Baroness Thatcher has died. [Archive]

Malbec

8th April 2013, 13:04

Mrs Thatcher died this morning.

I'm of an age where I don't actually have memories of a prime minister before her, when she left Downing Street I thought the world might end ;)

For me she represented a great politician and one who took the UK dragging and screaming from a country somewhere to the left of East Germany and made it into a capitalist economy. She made plenty of mistakes too of course and didn't do enough to redress the excesses of her attempts to de-nationalise state industries and break the iron grip of the trade unions.

Whatever your opinions of her I think we can all agree that she was possibly the most influential single British PM. RIP.

Mintexmemory

8th April 2013, 13:53

Mrs Thatcher died this morning.

Whatever your opinions of her I think we can all agree that she was possibly the most influential single British PM. RIP.

No actually we can't - I am of an age where I can remember PMs before Thatcher. She presided over major economic mis-management which left many uk citizens with negative equity and sky-high interest rates. Her legacy was to leave a poison chalice to her successor and to pave the way for the atrocity that was Tony Blair. Any close examination of her regime reveals more hype than substance.

I'd put Pitt, Gladstone, Disraeli, Lloyd George, Churchill, Atlee all ahead of her in lasting influence any day, maybe even Macmillan and Wilson

henners88

8th April 2013, 14:17

Storm

8th April 2013, 14:42

At the time that I got to the age when I could understand the concept of a PM/govt she was there along with our very own iron lady - Indira Gandhi. Two very controvertial but tough ladies who led their nations in times of strife.

Mark

8th April 2013, 15:18

Ding dong. The witch is dead.

Ranger

8th April 2013, 15:34

Ding dong. The witch is dead.

No one is saying you have to weep at the news, but that's not a very nice thing to say when someone has died.

RIP.

Mark

8th April 2013, 15:49

No one is saying you have to weep at the news, but that's not a very nice thing to say when someone has died.

RIP.
If someone is alive or dead should be irrelevant as to the views you express about them.

Starter

8th April 2013, 15:52

If someone is alive or dead should be irrelevant as to the views you express about them.
She was an appropriate leader for her time, but times change and attitudes change with them.

Mark

8th April 2013, 15:55

She was an appropriate leader for her time, but times change and attitudes change with them.

If anything attitudes to Thatcher have softened over the years. Her dying today is a matter if historical note; her dying in the late 80's or early 90's would have been the cause of street parties in many places, such was the divisiveness of her rule.

Garry Walker

8th April 2013, 15:56

Very sad news. Not every one of her policies worked, but in the end her stance against communism/socialism is to be commended and so is her stance against unions. She was also very right about the dangers of EU and euro.
No doubt that people of certain politic views will be celebrating, but they are nothing but vile abortions anyway.

Starter

8th April 2013, 16:08

If anything attitudes to Thatcher have softened over the years. Her dying today is a matter if historical note; her dying in the late 80's or early 90's would have been the cause of street parties in many places, such was the divisiveness of her rule.
Which was more important, divisiveness of her rule or her role, along with our Ronnie, in ending the Cold War? A lot of people here don't remember him fondly either, but you can't take that away. Union busting too is a thing which needs to be done from time to time. While unions can be a positive force, like anything else, too much power in one group is not a good thing and you guys had that for sure.

Ranger

8th April 2013, 16:16

If someone is alive or dead should be irrelevant as to the views you express about them.

I don't care whether you found her morally repugnant or as the saviour of the UK.

I just think that celebrating the fact that someone has died is a bit dubious... Or maybe I'm just splitting hairs. :\

henners88

8th April 2013, 16:34

I'm with you there Ranger.

Mintexmemory

8th April 2013, 16:47

Which was more important, divisiveness of her rule or her role, along with our Ronnie, in ending the Cold War?

Examine what she did to end the Cold War - SFA. Regan was able to put the eco-squeeze on the already crumbling Soviet bloc. Thatcher did nothing concrete other than mouth platitudes in support of the USA stance on disarmament.
George Shultz is disingenuous whenhe says deploying cruise missiles and recovering the Falklands were instrumental in causing the change of attitudes in Moscow - they were already tumbling down!

Malbec

8th April 2013, 17:28

She was an appropriate leader for her time, but times change and attitudes change with them.

Actually attitudes have changed so that Thatcherism is effectively mainstream. As someone else pointed out above the Labour party only became capable of winning elections when Tony Blair publicly announced he would NOT reverse Thatcher's reforms, then a few years later went further and announced himself as Thatcher's true heir. Her response was to ignore her own party's candidate and endorse Tony Blair.

Even today any party openly pushing for a reversal of her main reforms makes itself unelectable.

On the flip side her attitudes towards Europe resulted in a split within the Tory party that cripples it to this day, with anti-European idiots sabotaging the party whilst pragmatists try to glue the party together.

However while people accept her reforms and take them for granted memories of her herself are clearly very split. She was merciless in her pursuit of people who opposed her and several parts of the country suffered massively as a result, especially those reliant on coalmining. On the flipside she de-regulated the City allowing the financial boom that Britain has profited from since (even with the costs of the 2007 crash included) massively.

I wouldn't take claims that she helped end the Cold War seriously. I think the biggest factor there was the unsustainability of the Soviet economy. What did help was that she was always there to support Ronald Reagan and provide a united front, but in reality Britain was way past its high point even then as a military and economic power.

Spafranco

8th April 2013, 17:32

http://www.motorsportforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Mark http://www.motorsportforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.motorsportforums.com/chit-chat/157823-baroness-thatcher-has-died.html#post1122277)
If someone is alive or dead should be irrelevant as to the views you express about them.
[quote:2nthtmb8][/quote:2nthtmb8]

She was an appropriate leader for her time, but times change and attitudes change with them.

Mark is totally correct. Go to Christopher (sic) Hitchens on You Tube where Sean Hannity on Fox was eulogizing Gerry Falwell. Listen to Hitchens answer. Articulate, intelligent and for you British and us Yanks ( southern yank, sic) a sad loss to intelligentsia.

Would you celebrate the Third Reich or it's scientific members when they created the first jet fighter, M62, The V1 and V2. The laser beam so powerful it stopped the engines of cars and was reported by British and Americans bombers fighters that they saw this light following their planes and was bouncing all over. Thought it was a UFO. When they engaged them they called them Foo Fighters.You should. Look at the progress made by these developments in later years. Nazi's aside.
Some of the men that built the atomic bomb were German scientists. Should they be eulogized with reverence? Some should like Oppenheimer and Fermi as they saw the implications.

Hitchens saw no reason to eulogize Falwell as Hannity wanted to him to. It is worth looking at Hannity being schooled by a man with superior intelligence and an open mind.

BDunnell

8th April 2013, 17:44

I wouldn't take claims that she helped end the Cold War seriously. I think the biggest factor there was the unsustainability of the Soviet economy. What did help was that she was always there to support Ronald Reagan and provide a united front, but in reality Britain was way past its high point even then as a military and economic power.

Indeed. We were, in many ways, lucky to win the Falklands back too — it was a close-run thing, much closer than a lot of Thatcher-worshippers would have one believe.

To credit individuals, with the possible exception of Gorbachev, with helping to win the Cold War is to ignore its very nature.

BDunnell

8th April 2013, 17:45

I'd put Pitt, Gladstone, Disraeli, Lloyd George, Churchill, Atlee all ahead of her in lasting influence any day, maybe even Macmillan and Wilson

Neither of the latter, in my view. Wilson was pretty ghastly. As for the others, I'd generally agree.

BDunnell

8th April 2013, 17:46

If someone is alive or dead should be irrelevant as to the views you express about them.

It is, but there are, with respect, more intelligent and imaginative things one could say.

BDunnell

8th April 2013, 17:48

If anything attitudes to Thatcher have softened over the years. Her dying today is a matter if historical note; her dying in the late 80's or early 90's would have been the cause of street parties in many places, such was the divisiveness of her rule.

This is true, and, in some areas, it may still be. There is some justification for that — after all, she was responsible for the economic and social decimation of certain regions, and let it not be forgotten that, during her time in office, the police acted with a violent impunity rarely seen before or since. The Hillsborough cover-up can be seen as one symptom of that rottenness.

Starter

8th April 2013, 17:49

I wouldn't take claims that she helped end the Cold War seriously. I think the biggest factor there was the unsustainability of the Soviet economy. What did help was that she was always there to support Ronald Reagan and provide a united front, but in reality Britain was way past its high point even then as a military and economic power.
There were a number of factors in play then including a Soviet leader willing to look forward. I agree that Britain's role was a lesser one, however her support of Reagan on the world stage was a key ingredient in getting it done. I also agree that the USSR was in decline, but they could have continued on the path they were on for a while yet.

BDunnell

8th April 2013, 17:52

I agree that Britain's role was a lesser one, however her support of Reagan on the world stage was a key ingredient in getting it done.

Very easy to say, but what exactly do you mean in practical terms?

Gregor-y

8th April 2013, 18:07

George Shultz is disingenuous whenhe says deploying cruise missiles and recovering the Falklands were instrumental in causing the change of attitudes in Moscow - they were already tumbling down!
That's kind of bizarre since it was western powers (or at least the US) supporting the murderous regimes in Chile Argentina and Brazil at the time...

BDunnell

8th April 2013, 18:21

That's kind of bizarre since it was western powers (or at least the US) supporting the murderous regimes in Chile Argentina and Brazil at the time...

Thatcher, of course, remained a staunch defender of Pinochet even when his crimes became known. How those who seek to eulogise her can ignore or justify this I have no idea. The same will be true of Iraq in relation to Blair when he dies.

Dave B

8th April 2013, 18:42

I'm uneasy with my own feelings right now. I would never celebrate the death of any human being, that's simply horrible. But then I remember all the pain and suffering thanks to Thatcher's government, the ideological and just plain spiteful cuts in services, the inept mismanagement of the country's finances, the dismantling of public services in the name of greed; and I can't help thinking that today the world just got that tiny little bit better for not having that vile woman sharing our oxygen supply.

The fact that her death is dominating the news, drowning out coverage of her party's sickening cuts to benefits for the disabled, would probably suit her to a T. :s

BDunnell

8th April 2013, 19:19

I'm uneasy with my own feelings right now. I would never celebrate the death of any human being, that's simply horrible. But then I remember all the pain and suffering thanks to Thatcher's government, the ideological and just plain spiteful cuts in services, the inept mismanagement of the country's finances, the dismantling of public services in the name of greed; and I can't help thinking that today the world just got that tiny little bit better for not having that vile woman sharing our oxygen supply.

A feeling that may be exacerbated when one considers some of the people currently mourning: Jeffrey Archer, Norman Tebbit and Thatcher's own racist daughter and arms-dealing son.

Malbec

8th April 2013, 19:28

the dismantling of public services in the name of greed;

When my parents arrived in the UK in the mid-1970s they moved into a house without a telephone line. They asked BT who told them it would be installed in six months. Stupidly they forgot the appointment and were out when the engineer arrived, so they had to wait for another six months for the telephone line to be installed. One whole year to get a phone line installed!

Lets not rewrite history and look at pre-Thatcher Britain as some kind of Utopia. The fact that Britain's state spending needed to be pruned ought to have been very clear since Britain went bankrupt in 1973 and needed a bailout from the IMF. How exactly do you propose she should have carried on spending given the British economy was in no shape to deliver increased tax returns when she came into power? Its a testament to reforms begun by her and carried on by others that today we are bailing others out, not waiting to be bailed out ourselves.

Nor should you forget the way in which public sector unions crippled the country in the winter of discontent, 1978-9. Rubbish rotting on the streets as kids played alongside, the dead left unburied and mandatory power cuts. How about three-day-weeks in 1974? The elimination of entire swathes of industry by trade union sabotage and mismanagement in the face of increasing competition from Germany and Japan?

I suspect she would have been far more popular had she taken the easy way out, keep the country ticking over without harsh reforms and hopefully win the next election but instead she took the drastic action this country needed and her popularity plunged. It takes a good leader to do what is required without a view to her electability and a lucky one to have a war push her popularity up just in time for her first election that she'd have lost otherwise.

Other governments and PMs before her, Tory and Labour tried to cut spending to balance the books. She was the first one who had the guts to take on the unions who opposed them regardless of the costs without losing her nerve.

The fact that her death is dominating the news, drowning out coverage of her party's sickening cuts to benefits for the disabled, would probably suit her to a T. :s

Thats an ironic choice of benefit given the party that introduced them ;)

Mintexmemory

8th April 2013, 19:37

Pleased to see that balance is alive and well on this thread ;) Taking one of Ben's points further - had the Falklands occurred a few months later it is probable that the defence cuts her admin had put in train would have prevented the mounting of the task force regardless of political will. She would then have soundly lost the imminent election - curse those impatient Peronistas

wedge

8th April 2013, 19:56

Ding dong. The witch is dead.

Which old witch? :D

Sometimes people need to grow a thick skin.

Its a compliment that such things can be said of her.

She had an iron fist, massive balls and this country needed a kick up the backside. One can't help but admire those qualities though inevitably there is collateral damage to contend with wnd indeed there are oarts of the UK that is still suffering and never recovered.

I am one of Thatcher's children, my political opinions was first shaped as an 8 year old watching The Young Ones and that generation of comedians. On balance the country has benefited as we are still reaping some of the rewards of Thatcherism.

donKey jote

8th April 2013, 20:38

massive balls
w8C8BrLq-dA

BDunnell

8th April 2013, 23:39

Lets not rewrite history and look at pre-Thatcher Britain as some kind of Utopia. The fact that Britain's state spending needed to be pruned ought to have been very clear since Britain went bankrupt in 1973 and needed a bailout from the IMF. How exactly do you propose she should have carried on spending given the British economy was in no shape to deliver increased tax returns when she came into power? Its a testament to reforms begun by her and carried on by others that today we are bailing others out, not waiting to be bailed out ourselves.

