Maggie Thatcher has died

[pap]

That list is truly f**king hilarious. Talk about clutching at straws with some of them.

 

As is your response.

 

C'mon Alps, you're one of the few right wingers on here brave enough to offer up an opinion.

 

Take 'em down if you can.

[trousers]

[video=youtube_share;on7v6h5_4eI]

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Lifted from Nick Cave's Facebook status.

 

Margaret Thatcher was the most divisive and polarising politic leader of the last century. This is an incomplete list of why many of us fall on the side that does not regard her with anything other than odium…

 

 

1. She supported the retention of capital punishment

2. She destroyed the country's manufacturing industry

3. She voted against the relaxation of divorce laws

4. She abolished free milk for schoolchildren ("Margaret Thatcher, Milk Snatcher")

5. She supported more freedom for business (and look how that turned out)

6. She gained support from the National Front in the 1979 election by pandering to the fears of immigration

7. She gerrymandered local authorities by forcing through council house sales, at the same time preventing councils from spending the money they got for selling houses on building new houses (spending on social housing dropped by 67% in her premiership)

8. She was responsible for 3.6 million unemployed - the highest figure and the highest proportion of the workforce in history and three times the previous government. Massaging of the figures means that the figure was closer to 5 million

9. She ignored intelligence about Argentinian preparations for the invasion of the Falkland Islands and scrapped the only Royal Navy presence in the islands

10. The poll tax

11. She presided over the closure of 150 coal mines; we are now crippled by the cost of energy, having to import expensive coal from abroad

12. She compared her "fight" against the miners to the Falklands War

13. She privatised state monopolies and created the corporate greed culture that we've been railing against for the last 5 years

14. She introduced the gradual privatisation of the NHS

15. She introduced financial deregulation in a way that turned city institutions into avaricious money pits

16. She pioneered the unfailing adoration and unquestioning support of the USA

17. She allowed the US to place nuclear missiles on UK soil, under US control

18. Section 28

19. She opposed anti-apartheid sanctions against South Africa and described Nelson Mandela as "that grubby little terrorist"

20. She support the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and sent the SAS to train their soldiers

21. She allowed the US to bomb Libya in 1986, against the wishes of more than 2/3 of the population

22. She opposed the reunification of Germany

23. She invented Quangos

24. She increased VAT from 8% to 17.5%

25. She had the lowest approval rating of any post-war Prime Minister

26. Her post-PM job? Consultant to Philip Morris tobacco at $250,000 a year, plus $50,000 per speech

27. The Al Yamamah contract

28. She opposed the indictment of Chile's General Pinochet

29. Social unrest under her leadership was higher than at any time since the General Strike

30. She presided over interest rates increasing to 15%

31. BSE

32. She presided over 2 million manufacturing job losses in the 79-81 recession

33. She opposed the inclusion of Eire in the Northern Ireland peace process

34. She supported sanctions-busting arms deals with South Africa

35. Cecil Parkinson, Alan Clark, David Mellor, Jeffrey Archer, Jonathan Aitkin

36. Crime rates doubled under Thatcher

37. Black Wednesday – Britain withdraws from the ERM and the pound is devalued. Cost to Britain - £3.5 billion; profit for George Soros - £1 billion

38. Poverty doubled while she opposed a minimum wage

39. She privatised public services, claiming at the time it would increase public ownership. Most are now owned either by foreign governments (EDF) or major investment houses. The profits don’t now accrue to the taxpayer, but to foreign or institutional shareholders.

40. She cut 75% of funding to museums, galleries and other sources of education

41. In the Thatcher years the top 10% of earners received almost 50% of the tax remissions

42. 21.9% inflation

 

Most people recognise the massive changes that evolved during the 1980s. However, to ascribe the positive changes to one person, as though they never would have happened in her absence, is laughable.

 

So is it any less laughable to attribute her solely with all the 'negatives'?

[pap]

So is it any less laughable to attribute her solely with all the 'negatives'?

 

Read the negatives, Kelv - and ask the question again.

 

If that laundry list of sh!te was the cost of saving Britain, the cost was too high.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Read the negatives, Kelv - and ask the question again.

