• 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

You're glorifying war.

The Belgrano was outside the exclusion zone and returning to Argentina. That's not justifiable. It wasn't posing a threat. They didn't have to sink it, they murdered 323 men.
 
Plastic Person said:
Alastair said:
Blaze said:
Personally, I'd like more focus on her atrocities against Argentina.

Withdrawing the navy from the islands, ignoring Argentina's pleas for a democratic solution, then launching a full scale war to divert from what was going on in the mainland and restore her image.

The families of the victims of The Belgrano will be celebrating just as hard as we are.
Click to expand...

The irony is that what you've just said is a perfect description of why Argentina launched the invasion in the first place. To divert attention away from their own problems. How on earth you can portray the Argentinians as the victims in this is beyond me. They initiated the conflict, they deserved everything they got and more. It's almost delusional, obsessively finding every last perceived fault and twisting it as a means to justify the celebration of the death of an 87 year old woman who hasn't been in politics for over 20 years. It's absolutely sickening, vile and disgusting.
Click to expand...

To be honest mate, I find the phrase "everything they deserved" attached to 649 young Argentinian men plus 225 British troops somewhat more sickening, vile and disgusting than any 'delusional obsessive' taking issue with one dead politician. Especially as where I grew up, that delusional obsessiveness to find fault with Thatcher basically translated to taking the bus into town with your eyes open.
Click to expand...

When you're fighting a war you know what's at stake, and you should be prepared to face the consequences; especially when you instigated it. The glorification of the Allied victory in World War II prerequisites negating to consider the 10% of the German population that were wiped out.
 
I don't glorify WW2. Carpet bombing innocent civilians is shameful.

If The Belgrano posed a threat to UK ships, it would have been acceptable to engage it. But it did not pose a threat. Thatcher ok'd the attack. She has their blood on her cold, dead hands.

http://whydopeoplehatethatcher.com/
 
I find it disgusting you're ok with killing over 300 men, including 2 civilians, just because they belong to a different country.

But even ignoring the war, what she did here, in England, is much worse. Her views on gays, women, environmentalism, the ivory trade, being friends with dictators and terrorists, calling Mandela a terrorist, coveringup Hillsborough, the deliberate managed decline of northern cities, the highest rate of unemployment this country has seen and more mean that there's nothing to mourn.

The only people sad she's gone are those that escaped her viscous clutches. I couldn't be happier to see the working classes unite to party, from London, to Liverpool, to Ireland, to Glasgow.

Celebrating her death won't fix what she did. But it will remind us to never let it happen again, it will bring the poorest in society together, rather than the infighting the media are stirring up with the 'scrounger' rhetoric. It'll remind us to be thankful we survived her reign of terror.

The witch is dead and hundreds of us couldn't be happier.
 
Blaze said:
I find it disgusting you're ok with killing over 300 men, including 2 civilians, just because they belong to a different country.
Click to expand...

It's called war. I don't like it any more than anyone else does, but when it happens everyone knows the score.

As for the rest of your post, you're just regurgitating what you've already said. I find it difficult to argue against such an overwhelming bias of information, especially when absolutely nothing you have written acknowledges the good that Thatcher did - and there was a lot of it. I was completely neutral in this discussion yet found myself compelled to argue in favour of Thatcher. Maybe that's down to my historical education but I find it vile that anyone would celebrate her death; especially those that didn't have any direct experience with her politics whatsoever.
 
CGM said:
Meat Pie said:
Alastair - What the maintence of Thatcherite policy is 'telling' is that the tyranical power of the unregulated private industry is able to disease democracy even against public opinion.

Aspyrational - The men of those mines and the unions that fought for them were not thugs, they were victims of a viscious attack devised just to save the money of the rich.

The destruction of the unions is this countries largest oppresion of democracy in the last century. It disallowed the hardworking men and women of industry to stand up for themselves against the might of the corporates.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of absolutes in this post but most of them are actually your opinion embellished with some overly sensationalist language. Claims such as "a viscous attack devised to save money of the rich" is just not an objective statement.

My view on this matter is that the unions did have far too much power and were effectively strangling British industry to death. No one likes redundancies and changes to the status quo but British industry needed to modernise and innovate to remain competitive on a world stage. The unions prevented this from happening meaning that everyone was going to lose out if something wasn't done.

I'm not a Thatcher fan and I think that the way that she dealt with the situation was too heavy handed and far from the ideal solution. However, if things had been left as they were, I reckon that the outcome would have been pretty similar. Something did have to be done.

On another note, I'm pretty disgusted by the way that a lot of people are celebrating her death. No matter what your opinion of her was, she's had very little influence in modern day politics for a number of decades. Her death didn't bring to an end a dystopian reign of terror. Whether she was alive or not hasn't affected our day to day lives since the days she was in power.

