Maggie Thatcher Is Dead.

[chiang mai]

If Thatcher made Britain so 'great' then why do neither her children Mark or Carol live here?

For similar reasons to those of most members here, I imagine.

Carol and her Swiss partner divide their time between homes Klosters and London (according to Wikipedia).

Mark? I met him last year when I was working in London near the Kings Road, he was walking from his house to his local pub and we chatted briefly about what I was doing.

So, despite what it says in his Wikipedia entry, he also has a home in London..

It certainly helps with your mother being Prime Minister.Mark Thatcher today is worth £60 Million+ leaving school in 1971 with just 3 O Levels?

Well it certainly helped him, that's for sure! Back in 1985 he received an estimated 12 million quid in an illegal kickback from an arms deal with the Saudis which his mother was negotiating as Prime Minister. Presumably 7by7 doesn't see much wrong with this, any parent would do the same! Even Denis Thatcher was appalled! He is a thoroughly nasty piece of work, barred from Switzerland, South Africa, Monaco and The US, where his children live. He would be arrested if he went there. If there was any justice he should have been arrested when he set foot back in the UK. His mother used her position as Prime Minister to enrich him, get him out of jail over the attempted coup in Equatorial Guinea where he left his mates banged up in hell hole African jails, and cover up many of his other illegal activities. And the wretch wasn't even grateful, rarely visited her in her twilight years, even left her alone for Christmas with just her carer for company. Someone who was paid to be there!

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n22/rw-johnson/her-boy

I agree in part that he's not the sort of person I would want to invite round for dinner or go out for drinks with. But since we are talking history (and presumably facts) and Margaret Thatchers involvement in it, let's be clear that the Equatorial Guinea debacle took place after Margaret left office hence she did not use her role as PM to help her son evade anything.

Also, I think it's very important to note that when Margaget left office she was nearly destitute, she had not saved (nor made much) money and she hadn't planned for life after number 10. There was I recall much concern at the time that she would not be able to live in a manner befitting her status as Britains longest serving PM (in that century) and there was much rallying as a result, exactly what happened and/or who did what to turn things around I have no idea.

[Thaddeus]

Mark Thatcher is a <deleted>; I've never denied it.

I agree and it's worth pointing out that sometimes the fruit can fall a heck of a long way from the tree.

[wigantojapan]

Thatcher insrtucted the SAS to train up Pol Pots Army.

.A policy she denied

.John Major lated admitted that YES the SAS had been training POL POTS ARMY

Is this the good or bad side of Thatcher?

Was John Major telling fibs?

Seems very probable that the SAS did start to train elements of Pol Pots army, throughout history we, along with many other western governements, have a track record of working with new governments in a range of country's, only to find out later that said government was not what we expected it to be and that after the fact, with the beneifit of hindsight we wished we hadn't been associated. So, your point is?.

NOT VERY PROBABLE FACTUAL.What do you think my point is?

[Exsexyman]

He has always denied receiving any 'kick back' from the Saudis.

Even those who say he did admit that it was offered by the Saudis without his mother's knowledge, certainly without her approval.

(Note that the piece you are linking to is obviously written by someone who is more interested in criticising his mother than actually reviewing a book!)

Mark Thatcher is a <deleted>; I've never denied it.

He traded on his mother's name and connections to his own ends; I've never denied it.

Does that make his mother bad just because she loved her son? Maybe she did pull a few strings and call in a few favours; name me one politician who would not, indeed has not, done the same for their children.

What about the MP's, from all sides, who used to employ their wives/husbands/children as researchers at the taxpayers expense?

There are lots and lots of links regarding the kick back from the Saudis. Some even with intercepted correspondence from Saudi negotiators discussing his 'commission'. But to paraphrase Mandy Rice Davies, 'he would deny it wouldn't he'. The idea that Mrs Thatcher knew nothing is laughable. Her premiership is littered with embarrassing episodes regarding her son's dodgy business dealings, and her attempts to keep them quiet. Tell me, how do you think he has accumulated an estimated fortune of 60 million plus? Remember the Cementation scandal that nearly brought her down? As for your veiled criticism of the reviewer, he is a highly respected historian and academic, and certainly no 'leftie' I suggest you check him out. You clearly have a blind spot regarding Mrs Thatcher, you should open your mind a bit.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/freedom/Story/0,,1699314,00.html

Mark Thatcher was / is a wrong un, and his mother covered up for him.

