Maggie Thatcher death discussion thread - Mod rules in first post

Nodin · 09-04-2013 12:23AM

true wrote: »

, no - what are you getting at?
............

Right then......

Once there was a man who we'll call Mussolini. He started lots of works around a country. Imagine Irish people went there to work. Does this make Mussolini a wonderful person?

LordSutch · 09-04-2013 12:23AM

Best to keep it superficial with him, he's a real head wrecker if you answer "his" questions! a very tricky customer.

Don't engage is my advice.

Fred Cohen · 09-04-2013 12:24AM

true wrote: »

She offered Sands free food and he refused it. What an insult to all the starving people in the world at the time. Do not forget Sands and his comrades did not offer the choice of life or death to their victims. Say what you want about Mrs T, but she was greatly respected from Gorbachev to Reagon - now that was something.

She refused to release free food from the food mountain during the live aid appeal.

true · 09-04-2013 12:24AM

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Margaret Thatcher, love her or loathe her, was one of the most influential people (forget politician) of the 20th century - a woman playing in a "man's world" who not only reshaped the UK, but was a powerful figure internationally who was instrumental in ending the Cold War

She transformed the UK from a nation that was on its knees and could well have ended up a basket case like Greece (or even "modern" Ireland?) had she not had the determination to stand up to the Unions and demand that people contribute positively to the state - it's ironic the complaining about this on this forum today considering the never-ending stream of whinging about welfare spongers, single mothers and what not.

All this bile is ridiculous given half of you were no doubt toddlers (if even around in those days - I was born in the mid-70s myself so was aware of the fall of the Berlin Wall and other key events of the 80s.. plus I've always been interested in modern history) when she was in power, and you're looking at her actions with the attitudes of a society 30 years older - rife with political correctness and more "enlightened" than the early to late 80s that we're talking about.. a time when homosexuality wasn't accepted - by anyone. A time when military action to solve disputes was deemed acceptable statecraft (the situation in NK at the moment for example would never have gotten as far as it has back then).

As for the Irish question.. ye all seem to conveniently forget that the Irish "soldiers" weren't angels either and again, military action and occupation was still deemed acceptable in those days - although as society "evolved" it's become less so, hence eventual peace talks and now the other extreme where the aforementioned NK despot is threatening the Asian/American seaboard with nuclear weapons while the International Community stands around tut-tutting about it.

She was far from perfect, but I don't think even her most loyal supporters have claimed that (certainly not in anything I've seen today), but she was what the UK - possibly the world if we consider the threat of nuclear Armageddon which was very real in those days) needed in her time and even her critics have acknowledged that .. even if they don't necessarily agree with her methods in the fullness of time.

If we had politicians with even a fraction of her steel we'd be in a much better place than the spineless corrupt servile bunch we are stuck with now.

But by all means, continue the abuse AH

Excellent post, probably the one of the best in this thread although I have not read them all. And on that note, Goodnight and continue the abuse AH.

wylam · 09-04-2013 12:26AM

Can nothing be discussed on this forum without it descending into a farcical combination of rubbish posts, idiotic jokes and constant jibs at each other over the silliest things . its a joke.

[-0-] · 09-04-2013 12:27AM

P_1 wrote: »

Ah but they deserved it for the accent :pac:

Very strange example to be using as a comparison to Sands though.

I agree - Sands was arrested for being in a car with a handgun.

The person I quoted was talking about IRA victims, which is why I brought up Cromwell's massacre.

LordSutch · 09-04-2013 12:29AM

[-0-] wrote: »

I agree - Sands was arrested for being in a car with a handgun.

The person I quoted was talking about IRA victims, which is why I brought up Cromwell's massacre.

Cromwell died in 1658.

_Kaiser_ · 09-04-2013 12:30AM

wylam wrote: »

Can nothing be discussed on this forum without it descending into a farcical combination of rubbish posts, idiotic jokes and constant jibs at each other over the silliest things . its a joke.

AH is (in my opinion) as it stands, the biggest failing of Boards.ie for precisely that reason. It's why I rarely even look at it, never mind post in it.

All that crap is "ok " because it's "funny" or a few dozen/hundred people thank it :rolleyes:

There's nothing wrong with blowing off a little steam or having an opinion, but having read some of the vicious immature shte in this and the "mega" thread, there are a lot of people in Ireland who have a lot of growing up to do, and Boards should consider what exactly it wants to be associated with.

