Thread: Thatcher died Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025636

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
Hi folks,

As I'd derail a Purgatorial thread - but I wanted to say this re Thatcher dying...

DING DONG THE BITCH IS DEAD!!!!
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
My husband just sang "Hey ho the wicked witch is dead" - in fact he's still singing it.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
Hi folks,

As I'd derail a Purgatorial thread - but I wanted to say this re Thatcher dying...

DING DONG THE BITCH IS DEAD!!!!

Stay classy, Alex...
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
The posts from Boogie and Alex Cockell are offensive.

Whatever your opinion of Margaret Thatcher's governments, a woman has just died and she will be mourned by her family and friends.

For people on a site such as SoF to make these responses is uncharitable and unChristian.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The posts from Boogie and Alex Cockell are offensive.

Whatever your opinion of Margaret Thatcher's governments, a woman has just died and she will be mourned by her family and friends.

For people on a site such as SoF to make these responses is uncharitable and unChristian.

Yep, I agree.

I have always felt uncharitable and unchristian towards Thatcher.

I have surprised myself that I'm not singing and dancing, even 'tho I smiled at my husband doing so. I have no personal wish to sing or dance, just to reflect on how much better this country could have been ...
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The posts from Boogie and Alex Cockell are offensive.

Whatever your opinion of Margaret Thatcher's governments, a woman has just died and she will be mourned by her family and friends.

For people on a site such as SoF to make these responses is uncharitable and unChristian.

This is Hell and people are letting off steam. I said much worse in Purgatory by giving a sober assessment.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
God bless her.

She was quite simply one of the best Prime Ministers of all time.

Downing Street have confirmed she will get a state funeral and rightfully so.

I doubt she would care what invective people are posting, in the same way that lions don't worry about rats.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
...there you go again, Boogie.

Presumably you'd be delighted then if someone who found your husband or parents less than congenial responded to news of their death by singing and dancing and postings like yours?

And before you ask, I am not, nor have ever been, a member of the Conservative Party and I never voted for the woman.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
...there you go again, Boogie.

Presumably you'd be delighted then if someone who found your husband or parents less than congenial responded to news of their death by singing and dancing and postings like yours?

If he'd even begun to leave a legacy such as hers I would expect it.
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
If you consider that under the 30-year rule, paperwork had come to light where she wanted to kill comprehensive tax-funded schooling, the NHS etc back in the 80s.. and the Tories are carrying on with Thatcherite policies that has cost this country a hell of a lot...

And with DLA being killed causing ball-crunching terror for disabled people in this country..

A LOT of people lost out under her... so I stand by what I said.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
That's fine, Alex - I know many people consider Thatcher to have done grave damage to the UK. But 'ding dong, the bitch is dead'? Too far.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:

DING DONG THE BITCH IS DEAD!!!!

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
My husband just sang "Hey ho the wicked witch is dead" - in fact he's still singing it.

I knew that when the day came, this thread would be created. And yet although it was expected, it still has a strange power to shock.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy your time in this online Hell. I look forward to you rotting in the real one.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I knew that when the day came, this thread would be created. And yet although it was expected, it still has a strange power to shock.

FWIW I'm no fan of Thatcher or her legacy, but I agree. Not an edifying day for the Left.
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:

DING DONG THE BITCH IS DEAD!!!!

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
My husband just sang "Hey ho the wicked witch is dead" - in fact he's still singing it.

I knew that when the day came, this thread would be created. And yet although it was expected, it still has a strange power to shock.

Anyway, I hope you enjoy your time in this online Hell. I look forward to you rotting in the real one.

As it was a cathartic thread - this was why I posted in Hell rather than Purg.

This is where Shippies can let off steam.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
... is the Left ever very edifying?

Wilson, Falkender, Kagan, Stonehouse, Moreley, Jacqui Smith, Lord Ahmed all come to mind...
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
As it was a cathartic thread - this was why I posted in Hell rather than Purg.

This is where Shippies can let off steam.

I'm fully aware of what this board is for and what you believe you were doing. But that doesn't justify what you've done. (In my view, anyway - you obviously disagree.)
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The posts from Boogie and Alex Cockell are offensive.

Whatever your opinion of Margaret Thatcher's governments, a woman has just died and she will be mourned by her family and friends.

For people on a site such as SoF to make these responses is uncharitable and unChristian.

ITTWACW
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Anyway, I hope you enjoy your time in this online Hell. I look forward to you rotting in the real one.

Well, that's nice, and so much more Christian and tasteful than cheering the death of a former enemy.

Actually, I don't feel like cheering, or singing. I am sorry for her personally, but at least she had a relatively comfortable last few years, unlike so many beached on the shoreline of the shrinking welfare state. Thatcherism is alive and well, unfortunately.

My main sorrow is for all the nauseating claptrap I'm probably not going to be able to avoid in the near future. State funeral? Please accept my apologies in advance. Whenever it is, I'm sure I'll have better things to do.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
Fair point. Do unto others, &c.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
As it was a cathartic thread - this was why I posted in Hell rather than Purg.

This is where Shippies can let off steam.

I'm fully aware of what this board is for and what you believe you were doing. But that doesn't justify what you've done. (In my view, anyway - you obviously disagree.)
Compared to your wishing for others to be tortured eternally, even the worst of the gravedancing has been a model of civility and respect.
 
Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on :
 
The south of England will be mourning for the sad loss of a great stateswoman.

The rest of the UK will be partying...

We are finishing work early so we can all go to the pub to celebrate!
 
Posted by JonahMan (# 12126) on :
 
May she Rust in Peace.
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
May I suggest that those who mourn her start a thread in All Saints to pray for her, and leave those who feel no grief this thread here?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I look forward to you rotting in the real one.

I'll see you there - I'll even buy you a pint.
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
If Cameron gives her a state funeral, I hope he has the decency not to drag The Queen along.


If it were up to me, I'd leave it to her family to dispose of her remains and not upset the whole country. A prayer and then straight through the curtain for her!
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Compared to your wishing for others to be tortured eternally, even the worst of the gravedancing has been a model of civility and respect.

You're right. I should have held my tongue after the first paragraph but I was angry. I'm sorry.

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I'll see you there - I'll even buy you a pint.

Thank you but I suspect they'll only serve lager down there.

[ 08. April 2013, 13:24: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
If Cameron gives her a state funeral, I hope he has the decency not to drag The Queen along.

The BBC says there will be no state funeral.
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
To quote Robin Ince: People cross that some are reveling in Thatcher's death, yet surely one of her goals was a society without compassion & empathy?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Elvis Costello wrote a song for this very occasion. Clearly with the same left-leaning sentiments of some Shipmates. (And from the comments, clearly I'm not the only one who recalled it at this time.)

Frankly I find the song a bit over the top.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
If Cameron gives her a state funeral, I hope he has the decency not to drag The Queen along.


If it were up to me, I'd leave it to her family to dispose of her remains and not upset the whole country. A prayer and then straight through the curtain for her!

If there is a state funeral I will be out of the country for a long weekend.

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
To quote Robin Ince: People cross that some are reveling in Thatcher's death, yet surely one of her goals was a society without compassion & empathy?

Wrong - in her opinion there is no such thing as society [Mad]

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Elvis Costello wrote a song for this very occasion. Clearly with the same left-leaning sentiments of some Shipmates. (And from the comments, clearly I'm not the only one who recalled it at this time.)

Yes - I remember it. It's getting lots of new hits today!

[ 08. April 2013, 13:30: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
I don't celebrate any death.

But this particular cancerous cow fucked up this country so badly, I can acknowledge that there is a whole lot of hatred focussed on her. I would like to hope that she saw what she had done and regretted it, but I doubt it.

At least David FUCKING Cameron is on track to make her the second worst bitch to have occupied number 10. I would rather her policies and ideas had died, but sadly fucking the poor and giving to the rich is a continuing theme of the Tories.
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
She was part of the Hillsborough cover-up. She was pally with Pinochet. A truly loathsome woman. I'm not opening the champagne here, but I don't deny anyone the right to celebrate the death of someone who ruined countless lies and further poisoned the minds of many, as seen in the recent outburst by Osborne and his support by Cameron.

Her dying means nothing, however. As long as profit is put before people, things will get worse.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally written by Sir Bernard Ingham:

Only the ignorant, the unprincipled left or the downright lazy still allege Thatcher said “there is no such thing as society” without regard to context.

In uttering those words she was, in fact, saying there is indeed a society: it is you and me but not some abstract state on whom people tend to cast their problems.



[ 08. April 2013, 13:37: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
 
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :
 
Too bad the IRA didn't get her.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
Her family must be sad.

Me, though...? I'll just think of the pits that my father, uncles, and grandfathers worked in.

And drink coffee all afternoon, as we have a no booze (fizzy or otherwise) policy at work.

Thurible
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
She was part of the Hillsborough cover-up.

Eh?
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
I'm not celebrating but I have no problem with anyone who wants to. For those who find it offensive you're just going to have to accept that she destroyed peoples lives. The majority of whom ended up powerless and voiceless. Celebration and the outpouring of frustration and anger are to be expected.
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
Keeping up with foreign news can be a tricky thing. One has to be so careful when reporting it.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The posts from Boogie and Alex Cockell are offensive.

Whatever your opinion of Margaret Thatcher's governments, a woman has just died and she will be mourned by her family and friends.

For people on a site such as SoF to make these responses is uncharitable and unChristian.

Totally agree. Very very bad form. Shame on them both [Disappointed] At times like this I wish we had the equivalent of the US 30 day 'flag rule'.
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
I've been dreading this day for years. Not because I care greatly about the death of an old woman who was so gaga that this is probably a merciful release, but because the papers, airwaves and interwebs are going to be full of predictable trolling from both sides for days.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Too bad the IRA didn't get her.

[Mad] That's an even more shameful statement.
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally written by Sir Bernard Ingham:

Only the ignorant, the unprincipled left or the downright lazy still allege Thatcher said “there is no such thing as society” without regard to context.

In uttering those words she was, in fact, saying there is indeed a society: it is you and me but not some abstract state on whom people tend to cast their problems.


In conctext, she was describing the community dynamic in Grantham - but it was taken and changed in digest to form the basic tenet of ThatcherISM - instead of "there is no separate entity called "society" - society is collectively people and families", it became "There is no such thing as society! Am I my brother's keeper? Am I FUCK! Fuck you, I'm all right - I'm all that matters. ME!"

Which led to all the ideological attacks on Social Security etc.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
But this particular cancerous cow fucked up this country so badly

Yes: the modern, successful, prosperous hellhole that is the post-Thatcher UK is utterly fucked up compared to the paradise of power cuts, uncollected garbage and constant strikes that came before. And because of deindustrialisation I'm forced to work in a comfortable office rather than breaking my back down a pit or on a factory production line like I would have had I been born a few decades earlier. Truly this is Hell. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
I think ti was stuff like the Loadsamoney culture as well as deregulating the City that led directly to LIBORgate etc - and the other aspects like that - and other social costs - that has led to a lot of hatred.

I can see a direct line in how all 3 main political parties are so far over to the right that there's not a fag-paper between them - and how we have dishonest politicians in ripping apart the Welfare State and Social Contract...

And this would have probably not been thinkable if we hadn't had the more fascistic elements of Thatcherism...
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
I can see a direct line in how all 3 main political parties are so far over to the right that there's not a fag-paper between them - and how we have dishonest politicians in ripping apart the Welfare State and Social Contract...

Arguments are more convincing when they aren't draped in hyperbole, IMO. Some on the left (not necessarily you, AC) criticise the Government for not getting the deficit under control; others for 'ripping apart the Welfare State'. I don't see how both can be true.

And I wonder what 'left-wing' looks like if the UK Government and the Labour party are both very far over to the right. Perhaps like Hollande's glorious new socialist paradise in France. Oh wait...
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The posts from Boogie and Alex Cockell are offensive.

Whatever your opinion of Margaret Thatcher's governments, a woman has just died and she will be mourned by her family and friends.

For people on a site such as SoF to make these responses is uncharitable and unChristian.

Totally agree. Very very bad form. Shame on them both [Disappointed] At times like this I wish we had the equivalent of the US 30 day 'flag rule'.
Umm - what is this "flag rule" you speak of?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
I believe it refers to it being bad form to criticise a former President's legacy until 30 days after his death. Be nice if some posters could observe that here
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I believe it refers to it being bad form to criticise a former President's legacy until 30 days after his death. Be nice if some posters could observe that here

news to me. sounded a lot like this thread around here when Ronnie bit it.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
* BF sighs nostalgically*

I remember those days back in the reign of Good (Deputy) Queen Maggie, marching across London with 30,000 other people, chanting 'Maggie, Maggie, Maggie, OUT! OUT! OUT!' - and being granted 10 seconds' worth of 'news' on the BBC about the slight traffic hold-ups in the City of London.......

........no mourning from this quarter, except to say that it's probably a merciful release for her and for her family. I have rather more compassion for the poor souls who are suffering from the bloody woman's lasting influence and legacy.....

Ian J.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I'm no fan of her policies, but surely it's silly to blame her alone for something a whole government, and indeed a whole country, was complicit in?
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The posts from Boogie and Alex Cockell are offensive.

Whatever your opinion of Margaret Thatcher's governments, a woman has just died and she will be mourned by her family and friends.

For people on a site such as SoF to make these responses is uncharitable and unChristian.

This is the only comment that should be made here...

However, IMHO anyone glorifying in a persons death is disgusting and shows a complete lack of basic humanity... hang your heads in shame and seriously think about whether you deserve to be called human, let alone Christian, at all.
 
Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :
 
It will be interesting to see what happens when Cheney dies, and the advent of alternative (particularly hit driven) internet media has probably put a dent in that trend, but in general, I would say you get a nice send off from the media in the USA. And it applies in our politics as well- I have seen only one Thatcher related post on Facebook today, and it was a simple "RIP" from an outspoken woman of the Left. I was a little surprised when I first discovered that in the UK, people were vocal about hating a retired politician- here, Obama has to say nice things about Reagan, people who hated Bush have begun to think of him less as the devil and more as a clown, etc.

On the G.G.'s point re: predictable trolling, I don't suspect it took the editors of the Mash more than five minutes to write their lead article today. I thought the same joke was much funnier in this one from three months ago.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Downing Street have confirmed she will get a state funeral and rightfully so.

Its not rally Hellish, But I'm going to repost here somethng I just wrote to a friend of mine who calls himself a moderate conservative, and whoi (unlike you) probably is one. Trying to explain to him just why there is a problem with the insane and evil idea of giving Thatcher a State Funeral. I think he probably understood my point. I bet you don't though. From the way you post here I suspect you are simply too ingorant of how people unlike you live and how they see the world to be able to understand where they are coming from. You are just too isolated and unaware. (There, that was the Hellish bit)

The case against a State Funeral is simply put. Such things are used for the dead who have come to symbolise the nation or the State in some way - either by being born to symbolise it, like kings, or by defending it against its enemies, like Nelson or Wellington or Churchill. Thatcher's main "battles", for right or wrong, were fought inside the nation, setting one group against another, and leaving a legacy of division, "...scorn and defiance, slight regard, contempt..." between communities. For many of the British people she symbolises what is wrong with Britain, not what is good about Britain.

Even people who hated Wellington or Churchill (and there were plenty of them) could look on them as in some way representing and defending the British State, and so, to whatever extend they identified with the State, they could see those men as representing or defending themselves. That's not the case with Thatcher.

I should think that a moderate conservative would want a State funeral for Thatcher less than anyone else. Because there are millions, probably tens of millions, of people who look on her as an enemy, a persecutor, someone who deliberately and sometimes violently acted against their interests and in favour of the interests of money and power. A moderate conservative would surely want to include those people in the nation as much as possible, to encourage their identification with the British state. Over-the-top adulation for Thatcher would do the opposite. If would be a demonstration to many people that the State really does not represent them, really does not act in their interests. Someone on the far left might think that was merely being honest. ("See! We told you! There really is no future for us in this system!") Someone on the far right might simply not care ("we're in charge now,. we'll do what we want, piss off!") But if you are a moderate Tory, you really ought to want to see her buried as decently and as quietly and with as little fuss as possible. And put a guard on her grave, just in case.

I can't really think of a counter-example because there has been no left-wing figure in British politics in our lifetimes who has had remotely as much impact as Thatcher, and was anywhere nearly as widely hated (And no, Tony Blair doesn't count as left-wing... and even if he did, he was never as much disliked as Thatcher was, not remotely) I suppose if you could imagine the reaction to a State Funeral for Arthur Scargill you might get close to the feelings that Thatcher arouses. But he has the advantage of having lost his big battle, so the damage he could do was severely limited, and most of his own side got fed up with him as well. A State Funeral for Thatcher says to millions of unemployed, of disabled, or low-paid workers, of the propertyless: "You have no share in this nation, its meant for people like us, not people like you!". So maybe every true left-wing revolutionary ought to be praying to bring it on. It could be the best recruiting opportunity for decades!
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I'm no fan of her policies, but surely it's silly to blame her alone for something a whole government, and indeed a whole country, was complicit in?

A whole government, but not a whole country. The entire Thatcher regime was based on choosing sides in every politcal and economic issue and using the power of the State to support her side and oppose the other. Everything they did was top make some people richer by making others poorer. Her government never got anywhere near half the popular vote - not even in the 1983 khaki election. An actual majority were opposed to her from begining to end. Don't blame us for what the Tories did.
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
A whole government, but not a whole country. The entire Thatcher regime was based on choosing sides in every politcal and economic issue and using the power of the State to support her side and oppose the other. Everything they did was top make some people richer by making others poorer. Her government never got anywhere near half the popular vote - not even in the 1983 khaki election. An actual majority were opposed to her from begining to end. Don't blame us for what the Tories did.

And given that, especially in the early and later years, a whole bunch of her battles were against a significant portion of her own cabinet, seems unfair to blame the whole government as well. It was Thatcher's project, through and through.

[ 08. April 2013, 15:12: Message edited by: Stejjie ]
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I'm no fan of her policies, but surely it's silly to blame her alone for something a whole government, and indeed a whole country, was complicit in?

But the whole country was not complicit - that is rather the point. She was a divisive figure. But, yes, to some extent you are right, in that demonising her as uniquely evil is foolish and could ultimately be counter-productive, if only because it might lead one to believe that what happened couldn't have happened without her and won't ever be repeated. Both faulty conclusions, in my view.

eta: X-posted with ken and stejjie

[ 08. April 2013, 15:16: Message edited by: QLib ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
ken:

[Overused]

Well said.

Ian J.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Uncharitable, unchristian, inhuman - yep, all of the above. I know this because I'm feeling them.

A lot of my anger stems from disappointment. I will never forget 1979 - I was so thrilled for a woman to become Prime Minister. I stayed up all night to see her get in.

The slow, steady downhill slope thereafter was sad, enormously disappointing and hard to watch. I began teaching in 1978 and the way she treated teachers was the blueprint for the tests and targets culture we have now.


[Disappointed] X1000

[ 08. April 2013, 15:20: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
I was a little surprised when I first discovered that in the UK, people were vocal about hating a retired politician- here, Obama has to say nice things about Reagan, people who hated Bush have begun to think of him less as the devil and more as a clown, etc. [/URL]

If you didn't live through it its hard to imagine quite how much Margaret Thatcher was hated and feared by large numbers of British people, or quite how divisive here period in office was. Nothing else anywhere near that has happened in Britain in recent times, no other polotician has been anywhere near as divisive.

I doubt if any has in the USA for over a century either - you probably have to go back to Reconstruction to find politicians as widely hated by a large segment of society. Almost all of Scotland and most of Wales large parts of the North of England - and working-class communities in much of the rest of England - feel about Thatcher's government in something of the same way that US Southerners felt about the carpetbaggers. They didn't represent us, they weren;t of us, the weren;t for us, they did not act in our interests, they did not protect us, they did not help us in any way, they were more like some sort of alien invaders who turned up, stole stuff, and went away again leaving us worse off than before. And left a permenant legacy of mistrust and division.

So it all happened thirty years ago? That's not so long compared with a human life, never mind the history of a nation. I wonder what the general opinion among white folks in Atlanta was when they heard that US Grant was dead?
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Nothing else anywhere near that has happened in Britain in recent times, no other polotician has been anywhere near as divisive.

I doubt if any has in the USA for over a century either - you probably have to go back to Reconstruction to find politicians as widely hated by a large segment of society.

GW Bush. Even my most flag-waving foxnewsist acquaintances wouldn't support him at the end. the best they could say is that at least he wasn't hitler.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I'm no fan of her policies, but surely it's silly to blame her alone for something a whole government, and indeed a whole country, was complicit in?

