nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

thatcher

poindexter

still in hospital. hope whatever time you have left hurts like hell you b!tch, coz thats' where you'll be going.

what will you do the day she pops it?? soon as i hear, am outta work and off to the pub to celebrate. sooner the better

Find more posts tagged with

800 years

i ain't gonna work

on maggie's farm no more

t-10 seconds to ira

800 years on the wall

you take one down

pass it around

799 years on the wall

britain is great!

west brits

tory fanboys fight back

tramp the dirt down

iron lady seeks iron man

spitting image

needs more semtex

is she dead yet?

lets start digging

getting on with life

requires painful death

Quick Links

Comments

toiletduck

walshb wrote: »

How about the many relatives of the men she allowed starve to death in the H-Blocks?

Did she come up with the hunger strike idea? Or was it just holding back food, she must have hid the keys to the kitchen.

walshb

toiletduck wrote: »

Did she come up with the hunger strike idea? Or was it just holding back food, she must have hid the keys to the kitchen.

No, but she let it happen and didn't bat an eyelid, yet a few years back (1982) when her own son went missing for a day or two, she was in hysterics.

Men died slow and painful deaths because of her inaction and her nasty nasty side

Poccington

walshb wrote: »

Who said I had a point?

I am simply asking a question!

Well then the answer to your question is no, the relatives of those people on the Belgrano wouldn't agree that she was the best political leader of the 20th century in Europe.

Dozen Wicked Words

walshb wrote: »

No, but she let it happen and didn't bat an eyelid, yet a few years back (1982) when her own son went missing for a day or two, she was in hysterics.

Men died slow and painful deaths because of her inaction and her nasty nasty side

She is a terrible woman, but I am not sure force feeding someone is humane.

walshb

dooferoaks wrote: »

She is a terrible woman, but I am not sure force feeding someone is humane.

Dialogue and negotiation is what she refused, read up!

tolosenc

walshb wrote: »

How about the many relatives of the men she allowed starve to death in the H-Blocks?

A nasty nasty piece of work and one only has to look at Maggie to see the 'evil' within!
She really does actually look evil. I'd say her like would have made great nuns
in those industrial schools!

If I recall correctly, it was the prisoners who refused to eat, not the guards who refused to feed them. Not giving in to terrorist is such an inhumane thing, isn't it? :rolleyes:

Thundercats Ho

toiletduck wrote: »

Did she come up with the hunger strike idea? Or was it just holding back food, she must have hid the keys to the kitchen.

Thats pretty uncool

toiletduck

walshb wrote: »

No, but she let it happen and didn't bat an eyelid, yet a few years back (1982) when her own son went missing for a day or two, she was in hysterics.

So? Would you expect her not to be concerned for her son?

Men died slow and painful deaths because of her inaction and her nasty nasty side

They effectively committed suicide. She didn't meet their demands. Big whop. Sad but *ahem* who actually forced them to starve themselves to death?

toiletduck

Thundercats Ho wrote: »

Thats pretty uncool

Yeah in all this thread, that's definitely the worst statement...

Dozen Wicked Words

walshb wrote: »

Dialogue and negotiation is what she refused, read up!

Easy tiger, exclamation marks have their uses but to encourage reading?

I have read up, and have great sympathy for the hunger strikers but they made their decision on a strongly held principle. She (thatcher) was never going to negotiate (can you think of many times when she did negotiate with Republicanism?)

So the only option to keep those young men alive would be force feeding. They were intent on their goal, she did not negotiate.

Thundercats Ho

toiletduck wrote: »

Yeah in all this thread, that's definitely the worst statement...

<snip>. Unfortunately, you're not the only one on this thread.
Thinking its a 'big whop' if men give their lives up for something they believe in. <snip> You must be a teenager, or at least werent about when this was going on.

dr oatker

walshb wrote: »

How about the many relatives of the men she allowed starve to death in the H-Blocks?

We'll never forget you Timmy Sands

Crotchety

Maggie is on hunger strike now by the looks of it. I hope she doesn't get that plate of stew.

Dyr

ah I was only a lad when the provos nearly managed to drop a building on her (that being the tradtional way to kill witches

) I remember being sad about all the people in the building who were killed and even sadder that she wasn't one of em

Ah sure all water under the bridge now, I'd imagine most of the thatcherites here aren't even old enough to recall her reign...kids these days.

ejmaztec

Poccington wrote: »

Well then the answer to your question is no, the relatives of those people on the Belgrano wouldn't agree that she was the best political leader of the 20th century in Europe.

...though I suppose many people in Argentina were more concerned with the people disposed of by the "Junta", than by the British.

FlutterinBantam

walshb wrote: »

Dialogue and negotiation is what she refused, read up!

Sometimes you have to do that buddy.

Fratton Fred

walshb wrote: »

How about the many relatives of the men she allowed starve to death in the H-Blocks?

A nasty nasty piece of work and one only has to look at Maggie to see the 'evil' within!
She really does actually look evil. I'd say her like would have made great nuns
in those industrial schools!

To be honest, as british Premier she was probably more worried about the british voters those men killed or would kill.

she did offer to talk, but the IRA army council turned down her request, they preferred to see the remaining 8 hunger strikers die. it was better PR for them

Bambi wrote: »

ah I was only a lad when the provos nearly managed to drop a building on her (that being the tradtional way to kill witches ) I remember being sad about all the people in the building who were killed and even sadder that she wasn't one of em

Ah sure all water under the bridge now, I'd imagine most of the thatcherites here aren't even old enough to recall her reign...kids these days.

