Margaret Thatcher has died

vills wrote:I'm an anarchist NAA.

I neither like it nor dislike it.

But it would probably be a good idea to have it.

We do, in a way, but unfortunately it is corrupted by the innately self obsessed corrupt species who use it.
Us.

What kind of democracy would you like Vils, We have established you don't want the stupid to have a vote. What criteria should a voter have??

Dimples wrote:

jackb wrote:
I think they know that and want the world to take note.
A warning to others of her ilk maybe.
In the past our respected leaders had peoples dead bodies dragged through the streets disembowled dug up and on and on the abuse went.
Not sure why you don't understand it's always been this way and inventing the suit and tie and the motr car hasn't changed human nature.
She isn't just a dead old lady she's a dead politician who caused many people much strife and protected her terrorist son from justice.
Many people will be willing to make a political point at her funereal.
I don't get what you don't understand.
She is not just some dead old lady ... far from it.

I think their points have been made already. There is no justification for turning her funeral into a riot or a demonstration and doing so won't change the past. A funeral is not the time to make political points and in any case, how can any such points even be relevant now? She left office 22 and a half years ago and she's dead, so it's not as if she can take any of that on board at her own funeral, is it? Any disruption would be borne out of nothing more than spite and a desire to cause trouble and additional distress to those who were close to her.

jackb wrote:When Saddam Hussein died many people celebrated hit his picture with shoes pissed on Saddam artifacts etc etc.
The majority of Iraqis prospered under his reign ... same with Gaddafi.
Were those people painted as being something shameful to their nation?

I don't believe you can draw any sort of realistic comparison between Saddam Hussein, a genocidal despot and Margaret Thatcher, who - whether we liked it or not - was democratically elected to serve as PM three times in succession.

Many people have long looked forward to this woman dying so they can celebrate anbd that is wht many will do.
If you go through a nation destroying many peoples lives and opportunities ... death doesn't make it all ok.
I fully understand why some might want to now disembowel her in public.
It's always been that way and I can't understand why you can't understand that Dimps.
Oh she's dead ... best show respect where no respect is due from Joe Blog.
Best pretend we aint pleased.
No ... some people will vent their fury if at all possible and do it very openly for the world to see.
Like I said in the past kings and popes had people dug up from their graves and dragged through the streets scattering their bones to the dogs.
Whats changed?
The vast majority of people in Iraq benefitted under the rule of Saddam ... the vast majority.
What the hell does democracy have to do with it?

I'm not sure what democracy is anymore or where and whether it exists.
Going to a church hall in the rain and marking a piece of paper seems to be the start and end of it for the majority.
When the bank or government say they are traking your hard erned out of the bank is that the kind of democracy we're talking about?

NAA wrote:

vills wrote:I'm an anarchist NAA.

I neither like it nor dislike it.

But it would probably be a good idea to have it.

We do, in a way, but unfortunately it is corrupted by the innately self obsessed corrupt species who use it.
Us.

What kind of democracy would you like Vils, We have established you don't want the stupid to have a vote. What criteria should a voter have??

I don't think we established that NAA.

jackb wrote:I'm not sure what democracy is anymore or where and whether it exists.
Going to a church hall in the rain and marking a piece of paper seems to be the start and end of it for the majority.
When the bank or government say they are traking your hard erned out of the bank is that the kind of democracy we're talking about?

I think the Democracy we have is exactly as Plato warned it would be at its inception. There are no surprises, it worked perfectly. It allowed a corrupt elite to manipulate a corrupt self serving uneducated underclass to keeping them in power. I'm just amazed at the advances we have made while living in a democracy.

I think you should have pass a test before your allowed to vote.
They don't let you drive a moped without passing a test and you can do far more damage with your vote than your moped!
This is where I join Tyts outside scum spotting.
I often sit in the car park listening to the radio while family shops and I do a bit of people spotting.
On appearance alone it is obvious many people are oblivious to the larger world around them.
How many vote labour cos their family always have?
That is not democracy in action.

vills wrote:

NAA wrote:

vills wrote:I'm an anarchist NAA.

