Maggie Thatcher Is Dead.

[marstons]

I had no idea that EUFA listened to her! Nothing to do with Heysel then?

The actions of her government towards football and its working class roots was catastrophic as you should well know.

The cover up has already been apologised for many years later again as you well know.

Your comment is shameful.

What actions by her government against football and it's "working class routes?" (The first rules for what became Association Football were drawn up at Cambridge University; not very working class!)

What part did she play in the cover up?

I'll tell you something. On the night of 29th April 1985 I sat down to watch a football match on TV; on what I saw horrified me.

Then on 15th April 1989 I sat down to watch another football match. Do you know what my initial reaction to the events was? "Oh no; not again! Why must they do this? Why do a minority want to spoil it for the rest?"

It was only as events unfolded and details emerged, albeit 'edited' details to hide the culbability of the police in charge, that I saw that my initial reaction was wrong.

Am I ashamed of that initial reaction? No; I feel it was a natural one given the history of Liverpool fans and the and the prevalence of football related violence at the time. I am also sure that it was a reaction shared by most of those watching at the time.

What is shameful is that all these years later you use the disaster in an attempt to score pitiful debating points. You are the one who should be ashamed.

A history which is still prevalent, as the Champions league final in Athens showed when LFC again stormed the gates an the stadium was over crowded. All she did was try and bring things under control. Had fans not constantly invaded pitches to fight the fences would not have happened. How she can be blamed for that is beyond me as is a comment about celebrating another human beings death.

[folium]

The British working man stopped believing in a fair days work for a fair days pay, and we got what we deserved.............some of the industrial practises of the time were absolutely beyond belief.

I sat in a canteen in 1984 in BSC Ravenscraig and watched a vicious fight take place during a Union meeting, the Communists, ( yes we had communists, red stars on their caps, the whole works ) were demanding that we come out on strike to support the Miners. Other men objected as the miners had refused to support our Steel strike in 1980, one word led to another and a mass brawl broke out.

Entertaining as it was for an 18 year old to watch I'll never forget one guy saying, " the idea is a simple one, come to work, do your job, get paid, go home, not come to work and look for any excuse to go out on strike ".

I would suggest that just about anyone who was involved in the heavy industries during the 70's and 80's could tell you horror stories, deliberate sabotage, ( a regular occurrence in our steel works ) petty strikes, blah blah.....it was just unbelievable at times.

We working men were our own worst enemy, and if you don't believe that, you weren't there.

In the early days Thatcher had no choice, she had to do what she did re British nationalized industries.

She lost the plot later though with the poll tax, allowing Nigel Lawson to turn on the credit tap, and talking tough on Europe while folding behind the scenes. She stayed on for one election too many, it's as simple as that.

Oh dear me, I agree with everything you say!

Britain by the late 1970's was in a terrible state and Thatcher, for all her later mistakes, had the balls to sort out the mess. Many eggs were broken to make the omelette but that' s always the way...RIP

[marstons]

How about we discuss her authorisation of the sinking of the Belgrano, killing over 300 people at a time it was over 370km away from the Falklands, outside exclusion zones?

Seriously, the woman was simply nasty.

Maybe she should have waited until it had sunk a British ship, the information was clear does it present a threat to UK forces, yes it did. The planes that sunk the British war ships came from outside the exclusion zone.

[smokie36]

Shall we get into her support of Apartheid and how she labeled Mandela a terrorist?

Mandela is the living person whom I admire more than any and one of my personal heroes of all time.

But he was, by definition, arguably a terrorist.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

That is a thin argument.

How so? Use of violence to attain a political outcome (if I may paraphrase and simplify): Terrorism.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

History will not paint him with that title as you well know....same as Thatcher will not be given the title of a champion of human rights.