Nor should you forget the way in which public sector unions crippled the country in the winter of discontent, 1978-9. Rubbish rotting on the streets as kids played alongside, the dead left unburied and mandatory power cuts. How about three-day-weeks in 1974? The elimination of entire swathes of industry by trade union sabotage and mismanagement in the face of increasing competition from Germany and Japan?

I suspect she would have been far more popular had she taken the easy way out, keep the country ticking over without harsh reforms and hopefully win the next election but instead she took the drastic action this country needed and her popularity plunged. It takes a good leader to do what is required without a view to her electability and a lucky one to have a war push her popularity up just in time for her first election that she'd have lost otherwise.

Other governments and PMs before her, Tory and Labour tried to cut spending to balance the books. She was the first one who had the guts to take on the unions who opposed them regardless of the costs without losing her nerve.

I agree that many of these things needed addressing, but she did so in a manner, in my view, calculated to create divisiveness and social collapse in the areas worst affected. This is one reason why she provokes such anger.

By the way, is not the picture of the 'winter of discontent' regarding rubbish and dead bodies often exaggerated these days?

BDunnell

8th April 2013, 23:40

Its a compliment that such things can be said of her.

Not much of an argument, I must say. It's rather like saying that it's a compliment to Hitler that people still talk about him in critical terms.

BDunnell

8th April 2013, 23:42

Rollo

8th April 2013, 23:51

Nor should you forget the way in which public sector unions crippled the country in the winter of discontent, 1978-9. Rubbish rotting on the streets as kids played alongside, the dead left unburied and mandatory power cuts. How about three-day-weeks in 1974? The elimination of entire swathes of industry by trade union sabotage and mismanagement in the face of increasing competition from Germany and Japan?

And rather than embark on a systematic program of modernisation and education which Heath, Wilson and Callaghan should have done, she kicked the crap out of whatever industry was left, ensuring that Britain could not compete against Germany and Japan... and still can't.
Britain's capital basically reorganised itself so that the only really viable industries left are in the City and thanks to Major, Blair and especially Cameron, policies ensure that that remains the case.

The Black Knight

8th April 2013, 23:57

I know her politics divide most people who were alive when she was PM, but there really is some vile things being written about her on the internet this afternoon. It takes things like this to expose some of the scum we have in this country. I didn't agree with much of what she did, but I take no satisfaction in her death. I'm a better person than that.

I never liked the lady and I honestly don't believe she was a truly good PM, but I'm like that, can't take pleasure in another persons death. I honestly have been surprised at what some people have been posting on Facebook. Some idiots will be idiots, but there's one or two people I really didn't expect to be embracing or excited at the death of another human being, no matter what kind of person they are. I have been left really disappointed by them this evening.

Malbec

9th April 2013, 00:19

More specifically, if more Argentine bombs had exploded when they hit British ships as opposed to not going off, the outcome could have been materially affected.

Lucky they bought those bombs off us and not the Americans eh? ;)

Malbec

9th April 2013, 00:25

And rather than embark on a systematic program of modernisation and education which Heath, Wilson and Callaghan should have done, she kicked the crap out of whatever industry was left, ensuring that Britain could not compete against Germany and Japan... and still can't.

She also kickstarted inwards investment into the UK, promising the Japanese carmakers in particular that trade unions in their factories would be organised according to Japanese lines, not British.

Much depends on whether you feel companies like British Leyland and Rover had any viable future left by the time she gained power, but she also ensured that if/when they fell Britain would still have car manufacturing here, albeit not British owned.

I am not denying that her actions caused significant negative impact in many parts of Britain, and I certainly agree that she could have handled things far more sensitively. However I firmly believe that had she followed the same path as her predecessors although she would have been less hated Britain would also have had to return to the IMF for another bailout in short order.

Ranger

9th April 2013, 01:38

With all due respect... most amazing typo ever?

http://images.smh.com.au/2013/04/09/4175921/art-article-2305848-192E260C000005DC-525_634x362-620x349.jpg

Big Ben

9th April 2013, 07:53

I wish we had a politician like Thatcher in my country... but what freakin' good is democracy in a country where most people are morons?

ArrowsFA1

9th April 2013, 08:34

For me she represented a great politician and one who took the UK dragging and screaming from a country somewhere to the left of East Germany...
Geographically correct at least :p

Mintexmemory

9th April 2013, 08:46

Lucky they bought those bombs off us and not the Americans eh? ;)

Vous etes franglais? Unfortunately the blooody Exocets did work, at least the Mirages had no answer to an aircraft that stopped in mid-air waited for the oppo to pass then rocketed it up the chuff! Vive l'entente cordiale

Mark

9th April 2013, 08:51

And rather than embark on a systematic program of modernisation and education which Heath, Wilson and Callaghan should have done, she kicked the crap out of whatever industry was left, ensuring that Britain could not compete against Germany and Japan... and still can't.
Britain's capital basically reorganised itself so that the only really viable industries left are in the City and thanks to Major, Blair and especially Cameron, policies ensure that that remains the case.

That's the worst charge against her. That she completely gutted our manufacturing base, rather than modernising it, she destroyed it. Unlike how they did it in Germany for example which is still very strong in manufacturing. This meant when the financial services crashed, so did the country. No of course Major and New Labour are just as much to blame, but she laid the foundations of a recession which has lasted longer than the great depression.

Malbec

9th April 2013, 08:58

Vous etes franglais? Unfortunately the blooody Exocets did work, at least the Mirages had no answer to an aircraft that stopped in mid-air waited for the oppo to pass then rocketed it up the chuff! Vive l'entente cordiale

I believe Ben was referring not to Exocets (which worked fine) but the conventional low tech retarded bombs the Argentinians used on the British landing ships, most of which failed to go off. Had they done so the British land forces on the Falklands would have been a lot smaller with a lot of casualties to deal with and the war wouldn't have gone the same way. Many of those bombs were British built and supplied.

Mark

9th April 2013, 09:02

I believe Ben was referring not to Exocets (which worked fine) but the conventional low tech retarded bombs the Argentinians used on the British landing ships, most of which failed to go off. Had they done so the British land forces on the Falklands would have been a lot smaller with a lot of casualties to deal with and the war wouldn't have gone the same way. Many of those bombs were British built and supplied.

The Falklands conflict was a very close run thing, both the UK and Argentina were utterly unprepared for such an adventure and under equipped.
Ultimately once the landing had been achieved it was the superior training of the British soldiers that won out against the under trained and poorly equipped occupying force.

Mintexmemory

9th April 2013, 09:10

I believe Ben was referring not to Exocets (which worked fine) but the conventional low tech retarded bombs the Argentinians used on the British landing ships, most of which failed to go off. Had they done so the British land forces on the Falklands would have been a lot smaller with a lot of casualties to deal with and the war wouldn't have gone the same way. Many of those bombs were British built and supplied.
Actually the majority of Brit manufactured weaponery wasn't directly supplied (unless by Thatcher's own son perhaps?) it was 'converted' via the Middle East. The French equipment, however, was a direct sale.
Anyway I hope you now realise that making sweeping generalisations about what we might agree on in this forum is madness and folly!

Malbec

9th April 2013, 09:33

Anyway I hope you now realise that making sweeping generalisations about what we might agree on in this forum is madness and folly!

Actually I was trying to kickstart a thread I assumed was going to make the usual gun control threads look like a hugfest. I'm quite surprised that while opinions on her are predictably entrenched and irreconcilable this thread has managed to stay very civilised.

Mintexmemory

9th April 2013, 09:45

Actually I was trying to kickstart a thread I assumed was going to make the usual gun control threads look like a hugfest. I'm quite surprised that while opinions on her are predictably entrenched and irreconcilable this thread has managed to stay very civilised.
You provocative little tinker, you!
I think that because this is mainly a 'civil war' that we are retaining some decorum
Photo in the Metro this morning where the image is of a baton-wielding mounted policeman attacking a female press photographer shows how close we came to having a government-endorsed police state (funny it was a year later than 1984!)

BDunnell

9th April 2013, 10:57

Vous etes franglais? Unfortunately the blooody Exocets did work, at least the Mirages had no answer to an aircraft that stopped in mid-air waited for the oppo to pass then rocketed it up the chuff! Vive l'entente cordiale

The assistance the French provided to us in the run-up to the Falklands campaign regarding those weapon systems they had supplied to Argentina was actually of more importance and value than many would credit. And I think you slightly misunderstand how the Sea Harrier was used in combat.

BDunnell

9th April 2013, 11:03

BDunnell

9th April 2013, 11:11

Photo in the Metro this morning where the image is of a baton-wielding mounted policeman attacking a female press photographer shows how close we came to having a government-endorsed police state (funny it was a year later than 1984!)

The police had been corrupt and violent before Thatcher, of course. But I firmly believe that her coming to power led to the institutionally right-wing nature of the police being brought to the fore as it was tasked with doing her bidding at, for example, the South Yorkshire colleries. The behaviour of the police during her years in office was notably disgraceful; the Hillsborough cover-up was a symptom of forces feeling they could do what they wanted.

Mark

9th April 2013, 11:21

Between a rock and a coal face. - Free Online Library (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Between+a+rock+and+a+coal+face.-a0113990199)
An interesting recollection of the miners strike in the North East - interesting for me because the person being interviewed is my Dad :)

wedge

9th April 2013, 12:23

Not much of an argument, I must say. It's rather like saying that it's a compliment to Hitler that people still talk about him in critical terms.

Bernie Ecclestone has said he admired Hitler. Not because he massacred Jews and easily taken out of context but because on the principle that he got things done.

I've heard similar things by Western political types about the Chinese government and Tienanmen Square Massacre. They don't advocate the atrocities but they admire the conviction.

Knock-on

9th April 2013, 12:25

She was a powerfull Lady with detirmination and conviction.

While I appreciate that things had to change in the Country, and acknowledge the contribution she made, I also accept she had some policies that were very devisive.

Thank God she broke the back of the Unions that were strangling the Country but equally, I'm glad she was forced out when she was. Not that the lot we've had since then were any better but some of her latter policies were nothing short of lunacy.

Bezza

9th April 2013, 12:27

RIP Maggie Thatcher

The best and most important prime minister the UK has had since Winston Churchill.

I am aware the vast majority on this thread do not agree with me.

She brought the UK out of the abyss of the 1970’s and into the modern age. She sorted out the economy and sorted out the ridiculous power unions had. Coal mining was a dying, unprofitable business and Thatcher did what was necessary. The strikes only served to show how cowardly and heartless some people could be, resorting to physical violence to try and get what they wanted, even against their own people.

She embraced the computer age, the service age – one I work within – which would not be in the fantastic position it is in without her actions.

RIP

BDunnell

9th April 2013, 12:30

The strikes only served to show how cowardly and heartless some people could be, resorting to physical violence to try and get what they wanted, even against their own people.

Are you talking about the miners or the police?

Mark

9th April 2013, 12:32

Are you talking about the miners or the police?

To quote my Dad "The police and the miners were as bad as each other"

wedge

9th April 2013, 12:33

henners88

9th April 2013, 12:34

Are you talking about the miners or the police?
I think it was a bit of both considering a lot of the violence was between miners who supported the strikes and those that didn't. Miners didn't just fight the police but one another on many occasions.

One memory from my childhood is my father regularly getting frustrated by the strikes when it came on the news, and he still says that unions ruined this country.

BDunnell

9th April 2013, 12:37

British cars were crap. The industry was going downhill in the 70s. It's summed up with British Leyland.

In the specific example of the motor industry, I must admit that, despite my views more generally on Thatcher, I struggle to see what could have been done to save the situation. The fact was that mainstream British cars had largely — with the odd notable exception — been rubbish since the end of the war. However, this wasn't the fault of anyone but the manufacturers themselves; not government, not the unions.

BDunnell

9th April 2013, 12:39

To quote my Dad "The police and the miners were as bad as each other"

There was a lot of extremely indiscriminate violence on the part of the police.

BDunnell

9th April 2013, 12:40

One memory from my childhood is my father regularly getting frustrated by the strikes when it came on the news, and he still says that unions ruined this country.

That is, with respect, something of an over-simplification. Many other factors came into play. To some extent the unions didn't help, that I admit, but to place all the blame on one set of organisations isn't accurate.

Bezza

9th April 2013, 12:43

To quote my Dad "The police and the miners were as bad as each other"

And the miners started it, without any chance of success - as your article (good read by the way) points out.

henners88

9th April 2013, 12:47

That is, with respect, something of an over-simplification. Many other factors came into play. To some extent the unions didn't help, that I admit, but to place all the blame on one set of organisations isn't accurate.
I'm aware of that even if I am too young to have worked during the 1980's. The unions forced the hand quicker and sped up the decline IMO. My father in law was working in the steel industry during that period in South Wales and said yesterday that unions forced industry abroad in his field. Workers were told they deserved more and demanded it through union led strikes. In many cases they were given what they wanted but output costing was unsustainable. The industry went abroad to cheaper workers and the deprived areas we have in South Wales are still coming to terms with it to this day. Obviously the government at the time didn't make things any easier, but the unions have a lot to answer for.

Knock-on

9th April 2013, 13:25

BDunnell

9th April 2013, 13:32

Unions for me are the anti-christ. The theory is nice but in reality, they are almost all corrupt and destructive.

Unions should be there to act in the best interests of their members. It is not in the best interest of members to bankrupt and blackmail the employers that pay them. It's crazy!