I neither like it nor dislike it.

But it would probably be a good idea to have it.

We do, in a way, but unfortunately it is corrupted by the innately self obsessed corrupt species who use it.
Us.

What kind of democracy would you like Vils, We have established you don't want the stupid to have a vote. What criteria should a voter have??

I don't think we established that NAA.

It is the impression you have managed to put across in the years I have read your posts. As I understand it, you think only a very elite leftie Intelligentsia should mince their way across the planet wearing some suitably yet stylish anarchist sloganed clothing. Perhaps taking some time to sit silently whilst reading something the *stupid* would just not understand...

I am always open to new ideas Vils, I'm not a great fan of the experiment called democracy. I just haven't been convinced of anything better.

jackb wrote:I think you should have pass a test before your allowed to vote.
They don't let you drive a moped without passing a test and you can do far more damage with your vote than your moped!
This is where I join Tyts outside scum spotting.
I often sit in the car park listening to the radio while family shops and I do a bit of people spotting.
On appearance alone it is obvious many people are oblivious to the larger world around them.
How many vote labour cos their family always have?
That is not democracy in action.

Yes I think a test is a good idea, I have a feeling a great number of those youths dancing about the streets with a bottle shouting about the witch being dead would fail it though.

The Original Athenian Democracy, included only the well educated, land /business owners.

jackb wrote:

Dimples wrote:

jackb wrote:
I think they know that and want the world to take note.
A warning to others of her ilk maybe.
In the past our respected leaders had peoples dead bodies dragged through the streets disembowled dug up and on and on the abuse went.
Not sure why you don't understand it's always been this way and inventing the suit and tie and the motr car hasn't changed human nature.
She isn't just a dead old lady she's a dead politician who caused many people much strife and protected her terrorist son from justice.
Many people will be willing to make a political point at her funereal.
I don't get what you don't understand.
She is not just some dead old lady ... far from it.

I think their points have been made already. There is no justification for turning her funeral into a riot or a demonstration and doing so won't change the past. A funeral is not the time to make political points and in any case, how can any such points even be relevant now? She left office 22 and a half years ago and she's dead, so it's not as if she can take any of that on board at her own funeral, is it? Any disruption would be borne out of nothing more than spite and a desire to cause trouble and additional distress to those who were close to her.

jackb wrote:When Saddam Hussein died many people celebrated hit his picture with shoes pissed on Saddam artifacts etc etc.
The majority of Iraqis prospered under his reign ... same with Gaddafi.
Were those people painted as being something shameful to their nation?

I don't believe you can draw any sort of realistic comparison between Saddam Hussein, a genocidal despot and Margaret Thatcher, who - whether we liked it or not - was democratically elected to serve as PM three times in succession.

Many people have long looked forward to this woman dying so they can celebrate anbd that is wht many will do.
If you go through a nation destroying many peoples lives and opportunities ... death doesn't make it all ok.
I fully understand why some might want to now disembowel her in public.
It's always been that way and I can't understand why you can't understand that Dimps.
Oh she's dead ... best show respect where no respect is due from Joe Blog.
Best pretend we aint pleased.
No ... some people will vent their fury if at all possible and do it very openly for the world to see.
Like I said in the past kings and popes had people dug up from their graves and dragged through the streets scattering their bones to the dogs.
Whats changed?
The vast majority of people in Iraq benefitted under the rule of Saddam ... the vast majority.
What the hell does democracy have to do with it?

I can fully understand that she was not well liked by a vast number of people and that many of the things she did were unpopular but in spite of that she continued to be re-elected, so clearly - rightly or wrongly - there were also a lot of other people who felt that much of what she was doing was correct.

There's no need for anyone to feign respect for her passing but nor is there any need to turn her funeral into a fiasco. Nobody is suggesting that people who didn't like her should be lining the streets with their heads bowed but if they didn't like her or have respect for her there is no need for them to be anywhere near the route of her funeral cortege anyway.