[7by7]

Your evidence that she covered up for him is?

Considering she had to answer some embarrassing questions in the commons about him; she didn't do it very well!

But, as pointed out to you by chiang mai, most of his dubious activities occurred after his mother left office!

Perhaps it is you who needs to check the facts.

Edited April 19, 2013 by 7by7

[chiang mai]

Thatcher insrtucted the SAS to train up Pol Pots Army.

.A policy she denied

.John Major lated admitted that YES the SAS had been training POL POTS ARMY

Is this the good or bad side of Thatcher?

Was John Major telling fibs?

Seems very probable that the SAS did start to train elements of Pol Pots army, throughout history we, along with many other western governements, have a track record of working with new governments in a range of country's, only to find out later that said government was not what we expected it to be and that after the fact, with the beneifit of hindsight we wished we hadn't been associated. So, your point is?.

NOT VERY PROBABLE FACTUAL.What do you think my point is?

Honestly I don't know, from memory we have helped train the armed forces of a number of countries around the world that we perhaps now regret doing so, including parts of the Iranian army under the Shah, so?

[wigantojapan]

Thatcher insrtucted the SAS to train up Pol Pots Army.

.A policy she denied

.John Major lated admitted that YES the SAS had been training POL POTS ARMY

Is this the good or bad side of Thatcher?

Was John Major telling fibs?

Seems very probable that the SAS did start to train elements of Pol Pots army, throughout history we, along with many other western governements, have a track record of working with new governments in a range of country's, only to find out later that said government was not what we expected it to be and that after the fact, with the beneifit of hindsight we wished we hadn't been associated. So, your point is?.

NOT VERY PROBABLE FACTUAL.What do you think my point is?

Honestly I don't know, from memory we have helped train the armed forces of a number of countries around the world that we perhaps now regret doing so, including parts of the Iranian army under the Shah, so?

well in todays world you can use the internet to refresh your memory if you choose .

This point is about a decision made under Margeret Hilda Thatcher

It is only one point of her many International decisions.

A decision that led to millions of people dying

It has been like i said previously PROVEN to have been a lie.denial by MARGERET HILDA THATCHER

Now,sSome people have went on about an even debate about THatcher being good/bad

I simply asked and you have not answered what i did ask( though of course you are free to do as you like) and you have not answered

I asked if this was good or bad?

I also asked if John Major ad been telling lies.

Again in your reply you have tried to deflect the initial questions by going on about other governments and their foreign policy

SO,as you put it i will not comment on

.It says a mountain of words to your integrity and for your compassion of fellow human beings

[7by7]

Regarding the Cementation affair, it is fairly obvious that, although not as open and above board as it should have been, that one of her concerns was ensuring a British company got the contract; British jobs. (Those whose sole view of Thatcher is as a job destroyer wont believe that, of course.)

The Labour front bench knew about this.

They knew that had they made it public they would probably have forced her resignation.

But they kept their mouths shut.

Why?

[7by7]

wigantojapan,

I, and others, have never denied that she was not all good.

You are now picking on a decision she made which at the time may have seemed correct but history has shown to be wrong. Forgetting, or more likely ignoring, that you have the benefit of hindsight.

Are you really so desperate to paint her as completely evil?

[chiang mai]

Seems very probable that the SAS did start to train elements of Pol Pots army, throughout history we, along with many other western governements, have a track record of working with new governments in a range of country's, only to find out later that said government was not what we expected it to be and that after the fact, with the beneifit of hindsight we wished we hadn't been associated. So, your point is?.

Thatcher insrtucted the SAS to train up Pol Pots Army.

