Petition to privatise Thatcher's funeral

Jimoslimos · 24-12-2011 04:40AM

bwatson wrote: »

Native Irish forces of resistance who had their own shoot to kill policies? Not to mention their detonate to kill, hack to kill, and beat to kill policies?

I'm from the North. I'm as native to this island as you are. I am not one to fly off the handle if called Irish or an Irishman, however I choose to identify as British and want to see my homeland under British rule. Why do your forces for liberation deserve any different treatment to the treatment they were dishing out?

Put simply two wrongs never make a right,

Or, as the legitimate armed force in the North I would have expected higher standards from the British Army. Once you stoop to the IRA's tactics the lines between terrorist and army are blurred and it's impossible to distinguish between the two.

Richard · 24-12-2011 10:27AM

later10 wrote: »

Well you originally set up a proposition based on nationality - why else did you mention the good people of Cornwall?

I didn't mention nationality - the different status that the Falklanders (and others) had then was irrelevant. I said "It's the principle of the thing. The people of the Falklands had the same right to be defended against foreign invasion as, say, Cornwall."

In other words, residents in British Overseas Territories have the same right to be defended as residents of the UK.

Richard · 24-12-2011 10:39AM

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Put simply two wrongs never make a right,
Or, as the legitimate armed force in the North I would have expected higher standards from the British Army.

Absolutely correct. At times, they did not act correctly.

Once you stoop to the IRA's tactics the lines between terrorist and army are blurred and it's impossible to distinguish between the two.

I wouldn't go quite as far as this - but it certain that the British Army's mistakes (and, in the case of some individual officers, collusion with paramilitaries) damaged the situation and lost them moral authority.

Those who talk about the a IRA being "at war" with the British Army are, however, at best revisionist.

In terms of NI, she did help sow the seeds of peace with the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Although this did not involve the representatives of most of NI, and was hence massively flawed, it was the foundations of what Major and Blair (in terms of the British side) did later.

Celly Smunt · 24-12-2011 12:05PM

Feisar wrote: »

Totally agree with this. I seen the IRA's campaign as a legitimate war for complete independence but crying over a British shoot to kill policy is farcical.

the IRA had the same policy,you can't fight fire with fire and expect to be an innocent party at the end.

BluePlanet · 24-12-2011 01:04PM

bwatson wrote: »

Did it come as a bit of a shock to you that the blokes who your "boys" started shooting at, decided to fire back? How very unfair!

It makes me sick when republicans try to make something out of this, as has been done a few times in this very thread. Have you no memory, or no dignity at all? Probably best not to answer actually.

I think you are misunderstanding the criticism of the "Shoot to Kill policy".

Britain all along claimed the conflict in NI was not a war.
Therefore paramilitaries were denied prisoner of war status, Red Cross visits etc.
Britain claimed it was a sort of police/security operation, not a war.

Fine.

But then, according to their own laws, Britain can't just shoot their citizens without trying to arrest them first, and also must give them due process.
In effect, what Britain was doing, was rather like what Syria is doing today.
Running amok, commiting human rights violations by the day.

44leto · 24-12-2011 02:33PM

I think this thread should be locked, everytime I see it I momentarily get very upset and burst into tears.

Maggie please never die.

Seanchai · 24-12-2011 07:32PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Native Irish force of resistance in the occupied six counties... Says it all really.

Yeah, I of course meant "Irish terrorists" who were fighting the brave, heroic legitimate rulers of Ireland, the British - your crowd of inveterate imperialist landgrabbers who turn around after the robbery and ethnic cleansing and lecture us, the Irish, for centuries about "civility", "peace" and, after overthrowing democracy in Ireland in 1920 by partitioning the country, "democracy". In your dreams, sunshine. In your dreams.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Most of the people here who hate her weren't even born when she was in power, its just trendy to hate Thatcher.

Just how long have you been living in Ireland? It was fairly fúcking trendy to revile the flag-waving old hag back in 1981 when black flags were flying across Ireland, when my local teacher was collecting money outside the local church for the H Blocks, and the money was pouring in from big farmers and labourers alike, when people from all walks of Irish society detested that vile individual. I remember once Thatcher giving out to Cardinal Ó Fiaich asking why the Germans and the British could get on 40 years after the end of WWII but the British and Irish couldn't, and Ó Fiaich responding: "Well, Britain doesn't occupy the Ruhr".