In Scotland, the Conservatives got 31% of the vote in the 1979 General Election, 28% in 1983 and 24% in 1987. One of the issues, Zach, was that there was a clear dividing line between the Tory south-east and the non-Tory everywhere else. It really wasn't a case of the Tories being elected because a "whole country" voted for them.
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
I celebrated when Reagan died and I'm celebrating now. No doubt Scotland, North-East England, Liverpool and elsewhere will be having parties tonight. And why shouldn't I celebrate? The Jews celebrated in the book of Esther when Haman died, because he wanted to exterminate the Jews. I'm celebrating Thatcher's death because she wanted to exterminate the poor.

http://www.isthatcherdeadyet.co.uk/

A spotify playlist to celebrate:

http://open.spotify.com/user/antoniojl/playlist/2gTc87eWMlNB6IzQSECrA4
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm celebrating Thatcher's death because she wanted to exterminate the poor.

Oh get over it. There's a world of difference between wanting to kill people and wanting to make people take care of themselves rather than relying on government handouts.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
I remember a skit, I think on the Royal Canadian Air Farce, with Thatcher saying about some public service, to "privatise it". When told it was already privatised, she said "privatise it again".

I have always thought comedy can tell us something more straightforward than just a discussion. The point I took from this is that Thatcher was an ideologue, with disregard for the goodness or badness of what her policies wrought, just following her ideology. As I said in Purg, we felt she was one of an evil trinity with Reagan and Mulroney.

If there's state funeral, hope the music is good.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
CNN - OOPS!
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
CNN - OOPS!

Is it too early to point out that both of them shafted mine/ors?
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
Nicely put, Ken.
The people who are offended at all the grave dancing could perhaps fuck off to All Saints as Pete suggested and pray for her soul?
For my money, Anglican't's despicable sentiments were the low point of the thread. Still, he/she is free to be that reprehensible here in Hell, I guess.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
CNN - OOPS!

Is it too early to point out that both of them shafted mine/ors?
So they did!
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The point I took from this is that Thatcher was an ideologue, with disregard for the goodness or badness of what her policies wrought, just following her ideology.

So were all the Labour assholes and Union fuckwits who created the mess she had to fix, but you don't attack them for it.
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
CNN - OOPS!

Is it too early to point out that both of them shafted mine/ors?
So they did!
Are we really going here...?

Or should I dig out the pictures of Jimmy Saville at the BBC and Tony Blair 'hand-in-hand' with the Murdochs? Or would those slurs be too far for you since they do not slur/implicate a person from the right of British politics but rather the darling of the modern left and that over large dictatorship of an organisation?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Go ahead Sergius-Melli, dig them out. More proof that Blair was Thatcher-lite.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
But this particular cancerous cow fucked up this country so badly

Yes: the modern, successful, prosperous hellhole that is the post-Thatcher UK is utterly fucked up compared to the paradise of power cuts, uncollected garbage and constant strikes that came before. And because of deindustrialisation I'm forced to work in a comfortable office rather than breaking my back down a pit or on a factory production line like I would have had I been born a few decades earlier. Truly this is Hell. [Roll Eyes]
This country today is a paradise for the wealthy. Not for the poor. You work in an office because so much of the manufacturing has closed, which was one of the things that we excel at.

Stop being such a self-centred fuck. For many people, the UK today is a scary place to be.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Quoted by Deano
quote:
Downing Street have confirmed she will get a state funeral
Wrong! It is to be a "ceremonial" funeral.

In other words, the same level as Churchill.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Oh get over it. There's a world of difference between wanting to kill people and wanting to make people take care of themselves rather than relying on government handouts.

I don't believe Thatcher wanted this though. I believe her economic policies were designed to create a large unemployment base in order to drive down employment costs. I don't attribute this to malice, I think she genuinely believed in trickle-down economics and that this course of action would produce a generally better society.

My problem with this is that I think it was basically a nice theory that turned out to be a load of bollocks in practice, and most of the material gains we had under the Tories turned out to be temporary boosts from selling the family silver or Monopoly money from financial "engineering", but even had it been true then for it to be in any sense a fair society, those at the top would have a considerable obligation to take care of those who'd ended up in the deliberately-created underclass. So much for Tebbit and his bikes.

Thatcher's been politically harmless since the Attack of the Dead Sheep. What concerns me now is the way the current government has turned its attacks to the underclass itself.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
Or should I dig out the pictures of Jimmy Saville at the BBC and Tony Blair 'hand-in-hand' with the Murdochs? Or would those slurs be too far for you since they do not slur/implicate a person from the right of British politics but rather the darling of the modern left and that over large dictatorship of an organisation?

Pfft. By 'darling of the modern left' I take it you mean 'faux-Tory war criminal'?

Something tells me you wouldn't recognise a socialist even if one waved Clause 4 in your face.

In other news, highly divisive right-wing politician with questionable legacy dies. Film at 11, 12 and every other hour. At least the children's tv programmes have their own channel now, so won't get interrupted.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm celebrating Thatcher's death because she wanted to exterminate the poor.

Oh get over it. There's a world of difference between wanting to kill people and wanting to make people take care of themselves rather than relying on government handouts.
True. But the 1980s Tory governments were a total failure at "making people take care of themselves rather than relying on government handouts." Unemployment went up hugely, and so did the total spending on benefits.

It wasn't till 1997 that unemployment got back to where it had been in the mid-1970s, and it never has got back to where it was in the 1950s and 1960s. If Thatcherism has inflicted an irreversible change on our economy, its one that has a million more unemployed in good times, and two million more in bad times.

So zero out of ten for "making people take care of themselves rather than relying on government handouts."
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
... Tony Blair ... left

[Killing me]
 
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
CNN - OOPS!

Is it too early to point out that both of them shafted mine/ors?
So they did!
Are we really going here...?

Or should I dig out the pictures of Jimmy Saville at the BBC and Tony Blair 'hand-in-hand' with the Murdochs? Or would those slurs be too far for you since they do not slur/implicate a person from the right of British politics but rather the darling of the modern left and that over large dictatorship of an organisation?

If you really think that Blair is the darling of the modern left then I don't think you know any actual left-wingers. I don't know any lefties who like him.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I believe her economic policies were designed to create a large unemployment base in order to drive down employment costs. I don't attribute this to malice, I think she genuinely believed in trickle-down economics and that this course of action would produce a generally better society.

That's the truth.

quote:

Thatcher's been politically harmless since the Attack of the Dead Sheep. What concerns me now is the way the current government has turned its attacks to the underclass itself.

The current lot are quite different from Thatcher. Much more traditional Tory toffs. In some ways, especially on social policy, more left wing, but in economic terms more right wing. Thatcher was only a borderline Tory. Certainly a right-winger, but not really culturally a Tory. Almost a sort of right-wing liberal. The current government is much more about shoring up the value of property. Thatcher's government wante deconomic growth and see4med to be under a genuine delusion that high unemplyment and low wages was the way to get it. The current government don't seem to care how big the pie is as long as their slice of it gets bigger.


Oh, and there is no such thing as an "underclass" in Britain really. The lie that there is is right wing propoganda.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
<snip> Tony Blair <snip> the darling of the modern left

[Killing me]
Good one. Dumbarse.
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
I'm out of London and off Radio and TV. It's a good time to be in that situation.

I will continue to work for the poor, the unemployed, the migrants, and for a just society. Despite everything.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
At least she survived long enough to see that socialism is completely dead. Thank God.
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
Ah... a tendency to premature ejaculation.

Explains pretty much everything.
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
<snip> Tony Blair <snip> the darling of the modern left

[Killing me]
Good one. Dumbarse.

Did you not see the modern bit in there - go check your glasses prescription! - the vaguely more sensible modern centre-left (which has seen sense and adopted much of the centre-right) rather than the backwards, union dominated, nation destroying left that encapsulates the left before and during Thatchers time in office and which that idiot jackarse Ed Balls encapsulates now.

Blair's government was still of the left regardless of what old reds like to moan, and his government did much that was of the left and unneccesary and destructive such as the fox hunting ban and the inflation of the civil service and welfare state, and showing that stallwart lie of the left that all wealth in the country belongs to the government in some sense to be beneveolantly given out by the central state. It was only Thatchers sensibility and success that made Blair modernise the Labour party to such a point that allowed it to be as successful as it was.

So go screw yourself in a dark corner and take your leftist stupidity with you!
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
Tony Blair was to the left? When did that happen?
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
At least she survived long enough to see that socialism is completely dead. Thank God.

Just 10 minutes on this website suggests that - worryingly - this isn't the case.
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
At least she survived long enough to see that socialism is completely dead. Thank God.

Just 10 minutes on this website suggests that - worryingly - this isn't the case.
Old socialism is dead in the real world - just appears not to be dead when the minds of the chattering classes of the old-left and the youthful, ideological and ignorant who don't know better yet, are put into a public forum.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
I heard it while driving. A brief snatch from Oz passed through before I shut it off, telling myself it was not right to rejoice over anyone's death. Then I realised my subconscious had picked that word deliberately.

I knew Diana Gould a little, my parents came to know her as a friend. She was asked to appear on a retrospective TV programme once, arrived at the studio, but was sent away because Robin Day refused to appear with someone who had been so unpleasant to the Prime Minister.

I am trying to think what to do on the day of this funeral which will look like a state funeral, walk like a state funeral and sound like a state funeral. Perhaps there should be silent vigils around the country, with the "Not in my name" posters up. (Not to mention "But with my money".)

I think, with the state of the deficit, it would be good manners not to spend money on this divisive woman. And I come from the south, so do a lot of people who don't vote Tory. We're just gerrymandered out of sight.
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
And I come from the south, so do a lot of people who don't vote Tory. We're just gerrymandered out of sight.

All the tired and part-blind assertions are coming out of the woodwork today... I wonder how you feel about Labour's gerrymandering of constituencies across the UK?

At least the Conservative party of this government tried to do something about it, but it seems that democracy and fairness are not a part of the Labour or Liberal 'Democrat' political belief system.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
showing that stallwart lie of the left that all wealth in the country belongs to the government in some sense to be beneveolantly given out by the central state.

This is not a leftist lie. It is the lie believed by all monarchs in history until the Glorious Revolution. It is why the ancient right of heriot by which the lords took possession of people's best possessions rather than leaving them to their children still persists in inheritance tax.

At least the left does think it is to be given out benevolently to the people who it personifies, whereas dictators (whether they claim to be left or right) think it is to be either kept or given to their chums to keep them on side.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Knight:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
<snip> Tony Blair <snip> the darling of the modern left

[Killing me]
Good one. Dumbarse.

Did you not see the modern bit in there - go check your glasses prescription! - the vaguely more sensible modern centre-left (which has seen sense and adopted much of the centre-right) rather than the backwards, union dominated, nation destroying left that encapsulates the left before and during Thatchers time in office and which that idiot jackarse Ed Balls encapsulates now.

Blair's government was still of the left regardless of what old reds like to moan, and his government did much that was of the left and unneccesary and destructive such as the fox hunting ban and the inflation of the civil service and welfare state, and showing that stallwart lie of the left that all wealth in the country belongs to the government in some sense to be beneveolantly given out by the central state. It was only Thatchers sensibility and success that made Blair modernise the Labour party to such a point that allowed it to be as successful as it was.

So go screw yourself in a dark corner and take your leftist stupidity with you!

You are entertaining, but laughing at the mentally handicapped gets quite hollow quickly. Still,
[Killing me]
Blair, like many of the politicians representing historically left parties in the eighties and nineties, would be much more accurately described as centre-right. Down here in Oz we recognise them, as our 'Labor' party was dominated by monetarist Friedmanites Bob 'I can scull a pint faster than any if you mugs' Hawke and Paul 'Hullo scumbags' Keating. The success of the centre right economic rationalisation of the purportedly Labor governments here forced our conservatives to take a much more extreme right position on social issues, leading to the virtual disappearance of the 'wets' in the conservative parties. Which goes along way to explaining Little Johnny Howard down here - and, I suspect, your David Cameron.
I trust that was clear enough for you. I don't have a Golden book to explain it to you in terms you will grasp. Blair certainly didn't think of himself as particularly 'Left'.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
And I come from the south, so do a lot of people who don't vote Tory. We're just gerrymandered out of sight.

All the tired and part-blind assertions are coming out of the woodwork today... I wonder how you feel about Labour's gerrymandering of constituencies across the UK?
OK they're all at it. But I'm in a safe Tory constituency, which is safe because parts of nearby Labourish constituencies were added to it with the effect that the Liberals (as they were at the time) could never win it. (Labour never had a chance.)

There are a lot of non-Tories in the South, and they have no voice. Whatever the reason. And that is not fair or democratic. The effect of the proposed changes, as I recall, would have been to increase the number of Tory seats. After reneging on the changes which would have made some sort of fairer representation available.

[ 08. April 2013, 17:07: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Does anyone else find it strange that she lived at the Ritz Hotel?

Seems an odd and impersonal place to live.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Is anyone watching news? I am operating a self-denying ordinance. Has anything else happened?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
There are a lot of non-Tories in the South, and they have no voice. Whatever the reason. And that is not fair or democratic.

Try being a Tory in the Black Country. I may as well not bother voting, for all the chance I've got of seeing my constituency ever turn blue.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell
Hi folks,

As I'd derail a Purgatorial thread - but I wanted to say this re Thatcher dying...

DING DONG THE BITCH IS DEAD!!!!

Given that Mrs Thatcher encouraged small government, personal responsibility and economically viable industries, I suppose it must be hard for those who desire their lives to be controlled by others (in other words, pathetic losers) to show due respect to such a person. This kind of dependency mentality is characteristic of someone who has failed to mature in life. It probably explains the puerility of your comments, which any normal person would have grown out of at about the age of 13.

The more I read the spiteful and mean-spirited comments of the left, the more I feel inclined to move towards the kind of political and social thinking that Thatcher espoused.

[ 08. April 2013, 17:17: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
Ken wrote:

quote:
I wonder what the general opinion among white folks in Atlanta was when they heard that US Grant was dead?


I think the guy you might have in mind is General Sherman. You might find this article interesting. It argues that at least some of what he is villified for was exaggerated. Apparently, the burning of Atlanta was more "functionalist" than "intentionalist", and Sherman actually made half-hearted attempts to contain the fire.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
quote:
posted by Boogie
does anyone else find it strange that she lived at the Ritz Hotel? Seems an odd and impersonal place to live.

Not strange at all - warm, safe and with 24 hour room-service. No need to worry about cleaning or laundry - bliss.

Given she was very frail and was losing (had lost?) her faculties, it seems an ideal place - all those nice friendly people - chambermaids, room-service waiters,etc - coming in and out.

As for odd and impersonal - have you visited an EMI nursing home or had a relative in one? I have: the staff turnover was horrendous, it stank of wee and all the doors were locked; residents were either parked in front of a blaring TV in a lounge or left on their own in a room with a gas-powered door-closer (fire safety) that made the door difficult to open for a fit 40s-50s person.

Finally, the Barclay twins (who own The Ritz) had her there as their guest: think what you like about the late Baroness (and the Barclays, come to that) but that was a kindness to an ailing elderly woman.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
At least she survived long enough to see that socialism is completely dead. Thank God.

Waves to deano from Scotland. Anti-Thatcher feeling has helped socialism survive. Did you know that Scotland has more Pandas than Tory MPs?
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
One of the commentators on the news suggested (or perhaps speculated) that the configuration of the rooms and the lifts at the Ritz were helpful for a woman in her position. That seems to explain why she would be staying at an otherwise unusual location.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
EE wrote:

quote:
I suppose it must be hard for those who desire their lives to be controlled by others (in other words, pathetic losers)
quote:
The more I read the spiteful and mean-spirited comments of the left, the more I feel inclined to move towards the kind of political and social thinking that Thatcher espoused.


Your rhetoric in the first quote leads me to suspect that your posture of balanced and thoughtful consideration in the second quote is a bit of a put-on.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
At least she survived long enough to see that socialism is completely dead. Thank God.

Waves to deano from Scotland. Anti-Thatcher feeling has helped socialism survive. Did you know that Scotland has more Pandas than Tory MPs?
yes and they came from a communist country as well.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
There are a lot of non-Tories in the South, and they have no voice. Whatever the reason. And that is not fair or democratic.

Try being a Tory in the Black Country. I may as well not bother voting, for all the chance I've got of seeing my constituency ever turn blue.
Well, quite. My fault for moving out of a marginal seat, in my case. I did wonder once if we ought to make constituencies with roughly equal numbers of the two parties most likely to win them, but then realised that that puts the choice of government in the hands of a very small coterie of people (as in my last home area), and that would not be democratic or fair, either.

One problem is the split between the work an MP does for their constituency, which can be good regardless of their affiliation, and their need to toe party lines. (My parents didn't mind being in Bill Deedes' constituency because he was a good MP in that way. Mine also has good characteristics, but I have to balance that with his being in the cabinet.) And it does help not to have someone who is frankly an adherent of basic nuttiness, which can happen with some safe seats.

There has to be a solution somewhere which allows thee and me to have our views influence the rule of the state when appropriate. Goodness knows what it is, though.

I get really fed up, though, with politicians who claim a mandate when they did not have a majority of the popular vote. The current Tories do, and so did Mrs T. Some sort of mystical force must operate whereby regardless of the number of people voting for any manifesto, it magically transforms in the a number of seats which goes against that number. How the present state of things can claim a mandate is beyond my wit. Perhaps it's to do with quantum effest or string theory. I can't understand those, either.

[ 08. April 2013, 17:42: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
I am quite prepared to believe that people have, in their opinion, good reasons to have voted for Thatcher, or the Tories since she stopped being PM. These can selfish reasons, or delusions, but Tory voters aren't the only ones who do that.

What gets me is the stunning lack of empathy with those who hate Thatcher. We hear talk of "lefties" this and "lefties" that, but little engagement with the concerns. I mean, things like being made redundant and then receiving little welfare money while at the same time telling them to "get on their bike" and find work in a time when 3m were unemployed, or creating a culture of police impunity, a culture that contributed to the Hillsborough disaster; or a doubling of poverty between 1979 and 1990, or the support for Pinochet or the talk of Mandela being a "terrorist" are, seemingly, ignored.

I can take it that individual Tories can be OK people. During hard financial times in my life I have benefited from a few Daily Mail types who paid for bird-watching holidays, donating me sofas and clothes, something that stops me from believing all Tory voters to be twats.

It's the disregard of peoples' concerns that gets me. I mean, now we're seeing a government using a tragedy in order to score points against people on benefit as well as reduced help for disabled people, and it is at this time we see a Thatcher-lover here trolling about Obama.
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
I think she ought to be chucked down a disused mineshaft. Spoilt for choice there.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

As for odd and impersonal - have you visited an EMI nursing home or had a relative in one?

My Mum is in one as we speak, after being cared for by us for four years. We visit her every day, she is comfortable and very well cared for. Only ten people live there, it is excellently run and there is never any smell.

I think a hotel would be a the worst place for her.

<edited code>

[ 08. April 2013, 17:51: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
... or the talk of Mandela being a "terrorist"...

If you have access to last yesterday's Sunday Times, you might be interested to read the article by Robin Renwick, Britain's ambassador in South Africa in the late 80s, who writes rather sympathetically about Mrs Thatcher's efforts to get Mandela released and her strident criticism of the apartheid regime, delivered face-to-face to South African leaders.

[ 08. April 2013, 17:47: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
What gets me is the stunning lack of empathy with those who hate Thatcher. We hear talk of "lefties" this and "lefties" that, but little engagement with the concerns.

Yeah, but how many of those on the left have even a single fuck to give about the concerns of those on the right? There's no empathy in that direction either - everyone's just in it for their own side.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
quote:
Posted by Rosa Winkel
It's the disregard of peoples' concerns that gets me. I mean, now we're seeing a government using a tragedy in order to score points against people on benefit as well as reduced help for disabled people, and it is at this time we see a Thatcher-lover here trolling about Obama.

Where are all these disabled people "getting reduced help": I know many long-term/lifetime disabled (benefit of spending time in a spinal injuries unit) and NOT ONE of them is having the benefits they receive reduced, not one. But perhaps that is what "targetting" means - making sure that the people who are in greatest need get the greatest amount of help?

As for people's concerns being disregarded - well, there are plenty of people who have been mightily concerned at the number of people deemed to be inacapable of looking after/providing for themselves. Look at the figures, between 1979 and 1990 the number of people registered as being incapable of working in the UK when compared to the rest of the EU went from being broadly similar to at least three times the number per 1,000.

Scoring points against people on benefit? Well, I think the point being made by some Tory politicians was that Mr Philpott was not himself entitled to anything other than unemployment benefit (I know, "Jobseeker's Allowance) but in fact his bank account was where the benefits rightfully belonging to his wife and his live-in lover ended up.

I am not a "Thatcher-lover", I would not dream of "trolling" anyone, least of all the much-maligned Obama, but I don't think any valid political point is made if cheap gibes are just flung about - and it is particularly inappropriate in relation to the news of a death, regardless of who that person was.

And just because this is Hell doesn't make it better or acceptable.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yeah, but how many of those on the left have even a single fuck to give about the concerns of those on the right? There's no empathy in that direction either - everyone's just in it for their own side.

You mean, like moving more of the world's wealth into the pockets of the super-wealthy? Yeah, the left has been shockingly dismissive of that.
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I know many long-term/lifetime disabled (benefit of spending time in a spinal injuries unit) and NOT ONE of them is having the benefits they receive reduced, not one. But perhaps that is what "targetting" means - making sure that the people who are in greatest need get the greatest amount of help?