I remember her and I hated her. but, she did a lot of good and was a good leader, if some of her policies were bad. She brought shame on the Uk with her stand over Pinochet, but her handling of the Falklands was spot on.

Wishing her dead though, is just ****ing sick.

Manic Moran

The problem with it is :HAVE a look at the globe and explain to Me why in the name of Jazus did Britain think what happened was ANYTHING to do with them?

You can certainly make the argument that given the bizarre history of the islands, the Argentines had the better historical claim originally, but in practical terms, the place was British territory, populated by British citizens. Do Her Majesty's Armed Forces not exist to protect and defend British citizens no matter where in the world they may be?

Your WRONG about the Belgrano AND You know You are,It was a war crime,

OK, if you must continue in your persistant belief that it was indeed a war crime, please point out which part of the laws of war were violated. Chapter and verse. If you can't, then no matter how much you may not like the loss of life, which tends to be pretty inevitable when people start invading other countries, it was not a war crime.

just dont expect the Channel *Blighty*to tell it like it was.

If you're referring to the BBC, I had quoted Argentina's largest newspaper.

NTM

twinytwo

least we not forget she let a member of english parliment die in prison..... that says it all really.. He was the soldiers that won the Falklands. How everyone saw this as a reason to keep her in power i dont know.. tis a pity the ira didnt get her in Brighton

CiaranC

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Wishing her dead though, is just ****ing sick.

Hope she dies roarin'

toiletduck

Thundercats Ho wrote: »

Thinking its a 'big whop' if men give their lives up for something they believe in.

Didn't say that, it was in regards to her not "giving in" to their demands.

Sharpshooter

Thundercats Ho banned for Personal Abuse.

tbh

meh. Just because you're willing to die for a cause, doesn't mean it's worthy cause. It's all about perspective. From the Irish point of view, she let Bobby Sands die. From a British point of view, she refused to negotiate with people who'd planted bombs in the pubs in their cities. The conflict is over. nobody won. Her dying or being in pain isn't going to bring back any of the hunger strikers, or make anyone who's lost anyone - on either side - grieve for their loss any the less. The whole thing was pointless, much like this strange obsession that some people have with seeing the Brits beaten in sport or the eurovision or whatever. I'm as much into friendly rivalry as the next man but some people take stuff like this way too seriously. There's none of the people here looking for her to die roaring would be willing to move up north so they could vote SF in the next elections, I'd say!

ejmaztec

I suppose that on her death-bed she'll convert to Catholicism and be canonised, and we'll all be ex-communicated if we don't go to mass on St Maggie's day.

Dudess

toiletduck wrote: »

So when people do the above ("Great leader") it's attention seeking, whereas expressing a will to kill/that she be killed/tortured in ever more inventive ways by posters is... Really seems like selective reading of the thread.

Actually no, I acknowledged twice the hysterical nature of the horrible death wish comments. I don't see much about her being "killed/tortured in ever more inventive ways" though...

The resulting war did help with the collapse of a horrible regime in Argentina.

And she was mates with the man spearheading another horrible regime in South America...

toiletduck wrote: »

So many posters anxiously awaiting the death of an old woman so they can celebrate her death (the more painful the better!). Doesn't matter that most of them aren't old enough to remember her in power.

Agreed, but you could also apply the age thing to some naive posters here who sing her praises despite not being old enough to remember her.

On the other hand though:

twinytwo wrote: »

least we not forget she let a member of english parliment die in prison..... that says it all really

No she didn't. He let himself die.

tis a pity the ira didnt get her in Brighton

No it isn't. Can you imagine the fallout of that for Irish people living in Britain?

Fratton Fred

twinytwo wrote: »

least we not forget she let a member of english parliment die in prison..... that says it all really.. He was the soldiers that won the Falklands. How everyone saw this as a reason to keep her in power i dont know.. tis a pity the ira didnt get her in Brighton

the falklands war had a lot to do with her winning the election, but it probably came down to the same reason fianna fail won the last election here. No matter how bad the government were, the opposition was ****ing useless.

ejmaztec

Dudess wrote: »

No it isn't. Can you imagine the fallout of that for Irish people living in Britain?

The fallout was bad enough without that, even for plastic paddys with English accents like me.

FlutterinBantam

tbh wrote: »

meh. Just because you're willing to die for a cause, doesn't mean it's worthy cause. It's all about perspective. From the Irish point of view, she let Bobby Sands die. From a British point of view, she refused to negotiate with people who'd planted bombs in the pubs in their cities. The conflict is over. nobody won. Her dying or being in pain isn't going to bring back any of the hunger strikers, or make anyone who's lost anyone - on either side - grieve for their loss any the less. The whole thing was pointless, much like this strange obsession that some people have with seeing the Brits beaten in sport or the eurovision or whatever. I'm as much into friendly rivalry as the next man but some people take stuff like this way too seriously. There's none of the people here looking for her to die roaring would be willing to move up north so they could vote SF in the next elections, I'd say!

Fcukin top class post there man.

Take a fcuking bow, someone has a modicum of sense.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dudess

She and Pinochet became buddies - doesn't matter if she didn't agree with some of what he did. On that basis alone, I find it astounding anyone would defend her.
And how has the world become a more free place because of her? Laissez-faire economic policies only benefit some people...