Absurd hyperbole. Unions are far from perfect, but I'd far rather they existed than not, and the vast majority of union activity is far from destructive.

henners88

9th April 2013, 13:42

Unions for me are the anti-christ. The theory is nice but in reality, they are almost all corrupt and destructive.

Unions should be there to act in the best interests of their members. It is not in the best interest of members to bankrupt and blackmail the employers that pay them. It's crazy!
Pretty much my opinion on them. Having seen the damage they have done recently with teachers, BA workers and postal strikes I have no time for them.

Starter

9th April 2013, 14:01

Absurd hyperbole. Unions are far from perfect, but I'd far rather they existed than not, and the vast majority of union activity is far from destructive.
Just curious, how much day to day interaction do you personally have with unions?

Knock-on

9th April 2013, 14:09

Absurd hyperbole. Unions are far from perfect, but I'd far rather they existed than not, and the vast majority of union activity is far from destructive.

You acuse me of hyperbole and come out with this unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Lets look back at 1979 and the 'non-destructive' grip the Unions had on the country shall we?

Inflation around 20%, 3 day working week, powercuts, bodies stacked for burial, rubbish pileing up in the streets etc.

You may not remember with your rose tinted recolletion of how wonderfull the UK was pre-Thatcher but there was a reason we were called the Sick Man of Europe.

I don't defend everything she did and was glad she was ousted but as I sit in my ex-council house that I probably couldn't have afforded without Thatchers policies and look back at how she curbed the Unions, I for one am glad she was around as PM when she was.

Malbec

9th April 2013, 14:13

You acuse me of hyperbole and come out with this unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Lets look back at 1979 shall we and the 'non-destructive' grip the Unions had on the country shall we?

Inflation around 20%, 3 day working week, powercuts, bodies stacked for burial, rubbish pileing up in the streets etc.

You may not remember with your rose tinted recolletion of how wonderfull the UK was pre-Thatcher but there was a reason we were called the Sick Man of Europe.

I don't defend everything she did and was glad she was ousted but as I sit in my ex-council house that I probably couldn't have afforded without Thatchers policies and look back at how she curbed the Unions, I for one am glad she was around as PM when she was.

I agree with you regarding the excesses of the unions, earlier in this thread I pointed out that breaking their ludicrous grip on the economy was one of the best things Thatcher ever did.

However I too would rather have unions than not. In my case the mere threat of my union getting involved stopped an employer from unilaterally cutting my pay in breach of my contract. They do a lot of good sorting out issues for individual workers who would otherwise be left without backing or even advice.

Making sure unions provide this kind of beneficial service whilst also ensuring they do not bring industry to its knees is something Britain has managed quite successfully over the past twenty decades.

BDunnell

9th April 2013, 14:15

You acuse me of hyperbole and come out with this unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Unsubstantiated rhetoric? What is wrong with the comment that I'd rather unions existed than not, and that the majority of union activity is not destructive? I see nothing controversial in that. If we were talking exclusively about the miners' unions, you would have a point, but we're not.

You may not remember with your rose tinted recolletion of how wonderfull the UK was pre-Thatcher but there was a reason we were called the Sick Man of Europe.

Utter nonsense. In no sense is my recollection rose-tinted. I'm just trying to introduce a bit of balance.

Knock-on

9th April 2013, 14:29

I agree with you regarding the excesses of the unions, earlier in this thread I pointed out that breaking their ludicrous grip on the economy was one of the best things Thatcher ever did.

However I too would rather have unions than not. In my case the mere threat of my union getting involved stopped an employer from unilaterally cutting my pay in breach of my contract. They do a lot of good sorting out issues for individual workers who would otherwise be left without backing or even advice.

Making sure unions provide this kind of beneficial service whilst also ensuring they do not bring industry to its knees is something Britain has managed quite successfully over the past twenty decades.

Unions acting for the good of their members is fine. I am behind this and think that workers should have this type of representation to ensure employers don't run roughshod over peoples rights.

However, it's the Scargills and people like Bob Crowe that get on my tit. They are bully boys that blackmail employers and the public with often unrealistic demands and action over frivolous things.

BDunnell

9th April 2013, 14:34

However, it's the Scargills and people like Bob Crowe that get on my tit. They are bully boys that blackmail employers and the public with often unrealistic demands and action over frivolous things.

Yes, mine too. Those two individuals in particular have done much damage to the cause of unions generally. However, this doesn't escape the fact that my statement to which you objected so vehemently was entirely reasonable.

Knock-on

9th April 2013, 14:37

Unsubstantiated rhetoric? What is wrong with the comment that I'd rather unions existed than not, and that the majority of union activity is not destructive? I see nothing controversial in that. If we were talking exclusively about the miners' unions, you would have a point, but we're not.

I didn't say it was wrong but when you dismiss someones opinion as hyperbole and then offer rhetoric in the form of an opinion with nothing to back it up, you must expect to be treated in the way you dismissively treat others. You might notice it's usually only you I do it to because you do it a lot.

Utter nonsense. In no sense is my recollection rose-tinted. I'm just trying to introduce a bit of balance.

What balance? Is my recollection of pre-Thatcher 1979 wrong. Point it out with facts then. The Unions at the time were very destructive as I have pointed out and backed up. What would you like to balance this out with?

Knock-on

9th April 2013, 14:42

Yes, mine too. Those two individuals in particular have done much damage to the cause of unions generally. However, this doesn't escape the fact that my statement to which you objected so vehemently was entirely reasonable.

We agree on one thing then :D

I still struggle with Unions to this day. Take Gove for example. He's actually doing something that the Teachers have been asking for for some time but they havte him. OK, he should have been a bit more consultative and the Bachaloria was not workable but because they have a bee in their bonnet about the man, they are cutting their nose off to spite their face.

This is not good for Teachers, Teaching, the Children or the Country and ask the Unions why they are being so stubborn and they can't really justify it.

Ranger

9th April 2013, 15:52

I agree with you regarding the excesses of the unions, earlier in this thread I pointed out that breaking their ludicrous grip on the economy was one of the best things Thatcher ever did.

However I too would rather have unions than not. In my case the mere threat of my union getting involved stopped an employer from unilaterally cutting my pay in breach of my contract. They do a lot of good sorting out issues for individual workers who would otherwise be left without backing or even advice.

Making sure unions provide this kind of beneficial service whilst also ensuring they do not bring industry to its knees is something Britain has managed quite successfully over the past twenty decades.

...twenty decades? :p

Otherwise I agree with everything you said.

Knock-on

9th April 2013, 16:48

Happier days. Two of the UK greats who are no longer with us. They both had their detractors, were considered flawed but made a huge impact in their lives.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/s480x480/548311_10201072561480205_832228965_n.jpg

(Thanks to RetroF1 for the pic.)

wedge

9th April 2013, 17:21

From my experience i'd say the union(s) are more corrosive than destructive. More often than not the 'wrong' people have benefitted more. What doesn't get reported, sadly, is that the feckless minority in the workforce are advocated by union reps.

BDunnell

9th April 2013, 17:57

Happier days. Two of the UK greats who are no longer with us. They both had their detractors, were considered flawed but made a huge impact in their lives.

It is hard to look in a kindly fashion upon a man who, had he lived, would probably have ended up in prison.

BDunnell

9th April 2013, 18:03

I didn't say it was wrong but when you dismiss someones opinion as hyperbole and then offer rhetoric in the form of an opinion with nothing to back it up, you must expect to be treated in the way you dismissively treat others.

Compared with your bombast, what I offered was entirely reasonable and uncontroversial. I stand by what I said. You don't disagree with it, after all.

You might notice it's usually only you I do it to because you do it a lot.

Excellent.

What balance? Is my recollection of pre-Thatcher 1979 wrong. Point it out with facts then. The Unions at the time were very destructive as I have pointed out and backed up. What would you like to balance this out with?

I think you're wilfully missing the point. In your original comment, you were dismissive of all unions. You did not say 'pre-1979' or anything of the sort; even had you done so, not all unions were dangerously militant then, either. And, sometimes, there was very good reason to be so. The balance I seek to offer is in relation to that.

Gregor-y

9th April 2013, 18:10

Jag_Warrior

9th April 2013, 18:51

I wasn't a fan or a hater of Thatcher. What she did or didn't do had no affect on me, so I don't recall that I ever had a strong opinion about her. But from a great distance, I have to say, when her "boyfriend", Ronald Reagan, died, I don't recall that us unwashed, uncivilized, uncultured Americans were nearly as brutal on the old boy as some of the Euro folks have been on Thatcher. That thought came to mind when yesterday I saw a Brit (on another board) put up a YouTube video of The Wizard of Oz song, Ding Dong, The Witch is Dead. Then I noticed another Brit do the same thing in another thread about her. Then another. I wondered what was up. Then, this morning, I saw these on Google News.

'Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead' could reach number one following Margaret Thatcher's death (http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/ding-dong-the-witch-is-dead-could-reach-number-one-following-margaret-thatchers-death-8566042.html)

'Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead' Enters iTunes Chart Top 30 After Margaret Thatcher Dies (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/04/09/ding-dong-the-witch-is-dead-margaret-thatcher_n_3042641.html)

Man! That's gaucho, folks. :vader:

gloomyDAY

9th April 2013, 19:25

BDunnell

9th April 2013, 19:26

D-Type

9th April 2013, 19:35

BDunnell

9th April 2013, 20:03

Curiously, when the US Presidential election was going on, I felt somewhat similar about the USA. I was surprised at the sheer nastiness of some of the anti-OBama posts.

Yes, that's a very good point, though my surprise was somewhat tempered by the fact that very strange views about Obama — that he's a socialist (has anyone making that point ever met a true socialist?), that he's a Muslim, and so forth — get given prominence by major media outlets.

I'm also surprised at the vehemence of some of the anti-Thatcher sentiments expressed, after all this time.

I'm not at all.

Rollo

10th April 2013, 00:00

My computer has been lit up this morning by elated Brits and their drunken shenanigans from last night. The one thing that stood out the most was a Conga line full of people singing Ding Dong the Witch is Dead. I wasn't alive during Maggie's rule of Britain, and was never affected in any way by her decisions. I just never realized how divisive she was over in the UK.

This probably explains why:
http://www.economicshelp.org/macroeconomics/jsa-cc.png

BBC ON THIS DAY | 26 | 1982: UK unemployment tops three million (http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/26/newsid_2506000/2506335.stm)
The number of people out of work in Britain has risen above three million for the first time since the 1930s.
The official jobless total, announced today, is 3,070,621. It means one in eight people is out of work.
Rates of unemployment vary across the country - in Northern Ireland it is nearly 20% and 15 or 16% in most parts of Scotland the North East and North West - only in the South East does it drop below 10%.

Of course pit closures get most of the headlines because of Thatcher's verbal battle with Arthur Scargill, but it's worth noting that in just 3 years, Britain went from an unemployment rate of less than 3% to more than 10% in 1982. Couple that with inflation running at more than 20%, and a manufactirung sector which accounted for more than 20% of GDP in 1979 to less than 8% at the end of Thatcher's tenure and you start to see why the vitrirol exists.

No referenda was ever held for the sale of any of the following either:
Oct 1979 - British Petroleum
Feb 1981 - British Aerospace
Oct 1981 - Cable & Wireless
Feb 1982 - Amersham International
Feb 1982 - National Freight Corporation
Nov 1982 - Britoil
Feb 1983 - Associated British Ports
Jul 1984 - Enterprise Oil
Aug 1984 - Jaguar
Dec 1984 - British Telecommunications
Jan 1985 - British Shipbuilders
Dec 1986 - British Gas
Feb 1987 - British Airways
May 1987 - Rolls-Royce
Jul 1987 - BAA
Dec 1988 - British Steel
Dec 1989 - Water
Jan 1990 - National Grid and Electric

How many people directly lost their jobs as a result of Thatcher's wave of privatisation? How many people became institutional welfare recipients as a result? How many people are now second generation institutional welfare recipients as a result? Moreover, how many towns had their livelihoods kicked to pieces and I just don't mean as a direct result of closures, but all the knock-on effects in related industries. I still remember as a kid, walking down the high street and seeing shop after shop that had been boarded up.
Then you've got the events relating to the "sus" laws: Toxteth, Brixton, Bristol, Handsworth, Birmingham, Chapelton; The Met also covered up the causes of the New Cross house fire.

Maybe you could say that a few isolated incidents might lead someone to conclude that Thatcher's Premiership wasn't perfect but there's wholesale evidence which points to something far worse.

wedge

10th April 2013, 00:58

Some industries needed modernising - unions favourite word because it means job losses.

Manufacturing for instance the unions would make up any excuse not to increase productivity.

Another example is the print unions and the Wapping dispute came about because the need for new printing machinery.

We still have this problem today. Best example being the CWU/Post Office who are just as bad as the RMT.

BDunnell

10th April 2013, 01:04

Some industries needed modernising - unions favourite word because it means job losses.

Now the favourite word of management, because it enables them to enforce job losses while not using the phrase 'job losses'.

BDunnell

10th April 2013, 01:06

Maybe you could say that a few isolated incidents might lead someone to conclude that Thatcher's Premiership wasn't perfect but there's wholesale evidence which points to something far worse.

See my comments about the police earlier in the thread: corrupt and violent before Thatcher, naturally, but able to act with increasing impunity as her time in office went on. The Hillsborough cover-up was the natural conclusion.

Starter

10th April 2013, 01:51

Now the favourite word of management, because it enables them to enforce job losses while not using the phrase 'job losses'.
The bottom line here, and you are not going to like this, is that if an organization is able to provide the same output after "modernizing" then those jobs weren't real jobs at all, but rather "welfare" and needed to go as soon as possible.

