Maggie

[Richie]

It's not about protest - as a libertarian I believe in everyone's right to protest free from government intervention. That doesn't mean anyone has the right to act like a qunt at someone's funeral though - that's pretty fudging low whatever one's feelings about the deceased.

I think it's finding that balance between the freedom to protest and the freedom to mourn in peace.

Personally I have no problem with those wishing to peacefully protest, but I draw the line at anyone trying to disrupt the funeral in any way. Protesters shouldn't be allowed outside the church with loudspeakers during the service for example.

 

[Baleforce]

hang on, I thought all the people who suffered under thatcher were stuck up north?

if they couldn't find their way south to get a job how can they make it down for the protest?

serious point now, I don't think the people that will turn up to protest at her funeral are necessarily those that have a grievance with the Tory party of the 80's

and again I make the point, the decisions made back then were the decisions of an entire government, not one woman, they were sweeping changes not vindictive attacks on individuals, so why is that the vector of attack now?

 

[Gordinho]

Heard an interesting tale last night which I'm sure some will dismiss as lies. I was out with brother in law, his father was a journalist with the FT at the time of the miners strike and was asked to do a piece on a mine in Nottingham, rather than accept all the facts supplied to him by the government he carried out his own investigation. Rather than the mine being worked out there were three rich seams still left and possibly more, enough for many years of profitable production. He was told to remove this from his finished article, when he refused the story was dropped on orders from above, he later found out that as a direct result of the story the security services opened a file on him.

 

[Richie]

Heard an interesting tale last night which I'm sure some will dismiss as lies. I was out with brother in law, his father was a journalist with the FT at the time of the miners strike and was asked to do a piece on a mine in Nottingham, rather than accept all the facts supplied to him by the government he carried out his own investigation. Rather than the mine being worked out there were three rich seams still left and possibly more, enough for many years of profitable production. He was told to remove this from his finished article, when he refused the story was dropped on orders from above, he later found out that as a direct result of the story the security services opened a file on him.

Personally I don't believe it, for the simple fact that plenty of mines remained open after the miners strike.

It's not like they closed all the mines in 1985. in 1995 we were still producing 50 million tonnes per year. It doesn't make sense to me that a lot of the mines would stay open, yet this mine in Nottinghamshire that was supposedly still profitable would be closed.

Maybe the government got their sums wrong, maybe your brother in laws father did, but I don't believe a profitable coal mine would be closed just for the sake of it. I mean, what did the government have to gain by doing that?

 

[Skinhead in a Suit]

To add, she ceased diplomatic relations which she was advised would be seen as a potential act of aggression. She could've dealt with the Falklands in a very different way. She chose a path.

Regardless of these facts, you have to lay the majority of the blame for the conflict on the Argentinians. It was their politicians that started the dispute, and they were the first ones to act militarily.

Maybe she did make a u-turn with respect to diplomatic discussion. So what? They are sovereign british property to which no foreign power has a valid claim. Why should she have had to negotiate with them at all in the first place...? Because their politician was trying to win favor with his electorate by stirring up some nationalist fervour over the Falklands. If she took advantage of the situation that was not of her making, then I cannot find too much fault in that. Remember, these are self-serving egotistic politicians we are talking about, not living saints and deities.

 

[Skinhead in a Suit]

hang on, I thought all the people who suffered under thatcher were stuck up north?

if they couldn't find their way south to get a job how can they make it down for the protest?

And if none of them have jobs, how is it their tax money being spent on the funeral?

 

[Skinhead in a Suit]

I honestly think that a lot of the blame of the effects of Thatcher's rule (ie. the last 22 years) has been down to the ineffectiveness of her successors as much as it is her legacy. The unmitigated power of the unions in the late 70's should be compared to the lobbyists/special interests of today, and unfortunately I don't see a politician anywhere in the world that has the nerve to stand up to them and "put them in their place" as Thatcher did, so to speak. Yes, she might have started the ball rolling, but to allow it continue to roll at ever greater speeds while removing all obstacles in the ball's path cannot be blamed entirely on her IMO.

 

[jts1882]

Heard an interesting tale last night which I'm sure some will dismiss as lies. I was out with brother in law, his father was a journalist with the FT at the time of the miners strike and was asked to do a piece on a mine in Nottingham, rather than accept all the facts supplied to him by the government he carried out his own investigation. Rather than the mine being worked out there were three rich seams still left and possibly more, enough for many years of profitable production. He was told to remove this from his finished article, when he refused the story was dropped on orders from above, he later found out that as a direct result of the story the security services opened a file on him.