Celebrating a death like this achieves nothing, no one's won anything, their lives won't improve because of it, it's just a really petty and spiteful act.
Click to expand...

CGM - I didn't put qualifying terms such as 'in my opinion' or 'in my view' because what I was responding to was strident and objective in the presentation of it's ideas, and as such it seems a bit unfair to pick on me for that, unless of course you are willing to first of all point out other's failings on the same issue.

My opinions differs from yours in that I do not feel that the unions had too much power, they had the power they needed to fight for the rights of workers. This did mean that companies could not make as big a profit, but I feel it a gross exaggeration by many that it somehow impacted on the ability of companies to run. They could run, but it meant that there was a limitation to the rate of growth and expansion, which is a good thing since the rhetoric of eternal growth is a false dichotomy in that we live on a planet of finite resources and eventually growth can only come at the cost of human exploitation, which is what we see with globalisation.

We don't need to be 'competitive' on the world stage. That's to immediately assume the globalist capitalist ideal, rather than the alternative localist, socialist alternative that I believe to be the only system to be both financially stable and socially responsible.

When you have a war, you don't go 'oh I don't have enough money to fight', you do whatever is necessary to defend yourself. When you have people that will be made unemployed and plunged into poverty, you don't just close the mines and don't give a damn, you should do whatever is necessary to serve the needs of those involved.

Globalisation is a system of rich people undercutting poor people in their own countries by abusing the poverty and desperation of other people in other countries. There's no logic in it. Public subsidy has paid for the british farming industry which remains unchallenged since that would be a Tory-vote loser. Public subsidy was cut for mining because they knew these places were lost causes in terms of votership and because the Conservative ideal of paying as little as possible, despite of the ethical implications.

Aspyrational said:
Meat Pie said:
Alastair - What the maintence of Thatcherite policy is 'telling' is that the tyranical power of the unregulated private industry is able to disease democracy even against public opinion.

Aspyrational - The men of those mines and the unions that fought for them were not thugs, they were victims of a viscious attack devised just to save the money of the rich.

The destruction of the unions is this countries largest oppresion of democracy in the last century. It disallowed the hardworking men and women of industry to stand up for themselves against the might of the corporates.
Click to expand...


How can giving memebers a democratic ballot to choose their leaders and whether to go on strike be an oppression of democracy ? The only oppression of democracy I remember is Scargill refusing to let his members have a vote on a strike. Weetabix head thought he could send his bully boy flying pickets around the country to prevent workers demonstrating their right to work and bring down an elected Government. Luckily the Government was ready and the oaf Scargill thought he could intimidate his way to victory. He didn't, he suffered the most humiliating defeat possible. He still kept his luxury London pad in the Barbican, paid for by the few miners left.
Click to expand...

Aspyrational - The autonomy of workers to be able to openly make the case against their employer and remove their labour was destroyed. Without that, Unions are weak and worthless entities that cannot hope to protect the rights of their members. The democratic right of the individuals to be protected from persecution over effective demonstrating against employers was pulled apart.

I'll take the point that there was some unacceptable bullying and harassment produced by Unions against those who wanted to work instead of take part in the strikes. You're right and that should not have happened.
 
Okay, there's a lot covered in that post but I'll try and keep it brief.

Meat Pie said:
CGM - I didn't put qualifying terms such as 'in my opinion' or 'in my view' because what I was responding to was strident and objective in the presentation of it's ideas, and as such it seems a bit unfair to pick on me for that, unless of course you are willing to first of all point out other's failings on the same issue.
Click to expand...

It's true that you're not alone in presenting opinion as fact, yours just happened to be the last in the chain at the time of me writing the post and had some particularly strongly worded views.

As for the rest of your post, first of all I must stress that I do not agree at all with Thatcher's handling of the situation, the closing of the mines in particular.

My opinions differs from yours in that I do not feel that the unions had too much power, they had the power they needed to fight for the rights of workers. This did mean that companies could not make as big a profit, but I feel it a gross exaggeration by many that it somehow impacted on the ability of companies to run. They could run, but it meant that there was a limitation to the rate of growth and expansion, which is a good thing since the rhetoric of eternal growth is a false dichotomy in that we live on a planet of finite resources and eventually growth can only come at the cost of human exploitation, which is what we see with globalisation.

We don't need to be 'competitive' on the world stage. That's to immediately assume the globalist capitalist ideal, rather than the alternative localist, socialist alternative that I believe to be the only system to be both financially stable and socially responsible.
Click to expand...

Whether we should operate as a capitalist or socialist society is perhaps for another thread but the fact is that businesses in this country do operate in a capitalist environment and that success in this environment is likely to correlate with employment.