A hardship on the ones out of a job but necessary for all to go forward. Otherwise we would still have government subsidized buggy whip factories.

Rollo

10th April 2013, 02:34

The bottom line here, and you are not going to like this, is that if an organization is able to provide the same output after "modernizing" then those jobs weren't real jobs at all, but rather "welfare" and needed to go as soon as possible.

What happens to all the profits of all those business though? They all used to be owned by the British taxpayer and now they are not. Is is right to privatise profits, when the dividends could have been used to lower the taxation burden on the rest of the country? Surely that amounts to three decades of profits theft.

It is also an irony, that Britain's nuclear reactors are now via EDF, 85% owned by the French Government. That would have gone down nicely with Thatcher's anti-EU stance, to be actually owned by them.

anthonyvop

10th April 2013, 04:25

Now the favourite word of management, because it enables them to enforce job losses while not using the phrase 'job losses'.

Who cares?

The management has an obligation to maximize profits.

A job isn't a right.

What happens to all the profits of all those business though? They all used to be owned by the British taxpayer and now they are not. Is is right to privatise profits, when the dividends could have been used to lower the taxation burden on the rest of the country? Surely that amounts to three decades of profits theft.

What profits?
Government run industries rarely turn a profit if ever.

But that isn't the point. A government exists for only 2 things. National defense and to provide "essential" services the private sector cannot provide. A factory of any type is not an essential service.

Starter

10th April 2013, 04:28

What happens to all the profits of all those business though? They all used to be owned by the British taxpayer and now they are not. Is is right to privatise profits, when the dividends could have been used to lower the taxation burden on the rest of the country? Surely that amounts to three decades of profits theft.
The companies earn the profits; pay dividends; those dividends get spent in one of two ways: 1) By the payee for their own use resulting in demand and jobs in other areas. 2) Reinvested in other profit making enterprises creating more jobs. In both cases there are new jobs, just not the same old ones. Nobody digs a hole in the back yard and buries their new found dividends. The country gets to tax those profits too, so there is still some of it coming back to the government.

It is also an irony, that Britain's nuclear reactors are now via EDF, 85% owned by the French Government. That would have gone down nicely with Thatcher's anti-EU stance, to be actually owned by them.
That's what happens when you sit on your hands and don't move forward. Your lunch gets eaten by someone else. Some of that is happening here now too.

henners88

10th April 2013, 08:01

Dec 1984 - British Telecommunications
That one example was one of the more positive moves IMO. BT employees like my father were offered the chance to buy shares in the company and were in fact paid in shares through bonuses. The companies profits have risen to this day. This can't be said of every company that was privatised by Margaret Thatcher. British Rail is a prime example.

ArrowsFA1

10th April 2013, 08:25

A government exists for only 2 things. National defense and to provide "essential" services the private sector cannot provide.
“The purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness. Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors.”
Thomas Jefferson

SGWilko

10th April 2013, 10:02

SGWilko

10th April 2013, 10:10

Manufacturing for instance the unions would make up any excuse not to increase productivity.

Another example is the print unions .

Oh my, my dad used to work as a cashier at the Express - in the days when Fleet St was the b-all of the newspaper industry. He compalined to his boss once that there were about an additional 25% staff on the rota that were 'not there'. Basically, made up workers, the salaries for which were divied out to the genuine workers.

My dad was summararily told to keep his nose out or he'd be sure to lose his job.

You could only ever get away with sh!t like that as a member of a union, sadly. And you can easily see why 'great' British industry was so utterly uncompetitve, unproductive and uneconomical.

SGWilko

10th April 2013, 10:13

What happens to all the profits of all those business though? They all used to be owned by the British taxpayer and now they are not.

Was privatisation not a crude tool used for quick money to brink the UK back from the brink?

SGWilko

10th April 2013, 10:16

British Rail is a prime example.

True - but British Rail post privatisation is many different comanies vying to screw the public for every penny in order to maximise profits while still getting a government subsidy......

Knock-on

10th April 2013, 10:22

It is hard to look in a kindly fashion upon a man who, had he lived, would probably have ended up in prison.

I never said he should be looked upon kindly. I said he and Thatcher were great, had detractors and were considered flawed.

#understandEnglish

:)

I'm going to bow out of this now s I'm going on my travells so will gladly leave this thread and the the otherwise civilised people that take great pleasure in the passing of a human being. Not even Saddam came in for this vitriol. Very sad :(

henners88

10th April 2013, 10:30

Was privatisation not a crude tool used for quick money to brink the UK back from the brink?
The UK was in a pretty sorry state in 1979 after 15 or more years of slow decline. I think the interesting question being asked right now is, 'would Britain have been better off during the 80's had Thatcher not been in power?' Many think privatisation would have come regardless, yet perhaps not quite so quickly. We'd got to the point where Trade Union's had far too much power and were dictating to the politicians how their sectors were run and output and profitability were declining as a result. We were pricing ourselves out of the market before Thatcher stepped in to Downing Street IMO. I think she delivered what was ultimately going to happen in many cases in such a ruthless manner, that we often can't see the bigger picture. I live in a community deeply affected by that era, yet many who have celebrated her death can't really tell you why they hate her other than 'she closed the mines and steel works and privatised everything, my Dad lost his job and has been off with stress ever since'.

Fortunately I'm one of those people who was born towards the start of that era and didn't really suffer personally as a result. Its difficult for me to really comment from experience but many of you may have a few years on me. :)

Dave B

10th April 2013, 10:49

Russell Brand on Margaret Thatcher: 'I always felt sorry for her children' | Comment is free | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/09/russell-brand-margaret-thatcher)

This is a good read, in my opinion, if you can put aside preconceptions about the author.

BDunnell

10th April 2013, 11:05

I'm going to bow out of this now s I'm going on my travells so will gladly leave this thread and the the otherwise civilised people that take great pleasure in the passing of a human being.

Find one example of where I, for one, have showed 'great pleasure' at the death of Thatcher. You won't be able to. It's a shame you seem unable to tolerate anything other than the most unconditional admiration.

Not even Saddam came in for this vitriol. Very sad :(

Saddam Hussein had little influence on the lives of British communities.

BDunnell

10th April 2013, 11:09

A government exists for only 2 things. National defense and to provide "essential" services the private sector cannot provide.

The private sector could provide defence, too. Why exclude that from the list of things you think should be privatised?

BDunnell

10th April 2013, 11:09

The bottom line here, and you are not going to like this, is that if an organization is able to provide the same output after "modernizing" then those jobs weren't real jobs at all, but rather "welfare" and needed to go as soon as possible.

Where did I say I didn't understand that concept? I was objecting to the use of euphemistic language.

BDunnell

10th April 2013, 11:11

That one example was one of the more positive moves IMO. BT employees like my father were offered the chance to buy shares in the company and were in fact paid in shares through bonuses. The companies profits have risen to this day. This can't be said of every company that was privatised by Margaret Thatcher. British Rail is a prime example.

British Rail wasn't privatised by Thatcher. It was John Major's policy.

BDunnell

10th April 2013, 11:13

I suspect there are a few tobacco firms would be happy to sponsor her funeral. She was quite an advocate in her post PM years after all.......

I think her son should get the Saudi Royal Family to pay for it. He was... er, 'close' to them in the 1980s, after all, as reports of his arms trading activities have confirmed. How dignified it would be for her coffin to pass down the Mall adorned with the logo of BAE Systems.

BDunnell

10th April 2013, 11:14

You could only ever get away with sh!t like that as a member of a union, sadly.

But that sort of stupidity — and I have heard or read about many similar examples — cannot disguise the fact that many unions do good, too.

Bezza

10th April 2013, 12:13

SGWilko

10th April 2013, 12:34

But that sort of stupidity — and I have heard or read about many similar examples — cannot disguise the fact that many unions do good, too.

True, but, my moto for any union shall be - 'they also do a bit of good now and again'.

For me, the unions and what they did for this country are well documented by K Williams et al in 'Carry on at your Convenience'.

BDunnell

10th April 2013, 12:35

This is all pretty embarrassing. People celebrating in the street, the BBC having a heavily-biased 6 o'clock news filled with anti-Thatcher speakers - Gerry Adams for goodness sake!!! People trying to get "ding dong the witch is dead" to Number 1. Most of these people were born in the 1990's, some won't even know what they are celebrating for, others just finding an excuse to get lairy in public, vandalism etc. This country has plenty of morons!

It is a very putrid side of the British public that has come out over the course of the week, it will only excaserbate my emigration in a few years time.

The BBC News coverage has been brown-nosing of the highest order! It's come across to me as absurdly reverent, coverage from an earlier age of deference, just as its treatment of Royal deaths always is.

You seem unwilling to tolerate even the mildest criticism of Thatcher. The street parties and so forth are extremes that have got a lot of coverage in right-wing media outlets; few people have actually participated in them. And why shouldn't Gerry Adams offer a view? He is a citizen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, after all, and was an elected representative.

BDunnell

10th April 2013, 12:36

True, but, my moto for any union shall be - 'they also do a bit of good now and again'.

For me, the unions and what they did for this country are well documented by K Williams et al in 'Carry on at your Convenience'.

Again, to say 'the unions' is, if I may say so, unduly sweeping. They did not all behave in the same way.

SGWilko

10th April 2013, 12:39

Again, to say 'the unions' is, if I may say so, unduly sweeping. They did not all behave in the same way.

Agreed, but the few and far between useful and productive unions don't make news much.

After all, no news is good news......

henners88

10th April 2013, 12:47

The BBC News coverage has been brown-nosing of the highest order! It's come across to me as absurdly reverent, coverage from an earlier age of deference, just as its treatment of Royal deaths always is.

You seem unwilling to tolerate even the mildest criticism of Thatcher. The street parties and so forth are extremes that have got a lot of coverage in right-wing media outlets; few people have actually participated in them. And why shouldn't Gerry Adams offer a view? He is a citizen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, after all, and was an elected representative.
There are also those who will not tolerate even the slightest praise of Thatcher in equal measure around the internet too. There are less people walking around weeping and leaving flowers at Downing Street than there are street parties across the UK. Many of the people I have seen interviewed whilst celebrating her death are younger than me which is rather worrying. Some of the abuse I read on twitter the other day was sickening and many people were either in their teens or early 20's.

BDunnell

10th April 2013, 12:59

There are also those who will not tolerate even the slightest praise of Thatcher in equal measure around the internet too.

Indeed, but the extremes ought just to be ignored. The trouble is that many of those on the right seem to conflate the reasonable criticism with the extreme end.

Many of the people I have seen interviewed whilst celebrating her death are younger than me which is rather worrying. Some of the abuse I read on twitter the other day was sickening and many people were either in their teens or early 20's.

Again, if they don't really know anything about her, it can and should just be ignored. But it's not impossible for people of that age to be genuinely socially aware. Would you be so troubled by a teenager who thought she should not be criticised?

Starter

10th April 2013, 14:03

Would you be so troubled by a teenager who thought she should not be criticised?
Teenagers and "young adults" world views are skewed pretty badly. They have little experience of the real world. Have just, or are just about to, graduate from a very protective environment. Have never had to pay their own bills for food, lodging, etc. and in many cases are still dependent on Mom and Dad for financial support. It's amazing how people's attitudes change when they have to make their own way in life.

BDunnell

10th April 2013, 14:30

Teenagers and "young adults" world views are skewed pretty badly. They have little experience of the real world. Have just, or are just about to, graduate from a very protective environment. Have never had to pay their own bills for food, lodging, etc. and in many cases are still dependent on Mom and Dad for financial support. It's amazing how people's attitudes change when they have to make their own way in life.

Mine haven't.

wedge

10th April 2013, 14:54

Again, to say 'the unions' is, if I may say so, unduly sweeping. They did not all behave in the same way.

Like any organisation they can behave like institutionalised gentleman's club, protect their own and are just as responsible for creating the us-and-them culture of the shopfloor - as are management too.

I've worked on a factory shopfloor for 5 years, I myself behaved like a spoilt child infront of the shift manager, reluctant to change shift pattern and ended up as a team leader. Thankfully I've not come across or dealt with discriminatory behaviour or practices but a few too many time wasters letting the side down - not just from management POV but also the majority of the workforce willing to graft.

Starter

10th April 2013, 15:12

Mine haven't.
Some people never grow up. :D

Dave B

10th April 2013, 15:22

This is all pretty embasystem, ssing. People celebrating in the street, the BBC having a heavily-biased 6 o'clock news filled with anti-Thatcher speakers - Gerry Adams for goodness sake!!! People trying to get "ding dong the witch is dead" to Number 1. Most of these people were born in the 1990's, some won't even know what they are celebrating for, others just finding an excuse to get lairy in public, vandalism etc. This country has plenty of morons.
Sky and ITN also spoke to Gerry Adams, like him or loathe him he's a democratically elected politian who had plenty of dealings with Thatcher's government. Amazingly I've found Sky's coverage more measured in tone than the BBC which has been somewhat sycophantic.

You must keep in mind that under our voting system most MPs have more votes against them than for them, so it's only natural that any MP will come in for heaps of criticism, and only right and proper that broadcasters reflect this.

Dave B

10th April 2013, 15:37

Oh, and "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead" has just been confirmed as being #10 in the midweek chart. If Mr Blobby can reach #1, anything can happen...

BDunnell

10th April 2013, 15:51

Some people never grow up. :D

Ha!

anthonyvop

10th April 2013, 16:26

Spafranco

10th April 2013, 16:56

They both screwed Northern Ireland? :p

Too true. She was so stiff upper bloody lipped she would not even yield to PIRA prisoners who wanted to be treated after all as combatants and not terrorists.

