 

Thanks too for the words of caution.  I don't need them, but nevertheless it was thoughtful of you.  ::

----------


## mi16

> Why does she deserve a ceremonial funeral any way, Benjamin Disraeli was offered the honour of a state funeral, but refused it in his will. Florence Nightingale was also offered a state funeral, but her family opted for a private ceremony. Charles Darwin was honoured by a major funeral in Westminster Abbey, attended by state representatives, but this does not seem to have been a state funeral in the formal sense. Winston Churchhill was the only prime minister on record to have a state funeral, deservedly so, again I ask why her?


She is not having a state funeral

----------


## M Swanson

> Are you Homer, masquerading as M Swanson.


LOL. I've never watched The Simpsons, in my life, Shazza, but I answer to anything. 

Best wishes, Homer.  ::

----------


## Flynn

> She is not having a state funeral


The difference between a state funeral and a ceremonial funeral is minimal, and well you know it.

----------


## mi16

Doesnt change the fact that it is *NOT* a state funeral

----------


## Oddquine

> The "Establishment," cannot be blamed for allocating resources to provide security for innocent, law-abiding folks, whilst upholding the Rule of Law. Strewth! It ain't rocket science. Doh!


But they *can* be blamed for having less collective brain-power than an amoeba by having an inappropriate, tax-payer funded, funeral for a divisive PM who is still a bad word in most of the UK, outside the Home Counties, even twenty years after she was removed from power.  But then..without the pomp and ceremony...where would be the photo-ops and media coverage for the politicos, the "celebrities" and the wanna be celebrities......relatively few of whom really knew her, though they might just have met her........and the bread and circus type celebrations fed to the Thatcher groupies lining the route, with just maybe some photo-ops and media coverage for them as well.  There would be no *need* for pre-dawn raids, arrests "just in case" etc.....if there had simply been what every other PM since Churchill had...a memorial service after the event of a private funeral.

Really, what else did they expect in these cash-strapped times but a reaction? I hope that reaction is limited to turning their backs on the funeral cortege as it passes.......but that will likely depend on how ham-fistedly the police undertake their  security for innocent, law-abiding folks.............at least those innocent law-abiding folks they haven't arrested beforehand.

----------


## golach

> She is not having a state funeral


Edited!!!!

----------


## John Little

An edited State Funeral!

Golach - that's brilliant!

----------


## Flynn

> Doesnt change the fact that it is *NOT* a state funeral


Carried on a gun carriage, a services guard of honour, a parade through London, and PAID FOR BY THE TAXPAYER.

It's a state funeral.

----------


## mi16

> Carried on a gun carriage, a services guard of honour, a parade through London, and PAID FOR BY THE TAXPAYER.
> 
> It's a state funeral.


What will be pulling the gun carriage?
Was there a parlimentary vote?

----------


## Flynn

The bells of Big Ben are to be silenced for the funeral...


For whom the bell ends...

 ::

----------


## scorrie

The thread is a tennis match with the same balls being lobbed back and forth. Repeating your opinions time and again does not give them any more gravitas. Predictably, opinions are divided by those venting their dislike and those lionizing a fallen hero. The Daily Mail saw it necessary to devote the first twenty one pages of the issue which followed the announcement of her death, plus a twelve page pull out, which if nothing else, served to inform me that Maggie married Eric Morecambe at some point in her life. That is as over the top as the celebrations which took place. It is time to call it quits and let the funeral pass without incident. Other people, who cannot help the fact that they were related to a woman who divided a nation have a right to a peaceful and dignified ceremony. Time to move on after that and look to the future and how the country can be made a better place, rather than hark back to what happened years ago. Accept the fact that the system is flawed because, it doesn't matter who you vote for...the Government always get in.

On a personal note, I never liked the woman and I don't think it was a good period of British History. I must admit that, when I discovered that she was dead, I leapt into the air, landed doing the riverdance before breaking into the birdie dance and then moonwalking across the room singing Kool and The Gang's "Celebrate good times, come on, let's celebrate. The other people in the room were utterly disgusted. Looking back I accept that my reaction WAS unacceptable, particularly as I was the first Doctor to arrive with the ambulance  :Wink:

----------


## scorrie

> The bells of Big Ben are to be silenced for the funeral...
> 
> 
> For whom the bell ends...


It's likely there will be a good few bell ends there on the day  :Wink:

----------


## Flynn

Much greater leaders have had far humbler funerals:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22078727

Giving Thatcher a state funeral, forcibly funded by the people she hated, is an abomination.

----------


## billmoseley

gosh when did she die no one mentioned it  ::

----------


## Thumper

I may be thick,in fact at times I am the first to own up to that,but what I cannot understand is why on earth she gets full military honours? Dud she ever serve in action? IMO the only people who deserve full military honours are those who have served our country,putting their lives in the line in the call of duty,NOT an ex pm or even a current one! The world has gone mad spending this amount on a funeral,and for those who say she earned it.....tell that to someone who has lost a Mum,Dad,Son,Daughter,Wife etc that cannot afford to even pay for a decent funeral,and I think they would agree that this is Britain at its worst,honouring the dead with money,while punishing the living that have none x

----------


## mi16

> Much greater leaders have had far humbler funerals:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22078727Giving Thatcher a state funeral, forcibly funded by the people she hated, is an abomination.


It's fortunate she isn't getting a state funeral then

----------


## Oddquine

> What will be pulling the gun carriage?
> Was there a parlimentary vote?


And is that not just nit-picking?  If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck......it is a duck, even if 25% of it is a goose.

----------


## John Little



----------


## Phill

> The thread is a tennis match with the same balls being lobbed back and forth.


No it's not!

----------


## gaza

> No it's not!


Yes it is !

----------


## shazzap

He's behind you.

----------


## joxville

I wonder if she would have been afforded the same send off had Labour been in Government?

----------


## M Swanson

> I wonder if she would have been afforded the same send off had Labour been in Government?


Interesting question Jox. As the Labour Party have kept all the policies of MH and they're singing her praises, whilst pressing their clothes to attend her funeral, my guess would be YES.

----------


## Phill

> She's behind you.


I bliddy hope not!!


Fixed it!

