Maggie Thatcher death discussion thread - Mod rules in first post

Nodin · 17-04-2013 11:46AM

Lisha wrote: »

Lol no she was beside her husband John

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2308870/Margaret-Thatcher-funeral-Sally-Bercow-snub-invite-I-dont-accompany-husband.html

And him only a little fellah....I suppose thats why shes stickin close....shed never find him in a crowd.

Lisha · 17-04-2013 11:47AM

Massive difference between the London and Dublin Billy Barry kids !

space_man · 17-04-2013 11:51AM

who the fug wrote: »

Look up the scorpion and the frog story

so us Paddys cant help being liars, or Thatcher cant help being a racist?:eek:

Happyman42 · 17-04-2013 11:58AM

AEDIC wrote: »

You would have to ask him. I could guess that he had some personal agenda and probably wouldnt be too far off...but what that is, who knows with him.

You couldn't invent the willing delusions on here,
South african ambassador gives his thoughts on meeting Thatcher = definitive proof. Peter Mandelson gives his = bluffing = 'he would say that etc etc.

Not saying that you posted the South African ambassador article, but you aren't exactly addressing it with the same rigour.

space_man · 17-04-2013 12:06PM

Happyman42 wrote: »

You couldn't invent the willing delusions on here,
South african ambassador gives his thoughts on meeting Thatcher = definitive proof. Peter Mandelson gives his = bluffing = 'he would say that etc etc.

Not saying that you posted the South African ambassador article, but you aren't exactly addressing it with the same rigour.

yes i love the way these maggie fanatics are blind/dismissive of opinions that dont suit them, but readily embrace those emanating from an evil apartheid regime.

scorpions indeed.

Riddle101 · 17-04-2013 12:09PM

Don't know if posted yet, but Frankie Boyle has been tweeting all day about Thatcher. Some funny stuff.

bnt · 17-04-2013 12:10PM

Yah, I think "definitive proof" was a bit too much, but the Telegraph piece supports what I already understood about that time and place. As events transpired, the South African government attitude was evolving, and change was possible without turning the country in to a war zone. Which is what would have happened had the Afrikaners been backed in to a corner. They were a minority, but they had most of the weapons, and they still commemorate the Battle of Blood River every year. :eek:

space_man · 17-04-2013 12:13PM

The Iron Lady made the bizarre proposal in 1985, just a year after she was nearly killed in the IRA's Brighton bomb.

In late-night talks with her advisers, the Baroness said the Oliver Cromwell-style approach would not only solve the Troubles but content nationalists who “wanted to be” in the south.

The divisive recommendation was revealed by British diplomat Sir David Goodall, then adviser to Prime Minister Thatcher.

In 2001 he told a BBC documentary: “She said, if the northern [Catholic] population want to be in the south, well why don't they move over there?

“After all, there was a big movement of population in Ireland, wasn't there?

Sir David added: “Nobody could think what it was.

“So finally I said, are you talking about Cromwell, prime minister?

“She said, that's right, Cromwell.”

Cromwell — dubbed the Butcher of Ireland — was responsible for the slaughter of tens of thousands in the 1640s and 1650s. His forces hounded virtually all Catholic landowners from Ulster through Parliamentary invasion.

The 15th political leader is seen as a hate figure among nationalists — much like Lady Thatcher, whose death saw republican street parties across the province.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/thatcher-proposed-sending-northern-ireland-catholics-to-the-republic-29196422.html

Nodin · 17-04-2013 12:14PM

bnt wrote: »

Yah, I think "definitive proof" was a bit too much, but the Telegraph piece supports what I already understood about that time and place. As events transpired, the South African government attitude was evolving, and change was possible without turning the country in to a war zone. Which is what would have happened had the Afrikaners been backed in to a corner. They were a minority, but they had most of the weapons, and they still commemorate the Battle of Blood River every year. :eek:

....the noose was tightening once the yanks threw them under the bus. Had maggie had the decency to stop them using london, the process would have happened a lot sooner.