At that time in the late seventies and 80's she was even had the cold heart and apparent snide opinion of the Irish that she claimed to have relented by issuing the prisoners with schoolboy uniforms. More contempt.
This from a Prime Minister of the UK a country convicted of torture by the European Courts of Human rights at The Hague.

Bobby Sands was convicted on arms possession ( sound familiar?). Thatcher did not even show any type of sympathy to family members of the other dead strikers. Cold hearted

Cold hearted and one that would send both British and Argentinian militarymen/women to their deaths. For what. The Falklands? The Malvinas? Rockal.

What happened to the General Belgrano? According to some of the media at the time she was considered a war criminal.

"The sinking of the Belgrano became a cause célèbre for anti-war campaigners in Britain. This was for a variety of reasons, including the ship being well outside the 200 mile (320 kilometre) Total Exclusion Zone that the British had declared around the Falklands, because the ship was on a westerly heading at the time it was attacked, and because a Peruvian peace proposal was still on the table at the time of the attack."

Malbec

10th April 2013, 17:51

I think her son should get the Saudi Royal Family to pay for it. He was... er, 'close' to them in the 1980s, after all, as reports of his arms trading activities have confirmed. How dignified it would be for her coffin to pass down the Mall adorned with the logo of BAE Systems.

To be fair, given how all governments since and including Thatcher regardless of affiliation have colluded in supporting and covering up corruption involving BAe and the Saudis they should all get the same sponsorship deal.

BDunnell

10th April 2013, 17:59

To be fair, given how all governments since and including Thatcher regardless of affiliation have colluded in supporting and covering up corruption involving BAe and the Saudis they should all get the same sponsorship deal.

Absolutely. But no other PM's son has engaged in such behaviour.

BDunnell

10th April 2013, 18:00

Too true. She was so stiff upper bloody lipped she would not even yield to PIRA prisoners who wanted to be treated after all as combatants and not terrorists.

With hindsight, I believe it can be said Thatcher was probably wrong about Northern Ireland; it took John Major to realise that negotiation with the IRA, while utterly unpalatable to many, was the only way forward.

Malbec

10th April 2013, 19:15

With hindsight, I believe it can be said Thatcher was probably wrong about Northern Ireland; it took John Major to realise that negotiation with the IRA, while utterly unpalatable to many, was the only way forward.

Although to be fair the war against Irish Republican terrorists was intensely personal for her, having lost a close friend and supporter in Airey Neave to a bomb attack.

henners88

10th April 2013, 19:59

Spafranco

10th April 2013, 20:12

With hindsight, I believe it can be said Thatcher was probably wrong about Northern Ireland; it took John Major to realise that negotiation with the IRA, while utterly unpalatable to many, was the only way forward.

While we are deemed to disagree on other issues due to misunderstanding, I agree with you. While the PIRA can say what they wish about getting freedom from the British, there is no justification, no matter what the loyalists did, in killing innocent people in either pubs, subways or by knocking on house doors and killing someone.

John Major, I believe, was a man that realized the consequences of subjecting these men, those that really believed in what they were doing, to some degree of dignity.

Both sides had and still have a lot to answer for.

Spafranco

10th April 2013, 20:31

Although to be fair the war against Irish Republican terrorists was intensely personal for her, having lost a close friend and supporter in Airey Neave to a bomb attack.

Not to mention the men executed in 1916. Leaders who in any other country would have been jailed for the same action.

Thatch only rough to boil the simmering hatred that was resurfacing with her election.

Recall this was a province that was along with the famine victimized for being a Catholic. No vote if you did not own a home (this was in 1969).

98% of the RUC were protestant, then the B-Specials, torture, the UDR long with many other atrocities. Cromwell and Drogheda.

The first ships to sail to Ireland with aid were two American naval vessels stripped of their weaponry. Upon seeing British ships leaving Ireland he remarked "My Lord, they are leaving with livestock and grains while their subjects starve". A hop across sea could have saved millions, these ships from the US sailed in conditions were appalling to bring food all the way across the Atlantic.
Something unknown is the fact that while on the Trail of Tears the Choctaw people gathered $700.00 to send to Ireland. Estimated value to them in today's terms was in the millions.
Airey Neave was another sad victim of this war but there are many that were lost without provocation on Bloody Sunday.

BDunnell

10th April 2013, 20:47

Although to be fair the war against Irish Republican terrorists was intensely personal for her, having lost a close friend and supporter in Airey Neave to a bomb attack.

A good politician would seek to ignore that in the interests of taking the best course of action. It's to Major's great credit that he did, painful as it was.

Malbec

10th April 2013, 21:12

Not to mention the men executed in 1916. Leaders who in any other country would have been jailed for the same action.

Thatch only rough to boil the simmering hatred that was resurfacing with her election.

Recall this was a province that was along with the famine victimized for being a Catholic. No vote if you did not own a home (this was in 1969).

98% of the RUC were protestant, then the B-Specials, torture, the UDR long with many other atrocities. Cromwell and Drogheda.

The first ships to sail to Ireland with aid were two American naval vessels stripped of their weaponry. Upon seeing British ships leaving Ireland he remarked "My Lord, they are leaving with livestock and grains while their subjects starve". A hop across sea could have saved millions, these ships from the US sailed in conditions were appalling to bring food all the way across the Atlantic.
Something unknown is the fact that while on the Trail of Tears the Choctaw people gathered $700.00 to send to Ireland. Estimated value to them in today's terms was in the millions.
Airey Neave was another sad victim of this war but there are many that were lost without provocation on Bloody Sunday.

You might find as a student of history that Mrs Thatcher was only PM from 1979 to 90 and therefore wasn't responsible for the treatment of Ireland before that time.

We have of course already discussed this topic in one of your previous manifestations on this forum in the Olympics thread so I'm bowing out

D-Type

10th April 2013, 21:29

You have a point there - she was PM from 1979 - 1990. So anyone who was an adult will now be in their mid-forties and anyone who can remember life as an adult pre-Thatcher will now be in their late fifties at the youngest. Many of those dancing around singing "The witch is dead" are basing their views on hearsay rather than experience.

BDunnell

10th April 2013, 22:02

Spafranco

10th April 2013, 22:22

You might find as a student of history that Mrs Thatcher was only PM from 1979 to 90 and therefore wasn't responsible for the treatment of Ireland before that time.

We have of course already discussed this topic in one of your previous manifestations on this forum in the Olympics thread so I'm bowing out

First of all I must apologize for my harsh words which were not meant to hurt your sensitive nature. Oh, I am bad. You just respond and then run.

Spafranco

10th April 2013, 22:27

To the forum members that read (try to) my posts I apologize for the missing letters. I am one that types and forgets to read what I have written.
Seems my Logitech keyboard misses some letters. New batteries and all.

So, once again thank you for enduring the Thatch(er) which was missing and appears thoughtless. ought should have read brought.

Rollo

10th April 2013, 23:37

“The purpose of government is to enable the people of a nation to live in safety and happiness. Government exists for the interests of the governed, not for the governors.”
Thomas Jefferson

It's a good thing that Britain is governed by the banking sector and business then isn't it? ;)

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies..”
Thomas Jefferson

It's probably also a good thing that Thatcher aided and abetted the acceleration of that process; look where we are today.

ArrowsFA1

11th April 2013, 07:05

...the BBC having a heavily-biased 6 o'clock news filled with anti-Thatcher speakers...
On that note it's interesting to see that the BBC received 268 complaints saying their coverage was biased in favour of Thatcher, and 227 saying it was biased against her.
Thatcher death coverage prompts competing accusations of BBC bias | Media | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/apr/10/thatcher-death-coverage-bbc-bias)

inthe interests of balance here's the Daily Mail's take on this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2307211/Readers-fury-biased-BBC-site-Corporation-accused-negative-articles-appear-Baroness-Thatcher.html

henners88

11th April 2013, 08:01

As much as I don't think she should be given such a high profile funeral, I don't get the reaction over cost to the public. When we turn a blind eye to the amount of public cost it takes to keep us in Afghanistan or the aid we give to keep farmers in jobs in South America, it puts it in perspective for me. When you see how much money each election candidate gets to market their campaign (£20,000 to £30,000) each election, or the amount of grants that are given to companies like ones I have worked for and to which is wasted, its silly.

This is a story that is relevant this week so is getting maximum coverage, too much in fact. Many are out in the street rioting because their parents have told them how tough it used to be, and somehow you get types who want revenge against someone who is now dead and can't see the reaction. I say lay this woman to rest and lets deal with the present day problems we face without looking to the past and massaging this hard done by attitude many face in Britain today.

SGWilko

11th April 2013, 09:21

While we are deemed to disagree on other issues due to misunderstanding, I agree with you. While the PIRA can say what they wish about getting freedom from the British, there is no justification, no matter what the loyalists did, in killing innocent people in either pubs, subways or by knocking on house doors and killing someone.

John Major, I believe, was a man that realized the consequences of subjecting these men, those that really believed in what they were doing, to some degree of dignity.

Both sides had and still have a lot to answer for.

Was it not the global condemnation of the terrorist attack on the Pan-Am Lockerbie flight that finally made the IRA and other such groups wake up and realise that political voices rather than bombs was the way forward for getting their point across. That and the drying up of financial aid for their activity from the States post Lockerbie....???

Meaning that more terrorist bombs from the IRA would only worsen their cause. And I am not attributing Lockerbie to the IRA BTW

Spafranco

11th April 2013, 16:01

Was it not the global condemnation of the terrorist attack on the Pan-Am Lockerbie flight that finally made the IRA and other such groups wake up and realise that political voices rather than bombs was the way forward for getting their point across. That and the drying up of financial aid for their activity from the States post Lockerbie....???

Meaning that more terrorist bombs from the IRA would only worsen their cause. And I am not attributing Lockerbie to the IRA BTW

Good Point. Not saying you're correct nor can I give you an answer that would be the correct either. What I'm saying is that we could speculate.

Lockerbie flight 103 was a prime example of "mans inhumanity to man makes countless thousands mourn". Imagine allowing the man convicted of that horrendous act walk free on humanitarian grounds.

SGWilko, I would like to think that there was some humanity within the IRA bombers but I find it difficult to believe they had the empathy at their base level (the active groups) to actually ponder your humane ideal.

SGWilko, it is difficult for the majority of us to comprehend shooting a bird let alone causing harm to innocents. I don't leave the loyalists free of this either, nor do I patronize you by stating the obvious. I think you make valid points but there was still money coming from the US and Libya.

Gerry Adams wanted peace because he saw that the writing on the wall and I believe that Senator Mitchell (not Bill Clinton) was the architect of the Good Friday Accord.

When that was signed the PIRA broke up but not in it's entirety. Omagh on a Saturday was turned into a bloodbath with I believe 30 killed by a breakaway group. The reason suggested that there were not more was because the PIRA knew who the bombers were and were actively looking for them.

Malbec

11th April 2013, 17:24

Was it not the global condemnation of the terrorist attack on the Pan-Am Lockerbie flight that finally made the IRA and other such groups wake up and realise that political voices rather than bombs was the way forward for getting their point across. That and the drying up of financial aid for their activity from the States post Lockerbie....???

Meaning that more terrorist bombs from the IRA would only worsen their cause. And I am not attributing Lockerbie to the IRA BTW

I think it was more to do with both sides spending the 80s thinking that new tactics could bring the enemy to its knees or to the negotiation table on their terms.

The pIRA were trying new targets, from high level assassinations to attacks on frontline military units, then soft military/police targets, then British infrastructure and economic centres. None of it worked in forcing the British out but it raised the cost of Britain doing business in Northern Ireland.

The British were trying different tactics against the IRA too with intelligence services increasingly involved. By the 90s it was clear that IRA activity could be reduced significantly but not stopped as they grew wise to British infiltration.

By John Major's rule moderates on both sides had realised that stalemate had been achieved and that the only way forwards was through talks. That hadn't been the case in the '80s, and I think that was the main difference.

henners88

11th April 2013, 17:35

SGWilko, I would like to think that there was some humanity within the IRA bombers but I find it difficult to believe they had the empathy at their base level (the active groups) to actually ponder your humane ideal.

SGWilko, it is difficult for the majority of us to comprehend shooting a bird let alone causing harm to innocents. I don't leave the loyalists free of this either, nor do I patronize you by stating the obvious. I think you make valid points but there was still money coming from the US and Libya.

Gerry Adams wanted peace because he saw that the writing on the wall and I believe that Senator Mitchell (not Bill Clinton) was the architect of the Good Friday Accord.

When that was signed the PIRA broke up but not in it's entirety. Omagh on a Saturday was turned into a bloodbath with I believe 30 killed by a breakaway group. The reason suggested that there were not more was because the PIRA knew who the bombers were and were actively looking for them.
Half my family are Northern Irish Catholics, but in no way can we agree there was any humanity coming from the IRA. Its also a situation where to the outside world there is peace but it is anything but. Many of the killings go unreported on the international news of course. Just picked up one of the most shocking stories from that era and can see why the British went down the violence route for so long. Having grown up in an era where we were constantly under threat from the IRA, I can appreciate how difficult it would be for anyone in power to try and negotiate with such groups.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporals_killings

Obviously glad some form of short term resolution was found.

Spafranco

11th April 2013, 20:26

[
QUOTE=henners88;1123198]Half my family are Northern Irish Catholics, but in no way can we agree there was any humanity coming from the IRA. Its also a situation where to the outside world there is peace but it is anything but. Many of the killings go unreported on the international news of course. Just picked up one of the most shocking stories from that era and can see why the British went down the violence route for so long. Having grown up in an era where we were constantly under threat from the IRA, I can appreciate how difficult it would be for anyone in power to try and negotiate with such groups.