----------


## Flynn

> I wonder if she would have been afforded the same send off had Labour been in Government?


Of course not. This whole thing is a Tory party political broadcast.

----------


## Flynn

Given this evening's bombings of the Boston marathon, I reckon Cameron's rectum must be twitching a bit for Wednesday.

----------


## Phill

He'll be fine, it's the punters of whatever political flavour lining the streets that need to worry!

----------


## scorrie

> Much greater leaders have had far humbler funerals:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22078727
> 
> Giving Thatcher a state funeral, forcibly funded by the people she hated, is an abomination.


Relax Flynn, I can exclusively reveal the latest rehearsal photo and confirm that plans have been scaled back completely due to public pressure. The entire procession is now being handled by Pablo's Cabs, rushed in from Mexico on a 500 Peso tender:-

----------


## Oddquine

> I wonder if she would have been afforded the same send off had Labour been in Government?


Probably...they are all children of Thatcher. They _have_ to be to be elected by English voters now.......the periphery countries in the UK, and the periphery counties in England have no real voice any more.  All they _ever_ had was the ability to nudge a close result in their direction.  It just illustrates the difference between the voting proclivities of London and the South East of England and the rest of the UK....even the much whined about in the past (from unwarranted prejudice)  "Scottish Labour Vote" isn't enough to counteract the "Me, Me, Me" crowd concentrated there in this day and age.  Elections in the UK have *nothing* to do with representation of the people and everything to do with politicians' career promotion prospects.........so forget the probably at the start of this.......NuLabour would definitely have made us pay for the same send off.

----------


## M Swanson

Yes, for once you write some sense, OQ. I agree with you.

Perhaps an independent Scotland would be the answer. Better the devil you don't know?

----------


## Oddquine

> Yes, for once you write some sense, OQ. I agree with you.
> 
> Perhaps an independent Scotland would be the answer. Better the devil you don't know?


Given the devil we do know...it couldn't be much worse...and might even be better...more chance maybe of a welfare state which doesn't hammer the poor and disadvantaged so the better off can stay better off and become even better off.  In either event, we will have chosen by ourselves for ourselves, not had our way of life dictated by voters in England. 

To be fair, it isn't the fault of the English _voters_....it never has been...it is the fault of a system set up to ensure England would always dominate Britain.....and none of the voters anywhere got a say in anything to do with the making of Great Britain in the first place.  If they had in 1707, there would have been no Union because most of the ordinary punters  on both sides of the border were against it.....but as much notice was taken of them then as Bliar did over the Iraq war nearly three centuries later.  Politicians never change.

----------


## Flynn

Oh dear, the tories just embarrass themselves again and again...

----------


## John Little

OQ.  The above post is cool for the most part- but this bit- "...it is the fault of a system set up to ensure England would always dominate Britain...."

From my reading I would substitute 'The Haves' for 'England' and assert that power does not follow sentiment - it follows the money.

----------


## Jockaholic

surprised some of you idiots havent blamed thatcher for boiston yet
shes dead and been out of the job for 20 years. get over yourselves

----------


## Oddquine

> OQ.  The above post is cool for the most part- but this bit- "...it is the fault of a system set up to ensure England would always dominate Britain...."
> 
> From my reading I would substitute 'The Haves' for 'England' and assert that power does not follow sentiment - it follows the money.


Unfortunately that is correct....though that was the way things were then....just, if we are honest, it is nowadays as well.  But that does not negate the fact that a few Scots were added into an English Parliament, changed in name only to pretend to be that of the Union, while continuing unchanged all the English traditions and with a majority English representation....so the system _was_ set up to ensure England would always dominate Britain.  

If you consider all the twaddle emanating from the UK Parliament, mainly via the media, regarding the position of Scotland and the rUK if there is a vote for Independence, the cynical would think that Westminster was repositioning the UK from a Union of four countries, in favour of viewing it as the enlargement of England (which is what most people have always thought anyway), so that the rUK alone becomes the successor state to the UK, much as Russia did on the break up of the USSR.  

So logically, if this _is_ the intention, and their effort succeeds...if we vote no, it will be tantamount to accepting that we are simply a region of England as one of its few remaining colonies.....and if we vote yes, we become a a brand new state..with a clean slate...we'd have to renegotiate treaties previously held by the UK, as they have already told us we would have to do, we'd have to negotiate to join the EU, the UN, etc....as we have also been told is the case by the UK....but what the UK has _not_ said is that if we _are_ viewed as a new state and the rUK is claiming to be the only successor to all the original UK negotiated treaties and obligations etc....we will _also_ not be able to claim a share of the current moveable assets of the UK.....and joy of joys.....wouldn't be obliged to take any share in UK liabilities, like the National Debt......though we could volunteer to make a donation out of the goodness of our hearts. 

To get us back to the topic...I would suggest, if the last situation pertains, we offer to make a donation to the National Debt commensurate to the donation made by the Thatcher Family to the not-really-a-state funeral.  :Grin:

----------


## Humerous Vegetable

> OQ. The above post is cool for the most part- but this bit- "...it is the fault of a system set up to ensure England would always dominate Britain...."
> 
> From my reading I would substitute 'The Haves' for 'England' and assert that power does not follow sentiment - it follows the money.



Of course it does, which makes the current funeral circus which is being forced upon us, so vile. The electorate on the "periphery" of the UK-ie; anybody not living in London and the home counties, is paying into a political philosophy which they have never supported, voted for or accepted. It's winding back the years to when only male property-owners got to vote on anything at all and when those in power took them for granted and didn't listen to dissenting voices opposing the _status quo._ 
This has been an excellent thread, which has drawn the e-maggots out of the festering wound that is the British political system, but at least some of us might now be aware of how much dead tissue they have been munching on over the years.

----------


## equusdriving

> Given the devil we do know...it couldn't be *much worse*...and *might* even be better


well, what wonderfull, shortsighted, selfish, blinkered, draconian, bigoted  and blinkered reasons to vote for Independence, far better than having any factual valid reasons!

----------


## Oddquine

> well, what wonderfull, shortsighted, selfish, blinkered, draconian, bigoted  and blinkered reasons to vote for Independence, far better than having any factual valid reasons!