[Jingthing]

Look, this lady made a lot of political enemies in life (including me) and it's no surprise given that her political ideology and legacy still lives today that even in death she STILL has enemies.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/04/08/margaret_thatcher_state_funeral_former_pm_will_have_a_full_ceremonial_funeral.html

Edited April 8, 2013 by Jingthing

[A_Traveller]

Oddly or not the people really involved in the events, seem to have different opinions from those who seem to revel in her death, fine wine or not, FW de Klerk has just said "Although she [baroness Thatcher] was always a steadfast critic of apartheid, she had a much better grasp of the complexities and geo-strategic realities of South Africa than many of her contemporaries. ... more could be achieved through constructive engagement with the South African government than through draconian sanctions and isolation. She also understood the need to consider the concerns and aspirations of all South Africans in their search for constitutional consensus.

For this reason she was able to play a positive role in supporting our own process of non-racial constitutional transformation in South Africa. From my first meeting with her in London after my election as leader of the National Party in 1989 and throughout the rest of her tenure as Prime Minister, she gave strong and valued to support to me and to all other leaders who were working for a peaceful, prosperous, and constitutional future for South Africa."

But what does he know.

Edited April 8, 2013 by A_Traveller

[SteeleJoe]

Shall we get into her support of Apartheid and how she labeled Mandela a terrorist?

Mandela is the living person whom I admire more than any and one of my personal heroes of all time.

But he was, by definition, arguably a terrorist.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

That is a thin argument.

How so? Use of violence to attain a political outcome (if I may paraphrase and simplify): Terrorism.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

History will not paint him with that title as you well know....same as Thatcher will not be given the title of a champion of human rights.

Whether it is true that "history will not paint him with that title" or not, that is not at all relevant to my post and has little real concern for me. But if that is true it is only because an absurd and fallacious dichotomy has been accepted between "freedom fighters" and "terrorists" and they have become emotive political rhetoric rather than useful designations. A terrorist uses terrorism. The latter is definable. Whether something meets that definition or not has nothing to do with whether the actions are justified /and or the ultimate goals of those employing such means are admirable or worthy of sympathy.

As founder and leader of Umkhonto we Sizwe, it can be argued that he was a terrorist. Not as an inherently pejorative label but a simple description of tactics endorsed or initiated by him.

I think he is a hero and I also think he will be remembered as such and should be. I also think he may be rightfully called a one-time terrorist (and could be both at the same time).

You've offered zero argument. And as for your straw man, I don't care what title Margaret Thatcher is given.

Edited April 8, 2013 by SteeleJoe

[SteeleJoe]

Error.

Edited April 8, 2013 by SteeleJoe

[Totster]

How about we discuss her authorisation of the sinking of the Belgrano, killing over 300 people at a time it was over 370km away from the Falklands, outside exclusion zones?

You do understand the concept of war.. right?

I'm sure you haven't forgotten HMS Sheffield..

totster

Edited April 8, 2013 by Totster

[SteeleJoe]

Error.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[wooloomooloo]

How about we discuss her authorisation of the sinking of the Belgrano, killing over 300 people at a time it was over 370km away from the Falklands, outside exclusion zones?

Seriously, the woman was simply nasty.

We were at war and the Argentines weren't on a summer cruise heading for the Caribbean. Was the right decision in wartime.

Not a well thought out post, naboo.

[smokie36]

Shall we get into her support of Apartheid and how she labeled Mandela a terrorist?

Mandela is the living person whom I admire more than any and one of my personal heroes of all time.

But he was, by definition, arguably a terrorist.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

That is a thin argument.

How so? Use of violence to attain a political outcome (if I may paraphrase and simplify): Terrorism.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

History will not paint him with that title as you well know....same as Thatcher will not be given the title of a champion of human rights.

Whether it is true that "history will not paint him with that title" or not, that is not at all relevant to my post and has little real concern for me. But if that is true it is only because an absurd and fallacious dichotomy has been accepted between "freedom fighters" and "terrorists" and they have become emotive political rhetoric rather than useful designations. A terrorist uses terrorism. The latter is definable. Whether something meets that definition or not has nothing to do with whether the actions are justified /and or the ultimate goals of those employing such means are admirable or worthy of sympathy.