Really? None of them are, for example, single people assigned to two-bed bungalows? I guess spinal injuries are at the extreme end of the spectrum. I, too, know quite a few people with disabilities - though none with spinal injuries - and I can't think of one whose benefits aren't under threat in one way or another. Which just goes to show that anecdotal evidence isn't worth much, I suppose.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
What gets me is the stunning lack of empathy with those who hate Thatcher. We hear talk of "lefties" this and "lefties" that, but little engagement with the concerns.

Yeah, but how many of those on the left have even a single fuck to give about the concerns of those on the right? There's no empathy in that direction either - everyone's just in it for their own side.
I have little empathy with those on "the right" who are wealthy while the whole concept of working-class Tories baffles me, and that's despite my mother being one.

To be honest, she didn't like Thatcher (although she always voted Conservative), possible because they had rather too much in common. My mother didn't like determined women who weren't worried what weak people thought of them.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson
Your rhetoric in the first quote leads me to suspect that your posture of balanced and thoughtful consideration in the second quote is a bit of a put-on.

Hmmm... Since you are so concerned about rhetoric, I notice that you have not as yet made any critical comment about the following:

quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell
DING DONG THE BITCH IS DEAD!!!!

Being a person of considerable integrity (as I am sure you must be), you will be pulling Alex up on his rather impassioned 'rhetoric'?

After all, I wouldn't want to think you are playing the hypocrite with me, would I?
 
Posted by Edith (# 16978) on :
 
ATOS has just decided that Mrs Thatcher is fit for work.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
After all, I wouldn't want to think you are playing the hypocrite with me, would I?

I'd hate to suggest you're being thick, EE, but I believe Stetson was pointing out your hypocrisy, rather than the unpleasantness of your tone, which after all was your bugbear, not his.

quote:
Originally posted by Edith:
ATOS has just decided that Mrs Thatcher is fit for work.

I struggle to think of any work she was fit for, even when alive.

[ 08. April 2013, 18:49: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Her government never got anywhere near half the popular vote - not even in the 1983 khaki election. An actual majority were opposed to her from begining to end. Don't blame us for what the Tories did.

Be honest, ken. No government has had a majority of the popular vote in recent memory. You have to go back to Stanley Baldwin's 1929 Conservative victory to find one party with more than 50% of the popular vote.

Here is the actual share of the popular vote held by the winning party since 1970. Conservatives in bold, Labour not:

1970: Heath: 46.4%
Feb 1974: Wilson: 37.2%
Oct 1974: Wilson: 39.2%
1979, Thatcher: 43.9%
1983, Thatcher: 42.4%
1987, Thatcher: 42.2%
1992, Major: 41.9%
1997, Blair: 43.2%
2001, Blair: 40.7%
2005, Blair: 35.2%
2010: Cameron: 36.1% (no outright majority, coalition with Clegg (23.0 %))
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Yes, QLib, most in 2 bed (at least) - but that is to provide for overnight care.

Look, we all want to give the incapacitated a hand-up but there are also many people (over 800,000 at the last count) who, faced with a medical check on their current condition chose to take themselves "off the sick" - and this when the successful appeal rate against the much-flawed ASOS regime is at about 80%.

As our US cousins would say, go figure, it aint rocket science.
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
What gets me is the stunning lack of empathy with those who hate Thatcher. We hear talk of "lefties" this and "lefties" that, but little engagement with the concerns.

Yeah, but how many of those on the left have even a single fuck to give about the concerns of those on the right? There's no empathy in that direction either - everyone's just in it for their own side.
I'm quite prepared to accept that people have needs that are at odds with each other. (Doesn't have to be that way, like.) It's just that we see those on the right criticising people on the left for not liking Thatcher, or saying that she was wonderful in a way that only good things happened under her, or not even considering whether these subjective good things came at a heavy price. It's the right who cannot accept that people have real reasons for disliking Thatcher.

The "they're doing it as well, miss" argument isn't a good one.

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Where are all these disabled people "getting reduced help": I know many long-term/lifetime disabled (benefit of spending time in a spinal injuries unit) and NOT ONE of them is having the benefits they receive reduced, not one.

I am glad to hear that. Other people, such as this one have not been as lucky.

quote:
[...]

As for people's concerns being disregarded - well, there are plenty of people who have been mightily concerned at the number of people deemed to be inacapable of looking after/providing for themselves. Look at the figures, between 1979 and 1990 the number of people registered as being incapable of working in the UK when compared to the rest of the EU went from being broadly similar to at least three times the number per 1,000.

While poverty doubled. Perhaps that tells you something about wage levels.

quote:
Scoring points against people on benefit? , I think the point being made by some Tory politicians was that Mr Philpott was not himself entitled to anything other than unemployment benefit (I know, "Jobseeker's Allowance) but in fact his bank account was where the benefits rightfully belonging to his wife and his live-in lover ended up.
It was an issue of domestic abuse, not of the welfare state. I mean, when Shipman was found guilty of killing patients no-one brought the NHS into it.
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Yes, QLib, most in 2 bed (at least) - but that is to provide for overnight care.

Then, overnight care or not, I'll think you'll find they're all having their benefits cut because of that extra room, unless the government is alreasy rapidly re-writing that rule.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Given that Mrs Thatcher encouraged small government, personal responsibility and economically viable industries,

Did she? Well she was bloody incompetant at it then. On her watch government got bigger, taxes went up, the proportion of government revenue spent on benefits went up, and large chunks of profitable industry were deliberately shut down, to be replaced by low-wage service busineses, a residential property price boom, and investment banking. And we all know how that turned out.

Its really hard to see how kicking someone out of work and forcing them to depend on the dole or on disablity allowance can be imagined to encourage personal responsihbility.

quote:

I suppose it must be hard for those who desire their lives to be controlled by others (in other words, pathetic losers) to show due respect to such a person. This kind of dependency mentality is characteristic of someone who has failed to mature in life. It probably explains the puerility of your comments, which any normal person would have grown out of at about the age of 13.

The old lie that right-wingers are more libertarian thn left-wingers. [Snore] Never remotely true in Britain. The Tories are and always have been the party of the monarchy, of authority, of social control, of domination, of the powerful State, of the rich doing what they hell they like and the rest of us obeying orders like good little forlelock-tossing arse-licking peasants. Not citizens, not autonomous human beings, but just "human resources". Our only reason for existence to provide them with a little bit of cheap labour now and again when they want some work done. And when there is no work, to be stripped of all dignity and individuality and proicessed into some sort of standardised jobseeking crawler, parroting the words and behaviour of the minders they deign to put over us.

Yes, and that rant isn;t so myuch about Thatchers as about that excecrable shite George Osborne, the nasty evil little toffee-nosed cunt that the is. Thatcher's gone and the bloody government is run by Lord Snooty and his pals.
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Yes, QLib, most in 2 bed (at least) - but that is to provide for overnight care.

Look, we all want to give the incapacitated a hand-up but there are also many people (over 800,000 at the last count) who, faced with a medical check on their current condition chose to take themselves "off the sick" - and this when the successful appeal rate against the much-flawed ASOS regime is at about 80%.

As our US cousins would say, go figure, it aint rocket science.

It's about where the focus is.

One can focus on Housing Benefit being paid out to people living in the housing private sector, a private sector made a lot bigger by the Tories.

One can focus on an estimated 95bn of lost tax.

One can focus on the implicit state subsidy (in 2009 estimated by the BoE to be 100bn) to banks.

One can focus on the huge bonuses paid to the directors who contributed to the economic downturn.

One can focus on the 130bn for a Trident Replacement.

But no, the focus in on a small minority unemployed and disabled people. This focus says a lot.

The successful appeal rate with ATOS with 40%, by the way.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Other people, ... have not been as lucky.

I know a former nurse now unable to work due to a degenerative spinal condition that seems to manifest in periods of being barely able to move. She's had multiple operations, on all kinds of medication. She was recently assessed by an Atos "health assessment professional" (as far as I can tell, that means no medical qualifications necessary) on a good day and lost all DLA.

Scope reckons 600,000 people will eventually lose their benefits as a result of the switch. I'd be interested to see where you sourced your figure of the numbers failing to claim after being told they're going to be assessed. I find it unbelievable.

Ken, you're right about the underclass thing. I shouldn't use right wing terminology.
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
Add on a true DLA fraud level of 0.5% while Cameron's lot claim it's much higher - and therefore push more people into penury...
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
(2nd paragraph of previous post was obviously to L'organist)
...
(Carry on)
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Scope reckons 600,000 people will eventually lose their benefits as a result of the switch. I'd be interested to see where you sourced your figure of the numbers failing to claim after being told they're going to be assessed. I find it unbelievable.

Yeah, me too - doesn't really fit with the 80% successful appeal rate.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Compared to your wishing for others to be tortured eternally, even the worst of the gravedancing has been a model of civility and respect.

You're right. I should have held my tongue after the first paragraph but I was angry. I'm sorry.

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I'll see you there - I'll even buy you a pint.

Thank you but I suspect they'll only serve lager down there.

Bet it's not Fosters, even Hell wouldn't stoop that low.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Look at the figures, between 1979 and 1990 the number of people registered as being incapable of working in the UK when compared to the rest of the EU went from being broadly similar to at least three times the number per 1,000.

Sure. A policy decision to get the unemployment figures down: don't get people into work, get them onto the sick. It's one of those things you do when you don't give a fuck about unemployment: like not making unemployment benefit claimants reigster as unemployed (as Thatch's government did for a year or two in the early 80s).
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
If Cameron gives her a state funeral, I hope he has the decency not to drag The Queen along.


If it were up to me, I'd leave it to her family to dispose of her remains and not upset the whole country. A prayer and then straight through the curtain for her!

If there is a state funeral I will be out of the country for a long weekend.
I'll be watching to make sure she's gone.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Edith:
ATOS has just decided that Mrs Thatcher is fit for work.

[Big Grin]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
And what's this ' full military honours' malarky at the funeral? She didn't serve in the forces- in fact chose not to, in 1943 (though I'm not blaming her for that)- and her great 'victory' in the Falklands only had to happen because her government was sending strong signals to the Argentinians that we weren't prepared to defend the islands. Did Edward Heath (ex Lt Col RA) or Jim Callaghan (ex Lt RN, and the PM who pre-empted an Argentinian attack on the Falklands in 1977) have full military honours?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
The news front-end for my email provider has the following interesting headline:

Thatcher to receive ceremonial funeral

---

Um, aren't all funerals ceremonial?
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
I have mixed feelings about Thatcher. I'm not quite old enough to remember her well (I was born a few months after her election - and rather embarassingly, my middle name is Margaret. My parents chose it because it was my great-grandmother's name, nothing to do with the Iron Lady, but it's still a bit unfortunate [Roll Eyes] ) - but since this is a rant thread, mostly what I'm narked about is the fact that there's going to be nothing else on the BBC for bloody WEEKS.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
and the Tories are carrying on with Thatcherite policies that has cost this country a hell of a lot...

They can only do that because New Labour carried the torch meanwhile. I can't rejoice even though the witch is dead because her spell still continues to exert its malevolence.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
... is the Left ever very edifying?

Wilson, Falkender, Kagan, Stonehouse, Moreley, Jacqui Smith, Lord Ahmed all come to mind...

Left? Though Wilson was certainly to the left of nearly all in the present Labour Party, and did a good job IMHO.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You mean, like moving more of the world's wealth into the pockets of the super-wealthy? Yeah, the left has been shockingly dismissive of that.

The right want to move wealth into their own pockets, the left want to move wealth into theirs. Viva la difference.
 
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Mousethief

Here is your answer. Its a good old British fudge, lets hope that it pleases more than it annoys, but with people's reactions to Margaret Thatcher I expect that is unlikely.

Me, how they deal with her remains is irrelevant.

Jengie
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I have little empathy with those on "the right" who are wealthy

Yes, my point exactly. But for some reason, it's only the right who are considered to be morally deficient for lacking empathy for the other side.
 
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 
quote:
Marvin the Martian: the left want to move wealth into theirs.
That doesn't sound like the Left I know. Like I told you before, I know quite a number of people of the Left that vote for policies that would cost them money.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Bollocks, Marvin. The Right want to move wealth into their own pockets, the Left wants to move it into ours. And in fact the best of the Left- RH Tawney, for example- are rather sceptical about the benefits of having too much wealth at all.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm celebrating Thatcher's death because she wanted to exterminate the poor.

Oh get over it. There's a world of difference between wanting to kill people and wanting to make people take care of themselves rather than relying on government handouts.
That's right, make bricks without straw. Take away their jobs and then punish them for being unemployed.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The posts from Boogie and Alex Cockell are offensive.

Whatever your opinion of Margaret Thatcher's governments, a woman has just died and she will be mourned by her family and friends.

For people on a site such as SoF to make these responses is uncharitable and unChristian.

Totally agree. Very very bad form. Shame on them both [Disappointed] At times like this I wish we had the equivalent of the US 30 day 'flag rule'.
Articulate comment
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
That doesn't sound like the Left I know.

That's not the first time here that the assumption as to what constitutes "something the left want" is actually a fallacy.

It's not easy talking about politics when straw-men fill fields.

[ 08. April 2013, 21:10: Message edited by: Rosa Winkel ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Bollocks, Marvin. The Right want to move wealth into their own pockets, the Left wants to move it into ours.

The Left wants to put money in my pocket? Since when? Socialist governments are not usually renowned for their low tax rates...
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Bollocks, Marvin. The Right want to move wealth into their own pockets, the Left wants to move it into ours.

The Left wants to put money in my pocket? Since when? Socialist governments are not usually renowned for their low tax rates...
You suffer from severe anemia of imagination if the only thing that comes to mind concerning moving money is taxes. Oh right, you're conservative. Carry on.
 
Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Bollocks, Marvin. The Right want to move wealth into their own pockets, the Left wants to move it into ours.

The Left wants to put money in my pocket? Since when? Socialist governments are not usually renowned for their low tax rates...
But people aren't voting left because they think they themselves will end up richer! I've never been on benefits, and I sincerely hope I never will. (I had a period where I could have claimed jobseeker's, but luckily I found a job just in time.) I'm in favour of them because not everyone is as lucky as me — and I support higher taxes if that's what it takes to provide them.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I've been on Job Seeker's, it's bloody awful and they make you feel like a criminal.

That said, there are those who 'work the system' of course and there is certainly something of a dependency culture in some quarters. But even so ...
 
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :
 
Morrissey has his answer, then.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
There has to be a solution somewhere which allows thee and me to have our views influence the rule of the state when appropriate. Goodness knows what it is, though.

It's called proportional representation. You all ran away from it screaming on the basis that it allegedly takes Australians weeks to conduct an election, or some other nonsense that didn't bear any resemblance to what's actually happened here for the last century.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Marvin the Martian: the left want to move wealth into theirs.
That doesn't sound like the Left I know. Like I told you before, I know quite a number of people of the Left that vote for policies that would cost them money.
Indeed. I support things that cost me money quite frequently. Why? Because as someone who can afford to go on an overseas holiday for 12 weeks I know I'm bloody wealthy, and the fact that I can't do that AND buy a home cinema system doesn't suddenly make me 'poor'.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Right. Now, I wanted to make one other observation...

It hit me, catching up on this thread, that there's one thing fairly remarkable/odd about this sense of celebration from some quarters: this woman hasn't been in power since 1990.

People are carrying on in much the same way that is usually used for the toppling of a hated dictator. You know, one who was in power immediately before toppling.

What sort of victory are you celebrating, exactly? Is the political landscape radically altered by the death of a woman who hasn't formed part of government for a couple of decades? Government going to fall? Cabinet reshuffle required? Policy rethink?

Urgent memo on an undersecretary's desk?

Thatcher's death doesn't mean shit, practically speaking. So it seems a bit dopey to get carried away over it.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
What gets me is the stunning lack of empathy with those who hate Thatcher. We hear talk of "lefties" this and "lefties" that, but little engagement with the concerns.

Yeah, but how many of those on the left have even a single fuck to give about the concerns of those on the right? There's no empathy in that direction either - everyone's just in it for their own side.
No. That's false. The 'right' has decided it has the right to call everyone that questions their ideology 'left'. While the world seems easier to deal with if you polarize it into a simple binary, it is a lie. A very bad lie. If you're not with it you're against us type of lie. What do sheep and goat classifiers do with cattle? let alone deer.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Bollocks, Marvin. The Right want to move wealth into their own pockets, the Left wants to move it into ours.

The Left wants to put money in my pocket? Since when? Socialist governments are not usually renowned for their low tax rates...
Because state schools, state health care, state police force and state fire brigade are cheaper than paying for it individually. You'd be worse off if you had to pay for these things individually.

So yes. The Left are putting money in your pocket.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
Hi folks,

As I'd derail a Purgatorial thread - but I wanted to say this re Thatcher dying...

DING DONG THE BITCH IS DEAD!!!!

Ella Fitzgeral sings Ding Dong the Witch is Dead. The link also contains a picture of various politicians editted into it, with a mildly disagreeable view of Thatcher such that some workplaces may question you about your visit to the link.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
Part of me wonders whether it's envy, Orfeo.

The left in Britain want to revolutionise society but haven't done so. But Mrs Thatcher has.

The left hate fascism and campaign against fascism. Mrs Thatcher took on a fascist junta and played a key role in destroying it.

The left want to mobilise the working classes. Mrs Thatcher identified their aspirations and won many of them over.

Thatcher's success is a constant reminder that the left has failed. I might not be right. But then again if I am I doubt the left would admit it.

[ 08. April 2013, 23:27: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
You're tossing around 'the left' as a catch-all in front of a left-leaning voter. I'm not sure that's any smarter than the other rubbish flying around.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Right. Now, I wanted to make one other observation...

It hit me, catching up on this thread, that there's one thing fairly remarkable/odd about this sense of celebration from some quarters: this woman hasn't been in power since 1990.

People are carrying on in much the same way that is usually used for the toppling of a hated dictator. You know, one who was in power immediately before toppling.

What sort of victory are you celebrating, exactly? Is the political landscape radically altered by the death of a woman who hasn't formed part of government for a couple of decades? Government going to fall? Cabinet reshuffle required? Policy rethink?

Urgent memo on an undersecretary's desk?

Thatcher's death doesn't mean shit, practically speaking. So it seems a bit dopey to get carried away over it.

I agree with you, Orfeo. Sorry.
 
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :
 
1. Margaret Thatcher is most surely with her Lord now.

2. Those so low as to mock her and revel in her demise are headed elsewhere.
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
1. Margaret Thatcher is most surely with her Lord now.

2. Those so low as to mock her and revel in her demise are headed elsewhere.

How so very kind of you to remind us. See Anglican't upthread.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
1. Margaret Thatcher is most surely with her Lord now.

2. Those so low as to mock her and revel in her demise are headed elsewhere.

Really? Who put you in charge of anyone's eternal destiny?
 
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
1. Margaret Thatcher is most surely with her Lord now.

2. Those so low as to mock her and revel in her demise are headed elsewhere.

How so very kind of you to remind us. See Anglican't upthread.
And which Lord would be her destination? The Lord of Heaven or The Lord of Hell?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
2. Those so low as to mock her and revel in her demise are headed elsewhere.

Ah. Destination based on the merits of ones deeds. How spectacularly un-Christian of you.

EDIT: Not that quite a few of you aren't just as theologically dodgy the other way.

[ 09. April 2013, 06:13: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Thanks for the Ella link - everything she did was wonderful!

In my Community of Faith we hold that everyone has something of the Divine [that of God] within them but, as an elderly Friend once explained to me, some people hide it rather better than others.

I detested Thatcher's politics and spent a lot of time and energy over the years campaigning against her ideas and policies. And now she is dead - I am a universalist and believe that she will also attain salvation, whatever that term may be taken to mean.
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
I didn't like her either, but malicious gloating and vindictive pleasure (especially from people young enough not to have been there during her time as PM) just show someone up for what they are. The street parties are disgusting.

I can remember some people celebrating Diana's death as well.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Part of me wonders whether it's envy, Orfeo.

The left in Britain want to revolutionise society but haven't done so. But Mrs Thatcher has.

Post-war government much? The left's lasting triumph and legacy.
quote:
The left hate fascism and campaign against fascism. Mrs Thatcher took on a fascist junta and played a key role in destroying it.
Tell me again about Pinochet? And the UK government was busy selling the Falklands down the river up to the moment the Argentinians invaded.
quote:
The left want to mobilise the working classes. Mrs Thatcher identified their aspirations and won many of them over.
I think the phrase you're looking for is 'shafted them'. Now their children can't get jobs or homes. Well done.

For a Conservative you seem particularly ignorant of history.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

Thatcher's death doesn't mean shit, practically speaking. So it seems a bit dopey to get carried away over it.

From the article Doublethink linked to -
quote:
There is absolutely nothing wrong with loathing Margaret Thatcher or any other person with political influence and power based upon perceived bad acts, and that doesn't change simply because they die. If anything, it becomes more compelling to commemorate those bad acts upon death as the only antidote against a society erecting a false and jingoistically self-serving history.
Rather like remembering the war so as not to repeat it - not to revel in it.
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

I can remember some people celebrating Diana's death as well.

