-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Maggie
- Thread starter Baleforce
- Start date
thfcsteff
Terry Dyson
We will never know. What I can say, with a fair degree of comfort, is that had she lived up to her word of continuing talks and exploring diplomatic resolution, the Falklands 'war' would not have had to happen. She made a choice to end talks. Like she did in N.I. She 'wouldn't deal with terrorists or criminals' yet was friends with many, including one who offed an entire football stadium worth of victims. Again, and a general point mate NOT aimed at you, what galls me the very most is the air-brushing and manipulation of her history...
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
You can no more negotiate over the falklands then you can the isle of wight, im sure the argies did want to negotiate but they had no legitimate claims to the island, the people there wished to remain British, cameron has also said he wont negotiate does that mean he is inviting a war? no Thatchers record over the Falklands is fine.
Im fine with her record in the north but i can understand the other point of view there even if i do not agree with it. Honestly i can see why some disliked her, like i disliked blair/brown but the rush to blame her for anything and everything risks undermining peoples genuine grievances. It is almost like people on here did not live for the 70's when we could not even bury our dead because of the strikes or coming home to see what days you would have electricity and what does you would not.
Im finding it rather funny to ee how people are truly forgetting what an awful state this country was in before she came to power. No doubt it will happen again and we will need a strong leader to come along and take the tough decesions. Im sure the lefties will be kicking off again when that happens. Honestly im waiting for someone to blame the rise of Aids in the 80's on her as well
Baleforce
Martin Peters
well we do know, what diplomatic resolution could there be? Argentina think it's theirs (their idiot PM never talks about anything else), and we know its ours
parklane1
Vic Buckingham
Their was also a news flash on a American radio station that a Argentina naval fleet had set sail to invade the Falklands three days before they landed, but according to Thatcher she had no idea. If a American news station could report it how the hell could the Pm not have known.
Of course all the thatcher arse kissers will not accept that as truth but the yanks were laughing because they also said why would the Argies invade Scotland ( because they thought that was where the Falklands were)
thfcsteff
Terry Dyson
Answers in boldface...
You can no more negotiate over the falklands then you can the isle of wight, im sure the argies did want to negotiate but they had no legitimate claims to the island, the people there wished to remain British, cameron has also said he wont negotiate does that mean he is inviting a war? no Thatchers record over the Falklands is fine.
She should never have offered then Chich. She offered at the start of her PM'ship and she didn't follow through. She heard from Lord Carrington (you know him I hope) what the interpretation was and she let it go. You can say negotiations hadn't worked, but the two countries had managed, somehow, to stave off 'war' for ages! As for the Cameron comparison...? Makes no sense. Different times, different leaders, different promises, different context. Slice it any way you want, she mortgaged her future as PM on a conflict over the Falkland Islands. I'm not making it up you can read about it wherever you wish. Now, if you choose not to, then so be it. But these aren't 'offensive lies' and mate, I can't be having it said they are.
Im fine with her record in the north but i can understand the other point of view there even if i do not agree with it. Honestly i can see why some disliked her, like i disliked blair/brown but the rush to blame her for anything and everything risks undermining peoples genuine grievances. It is almost like people on here did not live for the 70's when we could not even bury our dead because of the strikes or coming home to see what days you would have electricity and what does you would not.
I think what is clear is that unions needed some reform and industry needed some help and change. But IMO, these are things which should not happen at the cost of society's values, at the cost of society's empathy or at the cost of society's belief that we are civilized. Her behaviour was sociopathic and egregious. The problem with her approach to everything was that her (basically) 'fudge this and fudge you' attitude towards anyone she disliked caused a strong counter-reaction (as it would) and she simply employed belligerent stubbornness or brute force to deal with resistance. She believed in a police state!
Im finding it rather funny to see how people are truly forgetting what an awful state this country was in before she came to power. No doubt it will happen again and we will need a strong leader to come along and take the tough decesions. Im sure the lefties will be kicking off again when that happens. Honestly im waiting for someone to blame the rise of Aids in the 80's on her as well
I'm home 3 or 4 time a year, so my comments would be based on a a specific amount of time spent and the constant contact with parents and friends. What I would say is that you're already there. If her policies really did signal true long-term economic health, then what happened? Especially if we take her at her word when she commented that New Labour was her greatest achievement.
