Margaret Thatcher's Funeral

LordSutch

Madam wrote: »

The BBC and all channels showing the ould witch being fetted will be forbidden in our house!
Can't imagine why an Irishman would want to write a condolence for the witch!

Like Michael D Higgins?

Madam

Thats different and you know it:p

LordSutch

The queue was quite impressive, which consisted of more than a few Irish people I'd bet.

Cody Pomeray

Madam wrote: »

The BBC and all channels showing the ould witch being fetted will be forbidden in our house! Can't imagine why an Irishman would want to write a condolence for the witch!

She's not being feted, the cameras are only there to make sure she's really gone this time.

Bertie Woot

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I don't think you quite understand what I'm saying, when society benefits it is only a a mass of individual people "society" as you call it doesn't exist. On the other hand the term "society" can be used to coerce individuals to accept hardship in "the name of society" we see this often in socialist economic systems. But surely since the individual is suffering then "society" as a mass of individuals, since society has no distinct identity save for the representation of a group of individuals, is also suffering.

Thatcher said there was "no such thing as society" as she was an exponent of ruthless individualistic capitalism and took a very cold and clinical view of what has been termed "society", but it would be wrong to suggest that society is an exclusively Socialist product or that it is used to "coerce individuals to accept hardship in the name of society". That's a purely negative interpretation of both Socialism and indeed society.

So if society gains when the individual gains, and loses as the individual loses, and perfect correlation between the two must always be maintained. Then the argument goes that society can't possibly exist. It is only an invented concept used to hold back the strongest and stop them devouring the weakest.

This is groundless logic. If society and the individual are in sync and both mutually gain and lose with economic fluctuation, this does not necessarily mean that there is no society, and to suggest that society is an "invented concept used to hold back the strongest and stop them devouring the weakest" again is baseless.

Many capitalists such as Bill Gates et al. who have gained billions from capitalism have ironically condemned capitalism and contributed millions of their fortune to charitable projects which benefit society.

Kinski

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

No they're probably different in fairness. Some of them wouldn't even have been born during either event.

Cetainly the ones that were senior officers during either Thatcher's administration, or Hillsborough, are very unlikely to be down on the streets protecting law and order tomorrow.

The Met don't have what you could call a clean record these days either - see the death of Ian Tomlinson a few years back.

TheUsual

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

She's not being feted, the cameras are only there to make sure she's really gone this time.

Was reading that her ashes should be pressed into a lump of coal.

And then burnt again.

doolox

I remember when on a visit to London that the wax figure of Adolf Hitler was placed in a corridor leading to the chamber of horrors as the curators could not decide where to place an effigy of such an indefineably evil man.

Maybe the wax effigy of Maggie should be placed beside Adolf in that hallway.

It remains to be seen if Scotland and the North of England continue to be neglected and run down as they are if they will make some attempt at breaking away from the UK. If this happens Thatchers policies will have had no small part in this break-up.

TheUsual

Maggie and Adolf.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGb5ZMr5jks

Fratton Fred

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Thatcher created the striking miners and consequently the rift between striking and non-striking miners. The strikers viewed the non-strikers as "scabs", and what they dished out in terms of violence was damaging to their own communities, but that was what Thatcher generated - division, violence and hatred. That is what she shall be remembered for.

it was the NUM that opted to strike. 20 mines out of 187 were to be closed because they were running up huge losses. the miners response was not to talk, or negotiate but to call an all out strike.

Arthur Scargill created the strike and should be remembered for its consequences.

Fratton Fred

doolox wrote: »

I remember when on a visit to London that the wax figure of Adolf Hitler was placed in a corridor leading to the chamber of horrors as the curators could not decide where to place an effigy of such an indefineably evil man.

Maybe the wax effigy of Maggie should be placed beside Adolf in that hallway.

what a ridiculous statement.

the level of maturity in these thatcher threads is alarming at best.