Unionists are never happy....if I had said it would be much better and we'd all live happily ever after, you'd still have turned up to insult. There's no pleasing some people.  :: 

Here's a bargain...if you can come up with factual valid reasons for continuing with the Status Quo, then I will do the same for choosing Independence.....but on another thread..not this one.     I can find factual valid reasons for Independence....but I rather think your hunt will be more difficult.....as difficult as the UK politicians are finding it.  By the way.factual means facts.

Quoting a snippet of a post and responding to it as a stand alone statement is the mark of someone with nothing to say but the ability to snipe.

----------


## John Little

> Unionists are never happy....if I had said it would be much better and we'd all live happily ever after, you'd still have turned up to insult. There's no pleasing some people. 
> 
> Here's a bargain...if you can come up with factual valid reasons for continuing with the Status Quo, then I will do the same for choosing Independence.....but on another thread..not this one.     I can find factual valid reasons for Independence....but I rather think your hunt will be more difficult.....as difficult as the UK politicians are finding it.  By the way.factual means facts.
> 
> Quoting a snippet of a post and responding to it as a stand alone statement is the mark of someone with nothing to say but the ability to snipe.


I will not be taking part in such a thread or any others involving Scottish Independence whilst this government is in power.

I knew that the Union is far from perfect and that great constitutional change is needed, but the events of the last few days have had a very salutary effect on me.  The arbitrary use of power and privilege, the ridiculous charade about to be staged at our expense, and the implementation of savage cuts to people in need at the same time, are too marked a contrast to ignore. The stark refusal to regulate the banks properly, or to attack the problems of the economy and the cavalier trampings over civil liberties are not something I see as British, something to be proud of, and not something I approve of. 

It is one thing to disagree with the policies of a government which is the product of a first past the post system and in which more people voted Lib-Dem and Labour than did Tory, but to watch the implementation of such a right wing and monetarist agenda as we are seeing now is something I cannot ignore- it's an abuse of a dubious mandate and only possible by backroom deals between dodgy characters.

Whilst I am British and prefer to stay British, I find myself quite unable to speak up in favour of what is being done in our name by the UK government.

So until they go, I am neutral; I will not say another word for or against Scottish Independence because, quite frankly, if it happened right now, I could not blame them.

----------


## equusdriving

> if I had said it would be much better and we'd all live happily ever after, you'd still have turned up to insult.


 no, I would have asked you to back up your statement with facts!




> Here's a bargain...if you can come up with factual valid reasons for continuing with the Status Quo, then I will do the same for choosing Independence


 Wow what a marvelous marketing ploy, I can just see it now......IE .Asda say's come and shop with us instead  of Tescos, why? say the happy Tesco customers, no you tell us why not says Asda .....Doesn't really work like that does it? its normally the ones who want the change who has to do the convincing, im afraid! otherwise like Asda you will find that nothing will change!



> By the way.factual means facts


. Oh I see, that's why you could only come up with that poor excuse for a reason for Independence



> Quoting a snippet of a post and responding to it as a stand alone statement is the mark of someone with nothing to say but the ability to snipe


 or it could mean that life is too short to spend the time it would take, questioning every unfounded ridiculous statement,like the one I responded to!

----------


## Flynn

> It is one thing to disagree with the policies of a government which is the product of a first past the post system and in which more people voted Lib-Dem and Labour than did Tory, but to watch the implementation of such a right wing and monetarist agenda as we are seeing now is something I cannot ignore- it's an abuse of a dubious mandate and only possible by backroom deals between dodgy characters.


And let's not forget, that agenda is entirely unmandated.

----------


## John Little

> And let's not forget, that agenda is entirely unmandated.


Yes.

In the last election 10, 703654 people voted Conservative.
8,606517 voted Labour

And 6.8 million voted Lib Dem.

So 15,446765 people did not vote for these policies.

As a life-long Liberal I tell you you have to be committed to vote for them because they have always been the third party. Liberals do not 'do' Conservatism- that's why they are Liberals.

You have to question a 'mandate' where a group of people from one party can do the sort of deal with a group from another party which is so radically different from their own party programme.  When you implement such a radical programme, if you pretend to Democracy then you need an unquestionable mandate.

Next time it's a two horse race.  I do not think people will make the same mistake twice.

At any rate it is indefensible as a form of government and survives because of vested interests.

----------


## Anfield

> I wonder if she would have been afforded the same send off had Labour been in Government?


I think that under Blair/Miliband that she would have been given a full bells and whistles send off.  Don't forget that Miliband spoke up about her in Commons last week, A traitor to the Labour Party.

It is times like this I miss not being in Liverpool. Anyone know of any parties taking place tomorrow in Caithness/Sutherland?

----------


## Phill

> Next time it's a two horse race


No! It's a two headed, one horse race.
We now have a fully fledged political class drawn from multi millionaire, public school educated backgrounds all doing their own deals in the background, even with each other.
They are simply all on a power trip and do not have any interest nor connection to the masses. In some respects Thatcher may have been the last PM with any conviction.
What we have now is a bunch of empty headed yahoos who just happen to wear different colour ties.

If we lurch from this ConDem bunch to a Labour bunch do you really see any prospects? Same with Salmond and the SNP, they care not of an independent Scotland but of power. Even if only enough to give them the glory they desire. All the politicos we have now will sell everything for a shot in 'power'.

Not a single one of them looks any further than the next ballot box.

----------


## John Little

Phill - that's about as sane an analysis of the situation as I have ever read.

Any suggestions as to what to do next?   :Frown:

----------


## Rheghead

John Thurso seems to have pinned his colours to the mast by saying that £10 million for the funeral is totally appropriate.

----------


## M Swanson

Yes, I couldn't agree more. This is such an insightful post, so eloquently put by Phill.

But I must ask, John, where have you been for the last decade and then some? Don't you remember when huge cracks first appeared in the mindset of people who were genuinely interested in politics and the state of our nation? So many, (of which I include myself), were desperately searching for somewhere to hang our political dreams and aspirations. It prompted the 'None of the Above' Campaign. Is it small wonder that folks have deserted the ballot box in their droves?