As founder and leader of Umkhonto we Sizwe, it can be argued that he was a terrorist. Not as an inherently pejorative label but a simple description of tactics endorsed or initiated by him.

I think he is a hero and I also think he will be remembered as such and should be. I also think he may be rightfully called a one-time terrorist (and could be both at the same time).

You've offered zero argument. And as for your straw man, I don't care what title Margaret Thatcher is given.

Why should I have to offer an argument?

This isn't Question Time.

[Bwanatickey]

Told You it is going to be a year of funerals for leaders of last century. Who is next?

[Chicog]

Her great privatisation drive lined the pockets of her mates, and don't even get me started on the Falklands. The hag has the blood of our troops on her hands. Sent from my GT-N7000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Unlike the Champagne Socialists, and Blair got far more of our boys in peril supporting the war on terror.

Trust me, I'm no fan of that oily <deleted> either.

[Chicog]

Oddly or not the people really involved in the events, seem to have different opinions from those who seem to revel in her death, fine wine or not, FW de Klerk has just said "Although she [baroness Thatcher] was always a steadfast critic of apartheid, she had a much better grasp of the complexities and geo-strategic realities of South Africa than many of her contemporaries. ... more could be achieved through constructive engagement with the South African government than through draconian sanctions and isolation. She also understood the need to consider the concerns and aspirations of all South Africans in their search for constitutional consensus.

For this reason she was able to play a positive role in supporting our own process of non-racial constitutional transformation in South Africa. From my first meeting with her in London after my election as leader of the National Party in 1989 and throughout the rest of her tenure as Prime Minister, she gave strong and valued to support to me and to all other leaders who were working for a peaceful, prosperous, and constitutional future for South Africa."

But what does he know.

And her son and her friends were making good coin down there lest we forget.

[folium]

Her great privatisation drive lined the pockets of her mates, and don't even get me started on the Falklands. The hag has the blood of our troops on her hands. Sent from my GT-N7000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

X2.

The Falklands war was about privately owned mineral rights, as John Major knew to his personal profit.

I was more referring to her carving up the military and leaving the islands undefended, then using the same troops and that scumbag Murdoch to get reelected.

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Lots of claims, little evidence...."carving up the military", "using same troops"..... Please clarify.

By the early 1980's British interest in the Falklands was barely registering, so little to support the resource driven conspiracy story. Had the Argentines waited a few years the Britsvwould have probably given them the islands, Coalite or not....

[SteeleJoe]

Shall we get into her support of Apartheid and how she labeled Mandela a terrorist?

Mandela is the living person whom I admire more than any and one of my personal heroes of all time.

But he was, by definition, arguably a terrorist.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

That is a thin argument.

How so? Use of violence to attain a political outcome (if I may paraphrase and simplify): Terrorism.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

History will not paint him with that title as you well know....same as Thatcher will not be given the title of a champion of human rights.

Whether it is true that "history will not paint him with that title" or not, that is not at all relevant to my post and has little real concern for me. But if that is true it is only because an absurd and fallacious dichotomy has been accepted between "freedom fighters" and "terrorists" and they have become emotive political rhetoric rather than useful designations. A terrorist uses terrorism. The latter is definable. Whether something meets that definition or not has nothing to do with whether the actions are justified /and or the ultimate goals of those employing such means are admirable or worthy of sympathy.

As founder and leader of Umkhonto we Sizwe, it can be argued that he was a terrorist. Not as an inherently pejorative label but a simple description of tactics endorsed or initiated by him.

I think he is a hero and I also think he will be remembered as such and should be. I also think he may be rightfully called a one-time terrorist (and could be both at the same time).