Rascasse

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

It is a bloated, over the top waste of public money that is turning into a Tory rally. Dignity in death? you must be joking with the haste to rewrite history and make political capital out of it all

This is nonsense. As has been pointed out by the UK media, her funeral plans were drawn up under Tony Blair.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Arthur Scargill created the strike and should be remembered for its consequences.

It was funny watching one of the Tory ministers recalling the miners strike. He said of Scargill 'what fool would start a miners strike in the spring?'. Added to the the fact that the government had increased coal stockpiles after the strike threat in '81 and that many homes had converted to gas or electric central heating, it was doomed from the start. Not that it stopped Scargill.


Personally I don't have any interest in the service tomorrow but, knowing how the protestors won't be able to help themselves, I will be tuning in to watch the Met play a little 'Whack-a-Trot', 'bash the commie' etc... Always enjoyable.

A Dub in Glasgo

Rascasse wrote: »

This is nonsense. As has been pointed out by the UK media, her funeral plans were drawn up under Tony Blair.

What is nonsesne? The bit about it being a bloated over the top waste of money or the bit that it is turning into a rally for the Tories?

Happyman42

The obscenity about this tory fest is that it shows how a major lack of compassion and concern is still evident in Conservatives. Any decent government would accept that this woman was divisive, even in retirement and have organised a quiet dignified service. To rub salt into still open wounds in the way they are doing is just asking for trouble.
I'd imagine the money to protect her grave will be high as well. Where is she being buried btw?

Cody Pomeray

Happyman42 wrote: »

Where is she being buried btw?

Some place in Chelsea. Wonder if it has a dancefloor.

Rascasse

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

What is nonsesne? The bit about it being a bloated over the top waste of money or the bit that it is turning into a rally for the Tories?

Both. Since the state funeral of Churchill, the last time a politician was honoured with a big funeral in Britain, Ireland has held 12 state funerals for politicians. Seems positively frugal. Anyway, the costs being touted are likely grossly inflated.

Also, as I've already pointed out, the funeral was planned in the late 90's by Blair, Thatcher and (I assume) the Cabinet Office. If a Labour government thought the arrangements were appropriate I can't see how it can now be called a Tory rally.

Happyman42 wrote: »

The obscenity about this tory fest is that it shows how a major lack of compassion and concern is still evident in Conservatives. Any decent government would accept that this woman was divisive, even in retirement and have organised a quiet dignified service. To rub salt into still open wounds in the way they are doing is just asking for trouble.

Wherever the service was held it would attract the anarchists, pinkos, communist worker mobs, bored students, etc. They are in the minority (however much noise they make) so why should the country bow to them?

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'd imagine the money to protect her grave will be high as well. Where is she being buried btw?

Her ashes will be interred next to Denis' outside the Margaret Thatcher Infirmary at the Royal Hospital Chelsea. I'd imagine that it's closed to the public due to the nature of the building.

Bertie Woot

Without wishing to incite violence, who wouldn't like to punch George Osborne in the face:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2310360/Margaret-Thatchers-funeral-Emotional-George-Osborne-wipes-away-tear-friends-enemies-united-pay-respects-Britains-female-PM.html

Crying for Margaret Thatcher just seems totally alien and incomprehensible to me.

walshb

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Without wishing to incite violence, who wouldn't like to punch George Osborne in the face:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2310360/Margaret-Thatchers-funeral-Emotional-George-Osborne-wipes-away-tear-friends-enemies-united-pay-respects-Britains-female-PM.html

Crying for Margaret Thatcher just seems totally alien and incomprehensible to me.

Crocodile tears!

Madd Finn

LordSutch wrote: »

I queued to sign the book of condolence for Mrs Thatcher at the British Embassy in Dublin yesterday. .