.A policy she denied

.John Major lated admitted that YES the SAS had been training POL POTS ARMY

Is this the good or bad side of Thatcher?

Was John Major telling fibs?

NOT VERY PROBABLE FACTUAL.What do you think my point is?

Honestly I don't know, from memory we have helped train the armed forces of a number of countries around the world that we perhaps now regret doing so, including parts of the Iranian army under the Shah, so?

well in todays world you can use the internet to refresh your memory if you choose .

This point is about a decision made under Margeret Hilda Thatcher

It is only one point of her many International decisions.

A decision that led to millions of people dying

It has been like i said previously PROVEN to have been a lie.denial by MARGERET HILDA THATCHER

Now,sSome people have went on about an even debate about THatcher being good/bad

I simply asked and you have not answered what i did ask( though of course you are free to do as you like) and you have not answered

I asked if this was good or bad?

I also asked if John Major ad been telling lies.

Again in your reply you have tried to deflect the initial questions by going on about other governments and their foreign policy

SO,as you put it i will not comment on

.It says a mountain of words to your integrity and for your compassion of fellow human beings

"I simply asked and you have not answered what i did ask( though of course you are free to do as you like) and you have not answered I asked if this was good or bad?"

I am trying to provide anwers to your questions but you're not helping!

Look, if you're asking if John Major or Margaret Thatcher ever lied whilst they were in office, of course they did, tell me that you never expected them to do differently at some point in their respective tenures!

If you're asking whether it's OK that people somewhere died as a result of decisions made by Margaret Thatcher, of course they did, as indeed they did when decisions were made by any UK PM, tell me that you understood that!

If you are suggesting that Margaret Thatcher, during her time as PM, was respnsible for millionms of deaths (your words), I would insist that you support that claim with some facts and numbers (dying of old age during her tenure does not count)!

My integrity and compassion for my fellow human beings! Gimme a break <deleted>, what do you think this is, the boy scouts or a religous revival meeting or similar, it's about the facts contained in history and not about my personal attributes or lack thereof!!!

[Exsexyman]

Your evidence that she covered up for him is?

Considering she had to answer some embarrassing questions in the commons about him; she didn't do it very well!

But, as pointed out to you by chiang mai, most of his dubious activities occurred after his mother left office!

Perhaps it is you who needs to check the facts.

Did you read the link? This is not some journalist's opinion, these are official papers released under the freedom of information act. "The undelivered speech focuses on the conduct of her son, Mark, during the Oman affair, a controversy concerning his secret financial links which dogged her premiership in the mid 80s". " In the unpublished draft she admits she should not have allowed Mark to follow her around the world profiting from a British prime ministers relationships with foreign rulers. She also admits she knew that, during her official sales trip to Oman in 1981, her son was in the pay of the construction firm Cementation". " She also admitted that the Thatcher family deliberately kept Marks financial interests secret". I suggest you read it again without your rose tinted specs on! I do agree with you when you wonder why Labour didn't run with this at the time,( believe me, i hold no brief for them), shameful in my opinion, but no less than i expect. All as bad as each other is the expression that springs to mind!

As for chiangmai's claim that when she left office she was nearly destitute, well, all i can say is his arguments are becoming increasingly desperate if he expects people to believe this Hans Christian Andersen nonsense. Next he will be telling us that she had to stay home to scrub the kitchen floor while her sisters went to the ball! Her late husband died a very wealthy man, she had a mansion in Chelsea, an inflation proofed pension as ex prime minister, an office allowance of nearly the same amount, a car and police driver etc etc. She stayed on the backbenches for two years after the ones now wringing their hands stabbed her in the back. She retired from the House in 1992, and was hired by the tobacco company Philip Morris as a, 'Geopolitical consultant', for $250,000 per year. Very ethical! She also earned $50,000 for each speech she delivered, and she delivered quite a few. Hardly most peoples idea of "Destitute".

[wigantojapan]

wigantojapan,

I, and others, have never denied that she was not all good.

You are now picking on a decision she made which at the time may have seemed correct but history has shown to be wrong. Forgetting, or more likely ignoring, that you have the benefit of hindsight.