 

If that laundry list of sh!te was the cost of saving Britain, the cost was too high.

 

That's a poor attempt at evading a pretty straight forward question pap.

[trousers]

Some interesting insights from Neil Kinnock in this one

 

[video=youtube_share;PpqIXfqnmhc]http://youtu.be/PpqIXfqnmhc

Edited 9 April, 2013 by trousers

[pap]

That's a poor attempt at evading a pretty straight forward question pap.

 

And I can see that you've placed no thought into your response.

 

Wow. A whole minute.

 

tbf, that's more time than anyone spends thinking Conservative policy through.

 

Let's hit you on one point on the list ( I know you only have a minute to answer ).

 

39. She privatised public services, claiming at the time it would increase public ownership. Most are now owned either by foreign governments (EDF) or major investment houses. The profits don’t now accrue to the taxpayer, but to foreign or institutional shareholders.

How's that one feel in this age of recession?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

And I can see that you've placed no thought into your response.

 

Wow. A whole minute.

 

tbf, that's more time than anyone spends thinking Conservative policy through.

 

Let's hit you on one point on the list ( I know you only have a minute to answer ).

 

39. She privatised public services, claiming at the time it would increase public ownership. Most are now owned either by foreign governments (EDF) or major investment houses. The profits don’t now accrue to the taxpayer, but to foreign or institutional shareholders.

How's that one feel in this age of recession?

 

Right, so you still haven't answered a pretty straight forward question.

 

I'll ask again.

 

If she is not responsible for the positives solely, can she be responsible for the negatives solely?

 

Or have we been reading the Gordon Brown book of politics again?

[saint si]

23. She invented Quangos

 

And labour immediately abolished them all in 1997, yes?

 

25. She had the lowest approval rating of any post-war Prime Minister

 

So what... despite that she somehow won 3 elections...

 

39. She privatised public services, claiming at the time it would increase public ownership. Most are now owned either by foreign governments (EDF) or major investment houses. The profits don’t now accrue to the taxpayer, but to foreign or institutional shareholders.

 

So did Labour. As for "Institutional shareholders" ... guess what, they're mostly pension funds!

 

31. BSE

 

Did she introduce it personally out of spite or something?

 

37. Black Wednesday – Britain withdraws from the ERM and the pound is devalued. Cost to Britain - £3.5 billion; profit for George Soros - £1 billion

 

That happened in 1992.

 

41. In the Thatcher years the top 10% of earners received almost 50% of the tax remissions

 

What does that even mean? How is that measured?

[Wade Garrett]

She wasn't a great leader - just stubborn as a mule. Sure, she modernised the country in many ways, but that was a bi-product of her pathological hatred of the unions. She destroyed many of our manufacturing industries, divided our country North - South, and stated, quite openly, that the City would keep us. Her one good policy was selling council houses. A cute move - people with mortgages don't go on strike. I, for one, won't mourn her passing, as she, no doubt, wouldn't have mourned mine. She ruined millions of lives in the early-mid 80's. Thankfully, she didn't ruin mine as I was lucky enough to live in the South. Still, she was a frail old lady at the end of the day, and I hope that the end came peacefully for her. Airbrushing history is a very dangerous thing.

 

Great post. She put all her eggs in one basket regarding the City, and saw unemployment as an unfortunate by-product of the economic policy she never waivered from.

 

What can't be argued is that she was a true blue, and did what she thought was right for the country. Don't get me wrong, politically, my politics are a million miles from hers, but I do miss politicians who had actual beliefs. Nowadays, we have politicians who have no work experience outside of Parliament, and have no real underlying beliefs. They just run with the foxes and hunt with the hounds, and will say and do anything just for their career gain.

 

Cameron, Milliband and Clegg are just the same person with interchangeable heads.

[Minty]

pap - i don't think your tone is really helping your argument, there've been some good questions and points made in the last page or two (something, I'll be honest, I didn't think we'd get on this thread at all), and Kelv's is a perfectly reasonable question. This being a football forum, if everyone could start playing the ball, not the man, it'd help keep things at a decent level.

 

And bear in mind I actually agree with much of your constructive opinion about Thatcher, not least point 39 above - but I am willing to accept that it was not just her, personally, who was responsible for this.