Truth, as much as you and your likeminded "let's make Ireland more British so we can feel more comfortable here" compatriots on this Irish forum would be upset by it. The way you and your benighted ilk are going on you'd think your hero Mrs Thatcher had not been playing a political game with the lives of people in the Hunger Strikes, that she was not playing the Orange Card, that she was not using nationalism to advance her mere 43.9% of the vote electoral mandate in the 1979 General Election. To people like you, it's only those dastardly "nationalists", the Irish, who engage in nationalism.

That you think for a minute that Margaret Thatcher was ever anything but reviled across Ireland is testimony to a failure on your part to interact with reality in this country. Indeed, having two Sasanaigh in-laws who detest her, I'd wager there is many a Sasanach who would like to punch you for misrepresenting English people so hideously as warmongering flag-waving anti-Paddy xenophobes.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

When she got in btw, the UK's economy made the current Irish predicament look like minor. The country was going bust, was under the boot of the unions and the IMF were knocking on the door.

More inaccurate horseshíte. The IMF bailed out the once mighty Britain in 1976, giving it billions. Fortunately oil had been discovered off Scotland which the English British claimed in the late 1970s. Many of the "corrective" changes which Thatcher is credited with had already been initiated, under IMF "dictates" (odd how the British europhobes seem indifferent to that), before she came to power. It was the early 1980s when she came into her own.

One of my favourite Thatcher policies - and one which nobody here has yet mentioned - is the one which lifted controls on media ownership, so that major donors to the Tory Party like Rupert Murdoch could amass pro-Tory media empires and undermine democracy in the process. Most infamously, in 1981 this Thatcherite policy of aligning with media moguls resulted in Murdoch legally taking control of The Times and The Sunday Times, with the normal Monopolies Commission investigation stopped. And thereafter, Murdoch's media was in awe of Thatcher and what she represented for the powerful.

But trust a British pleb to defend this sort of anti-pleb act, just because Thatcher wrapped herself in the Union Jack. Pathetic, infuriatingly so.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

But, ultimately, she let Bobby Sands die and as he is thought of as the Republican Baby Jesus, she has to be hated.

What a ferociously obtuse distortion of reality, even by your standards. Bobby Sands gave his life at 27 years of age for what he believed in: Irish freedom. Thatcher, in every age of her premiership, gave the lives of other people. Show me your heroes and I'll tell you what you are.

Seanchai · 24-12-2011 07:32PM

bwatson wrote: »

Native Irish forces of resistance who had their own shoot to kill policies? Not to mention their detonate to kill, hack to kill, and beat to kill policies?

I'm from the North. I'm as native to this island as you are. I am not one to fly off the handle if called Irish or an Irishman, however I choose to identify as British and want to see my homeland under British rule. Why do your forces for liberation deserve any different treatment to the treatment they were dishing out?

1) The IRA have been, of course, the principal force of native Irish resistance to British rule in this country since January 1919. Before them we, the native Irish, had numerous other forces, be they secret societies, republican societies, confederate associations, or whatever. The IRA carries on this tradition of native Irish insurgency, no matter how much revisionists would like to claim this tradition no longer exists and British rule is suddenly legitimate. How you could contend otherwise is baffling. The Unionists, with their protestations of "Britishness", are much more akin to the Pied-Noir "Algerian" self-declared French colonialists of Algeria.

2) The last time I looked members of your community were calling themselves "British", and making a point of saying they are not Irish. Your self-definition is British, not Irish. You support the colonial set-up of your ancestors, British rule in Ireland. What, precisely, makes you Irish in anything other than the British colonial provincial sense?

bwatson wrote: »

It makes me sick when republicans try to make something out of this, as has been done a few times in this very thread. Have you no memory, or no dignity at all? Probably best not to answer actually.

Wait a minute. Here we have the British state, the self-declared defenders of moral superiority, being revealed as executing unarmed Irish people before bringing them to even their hilarious British Diplock "justice" system, and you are giving out because this hypocrisy is pointed out?