Good to discuss rationally as you said somewhere. We might not agree but it doesn't mean we cannot discuss this stuff in a civilized way...
Last day in Cyprus on the island of paphos. Typically came at start of summer the only Brits here all northerners. Cannot believe it, where do they get the money from as the state of then they can't be working. I will tell you where from,my taxes. P&sses me right of.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/13/dont-upset-margaret-thatcher-mourners?
Apparently the protestors planning to turn their backs on the funeral procession at St. Paul's are being warned by the police that they risk being arrested under Section 5 of the Public Order Act. Because it might 'cause offense'.
Not blowing raspberries, not playing 'Ding Dong' on stereos, not baiting Thatcher's former cabinet, her family, and Blair et al with large sins or anything like that....
They are being warned against turning the wrong way at a funeral. By the charming Met that hasn't hesitated in crushing peaceful protests before.
A 10 million-pound funeral rushed through the executive, without any debate or a vote in either the House of Commons or the House of Lords...paid for by the many of the same tax-payers that Thatcher delighted in screwing over when she was in power...and protesters are being pre-emptively warned not to make a fuss and dispel the Conservative media image of a nation united in mourning, at risk of arrest and imprisonment if they proceed to do something they are democratically entitled to do.
You know, quite a few people tell me I shouldn't talk about the Thatcher era, since I never lived through it beyond being an infant when they occurred. Well, to those people, take a look at this and tell me her policies haven't had an impact on modern-day Britain, and that what she did has no bearing on the country I am a citizen of today. The Public Order Act, passed under Thatcher, being used to pre-emptively silence dissent by a police force emboldened by and enriched by Thatcher to the point where they've almost completely forgotten that ordinary people are the ones they are supposed to serve.
In short, people are being told can't protest at a funeral they paid for. During a time of severe 'austerity'. Where many of the power brokers in British politics, past and present, will be present, ideally placed to see just what a divided society Britain truly is.
I can imagine the people lining the streets, standing there watching the carriage trundle past.
Farewell, Thatcher, our Glorious Leader! ( Ouch...get that truncheon out of my back...).
Apparently the protestors planning to turn their backs on the funeral procession at St. Paul's are being warned by the police that they risk being arrested under Section 5 of the Public Order Act. Because it might 'cause offense'.
Not blowing raspberries, not playing 'Ding Dong' on stereos, not baiting Thatcher's former cabinet, her family, and Blair et al with large sins or anything like that....
They are being warned against turning the wrong way at a funeral. By the charming Met that hasn't hesitated in crushing peaceful protests before.
A 10 million-pound funeral rushed through the executive, without any debate or a vote in either the House of Commons or the House of Lords...paid for by the many of the same tax-payers that Thatcher delighted in screwing over when she was in power...and protesters are being pre-emptively warned not to make a fuss and dispel the Conservative media image of a nation united in mourning, at risk of arrest and imprisonment if they proceed to do something they are democratically entitled to do.
You know, quite a few people tell me I shouldn't talk about the Thatcher era, since I never lived through it beyond being an infant when they occurred. Well, to those people, take a look at this and tell me her policies haven't had an impact on modern-day Britain, and that what she did has no bearing on the country I am a citizen of today. The Public Order Act, passed under Thatcher, being used to pre-emptively silence dissent by a police force emboldened by and enriched by Thatcher to the point where they've almost completely forgotten that ordinary people are the ones they are supposed to serve.
In short, people are being told can't protest at a funeral they paid for. During a time of severe 'austerity'. Where many of the power brokers in British politics, past and present, will be present, ideally placed to see just what a divided society Britain truly is.
I can imagine the people lining the streets, standing there watching the carriage trundle past.
Farewell, Thatcher, our Glorious Leader! ( Ouch...get that truncheon out of my back...).