 

The whole list from Nick Cave's facebook status is undoubtedly an interesting one, and a good basis for (potentially decent) debate, but it is entirely correct and fair IMO, to acknowledge that it was not just Thatcher who put these things in place, just as all the good stuff was not entirely down to her too.

[trousers]

UK Prime Minister ‏@Number10gov35m

Lady Thatcher’s funeral service will take place on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 at St Paul’s Cathedral.

[Minty]

What can't be argued is that she was a true blue, and did what she thought was right for the country. Don't get me wrong, politically, my politics are a million miles from hers, but I do miss politicians who had actual beliefs. Nowadays, we have politicians who have no work experience outside of Parliament, and have no real underlying beliefs. They just run with the foxes and hunt with the hounds, and will say and do anything just for their career gain.

 

Agree wholeheartedly with this.

[Sour Mash]

And I can see that you've placed no thought into your response.

 

Wow. A whole minute.

 

tbf, that's more time than anyone spends thinking Conservative policy through.

 

Let's hit you on one point on the list ( I know you only have a minute to answer ).

 

39. She privatised public services, claiming at the time it would increase public ownership. Most are now owned either by foreign governments (EDF) or major investment houses. The profits don’t now accrue to the taxpayer, but to foreign or institutional shareholders.

How's that one feel in this age of recession?

Why should energy suppliers be owned and managed by the government? We have football clubs owned by people from all corners of the world, why should any other industry be different. Edited 9 April, 2013 by Sour Mash

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Why should energy suppliers be owned and managed by the government? We football clubs owned by people from all corners of the world, why should any other industry be different.

 

Because it works really well in Communist countries.

 

Look how well they have done throughout history.

 

Just don't mention how many people they all killed.

 

But really it was because they weren't actually communist. Because we don't like that.

[Wade Garrett]

Why should energy suppliers be owned and managed by the government? We football clubs owned by people from all corners of the world, why should any other industry be different.

 

So you don't mind them ripping us all off with their cartels that are pricing energy at exhorbitant levels? They are greed personified. I'm not saying an entirely state-owned energy industry is the right way to go, but an entirely private one certainly isn't working.

[sfcuk fan]

Good riddance - - - - just my opinion !

[Suomi Saint]

Her policies were fairly cynical and for that she should not be applauded. She knew that shafting the unions and closing our old industries would decimate the North. Her voters were, in the main, in the South, and the South largely escaped the results of her policy of killing the patient in search of the cure. In my eyes, what Thatcher did wrong - apart from completely annihilating manufacturing in a few short years - was having no long-term replacement strategy. She was obsessed with deregulation of financial services and the selling off of state owned assets - all short-term fixes. As an example of her folly, we have gone from the UK state owned CEGB to the French state owned EDF. Madness. Britain did need modernising in 1979, and the unions had gone too far, but you don't raise half a country to the ground before you start to build it back up again. She used the Police to pursue her political ideals - who shamefully set up roadblocks in Kent to stop miners travelling to the picket lines in the Midlands - divided the country North and South, and forced hardship onto many millions of people for at least a decade. The 'greed is good' ethos also took hold during her office. No state funeral and no eulogising please. She didn't save Britain and is/was not a great Briton. A tough old bird who did very well to rise to the top, who became slightly deluded and caused her own downfall with overt displays of autocracy.

[pap]

Right, so you still haven't answered a pretty straight forward question.

 

I'll ask again.

 

If she is not responsible for the positives solely, can she be responsible for the negatives solely?

 

Or have we been reading the Gordon Brown book of politics again?

 

Lol @ Inquistor Kelv trying to pin slippery eel pap down.

 

There is a thing called accountability. It's one of the prices of a thing called responsibility, which is something you'd implicitly associate with any leader of a country.

 

So, let's skip Thatcher for a bit and put the microscope on Gordon Brown, someone else you've bunged in there to make a semblance of a point. People love to point out the fact that Gordon Brown sold off all the gold shortly after taking office. Who's accountable in that circumstance? Brown, because he was the man who made the decision; Blair - because he signed off on it? Blair may have had his reasons for acquiescing the Brown's call, but ultimately, responsibility lies with Blair, not Brown.