Some people didn't like her much either.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

Thatcher's death doesn't mean shit, practically speaking. So it seems a bit dopey to get carried away over it.

Yes, and no. As I said elsewhere yesterday,

quote:
When death is freedom from the shackles of dementia, one could argue that it is a death in which to be rejoiced.

At her death, there is less evil in the world.

Yes, she was a courageous politician who fought for her principles and vanquished her enemies. But, in doing so, she destroyed, not the strikers, but the working class as a whole. Destroying their contribution to the economy, she replaced it with nothing. A sense of non-worth that has plagued entire communities for 30 years.

Is her passing from this world something in which we can rejoice? Yes, and heartily! As a Christian, I will pray for her, as for all the departed, asking that God will cleanse her from her sins through the fires of Purgatory and welcome her into his Kingdom. It'll take a while, though.

Thurible
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:

What gets me is the stunning lack of empathy with those who hate Thatcher.

<snip>

I can take it that individual Tories can be OK people. During hard financial times in my life I have benefited from a few Daily Mail types who paid for bird-watching holidays, donating me sofas and clothes, something that stops me from believing all Tory voters to be twats.


The second paragraph answers your first; don't demonise the woman and vilify those who think she did at least some good, and then whinge about lack of empathy.

[ 09. April 2013, 09:43: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
I didn't like her either, but malicious gloating and vindictive pleasure (especially from people young enough not to have been there during her time as PM) just show someone up for what they are.

Well, that might be the dumbest thing I've read on this thread. If the woman's legacy is as enormous as most of you seem to think it is, then one might assume that people who lived in her wake might have a point of view on her.
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
The second paragraph answers your first; don't demonise the woman and vilify those who think she did at least some good, and then whinge about lack of empathy.

The people who defend Thatcher don't say things like "she did at least some good". They make out that she was better for everyone (well, apart from those nasty workers in unions). Maybe the word empathy comes across as too soft, perhaps the words "intellectual imagination" would be better. It's as if those who defend Thatcher are indignant that people don't like her. It's like they cannot imagine that life got worse for a lot of people when she was in power.

Talk of what is better or worse is, of course, very subjective. Here in Poland, communism was better for some in some ways, for example, Wałęsa and his wife benefitted from being to move from villages to a city where the government paid the rent, while his children have problems finding affordable accommodation. However, on a whole, people tend to say that what we have now in Poland is better. In some ways (women's rights, prices of accommodation) it's got worse, while in other ways (availability of food, ability to criticise the government, the standard of accommodation for middle-earning people) it's got better. Generally, the things considered relative to life lead most people to decide that what we have now is better.

With Thatcher some things got worse and some things got better. The question is of how one balances the two. One could address the issue, as ken has done, whether these good things would have happened anyway due to a western rise in living standards for most people, or, I would add, compare the UK to other countries.

It would be more honest so say "I know that things got worse for some, but they got better for me, so I like Thatcher". What we're hearing though is "she saved the country". For those who lost jobs, got vilified by the government and their poodles in the media, for those who got beaten by a strengthened police, for those who died due to increased poverty levels, she didn't save the country.

Ignoring the bad things or even denying them won't persuade people like me that they didn't happen.

Can you admit, at least that not everything that she did was good? That some were harmed, and no, they didn't deserve it?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Of course I can! My own views on her are mixed eg: she had great strengths but as with so many people a strength overplayed became a weakness for her.

But admitting that she didn't do everything right, and that what was good for some was not good for others is very different from the sort of disgusting gloating that's gone on on this thread; to read some of the revolting posts here you'd think that Hitler or Pol Pot had passed away and there are several Shipmates who've significantly gone down in my estimation in consequence (although they might not care much about that). If you expect me to have a jot of empathy with that sort of vile behaviour, then that in itself beggars belief.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
It's as if those who defend Thatcher are indignant that people don't like her. It's like they cannot imagine that life got worse for a lot of people when she was in power.

Life always gets worse for some people when there's a change in who is in power. The only thing that changes is which people.

quote:
for those who died due to increased poverty levels
Are those the same poverty levels that are determined by statistical analysis, rather than any actual reference to the living standards of the people concerned?
 
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
to read some of the revolting posts here you'd think that Hitler or Pol Pot had passed away

Indeed, to compare Thatcher to Hitler or Pol Pot is extraordinarily crass. But to hear some of the hagiography of the woman from the other side you'd have thought that Gandhi or MLK had just died.

Condi Rice: "There was no more potent force in the defense of freedom than this remarkable woman."

NO more potent force. Wow. Really? Does she remember anything that has ever happened ever?

Of course this woman wasn't the devil. But she wasn't Jesus Christ either, and both sides would do well to bloody remember that.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
I missed the memo which said that two wrongs now make a right.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
It's as if those who defend Thatcher are indignant that people don't like her. It's like they cannot imagine that life got worse for a lot of people when she was in power.

Life always gets worse for some people when there's a change in who is in power. The only thing that changes is which people.


So are you saying that it doesn't matter which people's lives get worse, to what extent and for what purpose?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've been on Job Seeker's, it's bloody awful and they make you feel like a criminal.

That said, there are those who 'work the system' of course and there is certainly something of a dependency culture in some quarters. But even so ...

Quite so, such as investment bankers who demand six-figure salaries and bonuses on top.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
So are you saying that it doesn't matter which people's lives get worse, to what extent and for what purpose?

My primary concern is making sure it's not me. My secondary concern is making sure it's not anyone I care about. Everyone else - in both directions - is tertiary at best.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
The legacy she left dies stretch out today. She killed off the left and all that remains is the pale, watered down rubbish of Blairism and the sad joke that is socialism-on-the-net, consisting of aged 80's militant supporters and youngsters trying to be cool so they can get laid.

Neither are worth wasting a vote on in my opinion. The electorate will only tolerate the Blairite style and will laugh until the tears flow at the Scargill-meets-media-luvies.

The ship is like a zoo. The last chance to see lefties. Without your help these sad little creatures will be extinct in another twenty years. Pity nobody gives a shite.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
So are you saying that it doesn't matter which people's lives get worse, to what extent and for what purpose?

My primary concern is making sure it's not me. My secondary concern is making sure it's not anyone I care about. Everyone else - in both directions - is tertiary at best.
But as Christian, Marvin, surely 'anyone I care about' should be a very large group indeed?
 
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :
 
In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho..."
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
But as Christian, Marvin, surely 'anyone I care about' should be a very large group indeed?

There are levels of caring. Priorities, if you will. To say that someone I don't know at all is less important to me than a member of my own family isn't to say they're not important at all, just that if I'm only able to help one of them (for whatever reason) it'll be the family member.
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
Marvin. I may disagree with your opinions but I thoroughly respect you for your honesty.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
I was discussing matters with my son's godfather (who is a Tory) this morning.

Apart from the 'who runs the country' argument, he went through a list of her 'achievements' and sadly came to the conclusion that her legacy is a disaster.

He is, of course, one of the nice Tories, not a arsehat like deano... [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Not only did she bugger up the country, she also stuffed the Conservative Party for a good 15 years at least: too many of them never got over losing her.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken
...large chunks of profitable industry were deliberately shut down...

Do please elaborate on the claim that genuinely profitable industries were 'deliberately' shut down. Some specific examples giving details of net profit margins would be helpful, please.

quote:
The Tories are and always have been the party of the monarchy, of authority, of social control, of domination, of the powerful State, of the rich doing what they hell they like and the rest of us obeying orders like good little forlelock-tossing arse-licking peasants. Not citizens, not autonomous human beings, but just "human resources". Our only reason for existence to provide them with a little bit of cheap labour now and again when they want some work done. And when there is no work, to be stripped of all dignity and individuality and proicessed into some sort of standardised jobseeking crawler, parroting the words and behaviour of the minders they deign to put over us.
And your economic solution is?

98% tax rate perhaps?

Government by Marxist unions?

Who will provide the money to finance your version of utopia?

Do, pray, tell us all.
 
Posted by St. Punk the Pious (# 683) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
2. Those so low as to mock her and revel in her demise are headed elsewhere.

Ah. Destination based on the merits of ones deeds. How spectacularly un-Christian of you.

EDIT: Not that quite a few of you aren't just as theologically dodgy the other way.

"You shall know them by their fruit." And some of the conduct overnight is what is "spectacularly un-Christian."

And note I said "headed." One can repent, i. e. change one's mind and direction. Those dancing the streets yesterday, figuratively and actually, got some repenting to do.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by ken
...large chunks of profitable industry were deliberately shut down...

Do please elaborate on the claim that genuinely profitable industries were 'deliberately' shut down. Some specific examples giving details of net profit margins would be helpful, please.

quote:
The Tories are and always have been the party of the monarchy, of authority, of social control, of domination, of the powerful State, of the rich doing what they hell they like and the rest of us obeying orders like good little forlelock-tossing arse-licking peasants. Not citizens, not autonomous human beings, but just "human resources". Our only reason for existence to provide them with a little bit of cheap labour now and again when they want some work done. And when there is no work, to be stripped of all dignity and individuality and proicessed into some sort of standardised jobseeking crawler, parroting the words and behaviour of the minders they deign to put over us.
And your economic solution is?

98% tax rate perhaps?

Government by Marxist unions?


Or maybe even just decent, socially responsible, reasonably long-termist, capitalism, of the kind that has, in varying forms, so hampered (not) the prosperity of Germany, Sweden, Finland and Japan.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
None of which we enjoyed in the 70s
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
The legacy she left dies stretch out today. She killed off the left and all that remains is the pale, watered down rubbish of Blairism and the sad joke that is socialism-on-the-net, consisting of aged 80's militant supporters and youngsters trying to be cool so they can get laid.

Neither are worth wasting a vote on in my opinion. The electorate will only tolerate the Blairite style and will laugh until the tears flow at the Scargill-meets-media-luvies.

The ship is like a zoo. The last chance to see lefties. Without your help these sad little creatures will be extinct in another twenty years. Pity nobody gives a shite.

I'm unsurprised how insular the little bubble you live in is. The disappointing thing is that someone as out of touch with the population of this country as you are pats himself on the back for being so and thinks that his experience is normal. Possibly getting off the net and out of your nice smug little pocket of middle England and meeting people would give you the breadth, the knowledge, and the understanding you seem utterly devoid of on the Ship.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Ken wrote:

quote:
I wonder what the general opinion among white folks in Atlanta was when they heard that US Grant was dead?


I think the guy you might have in mind is General Sherman. You might find this article interesting. It argues that at least some of what he is villified for was exaggerated. Apparently, the burning of Atlanta was more "functionalist" than "intentionalist", and Sherman actually made half-hearted attempts to contain the fire.
No, I meant Grant as reconstruction-era President who used federal forces to impose political settlements on states and cities that would never have voted for him.

The March to the Sea was an act of open war. Much as I diislike Tory governments its a long time since they've gone quite that far at home.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
There has to be a solution somewhere which allows thee and me to have our views influence the rule of the state when appropriate. Goodness knows what it is, though.

It's called proportional representation. You all ran away from it screaming on the basis that it allegedly takes Australians weeks to conduct an election, or some other nonsense that didn't bear any resemblance to what's actually happened here for the last century.
Australia doesn't use PR. It uses a form of AV. That system nearly always returns an assembly that is more proportional to the votes cast for each party than our first-past-the-post system, but it is not in fact PR. Good thing too, its better than PR, and I voted for it when we had our referendum about changing the system here. I would not want PR, it gives too much power to the parties.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...this woman hasn't been in power since 1990.

I think that's been adequately explained already on this thread and the other two. Read them.

And remember the old cliche that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Us old farts owe it to our children to remember.
 
Posted by Giac (# 15580) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Deano
She killed off the left and all that remains is the pale, watered down rubbish of Blairism and the sad joke that is socialism-on-the-net, consisting of aged 80's militant supporters and youngsters trying to be cool so they can get laid.

Does that actually work? Because if so then I wish I'd known that years ago. They should put that on their recruiting posters.
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
...there you go again, Boogie.

Presumably you'd be delighted then if someone who found your husband or parents less than congenial responded to news of their death by singing and dancing and postings like yours?

And before you ask, I am not, nor have ever been, a member of the Conservative Party and I never voted for the woman.

I completely agree with you here L'organist - it is like they are dancing on her grave.

You can disagree with a deceased person's views without rejoicing in their death can't you?
 
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :
 
Once the location is announced I would be happy to dance on her grave.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
your economic solution is?

98% tax rate perhaps?

Government by Marxist unions?

Who will provide the money to finance your version of utopia?

Do, pray, tell us all.

If all right-wingers were as ignorant of politics as you we'd have nothing to fear from them.

(I did begin to write an actual answer to your post but I deleted it on the grounds that this is Hell and you obhviosuly are just parroting nonense anyway rather than ptrying to participate in any conversation - if you really want to discuss polkitics rahter than just listen to the sound of your master's voice there are plenty of opther more sober threads to do it on)
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Marvin. I may disagree with your opinions but I thoroughly respect you for your honesty.

He is all heart, isn't he George?
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by deano
She killed off the left and all that remains is the pale, watered down rubbish of Blairism and the sad joke that is socialism-on-the-net, consisting of aged 80's militant supporters and youngsters trying to be cool so they can get laid.

posted by Giac
Does that actually work? Because if so then I wish I'd known that years ago. They should put that on their recruiting posters.

No. Love/lust also has to be deaf and blind to survive even a transitory liaison with a leftie, genuine/cool or other. To paraphrase the immortal Stella Gibbons the thing about the Left is, they're terrific hons but the food is terrible and the parties are so dull. Not life imitating art but art getting life to a T! [Devil]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Marvin. I may disagree with your opinions but I thoroughly respect you for your honesty.

He is all heart, isn't he George?
Other organs are available.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
No, I meant Grant as reconstruction-era President who used federal forces to impose political settlements on states and cities that would never have voted for him.

To put this into perspective, you mean Grant as reconstruction-era president who used federal forces to impose political settlements on states and cities that had just committed an armed rebellion against his country because they refused to abide by the result of an election. And two of those states would almost certainly have voted for an abolitionist party in 1860 if given the chance as more than one person in two in both South Carolina and Mississippi in 1860 were slaves, their liberty and even their votes stolen by the people who would have voted against Grant.

To call Reconstruction anti-democratic merely because the people who were allowed to vote would have voted against it is to accept the basic premise that it is legitimate for people to have their votes stolen and only those with votes should matter.

The only state to secede before Fort Sumter that was less than 44.0% slave in 1860 was Texas (30.2%). No state that joined the Confederacy was less than 25% slave in 1860. To talk about what the Confederate states would have voted for either before or just after the American Civil War as if they were democratic is a sick joke and implies that a body that keeps half its population enslaved can be in an sense democratic other than the "Three wolves and two sheep discussing dinner".

And while on the subject Grant picked up a lot of electoral college votes in the former Confederacy.

[ 09. April 2013, 14:28: Message edited by: Justinian ]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Once the location is announced I would be happy to dance on her grave.

Then you are seriously sick [Disappointed]
 
Posted by augustineofcanterbury2011 (# 16464) on :
 
R.I.P

not over keen on her domestic policies but another soul who has departed this life nonetheless [Votive]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
None of which we enjoyed in the 70s

Perfectly true, thanks to a combination of short-sighted greedy managers and short-sighted greedy trade unions, goinf back toi the 50s and beyond. The unions in particular valued collective bargaining above social partnership, and the managers and industrialists didn't care as long as the dividends were coming in and they could get by with a minimum of effort. But the answer was not what Thatch gave us.

[ 09. April 2013, 14:31: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Part of what she gave us was. Part of it wasn't.
 
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :
 
I am no more sick that Conservative Thatcherite apologists, Matt. [Devil]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Part of what she gave us was. Part of it wasn't.

No. Perhaps elements of what she did needed doing, and might have been done similarly by others. But they were done for the wrong reasons, with the wrong aims, and took us in the wrong direction. An utterly, utterly destructive programme, which has impoverished this country in every way except - for some and to some extent- materially: and what shall it profit a man- or a nation- if he gain the whole world and lose his soul?
She left an appalling legacy and I am disgusted that I am being required to contribute- even by 30p or whatever it will work out at on average- to the cost of her overblown, pompous, funeral. Vainglorious, pretentious, and externally showy, feeding her absurd pretensions to the status of Churchill, even as she goes to the grave.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Once the location is announced I would be happy to dance on her grave.

I would imagine the security around it is going to be rather high [Biased]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
I am no more sick that Conservative Thatcherite apologists, Matt. [Devil]

Yes you are. Anyone who rejoices in the death of another (with the possible exceptions of the likes of Bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin etc) needs help. That's quite different from disliking her policies. I know this is Hell, but even so, playing the (wo)man and not the ball to the extent you are doing is beyond the pale of decency.
 
Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :
 
I largely agree with you, Matt. Back in the 80s I was no fan of Thatcher, but I cannot imagine the mentality that wants to dance on her grave. Although I still don't like the effect her policies had on mining, steelmaking, shipbuilding and certain other industries, I think she was absolutely right on the EU, as history has shown, and right to send the Task Force to the Falklands, even though the eventual victory was a propaganda gift for her.

Having myself experienced the death of a mother after a year or more of Alzheimer's (in 2007), I have a lot of sympathy with the Thatcher children right now.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
This link is for Alex Cockell.

[Smile]
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
2. Those so low as to mock her and revel in her demise are headed elsewhere.

Ah. Destination based on the merits of ones deeds. How spectacularly un-Christian of you.

EDIT: Not that quite a few of you aren't just as theologically dodgy the other way.

"You shall know them by their fruit."

So by this definition, you would describe Thatcher herself as 'spectacularly Christian?' Or even Christian at all?
FWIW, I think you are a spectacular tool.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Once the location is announced I would be happy to dance on her grave.

I would imagine the security around it is going to be rather high [Biased]
And the line rather long. If they sold tickets for dancing, it could go to balance the budget.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I read somewhere that she asked to be buried with Denis whose ashes were buried under a white marble marker just outside the Royal Hospital, Chelsea.

Not much room for a dance floor then.
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Once the location is announced I would be happy to dance on her grave.

I would imagine the security around it is going to be rather high [Biased]
Yes. Not the sort of legacy anyone would choose.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
]To put this into perspective, you mean Grant as reconstruction-era president who used federal forces to impose political settlements on states and cities that had just committed an armed rebellion against his country because they refused to abide by the result of an election

Yes, so? This is our whinge, not yours. I ws just trying to explain the feelings some peopele here have to Americans who might not get it. Not to justify the feelings on either side. Its the way that the polices of the British governments of the 1980s were felt by whole communities as an attack on them. In some cases whole cities, counties, or even a whole country in Scotland. Which is why soem of ua often still feel bad about her in a way that people usually don;t about dead polticians whose policies they opposed.

As for Grant and Sherman, I'm afraid that my view of the rights and wrongs of that are the same as John Brown's. whould have been (A man whose name a number of my ancestors bear, as do I - having more names than just Ken) I think that slave-keeping is a crime and a sin as great as kidnapping, murder, and rape. Indeed greater because it includes kidnapping, murder, and rape and adds other crimes to them.

If there is such a thing as a capital crime then slavekeeping is surely one. The victorious North would have had the moral right to hang every Confederate supporter from the nearest tree because everyone who dcefends slavery is an accessory to kidnapping, murder, and rape. Questions of states rights or nationhood are irrelevant because no nation or state is above that moral law.

And in any case every slave has the moral right of self-defence to kill any man who holds them slave or prevents their escape or who attempts to enforce the laws of slavery. That is saying no mre than to say everyone has a moral right to defend their own person from attempted murder.

So the only reason there were any Confederate supporters left at all is that Sherman and Grant and the Union Army and the freed slaves showed them mercy they did not deserve, and had in the most part never shown to their own slaves. So any white southerner who is sentimental about the Confederacy or who still resents the North; and who does not support the abolition of the death penalty, really ought to think again.

But that's got nothing to do with Margaret Thatcher. Who would have been unlikely to defend slavery.
 
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :
 
This is hell, Matt. If you want defend Maggie I think another venue would be more appropriate.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Ah... a tendency to premature ejaculation.

Come off it!
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
Justinian wrote:

quote:
And while on the subject Grant picked up a lot of electoral college votes in the former Confederacy.


Just for clarification, was that during the period when blacks would have had the right to vote in some southern states? I'm having a hard time imagining Grant carrying a lot of former Confederate states otherwise.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
This is hell, Matt. If you want defend Maggie I think another venue would be more appropriate.

I'm not defending her. I'm worried about you
 
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :
 
You have nothing to worry about me Matt, although that is kind on your part. This is hell; I'm just letting off steam.
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
No. Love/lust also has to be deaf and blind to survive even a transitory liaison with a leftie, genuine/cool or other. To paraphrase the immortal Stella Gibbons the thing about the Left is, they're terrific hons but the food is terrible and the parties are so dull. Not life imitating art but art getting life to a T! [Devil]

For someone who claims never to have voted for Thatcher or her party you seem to have a remarkable number of hang-ups about "lefties". I can only conclude that she wasn't right-wing enough for you.
 
