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; } } }

Child Item

Margaret Thatcher was she really that bad?

Morricone

As per title was Maggie T as bad as what is made out.

Yeah she might have pissed off a few of the working class and the IRA and its followers but she did what she felt was best for Britain and she did lead Britain on a prosperous economic upturn with her policies.

As a whole I feel that the history books will reflect quite well on her tenure in the years to come. She did achieve a hell of a lot as she became one of the first women to become a national leader in the Western world. She did a lot for the advancement of women.

All in all I think she did her best for her country and surely in Ireland we can recognise and respect that attribute.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

shrewdness

She was an absolute cnut of the highest order and there'll be a big party when she dies.

Biggins

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

...The allies probably invented the Holocaust too , did they?

Where in heavens name are you going with this off topic stuff?

The fact is that - as history has show in the last decade, top heads in British government have been exposed as to at times, applying pressure for reports to be written a certain way.
While the case is still open (for most) on the Belgrano, any reports emanating from the British government to try and slip away from blame, their case and cause is certainly made weaker for the fact that such tactics were alone, previously used to get a report to say what they wanted it to say, for later advantage.

Short version: the report that stated it was heading towards the Island is the only one.
ALL other historic reports (and I assume that the makers of the latest Thatcher film did their homework too for accuracy, also showed too) stating that the boat was outside the exclusion zone and was heading AWAY.

H2UMrsRobinson

Disgusting dried up hag of an excuse for a woman. Disgrace to her sex and the human race in general. Although I do wonder if she were a man would she have been revered throughout the land as a straight talking no-nonsense powerful revolutionary politician. Oh the Iron-y.

mikemac1

The promotion of greed and light touch regulation in finance are still hurting us today

Though Reagan can take even more of the blame here

starbelgrade

Morricone wrote: »

As per title was Maggie T as bad as what is made out.

Yeah she might have pissed off a few of the working class and the IRA and its followers but she did what she felt was best for Britain and she did lead Britain on a prosperous economic upturn with her policies.

As a whole I feel that the history books will reflect quite well on her tenure in the years to come. She did achieve a hell of a lot as she became one of the first women to become a national leader in the Western world. She did a lot for the advancement of women.

All in all I think she did her best for her country and surely in Ireland we can recognise and respect that attribute.

1. Thatcher did fuck all for the British economy. Under her reign, unemployment rose to unprecendented levels, poverty rose & even during two booms, GDP never managed to rise more than a few percent.

2. She did fuck all for women. The difference in pay rates between men & women grew larger the longer she was in power.

3. She did fuck all at all apart from being an obnoxious bitch who ran her economy on the retarded philosophy that you could run a country like you could a corner shop.

History may well right her down as something more than that, but that's because a lot of historians are fuckwits.

ejmaztec

H2UMrsRobinson wrote: »

Disgusting dried up hag of an excuse for a woman. Disgrace to her sex and the human race in general. Although I do wonder if she were a man would she have been revered throughout the land as a straight talking no-nonsense powerful revolutionary politician. Oh the Iron-y.

No.

Biggins

Ghandee wrote: »

She single handedly recruited more young men into the IRA in the early eighties than any recruitment campaign the Provos could ever have hoped to achieved.

I've heard that many a time in Ireland and in England, stated by the British themselves.
I do not argue with the above opinion.

Sea Filly

She's iconic, in a strange way. Dislikeable but iconic.

Interestingly, in my old workplace in England, everyone was convinced it was she who privatized the railways and disliked her for it, but it was actually Blair.

starbelgrade

Sea Filly wrote: »

She's iconic, in a strange way. Dislikeable but iconic.

So is Hitler. Doesn't really say much.

Biggins

Sea Filly wrote: »

She's iconic, in a strange way.

starbelgrade wrote: »

So is Hitler. Doesn't really say much.

As was Haughty and Ahern, etc.
Iconic don't have to mean 'good' - it can just mean they made a pivotal role and/or position on something or many things which was a centre-point in history - and not a good one too, sometimes.

Sea Filly

starbelgrade wrote: »

So is Hitler. Doesn't really say much.

Simply pointing it out, typing out loud, ya know?

Biggins wrote: »

As was Haughty and Ahern, etc.
Iconic don't have to mean 'good' - it can just mean they made a pivotal role and/or position on something or many things which was a centre-point in history - and not a good one too, sometimes.

Thank you. :cool:

Zebra3

RichieC wrote: »

She was the archetypal right winger, can only maintain power using hate, scapegoats and wars and while in power will plunder the coffers for her mates in big business.

Her and that **** stain Reagan were cut from the same cloth. though I think she got the brains.

Naill on the head. You always get the impression that Reagan was just a front man for a bunch of fanatics whereas she was a genuine c**t.

starbelgrade wrote: »

So is Hitler. Doesn't really say much.

Economically she was actually more right-wing than Adolf was.

Ans I love this line about how she stood up to terrorists. She allowed the UVF and UDA (UFF) to be armed to the hilt and she allowed the UDR (basically just a continuation of the B "Specials" :rolleyes: ) to cintinue with their terror campaign and as others have stated, her support for the Khmer Rouge and Pinochet was vile.

How many deaths (and how much terror) were they responsible for compared to the IRA and INLA who she "stood up to"? :rolleyes:

Biggins

I lived during her term in power, in some of the communities she utterly devastated.
She set brother against brother, father against son, divided whole families, caused GREAT hardship in money terms and emotionally.
The scars of her actions and decisions run deep still in a lot people, in a lot of areas in England still.

john why

Jelly and ice-cream when thatcher dies

flyswatter

john why wrote: »

Jelly and ice-cream when thatcher dies

I can still imagine all the safe PC respectful English news reports when it happens.