You've offered zero argument. And as for your straw man, I don't care what title Margaret Thatcher is given.

Why should I have to offer an argument?

This isn't Question Time.

You don't "have to" do anything of the sort and I didn't suggest that you did. I pointed that you dismiss my comment and when I ask you why, you gave me a reply that did nothing to rebut my posit or buttress yours.

No, it isn't "question time". It's a forum where the point, I thought, is to exchange views or ignore them. You did neither. Your prerogative, of course.

No worries.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Edited April 8, 2013 by SteeleJoe

[smokie36]

Shall we get into her support of Apartheid and how she labeled Mandela a terrorist?

Mandela is the living person whom I admire more than any and one of my personal heroes of all time.

But he was, by definition, arguably a terrorist.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

That is a thin argument.

How so? Use of violence to attain a political outcome (if I may paraphrase and simplify): Terrorism.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

History will not paint him with that title as you well know....same as Thatcher will not be given the title of a champion of human rights.

Whether it is true that "history will not paint him with that title" or not, that is not at all relevant to my post and has little real concern for me. But if that is true it is only because an absurd and fallacious dichotomy has been accepted between "freedom fighters" and "terrorists" and they have become emotive political rhetoric rather than useful designations. A terrorist uses terrorism. The latter is definable. Whether something meets that definition or not has nothing to do with whether the actions are justified /and or the ultimate goals of those employing such means are admirable or worthy of sympathy.

As founder and leader of Umkhonto we Sizwe, it can be argued that he was a terrorist. Not as an inherently pejorative label but a simple description of tactics endorsed or initiated by him.

I think he is a hero and I also think he will be remembered as such and should be. I also think he may be rightfully called a one-time terrorist (and could be both at the same time).

You've offered zero argument. And as for your straw man, I don't care what title Margaret Thatcher is given.

Why should I have to offer an argument?

This isn't Question Time.

You don't "have to" do anything of the sort and I didn't suggest that you did. I pointed that you dismiss my comment and when I ask you why, you gave me a reply that did nothing to rebut my posit or buttress yours.

No, it isn't "question time". It's a forum where the point, I thought, is to exchange views or ignore them. You did neither. Your prerogative, of course.

No worries.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

My point was that the victors write the history books. Mandela will be remembered as a freedom fighter....in particular in South Africa. No one there is going to describe him as a terrorist.

How will Thatcher be remembered in history books? Churchill had his faults and lost a General Election too. Say in fifty years time....what will be said?

[Chicog]

Her great privatisation drive lined the pockets of her mates, and don't even get me started on the Falklands. The hag has the blood of our troops on her hands. Sent from my GT-N7000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

X2.

The Falklands war was about privately owned mineral rights, as John Major knew to his personal profit.

I was more referring to her carving up the military and leaving the islands undefended, then using the same troops and that scumbag Murdoch to get reelected.

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Lots of claims, little evidence...."carving up the military", "using same troops"..... Please clarify.

By the early 1980's British interest in the Falklands was barely registering, so little to support the resource driven conspiracy story. Had the Argentines waited a few years the Britsvwould have probably given them the islands, Coalite or not....

From Cabinet records from 1981, release under the 30 year rule:

Admiral Leach sent the prime minister a forthright note in May 1981 regretting that she was too busy to see him and begging that she spend "two minutes" reading his letter.

"The [defence cuts programme] has been devised ad hoc in two months," he wrote. "It has neither been validated nor studied in depth. No alternative options have been considered.

"It has all been done in a rush. Such unbalanced devastation of our overall defence capability is unprecedented; it must cause serious doubts concerning US reactions in the context of your own conventional assurance and successful negotiation of the Trident project so important to our country.

"We are on the brink of a historic decision. War seldom takes the expected form and a strong maritime capability provides flexibility for the unforeseen. If you erode it to the extent envisaged I believe you will undesirably foreclose your future options and prejudice our national security."