Posted by The Riv (# 3553) on :
 
Maybe too long of a perspective (is there such a thing?), but here's some Carl Sagan that I like to keep in mind whenever "milestones" are reached on one level or another:

quote:
From this distant vantage point, the Earth might not seem of any particular interest. But for us, it's different. Consider again that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there – on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.
The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner. How frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity – in all this vastness – there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

The Earth is the only world known, so far, to harbor life. There is nowhere else, at least in the near future, to which our species could migrate. Visit, yes. Settle, not yet. Like it or not, for the moment, the Earth is where we make our stand. It has been said that astronomy is a humbling and character-building experience. There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known.



 
Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
My first reaction to the jubilation which followed Maggie's demise was that it was out of order.

Then I looked into my own reactions and realised that when Mugabe goes I will have the Mother of All Parties to celebrate.

Apart from wrecking the economy of the breadbasket of Africa he has the blood of 10,000 Matabele people on his hands via his notorious N. Korean brigade.
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
To those who are full of disgust at the prospect of celebrations let me try using a more personal example to explain peoples feelings here. Imagine you know someone who for many years was badly abused by their partner. After a lot of suffering they finally get a divorce. Years pass and suddenly they get the news that the abusive partner has died. If they were at this point to embrace catharsis and hold a party I for one certainly wouldn't complain. In fact I'd go so far as to think it very good for their mental health.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
quote:
posted by Pre-cambrian
For someone who claims never to have voted for Thatcher or her party you seem to have a remarkable number of hang-ups about "lefties". I can only conclude that she wasn't right-wing enough for you.

1. You don’t know me, whether I have hang-ups or not, nor where (if anywhere) I might be placed on a political spectrum - although in this case that isn't relevant.

I have NEVER used the term "lefties" in any of my posts: in one post I used the singular - see below.

Question: Was it a genuine oversight or deliberate that you didn’t reproduce my post in its entirety? The post from Giac to which I was responding makes it crystal-clear that some leg-pulling is going on.

quote:
originally posted by deano
She killed off the left and all that remains is the pale, watered down rubbish of Blairism and the sad joke that is socialism-on-the-net, consisting of aged 80's militant supporters and youngsters trying to be cool so they can get laid.

quote:
posted by Giac
Does that actually work? Because if so then I wish I'd known that years ago. They should put that on their recruiting posters.

And it was at that point that I posted

No. Love/lust also has to be deaf and blind to survive even a transitory liaison with a leftie, genuine/cool or other. To paraphrase the immortal Stella Gibbons the thing about the Left is, they're terrific hons but the food is terrible and the parties are so dull. Not life imitating art but art getting life to a T! [ [Devil]

You obviously don’t recognise gentle humour, even though I gave a massive clue in using an obvious Mitford expression ("terrific hons") but saying it was Stella Gibbons...

(and No, I didn't see something nasty in the woodshed)
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Apples and oranges; we're talking about policies-v-people here. Gordon Brown may have shafted me and mine in more ways than one in the 13 years he was in various offices, but there's no way I'll be glad when he dies.

[reply to George Spigot]

[ 09. April 2013, 17:06: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 
Posted by Yam-pk (# 12791) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Apples and oranges; we're talking about policies-v-people here. Gordon Brown may have shafted me and mine in more ways than one in the 13 years he was in various offices, but there's no way I'll be glad when he dies.
[reply to George Spigot]

Thatcher did harm at home; Blair did harm abroad, I think they both deserve the same reaction upon their demise.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
1. You don’t know me

I don't know you, but I do know I'm still waiting to see where you got that ludicrous assertion about 800,000 people dropping false DLA claims from.

If you posted your source and I missed it then I apologise, but otherwise I have to conclude that you're full of shit.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Yes, so? This is our whinge, not yours.

Who's this "our" and "your"? I live in London and was born in England as well. The "so" is that analogies like yours often try to justify and paper over one of the worst causes in history.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
GreyFace

The figure is the total number of claimants for DLA who, when asked to go for the mandatory medical assessment, decided not to pursue their claim.

The figure I gave is approximate and I think may include people claiming for the first time who decided not to pursue their claim after first application.

There are currently 3.2m people in receipt of DLA.

Granted, numbers will be flexible because some claimants will die - in particular those who are on DLA because they are incapacitated because of terminal illness (I've some personal experience of this last) or some people may be on DLA while awaiting surgical procedure which will enable them to recover to join the workforce.

The figures can be checked with the DWP.
 
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I'm no fan of her policies, but surely it's silly to blame her alone for something a whole government, and indeed a whole country, was complicit in?

Not a whole country. Most of the north of England, and certainly Wales and Scotland, stood out against her.
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
Moan about the left celebrating Thatcher's death if you wish it's been less than a week since the right used the deaths of six innocent children for political gain so fuck you guys.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Spot on, George.
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
At least no-one claiming that she was to blame for her death, or that her friends pissed on her dead body and stole her purse.

She's been afforded more respect than Liverpool fans were by the Tory press.
 
Posted by redderfreak (# 15191) on :
 
A privatised funeral would be more appropriate than a state funeral. Hard working taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for it, in these times of austerity and economic deficit. I'm sure plenty of businesses would be willing to sponsor it. They could keep the advertising discrete.
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Anyone who rejoices in the death of another (with the possible exceptions of the likes of Bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin etc...)

Aaah, so some people can be set aside and judged by our good selves can they? I don't think so, Matt Black, whether we like it or not, only God can judge. We can hate the things they did and stood for, but not rejoice in their death.
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Moan about the left celebrating Thatcher's death if you wish it's been less than a week since the right used the deaths of six innocent children for political gain so fuck you guys.

Some politicians are just so thick, aren't they George? Anyone with half an ounce of common sense would know that the public would see right through such a stupid stunt.
 
Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
My first reaction to the jubilation which followed Maggie's demise was that it was out of order.

Then I looked into my own reactions and realised that when Mugabe goes I will have the Mother of All Parties to celebrate.

I don't think it's quite fair to compare the two; I suspect that in many people's minds Mugabe comes in the Evil Dictator category also occupied by Hitler, Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein.

My own tuppence-worth: I understand that the odious traitor Gerry Adams has been doing a fair bit of rejoicing over Baroness Thatcher's death; if I were inclined to celebrate someone's death (which I'm not) it would be far more likely to be his.
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
According to The Hindu she will be trotted to S. Paul's in a silver coffin.

What, she shut down the paper mills and cardboard manufactories, too?

Conspicuous consumption so defines her and her cronies!

[ 10. April 2013, 04:44: Message edited by: PeteC ]
 
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
There was a suggestion on Facebook that the funeral could be put out to private tender with a clause compelling the acceptance of the lowest bid.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The figures can be checked with the DWP.

Well, no actually, it's not quite so simple:

Have a read of this:

Sue Marsh (Disability Campaigner) Blog

AFZ
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
There was a suggestion on Facebook that the funeral could be put out to private tender with a clause compelling the acceptance of the lowest bid.

With the results here.

Thurible
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken
If all right-wingers were as ignorant of politics as you we'd have nothing to fear from them.

No answer then.

Thanks for that.

Funny how even Neil Kinnock blames Scargill for the demise of the coal industry.

But, hey, if you really think the 1970's was a great time for Britain, then please do pour scorn on me as much as you like. It's really quite amusing to witness such delusion.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Moan about the left celebrating Thatcher's death if you wish it's been less than a week since the right used the deaths of six innocent children for political gain so fuck you guys.

And since when did two wrongs make a right? Thank you but I'd rather not join you in your race to the bottom with the anti-welfare Mick Philpott bandwagon.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Then I looked into my own reactions and realised that when Mugabe goes I will have the Mother of All Parties to celebrate.

There's a significant difference - Mugabe will hold on to power until the day he dies - so his death will not only be the end of him, but also of his control over the country. The celebrations will be for both.

Thatcher's control over the country ended over twenty years ago, so her death simply does not have the same meaning as Mugabe's will.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by ken
If all right-wingers were as ignorant of politics as you we'd have nothing to fear from them.

No answer then.

Thanks for that.

Funny how even Neil Kinnock blames Scargill for the demise of the coal industry.

But, hey, if you really think the 1970's was a great time for Britain, then please do pour scorn on me as much as you like. It's really quite amusing to witness such delusion.

And don't forget to turn all the power off in your home for that really authentic cosy unionised 1970s experience...
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Moan about the left celebrating Thatcher's death if you wish it's been less than a week since the right used the deaths of six innocent children for political gain so fuck you guys.

And since when did two wrongs make a right? Thank you but I'd rather not join you in your race to the bottom with the anti-welfare Mick Philpott bandwagon.
It often seems that those who roll out the "two wrongs don't make a right" line had little or no problem with the first wrong. At least they very rarely make a fuss about it at the time.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
]

And don't forget to turn all the power off in your home for that really authentic cosy unionised 1970s experience... [/QUOTE]

And you could then also enjoy that really authentic 2010s non-unionised precariat - oh, sorry 'flexible and competitive labour market'- fuel poverty experience...
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
By the way, just noticed how topical my current signature quotation is. One of the least directly harmful but nonetheless nauseating things about Thatch was her attempts to identify with Churchill - as we shall see next Wednesday, something she was unable to resist even in death. As soon as you start to read anything about Churchill you realise, for all his flaws, how infinitely superior he was in breadth of vision, sympathy, imagination and understanding, both to Thatch herself and to the image of him that she and her like peddled. I am disgusted that we are paying for this last piece of vainglorious pretension.

[ 10. April 2013, 12:32: Message edited by: Albertus ]
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
By the way, just noticed how topical my current signature quotation is. One of the least directly harmful but nonetheless nauseating things about Thatch was her attempts to identify with Churchill - as we shall see next Wednesday, something she was unable to resist even in death. As soon as you start to read anything about Churchill you realise, for all his flaws, how infinitely superior he was in breadth of vision, sympathy, imagination and understanding, both to Thatch herself and to the image of him that she and her like peddled. I am disgusted that we are paying for this last piece of vainglorious pretension.

And the challenges he faced and overcame were vastly greater and more perilous than those she faced.

One point that never gets a mention is that anyone who was in their mid 50s and above in 1979 would likely have been a war veteran or otherwise active contributor to the war effort. I.e. probably over 1 million people still in paid employment. I wonder how many veterans were cast onto the scrapheap never to work again as a result of Thatcher's mass unemployment policies. Churchill would have been turning in his grave about the way his country and party repaid them.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Good point. IIRC older workers did get hit rather hard.
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
Maybe I should pop down to London to watch her funeral in person.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
All this "celebrating" is surely justice bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

No matter how you dress it up as joy, it's really just frustration because she won, you lost.

It's a badge of victory.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
quote:
Posted by Pre-cambrian
I wonder how many veterans were cast onto the scrapheap never to work again as a result of Thatcher's mass unemployment policies. Churchill would have been turning in his grave about the way his country and party repaid them.

Actually I think Churchill would have responded with a wry smile - don't forget that the man who stood on the balcony of Buckingham Palace on VE Day in May 1945 was out of office by VJ Day in the August.
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
For "horse" read "old nag". But at least you seem to recognise she had injustice on her side. I suppose that is progress.

[In response to deano.]

[ 10. April 2013, 15:38: Message edited by: Pre-cambrian ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
All this "celebrating" is surely justice bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted.


It's shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. If you must use cliches, please get them right.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
All this "celebrating" is surely justice bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted.


It's shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. If you must use cliches, please get them right.
It's what I call the "Biff Syndrome", after the least intelligent character in "Back to the Future" - "Make like a tree and get out of here."
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by ken
If all right-wingers were as ignorant of politics as you we'd have nothing to fear from them.

Funny how even Neil Kinnock blames Scargill for the demise of the coal industry.

But, hey, if you really think the 1970's was a great time for Britain, then please do pour scorn on me as much as you like.

You obviously are shouting back at the voices in your head because nothing you wrote there has anything to do with what I wrote.

Calm down and take the pills like a good little diddy-poos-possum and jsut remember Nanny Knows Best and never never play with those nasty dirty children on the other side of town.

[ 10. April 2013, 16:28: Message edited by: ken ]
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
@Deano Six pages in and you STILL don't get it?
This doesn't come from joy it comes from anger.
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
Hear, hear.

Let's show as much respect to Margaret Thatcher dead as Margaret Thatcher showed to the living.
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
Glenda really went for it!
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
One can definitely criticize Thatcherism even if one refrains from judging Thatcher the person.

My understanding of Christian judgment is that we are never to presume the state of anyone's soul at death. Even the most heinous of people may be forgiven by our loving and gracious God and therefore saved.

However this refraining of judgment at another's eternal state, does not mean we can't critique one's deeds and actions during one's life. It certainly does not mean we try to justify or sugar-coat one's actions. My first thought when I heard of Thatcher's death was:

Perhaps she'll learn in purgatory that there is a society after all.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Glenda really went for it!

Glenda: [Overused] [Overused] [Overused]
The best thing I've heard since Monday.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
@Deano Six pages in and you STILL don't get it?
This doesn't come from joy it comes from anger.

No, it comes from frustration. Three election victories, winning the cold war, destroying the hard left and not dying until she was 87. Of course you're frustrated.

You're going to be just as frustrated when Bush and Blair die peacefully in their sleep in their nineties never having been charged with the war crimes that some of you lot whinge on about. You'll be frustrated then too.

Of course my typo above was a mistake. It should have said it's JUST bolting the stable door etc. And thanks to all those of you who pointed it out. It was so kind of you, but really, you shouldn't have bothered. JUST like I'm not.

The autocorrect on Nokia's is shite.

Someone mentioned I didn't get it after six pages. I'm sorry but I don't get socialists and socialism after forty six years. So six pages of the usual ship's portside whining is hardly going to do anything.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Someone mentioned I didn't get it after six pages. I'm sorry but I don't get socialists and socialism after forty six years. So six pages of the usual ship's portside whining is hardly going to do anything.

Like every right-wing fuckwit in this country or yours, you wouldn't know socialism if it bit off your head.

Oh, and as an armchair psychologist, you're a worm.

[ 10. April 2013, 20:20: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Glenda really went for it!

[Overused] [Overused]
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Not frustrated, deano. Disgusted, angry, furious to think of what this country could have been and of what has been done to our people. But you wouldn't understand that kind of feeling. That's one of the differences between the right and the left, you see: the left, with exceptions, sees a big picture and cares about what happens beyond its field of vision: the right- the Thatcherite, neo-liberal right, anyway- doesn't give a fuck. The whole creed was built on not giving a fuck. When she spoke about 'our people' she meant 'us- and not you'.
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Glenda really went for it!

GO GLENDA (and good on John Bercow, too)!
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
@Deano No really. Not frustrated. Angry. We don't see politics as some kind of football match where if our team loses we feel hard done by or as if "we was robbed". We see the effects of politics on real people and are angry if it hurts them.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Glenda really went for it!

GO GLENDA (and good on John Bercow, too)!
There are quite a few Thatcher insults / criticisms flying around at the moment, but 'Margaret Thatcher wasn't a woman' is a new one on me.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
There are quite a few Thatcher insults / criticisms flying around at the moment, but 'Margaret Thatcher wasn't a woman' is a new one on me.

It's been around in some left-wing feminist circles for years - maybe even back when she was still PM.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
winning the cold war

For the second time on this thread (the first was directed elsehwere): Eh?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
There are quite a few Thatcher insults / criticisms flying around at the moment, but 'Margaret Thatcher wasn't a woman' is a new one on me.

Have a look at footage of cabinet meetings etc.

Thatcher was a queen bee.

The willing drones gathered round her, dancing to her tune - the unwilling ones were shafted. Just like our manufacturing base really.

She did nothing for women.

I was disappointed by many things she did and didn't do, this especially. She put the cause of women leaders back by decades. Who would want a Thatcher repeat? (shudder).

[Frown] [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
The version I remember from the time was 'A woman but not a Sister'.
 
Posted by Spike (# 36) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:


Of course my typo above was a mistake. It should have said it's JUST bolting the stable door etc. And thanks to all those of you who pointed it out.


[Killing me]

[ 11. April 2013, 08:09: Message edited by: Spike ]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
There are quite a few Thatcher insults / criticisms flying around at the moment, but 'Margaret Thatcher wasn't a woman' is a new one on me.

Have a look at footage of cabinet meetings etc.

Thatcher was a queen bee.

This is a bad thing? And if so, how / why? I don't understand the argument that it's good to be a woman leader so long as one isn't too assertive. Or at least that appears to be argument.

quote:
She did nothing for women.
Is a woman under a duty to help other women? And is she less of a woman if she doesn't? And what sort of assistance should this take? I'm at a loss to think what she should've done.

This is putting aside the fact that some women were inspired by having a woman in charge.
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

This is putting aside the fact that some women were inspired by having a woman in charge.

I remember talking to my Maths teacher at secondary school about this, in those far-off, adolescent days when I was somewhere to the right of Atilla the Hun.

Mrs O'Connor had come of age at the beginnig of the Thatcher era and I suggested to her that Mrs T must have been an inspiration, showing what could be done by women.

"Far from it!" was the response "Thatcher showed that the way for a woman to succeed was to become a man. How is that meant to inspire women?"

Thurible
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
But she didn't become a man in that sense: she was far above (for good and ill) the men surrounding her, "a tigress surrounded by hamsters".
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Not frustrated, deano. Disgusted, angry, furious to think of what this country could have been and of what has been done to our people. But you wouldn't understand that kind of feeling. That's one of the differences between the right and the left, you see: the left, with exceptions, sees a big picture and cares about what happens beyond its field of vision: the right- the Thatcherite, neo-liberal right, anyway- doesn't give a fuck. The whole creed was built on not giving a fuck. When she spoke about 'our people' she meant 'us- and not you'.

You say potato.

I shudder to think what state the country would be in if Labour had won in 1979.

Happily we were spared that nightmare.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Yep
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
All this "celebrating" is surely justice bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

No matter how you dress it up as joy, it's really just frustration because she won, you lost.

It's a badge of victory.

And there you sum up the attitude by the Tories perfectly, what this whole thing means and what Thatcher's funeral will be seen as by many. This isn't just about remembering someone who's died, remembering a past leader of this country who's died - this is about your lot gloating and rubbing the noses of those who opposed Thatcher and those who suffered under Thatcher and the economic system she unleashed in it.

Thatcher came to power in a deeply broken, divided country. But she didn't try to heal it and bring it together, no matter what she said on the steps of 10 Downing Street: she came to win, to make her side the champions and to break the other side and to hell with the human consequences of that. She may not have wanted to wage war on the working classes, but it seems unlikely she considered them as any more than the collateral damage in her battle to draw power and wealth to the top of society.

And her funeral will be the ultimate reflection of that: rather than acknowledging the deep divisions Thatcher inherited, made worse and caused, it'll glorify her and her side and ignore those who have a different story to tell - rub their noses in it.

So that's it: you won and that'll be the message next Wednesday. And the divisions in British society will get worse and worse, and the consequences of that - consequences which the right complains about but which the right under Thatcher caused - will continue to grow.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Not frustrated, deano. Disgusted, angry, furious to think of what this country could have been and of what has been done to our people. But you wouldn't understand that kind of feeling. That's one of the differences between the right and the left, you see: the left, with exceptions, sees a big picture and cares about what happens beyond its field of vision: the right- the Thatcherite, neo-liberal right, anyway- doesn't give a fuck. The whole creed was built on not giving a fuck. When she spoke about 'our people' she meant 'us- and not you'.

You say potato.

I shudder to think what state the country would be in if Labour had won in 1979.

Happily we were spared that nightmare.

And what then Comrades? Jones would have come back!
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
You say potato.

I shudder to think what state the country would be in if Labour had won in 1979.

Happily we were spared that nightmare.

Spared one, but we had another instead; an unnecessary war, house-price inflation treated as a virtue, interest rates higher than the age of consent, 3 million unemployed and an economic dependence on the globalisation of financial markets.

All this despite the best of the North Sea oil revenues.
 
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
You say potato.

I shudder to think what state the country would be in if Labour had won in 1979.

Happily we were spared that nightmare.

Spared one, but we had another instead; an unnecessary war, house-price inflation treated as a virtue, interest rates higher than the age of consent, 3 million unemployed and an economic dependence on the globalisation of financial markets.

All this despite the best of the North Sea oil revenues.

I was just a child in the Thatcher era, but it seems to me that the arguments go like this:

Conservative: It was really bad when Thatcher took over. She got rid of all the bad things.

Liberal: Yes, she did, which was good and right. But what she replaced it with was just as bad. Bad, but in a different way.

Conservative: But what she got rid of was really bad! Imagine if she hadn't done that!

What I would really like to hear from the Conservatives is why what she replaced the bad things with was good, not bad, when as far as I can tell, for many, many people, it was very bad.

What I would really like to hear from the Liberals is, given that what she got rid of was bad, what should she have replaced it with?
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And what then Comrades? Jones would have come back!