I agree with Phill, that Mrs Thatcher was the last politician who was fired by conviction. She may not always have got things right, (nobody ever has), but at least people knew that she would fight tooth and nail for what she believed was good for Britain. Doesn't this tend to be proven, by the unlikely result of Major being elected upon her removal?  The people had confidence in the policies of MH. He was never going to fill her shoes, but even then, perhaps voters couldn't see a viable alternative. Enter Blair with his thinly diluted Conservatism.

As for Independence for Scotland, I have come a long way towards deciding my opinion on that one, since joining the Org. If the Scots can improve their lot by going it alone, then perhaps they should. The same applies to England, although they'll have no say in the matter, at this stage. Maybe we have held each other back long enough and it's time we were free to shape our own destinies? Although I do have some foreboding for Scotland.

Anyway, I hope Phill returns with suggestions. I've been seeking them for years and drawn a blank. Over to you Phill. We're all in your corner.  :Wink:

----------


## Phill

> Any suggestions as to what to do next?





> Anyway, I hope Phill returns with suggestions.


The Trebuchet Party?

----------


## John Little

Has to be. 

 No alternative.

http://thetrebuchetparty.wordpress.com/2010/01/

----------


## Oddquine

> Has to be. 
> 
>  No alternative.
> 
> http://thetrebuchetparty.wordpress.com/2010/01/


And that  is the whole problem with the UK electoral system...it is, as the USA one, based on ours is, a black and white system in a world where there are shades of grey never acknowledged.  I checked out the above link....and for a UK political party, they appear, manifesto-wise, to be the equivalent of any other single issue party which turns up in elections, so are not any kind of candidate for Government......and that is the rub........as long as the UK has FPTP......we are well and truly shafted.....and that is precisely why both Tory and NuLabour came out against any version of PR...because they knew it would weaken their power-base. 

How is it democracy when you *know* ahead of putting your cross on the ballot box that if you don't vote Tory or Nulabour, that you have most probably wasted your vote?  Democracy should _not_ be defined as voting for the lesser of two evils, it should be defined as voting for the party you prefer and letting the highly paid politicians cobble together a representative Government via compromise..one representative of the aspirations of the majority of the population.  The current Coalition is* not* representative of the UK majority.......a Tory/NuLabour Coalition would have been.......but it appears that the good of the country has been subsumed by the reluctance of both the main parties to talk to each other and compromise...so do they really care less for the good of the UK than they do for their own position within the UK?  It certainly looks like that.

An adversarial system might have worked when the franchise was limited to those and such and those and the general population had to put up with it because they had no other option.......but universal suffrage has illustrated its deficiencies, but unfortunately, that means, given the way what passes for democracy in the UK works, we require the turkeys to vote for Christmas..and they have shown with their opposition to the AVC vote that isn't going to happen.

----------


## joxville

Whooooosh...

----------


## ducati

Some people would never be happy.  :: 

Anyway, Maggie's day today. I can't have the day off, too much on, but I will have a few moments of quiet contemplation. Lets hope not too many numpties make fools of themselves and the police don't need to help too many people down the stairs.

And when we return to normal tomorrow, we will find that democracy as we know it is still alive and kicking.

----------


## macadamia

Amen to that!

----------


## Flynn

Dennis Skinner puts it best:

----------


## John Little

Seumas Milne in the Guardian.  Quite an article.   

http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfre...ut-thatcherism

----------


## Phill

> And that  is the whole problem with the UK electoral system...it is, as the USA one, based on ours is, a black and white system in a world where there are shades of grey never acknowledged.  I checked out the above link....and for a UK political party, they appear, manifesto-wise, to be the equivalent of any other single issue party which turns up in elections,


They've been around a while and not just a single issue party, quite different I thought: http://thetrebuchetparty.wordpress.com/manifesto/

----------


## ducati

> Dennis Skinner puts it best:


No 'e doesn't, I've spent 40 years not listening to that idiot I'm not going to start now.  ::

----------


## Flynn

> I've spent 40 years not listening, I'm not going to start now.


Fixed that for you.

----------


## John Little

Tell you what though - I don't think I'd like to be in Central London today.  The thought that some guy with a high powered rifle was scanning me through a scope would make me feel rather uneasy.

----------


## RecQuery

Noticed there were bunch of people camping overnight to get 'good spots'. One assumes that all these people who slept overnight to get a good spot could do so because Thatcher got rid of their jobs. Still glad to see the royal family finally profess the political stance we always knew they held.

----------


## Phill

> Still glad to see the royal family finally profess the political stance we always knew they held.


It might just be Queenie getting sentimental about Girl Power!

----------


## RecQuery

> ...Lets hope not too many numpties make fools of themselves and the police don't need to help too many people down the stairs.


It's the casual nature with which you say things like this; it doesn't seem like a joke, but rather a deep seated opinion. Yes, let's advocated police brutality. One can only hope you experience what you claim to want.

I imagine your kind saying such things about all protests throughout history though and I'm mildly pleased how that's turned out.




> ...we will find that democracy as we know it is still alive and kicking...


No it won't. Authoritarian regimes and dictators don't just spring up overnight, they work under the auspices of their time before rising. It amazes when people make statements like this as they're obviously burying their heads in the sand.

Former freedoms and separations are being constantly eroded, this Thatcher funeral is just another one but eventually they'll all add up.

Looking forward to the usual responses to most posts from the same three to five people - assuming no sock puppets:

Ignore it.Make some childish and feeble attempt to retort that pretty much amounts to: "No you are" or "I know you are but what am I".Some clutching attempt at humour to avoid having to answer or reply properly.

----------


## Phill

> Some clutching attempt at humour to avoid having to answer or reply properly.


I rather liked this one off of the twitter: Who'd have thought the Spitting Image reunion would be so expensive?

----------


## Phill

> Authoritarian regimes and dictators don't just spring up overnight, they work under the auspices of their time before rising. It amazes when people make statements like this as they're obviously burying their heads in the sand.
> 
> Former freedoms and separations are being constantly eroded, this Thatcher funeral is just another one but eventually they'll all add up.
> 
> Looking forward to the usual responses to most posts from the same three to five people - assuming no sock puppets:


You are quite right, our freedoms have been eroded and no more so than in the last couple of decades when we have been helping our merkin cousins deliver 'democracy' by way of military intervention.