Please, please do clarify: do you advocate state murder of innocent unarmed people because they don't share your politics? do you wish to deny the basic principle of British and European law that is "innocent until proven guilty"?

bwatson · 24-12-2011 11:03PM

Seanchai wrote: »

1) The IRA have been, of course, the principal force of native Irish resistance to British rule in this country since January 1919. Before them we, the native Irish, had numerous other forces, be they secret societies, republican societies, confederate associations, or whatever. The IRA carries on this tradition of native Irish insurgency, no matter how much revisionists would like to claim this tradition no longer exists and British rule is suddenly legitimate. How you could contend otherwise is baffling. The Unionists, with their protestations of "Britishness", are much more akin to the Pied-Noir "Algerian" self-declared French colonialists of Algeria.

They carry on this fine tradition tradition of insurgency through the murder of (native Irish, as you would so crudely put it) police officers and engineers buying a pizza? I hope you are proud of your lads. Weak, pathetic, desperate actions. Long may they continue eh? You are a classless person.

2) The last time I looked members of your community were calling themselves "British", and making a point of saying they are not Irish. Your self-definition is British, not Irish. You support the colonial set-up of your ancestors, British rule in Ireland. What, precisely, makes you Irish in anything other than the British colonial provincial sense?

I do not identify as Irish. I am not like you (and don't you want me to know it). I however have been mistakenly called Irish on many an occasion. It doesn't particularly bother me. I am Northern Irish due to being born here, like my parents and grandparents before them. How dare you lecture me on what I may and may not define myself as. Who on earth do you think you are? Your attitude here is absolutely disgusting. People like you are as responsible for division and hatred as anyone who decides to stick a tricolour on a bonfire.

Wait a minute. Here we have the British state, the self-declared defenders of moral superiority, being revealed as executing unarmed Irish people before bringing them to even their hilarious British Diplock "justice" system, and you are giving out because this hypocrisy is pointed out?

Please, please do clarify: do you advocate state murder of innocent unarmed people because they don't share your politics? do you wish to deny the basic principle of British and European law that is "innocent until proven guilty"?

I would ask, do you advocate the premeditated murder of innocent people from the unionist community? You do not seem to stop glorifying "native Irish resistance" forces. The very same who murdered protestants in cold blood, because they were protestants? The evil, evil people who commited the Kingsmill atrocity. I take it you have no regret, nor shame at their actions? Another fine episode for your boys. It is your hypocrisy which is a disgrace.

I should clarify, due to my age (20) I was fortunate enough to grow up in a relatively peaceful and stable time.

later12 · 24-12-2011 11:40PM

Richard wrote: »

In other words, residents in British Overseas Territories have the same right to be defended as residents of the UK.

Ah.

So the British Antarctic Territory, with no citizens, ought to allow the UK Government the very same right of defence as, say, London.

You really believe that do you?

ch750536 · 25-12-2011 12:24AM

BraziliaNZ wrote: »

How old are you?

Around in the 80's I'd guess.

ch750536 · 25-12-2011 12:28AM

I'm glad she had a happy marriage. Read somewhere that since *Alzheimer's has set in she keeps asking for Dennis and being told he is dead. Bitch deserves to continuously grieve till she dies.

* In no way would I want anyone else to suffer in this way so no disrespect intended to others.

Fratton Fred · 25-12-2011 01:10AM

Seanchai wrote: »

Yeah, I of course meant "Irish terrorists" who were fighting the brave, heroic legitimate rulers of Ireland, the British - your crowd of inveterate imperialist landgrabbers who turn around after the robbery and ethnic cleansing and lecture us, the Irish, for centuries about "civility", "peace" and, after overthrowing democracy in Ireland in 1920 by partitioning the country, "democracy". In your dreams, sunshine. In your dreams.

Just how long have you been living in Ireland? It was fairly fúcking trendy to revile the flag-waving old hag back in 1981 when black flags were flying across Ireland, when my local teacher was collecting money outside the local church for the H Blocks, and the money was pouring in from big farmers and labourers alike, when people from all walks of Irish society detested that vile individual. I remember once Thatcher giving out to Cardinal Ó Fiaich asking why the Germans and the British could get on 40 years after the end of WWII but the British and Irish couldn't, and Ó Fiaich responding: "Well, Britain doesn't occupy the Ruhr".