Do you mean Jones the KGB informer?

[ 11. April 2013, 11:30: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And what then Comrades? Jones would have come back!

Do you mean Jones the KGB informer?
Well, we did have a PM who backed a neo-fascist regime in South America. She would have backed another had they not gone to war with us.

goperryrevs asked:

What I would really like to hear from the Liberals is, given that what she got rid of was bad, what should she have replaced it with?

Well, I'm not a Liberal (or a liberal) but I would have preferred that:

- the whole country shared in the North Sea oil bonanza.
- council houses sold were replaced, to maintain the stock of social housing.
- unions had been reformed, not destroyed.
- trustees of company pension funds had not been given the power to invest in that company, or take 'pension holidays'.
- the Ponzi schemes known as endowment mortgages had been outlawed.
- her followers had seen the merit in her opposition to railway privatisation.

That do for now?
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
But she didn't become a man in that sense: she was far above (for good and ill) the men surrounding her, "a tigress surrounded by hamsters".

She was PM; the men surrounding her were the ones she chose to surround herself with. Her preference for ideological soulmates is well documented as is her intolerance of challenge. If she was surrounded by hamsters she must bear much of the blame for that.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
And what then Comrades? Jones would have come back!

Do you mean Jones the KGB informer?
Well, we did have a PM who backed a neo-fascist regime in South America. She would have backed another had they not gone to war with us.
Even if those statements are true, it's not the same as treason.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
And fuck all to do with the point I was making.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
Which was what?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Which was what?

A point fucking obvious to anyone passingly familiar with 20th century political fiction.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
Oh I see, Animal Farm.
 
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
That do for now?

Yeah, thanks, they make sense.

I didn't know she opposed the privatisation of the railways. It always seemed a dumb idea to me. Same with energy. The way that all the energy companies like to screw us punters over endlessly (and put up with all the fines, because they still get their profit) is rubbish.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Oh I see, Animal Farm.

See, I knew you'd get there in time. It's not true what they say. I said "That Anglican't, he's not stupid. He thinks slower than he talks, but he can see through a brick wall in time, as they say."
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
Actually, I've read neither Animal Farm nor Lord or the Rings. I know I ought to read the former, not so bothered about the latter.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Not Lord of the Rings?! [Eek!]

Seriously, read both!
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:

I shudder to think what state the country would be in if Labour had won in 1979.

In terms of economics and business, almost certainly roughtly where we are now. Every single western European country ahs got more prosperous over the last thirty years at roughly the same rate, with a few fits and starts here and there. Regardless of what colour government they had at the time. Sometimes some of them surged forward a bit faster, sometimes some of them got held up a bit. Like the British economy in the early 1980s, though we caught up again later.

Governments haven;t really had much to do with that kind economic growth other than occasionally halting it by by incompetance or deliberate action. But these things too shall pass.

Politically? Well, every single Western European country except the Vatican and Lichtentsein (we could argue about Monaco) has some form of more-or-less Republican representative government, occasionally with a figurehead monarch, every single one of them has some sort of vaguely liberal-democratic constitution, every single one of them has a more-or-less free press (rather less free in England than most because of our libel laws deliberately designed to protect the rich), every single one of them has a basically capitalist economy with a certain amount of government intervention, every single one of them has a sort-of free market in goods and services (more in the UK than some others), every single one of them has a theoretically independent judiciiary, every single one of them has some sort of national healthcare scheme, every single one of htem has compulsory education funded by taxpayers, every single one of them has a klimited welfare state with old-age pensions, unemplyment benefits, disability benefits and so on. And so on and so on.

Why do you imagine things would have been much different now whoever was in government in 1979? What evidence do you have of that other than a mixture of right-wing arrogance and typical Tory misanthropic wet dreams?
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
I would never dance on anybody's grave. Ask not for whom the bell tolls because I promise you, it tolls for thee too... However I can understand those that do, and to be honest, whilst it's a little bit thoughtless and offensive to her family those who can't understand it are lacking empathy - or possibly, intelligence.

I would not wish to compare Thatcher with various despotic dictators. However, I think that, notwithstanding what I've just said, the death of Mugabe would be a good thing overall. No one (aside from the odd neo-Nazi) would argue that the world is not a better place without Hitler in it. Hitler and Mugabe and all the others are accountable for their lives and actions and it is arguably the greatest tragedy possible for a human life that the world is a better place without you.

Once you concede the principal it is just a matter of degree and where you draw the line. Paradoxically I think the world is worse off with Margaret Thatcher not in it but I'll come to that. Firstly, it is not remotely surprising how strong the anti-Thatcher feeling is. It is not (except in the addled, deluded minds of Daily Mail writers and readers) some strange form of left-wing jealously and a result of the fact that 'The Left' can't forgive her for being right.

If we - for the sake of argument - concede that Thatcher did a lot of good*. However and it's a big 'however' even her most ardent supporters admit that there were many losers to Thatcherism.

If you are one of those losers - and we are talking whole sections of society impoverished and stigmatised and generally depressed by the actions of the state - if you are one of those, I think you are clearly entitled to neither like her nor think her record is something to be celebrated. Even if you wish to postulate that her reforms were necessary, I think you have to admit that those who felt the brunt of the effects are entitled to think negatively about her and all she stood for.

There are large sections of the UK who think this. (She never had majority support btw, but big majorities due to our electoral system). Then if you add on to such a justified feeling the message that the right-wing media has been pumping out for a long time, but in a quasi-orgasmic way this week that she was the greatest prime minister ever or quite possibly the greatest human being ever... and anyone who thinks otherwise is clearly defective in some way, then it is not surprisingly how strongly negative feelings get towards her.

The paradox for me, is that as an ailing old lady lauded by the right-wing ideologues she had some power - less than when she was in government, obviously - but still a big influence on thinking and ideology. As a deceased former Prime Minister and totem of the radical right she is much more influential this week than last.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls but no one should be surprised that hurt, angry people feel strongly about her.

AFZ

*Her economic legacy will be ground in stone by the Right as 'the woman who saved Britain' if they can manage it but (apart from to make a rhetorical point) this is something I would challenge deeply. There is so much evidence that the 'economic miracle of Thatcher' is basically a Myth, as Ken alluded to above. For starters:

Paul Krugman, Nobel prize winning economist
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Thatcher came to power in a deeply broken, divided country. But she didn't try to heal it and bring it together, no matter what she said on the steps of 10 Downing Street: she came to win, to make her side the champions and to break the other side and to hell with the human consequences of that. She may not have wanted to wage war on the working classes, but it seems unlikely she considered them as any more than the collateral damage in her battle to draw power and wealth to the top of society.

I love how you say all that as if the left wouldn't have done exactly the same thing had they won.

Actually, they probably wouldn't have done exactly the same thing. Thatcher was indifferent to the fate of her defeated opponents, whereas the likes of Scargill would have happily lined their defeated opponents up against a wall and shot them. "Glorious Revolutions" tend not to be so "glorious" for those who didn't want them to happen.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:

If you are one of those losers - and we are talking whole sections of society impoverished and stigmatised and generally depressed by the actions of the state - if you are one of those, I think you are clearly entitled to neither like her nor think her record is something to be celebrated.

Yes, I agree.

It's always easy to find losers. It's harder to find the people that would have been losers under the alternative, but are not losers under the new system. This is a well-known framing effect that makes people react worse than they should towards any change.

This doesn't mean that the losers don't exist, or don't have the right to be aggrieved. It just means that counting losers isn't the whole picture.


quote:

(She never had majority support btw, but big majorities due to our electoral system).

As I have pointed out, there's nothing special about that. No government since 1928 has had majority support, and there's not much to choose between Thatcher's vote share and Blair's, for example.
 
Posted by John D. Ward (# 1378) on :
 
A public statement on the press response by one of our regular posters here:

Pete Broadbent as reported by Daily Telegraph

Any thoughts ?
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
Good for him. I have no real quarrel with the people who call themselves Thatecherites expressing their admiration, but I do resent the idea that those who dissent from that view are somehow not playing the game. The "whatever you think of her policies, you have to admit she was Great" argument (if that's the right word) is banal, though it is all of a piece with this country's increasing tendency to indulge in emotional masturbation at any and every opportunity.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John D. Ward:
A public statement on the press response by one of our regular posters here:

Pete Broadbent as reported by Daily Telegraph

Any thoughts ?

Pete 3, Torygraph Nil.


quote:
[...he...] accused the BBC of “appallingly sycophantic” coverage of the former Prime Minister’s death while the press, he said, was silencing voices of opposition."
Spot on. This isn't really about hating or loving Margaret Thatcher, its about resisting attempts to rewrite history.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
I've been impressed (again) by the Channel 4 News. As well as showing how many people honour and revere Thatcher, they also gave space to those who suffered at her hands and still find it hard to forgive her. It couldn't help but make clear that she is still a divisive figure.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
"Glorious Revolutions" tend not to be so "glorious" for those who didn't want them to happen. [/QB]

They tend not too [at least in terms of against the wall] until they get invaded. Then either they nominally win but some utter bastard gets in charge (and by that point they're paranoid anyway). Or they lose and an evil dictator gets put in power.

There are times when I suspect either are considered satisfactory (pace Animal Farm again). And also we have the example of Hitler for when we don't intervene.

[ 11. April 2013, 19:25: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John D. Ward:
A public statement on the press response by one of our regular posters here:

Pete Broadbent as reported by Daily Telegraph

Any thoughts ?

Bishop Pete's politics are well-known [Biased]

I haven't seen the BBC TV coverage, not being in the UK. "Sycophantic" wouldn't be a fair description of the BBC web coverage though - if anything, the BBC website was weighted too heavily against her record: an over-recalling of things like the Poll Tax riots, but in general it gave a reasonable coverage of her time in office.

I think Labour leaders like Milliband and Blair set the right note, when they talk about how they have some profound disagreements with her policies, but nevertheless can respect some of her achievements.

I agree that it would be nice to be able to have a grown-up discussion about her legacy, although this week is perhaps not the time for that. Bishop Pete is right to say that it's hard to do that amid all the sycophancy. It's equally hard to do that when the other side is singing "Ding Dong the witch is dead", and it's a predictable shame that Bishop Pete doesn't mention that.

If you want to have a grown up discussion, you have to keep your viscera firmly under control - whether you have visceral love or hate for Lady Thatcher.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I haven't seen the BBC TV coverage, not being in the UK. "Sycophantic" wouldn't be a fair description of the BBC web coverage though - if anything, the BBC website was weighted too heavily against her record: an over-recalling of things like the Poll Tax riots, but in general it gave a reasonable coverage of her time in office.

I agree. Take, for example, this screen shot. The BBC saw fit to report prominently concerns over the cost of the funeral that even the left-wing press didn't see fit to report so prominently.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John D. Ward:
A public statement on the press response by one of our regular posters here:

Pete Broadbent as reported by Daily Telegraph

Any thoughts ?

[Big Grin]

if Pete ever wants to give up that silly little day job of his, he'd make a pretty good Hellhost.
 
Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
... when the other side is singing "Ding Dong the witch is dead" ...

According to a report in the Telegraph the BBC is quite likely to play it in its chart show on Sunday, as sales of the recording have sent it into the top 10. FWIW I think that would be in the most appalling bad taste; she had children and grandchildren who are mourning her, and I can't imagine how I'd have felt if people started singing that after my mother died.

Anyway, they'd presumably have to explain why a song from the 1930s was suddenly back in the charts, as the target audience is too young to remember her, which rather begs the question: who was buying the recordings?

Just out of curiosity, why is it that the "do not speak ill of the dead" rule seems to have been waived in her case?
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
Regarding your question, see that very debate in Purgatory.

Or the Prayer Thread in AS... Oh, wait...
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
quote:
Originally posted by John D. Ward:
A public statement on the press response by one of our regular posters here:

Pete Broadbent as reported by Daily Telegraph

Any thoughts ?

[Big Grin]

if Pete ever wants to give up that silly little day job of his, he'd make a pretty good Hellhost.

I concur. Pure trouble, that one, and that's pretty much a job requirement. [Big Grin]

(Seriously, I don't claim to know all that much about Thatcher, but the conversation is certainly giving me flashbacks to Reagan's three day "No, really! Sainthood!" fest of a funeral.)
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by piglet:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
... when the other side is singing "Ding Dong the witch is dead" ...

According to a report in the Telegraph the BBC is quite likely to play it in its chart show on Sunday, as sales of the recording have sent it into the top 10. FWIW I think that would be in the most appalling bad taste; she had children and grandchildren who are mourning her, and I can't imagine how I'd have felt if people started singing that after my mother died.

Anyway, they'd presumably have to explain why a song from the 1930s was suddenly back in the charts, as the target audience is too young to remember her, which rather begs the question: who was buying the recordings?

Just out of curiosity, why is it that the "do not speak ill of the dead" rule seems to have been waived in her case?

Have a look at this thread, piglet.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John D. Ward:
A public statement on the press response by one of our regular posters here:

Pete Broadbent as reported by Daily Telegraph

Any thoughts ?

No. Just this.
[Overused]
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by piglet:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[qb] ... when the other side is singing "Ding Dong the witch is dead" ...

...she had children and grandchildren who are mourning her, and I can't imagine how I'd have felt if people started singing that after my mother died.

Mind you the son we're meant to feel sorry for is <allegations removed by Sioni Sais {Hellhost} - potential C7 violation>. And definitely some of his mother's choices seem to have been made for his interest.

But the daughter doesn't seem too bad, limited to saying a few stupid things.

Hostly Bowler On

Jay-Emm, please be careful when throwing epithets around, even in Hell, as while we on The Ship know Hell is different it's as public as anywhere else. Margaret Thatcher is dead, her son is not.

While one of the three allegations may have had legs the others didn't. Now have a look at our ten C's, especially C7 regarding libellous material, take notice of it and be much more careful in future.

You probably consider I am being harsh in removing material and you would be right, but libel law is very serious, especially in the UK. I had a shedload of potential C7s to deal with as a rookie Hellhost and it wasn't fun dealing with them.

Hostly Bowler Off

Sioni Sais
Hellhost

[ 13. April 2013, 01:29: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:


if Pete ever wants to give up that silly little day job of his, he'd make a pretty good Hellhost.

The day job is a lot easier than that!
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I don't know about that, I get the feeling once you settled in you'd put Tomb to shame.

Not to mention that wet end RooK. [Big Grin]

[ 12. April 2013, 09:32: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I haven't seen the BBC TV coverage, not being in the UK. "Sycophantic" wouldn't be a fair description of the BBC web coverage though - if anything, the BBC website was weighted too heavily against her record: an over-recalling of things like the Poll Tax riots, but in general it gave a reasonable coverage of her time in office.

I agree. Take, for example, this screen shot. The BBC saw fit to report prominently concerns over the cost of the funeral that even the left-wing press didn't see fit to report so prominently.
Agreed; I'd hardly describe the Left-leaning Beeb as 'sycophantic' in its coverage - lots of mentioning of her being a divisive figure, miners' strike, etc
 
Posted by Pre-cambrian (# 2055) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by piglet:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
... when the other side is singing "Ding Dong the witch is dead" ...

According to a report in the Telegraph the BBC is quite likely to play it in its chart show on Sunday, as sales of the recording have sent it into the top 10. FWIW I think that would be in the most appalling bad taste;
An alternative way of looking at it is that not playing something in the charts top 10 during a charts show is the rewriting of history that ken was pointing out.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
An alternative way of looking at it is that not playing something in the charts top 10 during a charts show is the rewriting of history that ken was pointing out.

Well, quite - if a song is in the Top 10 then of course it should be played in the Top 10 radio show!

Of course, that doesn't mean there has to be anything during that show that explains why the song is in the Top 10, barring the obvious "because it sold more copies". They never see the need to explain what the latest ear-assaulter from Jessie J or One Direction says about society, do they?
 
Posted by kentishmaid (# 4767) on :
 
Apparently the BBC got equal amounts of complaints that its reporting of Thatcher's death was biased to the left *and* to the right. I have also heard it said that it is pretty consistently accused of these biases in equal measure. To my mind that suggests they've got the balance pretty much right.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by John D. Ward:
A public statement on the press response by one of our regular posters here:

Pete Broadbent as reported by Daily Telegraph

Any thoughts ?

+Pete was almost complimentary about Mrs T at Spring Harvest last week, saying that she had been a politician who made values and convictions central to public debate, and that this was a good and necessary thing for society. I don't think anyone was in doubt about what he thought of her particular take on social values, but he did acknowledge the importance of her contribution.

I thought that was a pretty fair assessment (and I'd identify as centrist rather than left-wing).
 
Posted by Mad Cat (# 9104) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
An alternative way of looking at it is that not playing something in the charts top 10 during a charts show is the rewriting of history that ken was pointing out.

Well, quite - if a song is in the Top 10 then of course it should be played in the Top 10 radio show!

Of course, that doesn't mean there has to be anything during that show that explains why the song is in the Top 10, barring the obvious "because it sold more copies". They never see the need to explain what the latest ear-assaulter from Jessie J or One Direction says about society, do they?

In today's Times 2, Caitlin Moran reports from the nether reaches of Twitter and Harry Styles' feed.

Harry tweets "RIP Baroness Thatcher", to which the first four responses are:
"Is he your friend?"
"May he rest in peace amen."
"Is market thatcher somthing to do with our queen?"
"Who?"

[edit. bad apostrophe.]

[ 12. April 2013, 23:41: Message edited by: Mad Cat ]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by John D. Ward
Originally posted by John D. Ward: A public statement on the press response by one of our regular posters here:

Pete Broadbent as reported by Daily Telegraph

Any thoughts ?

1. Entirely predictable.

2. Peter Broadbent, as ever, unable to wear the right "hat" when asked for his comments on the death of Baroness Thatcher.

Pete - the clue was in the fact that the journo called you "bishop" - they weren't after your "councillor" opinion.

3. Two years have elapsed since this prat put his foot in it over the wedding of the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge and yet he seems to have learned nothing of either discretion or common-sense.

4. As for his "support" for Glenda Jackson: the woman deserves to burn in hell if for no other reason than a mental picture of her naked rolling around on the floor of a railway carriage compartment has rendered whole swathes of Tchaikovsky unlistenable for thousands.

Bottom line: many people in the pews find bishops expounding ill-conceived rubbish like this irritating, even offensive.

Journo friends tell me the opinion in the news room is that in Pete they have the best "mad bishop" rent-a-quote to have come from the Church of England since David Jenkins stint at Durham... and he's definitely the go-to foot-in-mouth merchant of choice now Rowan has gone, not least because, even with some of his more startling pronouncements Rowan's opinions were always thought through, whereas with Pete... As one gleeful sub-ed said, "its great, like asking a big kid". I rest my case.

[ 13. April 2013, 10:44: Message edited by: L'organist ]
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
As for his "support" for Glenda Jackson: the woman deserves to burn in hell if for no other reason than a mental picture of her naked rolling around on the floor of a railway carriage compartment has rendered whole swathes of Tchaikovsky unlistenable for thousands.

There's a knack to using hyperbole in a way that makes it amusing or effective, and you ain't got it. How do I know? Because I have lots of friends who agree with me. I rest my case. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Glenda Jackson: the woman deserves to burn in hell if for no other reason than a mental picture of her naked rolling around on the floor of a railway carriage compartment has rendered whole swathes of Tchaikovsky unlistenable for thousands.

I resent that remark [Razz]

Ms jackson's performance in in the film adaptation of D.H. Lawrence's Women in Love was responsible for my first orgasam . Respect to the lady.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:


Ms jackson's performance in in the film adaptation of D.H. Lawrence's Women in Love was responsible for my first orgasam . Respect to the lady.

TMI!! [Eek!]
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
No no no! OrgaSAM. Totally different.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Snap Poll: hands up who votes I close this thread right now?

Either before it gets any more weird, or for some of you before it gets any less weird. Or nostalgic.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
No no no! OrgaSAM. Totally different.

I assumed that the rekindled memory caused the hands to quiver while typing.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Quotes file for Anglican't. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Ok, so I like the Beeb and their Reithian liberalism sits well with me. They're only 'left leaning' if one dresses oneself (ahem!) to the right.

I could show you Facebook rants by some of my more lefty contacts which would make you think that the Beeb was the Daily Mail.

It's all a matter of perspective.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
[Big Grin]
Please don't close the thread on account of my lapse into TMI Orfeo . I'm not out to derail , just don't like Glenda dis-ed .
Seeing her performance in the HofC the other day , didn't move me in quite the same way but it's nice to see she hasn't lost her passion.

Like I said elsewhere I'm neutral on Thatcher . Clearly a lot of folk have bitterness about her and having her dead will hopefully put a line under that.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
didn't move me in quite the same way

Oh thanks. That really helped.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Journo friends tell me the opinion in the news room is that in Pete they have the best "mad bishop" rent-a-quote to have come from the Church of England since David Jenkins stint at Durham...

Glad to hear it.+Pete is in good company - Jenkins was one of the few who could be articulate against thatcher.

Pete speaks for he in many ways.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Clearly a lot of folk have bitterness about her and having her dead will hopefully put a line under that.