His note was copied to the defence secretary, John Nott, who also received warnings from Carrington about the risks of withdrawing the icebreaker HMS Endurance.

The rest is history. Her cuts gave the Argies an unofficial green light, and then she benefited from the wave of xenophobia in sending a task force to take them back (at much greater expense) by winning the next election. At the cost of 255 British lives.

Good riddance.

[MAJIC]

She advanced feminism.

Actually Jingthing one of her famous quotes was: "I owe nothing to Feminism"But she did instruct Local Councils to put young pregnant girls to the top of the Council Housing lists,which resulted in thousands getting themselves pregnant,and claiming the Benefits. A seriously bad decision.

[SteeleJoe]

My point was that the victors write the history books. Mandela will be remembered as a freedom fighter....in particular in South Africa. No one there is going to describe him as a terrorist.

How will Thatcher be remembered in history books? Churchill had his faults and lost a General Election too. Say in fifty years time....what will be said?

Well, I'll (barely) resist the urge to get all pedantic about the ol' victors dictating history bit (I know why people say it, and there is SOME basis to it but it's not very accurate, especially in this day and age).

I think "Freedom Fighter" is pointless and stupid cliche. But again, whether people will remember him as such or what they call him in South Africa is irrelevant to my post or the one I was replying to.

And neither Margaret Thatcher's nor Churchill's future characterization has anything to do with it either. But if you are asking my opinion, I'll have to withhold it on Thatcher as I think it too early to say and as I am not really qualified to opine. On Churchill, I would suspect the view won't be much different from now: a hero to many, a villain to some - and to still others (like me) both, but a colossus of history and an indispensable world shaper.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[smokie36]

My point was that the victors write the history books. Mandela will be remembered as a freedom fighter....in particular in South Africa. No one there is going to describe him as a terrorist.

How will Thatcher be remembered in history books? Churchill had his faults and lost a General Election too. Say in fifty years time....what will be said?

Well, I'll (barely) resist the urge to get all pedantic about the ol' victors dictating history bit (I know why people say it, and there is SOME basis to it but it's not very accurate, especially in this day and age).

I think "Freedom Fighter" is pointless and stupid cliche. But again, whether people will remember him as such or what they call him in South Africa is irrelevant to my post or the one I was replying to.

And neither Margaret Thatcher's nor Churchill's future characterization has anything to do with it either. But if you are asking my opinion, I'll have to withhold it on Thatcher as I think it too early to say and as I am not really qualified to opine. On Churchill, I would suspect the view won't be much different from now: a hero to many, a villain to some - and to still others (like me) both, but a colossus of history and an indispensable world shaper.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Well I will tell you then. She will be a forgotten figure.

[SteeleJoe]

My point was that the victors write the history books. Mandela will be remembered as a freedom fighter....in particular in South Africa. No one there is going to describe him as a terrorist.

How will Thatcher be remembered in history books? Churchill had his faults and lost a General Election too. Say in fifty years time....what will be said?

Well, I'll (barely) resist the urge to get all pedantic about the ol' victors dictating history bit (I know why people say it, and there is SOME basis to it but it's not very accurate, especially in this day and age).

I think "Freedom Fighter" is pointless and stupid cliche. But again, whether people will remember him as such or what they call him in South Africa is irrelevant to my post or the one I was replying to.

And neither Margaret Thatcher's nor Churchill's future characterization has anything to do with it either. But if you are asking my opinion, I'll have to withhold it on Thatcher as I think it too early to say and as I am not really qualified to opine. On Churchill, I would suspect the view won't be much different from now: a hero to many, a villain to some - and to still others (like me) both, but a colossus of history and an indispensable world shaper.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Well I will tell you then. She will be a forgotten figure.

1) I don't care if she is. Nothing to do with my post.