I'm also sure that you to can see why the PIRA were going down their road too. How many loyalists do you know that identify themselves as Northern Irish? Ireland to them is a bad taste in the mouth to them and they can't even mention the name of the country they were given by the British kicking the Irish out of their own country.
"They have nothing in their whole imperial arsenal that can break the spirit of one Irishman who doesn't want to be broken" Bobby Sands

henners88

11th April 2013, 21:19

Spafranco

12th April 2013, 16:04

No I can't understand why the PIRA went down their route but maybe the early IRA movement my great grandfather supported. The violence and murder of the 70's and 80's can not be justified in my opinion. We also have to remember there are those Irishmen who don't want a united Ireland as they don't want to inherit the Protestant north. It's a complicated issue with no quick solution. One thing for sure it's not the romantic isle many of those across the globe with faint Irish ties wish it to be. I've met plenty of them.

You are speaking about the Republic and not Northern Ireland where you state the Irish not wanting the Protestant north. Who would. Religion is just an excuse for the radicals to pursue their agenda.

I have been to Ireland many times and also to Wales and Scotland.

Henner, have you been to Ireland. Have you seen the ruined churches all over the country. Those that Cromwell and destroyed along with his own particular form of genocide.

"To hell or to Connaught". Cromwell meant to the Irish land owners when kicked off their land.
It is easy for you, for me, and all the others to sit here and feel appalled at what has happened. Remember, Northern Ireland is an occupied land.

No Catholic vote, Operation motorman, internment without trial, the hunger strikes, the Dublin Bombings now attributed to influences within the British Government.

Check point shootings and claims of vehicles that were trying to barge through road blocks when that was not the case. Young children being told they were the spawn of whores when being brought to a school in a predominately protestant area. Five and six year old's having to go through a crowd like the little African American girl of the sixties. A disgrace.
The people in the socioeconomic areas with little hope have been the purveyors of violence on both sides. After all, they are the people with so mach at stake.
The catholic doctor, Protestant Doctor, Lawyer, Engineer and on never had to succumb to this type violence because it was either very rural and very urban.

If Ireland does not have romance to it I feel you do not know it.

Any country that produces Oscar Wilde, William Butler Yates, George Bernard Shaw, Beckett, Flannery, Binchy and countless others.

Gregor-y

12th April 2013, 17:02

You forgot the Battle of the Boyne.

I ran into a roadblocks in a rural part of the North traveling fast enough through the hedges that someone may have thought I was up to no good. Compared to the riot control Land Rovers blocking the road I'm sure my rented Corolla would have come out on the losing side even without a bunch of automatic weapons. But the worst reception I got involved the car's Cork plates when I was trying to photograph a rail yard in Belfast. As a third generation railfan (trainspotter) the habit dies hard. Luckily Americans have, as I was told by a coworker in Dublin, 'the most slow and obvious ****in accent in the world.'

Mintexmemory

12th April 2013, 17:03

You are speaking about the Republic and not Northern Ireland where you state the Irish not wanting the Protestant north. Who would. Religion is just an excuse for the radicals to pursue their agenda.

I have been to Ireland many times and also to Wales and Scotland.

Henner, have you been to Ireland. Have you seen the ruined churches all over the country. Those that Cromwell and destroyed along with his own particular form of genocide.

"To hell or to Connaught". Cromwell meant to the Irish land owners when kicked off their land.
It is easy for you, for me, and all the others to sit here and feel appalled at what has happened. Remember, Northern Ireland is an occupied land.

No Catholic vote, Operation motorman, internment without trial, the hunger strikes, the Dublin Bombings now attributed to influences within the British Government.

Check point shootings and claims of vehicles that were trying to barge through road blocks when that was not the case. Young children being told they were the spawn of whores when being brought to a school in a predominately protestant area. Five and six year old's having to go through a crowd like the little African American girl of the sixties. A disgrace.
The people in the socioeconomic areas with little hope have been the purveyors of violence on both sides. After all, they are the people with so mach at stake.
The catholic doctor, Protestant Doctor, Lawyer, Engineer and on never had to succumb to this type violence because it was either very rural and very urban.

If Ireland does not have romance to it I feel you do not know it.

Any country that produces Oscar Wilde, William Butler Yates, George Bernard Shaw, Beckett, Flannery, Binchy and countless others.

For the sake of balance in your litany of the evils perpetrated (allegedly in some cases) by the British Govt. let's not forget Birmingham, Guildford and Warrington. Warren Point, Westminster and Brighton might JUST be categorised as legitimate political targets the former 3 can't by anyone's definition. So if a woman believed that the leader of the ANC was a terrorist how likely was she to negotiate with people actually bombing mainland Britain. I don't think Henners was saying that Ireland is devoid of romance, just that the notions held by many 5th or 6th generation plastic paddies in Boston were as divorced from reality as Bing Crosby singing Galway Bay!

Mintexmemory

12th April 2013, 17:07

You forgot the Battle of the Boyne.

But the worst reception I got involved the car's Cork plates when I was trying to photograph a rail yard in Belfast. As a third generation railfan (trainspotter) the habit dies hard. Luckily Americans have, as I was told by a coworker in Dublin, 'the most slow and obvious ****in accent in the world.'
I wonder was it as bad as the abuse I got driving throught the Republic (Dun Laoghre to Mayo) with UK plates? I've hired a car ever since when I visit the EI

Knock-on

12th April 2013, 19:21

Find one example of where I, for one, have showed 'great pleasure' at the death of Thatcher. You won't be able to. It's a shame you seem unable to tolerate anything other than the most unconditional admiration.

Did I say you? It's not always about you, you know. I said some people who are normally civilised seem to take pleasure in the passing of a human being with their chants of 'Ding, Dong, the Witch is Dead' and other absurd celebrations.

As for your spurious assertion that I wont tollerate anything but unconditional admiration for Thatcher.... :confused: Have you not read this thread at all? Really, your ignorance of what I have posted does you a disservice. Do you really want me to go back and repost where I have stated she was flawed and made the wrond decisions or would you like to do it yourself and ignore this post ;)

Saddam Hussein had little influence on the lives of British communities.

Try telling that to the hundreds of thousands of people that protested against the war, the thousands of Service men, women and their families that were directly involved in the War and the families of the 179 Service people that lost their lives. I think Saddam Hussains actions and the eschewing actions of UK and American politicians had a huge impact on British Communities.

I'm no Thatcher lover as I have said but she came into power during a period of crisis in the UK and did a good job. She also made some monumental cock-ups but without her contribution, I think the UK would have been a much worse place today.

Spafranco

12th April 2013, 19:30

For the sake of balance in your litany of the evils perpetrated (allegedly in some cases) by the British Govt. let's not forget Birmingham, Guildford and Warrington. Warren Point, Westminster and Brighton might JUST be categorised as legitimate political targets the former 3 can't by anyone's definition. So if a woman believed that the leader of the ANC was a terrorist how likely was she to negotiate with people actually bombing mainland Britain. I don't think Henners was saying that Ireland is devoid of romance, just that the notions held by many 5th or 6th generation plastic paddies in Boston were as divorced from reality as Bing Crosby singing Galway Bay!

Paddies? That in itself is a British putdown of the Irish.

I do not disagree that the romance of the Quiet Man is probably dead nor do I forget the atrocities of Birmingham and Guildford. However, I remember the innocent people sent to jail for years with the evidence clear but hidden which further created strife.
Thatcher was a disgrace to your country in her dealings with Northern Ireland. She did not care nor did she want to. As mentioned in the movie Hidden Agenda, "Ireland is such a beautiful country, pity about the Irish.

As to comment about driving from Dun Laoighre to Mayo with UK plates what kind of abuse did you receive? I have never heard of anyone abusing British citizens in the Republic. Never and I have had periods in Ireland lasting six months at a time over the years.

What is EI?

Spafranco

12th April 2013, 19:54

For the sake of balance in your litany of the evils perpetrated (allegedly in some cases) by the British Govt.

I have not reported anything that was allegedly committed by the British Government. I have also, if you had read many of the horrific acts perpetrated by the PIRA. The manner in which you chose to write your comment appears as though your country of origin or leaders should not be held responsible for some of the most horrendous crimes that went all the way to the Court of Human Rights at the Hague.
In addition, the people of Ireland were starved while the aristocrats took advantage and expelled those behind in their annual rent even though they were suffering from Cholera, Diphtheria,Typhus and other forms of disease. Some lying dead on the roads their mouths colored green from eating grass. Those that were able to stand were, instead of been given something to eat were made to work on what is called the "old bog road". A useless track of road leading nowhere.

Do you recall Croke Park? It's a Gaelic Football Stadium. The All Ireland final was taking place when a armored car drove onto the field and opened fire on the innocent crowd. Why?

Balance? There was no balance and as one of your first generation Irish/Americans I am well aware of the horrors perpetrated by the British and in return, those that were in return perpetrated by the PIRA.

The British Empire was the cause of more harm worldwide than any other. Iraq, Kuwait, India, Pakistan,Sudan,South Africa (Zulu Wars)Rhodesia,Australia, New Zealand, Burma, Egypt and America. Palestine and countless others.

donKey jote

12th April 2013, 20:02

is this thread about the wicked witch of the west, maggie, or the land of the bogs and the little people? :andrea:
seems on the verge of going catholic... :p

2nd gen plastic paddonkie :bandit:

Mintexmemory

12th April 2013, 20:14

Knock-on

12th April 2013, 20:20

Paddies? That in itself is a British putdown of the Irish.

Rubbish. It's a friendly term. Stop trying to make a mountain out of molehill.

If you know so little about EIre, I suggest you stick to the topic of the thread.

D-Type

12th April 2013, 21:10

I have not reported anything that was allegedly committed by the British Government. I have also, if you had read many of the horrific acts perpetrated by the PIRA. The manner in which you chose to write your comment appears as though your country of origin or leaders should not be held responsible for some of the most horrendous crimes that went all the way to the Court of Human Rights at the Hague.
In addition, the people of Ireland were starved while the aristocrats took advantage and expelled those behind in their annual rent even though they were suffering from Cholera, Diphtheria,Typhus and other forms of disease. Some lying dead on the roads their mouths colored green from eating grass. Those that were able to stand were, instead of been given something to eat were made to work on what is called the "old bog road". A useless track of road leading nowhere.

Do you recall Croke Park? It's a Gaelic Football Stadium. The All Ireland final was taking place when a armored car drove onto the field and opened fire on the innocent crowd. Why?

Balance? There was no balance and as one of your first generation Irish/Americans I am well aware of the horrors perpetrated by the British and in return, those that were in return perpetrated by the PIRA.

The British Empire was the cause of more harm worldwide than any other. Iraq, Kuwait, India, Pakistan,Sudan,South Africa (Zulu Wars)Rhodesia,Australia, New Zealand, Burma, Egypt and America. Palestine and countless others.
Iraq, Egypt, Sudan and Kuwait were never part of the British Empire. Although the last two were at one time British protectorates.
Did the Spanish, French, Italians, Turks, Germans and Portuguese really do a better job in their empires than the British?

steveaki13

12th April 2013, 21:24

This is th first time I have been on here since her passing, so haven't read all 8 pages, but despite the split her and her cabinet caused, (and some people do seem to forget the UK is a leading party not individual) I have been sickened by the actions of some idiots we have in the UK who are celebrating and holding street parties. There is no reason for celebrating someones death like that.

People seem to think she had a personal desire to ruin peoples lives. Now I was only 5 when she left office, but I cant see that all her and her parties decisions were made to hurt people, but rather as a government tends too. Has to make very tough decisions that at the time are seen as the best way forward.

The government always makes decisions that some will like and others wont.

People have said she is responsible for the hillsborough cover up, but I am sure it was information given by police which caused the cover up.

All in all it seems like an excuse to act like idiots protesting about something which many of them weren't even born for.

Firstgear

12th April 2013, 21:33

I remember Thatcher as PM but don't really have any feelings one way or the other about her because I don't really follow your politics over there.

Reading over this thread, the impression I get of her, is that she was like the parent or teacher that had to use tough love & discipline on a spoilt child - knowing that the child would hate her for it, but knowing at the same time that it was best for the child in the long run.

henners88

12th April 2013, 21:35

Yes Spafranco I'm half Irish and have been to Ireland many many times lol. It's a bit difficult to miss the ruined churches too as they are just about everywhere! You completely misunderstood my comment concerning romance. I meant there are many that attach it to the troubles like it was fighting for freedom and it was all very romantic. There is not a single member of my family who does not support a united Ireland, but the violence was something even some IRA sympathisers were appalled by. Please don't tell me I haven't been to such places or don't know what Ireland is all about. I find that quite rude even if you don't really know me or anything about me. I opened up a little about my feelings on a subject quite close that's all.

Spafranco

12th April 2013, 21:56

Iraq, Egypt, Sudan and Kuwait were never part of the British Empire. Although the last two were at one time British protectorates.
Did the Spanish, French, Italians, Turks, Germans and Portuguese really do a better job in their empires than the British?

Are you splitting hairs? Mesopotamia,was occupied by GB. If you did not know until now that is, Iraq and Kuwait came from.So occupation and part of

the Empire which in itself would be a wiser choice for you to use since each and every one of those countries I mentioned were occupied by GB. So too

was Hong Kong.GB was great at forming countries and as a result screwing up the world. Pakistan! India! Bangladesh! Kuwait!

In addition, this has nothing to do with the other Empires. All I ever see while reading and observation is that the greed of the Empires is coming back to haunt us all.
Whatever you desire to call them everyone mentioned was under the thumb of the British.
If I were you I would be doing the same thing and defending my country. An admirable trait. We could argue this all week moth and year but at least, and I feel I am doing so with respect as you have also shown me.