Are you really so desperate to paint her as completely evil?

Did i refer to her as completely evil,or even indicate that,,sorry but your sub conscious is coming to the fore with that little sentence.

Thatcher at the time denied it,never ever apologised for it ,never even recognised it,in other words a total denial of it.

Millions dead

[7by7]

Essexyman;

You should read everything people post and not just pick on one phrase.

As chiang mai said, and I repeated, most of Mark Thatcher's dubious activities occurred after his mother left office; so how did she cover up for him when she did not have the power to do so?

I also said that Labour were well aware of the Cementation affair, his part in it and his mother's role, too. So it wasn't covered up very well as everyone in Parliament knew about it.

Why did Labour do and say nothing?

Why did they not make it public?

Why did they not use it to force her resignation?

Wigantojapan,

Virtually every recent post of yours has been an attempt to paint her as evil; in your most recent you repeat your mantra of 'millions dead.'

Yes, we know that; now.

We can read the history; Thacher could not foretell the future.

To you both;

The lady's funeral showed how the vast majority of British people felt about her, even those who disagreed with or even vehemently opposed her politics.

You can't abide that, can you?

[cardholder]

I guess that now Maggie is dead, and has been buried, this thread can be put to rest to avoid any irrelevant sniping about her offspring or other non-topic matters.

Just sayin...............

[SteeleJoe]

This thread was quite...something. But I just had a thought - imagine what it will be like on this forum or one(s) like it when George W. Bush dies...

I'd bet the public reaction in the states won't be like what was seen in the UK in this instance - but online?

Edited April 19, 2013 by SteeleJoe

[shaun77]

I guess that now Maggie is dead, and has been buried, this thread can be put to rest to avoid any irrelevant sniping about her offspring or other non-topic matters.

Just sayin...............

Yes everyone as had their say

Close the thread

[SeaVisionBurma]

This thread was quite...something. But I just had a thought - imagine what it will be like on this forum or one(s) like it when George W. Bush dies... I'd bet the public reaction in the states won't be like what was seen in the UK in thai instance - but online?

Well I can imagine the mods here would be rather busy if that happened.

BUT - it hasn't, so lets get back onto the topic of Margaret Thatcher.

I imagine this thread, like others, will eventually run out of steam.

[wigantojapan]

Essexyman;

You should read everything people post and not just pick on one phrase.

As chiang mai said, and I repeated, most of Mark Thatcher's dubious activities occurred after his mother left office; so how did she cover up for him when she did not have the power to do so?

I also said that Labour were well aware of the Cementation affair, his part in it and his mother's role, too. So it wasn't covered up very well as everyone in Parliament knew about it.

Why did Labour do and say nothing?

Why did they not make it public?

Why did they not use it to force her resignation?

Wigantojapan,

Virtually every recent post of yours has been an attempt to paint her as evil; in your most recent you repeat your mantra of 'millions dead.'

Yes, we know that; now.

We can read the history; Thacher could not foretell the future.

To you both;

The lady's funeral showed how the vast majority of British people felt about her, even those who disagreed with or even vehemently opposed her politics.

You can't abide that, can you?

The ladys funeral showed how the vast majority of British people respect the idea of a Christian style funeral

Nothing more ,,nothing less

Now that that has passed you will see the vast majority were opposed to her politics.

,then and now

VAST MAJORITY being your words of course.

The freedom of information act is available for you to look at 30 years after the events.

I dont need to look at many of them because i and many of my friends ,fellow human beings knew about them then,spoke out about them then,went to prison for speaking about them then..

so who cant abide what

She showed through her policies what kind of human she was

The myth of the Iron Lady

The reality that caused numerous sufferings,deaths in the UK as a direct result of her policies and death to millions in S.Africa and Cambodia etc.

All under the disguise that the Unions had to be dealt with

Aye i,m all right jack and you

[Exsexyman]

Essexyman;

You should read everything people post and not just pick on one phrase.