Jimoslimos

What worries me today is that the current ruling Consertative party are full of members who in their early 20s would have been motivated to join the Tories when Thatcher was in power.

woodoo

Bad looking aul bat. Nasty to boot.

bwatson

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Maggie was the sub commander? Well I never.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8965405/Belgrano-was-heading-to-the-Falklands-secret-papers-reveal.html

Recent revelations show that British signals intelligence intercepted communications from the Belgrano which suggested it was in fact sailing back towards the islands to attack in coordination with other Argentine navy ships. Moreover, even if the ship was sailing away from the exclusion zone, it wouldn't make a single bit of difference. It was a legitimate military target - it was a navy cruiser of a nation Britain were fighting a war against!

It has been suggested this information wasn't disclosed because the British didn't want the Argentines to know that they were intercepting and deciphering their communications.

Hannibal

Biggins wrote: »

I lived during her term in power, in some of the communities she utterly devastated.
She set brother against brother, father against son, divided whole families, caused GREAT hardship in money terms and emotionally.
The scars of her actions and decisions run deep still in a lot people, in a lot of areas in England still.

It's a tactic of divide and rule, meaning there is no opposition big enough to stand up against you because all opposition is divided. Her stance on northern Ireland did wrench up tensions to levels beyond what they should've been, she put more petrol on the fire than anyone could ever have imagine and within a few years of her going there were ceasefire's so that in itself tells it's own tale.

Biggins

bwatson wrote: »

Recent revelations show that British signals intelligence intercepted communications from the Belgrano which suggested it was in fact sailing back towards the islands to attack in coordination with other Argentine navy ships. Moreover, even if the ship was sailing away from the exclusion zone, it wouldn't make a single bit of difference. It was a legitimate military target - it was a navy cruiser of a nation Britain were fighting a war against!

It has been suggested this information wasn't disclosed because the British didn't want the Argentines to know that they were intercepting and deciphering their communications.

Yes, that the story thats still coming from the British government now.
IF you can believe them and trust their ONE report!

Does anyone also believe their reports too on the presence of WMD's in Sadam's Iraq also?

starbelgrade

Biggins wrote: »

Does anyone also believe their reports too on the presence of WMD's in Sadam's Iraq also?

Does Tony Blair count?

Biggins

Dotsey wrote: »

It's a tactic of divide and rule, meaning there is no opposition big enough to stand up against you because all opposition is divided. Her stance on northern Ireland did wrench up tensions to levels beyond what they should've been, she put more petrol on the fire than anyone could ever have imagine and within a few years of her going there were ceasefire's so that in itself tells it's own tale.

She wanted to break the back of the unions - at ANY price.
She didn't care what it took, what it cost in people, secondary businesses or primary coal industries.
She just waged her own war against the unions of the time and wanted to win it even if it split the whole of England and at ANY cost.

...Well she got her wish - and boy, what a price many, many had to pay so she could get her way!

Zebra3

Biggins wrote: »

I lived during her term in power, in some of the communities she utterly devastated.
She set brother against brother, father against son, divided whole families, caused GREAT hardship in money terms and emotionally.
The scars of her actions and decisions run deep still in a lot people, in a lot of areas in England still.

Yeah, but in fairness to her, she also united a lot of families in hatred of her.

Tbh, I wish we had someone as hated as her in power here that would unite people in opposition to us footing the bill for foreign banks' losses. Instead people just meekly go along with paying others gambling losses like a pack of bitches. :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Gee Bag

Zebra3 wrote: »

Tbh, I wish we had someone as hated as her in power here that would unite people in opposition to us footing the bill for foreign banks' losses. Instead people just meekly go along with paying others gambling losses like a pack of bitches. :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

If only more of us had voted for the PDs, we could be hatin' Michael McDowell right now.

Biggins

starbelgrade wrote: »

Does Tony Blair count?

I'm still in two minds as to if he was USA's lapdog to some extent and/or just as bad as the USA war machine in the Oval office at the time!

Either way, he too for his actions should be at least answerable to an international court for his complicity.

Zebra3

Biggins wrote: »

I'm still in two minds as to if he was USA's lapdog to some extent and/or just as bad as the USA war machine in the Oval office at the time!

Either way, he too for his actions should be at least answerable to an international court for his complicity.

Blair and Clinton should be in front of a war crimes court for their bombing of Belgrade. :mad::mad::mad:

BOHtox

Income for all levels rose and she stood up to the Unions and Socialists!
Hero of a woman!

awec

Biggins wrote: »

She wanted to break the back of the unions - at ANY price.
She didn't care what it took, what it cost in people, secondary businesses or primary coal industries.
She just waged her own war against the unions of the time and wanted to win it even if it split the whole of England and at ANY cost.

...Well she got her wish - and boy, what a price many, many had to pay so she could get her way!

She put the unions back in their box.

Where they should have stayed.

And, funnily enough, putting unions in their boxes didn't result in children working in sweatshops for 50p a week! Shocking! :eek: :rolleyes:

Madam

Here in Scotland she'll never be forgiven for the Poll Tax, hence Tories will never be voted into power in Scotland(thank Gawd)!

Tiocfaidh Armani

She didn’t look after her country, she looked out for her class