 

You have picked a singularly unsuitable target to argue collective responsibility, btw. Thatcher's greatest strength, her belief in herself and her ideas, was also her greatest weakness. She didn't get the nickname the "Iron Lady" by accident. She repeatedly destroyed political dissent within her own party, crushing opponents. It was her way or the highway. History is littered with the political roadkill she left in her wake.

 

I'd be hard-pressed to name a weaker PM in terms of personal resolve. Blair operated a presidential style of government, but he didn't have things his own way, as the years of pointless infighting over the leadership ensued.

 

Can you think of a Prime Minister who wielded and used more personal power than Thatcher?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

So you don't mind them ripping us all off with their cartels that are pricing energy at exhorbitant levels? They are greed personified. I'm not saying an entirely state-owned energy industry is the right way to go, but an entirely private one certainly isn't working.

 

When governments can handle big industry, I might come round to accept such an idea.

 

The fact is they can't.

 

Under every Labour government (I use this as an example, as let's face it, the chances of it happening under a Tory party are miniscule - although the same probably would apply) every big project still results in the public getting their pants pulled down.

 

The NHS is a joke. I love that this country has a health service, it is absolutely one of the best things about this country, and should be protected at all costs. But, it needs scrapping and starting again. It really does.

 

The idea that state run institutions don't become about greed, self-interest and self-preservation is a total fallacy. The NHS, as an example, is hideously bloated with back-room staff, in unnecessary jobs, created by 13 years of a labour government, funded by borrowing, to create their 'economic miracle'. It's hardly a surprise that we now see hospitals and NHS trusts on the verge of bankruptcy. Not to mention PFI's.

 

Governments cannot even properly regulate big industry, how on earth are they meant to run it?

[OldNick]

If you were around in the early to mid 70's Iam sure you would understand how the citizens of the UK were starting to get sick and tired of the strife caused by the Unions power. The electorate wanted something to be done to stem that power that held the nation to ransom. Nobody wanted the strife that the conflict caused but sadly it needed to be done to stop the ridiculous way the governments were left at the mercy of the far left unions.

The balance now is about right, the working people need to be protected but not at the cost of the rest of us.

[Shroppie]

If only we could have a leader now who would sort the banks as effectively as Maggie sorted the unions.

[pap]

When governments can handle big industry, I might come round to accept such an idea.

 

The fact is they can't.

 

Under every Labour government (I use this as an example, as let's face it, the chances of it happening under a Tory party are miniscule - although the same probably would apply) every big project still results in the public getting their pants pulled down.

 

The NHS is a joke. I love that this country has a health service, it is absolutely one of the best things about this country, and should be protected at all costs. But, it needs scrapping and starting again. It really does.

 

The idea that state run institutions don't become about greed, self-interest and self-preservation is a total fallacy. The NHS, as an example, is hideously bloated with back-room staff, in unnecessary jobs, created by 13 years of a labour government, funded by borrowing, to create their 'economic miracle'. It's hardly a surprise that we now see hospitals and NHS trusts on the verge of bankruptcy. Not to mention PFI's.

 

Governments cannot even properly regulate big industry, how on earth are they meant to run it?

 

Three letters.

 

EDF

 

Nationalised energy company of France. Largest utility company in the world.

 

£1.6 billion in profit last year in UK alone.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2102185/Energy-giant-EDF-announces-big-jump-profits-1-6bn-despite-drop-gas-electricity-use.html

 

Basic research, Kelv.

Edited 9 April, 2013 by pap
added the UK alone bit

[Sour Mash]

So you don't mind them ripping us all off with their cartels that are pricing energy at exhorbitant levels? They are greed personified. I'm not saying an entirely state-owned energy industry is the right way to go, but an entirely private one certainly isn't working.

Cartels shouldn't be allowed, but that is the same with any industry. We could argue we are ripped off with loads of stuff, price of petrol, food and drink, football tickets, I'd rather it was all cheaper, so what?

[St Marco]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion and mine is she was a poor prime minister who doesn't deserve some of the praise she has received. And does not deserve a state funeral at all. If that goes ahead I can see there being trouble.