As chiang mai said, and I repeated, most of Mark Thatcher's dubious activities occurred after his mother left office; so how did she cover up for him when she did not have the power to do so?

I also said that Labour were well aware of the Cementation affair, his part in it and his mother's role, too. So it wasn't covered up very well as everyone in Parliament knew about it.

Why did Labour do and say nothing?

Why did they not make it public?

Why did they not use it to force her resignation?

Wigantojapan,

Virtually every recent post of yours has been an attempt to paint her as evil; in your most recent you repeat your mantra of 'millions dead.'

Yes, we know that; now.

We can read the history; Thacher could not foretell the future.

To you both;

The lady's funeral showed how the vast majority of British people felt about her, even those who disagreed with or even vehemently opposed her politics.

You can't abide that, can you?

I give up. Did you read my post, or the link to the freedom of information papers? Which part of ' A controversy concerning his secret financial links which dogged her premiership in the mid 80s'. do you not understand? As the lady herself admitted, "She should not have allowed Mark to follow her around the world profiting from a British prime ministers relationships with foreign rulers". While she was a serving prime minister, not after she had retired. There are none so blind as those who do not wish to see!. And i agreed with you regarding the Labour Party's inaction. They should have forced the issue, one can only speculate as to why they didn't. Too many awkward skeletons of their own would be my guess. However this does not excuse the actions of Thatcher and son.

[SteeleJoe]

This thread was quite...something. But I just had a thought - imagine what it will be like on this forum or one(s) like it when George W. Bush dies... I'd bet the public reaction in the states won't be like what was seen in the UK in thai instance - but online?

Well I can imagine the mods here would be rather busy if that happened.

BUT - it hasn't, so lets get back onto the topic of Margaret Thatcher.

I imagine this thread, like others, will eventually run out of steam.

Sorry. That was by no means an attempt to change the topic. I just thought this one was done.

I'll go back to avoiding all this...

[wigantojapan]

Well i hope people have learned something on this thread.

Even though a lot of it has been unbalanced ,there has been a lot of links to official papers that paints and tells a truer story .

There is a ton of evidence out there and thank god for the new technology that will reveal to the world what is really happening and people dont need to wait for 30 years to get their hands or eyes on documents hidden to the public under the disguise of national security.

Thatcher like every human being had choices

.She chose the path of violence as a way to an end and anyone who stood in her way

new laws ,regulations were brought in to crimalise opponents and the public who didnt believe in her way,which sorry to say was the majority of the UK public..

Gandhi took down the British Empire with a grain of salt.

He also believed in what he stood for,He was unbending

Thanks for all the people who have opened the eyes of others

We know who you are

Them that want to re write History for their own benefit,we didnt fall for it as teenagers and we dont fall for it now.

For someone who caused so much pain so much suffering to her fellow Brit as well as people in far distant lands so few could benefit,

stripping them of dignity and their basic right to work in the name of progress under the disguise of nationalism

sending men to war who didnt need to die

and still in this day with all the chaos ,hatred, division breaking up of communities caused by these same self selfish politics

you come on here and elsewhere i would suppose and deny everything

shame on you

[7by7]

wigantojapan;

You seem to be saying that you went to prison for discussing the Cementation affair! Really?

Deaths in the UK? How, and how many?

Millions of deaths in South Africa! What millions of deaths in South Africa? How did she cause these deaths? She was an outspoken critic and opponent of apartheid. She just thought that economic sanctions were not the way to deal with it or the South African government of the time. Read what South African politicians, F. W. De Klerk for example, have to say about her and her South Africa policies.

Her support, at the time, of Pol Pot may have contributed to the later genocide in Cambodia, no one is denying that here, but did she know that would happen? Doubtful.

Sending people to war? A war she didn't start. A war to liberate British subjects whose homes had been invaded and were subject to a military dictatorship. You'll be blaming Chamberlain for the Second World War next; after all, it was he who declared war on Germany! And he was a Tory, though I doubt he would have approved of Thatcher. Lower middle class and a woman; I wonder which he would have hated her for more.