My great Grandmothers maiden name was Hancock :)

D-Type

13th April 2013, 01:02

Malbec

13th April 2013, 07:39

Quite simply there's historical facts and there's rhetoric. If you're going to write an anti-Brtitish polemic you should get your facts right! British foreign policy and British colonial policy, ie the Empire, are different.

Almost all of Britain's imperial history was well over by Thatcher's time too so not particularly relevant to this thread either.

Gregor-y

13th April 2013, 16:41

That leaves South Africa and Rhodesia in addition to Ireland. But otherwise you're right and I do think Ireland is five centuries of insanity.

Spafranco

15th April 2013, 19:57

Quite simply there's historical facts and there's rhetoric. If you're going to write an anti-Brtitish polemic you should get your facts right! British foreign policy and British colonial policy, ie the Empire, are different.

So where is the difference between the rhetoric and the fact. I did not challenge you on the empire status on some of those countries , but they were part of the empire.

Spafranco

15th April 2013, 20:26

Spa
I was tempted to reply in gaelic but thought that to be too OTT - congrats you managed to sound patronising and condescending simultaneously! I don't need lessons in Irish history from you - as my partner, Maraid Maire Mceadh, would confirm. I will just update you on the idioms though- the term 'plastic paddy' is actually of Irish derivation to describe the corpulent tourists who insist on compaining loudly at Goggaghty's that the portions aren't big enough (usually 30 mins after visiting the National Famine Memorial!)

Abuse received in
Dublin suburbs
Strokestown
Longford
Swinford

Emerald Isle!

Now as a working class Brit I could spend years apologising for Cromwell, the clearances etc but that wasn't me. But I get a little tired of those. Who follow a Mel Gibson interpretation of history. Croagh Park was an atrocity - would you now care to ennumerate the atrocities performed. By Irishman on Irishman during the civil war. Your education appears incomplete

"Plastic Paddy." was given by the Irish to the Irish for those that went to the UK for a trip and came back with British accents.

What Dublin suburbs? Abuse is more likely in some than in others and how do you know it directed at you specifically because of your accent?

As for the others, small country towns in the west. What on earth could have happened?

Now you are resorting to the old tired attempts at deflection, assumption and getting the dander of the don Quixote types all in a lather.

Did anyone say YOU personally committed anything attributed to the GB?

Ireland was under the yoke of British imperialism for so long it is once again sad to see the likes of you trying to alter the direction to suit yourself and then have the bombastic arrogance to assume that I am incomplete in my history. Point it out. What are you yabbeing about with Mel Gibson?
Achara,if you want to caint as Gaelge lan araigh.

Spafranco

15th April 2013, 20:40

Rubbish. It's a friendly term. Stop trying to make a mountain out of molehill.

If you know so little about EIre, I suggest you stick to the topic of the thread.

Paddy - Used mainly in Britain. Similar negative connotations as "nigger". Comes from St. Patrick and/or from the common Irish name Padraig. Also spelled Patty.

By the way, Eireann is the proper Irish name for Ireland. Not Eire as once again, the Brits used it in a derogatory manner.

Easy for you to say say that someone is making a mountain out of a molehill when you are the one doing the chanting.

Remember when the first black players joined some English teams. One player, John Barnes has a book on the abuse he and others received and were unable to reach their full potential.

As for knowing Ireland, I have forgotten more than you will ever know. Amadan.

BDunnell

15th April 2013, 22:35

That leaves South Africa and Rhodesia in addition to Ireland. But otherwise you're right and I do think Ireland is five centuries of insanity.

Well, one fact cannot be avoided: that Thatcher's Northern Ireland policy failed. That of her successor, Major, worked.

donKey jote

15th April 2013, 22:47

Paddy - Used mainly in Britain. Similar negative connotations as "nigger".
I wonder what my uncle Paddy or my uncle Mickey would have thought about your ramblings :laugh:

By the way, Eireann is the proper Irish name for Ireland. Not Eire as once again, the Brits used it in a derogatory manner.
An tAontas Eorpach
European Union

Éire
Ireland

Pas
Passport

...Either yuz are talking bollox or the Irish are such an opressed folk they print the derogatory term on the cover of their own passports :eek: :p

Remember, the whole Sassenach world is against you... Amadan indeed ! :rolleyes:

donKey jote

15th April 2013, 22:51

Well, one fact cannot be avoided: that Thatcher's Northern Ireland policy failed. That of her successor, Major, worked.

amazing how Mr Grey will go down in the history books for this. Whodathunkit! :p

Spafranco

16th April 2013, 02:35

I wonder what my uncle Paddy or my uncle Mickey would have thought about your ramblings :laugh:

An tAontas Eorpach
European Union

Éire
Ireland

Pas
Passport

...Either yuz are talking bollox or the Irish are such an opressed folk they print the derogatory term on the cover of their own passports :eek: :p

Remember, the whole Sassenach world is against you... Amadan indeed ! :rolleyes:

Oh my , a wannabe Irishman in one breath and as I see getting away with profanity. That the Irish use Eire on their passport is because it is an Irish passport. Not being slurred upon by the the likes of you.

You are clueless. Use either Irish or Scottish Gaelic ma se do chuile. Ta tu as do cheann.

You can try to poke fun at me all you want and try to diminish fact as fiction all you want.

The Brits (that's you) occupied Ireland for 700 years and tried to impose their tyranny on the Irish here in the US.

The problem with you Donkey is that you are one of those in the crowd yelling abuse as long as you have a crowd behind you.

Alone you are nothing.

I can guarantee that one internet search of derogatory names used against the Irish by brits will show Paddy. That I guarantee. When you have it shown to you you will still deny it.

Amadan mor agus asail insa phoin.

Spafranco

16th April 2013, 02:45

Donkey should show this to his uncle Paddy. See what he says about that. Poking fun at people as they died of starvation. Way to go Donkey.

"His most compelling argument for British negligence is in the final chapter, in which he recalls the xenophobic images and words commonly used to caricature the Irish in Victorian England. Trevelyan and other architects of the famine response had a direct hand in filling the newspapers with the “oft-repeated theme that the famine was the result of a flaw in the Irish character.” And Punch, a satirical magazine, regularly portrayed “‘Paddy’ as a simian in a tailcoat and a derby, engaged in plotting murder, battening on the labour of the English workingman, and generally living a life of indolent treason,” explains Mr Coogan. The result of such dehumanising propaganda was to make unreasonable policy seem more reasonable and just."

donKey jote

16th April 2013, 05:25

Oh my , a wannabe Irishman in one breath and as I see getting away with profanity. That the Irish use Eire on their passport is because it is an Irish passport. Not being slurred upon by the the likes of you.

You are clueless. Use either Irish or Scottish Gaelic ma se do chuile. Ta tu as do cheann.

You can try to poke fun at me all you want and try to diminish fact as fiction all you want.

The Brits (that's you) occupied Ireland for 700 years and tried to impose their tyranny on the Irish here in the US.

The problem with you Donkey is that you are one of those in the crowd yelling abuse as long as you have a crowd behind you.

Alone you are nothing.

Amadan mor agus asail insa phoin.
I don't speak gaelic, care to translate? :laugh:
oh and don't call me Brit in such a derogative manner... the Brits wouldn't have me as my father wasn't British :bigcry: :p

Donkey should show this to his uncle Paddy. See what he says about that. Poking fun at people as they died of starvation. Way to go Donkey.

now you're taking the mick... where have I been poking fun, at who exactly?
time to bury your hatchet and live in this century perhaps, or are you and the true Irish over there in the US trying to be more catholic than the pope?
to identify strongly with something can give your life a meaning and a sense of direction, but bitterness corrodes the soul
:wave:

donKey jote

16th April 2013, 05:57

By the way, Eireann is the proper Irish name for Ireland. Not Eire

That the Irish use Eire on their passport is because it is an Irish passport.

Riiiiight :)
By the way, Éirann is the genitive Irish as in Dáil Éirann, Met Éirann, Bus Éirann... Éire is Ireland.
That much even a plastic donkey knows :laugh:

D-Type

16th April 2013, 09:24

Well, I've learned something here despite incorrect information being posted as 'fact'

Éirann = Irish while Éire = Ireland

henners88

16th April 2013, 09:31

Paddy - Used mainly in Britain. Similar negative connotations as "nigger". Comes from St. Patrick and/or from the common Irish name Padraig. Also spelled Patty.

By the way, Eireann is the proper Irish name for Ireland. Not Eire as once again, the Brits used it in a derogatory manner.

Easy for you to say say that someone is making a mountain out of a molehill when you are the one doing the chanting.
I don't know whether to laugh or cringe at what I am reading here. Where exactly are you from Spafranco and how do you feel qualified to inform us of how the Irish are perceived in our part of the world? The name 'Paddy' might be seen as offensive on Wikipedia or amongst the 6th generation Irish American communities but I can assure you its seen very differently over here and in Ireland. The fact it is a common nickname over in Ireland is testament to that. My Grandmother's affectionate nickname in our family was Paddy, although her name was Aoife. I often spent part of my summer holidays in Enniskillen, County Fermanagh with family. I also haven't encountered the hatred for the British in Southern Ireland which you keep mentioning and I'm pretty sure the activities of centuries ago are not as raw now as they were then lol. In my experience the conflict in the North is worlds away from the opinions in the South. The Irish often try to distance themselves from it and have been thankful the British are involved to help sort things out. I remember travelling through Ireland in late 1998 after the Omagh bombing and having B&B owners apologising for the trouble in the North once they had enquired as to where I was from. The fact they felt the need to do this was surprising IMO but modern day Britain has a very good and firm relationship with Southern Ireland. They are close neighbours of ours and we perhaps get on with them more than anyone else.

Oh my , a wannabe Irishman in one breath and as I see getting away with profanity. That the Irish use Eire on their passport is because it is an Irish passport. Not being slurred upon by the the likes of you.

You are clueless. Use either Irish or Scottish Gaelic ma se do chuile. Ta tu as do cheann.

You can try to poke fun at me all you want and try to diminish fact as fiction all you want.

The Brits (that's you) occupied Ireland for 700 years and tried to impose their tyranny on the Irish here in the US.

The problem with you Donkey is that you are one of those in the crowd yelling abuse as long as you have a crowd behind you.

Alone you are nothing.

I can guarantee that one internet search of derogatory names used against the Irish by brits will show Paddy. That I guarantee. When you have it shown to you you will still deny it.

Amadan mor agus asail insa phoin.
All I can see here is somebody totally clueless to the reality and has obviously been reading far too much on the internet! The fact you have the cheek to lecture us on how we are when it seems you live thousands of miles away speaks volumes. I think you are deliberately trying to seek a reaction here. Critising Donkey and calling him a 'wannabe Irishman' when you yourself are no closer to being Irish is laughable in the extreme.

Knock-on

16th April 2013, 09:47

Knock-on

16th April 2013, 09:53

http://www.ampmdirect.co.uk/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/p/a/paddy-old-iris.jpg

I think the name came from a salesman that used to work for the company. His trick was to go around the bars giving people a free drink and instead of it being known by it's real name, everyone knew it as 'Paddy's' after the salesman. Eventually, this became so popular that the distillers changed the name.

henners88

16th April 2013, 10:04

That's not an Irish Whiskey, its been distilled by the evil English and given a dodgy label!!! I'm off for a Guinness :p

Knock-on

16th April 2013, 10:41

I was down in Tralee where my partners family all live (including cousins, 2nd cousins etc amounting to half the population of Ireland it seems) and we were doing the old Paddy vs Jamesons vs Bushmills test. Then some half-wit (thanks Dad) brought out some of the 'funny stuff'. My head still hurts to this day :D

Mintexmemory

16th April 2013, 12:58

Make mine a Smithwicks :beer:

Knock-on

16th April 2013, 14:08

Don't... I'm stuck behind the Iron Curtain (as opposed to the Iron Lady :) ) for the next few days and the only thing in my budget is Vodka!!

D-Type

16th April 2013, 15:44

That reminds me. Mrs Thatcher was known to relax with a glass of whisky of an evening - I believe whisky rather than whiskey. Those who oppose her memory should remember that and boycott the amber nectar.

Spafranco

16th April 2013, 17:08

Spafranco

16th April 2013, 17:23

I don't speak gaelic, care to translate? :laugh:
oh and don't call me Brit in such a derogative manner... the Brits wouldn't have me as my father wasn't British :bigcry: :p

now you're taking the mick... where have I been poking fun, at who exactly?
time to bury your hatchet and live in this century perhaps, or are you and the true Irish over there in the US trying to be more catholic than the pope?
to identify strongly with something can give your life a meaning and a sense of direction, but bitterness corrodes the soul
:wave:

Just do yourself a favor and shut up. Every post is an indication of your lack of knowledge , use of derogatory terms and then resorts to completely avoiding the post that was written and pontificates about something else while inserting the another racial slur.

Move on, forget it. That would be easy for you Quixote as you would like to dismiss history because you have no idea about what you are speaking of.

You're pleasure here is to get " likes" and just throw out anything without content nor quality.

Take note that it is written that if you are to ignore history you are doomed to repeat it.

Spafranco

16th April 2013, 17:30

Well, I've learned something here despite incorrect information being posted as 'fact'

Éirann = Irish while Éire = Ireland

Well, if you are referring to the above as fact and that someone posted an incorrect "fact" then you are as guilty as the person you are accusing. That is, if you are correct which you're not. Eireann is Ireland, not Eirann. Eire is also Ireland as is Hibernia. in fact muintir is the collective people so you can say muintir na hEireann and mean Irish people. It's in the language.