Not likely, not if the past is of any guide.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
If someone wants to blame everything wrong in the world post May 1979 on M.T. then that's up to them .
If we're talking about bitterness specific to pit closures etc. then my advice is to dump it in her grave rather than take it to your own.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Clearly a lot of folk have bitterness about her and having her dead will hopefully put a line under that.

Not likely, not if the past is of any guide.
I have to agree with lilBuddha. A lot of "Thatcherism" was of Keith Joseph, Enoch Powell, Cecil Parkinson and others, some of whom were more ideologically motivated than Thatcher. She had much more to do with sweeping away or minimising the influence of 'the Wets' in her cabinet, such as Pym and Carrington (and possibly Heseltine too), but that's because she was very much one for dealing with people, and most of her battles were with carefully identified and suitably demonised people, such as Galtieri, Scargill, Ken Livingstone or trade unionists.

That isn't going to go away with the death of a lady who hasn't been in power for over twenty years.
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
To those people who are so petty and mean spirited to dance on the grave of somebody who left office 20 years ago I say:

HA HA HA, you're a bunch of sore losers. You haven't achieved much to create the sort of society YOU claim you'd like to see so the best you can do to make a contribution to society is to crow about the death from natural causes of an 87 yo woman. PATHETIC. Yet MT's legacy lives on in the UK, she has the last laugh.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
You really, really don't understand what it's all about, do you?
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:

HA HA HA, you're a bunch of sore losers. You haven't achieved much to create the sort of society YOU claim you'd like to see so the best you can do to make a contribution to society is to crow about the death from natural causes of an 87 yo woman. PATHETIC. Yet MT's legacy lives on in the UK, she has the last laugh.

The very type of triumphalism , typical of Thatcher herself, that has caused the grave-dancing methinks.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I thought Graham Dow was the one for mad bishop rent-a-quotes ... demons being passed up men's arses during acts of homosexual sex, for instance ... the floods in Cumbria in 2009 being some kind of sign of divine displeasure at the government of Gordon Brown ...

So why didn't the Almighty send a tsunami up the Thames to flood the House of Commons rather than rains to the Lake District to wash away a bridge and the hapless copper who died valiantly trying to stop motorists from using it ...

I hope the retired Bishop had a reasonable explanation for that man's family ...

[Mad]
 
Posted by John D. Ward (# 1378) on :
 
Another episcopal view on the issue:

The Bishop of Grantham, as reported by the Daily Telegraph

[ 14. April 2013, 19:37: Message edited by: John D. Ward ]
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:

HA HA HA, you're a bunch of sore losers. You haven't achieved much to create the sort of society YOU claim you'd like to see so the best you can do to make a contribution to society is to crow about the death from natural causes of an 87 yo woman. PATHETIC. Yet MT's legacy lives on in the UK, she has the last laugh.

The very type of triumphalism , typical of Thatcher herself, that has caused the grave-dancing methinks.
Exactly [Roll Eyes] and it's the same sort of triumphalism being exhibited by those celebrating Thatcher's death, which is even less warranted because they did nothing to bring it about.
 
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :
 
Just checking to see if she's still dead. I hope someone will be around with garlic - it would be awkward if she rose during the funeral service.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
But it would suit the question re "the other place" in the resulting MW report.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
it's the same sort of triumphalism being exhibited by those celebrating Thatcher's death, which is even less warranted because they did nothing to bring it about.

What? You're saying we ought to have assassinated her?
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
it's the same sort of triumphalism being exhibited by those celebrating Thatcher's death, which is even less warranted because they did nothing to bring it about.

What? You're saying we ought to have assassinated her?
You could at least have tried.
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
it's the same sort of triumphalism being exhibited by those celebrating Thatcher's death, which is even less warranted because they did nothing to bring it about.

What? You're saying we ought to have assassinated her?
Well at least it would have given the parties some sort of justification.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Now that I think of it, the list of Bishops of Willesden does seem to contain a few chaps who've been quoted in the papers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_of_Willesden
 
Posted by Mad Cat (# 9104) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
it's the same sort of triumphalism being exhibited by those celebrating Thatcher's death, which is even less warranted because they did nothing to bring it about.

What? You're saying we ought to have assassinated her?
You could at least have tried.
Forgetting the IRA?

Poor taste, even for Hell.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
You really, really don't understand what it's all about, do you?

Ken, you keep making these little bon mots, but they aren’t fooling anyone.

You’re devoid of ideas and argument.

Someone said I didn’t understand socialism. Of course I understand it. I understand it in depth, which is why I reject it out of hand.

Socialism is doomed by its own tragic inertia. It needs the whole planet before it can work, which it will never get. Anything less and it is lies pathetic and useless, like a Great White Shark, washed up on a beach. In the water it is perfection and will reign supreme over all in its domain. Floundering on the sand it is of no importance or relevance unless you deliberately walk into its mouth.

Ken you represent all that is good about the old left… nothing. Nothing at all. It has no merit or virtue, no relevance, and contributes nothing to people’s lives except a big dollop of sentiment and mawkishness.

Socialism – in the hard left sense – is a historical footnote. Only Blairism is now allowed, and unless you want to start a revolution then you really mustn’t hold out for anything further left than that.

What killed socialism was the great mass of the population saying “that beached shark is a nuisance! Get rid of it, we don’t want it!”. Baroness Thatcher was merely the vet that put the poor, shivering, flailing old thing out of its misery.

Drop it mate and move on with your life. If you don’t, you’ll be dragging the shark’s corpse of decaying, foetid, stinking old socialism around with you until you fall into your own grave with it.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
it's the same sort of triumphalism being exhibited by those celebrating Thatcher's death, which is even less warranted because they did nothing to bring it about.

What? You're saying we ought to have assassinated her?
Well at least it would have given the parties some sort of justification.
There's a sort of splendour to that degree of daftness, which it would be a pity to tarnish by trying to apply any kind of logic to it.
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:

HA HA HA, you're a bunch of sore losers. You haven't achieved much to create the sort of society YOU claim you'd like to see so the best you can do to make a contribution to society is to crow about the death from natural causes of an 87 yo woman. PATHETIC. Yet MT's legacy lives on in the UK, she has the last laugh.

The very type of triumphalism , typical of Thatcher herself, that has caused the grave-dancing methinks.
Exactly [Roll Eyes] and it's the same sort of triumphalism being exhibited by those celebrating Thatcher's death, which is even less warranted because they did nothing to bring it about.
It's triumphalism ...from people who lost?

Yeah that really doesn't make sense Evangeline
 
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on :
 
This article in the Telegraph is worth a read. I think Peter Oborne articulates it very well. [Posted on the purgatory thread as well, but relevant to both]
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
it's the same sort of triumphalism being exhibited by those celebrating Thatcher's death, which is even less warranted because they did nothing to bring it about.

What? You're saying we ought to have assassinated her?
Well at least it would have given the parties some sort of justification.
There's a sort of splendour to that degree of daftness, which it would be a pity to tarnish by trying to apply any kind of logic to it.
Oh good grief Firenze, this whole thing is daft, I didn't think that your response was a serious one and I replied in kind. The celebrators do deserve to be mocked though, for crowing about the death of somebody who's had no power for 20 years.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
it's the same sort of triumphalism being exhibited by those celebrating Thatcher's death, which is even less warranted because they did nothing to bring it about.

What? You're saying we ought to have assassinated her?
Well at least it would have given the parties some sort of justification.
There's a sort of splendour to that degree of daftness, which it would be a pity to tarnish by trying to apply any kind of logic to it.
Oh good grief Firenze, this whole thing is daft, I didn't think that your response was a serious one and I replied in kind. The celebrators do deserve to be mocked though, for crowing about the death of somebody who's had no power for 20 years.
Me, I'm more concerned about the areas around here that have hardly had any jobs for 20 years.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Peter Oborne doesn't quite get it.

First, as a long-standing PM Mrs T was asked about her wishes for her funeral and was OFFERED a ceremonial sending-off. And she chose it.

Second, Clement Attlee made it very clear that he wanted a private funeral - it was stipulated in his Will and he reiterated it after the funeral for Churchill (when he almost fell down the steps of St Paul's).

Third, any similarities to the funeral of HM The Queen cannot be known, only surmised, since she is still very much alive. However, there are certain things we can take as a given: lying-in-state, Westminster Abbey, crowned heads of Europe, other heads of state, full royal family, national mourning.

Not one of the above is happening for Mrs T. State funeral? dream on.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
The celebrators do deserve to be mocked though, for crowing about the death of somebody who's had no power for 20 years.

Paradoxically I think she's more powerful than she was two weeks ago.

Because of the right-wing-Thatcher-fetish, her influence is still very much felt in the political debate long after she lost actual power. Whether Thatcherites are worse than Thatcher or not is moot but symbolically she is very powerful. Post death, her symbolism increases and hence I think here more powerful now as a dead former-PM than as an ailing one.

As I said a few pages back. Even if you concede that Thatcher polices were right and necessary (I don't) even her most ardent supporters have to admit that some were hurt by what she did. As Karl mentioned some regions still feel those effects today.

I don't think it remotely unreasonable for those hurt by her not to like her. And given that ever since her rise to power and often to a great extent since, she has been lauded by the Right and given idol status. The tone of much of our press is that she is great and anyone who disagrees that she's great is wrong and defective somehow.

Thus, we should not be surprised that hatred is what many feel.

I would not condone dancing on anybody's grave but for me, it is no more sick than the patronising, insulting bollocks coming from some quarters.

AFZ
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
Oh, and for all those fuckwits who sing the ding, dong song, here's and alternative view for you...

Wicked

probably closer to reality than the fantasy land in which those who sing that song are living in.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Oh, and for all those fuckwits who sing the ding, dong song, here's and alternative view for you...

Wicked

probably closer to reality than the fantasy land in which those who sing that song are living in.

Fantasy land? You mean.... she isn't dead?
 
Posted by canalto2 (# 17644) on :
 
MT closed 154 pits during her reign with 1 miners' strike.
Harold Wilson closed 272 along with 2 miners' strikes, 3 day week, power blackouts and winter of discontent.
I don't recall any dancing at his funeral? Any reason?
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by canalto2:
MT closed 154 pits during her reign with 1 miners' strike.
Harold Wilson closed 272 along with 2 miners' strikes, 3 day week, power blackouts and winter of discontent.
I don't recall any dancing at his funeral? Any reason?

Because his funeral was on the Isles of Scilly and trendy Metropolitan lefties don't venture beyond the M25.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Actually the three day week was under Heath (and ended by Wilson) and the Winter of Discontent was under Callaghan.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Actually the three day week was under Heath (and ended by Wilson) and the Winter of Discontent was under Callaghan.

Tut, tut. Mustn't let facts get in the way of a good story, must we now.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Mention of David Jenkins of Durham above reminded me I was going to look out my badge of the time which stated "I love Cuckoos". Remember that?
 
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

Third, any similarities to the funeral of HM The Queen cannot be known, only surmised, since she is still very much alive. However, there are certain things we can take as a given: ... crowned heads of Europe, other heads of state...
Not one of the above is happening for Mrs T. State funeral? dream on.

From the Telegraph:

quote:
Among the foreign dignitaries attending are the Kuwaiti Prime Minister Sheikh Jaber Mubark Al-Sabah, the son of the ruler of Kuwait, Sheikh Nasser Sabah Al-Ahmed Al Sabah, and Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti.
Thurible

[ 16. April 2013, 14:52: Message edited by: Thurible ]
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
quote:
Thurible quoted from The Daily Telegraph
Among the foreign dignitaries attending are the Kuwaiti Prime Minister Sheikh Jaber Mubark Al-Sabah, the son of the ruler of Kuwait, Sheikh Nasser Sabah Al-Ahmed Al Sabah, and Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti.

... none of whom is a Head of State:

Kuwait has an Emir
Italy has a President

[Smile]
 
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on :
 
I was told yesterday, while at Mortlake Crematorium, that the Blessed Margaret/Wicked Witch [delete whichever is appropriate] is to be cremated there tomorrow.

Now, Mortlake Crematorium is at one end of Townmead Road in Kew, and at the other end, not very far away is the Richmond Borough recycling and waste disposal centre. Turn right you get the crem. Turn left, you get rid of your rubbish.

You are probably seeing where I am going with this...
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by canalto2:
MT closed 154 pits during her reign with 1 miners' strike.
Harold Wilson closed 272 along with 2 miners' strikes, 3 day week, power blackouts and winter of discontent.
I don't recall any dancing at his funeral? Any reason?

Also, it's a real shame that the coal in those pits was so much more expensive (thanks to Scargill et al) and not as good a quality as coal mined and imported from abroad.

It was a no brainer... buy expensive and shitty coal from UK pits or shut them down and buy cheaper coal to keep the lights on at a lower price.

We know what the answer was don't we, and thank God she took that decision...

(BTW I once spat in A. Scargill's beer! I was a student at the time working in a Miners Welfare Club in a pit village just outside Chesterfield during the strike. He came in one day with McGahee and crew to "motivate the troops" in the village and surrounding areas. He was a wanker in person. So when I bent down to make it look like I was getting a pint pot from under the bar, I dribbled a little bit of spittle in before jamming it under the pump. Hee!)
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by canalto2:
MT closed 154 pits during her reign with 1 miners' strike.
Harold Wilson closed 272 along with 2 miners' strikes, 3 day week, power blackouts and winter of discontent.
I don't recall any dancing at his funeral? Any reason?

Also, it's a real shame that the coal in those pits was so much more expensive (thanks to Scargill et al) and not as good a quality as coal mined and imported from abroad.

It was a no brainer... buy expensive and shitty coal from UK pits or shut them down and buy cheaper coal to keep the lights on at a lower price.

I can safely say you know as much about geology as you do about socialism.

Which is, fuck all. You do seem to enjoy parading your staggeringly boorish ignorance at every turn, don't you?
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:

(BTW I once spat in A. Scargill's beer! I was a student at the time working in a Miners Welfare Club in a pit village just outside Chesterfield during the strike. He came in one day with McGahee and crew to "motivate the troops" in the village and surrounding areas. He was a wanker in person. So when I bent down to make it look like I was getting a pint pot from under the bar, I dribbled a little bit of spittle in before jamming it under the pump. Hee!)

Prejudices are self-fulfilling prophecies. I am aware of my prejudice of Tories as being selfish, deluded or downright stupid. I try to work on them. You make it difficult to do so.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I can safely say you know as much about geology as you do about socialism.

Enlighten us. Are you of the view that the mines were economical and commercially viable?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
(BTW I once spat in A. Scargill's beer! I was a student at the time working in a Miners Welfare Club in a pit village just outside Chesterfield during the strike. He came in one day with McGahee and crew to "motivate the troops" in the village and surrounding areas. He was a wanker in person. So when I bent down to make it look like I was getting a pint pot from under the bar, I dribbled a little bit of spittle in before jamming it under the pump. Hee!)

Obviously this was in your mature phase.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I can safely say you know as much about geology as you do about socialism.

Enlighten us. Are you of the view that the mines were economical and commercially viable?
Which wasn't what deano was saying. Welsh anthracite was/is widely acknowledged as the finest coal on the planet, and almost all UK coal was superior in respect of energy density and sulphur content to the Polish coal we imported to replace it with.

As to its economic viability, we'd got most of the easy coal out. With new mining techniques, higher rates of extraction and working previously unworkable seams could have seen a significantly more gradual closure program, rather than the enormous cost to communities and the exchequer of simply shutting the mines and throwing all those (not just the miners) dependent on them on the dole.

Or do such costs not figure in your 'economic and commercially viable' calculations, just like they didn't with Thatcher?
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
The celebrators do deserve to be mocked though, for crowing about the death of somebody who's had no power for 20 years.

Paradoxically I think she's more powerful than she was two weeks ago.

Because of the right-wing-Thatcher-fetish, her influence is still very much felt in the political debate long after she lost actual power. Whether Thatcherites are worse than Thatcher or not is moot but symbolically she is very powerful. Post death, her symbolism increases and hence I think here more powerful now as a dead former-PM than as an ailing one.

This is getting more purgatorial than hellish... but I agree with most of what you say. Is it possible though that the rather childish protests feed that power rather than the detract from it? I really do think that MT is probably laughing at the impotency of the effigy burning and song-singing etc it really just reinforces the totality of her "victory".

quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
As I said a few pages back. Even if you concede that Thatcher polices were right and necessary (I don't) even her most ardent supporters have to admit that some were hurt by what she did. As Karl mentioned some regions still feel those effects today.

I don't think it remotely unreasonable for those hurt by her not to like her. And given that ever since her rise to power and often to a great extent since, she has been lauded by the Right and given idol status. The tone of much of our press is that she is great and anyone who disagrees that she's great is wrong and defective somehow.

Thus, we should not be surprised that hatred is what many feel.

I would not condone dancing on anybody's grave but for me, it is no more sick than the patronising, insulting bollocks coming from some quarters.

AFZ

I'm all for an honest appraisal of Thatcher's Prime Ministership (believe it or not I'm not really a fan, i just think the protests are rather pathetic and weak), maybe if the vitriol (and the eulogising) was toned down, some valid criticisms would be aired and the shades of grey could be acknowledged rather than she's all black or all white, so to speak. Perhaps some healing could then occur.
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Is it possible though that the rather childish protests feed that power rather than the detract from it?

Yes, I agree with this to some extent, although I would say they feed the myth rather than any actual power.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
I remember reading that a couple of the South Wales pits were reopened by workers' co-operatives and operated profitably for a few years: the co-operatives closed them once the seams were exhausted.

So it seems that perhaps a few were profitable in the sense they were viable businesses (rather than as state concerns), but not the others.

On an unrelated point, I saw this in the Grauniad: "wiring my own white goods because I can't afford an electrician".

The UK is clearly in a shocking state if people can't afford to employ electricians to wire their plugs or, presumably, plumbers to flush their toilets. I blame Thatcher.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
Did anyone hear David Cameron on the radio this morning? He was bloody insufferable.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
What is the essential difference between wearing red/turning the back/downloading ding dong/ringing bells and spitting in Scargill's beer?

Reminder - my sig, and another site, donthatedonate. Thast's different.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Did anyone hear David Cameron on the radio this morning? He was bloody insufferable.

No, but I can imagine. I thank God that I didn't drive to work today and therefore have the Today programme on.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Did anyone hear David Cameron on the radio this morning? He was bloody insufferable.

I had the radio on, but for some reason was asleep, not enjoying a dream about taking a supply lesson in a school under reorganisation, with a particularly obnoxious boy in the class. Is it worth using IPlayer to hear him?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Did anyone hear David Cameron on the radio this morning? He was bloody insufferable.

I had the radio on, but for some reason was asleep, not enjoying a dream about taking a supply lesson in a school under reorganisation, with a particularly obnoxious boy in the class. Is it worth using IPlayer to hear him?
It's possible you did in your dream, from the description you give.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
What is the essential difference between wearing red/turning the back/downloading ding dong/ringing bells and spitting in Scargill's beer?

Three of those are legitimate forms of creative non-violent protest and one is a crude unpleasant personal assault?

What do I win?
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Cat:
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
it's the same sort of triumphalism being exhibited by those celebrating Thatcher's death, which is even less warranted because they did nothing to bring it about.

What? You're saying we ought to have assassinated her?
You could at least have tried.
Forgetting the IRA?

Poor taste, even for Hell.

OK, I've googled "IRA killed Thatcher" and come up with a blank.
And in the context of the comment (to the effect) that you shouldn't be gloating about her having carked it unless you did something to bring it about, I am frankly at a loss to understand your (obvious) distaste at my (obvious) smart-arsed (hopefully Mousethief Approved) one liner.
What is the problem?
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Cat:
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the Altar:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
it's the same sort of triumphalism being exhibited by those celebrating Thatcher's death, which is even less warranted because they did nothing to bring it about.

What? You're saying we ought to have assassinated her?
You could at least have tried.
Forgetting the IRA?

Poor taste, even for Hell.

OK, I've googled "IRA killed Thatcher" and come up with a blank.
And in the context of the comment (to the effect) that you shouldn't be gloating about her having carked it unless you did something to bring it about, I am frankly at a loss to understand your (obvious) distaste at my (obvious) smart-arsed (hopefully Mousethief Approved) one liner.
What is the problem?

I agree re the whole smart arse answer and response and I can't see what the problem is.
As an aside, In the context of hell though, the point remains that rejoicing over something you had no hand in bringing about is just proving how powerless and sad you are.

Although LATA perhaps googling Brighton Hotel bombing might be more enlightening.

[ 17. April 2013, 09:07: Message edited by: Evangeline ]
 
Posted by Left at the Altar (# 5077) on :
 
Oh, the Don't Forget the Victims of The Brighton Hotel Bombing when Making Contribution to a Thread that Started With Ding Dong The Witch is Dead and Goes on to Suggest that You can only be Triumphant if You Knocked Her off argument, because the former is a step too far.

Gotcha.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
@Evangeline:

Really? That's Easter Day fucked then.

[ 17. April 2013, 09:15: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Did anyone hear David Cameron on the radio this morning? He was bloody insufferable.

