-
ℹ️ Heads up...
This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.
Thatcher's dead
- Thread starter Rose Of Dawn
- Start date
CoasterCrazyChris
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Nemesis
Blaze said:
What?!
That is a crazy thing to say, honestly words fail me.
:
Martin
TS Member
He did say they've made pre-emptive arrests before, and that article, from a credible source, does state they have done.pluk said:
They'd deserve it for this sick stunt. Hundreds of people, including civilians died in that war. A war themed funeral is sick.CoasterCrazyChris said:Blaze said:
What?!
That is a crazy thing to say, honestly words fail me.
:
ChocolateStarfish
TS Member
So police are looking on Internet sites for trouble makers and making arrests.
Blaze, I wouldn't answer the door if I was you! Could be the boys in blue.
Blaze, I wouldn't answer the door if I was you! Could be the boys in blue.
Harv
TS Member
Blaze said:
How someone who wishes dementia and death upon another human being can deem anything at all 'disgusting' baffles me.
I'm not sure if all those with such strong, pure hatred are genuinely distorted in their views, or if they're simply using hyperbole to make their point. Margaret Thatcher was re-elected twice; this means, as pure fact, that the majority of the public liked what she was doing. You can argue all you want about how she closed mines and stole milk but honestly, regardless of your political stance, somebody please tell me how it is possible that someone as evil as you're making out was so very popular with the public.
TheMan
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- NemiLerVion
Harvey. said:
Nope, doesn't mean that at all. We presently have an essentially unelected Government, and you don't need anything like a real majority to win the election. That's the abject stupidity of this system of voting. If you can reward enough, you maintain power - if you think you can't you shift some boundaries around to increase chances of success.
This is true of all parties and leaders - Mrs T no exception.
Also the themed funeral is a joke, for all those taking a punt a Blaze here, I do note the distinct lack of condemnation for such a crass thing. If you condemn his views, then surely you must also condemn Thatcher's actions and this style of action?
The irony of her receiving a state funded funeral isn't lost on here I'd hope too, given how incredibly wealthy her family and cohorts are?
I think some are simply using Blaze as an excuse here, I don't agree with the strength of his views personally, doesn't mean I do not understand why - much like I understand those who benefited will defend her, as right they should.
As in life, in death, she remains divisive.
Still, war themed funeral, state paid, and on leave soldiers being called in for it? Disgusting.
RustyRider
TS Member
This picture perfectly incapsulates freedom of speech here in Britain...
TheMan
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- NemiLerVion
I note the Daily Mail headline ;D - when you agree with that rag, you need to start worrying
Quality again from The Sun I note, the usual bastion of literary eloquence.
Interesting that though Rusty, and highlights once more just how she divided our nation.
Quality again from The Sun I note, the usual bastion of literary eloquence.
Interesting that though Rusty, and highlights once more just how she divided our nation.
CoasterCrazyChris
TS Member
- Favourite Ride
- Nemesis
Divided indeed....."the woman who saved britain" versus "the woman who tore britain apart". Wow.
ChocolateStarfish
TS Member
Ok time to be serious for a moment.
My interest in politics started to wane several years ago after realising that UK political parties are primarily self-serving and will do, say, promote whatever’s needed to maintain public favour. It’s surprising to see just how much of a divide the issue of Thatcher brings when speaking to people. It’s even more unusual to see that it’s not necessarily a working/middle class boundary but runs within classes too.
Temporarily ignoring what initially happened to the job figures in the UK during her first term should she be considered a successful leader. Probably so, she helped stabilize the country and gained progress worldwide. The country became profitable again for 15/20 years, she brought inflation under control, won a war against an aggressor, helped end the cold war, won large UK concessions in Europe etc. I think history's generally accepted that she help achieve a lot for this country on the developing world stage. Everyone's issues seem to revolve around her first term in the UK when she hammered the unions and de-shackled the state from industry. This brought large scale unemployment and lots of families faced serious deprivation, the effects of which are probably still with many of them today. Was this necessary? Could it have been done in a more constructive/sensitive manner? With hindsight it probably could but at that time the country was in a stranglehold of the unions. The state was effectively running a welfare system through non-productive industry. Successive Lab/Con governments failed to govern the country properly due to union actions/threats. One things for sure, after her first term, socialism was finally laid to rest in this country (as in most other western countries) in favour of market forces. We've all benefitted from this through healthcare, welfare, schooling etc. which were probably only starting to realise now with the current crisis. Whether this was worth the high price paid by those families’ years back is something only they could probably answer.
In her final term it became clear that whatever strong leadership skills she had had now become a serious hindrance to the way the country was being governed. Her cabinet no longer operated and her policies towards the likes of Ireland were so entrenched that no workable peace could ever happen while she was in power. She’d become a tyrant who neither could, or would, accept her limitations.
So, was she good or bad for the country, possibly a mixture of both. Most strong leaders only come to power through desperate times (Churchill as another example), once that crisis finishes. Their dogmatic style that was their initial strength, often becomes there downfall.
My interest in politics started to wane several years ago after realising that UK political parties are primarily self-serving and will do, say, promote whatever’s needed to maintain public favour. It’s surprising to see just how much of a divide the issue of Thatcher brings when speaking to people. It’s even more unusual to see that it’s not necessarily a working/middle class boundary but runs within classes too.
Temporarily ignoring what initially happened to the job figures in the UK during her first term should she be considered a successful leader. Probably so, she helped stabilize the country and gained progress worldwide. The country became profitable again for 15/20 years, she brought inflation under control, won a war against an aggressor, helped end the cold war, won large UK concessions in Europe etc. I think history's generally accepted that she help achieve a lot for this country on the developing world stage. Everyone's issues seem to revolve around her first term in the UK when she hammered the unions and de-shackled the state from industry. This brought large scale unemployment and lots of families faced serious deprivation, the effects of which are probably still with many of them today. Was this necessary? Could it have been done in a more constructive/sensitive manner? With hindsight it probably could but at that time the country was in a stranglehold of the unions. The state was effectively running a welfare system through non-productive industry. Successive Lab/Con governments failed to govern the country properly due to union actions/threats. One things for sure, after her first term, socialism was finally laid to rest in this country (as in most other western countries) in favour of market forces. We've all benefitted from this through healthcare, welfare, schooling etc. which were probably only starting to realise now with the current crisis. Whether this was worth the high price paid by those families’ years back is something only they could probably answer.
In her final term it became clear that whatever strong leadership skills she had had now become a serious hindrance to the way the country was being governed. Her cabinet no longer operated and her policies towards the likes of Ireland were so entrenched that no workable peace could ever happen while she was in power. She’d become a tyrant who neither could, or would, accept her limitations.
So, was she good or bad for the country, possibly a mixture of both. Most strong leaders only come to power through desperate times (Churchill as another example), once that crisis finishes. Their dogmatic style that was their initial strength, often becomes there downfall.