But, to get some reasonable grasp on this, it has not been a Party Political development. The divide and conquer routine has been playing out whilst the Red & Blue factions of the masses have been calling each other a commie or capitalist pig, the 'THEY / THEM' in the background have been chipping away.
Many of the laws and regulations in use to 'police' Thatchers funeral / 'Tory party knees up' today were introduced during the previous labour govt's, not exclusively but many. 

The manipulation of democracy is plain to see, but why don't many people see or believe?

Today's event is just more smoke and mirrors. Everyone is getting worked up over this magical £10m figure. Seriously, in the grand scheme of UK finances what is £10m?? Break it down, most of it is for security. Even if she wasn't accorded a 'ceremonial' funeral but a more low key send off the bill will still be pretty high. Don't forget MetPol are working up to the Marathon also, how much is to be cross charged / joined into that?
And I am damn sure Davey & Co are finding ways to massage that figure down.

Today's event is a grand opportunity to highlight many things about UK democracy, but not a ConLab pishing competition.

----------


## ducati

> It's the casual nature with which you say things like this; it doesn't seem like a joke, but rather a deep seated opinion. Yes, let's advocated police brutality. One can only hope you experience what you claim to want.
> 
> I imagine your kind saying such things about all protests throughout history though and I'm mildly pleased how that's turned out.
> 
> 
> 
> No it won't. Authoritarian regimes and dictators don't just spring up overnight, they work under the auspices of their time before rising. It amazes when people make statements like this as they're obviously burying their heads in the sand.
> 
> Former freedoms and separations are being constantly eroded, this Thatcher funeral is just another one but eventually they'll all add up.
> ...


How about this; you are completely wrong in everything you say. I imagine people like you spend your entire life looking at the internet seeing what other people are worring about. The vast, vast majority of authoritarian regimes around the world currently and in the past have arrived through cataclismic change. It is people like me, reasonably comfortable with the way things are, that protect what we want. It is people like you, never happy, moaning about everything, that are much more likely to be the danger. IMO of course.

----------


## RecQuery

> How about this; you are completely wrong in everything you say. I imagine people like you spend your entire life looking at the internet seeing what other people are worring about. The vast, vast majority of authoritarian regimes around the world currently and in the past have arrived through cataclismic change. It is people like me, reasonably comfortable with the way things are, that protect what we want. It is people like you, never happy, moaning about everything, that are much more likely to be the danger. IMO of course.


So just a standard your wrong and I'm right, about par for this board and you I'd say.

----------


## RecQuery

> You are quite right, our freedoms have been eroded and no more so than in the last couple of decades when we have been helping our merkin cousins deliver 'democracy' by way of military intervention.
> 
> But, to get some reasonable grasp on this, it has not been a Party Political development. The divide and conquer routine has been playing out whilst the Red & Blue factions of the masses have been calling each other a commie or capitalist pig, the 'THEY / THEM' in the background have been chipping away.
> Many of the laws and regulations in use to 'police' Thatchers funeral / 'Tory party knees up' today were introduced during the previous labour govt's, not exclusively but many. 
> 
> The manipulation of democracy is plain to see, but why don't many people see or believe?
> 
> Today's event is just more smoke and mirrors. Everyone is getting worked up over this magical £10m figure. Seriously, in the grand scheme of UK finances what is £10m?? Break it down, most of it is for security. Even if she wasn't accorded a 'ceremonial' funeral but a more low key send off the bill will still be pretty high. Don't forget MetPol are working up to the Marathon also, how much is to be cross charged / joined into that?
> And I am damn sure Davey & Co are finding ways to massage that figure down.
> ...


Just as an aside some things that the £10m could be spent on... actually I think the total cost with security and disruption etc is probably £15m but as the government says a million here a million there sooner or later it adds up to real money.

Anyway things that could be spent on:

322 nurses
272 secondary school teachers
320 fire officers
269 paramedics
Four months' worth of the 'official' state's contribution to the Monarchy
7,042 households' electricity and gas bills
25,773 households' annual water bills
44 libraries
177,777 jobseekers' allowance claimants
1,199 students' annual tuition fees
10 days of arts spending
Two and a half Leveson Inquiries
152 MPs' basic salaries
16,949,152 pints of milk - enough to give everyone in London two pints each (could even put Thatcher's face on the side).
60% of a single Trident missile
400 black Asprey 'Margaret Thatcher' handbags
6,079 duck houses for MPs claiming on expenses
11,111 public health funerals

Curiously the Westminster government seems quite happy to penny pinch the millions for stuff they don't like but are strangely quiet over this.

----------


## ducati

> So just a standard your wrong and I'm right, about par for this board and you I'd say.


Terribly sorry to give an inapropriate reply.  What the hell do you want?  ::

----------


## cptdodger

> My sister in law lives near Boston and my nephew and nice were at the marathon spectating. Instead of a phone call or any kind of personal message, she updated her facebook page to let us know they were OK!


Thank goodness they are okay ducati, it was horrific enough watching it, never mind having family there.

----------


## RecQuery

> I'll tell you what is ruining our way of life, the bloody internet.
> 
> My sister in law lives near Boston and my nephew and nice were at the marathon spectating. Instead of a phone call or any kind of personal message, she updated her facebook page to let us know they were OK!


Perhaps the local exchanges and cell networks were flooded with calls and so unusable.

----------


## Phill

> Anyway things that could be spent on:


But that's not my point. 322 nurse haven't been sacked to pay for this.
Everyone is up in arms about a magical figure as if it has just been taken from them.

This funeral has been in planning since 2006 apparently and no doubt Whitehall has had an assigned budget regardless of who was in power, do you think it would have been cheaper if Brown was PM?

But it is diverting attention from the issues this country faces: How have we allowed this govt to implement bedroom tax?
How do we continually allow government procurement to pish £BILLIONs up the wall annually?
Randomly the arts council have just pished £500,000 up the wall trying to make steam (and failed)!

MP's expenses are £90m annually! Now, how many Nurses, pints of milk and paramedics will that buy?