In the late 70s and throughout the 80s, British industry was collapsing, making heavy losses and operating in a way that is unsustainable within a capitalist environment.

Under these circumstances, it's surely preferable to have a large employer that can go on providing a reduced number of jobs for a long time than one driven out of business by a large workforce that it can't sustain and providing no jobs. Cutting jobs could even be a benefit to the community in the long term. If the cuts allow for a turn of fortunes for a business, there could be more employment opportunities in the future.

I do think that unions have a place in industry. They are essential for maintaining the health, safety, equality and well being of employees. Redundancies are a horrible decision to have to make but it can be the the difference between a few losing their jobs and everyone losing them. If a union prevents a company from making a decision that ensures the long term employment of the majority of its staff, then it is not acting in the best interest of its members or society in general.

But as I said before, this is perhaps best in another thread, this seems to be wandering off topic a bit.
 
Even in war there are rules. It's not a blank cheque book for blood.

This country was right to liberate the Falklands and despite what people say about the 'special' relationship with America and how the French are cowards, France was our biggest supporter over the Falklands.


-Sent from a mobile phone-
 
Posted by: Meat Pie

Aspyrational - The autonomy of workers to be able to openly make the case against their employer and remove their labour was destroyed. Without that, Unions are weak and worthless entities that cannot hope to protect the rights of their members. The democratic right of the individuals to be protected from persecution over effective demonstrating against employers was pulled apart.



How is making people having a democratic ballot before going on strike 'pulling anything apart'. It was better than the previous way of doing it where you stood in a factory and had a show of hands, nothing counted properly and those not voting the way the union barons wanted, were subject to abuse and intimidation.

There is a cause and effect for everything. Thatcher would not have succeeded if there wasn't the appetite for change in a country that had suffered from trade union excesses over a couple of decades. You had people like Mick Mcgahey, the Communist vice president of the NUM telling Ted Heath 'we're going to bring down your government' . Let's just clarify that, an unelected representative of a party whose entire raison d'etre is to bring society down, telling an elected Prime Minister he was going to unseat him, and you know what, they did.

Scargill tried to do the same, using his NUM members as the tool to bring down Thatcher. He didn't care about miners, look at his court actions recently to try and get them to carry on paying for his Barbican luxury pad.
 
I can't say I'm going to mourn her, but people actually celebrating the death of another human? What the hell? It is one thing to make a joke, be it satirical or crass (M.T. / J.S. similarities anyone? Both screwing the minors. haha), one thing just not to care. But it is something else entirely to actually celebrate the death of someone. I'm pretty disappointed in a few people here, I thought you were better than that.

The best reaction quote I've seen...

ARMANDO IANNUCCI , SATIRIST
We now live in a country in which John Major is our greatest living politician.
Click to expand...
 
Brilliant article by Peter Tatchell:

She victimised the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community, both by acts of commission and omission. Gay men were widely demonised and scapegoated for the AIDS pandemic in the 1980s and Thatcher did nothing to challenge this vilification. For the first few years of the health crisis, while only gay and bisexual men were dying, her government sat on its hands and did nothing. There was no state funding for the first gay-run AIDS education, prevention and support groups that pioneered the fightback against AIDS. When AZT was developed as a treatment (albeit a limited and flawed one), the government initially delayed and then restricted its funding and availability.

At the Conservative party conference in 1987 Mrs Thatcher mocked people who defended the right to be gay, insinuating that there was no such right. During her rule, arrests and convictions for consenting same-sex behaviour rocketed, as did queer bashing violence and murders. This backlash coincided with her successive "family values" and "Victorian values" campaigns, which urged a return to traditional morality and family life.

In 1988, the Thatcher government legislated Britain's first new anti-gay law in more than 100 years: Section 28. It banned the so-called promotion of homosexuality by local authorities, which led to massive self-censorship and the axing of funding to LGBT helplines and community groups - even to the removal of gay-themed books from school libraries and the evicting of LGBT organisations from municipal-owned premises.
Click to expand...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/peter-g-tatchell/margaret-thatcher-extraordinary-but-heartless_b_3042345.html
 
I dont really have anything to say about Maggie, I was only a kid when she was in power. I do however feel it sad that people seem it acceptable to go on the rampage in London, and have street parties over someone's death, especially when the majority of these people are even younger than me, many of which wouldnt have even been born when she was in power.
 
I agree with Gary. To me she was a person in power when I was very young. But (personally) she represents general ideals that were applicable to my family during my upbringing, and so have shaped my beliefs and values as an adult. Not everything she did was wonderful and the same is true for every political figure.

What I find most awful is that social media (and probably the rest of this thread if I went back and read it) is subjecting me to the nasty, hateful messages my friends are spewing from the safety of their monitors about 'Tory Scum' and 'The Witch is Dead' and so on.