My 2c anyway

Fred Cohen · 09-04-2013 12:30AM

Scotland wasn't always Labour. Consearvitive policy towards north sea oil and investment played a big part.

P_1 · 09-04-2013 12:32AM

[-0-] wrote: »

I agree - Sands was arrested for being in a car with a handgun.

The person I quoted was talking about IRA victims, which is why I brought up Cromwell's massacre.

Fair enough massively different cultural, societal and political conditions were evident between the two though.

Bloody Sunday would probably have been a better example to use.

Now if you wanted to compare something to Cromwell's sacking of Drogheda try the sacking of York

wonderfullife · 09-04-2013 12:40AM

K-9 wrote: »

Greatly respected?

She was the USA's puppy dog, same as East Germany was the USSR'S.

Britian parrot's the USA line as Romania or East Germany parrot's the USSR line, same as GB loves the USA line. WMD's, who fecking cares about evidence and all that stuff? The US, says, the UK follows like an obedient guide dog.

I know from the Liverpool threads you are no fan of Maggie but that's a very blinkered view of actual events you're taking there.

Thatcher was no poodle on the scale of Blair. Without her, Gorbachev and Reagan would not have met nor moved the situation forward. She really was instrumental in that regard.

She had the foresight to invite Gorbachev to London in 1984, a full year before he became General Secretary of the Communist Party. She had the foresight to see this was a moderate who would be willing to engage with the west. She was the first major world leader to go to Moscow after Gorbachev took over.

So, no, very unlike Tony Blair she was no poodle following Regan around saying yes, sir/no, sir. She led from the front and stood up for her beliefs and nations interests. Even in Reagans own words, he described how much he valued her guidance.

This woman was far too pig-headed and headstrong to be told what to do by anybody. So you're way off the mark on this one (imo).

Seachmall · 09-04-2013 12:42AM

wylam wrote: »

Can nothing be discussed on this forum without it descending into a farcical combination of rubbish posts, idiotic jokes and constant jibs at each other over the silliest things . its a joke.

Chaotic exchange is the necessary precursor to a refined consensus.

And while there's no chance of getting past the first step there's no reason why it shouldn't at least contain dick jokes.

K-9 · 09-04-2013 12:42AM

Thatcher hadn't a clue what she was dealing with in the hunger strikes.

Many Boards posters don't have a clue what they are posting about, will never understand the Hunger Strike mentality, Hume understood, Unionists didn't give a bollicks.

A Hunger Strike resonates with Irish people, nationalist/Republican, FF/FG/SF/SDLP.

Thatcher hadn't a clue of what she was getting into.

squod · 09-04-2013 12:45AM

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

AH is (in my opinion) as it stands, the biggest failing of Boards.ie for precisely that reason. It's why I rarely even look at it, never mind post in it.

All that crap is "ok " because it's "funny" or a few dozen/hundred people thank it :rolleyes:

There's nothing wrong with blowing off a little steam or having an opinion, but having read some of the vicious immature shte in this and the "mega" thread, there are a lot of people in Ireland who have a lot of growing up to do, and Boards should consider what exactly it wants to be associated with.

My 2c anyway

No doubt history will be re-written anyway. It always is. Thatcher will come off as some sainted bluddy role model. Your wish will come true.

AngeGal · 09-04-2013 12:46AM

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

AH is (in my opinion) as it stands, the biggest failing of Boards.ie for precisely that reason. It's why I rarely even look at it, never mind post in it.

All that crap is "ok " because it's "funny" or a few dozen/hundred people thank it :rolleyes:

There's nothing wrong with blowing off a little steam or having an opinion, but having read some of the vicious immature shte in this and the "mega" thread, there are a lot of people in Ireland who have a lot of growing up to do, and Boards should consider what exactly it wants to be associated with.

My 2c anyway

Given your earlier praise for Thatcher, your criticism of boards is rather ironic as you seem to suggest there should be greater regulation over the opinions of users.

wonderfullife · 09-04-2013 12:49AM

AngeGal wrote: »

Given your earlier praise for Thatcher, your criticism of boards is rather ironic as you seem to suggest there should be greater regulation over the opinions of users.

