Thatcher Dead

QUOTE=zztop;806124]I said that we imported coal from Australia and car manufacturing moved overseas. I wasn't talking about manufacturing in general. Get your facts right before you try and criticise them.

.....edited because it's overlong and terribly tedious (can't you write something a bit more succinct FFS?).....

It isn't about left v right, it's about common sense.[/QUOTE]

Only a dolt would pretend it's 'common sense' - that there is one unchallengeable view. That's your problem ZZ limited mental flexibility - you have a fixed view of human nature and a narrow historical perspective.

The response Thatcher made to the challenges Britain faced was ideologically driven. Manufacturing, as Fritz says, was going to change. But look what happened in other countries who were able form better accords with workers. In France and Germany there remains extensive car manufacturing as there is in Japan where they invested in tech. You think they didn't have militant unions?
Things can be different. Sweden maintained an eye-watering level of social security without it ever leading to mass unemployment and general idleness. This is because they have a more developed social contract. And sure it's not always smooth and people fiercely debate the size of the state sector, but they are much more harmonious than we are.

That is what Thatcher failed to achieve. She could only act in the interests of a few economically and socially. Sure she co-opted some by measures like selling council houses, but largely she brought strife.

You have a fantasy view of history that somehow British workers have been lavishly paid and protected, yet look at the struggle to achieve even a statutory minimum wage (not enough to survive on without benefits) - that I bet you would roll back. Your own experience of managing people is that if you treat them well they behave well. But you don't choose to let this inform your view of history.

And don't lecture people about 'Facts'. You are not an industrial historian. You are just repeating what you have read in the papers, then and now. You have no ****ing idea how expensive British coal was then, or how cheap it could have been, or all the other overheads involved in outsourcing supply across the world, including security. So seriously STFU on that and talk about outcomes only.

But ultimately you don't really care about those you believe are unable and unwilling to better themselves. You are very clear on that. You can't disguise your contempt any more than you can disguise that you supported apartheid, probably for similar reasons. There is no society for you, nothing which makes and shapes human behaviour. No better possible world. You are truly Thatcher's child.

 

Because? Are you against homosexuality? From your post, would you be disappointed / angry if one of your children was homosexual?

 

sigh.

 

I'm not against homosexuality. I just don't want it promoted to children.

If someone genuinely prefers a man's backside to a woman's ******, then I don't believe they should be persecuted for it, but why does it have to be promoted in schools? Why?

 

My kids can be whatever God wired their brains up to be. I'll still love them regardless of who they fancy.

I don't see why I should support the promotion of sodomy in schools just to prove to fascist lefties that I'm not anti-gay.

I'm not anti-gay. No more than I'd be anti-heterosexual if I objected to lessons in **** *******.

 

Because homosexuality has been tarnished in society for years and suppressed. The education is there to let kids know that it is ok to be homosexual. The promotion you talk about, is simply a school telling kids society will accept whatever their sexuality is.

Homosexuality should be taught and supported in schools. I'm not sure it's actively promoted, however.

 

Ignore the facts, ignore common sense and sigh! Typical

 

It's the notion of 'promotion' that is false. Nobody would claim a story featuring a heterosexual family is 'promotion'.

There are gay parents. Why couldn't they be spoken of?

That's what homophobia is. The fear that you can't mention it without some otherwise heterosexual person taking it up out of, I dunno, sheer brainwashing or boredom.

 

Of course they could be spoken of. I went to school long before Section 28 was done away with, and the teachers weren't afraid of answering questions about homosexuality, and defending peoples' right to be that way if that's the way they are inclined to be.

The reason Section 28 was done away with was because loons like Peter Tatchell actually want their perversions promoted, and the stupid morons on the left enjoy the empowerment that they believe playing minority cards gives them. The best interests of children and common sense never came into it.

 

To be fair I posted that initially back on page 1. I understand now that it's not a state funeral in the way the establishment understands the term. But it's in essence the same - the military are involved, roads are closed, a procession will take place and the ceremony is in St Paul's. It's the public spending on someone so divisive that annoys me, not whether some chap in a bearskin fires his big gun a few times or not.