Happyman42 · 17-04-2013 12:14PM

:D:D:D 'Sir' Mark Thatcher??? When did that happen? Iosa Chriost!

Playboy · 17-04-2013 12:15PM

space_man wrote: »

The Iron Lady made the bizarre proposal in 1985, just a year after she was nearly killed in the IRA's Brighton bomb.

In late-night talks with her advisers, the Baroness said the Oliver Cromwell-style approach would not only solve the Troubles but content nationalists who “wanted to be” in the south.

The divisive recommendation was revealed by British diplomat Sir David Goodall, then adviser to Prime Minister Thatcher.

In 2001 he told a BBC documentary: “She said, if the northern [Catholic] population want to be in the south, well why don't they move over there?

“After all, there was a big movement of population in Ireland, wasn't there?

Sir David added: “Nobody could think what it was.

“So finally I said, are you talking about Cromwell, prime minister?

“She said, that's right, Cromwell.”

Cromwell — dubbed the Butcher of Ireland — was responsible for the slaughter of tens of thousands in the 1640s and 1650s. His forces hounded virtually all Catholic landowners from Ulster through Parliamentary invasion.

The 15th political leader is seen as a hate figure among nationalists — much like Lady Thatcher, whose death saw republican street parties across the province.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/thatcher-proposed-sending-northern-ireland-catholics-to-the-republic-29196422.html

how many times are people going to jump into this thread and regurgitate articles that have already been discussed. Read the thread!

who the fug · 17-04-2013 12:15PM

Happyman42 wrote: »

:D:D:D 'Sir' Mark Thatcher??? When did that happen? Iosa Chriost!

2003 on the death of his father

LordSutch · 17-04-2013 12:16PM

Fitting send-off for a Great PM.

Happyman42 · 17-04-2013 12:17PM

who the fug wrote: »

2003 on the death of his father

Could the monarchial system be any more ridiculous?

Nodin · 17-04-2013 12:19PM

LordSutch wrote: »

Fitting send-off for a Great PM.

Triumphalist pomp and wankinstance where the only real debate is whether the one in the coffin is more vile than some in the audience.

space_man · 17-04-2013 12:20PM

Playboy wrote: »

how many times are people going to jump into this thread and regurgitate articles that have already been discussed. Read the thread!

just proving the point that she was a divisive, small-minded, bigot who had little or no understanding of Ireland or Irish people.

i know you'ld rather not be reminded of that.

bnt · 17-04-2013 12:23PM

re Cromwell: true, but it's worth pointing out that Cromwell is not remembered, in England, for what he did in Ireland. It was a sideshow, relative to the two Civil Wars and everything else going on at that time.

The Funeral seems to have been as much of a social occasion as anything else. Not many sad faces, in fact a lot of smiles and chatting among the guests. I wonder how Jeremy Clarkson got in?

17-04-2013 12:24PM

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

Why does he wait until she's dead to just release this tidbit???

because she is in the news at the moment and he was obviously asked about her in the interview. He isn't going to come out with it and an interviewer isnt going to ask about his opinion on her during a random interview in 2002 or whenever she wasn't in the news

Nodin · 17-04-2013 12:24PM

bnt wrote: »

re Cromwell: true, but it's worth pointing out that Cromwell is not remembered, in England, for what he did in Ireland. It was a sideshow, relative to the two Civil Wars and everything else going on at that time.

The Funeral seems to have been as much of a social occasion as anything else. Not many sad faces, in fact a lot of smiles and chatting among the guests. I wonder how Jeremy Clarkson got in?

Jokes about johnny foriegner, presumably.

bazza1 · 17-04-2013 12:25PM

I wouldn't be a fan of Maggie by any means, but I would like a short loan of her to act as Taoiseach and have her deal with our EU bankrollers on our behalf!