I have respect for her due to her drive and wanting to succeed. But her lust for conflict and reaction to when people defend themselves makes her quite evil in my book.

Many of her policies created vast unemployment and increased severe poverty. When people protested about it she sent in the riot police to disperse them. That stubbornness to listen to anyone else's view is what defined her in my eyes. Someone who would watch the house burn rather then put the fire out by admitting they were wrong.

If the Argies had not gone into the Falklands I think she would not be getting the praise she is now. The right want to portray her as a kind of Churchill who saved the country. Which is a load of ********.

As I say everyone is entitled to an opinion.

[hypochondriac]

Some interesting insights from Neil Kinnock in this one

 

[video=youtube_share;PpqIXfqnmhc]http://youtu.be/PpqIXfqnmhc

 

What do people on here think Thatcher should have done differently when dealing with Scargill?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Lol @ Inquistor Kelv trying to pin slippery eel pap down.

 

There is a thing called accountability. It's one of the prices of a thing called responsibility, which is something you'd implicitly associate with any leader of a country.

 

So, let's skip Thatcher for a bit and put the microscope on Gordon Brown, someone else you've bunged in there to make a semblance of a point. People love to point out the fact that Gordon Brown sold off all the gold shortly after taking office. Who's accountable in that circumstance? Brown, because he was the man who made the decision; Blair - because he signed off on it? Blair may have had his reasons for acquiescing the Brown's call, but ultimately, responsibility lies with Blair, not Brown.

 

You have picked a singularly unsuitable target to argue collective responsibility, btw. Thatcher's greatest strength, her belief in herself and her ideas, was also her greatest weakness. She didn't get the nickname the "Iron Lady" by accident. She repeatedly destroyed political dissent within her own party, crushing opponents. It was her way or the highway. History is littered with the political roadkill she left in her wake.

 

I'd be hard-pressed to name a weaker PM in terms of personal resolve. Blair operated a presidential style of government, but he didn't have things his own way, as the years of pointless infighting over the leadership ensued.

 

Can you think of a Prime Minister who wielded and used more personal power than Thatcher?

 

The reason I mention Brown, is because he championed himself as the pair of safe hands that presided over the 'Labour Economic miracle', stating he had put an end to boom and bust economics. Then when it went tits up, it was absolutely nothing to do with him.

 

Which sounds very much like what you are levelling at MT. Ok, in fairness, you are doing the reverse, she is responsible for the bad and not the good.

 

I actually think the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

 

For the record, I'm not exactly a massive Maggie lover. I respect her as a politician, in the same way I respect Blair's ability to play the political game, despite my despising most of what the guy did. Most my points on here earlier, were to balance out a few rather one sided arguments, which heavily ignored large chunks of history, and then to say that I find the celebration of someones death disgusting. Which I stand by.

 

A weaker PM in terms of personal resolve, than the one that crushed dissent, littered history with political roadkill, won 3 elections, and stayed in office for 11 years, and earned the nickname "The Iron Lady" by being so strong willed?

 

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

[pap]

pap - i don't think your tone is really helping your argument, there've been some good questions and points made in the last page or two (something, I'll be honest, I didn't think we'd get on this thread at all), and Kelv's is a perfectly reasonable question. This being a football forum, if everyone could start playing the ball, not the man, it'd help keep things at a decent level.

 

And bear in mind I actually agree with much of your constructive opinion about Thatcher, not least point 39 above - but I am willing to accept that it was not just her, personally, who was responsible for this.

 

The whole list from Nick Cave's facebook status is undoubtedly an interesting one, and a good basis for (potentially decent) debate, but it is entirely correct and fair IMO, to acknowledge that it was not just Thatcher who put these things in place, just as all the good stuff was not entirely down to her too.

 

I've made my points about accountability, responsibility and Thatcher's singularly controlling presence as PM.

 

I've also asked the counter-question, give me a PM that had more personal power than Thatcher. That'll be a hard one to answer.

 

So no, we cannot say that every decision was her own, or even that she floated the most despicable ones ( she bounced back this one from Geoffrey Howe http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2011/12/30/revealed-thatcher-s-plan-to-abandon-liverpool ). She is, however, accountable - and due to her personal convictions, perhaps more so than any other modern PM.