 

When I was at Uni, many moons ago, they had a "Gay and Proud Day" When I suggested a "Heterosexual and Proud Day" I got accused of all being a Nazi and all sorts of other things it seems that some people are more equal than others. As most student unions are left wing then I can see why I am not surprised. If a minority got refused a "special day" it would be the front cover of the student rag and someone would have been accountable!

 

I bow to your greater knowledge of the availability of 'perverted' sex manuals. I thought this issue was about representing ordinary people.

 

I hope all you commuters remembered her legacy this morning, whilst you were on an expensive train with no competition... :naughty:

 

You thought wrong then. It was about rubbing the noses of ordinary people in the ways of a minority.

It's not normal to be gay. I don't want to see anyone persecuted, but it's the wrong message to be giving kids when they're at a confusing age and full of hormones. There's an agenda behind it, and it's not a good one.

 

'Its not normal to be gay' - well chosen words there ...

 

Mooses quote;

Only a dolt would pretend it's 'common sense' - that there is one unchallengeable view. That's your problem ZZ limited mental flexibility - you have a fixed view of human nature and a narrow historical perspective.

The response Thatcher made to the challenges Britain faced was ideologically driven. Manufacturing, as Fritz says, was going to change. But look what happened in other countries who were able form better accords with workers. In France and Germany there remains extensive car manufacturing as there is in Japan where they invested in tech. You think they didn't have militant unions?
Things can be different. Sweden maintained an eye-watering level of social security without it ever leading to mass unemployment and general idleness. This is because they have a more developed social contract. And sure it's not always smooth and people fiercely debate the size of the state sector, but they are much more harmonious than we are.

That is what Thatcher failed to achieve. She could only act in the interests of a few economically and socially. Sure she co-opted some by measures like selling council houses, but largely she brought strife.

You have a fantasy view of history that somehow British workers have been lavishly paid and protected, yet look at the struggle to achieve even a statutory minimum wage (not enough to survive on without benefits) - that I bet you would roll back. Your own experience of managing people is that if you treat them well they behave well. But you don't choose to let this inform your view of history.

And don't lecture people about 'Facts'. You are not an industrial historian. You are just repeating what you have read in the papers, then and now. You have no ****ing idea how expensive British coal was then, or how cheap it could have been, or all the other overheads involved in outsourcing supply across the world, including security. So seriously STFU on that and talk about outcomes only.

But ultimately you don't really care about those you believe are unable and unwilling to better themselves. You are very clear on that. You can't disguise your contempt any more than you can disguise that you supported apartheid, probably for similar reasons. There is no society for you, nothing which makes and shapes human behaviour. No better possible world. You are truly Thatcher's child.[/QUOTE]

You are so wrong on so many levels, it's hard to know where to start, or whether I should even bother.

You are saying that I fantasize, yet, if you read my posts, I am talking about my own real life experiences. In addition to what I have already said but you have chosen to ignore (maybe because it wasn't succinct enough for you), I have worked and still do live and work in the areas that have been affected by the pit closures Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. A large portion of the people I deal with on a day to day basis have some experience of the mining situation. So, I do understand the situation. I also know that if Scargill had ballotted the workforce and got a proper mandate then they would have all stuck together and there would not have been the brother against brother, father against son conflict. My golf partner is an ex miner who told me that he was earning almost £30,000 per year in 1984, and he wasn't even on the actual pit face - about £5k more than todays average wage, (average wage was less than £10k then). He is now a Shift Manager working in a distribution depot built on the land where the former Shirebrook mine was. Doing very nicely thank you very much, earning about £42,000!

My view of unions has been formed through experience, not fantasy, as I have already explained. I have made many mistakes which has meant that my life has taken many twists and turns, and this has given me a very wide experience of life. I'd be interested to know what experience of these matters you have, because so far you give the impression of someone that may have joined in the usual crusade to London every Sunday to demonstrate in the 80's aganist whatever was the theme of the day, but not really understand what you are protesting about. The sort that would carry a banner proclaiming "Make love not war" and whack a policeman over the head with it.

Yes, I have facts at my disposal, and I have every right to lecture you, who has not come up with any evidence, or even personal experience to back up anything you have said. You have the cheek to say that I support apartheid, when I have not indicated any such thing. I spent 5 weeks in Durban in South Africain the 70's and I can tell you now, I do not support apartheid. It was terrible. What right have you got to tell me what I support? What right have you got to say that I don't care for those unable to help themselves. No right whatsoever, and you are completely wrong. I do have less care for those that are UNWILLING to help themselves but that is completely different. As usual, you have made stupid assumptions. You think that I supported Thatcher, therefore I must be evil.