Weathering · 17-04-2013 12:29PM

LordSutch wrote: »

Fitting send-off for a Great PM.

I wasn't aware she was burned at the stake

Rascasse · 17-04-2013 12:33PM

bnt wrote: »

Yah, I think "definitive proof" was a bit too much, but the Telegraph piece supports what I already understood about that time and place.

Is there any other way to describe the proof that Thatcher didn't support Apartheid?

We have her own thoughts at the time in (what was then) a secret letter to Botha.

We have de Klerk confirming her actions to end apartheid (there was a fuller interview on BBC but iplayer is blocked here).

And now a third party in a former Labour peer and diplomat that further confirms her thoughts and actions regarding apartheid.

All evidence tells us she didn't support apartheid, and yet.....

space_man wrote: »

i don't think she gave a rat's arse about the black pop. of Sth. Africa. if apartheid facilitated trade with them that was fine by her.
if fact she would probably have supported the return of slavery if it meant better trade-links.

ABajaninCork wrote: »

... Not to mention her support for apartheid.
...

Stinicker wrote: »

Thatchers legacy in the UK: Lets see
...
Pro-apartheid (Called Nelson Mandela a terrorist) ...

seamus wrote: »

...
Like other leaders, she also had plenty of unpleasant things like supporting an apartheid regime ...

old hippy wrote: »

...her support for apartheid ...

Happyman42 · 17-04-2013 12:34PM

bazza1 wrote: »

I wouldn't be a fan of Maggie by any means, but I would like a short loan of her to act as Taoiseach and have her deal with our EU bankrollers on our behalf!

Put her in a time machine and get her to reverse the Big Bang Greedenomics she engendered that started the cycle that got us here and will keep ending with bust.

space_man · 17-04-2013 12:45PM

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/uk/thatcher-why-dont-the-irish-like-us-even-the-germans-are-friendly-28697248.html

Margaret Thatcher could not understand Irish animosity to the British considering that "even the Germans were now willing to be friends," state papers released in the Republic of Ireland reveal.

crikey! i wonder why? what could it be? they'e been such good neighbours.

regarding the Germans, think she got that one wrong also, if Mr.Kohl's recent comments are to be believed. (mind you the maggie fanatics will probably tell us Helmut just wanted his pic in the press again):rolleyes:

LOL

Happyman42 · 17-04-2013 12:46PM

Rascasse wrote: »

Is there any other way to describe the proof that Thatcher didn't support Apartheid?

We have her own thoughts at the time in (what was then) a secret letter to Botha.

We have de Klerk confirming her actions to end apartheid (there was a fuller interview on BBC but iplayer is blocked here).

And now a third party in a former Labour peer and diplomat that further confirms her thoughts and actions regarding apartheid.

All evidence tells us she didn't support apartheid, and yet.....

Like everything else with the late Maggie, it was not 'what' she did, but how she 'did' them.
Her primary concern was trade links and the flow of African resources gold platinum etc.
She sanctioned Mugabe's knighthood even after a massacre of some 20,000 tribesmen.
She only bitterly agreed to sanctions after the US congress imposed them despite her 'mate' Reagan's attempt to veto them.
Again, just like N.I. her own stubborn and ego driven beliefs led to deaths and violence that may not have happened had she succumbed to the inevitability of doing 'the right thing'

wonderfullife · 17-04-2013 12:51PM

Happyman42 wrote: »

Put her in a time machine and get her to reverse the Big Bang Greedenomics she engendered that started the cycle that got us here and will keep ending with bust.

Funny how Thatcher is to blame for 'greed' and all the 'ills' of capitalism yet 99% of the people having a go at her would jump jobs in a heartbeat for 5k/10k extra a year.

Many economic and political systems have been tried over the past 200 years and almost all of them end in "failure".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_Kingdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

Anyway those lists are pretty extensive and transpired under regimes ranging from the loony left in charge to the far right in charge.