[trousers]

What do people on here think Thatcher should have done differently when dealing with Scargill?

 

I think the question is wider than that... Thatcher fought the preceding general election on a mandate to reform union powers. She won that election and proceeded to carry out the wishes of those who voted for her.

 

So, to me, the wider question is: "How would people have changed the voting system to stop governments doing what, under the voting system at the time, they had a mandate to do?"

 

Yes, the majority of people under our current system never vote for the government in power but that's the system we had had the time and still do to this day.

 

To me, the focus should be on critiquing the cause rather than the effect.

Edited 9 April, 2013 by trousers

[ShirleySaint]

I cant imagine those on the political right taking such mouthy pathetic pot-shots if a political opponent died, like Adams, Galloway and Livingstone have. Truly without class..

You obviously have very little imagination, or memory. I don't remember the right wing holding back just a few weeks ago when Hugo Chavez died.

[Ludwig]

Lifted from Nick Cave's Facebook status.

 

Margaret Thatcher was the most divisive and polarising politic leader of the last century. This is an incomplete list of why many of us fall on the side that does not regard her with anything other than odium…

 

 

1. She supported the retention of capital punishment

2. She destroyed the country's manufacturing industry

3. She voted against the relaxation of divorce laws

4. She abolished free milk for schoolchildren ("Margaret Thatcher, Milk Snatcher")

5. She supported more freedom for business (and look how that turned out)

6. She gained support from the National Front in the 1979 election by pandering to the fears of immigration

7. She gerrymandered local authorities by forcing through council house sales, at the same time preventing councils from spending the money they got for selling houses on building new houses (spending on social housing dropped by 67% in her premiership)

8. She was responsible for 3.6 million unemployed - the highest figure and the highest proportion of the workforce in history and three times the previous government. Massaging of the figures means that the figure was closer to 5 million

9. She ignored intelligence about Argentinian preparations for the invasion of the Falkland Islands and scrapped the only Royal Navy presence in the islands

10. The poll tax

11. She presided over the closure of 150 coal mines; we are now crippled by the cost of energy, having to import expensive coal from abroad

12. She compared her "fight" against the miners to the Falklands War

13. She privatised state monopolies and created the corporate greed culture that we've been railing against for the last 5 years

14. She introduced the gradual privatisation of the NHS

15. She introduced financial deregulation in a way that turned city institutions into avaricious money pits

16. She pioneered the unfailing adoration and unquestioning support of the USA

17. She allowed the US to place nuclear missiles on UK soil, under US control

18. Section 28

19. She opposed anti-apartheid sanctions against South Africa and described Nelson Mandela as "that grubby little terrorist"

20. She support the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and sent the SAS to train their soldiers

21. She allowed the US to bomb Libya in 1986, against the wishes of more than 2/3 of the population

22. She opposed the reunification of Germany

23. She invented Quangos

24. She increased VAT from 8% to 17.5%

25. She had the lowest approval rating of any post-war Prime Minister

26. Her post-PM job? Consultant to Philip Morris tobacco at $250,000 a year, plus $50,000 per speech

27. The Al Yamamah contract

28. She opposed the indictment of Chile's General Pinochet

29. Social unrest under her leadership was higher than at any time since the General Strike

30. She presided over interest rates increasing to 15%

31. BSE

32. She presided over 2 million manufacturing job losses in the 79-81 recession

33. She opposed the inclusion of Eire in the Northern Ireland peace process

34. She supported sanctions-busting arms deals with South Africa

35. Cecil Parkinson, Alan Clark, David Mellor, Jeffrey Archer, Jonathan Aitkin

36. Crime rates doubled under Thatcher

37. Black Wednesday – Britain withdraws from the ERM and the pound is devalued. Cost to Britain - £3.5 billion; profit for George Soros - £1 billion

38. Poverty doubled while she opposed a minimum wage

39. She privatised public services, claiming at the time it would increase public ownership. Most are now owned either by foreign governments (EDF) or major investment houses. The profits don’t now accrue to the taxpayer, but to foreign or institutional shareholders.