You do your cause no good in your dogmatic, pathetic ideology and mistaken beliefs. It seems that you listen to all the left wing clap trap and then when a counter argument comes, you stick your fingers in your ears whilst singing "la la la la la" to yourself, so you can go merrily on your way believing that you are right.

 

You can pretend whatever you like, but don't tell me I have to pretend with you for the sake of being PC.

I'll say it again. I'm not anti-gay. That doesn't mean I have to pretend it's normal, and it doesn't mean I have to support its promotion to children. There was never anything to prevent teachers from answering questions about homosexuality. There was never anything to prevent teachers from teaching against homophobic prejudice or protecting kids from bullying.

 

Well you're doing a fine job of proving that ...

 

I'm not interested in proving anything. I'm just saying what I think. We don't see eye to eye on it, but I'm not going to change my views to keep anyone else happy.

I don't think man-on-man sodomy should be part of the sex education curriculum. I don't think adolescents should be told it's normal, and I think that even gays with a degree of common sense would agree.

 

Labour had years to put that right so how is that Maggies fault?

 

The worst thing about Thatcher's death is Derek ****ing Hatton getting airtime again.

 

:doom::dismay:

buy British English you canut! :rant:

 

Because she privatised it?

 

how the feck is it going to bolster their current standing? the amount of northern scummers who hate her are gonna hate the cons even more. The fick southerners with no brains don't like her becasue they were told not to, the taffs will feckin cry into the bristol channel and want to leave great britain becasue they got no mines to mine along with the sweaties who can just feck off anyway. Pimlico is full of foregners who don't give a feck and jimbobs veg wouldn't grow if his sprinklers went on strike on the hour every hour -

and 9/10 cats prefer whiska's..

 

I may be wrong but I did not think she was PM when that got Privatised? It is actually the one industry I think should not have been left nationalised! Too many different companies pulling in different directions!

 

What a great day - Britain is back to being Great Britian because Maggie is no longer with us..

when labour are in governement its one feckin long pregnancy - labour pains..

blairs a canut, blairs a canut, blairs a canut

I fink that geezer in North Korea would make a good leader for England.

 

would be a lot of crashes if they all went in the same feckin direction. Thank feck Ireland don't have a rail system.

iamofwfc for PM.

 

I think that was shortly after Thatcher - May be wrong, but around 92/93?

 

Ok I'll be honest, I just copied that joke from twitter haha. After looking it up it was done under Major. I hold my hands up!

 

zola for pm.

 

I wish people would stop saying she is getting a state funeral. She isn't.

She is getting exactly the same sort of funeral that Diana got.

The office of Prime Minister is the highest in the land and Thatcher held it for 11 years. It makes me laugh when I've heard people say over the last 24 hours 'oh but she divided the nation'. You don't say! She was a politician, for goodness sake..politics is devisive! So was Blair, Brown, Heath, Callaghan, Wilson et all. She's getting her military funeral next week, not because anybody's saying she was the greatest, but because she held the top job in this country for over a decade.

People might like to contrast that with the last but one person to be awarded that accolade in this country, Diana, who although was undoubtedly a nice person (I met her a couple of times) was given the military funeral despite never being elected and indeed who quit the role in British society that she had married in to. Who deserves it more I ask?

To those out on the streets celebrating Thatcher's passing..we live in a democracy, it's why we fought the pure evil and tyranny of the National Socialist Party, you have every right to express yourselves so..although I think you're 23 years too late as the lady had no real influence since 1990. Your contribution has been to protest and to cheer an old lady's passing. Somehow, I think Thatcher's contribution to life was slightly higher.

 

He could rotate the cabinet!

 

It ok, she gets blamed for everything else since 79 so may as well blame her for that as well!

If it was not for her I am sure Bas would have never owned the club, Rostren would not have got sent off, Andy Grays goal never would have stood, Milford would never have given the Penalty against Liverpool and March would have been much warmer in 2013!

 

Could he loan the cabinet from elsewhere?

 

Apparently the Vatican are going to propose her for beatification and possibly sainthood. I'd love that to happen if so.