As befits a Monster Raving Loony.

ardmacha

Appropriate for Quinn to go. Thatcher had her challenges with lefty academics, and Oxford didn't give her an honorary PhD, she'd be proud to see a man there representing Ireland that was proposing passing a law to cut the salaries of these troublesome Dons.

robroy1234

It is a British problem. They still have an anachronism of a monarchy and aristocracy, corruption throughout its political environment as well as in the banking sector and have an antiquated class system - so it serves them right if they have to pay for her funeral and for all the damage that she caused to the British people. The British people were stupid enough to vote for her, supported her terrible policies and still go on about how great Britain is despite the mess they are in. With the increase in money to the royals plus the gift of the crown estates ( +£250 million) and the increase in their royal protection and military pomp (+£200 million) and the waste of this funeral at £10 million, not counting the waste from the previous royal wedding and jubilee., Britain is living way beyond it means and therefore the ruling class has to squeeze more money out of the British people. The British people are so stupid that they accept this and even though some may complain - as a country they do nothing.

Fratton Fred

robroy1234 wrote: »

It is a British problem. They still have an anachronism of a monarchy and aristocracy, corruption throughout its political environment as well as in the banking sector and have an antiquated class system - so it serves them right if they have to pay for her funeral and for all the damage that she caused to the British people. The British people were stupid enough to vote for her, supported her terrible policies and still go on about how great Britain is despite the mess they are in. With the increase in money to the royals plus the gift of the crown estates ( +£250 million) and the increase in their royal protection and military pomp (+£200 million) and the waste of this funeral at £10 million, not counting the waste from the previous royal wedding and jubilee., Britain is living way beyond it means and therefore the ruling class has to squeeze more money out of the British people. The British people are so stupid that they accept this and even though some may complain - as a country they do nothing.

And to think Thatcher gets called a racist bigot because she called the Irish liars.

FTA69

If the British people are "stupid" because of the above then by your logic the Irish are the thickest bastards to ever have lived; positively Neanderthal in comparison.

corruption throughout its political environment as well as in the banking sector

A bit like Ireland so, only not half as bad. While the ruling class in any country are fundamentally crooked, the Brits generally don't tolerate ridiculously excessive corruption the same way the Irish do. David Blunkett had to resign over claiming expenses for his girlfriend's train ticket, meanwhile we have the likes of Michael Lowry topping the poll in Tipp and rallies going on for the likes of Sean Quinn. As for the Irish banking sector, that was once declared the "Wild West" with examples such as Anglo shareholders signing of loans for themselves while the Irish people then had to pick up the tab for the recklessness of the banks.

and have an antiquated class system

And Ireland doesn't? The rich/poor divide in Ireland is bigger than in most countries. Despite the "we're all in it together" b*llocks from Fine Gael and the false pseudo-egalitarian nationalist bullsh*t from Fianna Fáil, the fact remains that Ireland has a divide between those who have and those who have nothing. If you think there isn't a financial and political elite in Ireland you're codding yourself. And if you think there is no difference between those who work for a living and those who get rich off the back of them then you're positively deranged.

You are correct in the sense that the British working class are under sustained attack in every aspect. But unfortunately that's the case in Ireland, the USA ans numerous other countries across the world. The notion that it's unique to Britain because they're "thick" is just myopic nonsense to be honest.

djpbarry

FTA69 wrote: »

A bit like Ireland so, only not half as bad. While the ruling class in any country are fundamentally crooked, the Brits generally don't tolerate ridiculously excessive corruption the same way the Irish do. David Blunkett had to resign over claiming expenses for his girlfriend's train ticket, meanwhile we have the likes of Michael Lowry topping the poll in Tipp and rallies going on for the likes of Sean Quinn.

While I generally agree with your point, it should be pointed out that people in positions of authority in the UK are often hounded out of their jobs by the tabloids at the mere suggestion that they may have done something wrong.

FTA69 wrote: »

And Ireland doesn't? The rich/poor divide in Ireland is bigger than in most countries.

I'm really not convinced by that at all. I mean sure, Ireland has it's problems in that regard, but they pale in comparison to the divide between London and the rest of the UK in terms of wealth distribution.

Fratton Fred

djpbarry wrote: »

While I generally agree with your point, it should be pointed out that people in positions of authority in the UK are often hounded out of their jobs by the tabloids at the mere suggestion that they may have done something wrong.
I'm really not convinced by that at all. I mean sure, Ireland has it's problems in that regard, but they pale in comparison to the divide between London and the rest of the UK in terms of wealth distribution.