Truth, as much as you and your likeminded "let's make Ireland more British so we can feel more comfortable here" compatriots on this Irish forum would be upset by it. The way you and your benighted ilk are going on you'd think your hero Mrs Thatcher had not been playing a political game with the lives of people in the Hunger Strikes, that she was not playing the Orange Card, that she was not using nationalism to advance her mere 43.9% of the vote electoral mandate in the 1979 General Election. To people like you, it's only those dastardly "nationalists", the Irish, who engage in nationalism.

That you think for a minute that Margaret Thatcher was ever anything but reviled across Ireland is testimony to a failure on your part to interact with reality in this country. Indeed, having two Sasanaigh in-laws who detest her, I'd wager there is many a Sasanach who would like to punch you for misrepresenting English people so hideously as warmongering flag-waving anti-Paddy xenophobes.

More inaccurate horseshíte. The IMF bailed out the once mighty Britain in 1976, giving it billions. Fortunately oil had been discovered off Scotland which the English British claimed in the late 1970s. Many of the "corrective" changes which Thatcher is credited with had already been initiated, under IMF "dictates" (odd how the British europhobes seem indifferent to that), before she came to power. It was the early 1980s when she came into her own.

One of my favourite Thatcher policies - and one which nobody here has yet mentioned - is the one which lifted controls on media ownership, so that major donors to the Tory Party like Rupert Murdoch could amass pro-Tory media empires and undermine democracy in the process. Most infamously, in 1981 this Thatcherite policy of aligning with media moguls resulted in Murdoch legally taking control of The Times and The Sunday Times, with the normal Monopolies Commission investigation stopped. And thereafter, Murdoch's media was in awe of Thatcher and what she represented for the powerful.

But trust a British pleb to defend this sort of anti-pleb act, just because Thatcher wrapped herself in the Union Jack. Pathetic, infuriatingly so.

What a ferociously obtuse distortion of reality, even by your standards. Bobby Sands gave his life at 27 years of age for what he believed in: Irish freedom. Thatcher, in every age of her premiership, gave the lives of other people. Show me your heroes and I'll tell you what you are.

You shouldn't post pissed, much harder to control the hatred and bigotry when you do.

Fratton Fred · 30-12-2011 02:13PM

Seanchai wrote: »

Yeah, I of course meant "Irish terrorists" who were fighting the brave, heroic legitimate rulers of Ireland, the British - your crowd of inveterate imperialist landgrabbers who turn around after the robbery and ethnic cleansing and lecture us, the Irish, for centuries about "civility", "peace" and, after overthrowing democracy in Ireland in 1920 by partitioning the country, "democracy". In your dreams, sunshine. In your dreams.

actually I meant the rhetoric about what you are saying says everything, but i wouldn't expect an Irish Republican Pleb to say anything different. I'm not sure why you felt the need to say all this, other than the fact that you wanted to attack the poster, not the post.

Seanchai wrote: »

Just how long have you been living in Ireland? It was fairly fúcking trendy to revile the flag-waving old hag back in 1981 when black flags were flying across Ireland, when my local teacher was collecting money outside the local church for the H Blocks, and the money was pouring in from big farmers and labourers alike, when people from all walks of Irish society detested that vile individual. I remember once Thatcher giving out to Cardinal Ó Fiaich asking why the Germans and the British could get on 40 years after the end of WWII but the British and Irish couldn't, and Ó Fiaich responding: "Well, Britain doesn't occupy the Ruhr".

Truth, as much as you and your likeminded "let's make Ireland more British so we can feel more comfortable here" compatriots on this Irish forum would be upset by it. The way you and your benighted ilk are going on you'd think your hero Mrs Thatcher had not been playing a political game with the lives of people in the Hunger Strikes, that she was not playing the Orange Card, that she was not using nationalism to advance her mere 43.9% of the vote electoral mandate in the 1979 General Election. To people like you, it's only those dastardly "nationalists", the Irish, who engage in nationalism.

That you think for a minute that Margaret Thatcher was ever anything but reviled across Ireland is testimony to a failure on your part to interact with reality in this country. Indeed, having two Sasanaigh in-laws who detest her, I'd wager there is many a Sasanach who would like to punch you for misrepresenting English people so hideously as warmongering flag-waving anti-Paddy xenophobes.

Really Mick, I k now several paddies who think this country needs someone like Thatcher at the moment.

If you go back to post 85 (and at least one other) you will see that i have stated i hated Thatcher. My point is that a lot of people are jumping on the band wagon and don't really know why they hated her, least of all a Republican pleb like you.