We do not live in the middle ages and as far as I am aware, Lady Thatcher was was neither a King, nor a Pope... and to my knowledge she didn't order any exhumations or the defilement of anyone's corpses. We don't attend public executions, stonings or lynchings in 21st century Britain either.

Anyone old enough to have a vote in 1979, 1983 and 1987 had their chances to vote for another party with a different leader and if they had, then the history of the past 30 years may well have been very different. However, they didn't and we can't change what has gone before - and certainly not by making a ridiculous spectacle during her funeral.

There is no reason why her premiership cannot continue to be discussed, nor should we ever gloss over the legacy of Thatcherism or look back at it all with rose-tinted spectacles but surely just for one day, when she is finally laid to rest, people could allow her her family and friends to pay their respects in peace and with dignity?

NAA wrote:

vills wrote:

NAA wrote:
We do, in a way, but unfortunately it is corrupted by the innately self obsessed corrupt species who use it.
Us.

What kind of democracy would you like Vils, We have established you don't want the stupid to have a vote. What criteria should a voter have??

I don't think we established that NAA.

It is the impression you have managed to put across in the years I have read your posts. As I understand it, you think only a very elite leftie Intelligentsia should mince their way across the planet wearing some suitably yet stylish anarchist sloganed clothing. Perhaps taking some time to sit silently whilst reading something the *stupid* would just not understand...

I am always open to new ideas Vils, I'm not a great fan of the experiment called democracy. I just haven't been convinced of anything better.

Perhaps.

But nothing there about who should be let vote...

Dimples wrote:

jackb wrote:

Dimples wrote:

I think their points have been made already. There is no justification for turning her funeral into a riot or a demonstration and doing so won't change the past. A funeral is not the time to make political points and in any case, how can any such points even be relevant now? She left office 22 and a half years ago and she's dead, so it's not as if she can take any of that on board at her own funeral, is it? Any disruption would be borne out of nothing more than spite and a desire to cause trouble and additional distress to those who were close to her.



I don't believe you can draw any sort of realistic comparison between Saddam Hussein, a genocidal despot and Margaret Thatcher, who - whether we liked it or not - was democratically elected to serve as PM three times in succession.

Many people have long looked forward to this woman dying so they can celebrate anbd that is wht many will do.
If you go through a nation destroying many peoples lives and opportunities ... death doesn't make it all ok.
I fully understand why some might want to now disembowel her in public.
It's always been that way and I can't understand why you can't understand that Dimps.
Oh she's dead ... best show respect where no respect is due from Joe Blog.
Best pretend we aint pleased.
No ... some people will vent their fury if at all possible and do it very openly for the world to see.
Like I said in the past kings and popes had people dug up from their graves and dragged through the streets scattering their bones to the dogs.
Whats changed?
The vast majority of people in Iraq benefitted under the rule of Saddam ... the vast majority.
What the hell does democracy have to do with it?

I can fully understand that she was not well liked by a vast number of people and that many of the things she did were unpopular but in spite of that she continued to be re-elected, so clearly - rightly or wrongly - there were also a lot of other people who felt that much of what she was doing was correct.

There's no need for anyone to feign respect for her passing but nor is there any need to turn her funeral into a fiasco. Nobody is suggesting that people who didn't like her should be lining the streets with their heads bowed but if they didn't like her or have respect for her there is no need for them to be anywhere near the route of her funeral cortege anyway.

We do not live in the middle ages and as far as I am aware, Lady Thatcher was was neither a King, nor a Pope... and to my knowledge she didn't order any exhumations or the defilement of anyone's corpses. We don't attend public executions, stonings or lynchings in 21st century Britain either.

Anyone old enough to have a vote in 1979, 1983 and 1987 had their chances to vote for another party with a different leader and if they had, then the history of the past 30 years may well have been very different. However, they didn't and we can't change what has gone before - and certainly not by making a ridiculous spectacle during her funeral.

There is no reason why her premiership cannot continue to be discussed, nor should we ever gloss over the legacy of Thatcherism or look back at it all with rose-tinted spectacles but surely just for one day, when she is finally laid to rest, people could allow her her family and friends to pay their respects in peace and with dignity?