London is unique though. Its position as a major global city means that a lot of uber wealthy people live there. Some of the world's largest companies have a significant presence or head office there as well and this all distorts the figures.

London also has some of the poorest areas of the UK.

djpbarry

Fratton Fred wrote: »

London is unique though. Its position as a major global city means that a lot of uber wealthy people live there. Some of the world's largest companies have a significant presence or head office there as well and this all distorts the figures.

But isn't that the point?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

London also has some of the poorest areas of the UK.

Absolutely - not denying that.

FTA69

While I generally agree with your point, it should be pointed out that people in positions of authority in the UK are often hounded out of their jobs by the tabloids at the mere suggestion that they may have done something wrong.

True. And I'm not saying for a second that British politicians are pillars of virtue. They're as much a part of the rotten system we have as anyone else in the national elite. My point to your man is that they certainly aren't unique in that regard and in general the average Brit is replused when they see a hint of corruption or impropriety. In Ireland, however, large groups of people love a stroke from a politician. When it transpired Bertie Ahern was running around with suitcases of cash or Haughey was zipping around on a yacht people admired them for it.

"Erra isn't he one of our own?"
"Sure we'd have nothing if it wasn't for Lowry."
"He has the common touch."

The latter pointt is probably the most pertinent. The British upper classes can often be more sheltered from the ordinary pleb than their Irish counterparts. They attend highly exclusive private schools, talk like gobsh*tes and often have a wooden demeanor; George Osborne is a good example of this. Our crowd on the other hand, are adept at pretending to be "an ordinary man" because they enjoy a pint of Bass and watch the hurling and have a modicum of charm you wouldn't get from a stuffy old Tory.

This then allows them to gloss over things like the developers' tent at the Galway races, putting limos on expenses and hobnobbing with the financial elite. It's Irish gombeenism at its best.

I'm really not convinced by that at all. I mean sure, Ireland has it's problems in that regard, but they pale in comparison to the divide between London and the rest of the UK in terms of wealth distribution.

London is the financial capital of the world and has disproportionate amounts of extremely high-earners. As a city it also has a higher rich-poor divide than most places in the western world. The life of a Bangladeshi fast food worker is a far cry from the City trader. Besides, the original point made was that Britain as an antiquated class system; you're on about regional inequality which is a different topic to be honest.

My point is that Ireland, in economic terms (which is what matters), very much has a class system and it's glaringly obvious to boot.

Fratton Fred

djpbarry wrote: »

But isn't that the point?

Can you really see Lakshmi Mittel, Alisher Usmanov or Roman Abramovic relocating to Hartlepool?

FTA69

Meatloaf owns a house in Hartlepool in fairness.

Death and Taxes

Bertie Woot wrote: »

Tomorrow morning, 17th April 2013, ex-British prime minister Margaret Thatcher shall receive a state funeral costing in the region of 8-10 million GBP. This shall be paid for by the British tax-payer, many of whom's antecedents were made redundant and unemployed by Thatcher's economic policies.

Barack Obama was invited but declined the offer and has instead opted to send a presidential delegation, none of which are active politicians. The US shall send George Shultz and James Baker, who both served as US secretary of state while Thatcher was in power.

Mass protests are planned with Socialists, Anarchists and general opponents of Thatcher set to turn their backs on her coffin, and to register their disapproval of a PM who rewarded the capitalist class and the wealthy elite whilst attempting to destroy the British working class when she was in power.

Shall you be glued to the telly paying your respects to Margaret Thatcher? Or perhaps popping open a bevy and celebrating her demise? Perhaps like many you shall be getting on with your morning and feel completely indifferent to the funeral of a PM who has been described as "a tyrant" and "a witch"?

Your views on Margaret Thatcher's grand and expensive state exit.

The mass protests never haqppened and the former PM recieved a dignified and well deserved ceramonial funeral.