And on a side note, out of this £10m, how much is going on costs that would not be coming out of some other budget?
The coppers will still have to be paid, the forces present will still have to be paid, various security details will still have to be paid. Just that every department involved will be raping this budget to offset their normal operating budget for the rest of the year.

Smoke & mirrors!

----------


## Phill

⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬

----------


## golach

At last the circus is over

----------


## ducati

Anyone watch the Funeral? How clever of the BBC to edit out all the thousands of protesters. Perhaps they will come out tonight when there is more chance of a free telly?  ::

----------


## Oddquine

> ⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬⁬


As I said......just another political/celebrity  photo opportunity.

----------


## Oddquine

> At last the circus is over


No it isn't. M Swanson won't be back at her computer yet. Nothing is over till the fat lady sings!

----------


## John Little

> At last the circus is over


. Hear hear!

----------


## RecQuery

> But that's not my point. 322 nurse haven't been sacked to pay for this.
> Everyone is up in arms about a magical figure as if it has just been taken from them.
> 
> This funeral has been in planning since 2006 apparently and no doubt Whitehall has had an assigned budget regardless of who was in power, do you think it would have been cheaper if Brown was PM?
> 
> But it is diverting attention from the issues this country faces: How have we allowed this govt to implement bedroom tax?
> How do we continually allow government procurement to pish £BILLIONs up the wall annually?
> Randomly the arts council have just pished £500,000 up the wall trying to make steam (and failed)!
> 
> ...


Except the price/budget for it back then was £2-3m - http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-polit...hatcher-labour

----------


## cptdodger

> As I said......just another political/celebrity  photo opportunity.


Dear me, that woman sitting behind David Cameron's wife does not look impressed - at all !

----------


## RecQuery

> Anyone watch the Funeral? How clever of the BBC to edit out all the thousands of protesters. Perhaps they will come out tonight when there is more chance of a free telly?


I suspect the jack booted thugs have taken them in to custody for 'their own safety'. We probably won't hear about the extent for another few days, then a token police complaint, then the authorities will say they'll never do it again and then they will.

----------


## RecQuery

George Osborne is crying because he's just realised he's more  responsible for ruining the UK economy than anyone else alive. Either  that or the Onion he brought along with him is a bit too strong.

----------


## Flynn



----------


## Phill

> 


 ::  ::

----------


## macadamia

"And there's another country"......


 Well done, Great Britain. You did well today.


 Highlights - BBC coverage, setting, music, military, pageantry, belief, readings (top marks to grand-daughter) and the magnificent address - Bishop Chartres, you have a brain the size of your heart, and both are massive!

 Lowlights - BBC post-natal attempts to inject balance by searching for the Usual Suspects. BBC actually finding a coven of Usuals chanting "Fatcher Fatcher Fatcher dead dead dead" - a winning argument, judging by the expressions of the majority. Luckily, few, far between, and inarticulate. They don't go much beyond the sad and sorry slogans carried by the few who bothered to get off their bums.


 Nice warm feeling. UK, you did her proud!

----------


## Phill

> Except the price/budget for it back then was £2-3m - http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-polit...hatcher-labour


Inflation I guess! How did you calculate the additional £5m you expect it to cost?

But what about MP's expenses? £90M annually and rising by 26%pa. Shouldn't we be more concerned about that?

----------


## rob murray

> 


Great likeness !! Especially Osbourne

----------


## macadamia

Norman Twit, Chief BBC Spin Doctor (News Abteilung) is now complaining that because Lady Thatcher's funeral went so well (curses!!!), she has now been elevated into a suprapolitical position where her legacy will be difficult to attack. Ye Gods - talk about squeezing the empty blackhead! It's soooooo unfair!

----------


## mi16

I have been busy all day and not managed to see any of the coverage.
Did anarchy commence on the streets of London as predicted with tens of thousands of protestors, or was all peaceful.

----------


## macadamia

Neither tumbrils nor tumbleweed - a cast of thousands, mainly applauding respectfully. A few "Usual Suspects". No violence. Brilliant service. Big upset for the anti brigade!

----------


## Flynn

> No it isn't. M Swanson won't be back at her computer yet. Nothing is over till the fat lady sings!


It isn't over 'til the iron lady singes.

----------


## rob murray

> It isn't over 'til the iron lady singes.


Jeezo I thought M Swanson was a bloke ???

----------


## tonkatojo

> It isn't over 'til the iron lady singes.


Aye but "the lady's not returning".

----------


## cptdodger

> A few "Usual Suspects". No violence. Brilliant service. Big upset for the anti brigade!


I was against a "ceremonial" funeral for Margaret Thatcher. So, I take it, in your opinion I should be upset because the funeral did not descend into violence? I'm sorry to disappoint you, but that just does not upset me.  I have said all along, the family should have had a private funeral for her, then at a later date a memorial service. In this economical climate, that would have been more fitting. When this funeral was planned, the country was not facing the possibility of a triple dip recession. 

On a personal note, the last thing I would want when it comes to burying my parents, is cameras trained on me or my family, on what must be one of the worst days of your life.

----------


## Flynn

New Ebay listing: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/330909292355

----------


## M Swanson

Well, all things considered, the day went very well. We arrived at St. Paul's very early and bagged a space by the railings, near to the overnight stayers. I don't think anyone can do ceremonials like the British and today was no exception. We were packed in tight, but were able to get a birds-eye view of the official mourners and the gun carriage carrying Mrs Thatcher. Everything went so smoothly and we were able to pay our final respects without incident. There was only two, well-behaved protesters near us and they did not spoil the occasion for us, at all. It was a relief that nobody was hurt and there was no ugly scenes that we witnessed. 

My DIL videoed the service, which I'll watch at my leisure tomorrow. There's so much you miss, when being a spectator, but the procession was something I shan't forget. So glad I went.

----------


## Phill

So glad your safe, was worried MPS had taken you and the Swanson 28 into custody for 'your own protection'.