Yep. I turned him off.

But now I see they have 2 full hours of funeral broadcast, and not just on Radio 5 Live, but also on Radio 4. There goes Woman's Hour and Comedy Before Midday. - Or do they?
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Did anyone hear David Cameron on the radio this morning? He was bloody insufferable.

What? Even more than usual?
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
What is the essential difference between wearing red/turning the back/downloading ding dong/ringing bells and spitting in Scargill's beer?

Three of those are legitimate forms of creative non-violent protest and one is a crude unpleasant personal assault?

What do I win?

Almost.

Three of them are unimaginative, derivative, offensive and uncalled for at a funeral. That's socialists for you, no sense of decorum.

It seems that the socialists have been taking lessons from the Phelps clan. How ironic.

The other one is mighty satisfying and funny.

Almost as funny as the 1984 Spitting Image sketch of a bluebottle wading in shit before treading over a piece of bread and butter. The bread and butter were then eaten by A. Scargill.

Said bluebottle then returns to Mrs Thatcher's arm (like a trained hawk), and stroking it gently, she says "He'll eat a lot more of that before I've finished with him". Priceless.
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
What is the essential difference between wearing red/turning the back/downloading ding dong/ringing bells and spitting in Scargill's beer?

Three of those are legitimate forms of creative non-violent protest and one is a crude unpleasant personal assault?
Three of them are unimaginative, derivative, offensive and uncalled for at a funeral. That's socialists for you, no sense of decorum.

There is no reason why protest shouldn't follow tradition. If people choose to turn a funeral into a public spectacle then they have to take their chances on a public response. Turning one's back seems to me very restrained and dignified.

Of course, I don't expect you to agree, but then I doubt if even people who agree with you care what you think, because you're such a twat. The people accusing you of trolling are paying you the compliment of assuming that you can't be as stupid as you pretend to be.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
What is the essential difference between wearing red/turning the back/downloading ding dong/ringing bells and spitting in Scargill's beer?

Three of those are legitimate forms of creative non-violent protest and one is a crude unpleasant personal assault?

What do I win?

Almost.

Three of them are unimaginative, derivative, offensive and uncalled for at a funeral. That's socialists for you, no sense of decorum.

It seems that the socialists have been taking lessons from the Phelps clan. How ironic.

The other one is mighty satisfying and funny.

Almost as funny as the 1984 Spitting Image sketch of a bluebottle wading in shit before treading over a piece of bread and butter. The bread and butter were then eaten by A. Scargill.

Said bluebottle then returns to Mrs Thatcher's arm (like a trained hawk), and stroking it gently, she says "He'll eat a lot more of that before I've finished with him". Priceless.

Biological warfare is a) OK, and b) funny?

I saw Scargill once. I was on a train to Durham for an OU summer school. I had upgraded for the price of £1 to first class, because there was no room in 2nd. I found a seat opposite a person who looked like a tramp (with very good shoes) because it was the only empty seat there. Available, that is. Over the aisle was a set of two or three seats occupied by someone wo looked vaguely familiar and his wife. He sat with his feet on the seat opposite, and sent his wife to get coffee for him. I didn't realise who it was until someone came up and obsequised at him about how wonderful his defence of the miners was. I formed an opinion of him there and then. He got off at Doncaster, and a man who had been sitting on the seat behind him got off too, though by a different door, a man who looked like an army officer in mufti from his bearing, and I wondered if he was either a minder or a watcher.

I now suspect that there was more than mere bossiness that made him send his wife for the coffee.

If you don't know that's just plain nasty, deano, it's clear you don't think the same way as other people here.

But then, it is apparent, and with scientific backing, that people who identify themselves as right wing do not use their brains in the same ways as people who identify themselves as left wing, so it isn't surprising that what seems obvious to one sort is not obvious to another.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Did anyone hear David Cameron on the radio this morning? He was bloody insufferable.

What? Even more than usual?
Yep. This morning he managed to reach brand new heights of pomposity while saying virtually nothing at all. It was that posh condescending headmaster thing on a whole other level.

(Although in the interests of political balance I should note that he still didn't manage to make me yell at the radio in anything like the sort of rage that immediately consumes me any time Tony Blair comes on. I swear you can SEE the bugger smirking through the radio. Equal opportunity breakfast time fury, that's me.)
 
Posted by argona (# 14037) on :
 
Depressingly, the antidote to Headmaster Cameron has become Nigel Farrage. Have I spelled his name right? Do I care?

Are these end-times?

Fortunately, I remember the eighties. David Owen. Repeat that name to yourself. David Owen. David Owen. All things will pass.
 
Posted by argona (# 14037) on :
 
And another thing... no, I'm not a Greek taxi driver (another eighties reference for my contemporaries).

But in the eighties, it did seem to me that people got just... ruder. In the street, on the road... something was breaking down. An absence of courtesy, consideration. I thought at the time, is this Thatcherism in practice? Social parameters set by politics?

And now, last couple of years it's felt the same. Today, I was struggling up the road laden with bags of shopping, someone barged into me, knocked me sideways so I nearly dropped the lot, he just walked on without a glance back. Such things seem to be happening all the time now. Am I an old fart reminiscing through rose glasses at times passed? Or do right-wing governments legitimise being a pig?
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
In case you missed it (the Guardian doesn't appear to have reported it) Lady Thatcher's '£10 million pound funeral' appears to have cost, erm, £1,205,809.
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
That's still 1,200,000 too much.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Spot on. She was too divisive a figure to have received a funeral of that kind. End of.
 
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :
 
Droll, isn't it? The government chases people down without mercy if they are suspected of being undeserving of a few pounds worth of benefits, yet the person whose government made life hell for so many of them for so long, gets one of the most extravagant welfare payouts in history. I am fairly sure that the proceeds of her estate could easily have covered the private funeral that was all her family and friends needed.

But there's never any sense in these things. The deluge of official grief when Ronald Reagan died was not much different.
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
In case you missed it (the Guardian doesn't appear to have reported it) Lady Thatcher's '£10 million pound funeral' appears to have cost, erm, £1,205,809.

I guess The Sun, in their eagerness to take a swipe at Lefties, missed this report published in The Guardian in April, quoting Downing Street's estimate of £3.6 million. The £3.6 million included £2 million in opportunity costs and £1.1 million in "providing additional security and policing for the ceremony and funeral procession". Maybe the estimate of £1,100,000 turned out to be £1,205,809? If so, then I am shocked, shocked that The Guardian didn't treat the difference between the estimate and the actual figure as a Major News Event [Biased] .
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Spot on. She was too divisive a figure to have received a funeral of that kind. End of.

But she did [Killing me]

We win... again! [Cool]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Says the man whose part in her victory was spitting in Arthur Scargill's pint.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Says the man whose part in her victory was spitting in Arthur Scargill's pint.

Once again... [Cool]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
deano, you've been away for a couple of weeks or so, now you're back, and you're gloating over what a sad little maggot of a man you are already.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
deano, you've been away for a couple of weeks or so, now you're back, and you're gloating over what a sad little maggot of a man you are already.

I can tell you missed me Karl. Only here for a few days though so I'll bathe in your love whilst I can.

But I'm not gloating over myself. I'm gloating over the fact that Baroness Thatcher DID get a nice state funeral, regardless of the whinging lefties. I like that. I like that a lot.

I like those lefties whinging even more now about the costs, knowing that their rage, their incandescent fury, is totaly impotent!

Losers! [Can we get a smilie with a yellow blob making an L sign on it's forehead please? In the meantime you can all just imagine it]
 
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :
 
When the Revolution comes...
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
But I'm not gloating over myself. I'm gloating over the fact that Baroness Thatcher DID get a nice state funeral, regardless of the whinging lefties. I like that. I like that a lot.

I like those lefties whinging even more now about the costs, knowing that their rage, their incandescent fury, is totaly impotent!

Losers! [Can we get a smilie with a yellow blob making an L sign on it's forehead please? In the meantime you can all just imagine it]

I'm more on your side of this argument than I am K:LB's (praising Thatcher; my parents would be aghast!) but grow up. Gloating is never a good look.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
When the Revolution comes...

What are you going to do? Dig up Mrs Thatcher's ashes, scatter them against a wall, then shoot them?
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
Or perhaps I should have written 'what would you do'. Like the revolution is ever going to happen.
 
Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I wish you lot would stop putting this thread back to the top of the page. Every time I see it I think the old cow has risen from the grave and is even now terrorising the virgins and peasantry of Transylv ... erm ... Finchley.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
At least it's safe to get condemned to Hell these days (the real one, that is). By now she's bound to have shut down the furnaces and made the rank and file bottom-prodding-with-a-trident demonry redundant.
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
When the Revolution comes...

What are you going to do? Dig up Mrs Thatcher's ashes, scatter them against a wall, then shoot them?
It's been known. Vide Oliver Cromwell's body after the Restoration.
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
In case you missed it (the Guardian doesn't appear to have reported it) Lady Thatcher's '£10 million pound funeral' appears to have cost, erm, £1,205,809.

If the scum says it....

(I'll ask you again, by the way, to let us know when you are providing a link to that newspaper.)
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
(I'll ask you again, by the way, to let us know when you are providing a link to that newspaper.)

...and let's hope he continues to ignore you. It should be treated no differently to any other newspaper. Just because you hate it doesn't mean you are going to get special treatment so you can avoid it.

If he does that can we have the same rule for the Grauniad and Windypendant please so I can avoid haveing to expose myself to their wallowing tidewater of heart-bleeding irrelevancies.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Remember that we have to be gentle with deano, folks. He's a Thatcherite in Chesterfield- and so a very lonely man....
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
(I'll ask you again, by the way, to let us know when you are providing a link to that newspaper.)

...and let's hope he continues to ignore you. It should be treated no differently to any other newspaper. Just because you hate it doesn't mean you are going to get special treatment so you can avoid it.

If he does that can we have the same rule for the Grauniad and Windypendant please so I can avoid haveing to expose myself to their wallowing tidewater of heart-bleeding irrelevancies.

I know that reasoning with you is like trying to explain the concept of forgetting to an over-exited puppy who wants his bone back, but I'll say this anyway:

Unlike the Guardian or the likes of the Mail, the S*n went further than putting forward a political view, they put forward lies regarding the Hillsborough disaster, lies, lies which contributed to the maintenance of the Hillsborough cover-up. They know this themselves, and apologised, but only after it became totally clear last September that their lies were indeed lies. In the meantime those lies caused a lot of pain to bereaved and traumatised people.

Now, unlike you Anglican't doesn't spend all his time here trying to throw shit at others but with that being beyond him, he succeeds only in covering himself. We had had a cordial discussion about that newspaper, and I repeated my request in this thread for a favour on his behalf (or, indeed, of others) because perhaps he had forgotten that conversation.

[ 01. August 2013, 08:39: Message edited by: Rosa Winkel ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Remember that we have to be gentle with deano, folks. He's a Thatcherite in Chesterfield- and so a very lonely man....

My commitment to non-violence is the only reason I've not invited him to come on a pub-crawl with me around Bolsover, Stanfree and Clowne to hold forth on his view of 1980s industrial history as it pertains to coal mining.

[Biased]
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
(I'll ask you again, by the way, to let us know when you are providing a link to that newspaper.)

...and let's hope he continues to ignore you. It should be treated no differently to any other newspaper. Just because you hate it doesn't mean you are going to get special treatment so you can avoid it.

If he does that can we have the same rule for the Grauniad and Windypendant please so I can avoid haveing to expose myself to their wallowing tidewater of heart-bleeding irrelevancies.

I know that reasoning with you is like trying to explain the concept of forgetting to an over-exited puppy who wants his bone back, but I'll say this anyway:

Unlike the Guardian or the likes of the Mail, the S*n went further than putting forward a political view, they put forward lies regarding the Hillsborough disaster, lies, lies which contributed to the maintenance of the Hillsborough cover-up. They know this themselves, and apologised, but only after it became totally clear last September that their lies were indeed lies. In the meantime those lies caused a lot of pain to bereaved and traumatised people.

Now, unlike you Anglican't doesn't spend all his time here trying to throw shit at others but with that being beyond him, he succeeds only in covering himself. We had had a cordial discussion about that newspaper, and I repeated my request in this thread for a favour on his behalf (or, indeed, of others) because perhaps he had forgotten that conversation.

Isn't it strange that of the many Liverpool fans who were there on that day, when you ask them where they were, none of them say "at the back... shoving".

You don't get preferential treatment, and in fact now I know it bothers you...
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
Wow Deano, that's pretty inflammatory, even for Hell...
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Just sick.
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Isn't it strange that of the many Liverpool fans who were there on that day, when you ask them where they were, none of them say "at the back... shoving".

I don't know whether you live in a bunker or simply your own imaginary world where the Tories are your friends because they're the people most like you, but you display a complete ignorance of all the recent revelations that have been made about that event. Either that, or you are deliberately perpetrating a foul libel. Whatever: ignorant, stupid, malicious. No surprises there.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Now, unlike you Anglican't doesn't spend all his time here trying to throw shit at others but with that being beyond him, he succeeds only in covering himself. We had had a cordial discussion about that newspaper, and I repeated my request in this thread for a favour on his behalf (or, indeed, of others) because perhaps he had forgotten that conversation.

While I recall the discussion, I'm afraid I don't agree with your argument. As long as the Sun remains a major UK newspaper I don't see why it should be treated any differently to a link to any other mainstream media website on here.

That said, I think this is now a moot point: as of today the Sun has gone behind a paywall so it's pointless to link to it as I doubt anyone on here will take out a subscription. (As ever, Deano remains a special case.)
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
(I'll ask you again, by the way, to let us know when you are providing a link to that newspaper.)

...and let's hope he continues to ignore you. It should be treated no differently to any other newspaper. Just because you hate it doesn't mean you are going to get special treatment so you can avoid it.

If he does that can we have the same rule for the Grauniad and Windypendant please so I can avoid haveing to expose myself to their wallowing tidewater of heart-bleeding irrelevancies.

I know that reasoning with you is like trying to explain the concept of forgetting to an over-exited puppy who wants his bone back, but I'll say this anyway:

Unlike the Guardian or the likes of the Mail, the S*n went further than putting forward a political view, they put forward lies regarding the Hillsborough disaster, lies, lies which contributed to the maintenance of the Hillsborough cover-up. They know this themselves, and apologised, but only after it became totally clear last September that their lies were indeed lies. In the meantime those lies caused a lot of pain to bereaved and traumatised people.

Now, unlike you Anglican't doesn't spend all his time here trying to throw shit at others but with that being beyond him, he succeeds only in covering himself. We had had a cordial discussion about that newspaper, and I repeated my request in this thread for a favour on his behalf (or, indeed, of others) because perhaps he had forgotten that conversation.

To be fair, the Heil basically Makes Shit Up as well.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
To be fair, the Heil basically Makes Shit Up as well.

Yeah, but they don't do it against anybody Rosa gives a shit about so they're OK.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
To be fair, the Heil basically Makes Shit Up as well.

Yeah, but they don't do it against anybody Rosa gives a shit about so they're OK.
I very much doubt that. The Heil usually make shit up to have a go at the left, and last I checked Rosa identified as a lefty.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
To be fair, the Heil basically Makes Shit Up as well.

Yeah, but they don't do it against anybody Rosa gives a shit about so they're OK.
I very much doubt that. The Heil usually make shit up to have a go at the left, and last I checked Rosa identified as a lefty.
For "anybody Rosa gives a shit about" in my previous post, please feel free to substitute "Liverpool fans".
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
deano: You've covered yourself in shit again.

Anglican't: I'm asking for a favour. In the meantime I'll remember not to trust any links you provide.

Marvin: While many people avoid the Mail, I'm not aware of an organised boycott. Oh, it's bizarre to infer that I don't care about other groups as well.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
To be fair, the Heil basically Makes Shit Up as well.

Yeah, but they don't do it against anybody Rosa gives a shit about so they're OK.
I very much doubt that. The Heil usually make shit up to have a go at the left, and last I checked Rosa identified as a lefty.
For "anybody Rosa gives a shit about" in my previous post, please feel free to substitute "Liverpool fans".
Why in the name of fuck would I do that?
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Anglican't: I'm asking for a favour. In the meantime I'll remember not to trust any links you provide.

Doesn't the web address pop up when you hover the cursor over a link, meaning you can quickly and easily check where a link is pointing? That's what happens for me... [Confused]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Anglican't: I'm asking for a favour. In the meantime I'll remember not to trust any links you provide.

Doesn't the web address pop up when you hover the cursor over a link, meaning you can quickly and easily check where a link is pointing? That's what happens for me... [Confused]
That happens to me on some websites, but not this one. But then again I'm using a Mac and that might alter things?

As I said, I'm not going to link to the Sun any more because it's behind a paywall so I think the point is moot. If people don't want to click on any non-Sun links that I might post in the future, well that's up to them.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Why in the name of fuck would I do that?

Because that was what I meant? Rosa hates the Sun because of what it said about Liverpool fans, Rosa doesn't hate the Mail because it didn't say the same things about them. It's like one of those family feuds that goes on for generations, but boils down to "what their Darren said about our Shirl".
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
That happens to me on some websites, but not this one. But then again I'm using a Mac and that might alter things?

Aha, that could well be it!
 
Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
they put forward lies

To be honest if this is your criteria for having to announce the media source you are linking to, all the newspapers need to be named and if you don't believe that, then you are just the left-leaning, inward looking, bigot that you are coming across as...
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Indeed; I'm not quite sure why the rest of us are obliged to subscribe to a vendetta of a particular Shipmate [Confused] I can't seem to find that one in the Ten Commandments.
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
It's not a vendetta, it's a boycott. I participate too, in the sense that I will not hand over money for a copy the newspaper in question. Maybe we should all specify what a webiste is when posting a link (actually, I'd hate to see it as a rule, but maybe it's best practice) but I suppose that's a discussion for the Styx.
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
Yeah, because I love the fucking Mail, don't I? There's no point discussing such matters with people preoccupied with straw men.

I was clear in saying that I was asking for a favour, not a rule.

Oh, I'm also using a Mac and also don't see the links.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
Yeah, because I love the fucking Mail, don't I? There's no point discussing such matters with people preoccupied with straw men.

I was clear in saying that I was asking for a favour, not a rule.

Oh, I'm also using a Mac and also don't see the links.

Us Man Utd fans have had to put up with so much shite from Liverpool gobshites chanting about the Munich Air Disaster over the years that when it comes to Liverpool fans whinging and whining about a few of them getting trampled underfoot by their own is hypocricy.

That's why I don't give a rat's arse about them.

Anybody want to read some Hilsbrough jokes? If there is enough demand I'll post some.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
Oh, yes, sorry, I forgot to mention [cough] Heysel [cough].

Liverpool fans are such angels aren't they.
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
You are trolling, aren't you?

Either that, or the shit you cover yourself with really does come from your brain.
 
Posted by deano (# 12063) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:
You are trolling, aren't you?

Either that, or the shit you cover yourself with really does come from your brain.

Oh, here we go, ignore Heysel, ignore the years of abuse about Munich and go for the easy "trolling" way out.

It isn't trolling if it's true. Do you honestly think that everyone loves scousers? Do you honestly think that everyone was "grief-stricken" at Hilsbrough? There's a real world out there, you might like to visit it sometime.

You can start by going to John Lennon Airport, which would be appropriate because it's the first place he went when he'd got enough money to push off somewhere nicer.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
No-one's claiming anyone's an angel. Just that people dying at a football ground is a Bad Thing and telling lies about those people to cast it as their fault and divert the blame from others who should bear some of it is also a Bad Thing.

Your posts read as if you look on the Hillsborough dead and say "Good. I hated the scouser bastards." - in which case fuck off out of claiming to belong to Christianity.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I'm a Man Utd fan, but to continue to blame the Liverpool fans for Hillsborough is bizarre, after all the recent revelations.

I do care about Liverpool fans actually, and Arsenal fans, and so on, and I know tons of both. Does football give us the license to be absolute barbarians? Count me out of that.
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
Someone who takes pride in shitting all over himself doesn't need football as an excuse. It comes naturally.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I'm just pointing out that if you are a Man Utd fan, or the fan of any club, this doesn't mean that you have to return hate for hate. I suppose Christianity did have something to say about this as well!
 
Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :
 
As someone born in 1974 who started attending games in the 90s, the hate came from one direction. In any case, this excellent article by a Man Utd fan actually links Man Utd fans' songs and lies about Hillsborough with Thatcher, in that while both cities got fucked over by Thatcher, Man Utd fans (including after the "revelations" of last September) have been known to sing "There's only one Maggie Thatcher" when they play us and focus their hatred on us, when in fact, we were in a very similar boat in the 1980s.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Yes, but that's based on the assumption that Man U fans actually come from Manchester. As any fule kno, most of them are from the south of England: real Mancunians are City fans [Biased]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Well, my dad was ecumenical - we used to go to see Utd, City and Oldham Athletic. So I still have emotional attachments to all 3, but of course, Oldham are closest to my heart, as they are crap, and Jesus loves a broken pot.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0