I would never force my views on ANYONE and I certainly would not post (or say) inflammatory things about other people's political views, in the same way I wouldn't about race, religion, sexual orientation, and so on. I only wish other people could be so courteous! But because the majority of my friends share the same view, it's apparently OK for them to post hateful generalisations about people who vote in a certain way.

Maybe if I was vocal about particular issues then I would be deserving of it. But I'm not. I am faithful to my own political beliefs and I use them only to shape the way I live my life.

This is something that has bothered me for a very long time and every time there is a 'flare up' like this I find the same horrible messages condemning me for voting a particular way. I find it upsetting. I'm sure it's nowhere near the level that other minorities suffer and I know the abuse isn't personal, but my friends make me feel like a criminal and a freak. And that is the one thing I can't get to grips with in social media.
 
The most balanced, honest and (in my eyes) intelligent response Ive read to this entire thread Laura, well done.
 
Presumably you had similar views way back 7 days ago when the leader and chancellor of the party you vote for (along with their preachers in the media) were using 6 children killed in a house fire to make hateful generalisations about people who are reliant on the benefits system.
 
Laura said:
I agree with Gary. To me she was a person in power when I was very young. But (personally) she represents general ideals that were applicable to my family during my upbringing, and so have shaped my beliefs and values as an adult. Not everything she did was wonderful and the same is true for every political figure.

What I find most awful is that social media (and probably the rest of this thread if I went back and read it) is subjecting me to the nasty, hateful messages my friends are spewing from the safety of their monitors about 'Tory Scum' and 'The Witch is Dead' and so on.

I would never force my views on ANYONE and I certainly would not post (or say) inflammatory things about other people's political views, in the same way I wouldn't about race, religion, sexual orientation, and so on. I only wish other people could be so courteous! But because the majority of my friends share the same view, it's apparently OK for them to post hateful generalisations about people who vote in a certain way.

Maybe if I was vocal about particular issues then I would be deserving of it. But I'm not. I am faithful to my own political beliefs and I use them only to shape the way I live my life.

This is something that has bothered me for a very long time and every time there is a 'flare up' like this I find the same horrible messages condemning me for voting a particular way. I find it upsetting. I'm sure it's nowhere near the level that other minorities suffer and I know the abuse isn't personal, but my friends make me feel like a criminal and a freak. And that is the one thing I can't get to grips with in social media.
Click to expand...

I think you just probably need to develop more conviction in your inherited beliefs.

I am not from a poor background in the grand scheme of things, and I find many political actions abhorrent and heartless, but principally from the Tory party. It's difficult to accept someone like yourself demanding tolerance and respect for the way you feel, essentially progress, when they're essentially what Thatcher herself lacked - the working classes, homosexuals, women and at the worst of times, anyone lacking rampant ambition suffered at her hands.

Perhaps the nose turning is the price you pay for your wealth?
 
To my mind, you must stand with courage in your convictions or you will get no where.

Such a divisive figure will always create extreme opinions, she was an extreme level ruler and the most influential since Churchill - rightly or wrongly.

It is also extremely easy for people who support something that has plenty of counter evidence to sit and wonder why they are getting grief for their views, the same as anyone who would support something more extreme. Maggie did do some good things when this Country needed something radical to change, or at least, modernise. However, even much of her own party turned against her, because being RIGHT became more important than doing the RIGHT thing... I read up loads on her last night instead of wading in here, and that is essentially why she was eventually ousted by her own originally stringent support. There is a reason for that. She was wrong.

In terms of views, I support what some find to be extreme views in areas and you have to stand up and take it if you believe in it, end of, otherwise you don't believe in it enough in my opinion.

That gets me into trouble everywhere, including here, but I know every working day I contribute to a greater good and so regardless of a few peoples opinions I carry on regardless.

Maggie ruined millions of lives and communities, plunged the country into a deep recession, created a class war, yet also did manage at points to create an aspect of social mobility not present before... if you fitted her mold, you were fine (arguably much better off in fact), if you didn't, your lives were destroyed - and don't dare argue.

That is not a true leader, no one who needs to do that is, on any level of society be it a shop floor manager, or leader of the free world. If you have to impose your power in that kind of way, you do not have true power.

True of all walks of life. That is why I have no respect for her as a person.

I shan't be joining a party or celebrating a death though, but much as I can understand those who she may have helped, I can understand those whose communities she completely destroyed releasing their bottled up decades of emotions. Those people after all, continue to pay that heavy price to this day, let's not forget that - her legacy has not passed on, even if the lady herself has.
 
Ding Dong is now 8th in the charts. This is the closest I'll ever be to feeling proud to be part of this country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top