This doesn't ring true.

The Nottingham mines were considered some that were a going concern. That's why the Nottingham miners didn't want to strike, the cause of so much trouble with flying pickets, intimidation of families, etc. So it was well known that there were rich seams left in Nottingham mines. The story would make more sense with mines in Yorkshire, south Wales, or the north-east.

 

[jts1882]

I honestly think that a lot of the blame of the effects of Thatcher's rule (ie. the last 22 years) has been down to the ineffectiveness of her successors as much as it is her legacy. The unmitigated power of the unions in the late 70's should be compared to the lobbyists/special interests of today, and unfortunately I don't see a politician anywhere in the world that has the nerve to stand up to them and "put them in their place" as Thatcher did, so to speak. Yes, she might have started the ball rolling, but to allow it continue to roll at ever greater speeds while removing all obstacles in the ball's path cannot be blamed entirely on her IMO.

This is a comparison I have often made. The abuse of power by large special interests is just as much a problem as in the 70s. The difference is that now it is large corporations lobbying for tax loopholes, sanctioned cartels/monopolies, and other means of distorting the free market.

 

[Gordinho]

And if none of them have jobs, how is it their tax money being spent on the funeral?

VAT, fuel duty, fag duty, alcohol duty, insurance duty and so on, various stealth taxes make virtually every adult a tax payer to some degree.

 

[spursman17]

Right. You pay for the funeral of a person you think has ruined your society/community/life, and then when you toodle along to give your two cents about the person you are told to either shut up and start welling up fake tears or the menacing men in the riot gear and body armor will give you real ones after bashing your brains out and throwing you into a cell for 'aggravated intent to cause offence', or whatever it is they're booking people under nowadays.

It's funded by the bloody taxpayer ,without their consent, and then the taxpayers have no right to turn their backs on the thing? Not even loudly, just a silent coordinated back-turning as her coffin trundles past.

If the Tories and the Thatcher family wanted respect for the lady, they should have held a private funeral. Then, a boorish lout interrupting proceedings would be fully deserving of a kick up the arse and a spell on the side. But the minute you shift the bill to the public, you lose the right to tell them to shut up and fudging watch as their money is tinkled away on glorifying a person they hate.

In a free and open society, anyway.

Maggie did not want a public funeral and so should not be blamed for the public spending.

Even so she has more than paid her fair share to society and boosted the economy tremendously under her power so any taxpayer complaining about her 'cost' should perhaps think twice about how much revenue she has brought to this country which was taxable and has helped pay the less fortunate in society. And before any mentions 'she turned a blind eye to the poor when in power', rubbish, she cut inefficiency and by doing so put the UK in a more competitive position on the World market which was a benefit for ALL citizens of the UK.

As for those who are going to protest. I believe in a free society and so do not have a problem with people wanting to express their views but to do so on a day of someone’s funeral amongst their mourning family and friends is nothing short of disrespectful and bad taste. In fact I find it quite disturbing.

 

[DubaiSpur]

Maggie did not want a public funeral and so should not be blamed for the public spending.

Even so she has more than paid her fair share to society and boosted the economy tremendously under her power so any taxpayer complaining about her 'cost' should perhaps think twice about how much revenue she has brought to this country which was taxable and has helped pay the less fortunate in society. And before any mentions 'she turned a blind eye to the poor when in power', rubbish, she cut inefficiency and by doing so put the UK in a more competitive position on the World market which was a benefit for ALL citizens of the UK.

As for those who are going to protest. I believe in a free society and so do not have a problem with people wanting to express their views but to do so on a day of someone’s funeral amongst their mourning family and friends is nothing short of disrespectful and bad taste. In fact I find it quite disturbing.

You've just summed up all the old arguments again, and I have neither the will nor the desire to exhaust myself debunking those. Suffice to say she will not be remembered kindly by a huge section of the populace, whatever the right chooses to spout about how she wonderfully moved most of the nation's wealth into a minority of citizens' hands and then watched as that same wealth was cosily squirreled away in tax havens like the British Virgin Islands, leaving the country at the mercy of those delightful yuppies and bankers that showed such care for the well-being of the nation when they plunged it into a financial crisis.

Arguments for another time.