The family could of course refused the ceremonial funeral and chosen a small private family burial with close family and friends only. The 'state' if it wished could have had their multi million quid HOOHAH as a memorial service. Perhaps a Phone in vote like IDOL or something, see if the British tax ayer actually want to spend it..

vills wrote:

NAA wrote:

vills wrote:

I don't think we established that NAA.

It is the impression you have managed to put across in the years I have read your posts. As I understand it, you think only a very elite leftie Intelligentsia should mince their way across the planet wearing some suitably yet stylish anarchist sloganed clothing. Perhaps taking some time to sit silently whilst reading something the *stupid* would just not understand...

I am always open to new ideas Vils, I'm not a great fan of the experiment called democracy. I just haven't been convinced of anything better.

Perhaps.

But nothing there about who should be let vote...

Perhaps you should work on your communication skills, always a good thing for an aspiring writer. If you struggle to convey your meaning, no matter how poetic and glorious the words, it is a bit of a fail. Many people would have understood from your earlier post, you held the stupid majority who voted for Thatcher as being unfit to vote...

If they want peace and dignity do it privately instead of making a great public spectacle of what should be a private family affair.

NAA wrote:

Dimples wrote:

jackb wrote:
Many people have long looked forward to this woman dying so they can celebrate anbd that is wht many will do.
If you go through a nation destroying many peoples lives and opportunities ... death doesn't make it all ok.
I fully understand why some might want to now disembowel her in public.
It's always been that way and I can't understand why you can't understand that Dimps.
Oh she's dead ... best show respect where no respect is due from Joe Blog.
Best pretend we aint pleased.
No ... some people will vent their fury if at all possible and do it very openly for the world to see.
Like I said in the past kings and popes had people dug up from their graves and dragged through the streets scattering their bones to the dogs.
Whats changed?
The vast majority of people in Iraq benefitted under the rule of Saddam ... the vast majority.
What the hell does democracy have to do with it?

I can fully understand that she was not well liked by a vast number of people and that many of the things she did were unpopular but in spite of that she continued to be re-elected, so clearly - rightly or wrongly - there were also a lot of other people who felt that much of what she was doing was correct.

There's no need for anyone to feign respect for her passing but nor is there any need to turn her funeral into a fiasco. Nobody is suggesting that people who didn't like her should be lining the streets with their heads bowed but if they didn't like her or have respect for her there is no need for them to be anywhere near the route of her funeral cortege anyway.

We do not live in the middle ages and as far as I am aware, Lady Thatcher was was neither a King, nor a Pope... and to my knowledge she didn't order any exhumations or the defilement of anyone's corpses. We don't attend public executions, stonings or lynchings in 21st century Britain either.

Anyone old enough to have a vote in 1979, 1983 and 1987 had their chances to vote for another party with a different leader and if they had, then the history of the past 30 years may well have been very different. However, they didn't and we can't change what has gone before - and certainly not by making a ridiculous spectacle during her funeral.

There is no reason why her premiership cannot continue to be discussed, nor should we ever gloss over the legacy of Thatcherism or look back at it all with rose-tinted spectacles but surely just for one day, when she is finally laid to rest, people could allow her her family and friends to pay their respects in peace and with dignity?

The family could of course refused the ceremonial funeral and chosen a small private family burial with close family and friends only. The 'state' if it wished could have had their multi million quid HOOHAH as a memorial service. Perhaps a Phone in vote like IDOL or something, see if the British tax ayer actually want to spend it..

Probably because she was such a prominent public figure for so long and because of the numbers of people who would wish to attend, it would be very difficult to do that. I daresay that the result of having a large memorial service would be that the same people who would wish to disrupt a funeral would wish to do the same with a memorial service.

NAA wrote:

vills wrote:

NAA wrote: It is the impression you have managed to put across in the years I have read your posts. As I understand it, you think only a very elite leftie Intelligentsia should mince their way across the planet wearing some suitably yet stylish anarchist sloganed clothing. Perhaps taking some time to sit silently whilst reading something the *stupid* would just not understand...