Seanchai wrote: »

More inaccurate horseshíte. The IMF bailed out the once mighty Britain in 1976, giving it billions. Fortunately oil had been discovered off Scotland which the English British claimed in the late 1970s. Many of the "corrective" changes which Thatcher is credited with had already been initiated, under IMF "dictates" (odd how the British europhobes seem indifferent to that), before she came to power. It was the early 1980s when she came into her own.

One of my favourite Thatcher policies - and one which nobody here has yet mentioned - is the one which lifted controls on media ownership, so that major donors to the Tory Party like Rupert Murdoch could amass pro-Tory media empires and undermine democracy in the process. Most infamously, in 1981 this Thatcherite policy of aligning with media moguls resulted in Murdoch legally taking control of The Times and The Sunday Times, with the normal Monopolies Commission investigation stopped. And thereafter, Murdoch's media was in awe of Thatcher and what she represented for the powerful.

But trust a British pleb to defend this sort of anti-pleb act, just because Thatcher wrapped herself in the Union Jack. Pathetic, infuriatingly so.

like I said, I hated Thatcher. I spent a lot of her time in office putting superglue in Barclays bank atms and campaigning for sanctions against South Africa. What were you doing? (presuming you were more than just a stirring in your father's trousers at the time.

Seanchai wrote: »

What a ferociously obtuse distortion of reality, even by your standards. Bobby Sands gave his life at 27 years of age for what he believed in: Irish freedom. Thatcher, in every age of her premiership, gave the lives of other people. Show me your heroes and I'll tell you what you are.

No, Bobby Sands gave his life so he and his terrorist buddies could enjoy certain privilages whilst in prison, it was never about "Irish Freedom", only plebs like you bought into that one. But anyway, your heroes in the IRA killed more hunger strikers than Maggie did. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/1230/1224309633803.html?via=mr

it will be interesting to see how Marty and Gerry squirm out of this one, but it won;t make any difference, because the Republican plebs always swallow hook line and sinker what the plebs in the SF/IRA leadership have to say.

later12 · 30-12-2011 02:19PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Irish Republican Pleb

Really Mick

I know several paddies who think this country needs someone like Thatcher

You know this is a predominantly Irish message board, so why are you using terms that Irish people are very likely to find disparaging?

Dudess · 30-12-2011 02:20PM

"Concerned" about Argentinian democracy, yet mates with Pinochet. What a woman!

ItsAWindUp · 30-12-2011 02:24PM

later10 wrote: »

You know this is a predominantly Irish message board, so why are you using terms that Irish people are very likely to find disparaging?

The real question is, why does he post here? And he has the nerve to call people plebs!

biko · 30-12-2011 02:37PM

Brits out (Fratton Fred banned)

ejmaztec · 30-12-2011 02:45PM

Dudess wrote: »

"Concerned" about Argentinian democracy, yet mates with Pinochet. What a woman!

The old hypocrite did support one union though, Solidarity, but only because it was Polish and nothing to do with the UK. Solidarity wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes if it were based in England.

dj jarvis · 30-12-2011 03:24PM

Batsy wrote: »

No, I didn't. I was saying that not everybody hated her, as someone had said. If everybody hated her she wouldn't have won three general elections. She was incredibly popular after the Falklands War. She was loved, not hated.

yea she was loved so much the striking coal miners from the north of England and wales were asking for handouts on Henry st in Dublin in the early 80s

donations from a people that were totally strapped themselves - and once again the Irish donated more to that cause per head of population than the British did

as for the Falklands war being popular - its says volumes about any nation that finds a war popular and lets face it - it went down well in the UK because they knew they were on a winner and it took the focus of the complete kip that Britain was turned into by her economic polices

and the rubbish linking Irish hate of her to the IRA is total cock
i was never a supporter or the IRA but did back British withdrawal and equal rights north of the British imposed border - im not a shinner and never will be so bang goes that theory - not all Irish are shinner supporters or were
the majority of Irish hated her because she deserved to be hated for a myriad of reasons

as for your use of statistics from elections is flawed also , it she got as high as 43 percent does this not also mean that 57 did not like or love her as you suppose
just face facts , very few people will be sorry when that bitch is dead

Petition to privatise Thatcher's funeral

Comments