You can go on all you want about Thatchers role in the current recession but to be fair it's minimal and many leaders in the 2 decades since her PM ended had opportunities to put it right and didn't.

As for funeral, just switched it on and saw a load of old politicians like Douglas Hurd on walking sticks going to a funeral of an old lady. Switched it off.

Happyman42 · 17-04-2013 12:55PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

Funny how Thatcher is to blame for 'greed' and all the 'ills' of capitalism yet 99% of the people having a go at her would jump jobs in a heartbeat for 5k/10k extra a year.

Many economic and political systems have been tried over the past 200 years and almost all of them end in "failure".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_Kingdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States

Anyway those lists are pretty extensive and transpired under regimes ranging from the loony left in charge to the far right in charge.

You can go on all you want about Thatchers role in the current recession but to be fair it's minimal and many leaders in the 2 decades since her PM ended had opportunities to put it right and didn't.

As for funeral, just switched it on and saw a load of old politicians like Douglas Hurd on walking sticks going to a funeral of an old lady. Switched it off.

You can defend her all you like, this is a thread about her and HER LEGACY, which is one of greed and divisiveness. Plenty of room on boards.ie to discuss the failure of others too.

wonderfullife · 17-04-2013 01:01PM

Happyman42 wrote: »

You can defend her all you like, this is a thread about her and HER LEGACY, which is one of greed and divisiveness. Plenty of room on boards.ie to discuss the failure of others too.

And how are you supposed to have a discussion about a persons legacy if you are unable to compare her legacy to that of others?

If you want to come on here and say she's to blame for the current recession due to "greedonomics" then it's fair game to respond that recessions happen under every political and financial system and equally fair game to say intervening leaders are as much, if not more, to blame as her.

Where exactly is Thatcher to blame for the sub-prime mortgage crisis, the basic starting point for this whole collapse? Where is she to blame for successive governments, Tory and Labour, not regulating the Financial Services sector?

If you want to make carte blanche sweeping statements with little basis in reality, then you have to accept counters to those.

Happyman42 · 17-04-2013 01:27PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

And how are you supposed to have a discussion about a persons legacy if you are unable to compare her legacy to that of others?

If you want to come on here and say she's to blame for the current recession due to "greedonomics" then it's fair game to respond that recessions happen under every political and financial system and equally fair game to say intervening leaders are as much, if not more, to blame as her.

Where exactly is Thatcher to blame for the sub-prime mortgage crisis, the basic starting point for this whole collapse? Where is she to blame for successive governments, Tory and Labour, not regulating the Financial Services sector?

If you want to make carte blanche sweeping statements with little basis in reality, then you have to accept counters to those.

You aren't comparing, you are dismissing criticism of her 'because others are the same or worse'.

Thatchers deregulation without built in oversight and monitoring (and she was warned about the consequences) allowed the US to dominate the financial markets, leading to the growth of derivative products and the locking together of global economies, it was only a matter of time until those markets succumbed to contagion. The sub prime fiasco could not have happened without the Big Bang.
The solution to the crisis lies in revoking the freedoms ushered in by Thatcher; more control, oversight and monitoring, which speaks for itself.

Fratton Fred · 17-04-2013 01:32PM

Happyman42 wrote: »

You aren't comparing, you are dismissing criticism of her 'because others are the same or worse'.

Thatchers deregulation without built in oversight and monitoring (and she was warned about the consequences) allowed the US to dominate the financial markets, leading to the growth of derivative products and the locking together of global economies, it was only a matter of time until those markets succumbed to contagion. The sub prime fiasco could not have happened without the Big Bang.
The solution to the crisis lies in revoking the freedoms ushered in by Thatcher; more control, oversight and monitoring, which speaks for itself.

That would have happened anyway, only the financial centre of Europe would be in Frankfurt or Paris.

Maggie Thatcher death discussion thread - Mod rules in first post

Comments