Anyone being disrespectful at a funeral deserves to be on the wrong end of a baton or a shield charge. It's times like this I wish I worked for the riot police.
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
Right. You pay for the funeral of a person you think has ruined your society/community/life, and then when you toodle along to give your two cents about the person you are told to either shut up and start welling up fake tears or the menacing men in the riot gear and body armor will give you real ones after bashing your brains out and throwing you into a cell for 'aggravated intent to cause offence', or whatever it is they're booking people under nowadays.
It's funded by the bloody taxpayer ,without their consent, and then the taxpayers have no right to turn their backs on the thing? Not even loudly, just a silent coordinated back-turning as her coffin trundles past.
If the Tories and the Thatcher family wanted respect for the lady, they should have held a private funeral. Then, a boorish lout interrupting proceedings would be fully deserving of a kick up the arse and a spell on the side. But the minute you shift the bill to the public, you lose the right to tell them to shut up and fudging watch as their money is tinkled away on glorifying a person they hate.
In a free and open society, anyway.
parklane1
Vic Buckingham
Once again mate i tip my hat to you =D>
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
I bet you do!:-" If the authorities are so worried about people turning their backs, then they should have a private funeral. What did they expect?
parklane1
Vic Buckingham
It's a person's funeral. If you didn't like her, don't go. Lots of people I didn't like have died (nothing to do with me) and I just didn't turn up at their funeral as a way of making sure people knew I didn't like them.
The only reason there is a bill for the funeral is because of the security required due to there being so many qunts around who would try and disrupt a funeral.
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
Sadly he is.:ross:
DubaiSpur
Ian Walker
The hundreds of military personnel involved in lifting the coffin, ceremonially escorting the procession, forming the honor guard and taking part in anti-terrorism measures all need to be paid. They're not there for the purposes of dispelling 'disruptive' people. Similarly, the event needs to be planned, groundwork needs to be laid and the route cleared, as well as tasteful and appropriate foliage and decoration selected.
All these things cost money, over and beyond the public order bill. Again, blame the government for their determination to infuse this funeral with a sort of jingoistic militarism.
So we have established that the protesting people have every right to be there, since their money is spent on much more than just 'crowd control'.
As for the rest of it, I'm sure many people you haven't liked have died. But I'm almost certain that you didn't pay for their funerals, and even more certain that at the funeral speech their acquaintances didn't go on and on about how much you loved these folks and how much they did for you.
The British people have a right to be represented fairly. What this funeral accomplishes is white-washing history: denying vast swathes of those affected by Thatcher's policy a voice, and painting a uniform picture of national mourning to the world media. People hate Thatcher, but if no one showed up to her funeral, the outside world would go away convinced that she was universally mourned, and a generation of people whose lives were destroyed by this lady would be denied a chance to air their side of the story.
Her funeral is public: let the public have their final say on her as she passes. By forcing everyone to shut up and keep mum at the risk of a baton to the skull, you will accomplish nothing but fashioning a brilliant likeness of those big brother-style dictatorships the right wing always like to rave on about.
Gordon Brown has damaged this country beyond words. When he goes, I will not stand in front of his family and protest at his funeral whoever pays for it.
A funeral is not the place for protests and if the likes of you lot can't see that (the supposedly touchy feely, lets all have a hug lefties) then there really is little hope for the human race.
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
It's not about protest - as a libertarian I believe in everyone's right to protest free from government intervention. That doesn't mean anyone has the right to act like a qunt at someone's funeral though - that's pretty fudging low whatever one's feelings about the deceased.
As an addendum to my last post:
I agree that there shouldn't be any public money going to any funeral. I also agree that people will dislike this idea and want to make that known.
If that's the case, stand outside the Houses of Parliament or Downing Street and complain to the government who is paying for it, not at someone's funeral.
I agree that there shouldn't be any public money going to any funeral. I also agree that people will dislike this idea and want to make that known.
If that's the case, stand outside the Houses of Parliament or Downing Street and complain to the government who is paying for it, not at someone's funeral.