Yes, you are correct that the truth is there for all to see; try reading some of it. Then you will know that, despite her mistakes, the UK was in a better state at the end of her time in office than it was at the start of it.

Essexyman;

I would guess that Labour kept quiet for the same reason that the Conservatives did; a British contract and British jobs were at stake; not just that one contract but probable future ones, too.

Edited April 19, 2013 by 7by7

[MAJIC]

The behavior of those lining the streets, many of whom had traveled from all parts of the country to be there, showed that 99%+ were there to mourn and show their respects, even if they did not share the Baroness' politics.

Less than 1% turned their backs or made other protests.

That must really stick in the craw of certain posters here!

I'm sure you will continue with your efforts to whitewash her,but i'm afraid at least half the population will continue to disagree with you,and let's hope that now the funeral is over,that the misery and division she caused the British people,and the Myth can also be laid to rest,once and for all.

[wigantojapan]

7 by 7 one death is one death too many ,,so no need to ask how many?

Do your own investigation if you desire

.

,like i said the truth is out there

.It always was

[7by7]

You're very good with the ignorant rants, wigantojapan; not so good on actual facts.

[7by7]

Majic,

You and others can continue to ignore the good she did, not just for this country but in the wider world.

I'll continue looking at both sides.

[Thaddeus]

7 by 7 one death is one death too many ,,so no need to ask how many?

So, now you are down scaling?

[Thaddeus]

The behavior of those lining the streets, many of whom had traveled from all parts of the country to be there, showed that 99%+ were there to mourn and show their respects, even if they did not share the Baroness' politics.

Less than 1% turned their backs or made other protests.

That must really stick in the craw of certain posters here!

I'm sure you will continue with your efforts to whitewash her,.

No one is trying to whitewash her, but some are trying to blame her for everything, which is wrong..... end of.

[sustento]

The behavior of those lining the streets, many of whom had traveled from all parts of the country to be there, showed that 99%+ were there to mourn and show their respects, even if they did not share the Baroness' politics.

Less than 1% turned their backs or made other protests.

That must really stick in the craw of certain posters here!

I'm sure you will continue with your efforts to whitewash her,but i'm afraid at least half the population will continue to disagree with you,and let's hope that now the funeral is over,that the misery and division she caused the British people,and the Myth can also be laid to rest,once and for all.

That's assuming that her detractors will ever let us.

[Rajab Al Zarahni]

Well i hope people have learned something on this thread.

Even though a lot of it has been unbalanced ,there has been a lot of links to official papers that paints and tells a truer story .

There is a ton of evidence out there and thank god for the new technology that will reveal to the world what is really happening and people dont need to wait for 30 years to get their hands or eyes on documents hidden to the public under the disguise of national security.

Thatcher like every human being had choices

.She chose the path of violence as a way to an end and anyone who stood in her way

new laws ,regulations were brought in to crimalise opponents and the public who didnt believe in her way,which sorry to say was the majority of the UK public..

Gandhi took down the British Empire with a grain of salt.

He also believed in what he stood for,He was unbending

Thanks for all the people who have opened the eyes of others

We know who you are

Them that want to re write History for their own benefit,we didnt fall for it as teenagers and we dont fall for it now.

For someone who caused so much pain so much suffering to her fellow Brit as well as people in far distant lands so few could benefit,

stripping them of dignity and their basic right to work in the name of progress under the disguise of nationalism

sending men to war who didnt need to die

and still in this day with all the chaos ,hatred, division breaking up of communities caused by these same self selfish politics

you come on here and elsewhere i would suppose and deny everything

shame on you

"She chose the path of violence........" ! Rather she stood up to bullies like Scargill and Galtieri. She was a tough negotiator with the EU. Tell me a Prime Minister who has not at some time had to send our servicemen to a theatre of war! Tell me a Prime Minister who has not at some time had to make a difficult economic or political decision that have resulted in someones unemployment! Your eloquence in putting your case is matched only by the poverty of it's content. Have you just studied George Galloway or are you a relative?