BDunnell

16th April 2013, 17:59

Paddy, is an abbreviation of a name. Correct. It is also a friendly term for an Irishman. It is in no way an insult and comparing it to the term Nigger is crass in the extreem.

Yes, absolutely. I think this thread has taken rather a tiresome turn.

donKey jote

16th April 2013, 18:28

donKey jote

16th April 2013, 18:32

Eireann is Ireland, not Eirann.

cut and paste of a typo... my mistake :)

Éireann is still the genitive though, not Ireland :andrea:

donKey jote

16th April 2013, 18:40

Critising Donkey and calling him a 'wannabe Irishman' when you yourself are no closer to being Irish is laughable in the extreme.

No probs on my part, as I am a wannabe Irishman to a certain extent... I've been an Irish citizen all my life (the British wouldn't have me as it was my mum who was married to an Irishman with a foreign name and not the other way around :laugh: ), but never lived there longer than the odd family or girlfriend visit. :andrea:

Funny thing this "where are you from/where were you born/what are you"... possibly an idea for an interesting thread. :)

Spafranco

16th April 2013, 19:14

cut and paste of a typo... my mistake :)

Éireann is still the genitive though, not Ireland :andrea:

Since you are unable to speak the language how on earth would you know?

Spafranco

16th April 2013, 19:27

I don't know whether to laugh or cringe at what I am reading here. Where exactly are you from Spafranco and how do you feel qualified to inform us of how the Irish are perceived in our part of the world? The name 'Paddy' might be seen as offensive on Wikipedia or amongst the 6th generation Irish American communities but I can assure you its seen very differently over here and in Ireland. The fact it is a common nickname over in Ireland is testament to that. My Grandmother's affectionate nickname in our family was Paddy, although her name was Aoife. I often spent part of my summer holidays in Enniskillen, County Fermanagh with family. I also haven't encountered the hatred for the British in Southern Ireland which you keep mentioning and I'm pretty sure the activities of centuries ago are not as raw now as they were then lol. In my experience the conflict in the North is worlds away from the opinions in the South. The Irish often try to distance themselves from it and have been thankful the British are involved to help sort things out. I remember travelling through Ireland in late 1998 after the Omagh bombing and having B&B owners apologising for the trouble in the North once they had enquired as to where I was from. The fact they felt the need to do this was surprising IMO but modern day Britain has a very good and firm relationship with Southern Ireland. They are close neighbours of ours and we perhaps get on with them more than anyone else.

All I can see here is somebody totally clueless to the reality and has obviously been reading far too much on the internet! The fact you have the cheek to lecture us on how we are when it seems you live thousands of miles away speaks volumes. I think you are deliberately trying to seek a reaction here. Critising Donkey and calling him a 'wannabe Irishman' when you yourself are no closer to being Irish is laughable in the extreme.

What I actually see here is a rather lame attempt at disparaging my posts on the internet. Then the same individual turns the posts to attack internet information while posting links at random over several threads. Amusing and sad.
As for me not having any idea as to what I am speaking about; that sounds defensive to me, as I have indicated that I do know what I am talking about. I am of Irish stock. Both sides of my family. So don't lecture me on clueless. It is you that is clueless and very much living in a vacuum when you dismiss Irish Americans so readily.

Read the book Paddy's Lament. Educate yourself, and rather than calling me names and making your judgements based upon your own ignorance of fact get back to me.

henners88

16th April 2013, 19:37

I won't lecture you any longer Spafranco. I've wasted far too much time reading and responding to you already.

Spafranco

16th April 2013, 19:43

The Racial Slur Database (http://www.racialslurs.com/search/paddy)

Keep on trying to generate a cuddly feeling towards the slurs you choose to ignore trying to create some lovable cuddly character instead. No wonder Dean Swift pulled the wool over your eyes so easily with his little Gulliver's Travels piece of genius.

Spafranco

16th April 2013, 19:44

I won't lecture you any longer Spafranco. I've wasted far too much time reading and responding to you already.

Lecture, sir you are in a fantasy above your station.

henners88

16th April 2013, 19:49

D-Type

16th April 2013, 19:50

Folks,

Cool it!
This is getting very close to forbidden territory, namely personal insults.

henners88

16th April 2013, 19:51

Thank goodness! :)

Malbec

16th April 2013, 19:59

Folks,

Cool it!
This is getting very close to forbidden territory, namely personal insults.

Have you guessed who it is yet? ;)

donKey jote

16th April 2013, 22:07

Since you are unable to speak the language how on earth would you know?
I know basic grammar :)

Just do yourself a favor and shut up.

:s ailor:

SGWilko

17th April 2013, 08:14

Have you guessed who it is yet? ;)

Rolf Harris??? ;)

henners88

17th April 2013, 10:26

Well the funeral is on now on BBC. Anyone watching or seething? :)

BDunnell

17th April 2013, 10:28

Well the funeral is on now on BBC. Anyone watching or seething? :)

Neither. All reports seem to suggest a lack of public interest one way or the other in London, contrary to what a lot of politicians, and more especially sections of the media, would have one believe.

henners88

17th April 2013, 10:32

Neither. All reports seem to suggest a lack of public interest one way or the other in London, contrary to what a lot of politicians, and more especially sections of the media, would have one believe.
A decent number of people have turned out in London judging by the coverage. The procession route is busy by all accounts. There are those in favour and those who are protesting as you'd expect. Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by a 'lack of public interest in London'?

Its also worth noting this funeral is being held on a Wednesday which is not an official Bank Holiday. People generally aren't going to take the day off work to attend, but the turn out appears substantial. The Coverage has shown the hearse driving to St Clement Danes Chapel along part of the route so far. People appear to have brought their own ladders to make sure they see which is funny.

BDunnell

17th April 2013, 10:38

A decent number of people have turned out in London judging by the coverage. The procession route is busy by all accounts. There are those in favour and those who are protesting as you'd expect. Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by a 'lack of public interest in London'?

Someone on Twitter said it was a case of 'more curiosity than passion'.

henners88

17th April 2013, 10:45

Someone on Twitter said it was a case of 'more curiosity than passion'.
I have realised that twitter is often not so useful when dealing with such strong differing opinions. Seeing the sick backlash of last week when news broke she had died, just summed it up for me. Twitter is a very useful form of social networking but is also a portal for individuals to voice their own personal opinions. So far as the hearse passed the crowds it has been booed and cheered. The BBC have reported that the protests are so far a minority along the route. Curiosity will occur whatever. The Royal wedding of William and Kate drew huge crowds but the laws of probability suggest a certain percentage who made the effort to watch may not follow the Royal Family with any interest any other time. This event will attract differing levels of interest and opinion simply because its a public event.

BDunnell

17th April 2013, 11:16

I have realised that twitter is often not so useful when dealing with such strong differing opinions. Seeing the sick backlash of last week when news broke she had died, just summed it up for me. Twitter is a very useful form of social networking but is also a portal for individuals to voice their own personal opinions. So far as the hearse passed the crowds it has been booed and cheered. The BBC have reported that the protests are so far a minority along the route. Curiosity will occur whatever. The Royal wedding of William and Kate drew huge crowds but the laws of probability suggest a certain percentage who made the effort to watch may not follow the Royal Family with any interest any other time. This event will attract differing levels of interest and opinion simply because its a public event.

This is true. However, I saw no 'sick backlash'.

henners88

17th April 2013, 11:42

This is true. However, I saw no 'sick backlash'.
Under the hashtag #nowthatcherisdead which was the most used that week, there were tweets celebrating her death like it was something to applaud. Calls for her to rot in hell and sickening tweets about stringing her body up were a plenty. I consider that quite sick considering half the accounts were used by teenagers and those too young to remember her in power. I didn't imagine it and remarked on it in post #4 of this very thread.

I know her politics divide most people who were alive when she was PM, but there really is some vile things being written about her on the internet this afternoon. It takes things like this to expose some of the scum we have in this country. I didn't agree with much of what she did, but I take no satisfaction in her death. I'm a better person than that.

I heard the news of her death through twitter coincidently.

henners88

17th April 2013, 11:51

Another amusing thing I read yesterday was an interview with the guy who campaigned to get 'Ding Dong the witch is dead' to number one in the charts last week. He launched the Facebook campaign to celebrate the death of Thatcher with a song 'he' and many other thought was fitting with her character. The irony of that of course is the fact he is now in hiding because he has received death threats from 'sick individuals' as he put it. I condemn anyone who sends death threats but also those who stir up hate by distastefully celebrating the death of somebody's mother and grandmother.

BDunnell

17th April 2013, 11:52

Under the hashtag #nowthatcherisdead which was the most used that week, there were tweets celebrating her death like it was something to applaud. Calls for her to rot in hell and sickening tweets about stringing her body up were a plenty.

I tend to ignore such nonsense; however, a lot of legitimate criticism has been called 'sick' and similar by some on the right, and with this desire to suppress fair comment in favour of sycophantic tributes I disagree vehemently.

I consider that quite sick considering half the accounts were used by teenagers and those too young to remember her in power.

By the same token, the views of those too young to remember Thatcher in power who have praised her ought also to be dismissed, no?

henners88

17th April 2013, 12:07

I tend to ignore such nonsense; however, a lot of legitimate criticism has been called 'sick' and similar by some on the right, and with this desire to suppress fair comment in favour of sycophantic tributes I disagree vehemently.
That's fair enough. I saw the BBC received complaints about their coverage of her death being biased in favour of her. Nearly 280 complaints were filed apparently. They also received a similar number complaining they were biased against her which I found amusing and really sums up popular opinion on her.

Just out of curiosity, you said you take no notice of the nonsense on twitter concerning the glee at her death, may I ask who tweeted earlier that the response in London this morning was 'more curiosity than passion'. Was that a credible source i.e a journalist or a member of the public?

By the same token, the views of those too young to remember Thatcher in power who have praised her ought also to be dismissed, no?
They should be treated the same and taken for what they are. I'm only just old enough to remember her in power so would find it very difficult to sum up her entire political philosophy, let alone support or condemn it.

BDunnell

17th April 2013, 12:36

Just out of curiosity, you said you take no notice of the nonsense on twitter concerning the glee at her death, may I ask who tweeted earlier that the response in London this morning was 'more curiosity than passion'. Was that a credible source i.e a journalist or a member of the public?

A journalist for the Evening Standard.

They should be treated the same and taken for what they are. I'm only just old enough to remember her in power so would find it very difficult to sum up her entire political philosophy, let alone support or condemn it.

I find this view rather odd, I must admit. It seeks to deny the very concept of historical knowledge.

Starter

17th April 2013, 13:10

Someone on Twitter said it was a case of 'more curiosity than passion'.
Anyone who puts any faith in the veracity of anything posted on social media is foolish indeed.

BDunnell

17th April 2013, 13:46

Anyone who puts any faith in the veracity of anything posted on social media is foolish indeed.

Oh, what utter rot.

henners88

17th April 2013, 13:53

A journalist for the Evening Standard.
I wasn't trying to catch you out, just curious and thought you might point me in the direction of the account. I follow the Evening Standard and they tweeted earlier that Thatcher tops the readers poll for leaders to steer the country out of a crisis. This is a London paper though and I doubt many from around the country know the poll exists.

I find this view rather odd, I must admit. It seeks to deny the very concept of historical knowledge.
That wasn't my intention at all.

Starter

17th April 2013, 14:56

Oh, what utter rot.
:D

Spafranco

17th April 2013, 16:27

I know basic grammar :)

You don't speak the language but you know basic grammar. A sarcastic remark when you can't address a post.

Spafranco

17th April 2013, 16:38

Well, whether one likes her or not, the woman had a family that is grieving and her funeral should he acknowledged with a modicum of dignity.

henners88

17th April 2013, 17:12

You don't speak the language but you know basic grammar. A sarcastic remark when you can't address a post.
What's your opinion of the Irish people living in Ireland who don't speak the language? Are they not true Irish? About 80% of the population of Wales don't speak fluent Welsh including my wife.

BDunnell

17th April 2013, 18:13

Well, whether one likes her or not, the woman had a family that is grieving and her funeral should he acknowledged with a modicum of dignity.

It's over. Now we can go back to treating the racist daughter and the arms-dealing son with the contempt they deserve.

henners88

17th April 2013, 19:20

BDunnell

17th April 2013, 19:39

I don't think Carol Thatcher deserved the brunt of the media hate campaign she received a few years ago. A silly use of a word many of us know gathered momentum because of the spin it received IMO. I used that very same word in conversation the other day when we opened some black current jam. Had I made such a comment on breakfast television, I'd be the biggest racist being discussed throughout the twitter and tabloid communities. I am not of course but then again I don't have an unpopular mother.

I thought the opprobrium she received was entirely deserved, given the context in which she used the word. I would have been uncomfortable had I been there and heard it, and, in my view, it was only right that a complaint was made.

Her brother, though, is much less defensible even than her.

Spafranco

17th April 2013, 22:08

It's over. Now we can go back to treating the racist daughter and the arms-dealing son with the contempt they deserve.
Watch out, Anthony may report you because you have restricted speech. No soapboxes either. :)

Spafranco

17th April 2013, 22:17

What's your opinion of the Irish people living in Ireland who don't speak the language? Are they not true Irish? About 80% of the population of Wales don't speak fluent Welsh including my wife.
Why are you asking me about that? I never stated one had to speak the language or inferred that it should be.

It is sad that the British Government of the time made it compulsory to speak English and if you spoke in Irish they had this neat little thing at the schools to punish the use of the native tongue. A necklace with notches which were tightened when a student spoke in his/her native tongue.

I would say that most people in Ireland of direct Irish decent speak some Irish. However, the Gaeltacht (Irish speaking) areas are now more common.

Galway, Donegal, Kerry and Cork have areas where they only speak in Irish.