I merely wish to point out that you have no problem with protest on the days you find acceptable for protests to occur. Ergo, you do have a problem with protests being conducted on certain days. So don't say you don't have a problem with people wanting to express their views. As for the protest itself, she didn't want a public funeral precisely because she knew how divided the country was, and knew protestors would show up to protest and get some catharsis.

The Conservatives went ahead and made it public anyway, for a cheap election boost. So now they shouldn't be surprised that people are exercising their right to free assembly and expression at a public event they paid for. Simple.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Maggie did not want a public funeral and so should not be blamed for the public spending.

Even so she has more than paid her fair share to society and boosted the economy tremendously under her power so any taxpayer complaining about her 'cost' should perhaps think twice about how much revenue she has brought to this country which was taxable and has helped pay the less fortunate in society. And before any mentions 'she turned a blind eye to the poor when in power', rubbish, she cut inefficiency and by doing so put the UK in a more competitive position on the World market which was a benefit for ALL citizens of the UK.

As for those who are going to protest. I believe in a free society and so do not have a problem with people wanting to express their views but to do so on a day of someone’s funeral amongst their mourning family and friends is nothing short of disrespectful and bad taste. In fact I find it quite disturbing.

All she did was sell off the farm. Any twit could balance the books by doing that, but at what long term cost? The people were swindled out of their assets, for a short term discount windfall. Who controls Britain's water now? The French. Yeah, she put the Great back into Great Britain. What a joke!:ross:

 

[Richie]

All she did was sell off the farm. Any twit could balance the books by doing that, but at what long term cost? The people were swindled out of their assets, for a short term discount windfall. Who controls Britain's water now? The French. Yeah, she put the Great back into Great Britain. What a joke!:ross:

Not trying to be condescending, but if you think it was just the money from privatisation of our national industries that 'balanced to books' you don't understand anything about Thatchers policies or economics.

 

[thfcsteff]

It's a person's funeral. If you didn't like her, don't go. Lots of people I didn't like have died (nothing to do with me) and I just didn't turn up at their funeral as a way of making sure people knew I didn't like them.

The only reason there is a bill for the funeral is because of the security required due to there being so many qunts around who would try and disrupt a funeral.

The size of her funeral is disrespectful, and disproportionate, to the wishes of the public. I'd say that's bar far the most egregious element of this whole thing. How is 'disrespect' evaluated? Do we 'baton charge' people who hold up banners with regards to the miners? What's acceptable? You're essentially siding with a culture which says that no-one should say anything 'considered offensive' at matches (i.e. the emirates silencefests, videoed by the local constabulary)...

Frankly, why is this not a private funeral? It's being used as currency by all sides of the fence. again, I ask you, define 'disruption'...

 

[Gordinho]

Maggie did not want a public funeral and so should not be blamed for the public spending.

Whether she did or not is immaterial to the public purse anyway, tax rates are set according to what the political persuasion of the party in power, taxes won't go up or down regardless of whether they spend £10 or £10M, nor would they invest it in local or national services or infrastructure so it's an irrelevance.

Personally I don't think she deserves all the pomp and ceremony but the financial element of the argument against a ceremonial funeral is a red herring.

 

[Gordinho]

Not trying to be condescending, but if you think it was just the money from privatisation of our national industries that 'balanced to books' you don't understand anything about Thatchers policies or economics.

Fair play, you achieved it without trying.

 

[Baleforce]

I wouldn't say the size is disrespectful or disproportionate, as this thread, the media, and 3 general elections show she had as many admirers as she did detesters

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

I wouldn't say the size is disrespectful or disproportionate, as this thread, the media, and 3 general elections show she had as many admirers as she did detesters

She won three terms didn't she? She was very popular but like all strong leaders was also hated by a minority that are extremely vocal and passionate in their hatred towards her.

 

[DubaiSpur]

She won three terms didn't she? She was very popular but like all strong leaders was also hated by a minority that are extremely vocal and passionate in their hatred towards her.

Without ever gaining a majority of the votes cast. She was far from 'very popular'. Just lucky that her opposition devolved into utter chaos at precisely the right moment, and that a war she could have prevented came along at just the right time to prop up her election chances.

Incidentally that 'war-time leader' trick has been subsequently used by a range of figures from George Dubya ("I'm a war-time president....I make decisions with war on my mind") to Tony Blair. Seems war is now an election gimmick, and the lives of citizens are not indeed paramount in a country's thinking.