40. She cut 75% of funding to museums, galleries and other sources of education

41. In the Thatcher years the top 10% of earners received almost 50% of the tax remissions

42. 21.9% inflation

 

 

Most people recognise the massive changes that evolved during the 1980s. However, to ascribe the positive changes to one person, as though they never would have happened in her absence, is laughable.

 

Is that it? She wasn't as bad I thought.

 

Hope you drink yourself into a coma... and don't come out of it

 

What a horrible thing to say. Hang your head in shame.

[trousers]

You obviously have very little imagination, or memory. I don't remember the right wing holding back just a few weeks ago when Hugo Chavez died.

 

I must have missed my invite to the numerous celebration parties

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

You said that ALL people who are happy she's dead are evil. that's a pretty silly comment and like I said, anybody who actually sees the world in those terms is too naive to be taken seriously.

None of the people in your list could actually be called evil. When I was a child growing up hearing one sided news, I might have believed Gerry Adams and the IRA were evil. as I've grown older and read about the history of Northern Ireland and what was done to the Irish population, I've come to see where the hatred and desire to strike out came from. I don't agree with what they did, but I'm now old enough and understand enough to see it's far from "evil".

 

Those people in your list are no more evil than Margaret Thatcher.

 

I think our definition of evil differs then. All opinions.

 

And yes, anyone who is happy that someone has died is evil. And also a massive c unt.

[trousers]

Penny Mordaunt MP ‏@PennyMordauntMP3m

Trying speak in Maggie debate tomorrow, esp re Portsmouth and #Falklands. Pls tweet me if you have a message/memory you'd like me to include

[ShirleySaint]

I cant imagine those on the political right taking such mouthy pathetic pot-shots if a political opponent died, like Adams, Galloway and Livingstone have. Truly without class..

You obviously have very little imagination, or memory. I don't remember the right wing holding back just a few weeks ago when Hugo Chavez died.

[Ludwig]

I think our definition of evil differs then. All opinions.

 

And yes, anyone who is happy that someone has died is evil. And also a massive c unt.

 

What! So a jewish person freed from a concentration camp at the end of the war who was happy that Hitler had been died is evil? Is that what you're saying? Are you an anti-semite?

[pap]

I think our definition of evil differs then. All opinions.

 

And yes, anyone who is happy that someone has died is evil. And also a massive c unt.

 

Must be really easy to pick cherries from your high horse.

[pap]

What! So a jewish person freed from a concentration camp at the end of the war who was happy that Hitler had been died is evil? Is that what you're saying? Are you an anti-semite?

 

Don't judge him. He's not thinking.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

What! So a jewish person freed from a concentration camp at the end of the war who was happy that Hitler had been died is evil? Is that what you're saying? Are you an anti-semite?

 

Ok, I knew someone would come back with a Hitler, Stalin type analogy. I think it's a bit out comparing her to Hitler, as there is surely no comparison.

 

Personally, I think I'd like to see justice done rather than people dying. There is no real victory in that.

 

But that's fine. If people want to be apologists for Adams et al, then go ahead, I personally see them as evil.

[Horley CTFC Saint]

What surprises me slightly is that nobody appears to have criticised her actions on Northern Ireland where she clearly let her own personal experiences get in the way of shortening 'The Troubles'. Her refusal to take IRA overtures of peace seriously in my opinion directly contributed to a great many unnecesary deaths

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Ok, I knew someone would come back with a Hitler, Stalin type analogy. I think it's a bit out comparing her to Hitler, as there is surely no comparison.

 

Personally, I think I'd like to see justice done rather than people dying. There is no real victory in that.

 

But that's fine. If people want to be apologists for Adams et al, then go ahead, I personally see them as evil.

 

FFS a man that receives campaign funding from a terrorist organisation, and condones bombings injuring innocent people is not evil.

 

A woman that was elected Prime Minister, and then followed the ideas that she stated when running for election is. HTH.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

And yeah, I would say Galloway is certainly verging on evil.

 

Possibly slightly harsh on Red Ken, but he is a massive tw4t.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

FFS a man that receives campaign funding from a terrorist organisation, and condones bombings injuring innocent people is not evil.

 

A woman that was elected Prime Minister, and then followed the ideas that she stated when running for election is. HTH.

 

Of course, that's it!!