----------


## JimH

> Dennis Skinner puts it best:


What makes this more incredible is he actually believes this crap

----------


## golach

> What makes this more incredible is he actually believes this crap


That man is a fool, always has been

----------


## Oddquine

> New Ebay listing: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/330909292355


ROFLMAO! Maggie would have been proud of people making money from her death.....and we all know there _are_ Maggie groupies who would  possibly buy that
 lie, because it confirms their opinion  of her accession to the deity....the sign could be an  Osborne tear shows he gives a toss about anyone but himself!  Thatcher groupies thick or what?

Have to say most of those against her wouldn't *be* so polarised in our responses, if those *for* her weren't so polarised themselves, vociferous(and frankly insulting, M Swanson) in their deification of her  because she didn't shaft *their* lives and they *absolutely* don't care about the lives of anybody else but themselves.....so she is their god.  At which stage did _they, the selfish_ I was better off personally because of Thatcher ,people become the whole UK and entitled to tell all of us that Thatcher is God, out of interest.....and into the bargain _continue_ saying it ad nauseam  in the hope it will wear us down? 

Wouldn't really have as much of a problem if *any* of them at *any* stage had said she made mistakes, cocked-up,  shafted people, chucked people on the dole to enable her to trash the Unions.....but no....she did_ no_ wrong....because she did what those who didn't have to worry about the effect on them applauded ....and the people she shafted are what has become the part of the UK her groupies *don't* like now..the unemployed, the disabled  etc...the underclass daemonised by politicians and those irrational people who think politicians have even a collective brain with which to bless themselves..or us! You just have to read M Swanson's posts to understand that mindset.

----------


## macadamia

It's clowns like Galloway, Skinner and Sheridan who guarantee repeated returns of the harder kind of politician, with a strategy and a brain,who can reduce them into yapping little petulant chihuahuas. They keep up a level of noise, but nobody really cares, apart from those who embrace victimhood. (And I don't mean GENUINE victims, just those who embrace the tag, like the Geordie who "can't walk upstairs", but has enough oomph to go  out on the lash and punch a copper's neddy on the nose!)

Notice BBC Scotland on its late evening bulletin was forced out of embarrassment to drop the "Sheridan blasts Thatcher" speech from the centre of Glasgow. Not enough crowd there!

Notice total absence of Scargill. He's not sulking, is he? Or is he a bit worried about his accounts being examined, brother?

I think, by and large it was a good day for UK plc.

----------


## Oddquine

> "And there's another country"......
> 
> 
>  Well done, Great Britain. You did well today.
> 
> 
>  Highlights - BBC coverage, setting, music, military, pageantry, belief, readings (top marks to grand-daughter) and the magnificent address - Bishop Chartres, you have a brain the size of your heart, and both are massive!
> 
>  Lowlights - BBC post-natal attempts to inject balance by searching for the Usual Suspects. BBC actually finding a coven of Usuals chanting "Fatcher Fatcher Fatcher dead dead dead" - a winning argument, judging by the expressions of the majority. Luckily, few, far between, and inarticulate. They don't go much beyond the sad and sorry slogans carried by the few who bothered to get off their bums.
> ...


Why am I not at all surprised that you assume that those of us shafted by Thatcher from all over the UK  could *afford* to make London to turn their backs on her legacy at her funeral....and further assume it means we are _not_ incensed?   The London deification of Thatcher only worked because she made damn sure there wouldn't be enough folk outside London and the South East who could _afford_ to pay the travel expenses *TO* protest on her privatised trains. You are lucky you appear in the minority whose life, or whose kids', and grandkids' lives weren't trashed by Thatcher directly....or by the continuation of Thatcherism to this present day. Lots of us were and are not as lucky...and your superciliousness and that of M Swanson does your idol  no good at all if you are trying to rehabilitate her memory for the future.

----------


## macadamia

Her memory is assured. I was on the scrap heap for a while, decided it wasn't a good thing to do, tried again and got a bit better. Just an ordinary bloke. But I admire real fighters, not just belligerents.

----------


## Oddquine

> Her memory is assured. I was on the scrap heap for a while, decided it wasn't a good thing to do, tried again and got a bit better. Just an ordinary bloke. But I admire real fighters, not just belligerents.


Thatcher never affected me directly bar by her emasculating of the Unions and the ignoring of the option to alter that emasculating by her skirtless, handbagless dopelganger Bliar...but I saw the effect of her policies on my community, and my country, (which has never been the UK, as far as I'm concerned although she was as damaging everywhere in the rest of the UK as she was in Scotland). 

 I am glad you managed to survive and improve your lot...perhaps you had a bike and could get on it, unfortunately not everybody had or could...but I really fail to understand the mindset of people who landed lucky.....and in the days of Thatcher, that was just about the only way you could get a job if you came from  the working classes she chucked onto the dole, if you were without educational (paid for by the taxpayer) or some other qualifications. 

Then, as now, there was more unemployed than jobs......why else do you think she massaged the unemployment figures by encouraging people to claim incapacity benefit rather than appear on the statistics....and largely presented us with the situation we have now, due to that policy being continued by NuLabour under Bliar until the mid 2000s?  Even George  Osborne is aware of that legacy of hers as he condemned the way her government placed thousands of unemployed people on disability benefits as "_quick-fix politics of the worst kind_".

She did conviction politics to be sure....but her conviction was that she was right and faultless, and what she was doing would benefit capitalism and big business......and _not_ that it was the best way for the whole population....because trickle down economics just doesn't work. It doesn't in the USA and it doesn't here.

----------


## Flynn

> "And there's another country"......
> 
> 
>  Well done, Great Britain. You did well today.
> 
> 
>  Highlights - BBC coverage, setting, music, military, pageantry, belief, readings (top marks to grand-daughter) and the magnificent address - Bishop Chartres, you have a brain the size of your heart, and both are massive!
> 
>  Lowlights - BBC post-natal attempts to inject balance by searching for the Usual Suspects. BBC actually finding a coven of Usuals chanting "Fatcher Fatcher Fatcher dead dead dead" - a winning argument, judging by the expressions of the majority. Luckily, few, far between, and inarticulate. They don't go much beyond the sad and sorry slogans carried by the few who bothered to get off their bums.
> ...


Why do you think anyone who saw Thatcher for what she really was would want to attend a tory propaganda event? The way I see it, a few thousand Thatcher worshippers lined the route, while roughly 65 million stayed away.