Pissing on her grave isn't an opinion, it's just pure vitriolic hate.

And Kaiser is right Boards don't want to be associated with that and the Mods have made that more than clear.

_Kaiser_ · 09-04-2013 12:49AM

AngeGal wrote: »

Given your earlier praise for Thatcher, your criticism of boards is rather ironic as you seem to suggest there should be greater regulation over the opinions of users.

Read what I said again rather than trying to take it of context.

"There's nothing wrong with blowing off a little steam or having an opinion" - my complaint is with the childish, vicious immature bile being spouted by some posters here.. which is presumably why the earlier thread was locked.

Where did I say you can't express an opinion? Is it so hard to do so constructively?

AngeGal · 09-04-2013 12:59AM

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Read what I said again rather than trying to take it of context.

"There's nothing wrong with blowing off a little steam or having an opinion" - my complaint is with the childish, vicious immature bile being spouted by some posters here.. which is presumably why the earlier thread was locked.

Where did I say you can't express an opinion? Is it so hard to do so constructively?

I read perfectly fine, thanks for your concern.

"Boards should consider what exactly it wants to be associated with" would suggest to me, along with the general tenor of the rest of your post, that Boards should implement some sort of system whereby only posters who meet some sort of standard, whatever that may be, would be allowed to post on here.

This would quite clearly be greater regulation over users of the website. Now you may have a point regarding your criticisms of certain posts. I did not take issue with that. I merely stated it was ironic that someone on here defending Thatcher would call for enhanced regulation in the very same thread.

ETA - Obviously any new standard implemented would go further than the current rules of the forum.

SimonTemplar · 09-04-2013 12:59AM

Look, clearly she has made enemies and mistakes and peopke are angry but some of the comments in the media are woeful.

That guy who is the secretry of the Durham miners association who said that her death is the best birthday present is just sick.

[-0-] · 09-04-2013 01:01AM

LordSutch wrote: »

Cromwell died in 1658.

Indeed, on September 3rd.

Zebra3 · 09-04-2013 01:01AM

LordSutch wrote: »

Ah no, not a dodge, more like a magnetc bomb attached to underside of his car!

Mercury tilt switch.

true wrote: »

And Airey Neave was not the only one of her friends killed by the PIRA.

Nope, that was the INLA.

She was deeply upset about his death, but unmoved by the 30,000 Pinochet slaughtered and disappeared.

How honourable. :rolleyes:

_Kaiser_ · 09-04-2013 01:06AM

AngeGal wrote: »

I read perfectly fine, thanks for your concern.

"Boards should consider what exactly it wants to be associated with" would suggest to me, along with the general tenor of the rest of your post, that Boards should implement some sort of system whereby only posters who meet some sort of standard, whatever that may be, would be allowed to post on here.

This would quite clearly be greater regulation over users of the website. Now you may have a point regarding your criticisms of certain posts. I did not take issue with that. I merely stated it was ironic that someone on here defending Thatcher would call for enhanced regulation in the very same thread.

Well without getting totally off-topic...

De-regulation (referring to the Thatcher era) doesn't mean anarchy - which is what this and the mega thread descended into before the latter was locked and this one being full of posters being (rightly) banned for some of their "contributions"

Given that there are several other forums on Boards (Politics and the Irish Economy being 2 examples) where there are in fact very strict guidelines about what can be posted, I don't see any issue with the Mods/Admins/Owners of the site insisting that some of the crap that has been said in these threads is unacceptable.

Boards.ie is after all a business, not a playground and if I was an owner in it, I'd be conscious of what I was being associated with by allowing some of this rubbish to continue unchallenged.

Anyway, not the place for this I'm sure so I'll leave it there

K-9 · 09-04-2013 01:06AM

wonderfullife wrote: »

I know from the Liverpool threads you are no fan of Maggie but that's a very blinkered view of actual events you're taking there.

Thatcher was no poodle on the scale of Blair. Without her, Gorbachev and Reagan would not have met nor moved the situation forward. She really was instrumental in that regard.

She had the foresight to invite Gorbachev to London in 1984, a full year before he became General Secretary of the Communist Party. She had the foresight to see this was a moderate who would be willing to engage with the west. She was the first major world leader to go to Moscow after Gorbachev took over.