[pap]

Ok, I knew someone would come back with a Hitler, Stalin type analogy. I think it's a bit out comparing her to Hitler, as there is surely no comparison.

 

Personally, I think I'd like to see justice done rather than people dying. There is no real victory in that.

 

But that's fine. If people want to be apologists for Adams et al, then go ahead, I personally see them as evil.

 

Your problem is typical of many who share your political leanings. No real convictions of your own, no real background knowledge, no real attempt to qualify your argument and most of all, a complete lack of empathy with the situation of others.

[pap]

What surprises me slightly is that nobody appears to have criticised her actions on Northern Ireland where she clearly let her own personal experiences get in the way of shortening 'The Troubles'. Her refusal to take IRA overtures of peace seriously in my opinion directly contributed to a great many unnecesary deaths

 

Our Conservative brothers have explained it all, Horley.

 

Gerry Adams is evil. End of.

 

Just like the UK wide riots were nothing but simple criminality.

[ShirleySaint]

I find the extreme left extremely nasty and viscious (sic), absolutely seething with hate. By extreme left I mean the .... IRA and Islamic terrorism sympathisers, ....

 

It may come as a bit of a surprise to you, but the IRA and Islamic terrorism and their sympathisers are not left wing. People may support their causes, but not the means used to obtain them. (So that people don't start accusing me of supporting things I don't, my position is:- I think a united Ireland is a good ideal - if the people of Ireland want it, I don't think any government led by religious fundamentalists is good). This debate would be helped if people didn't descend into childish name calling, especially when, like you, they don't know what they are talking about.

[Ludwig]

I wasnt comparing Thatcher to Hitler or Stalin or anyone. All I was saying was that your point that "anyone who is happy that someone has died is evil."is surely complete and utter nonsense? But it might just be that you are a very forgiving person, able to forgive anything (and apologies if you are in fact Jewish and had family members killed in the holocaust).

 

And let me clarify, once more - I don't think Thatcher is comparable to Hitler or Stalin or Joey Barton.

 

I didn't like the woman and don't go along with the idea that she should be respected for what she did. I have no respect for her, but at the same time I won't be celebrating her death.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Your problem is typical of many who share your political leanings. No real convictions of your own, no real background knowledge, no real attempt to qualify your argument and most of all, a complete lack of empathy with the situation of others.

 

You can have empathy with the situation of the Irish, some awful things have happened to the Irish people.

 

But to kill, or condone the killing of innocent people, for things the politicians/leaders from the times of their parents/grandparents is evil.

 

If the black community rose up now, in reaction to slavery, and enslaved the white community, would that be right? Or would that e evil?

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Your problem is typical of many who share your political leanings. No real convictions of your own, no real background knowledge, no real attempt to qualify your argument and most of all, a complete lack of empathy with the situation of others.

 

Considering my parents left the country due to Thatcher to find work, I feel I am well qualified to talk about it. But hey, sh!t happens, you move on and you get over it. Or at least some people do.

 

Just because you seem to think it's fine to kill innocent people as long as you have a means to an end does not mean that we all have to go along with what you say. We all have different opinions. Mine is that those people are evil, and that if you celebrate someones death you have more than a bit in common with them. Pathological hatred of someone to feel like that isn't healthy Pap.

[buctootim]

It may come as a bit of a surprise to you, but the IRA and Islamic terrorism and their sympathisers are not left wing. People may support their causes, but not the means used to obtain them. (So that people don't start accusing me of supporting things I don't, my position is:- I think a united Ireland is a good ideal - if the people of Ireland want it, I don't think any government led by religious fundamentalists is good). This debate would be helped if people didn't descend into childish name calling, especially when, like you, they don't know what they are talking about.

 

Amen. The conditions Catholics had to live under in a part of the UK run by a sectarian protestant NI government were abhorrent and led directly to the civil rights movement. British troops were welcomed by the Catholics as independent guarantors of fairness - until the Uk political leadership decided that the army should only work in support of the hated civilian administration and RUC in NI.

 

Lets not be under any illusions, you can hate the actions the IRA carried out - but the responsibility for the unjust social conditions which created the IRA in the first place lay squarely with British policy in Ireland