2) I think that's preposterous.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[Chicog]

Let's not forget that she was also an avid pioneer of the sort of casino banking that has us in the sh*t today.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Chicog

[folium]

Her great privatisation drive lined the pockets of her mates, and don't even get me started on the Falklands. The hag has the blood of our troops on her hands. Sent from my GT-N7000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

X2.

The Falklands war was about privately owned mineral rights, as John Major knew to his personal profit.

I was more referring to her carving up the military and leaving the islands undefended, then using the same troops and that scumbag Murdoch to get reelected.

Sent from my GT-N7000 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Lots of claims, little evidence...."carving up the military", "using same troops"..... Please clarify.

By the early 1980's British interest in the Falklands was barely registering, so little to support the resource driven conspiracy story. Had the Argentines waited a few years the Britsvwould have probably given them the islands, Coalite or not....

From Cabinet records from 1981, release under the 30 year rule:

Admiral Leach sent the prime minister a forthright note in May 1981 regretting that she was too busy to see him and begging that she spend "two minutes" reading his letter."The [defence cuts programme] has been devised ad hoc in two months," he wrote. "It has neither been validated nor studied in depth. No alternative options have been considered."It has all been done in a rush. Such unbalanced devastation of our overall defence capability is unprecedented; it must cause serious doubts concerning US reactions in the context of your own conventional assurance and successful negotiation of the Trident project so important to our country."We are on the brink of a historic decision. War seldom takes the expected form and a strong maritime capability provides flexibility for the unforeseen. If you erode it to the extent envisaged I believe you will undesirably foreclose your future options and prejudice our national security."His note was copied to the defence secretary, John Nott, who also received warnings from Carrington about the risks of withdrawing the icebreaker HMS Endurance.

The rest is history. Her cuts gave the Argies an unofficial green light, and then she benefited from the wave of xenophobia in sending a task force to take them back (at much greater expense) by winning the next election. At the cost of 255 British lives. Good riddance.

But sadly for your version of events HMS Endurance was still in theFalklands when the Argentines invaded as were 2 RM platoons. The fact that the Argentines invaded before Endurance was withdrawn indicates that they were operating to a domestic agenda more than one dictated by John Nott's defence review of 1981. The Falklands had never had a major garrison in modern history as they were deemed too insignificant, compared to say the SBAs in Cyprus.

Gloating over anyone's death does you few favours....

Edited April 8, 2013 by folium

[folium]

Let's not forget that she was also an avid pioneer of the sort of casino banking that has us in the sh*t today.

So what would be your recommendation as to how the British economy should be constructed?

[Neeranam]

All I really remember was she using Scotland as a guinea-pig for that stupid poll-tax. That put me off her for good but RIP.

[Jingthing]

She advanced feminism.

Actually Jingthing one of her famous quotes was: "I owe nothing to Feminism"But she did instruct Local Councils to put young pregnant girls to the top of the Council Housing lists,which resulted in thousands getting themselves pregnant,and claiming the Benefits. A seriously bad decision.

Yes but feminism owes something to her.

[folium]

She advanced feminism.

Actually Jingthing one of her famous quotes was: "I owe nothing to Feminism"But she did instruct Local Councils to put young pregnant girls to the top of the Council Housing lists,which resulted in thousands getting themselves pregnant,and claiming the Benefits. A seriously bad decision.

Yes but feminism owes something to her.

Somehow I feel that neither the feminist movement nor Thatcher would ever lay claim to owing something to the other. Thatcher's philosophy was far more pragmatic...identify what needed to be done and get on with it, irrespective of whether you are black, brown, Jewish, Sikh, female or transgender! The key issue was execution, function not form.

[nontabury]

All I really remember was she using Scotland as a guinea-pig for that stupid poll-tax. That put me off her for good but RIP.

You need to read 7by7 excellent post No 82,this is a very good example why in fact the so-called poll tax was a good and fair tax. Unfortunately the parasites did not like it, they then got their own way,thus leading to the economic mess created by those scotsmen Blair and Brown.