I am always open to new ideas Vils, I'm not a great fan of the experiment called democracy. I just haven't been convinced of anything better.

Perhaps.

But nothing there about who should be let vote...

Perhaps you should work on your communication skills, always a good thing for an aspiring writer. If you struggle to convey your meaning, no matter how poetic and glorious the words, it is a bit of a fail. Many people would have understood from your earlier post, you held the stupid majority who voted for Thatcher as being unfit to vote...

Then many people would be missing the point...

jackb wrote:If they want peace and dignity do it privately instead of making a great public spectacle of what should be a private family affair.

No, peace and dignity is what there should be at ANY funeral, no matter how large or how small it is.

They are mourning their spiritual leader;

Let's leave them at it.

vills wrote:They are mourning their spiritual leader;

Let's leave them at it.

Who are "they"?

vills wrote:

NAA wrote:

vills wrote:

Perhaps.

But nothing there about who should be let vote...

Perhaps you should work on your communication skills, always a good thing for an aspiring writer. If you struggle to convey your meaning, no matter how poetic and glorious the words, it is a bit of a fail. Many people would have understood from your earlier post, you held the stupid majority who voted for Thatcher as being unfit to vote...

Then many people would be missing the point...

Then make your points clearer. What was your point btw?? You were either advocating voters who elected Thatcher into office were too stupid to vote or just being a frightfully snobbish snide..

Dimples wrote:

vills wrote:They are mourning their spiritual leader;

Let's leave them at it.

Who are "they"?

The tories,
the normans,
the ruling class,
the ascendancy.

NAA wrote:

vills wrote:

NAA wrote:
Perhaps you should work on your communication skills, always a good thing for an aspiring writer. If you struggle to convey your meaning, no matter how poetic and glorious the words, it is a bit of a fail. Many people would have understood from your earlier post, you held the stupid majority who voted for Thatcher as being unfit to vote...

Then many people would be missing the point...

Then make your points clearer. What was your point btw?? You were either advocating voters who elected Thatcher into office were too stupid to vote or just being a frightfully snobbish snide..

No need for that NAA;

just chatting on a Wednesday afternoon..!

Dimples wrote:

jackb wrote:If they want peace and dignity do it privately instead of making a great public spectacle of what should be a private family affair.

No, peace and dignity is what there should be at ANY funeral, no matter how large or how small it is.

Theoretically I agree. However once you claw yourself onto the world stage and become as loathed as you are admired, normality goes out of the window. Best you can hope for is damage control. This seems to be somewhat lacking from what I can see. Cameron is drumming up the Staunch Tory vote by allowing the drunken hate filled 'anarchist' left to put on this display, Especially with the memory of the riots still freshly ingrained.

vills wrote:

NAA wrote:

vills wrote:

Then many people would be missing the point...

Then make your points clearer. What was your point btw?? You were either advocating voters who elected Thatcher into office were too stupid to vote or just being a frightfully snobbish snide..

No need for that NAA;

just chatting on a Wednesday afternoon..!

No need for what Vils?? Im asking you what you meant by posting the anonymous quote. Just chatting on a wednesday afternoon sort of thing also. Surely you don't wish to be perceived as a frightful snob?? But it did seem you were playing the leftie intelligentsia trick to me.

I don't even know what the leftie intelligentsia trick is!

NAA wrote:

Dimples wrote:

jackb wrote:If they want peace and dignity do it privately instead of making a great public spectacle of what should be a private family affair.

No, peace and dignity is what there should be at ANY funeral, no matter how large or how small it is.

Theoretically I agree. However once you claw yourself onto the world stage and become as loathed as you are admired, normality goes out of the window. Best you can hope for is damage control. This seems to be somewhat lacking from what I can see. Cameron is drumming up the Staunch Tory vote by allowing the drunken hate filled 'anarchist' left to put on this display, Especially with the memory of the riots still freshly ingrained.

All the more reason to reinforce that next week's funeral should be allowed to take place without it being turned into a riot. It's only one day and surely isn't asking too much...?