Funny thing, if she was so 'loved and respected' why the miles of steel barricades, over 4,000 police lining the route, and rooftop snipers? That's not the funeral of a 'loved and respected' leader, that's the funeral of a hated despot.

----------


## mi16

> Why do you think anyone who saw Thatcher for what she really was would want to attend a tory propaganda event? The way I see it, a few thousand Thatcher worshippers lined the route, while roughly 65 million stayed away.
> 
> Funny thing, if she was so 'loved and respected' why the miles of steel barricades, over 4,000 police lining the route, and rooftop snipers? That's not the funeral of a 'loved and respected' leader, that's the funeral of a hated despot.


Was the London Olympics a hated event then?

----------


## macadamia

The Olympics fits the "usual" matrix -  the best commercial showcase for Great Britain ever, orchestrated by an Oscar Winner in the shape of Danny Boyle, masterminded by one of the athletic greats of all time, Sebastian Coe, the best multiracial coming together for the whole world to celebrate effort, stamina, hard work and success - and even a parallel event celebrating the skills of those who could not compete in the main Olympics because of disability. Brought pleasure and good feelings across the world, and united us a little further as the great human race......

OR

Rubbing the noses of those who aren't good enough to compete in a pointless circus of demeaning effort, such as running in circles, placing bladders in nets, throwing sticks, lifting lumps of metal - only a few thousand fascistly permitted to take part while billions of others attempt to scrape a living out of the dust. Thousands having to pay vast sums to view this state spectacle of gross overexpenditure, whilst millions more are disenfranchised because they live in Chad, Upper Volta, or Baluchistan. A racist slap in the face to further underline the difference between the athletic haves and have nots. Rubbing the faces of slow people, like me, into the mud, as the privileged few, permitted only by years of EFFORT, TALENT, STAMINA and TRAINING are allowed to beat others to show their so called superiority. oooh, I feel better now after that trip on the Outrage Bus! Ban the divisive Olympics!

Don't be silly.

----------


## mi16

Hmm, not sure I understand your point.
My point was that the London Olympics seen the streets full of security, strrets fence lined and defences mounted on rooftop. Does that make the Olympics a hated event?

----------


## macadamia

Sorry, bit confusing. I was agreeing with you re the security side, but adding my own gloss that there are two ways of looking at major events - and you can easily bend the Olympics to suit a negativist agenda! Of course the Olympics is a splendid event, but its whole raison d'etre lies in a positive divisiveness embedded in human nature - winners and losers! David Weir - the Weirwolf, blasting his way to wheelchair gold is a far better example of a human being than a drunk layabout punching a police horse. Fact.

----------


## M Swanson

> So glad your safe, was worried MPS had taken you and the Swanson 28 into custody for 'your own protection'.


LOL Awwww! Thanks for your concern Phill, but all went amazingly well and the Swanson 34 didn't need protecting from anybody. Not that that prospect phased us. We're British!  ::

----------


## M Swanson

I read that the reported cost of MH's funeral is being disputed. It'll be interesting to read the published breakdown of the figures. After all, if our Forces, police and street cleaners, weren't assigned yesterday's duties, then they'd still be being paid their salary for working somewhere else. Maybe some overtime would have been incurred, but £10 million seems excessive. Does anyone know who first mentioned this amount? That answer would be interesting too. There's so much propaganda around that it's difficult to trust anything presented as facts, these days.

----------


## RecQuery

Pictures of the huge crowds at Thatcher's funeral, as a nation mourns. You know the actual crowds. The ones that weren't stage managed.


http://i.imgur.com/143y6wo.jpg


http://i.imgur.com/dZoUkkg.jpg

----------


## macadamia

It was really amazing how the right wing BBC managed to bribe all those cheering and clapping extras on to the main parts of the route to "display" their affection for Fatcher. Beautifully stage managed, It's very difficult to place all those people over a two mile route, and train them to give positive answers about the Iron Lady. Talk about parallel universes! And as for forcing 2300 people into St Paul's Cathedral! Well done, BBC and the establishment.

----------


## ducati

> Pictures of the huge crowds at Thatcher's funeral, as a nation mourns. You know the actual crowds. The ones that weren't stage managed.
> 
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/143y6wo.jpg
> 
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/dZoUkkg.jpg


Actually, I'm in the second picture. I only went to complain about the noise.  ::

----------


## Phill

> propaganda


 


> why the miles of steel barricades, over 4,000 police lining the route, and rooftop snipers? That's not the funeral of a 'loved and respected' leader, that's the funeral of a hated despot.





> Pictures of the huge crowds at Thatcher's funeral, as a nation mourns. You know the actual crowds. The ones that weren't stage managed.
> 
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/143y6wo.jpg


Isn't it?

Lets jump and down about propaganda and then hypocritically do the same.

----------


## neilsermk1

I will never forgive MHT for giving that numpty Tommy Sheridan a political platform

----------


## Phill

The Trebuchet Party appears to be getting support from the Thatcherite's and the Commie's.

http://thetrebuchetparty.wordpress.com/follow-us/

----------


## Flynn

> The Trebuchet Party appears to be getting support from the Thatcherite's and the Commie's.
> 
> http://thetrebuchetparty.wordpress.com/follow-us/


I see my name is being taken in vain.

----------


## M Swanson

> The Trebuchet Party appears to be getting support from the Thatcherite's and the Commie's.
> 
> http://thetrebuchetparty.wordpress.com/follow-us/





> I see my name is being taken in vain.


Yes, I believe it is, Flynn. As your name is linked to mine, (M Swanson), which in turn are both linked to the Org and both appear in the site -thetrebuchetparty.wordpress.com/follow-us, which has twice been linked to this thread by Phill, then it begs the question - Are the comments appearing in 'thetrebuchetparty,' of your making, Phill?

----------


## Phill

> Are the comments appearing in 'thetrebuchetparty,' of your making, Phill?


I can assure you they are not mine. I just assumed they were signs of support and a rallying call!!

----------


## Flynn

Don't worry about it Phill, I'm really not bothered by it.

----------


## ducati

So, did democracy end? I feel just the same but I may have missed it.

----------