So, no, very unlike Tony Blair she was no poodle following Regan around saying yes, sir/no, sir. She led from the front and stood up for her beliefs and nations interests. Even in Reagans own words, he described how much he valued her guidance.

This woman was far too pig-headed and headstrong to be told what to do by anybody. So you're way off the mark on this one (imo).

Ah I don't know, I think Maggie was a poodle between Gorby and Reagan. She kind of was just there, bit like France, might be important, vaguely significant, but all the while looking at Germany, and going, we used to be as significant as Germany

France got it right, disagree with the Brits, Americans and Russians, you can't lose.

K-9 · 09-04-2013 01:10AM

Zebra3 wrote: »

Mercury tilt switch.

Nope, that was the INLA.

She was deeply upset about his death, but unmoved by the 30,000 Pinochet slaughtered and disappeared.

How honourable. :rolleyes:

Airey Neave was the INLA as was Dominic Mc Glinchey. An irrelevance for Thatcher.

Rosy Posy · 09-04-2013 01:20AM

As far as her policies were concerned, what got me most was that she made massive spending cuts on social welfare and other areas effecting the lives of Britain's poorest in the name of economic reform, and then went and blew millions on a pointless war in the Falklands. It shows a callous lack of regard for the lives and welfare of her subjects.

As a woman, I think that she actually damaged the feminist cause by advocating that for a woman to succeed in the 'man's world' of politics she had to become more ruthless and even lower the register of her voice, denying her feminine qualities and embracing those of a man. I hated that the 'Iron Lady' film was shown in the context of her relationship with her husband and of her reliance on a man.

But I am sorry for the loss of her family and hope that her spirit is at peace.

AngeGal · 09-04-2013 01:21AM

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Well without getting totally off-topic...

De-regulation (referring to the Thatcher era) doesn't mean anarchy - which is what this and the mega thread descended into before the latter was locked and this one being full of posters being (rightly) banned for some of their "contributions"

Given that there are several other forums on Boards (Politics and the Irish Economy being 2 examples) where there are in fact very strict guidelines about what can be posted, I don't see any issue with the Mods/Admins/Owners of the site insisting that some of the crap that has been said in these threads is unacceptable.

Boards.ie is after all a business, not a playground and if I was an owner in it, I'd be conscious of what I was being associated with by allowing some of this rubbish to continue unchallenged.

Anyway, not the place for this I'm sure so I'll leave it there

To attempt to bring this back on topic then, I would suggest the levels of deregulation which Thatcher pursued and implemented did indeed cause anarchy, as seen through the financial crisis.

end of the road · 09-04-2013 01:52AM

LordSutch wrote: »

She stood up to the IRA

yeah, she stood up to them all right, so much so that they keppt up their bombing campaign

LordSutch wrote: »

introducing Privitisation

yeah, privatisation of essential services who's proffits go over seas, and who a large percentage of people are in debt to their suppliers because of over inflated prices due to profitiring, fantastic

K-9 · 09-04-2013 02:06AM

People don't realise how lucky she was in 84. If she'd stayed in the same place as she did before in the Grand Hotel, she was gone. MaGee did everything right.

The only reason she was moved higher up in the hotel was miners protests. It's a fascinating storey, it only takes the IRA to get lucky, but in this case Maggie got lucky. All it took was a bomb in a bath panel.

rusheen · 09-04-2013 02:10AM

K-9 wrote: »

People don't realise how lucky she was in 84. If she'd stayed in the same place as she did before in the Grand Hotel, she was gone. MaGee did everything right.

The only reason she was moved higher up in the hotel was miners protests. It's a fascinating storey, it only takes the IRA to get lucky, but in this case Maggie got lucky. All it took was a bomb in a bath panel.

What do you think would have happened had it got her?

Seachmall · 09-04-2013 02:12AM

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Boards.ie is after all a business, not a playground and if I was an owner in it, I'd be conscious of what I was being associated with by allowing some of this rubbish to continue unchallenged.

Dev has mentioned a few times that he aims to allow the least restricted discussions he can without ending up in court every other week.

Everything after that is down to the mods.

Maggie Thatcher death discussion thread - Mod rules in first post

Comments