Flashy, pull your head out of her arse too. The woman is an evil bitch. Just for the Belgrano alone, she deserves no pity.
You can support someone who thought that an evil scumbag like Pinnochet was ok, if you want. That's your choice. And you can call me a 'sad, pathetic little man', if it eases your conscience, if you like.
But woe betide you ever end up in poverty, mate, or living under a totalitarian fascist regime, where you may be tortured for having views that differ from your Glorious Leader.
Supporter of Thatcher = Apologist for murder.
Touchpaper lit...
(Retires to safe distance)
So it's ok for other people in foreign lands to mine it, then?
The sooner we become dependent on other energy sources the better.The stuff is dangerous to get at...and it stinks !
You have not put a true reflection on what the funeral will be like...you have missed out the grand horse drawn carriage ... i don't see any failed Labour prime ministers being awarded a state funeral.
Just think if a socialist was given a state funeral,the funeral director would probably be on strike anyway.Maybe you could use some coal we don't need anymore to cremate some of the champagne socailists.Won't be long till John "heart attack waiting to happen" Prescott snuffs it !!
I was simply pointing out that it was not solely Mrs T that closed mines down.I think some people think that she was the only person to close pits.
I wasn't aware that many people thought that.
However Thatcher was of course solely responsible for the complete destruction of the British coal industry. And since RudeBoy had simply said : "industry which was about to be shut down" I can't see why you felt that there was a need to pull him up about it.
But hey ..... you're now saying that Thatcher only did it because of her deep concern for British workers working in "such conditions" ? LOL !
I like it ! ....... when your political argument fails, turn to comedy instead !
Just think if a socialist was given a state funeral,the funeral director would probably be on strike anyway.
Why now bring 'socialism' onto the argument ?
This has nothing to do with 'socialism' it's about Thatcher and her deep hatred for British workers.
From the same article as I've previously quoted :
"[i]Robens pointed out the economics of the problem and the need for huge investment and pit closures, saying: 'Prime minister, if I take this job, given the problems, I'm never going to get the industry to balance its books.' Macmillan looked at him and replied: 'My dear boy, you will have to blur the figures, blur the edges.'[/i]"
Now of course Macmillan was a Conservative prime minister. But he saw the British mining industry as part of "the family silver", as he called it.
Are you bitter about the closure of coalbrookdale,despite the fact we don't build things out of iron anymore or the closure of the ship builders of the south who made ships out of wood ?? even though we don't need them anymore ? What about the hundreds of other industries that have fallen by the way as a result of evolution ?
Of course not, they weren't "Thatchers Fault"
she deserves no pity.
Aye Fred, a woman breaks down all the political barriers, defeats the glass ceiling, brings an end to the cold war and the constant threat of Nuclear annihilation, defends the rights of a dependent colony invaded by a foreign facist power (ie, rather than invading other countries on false claims), defeats the Trotskyite unions, brings home owning to the masses, cures the sick man of Europe, and - most importantly of all invents Mr Whippy Ice Cream!
What a **** she was!
I'm not sure whether 'bitterness' comes into it. I'm more concerned about sound politics.
And I'm not sure about the point you're trying to make - I've already told you that Britain uses approximately the same amount coal today, as we were using when Thatcher started to destroy the industry. I can't be arsed to give you links but if you do a search you'll see that coal consumption is about the same - maybe very slightly down, but in essence about the same.
However for intents and purposes, we don't produce coal anymore.
Oh dear. Labrat's been let out again... 🙄
Supporter of Pinnochet, supporter of Apartheid, denied schoolchildren a vital source of nutrition, masterminded the sale of vital social housing stock, closed hospitals, shut down industries, failed to invest in the nation's infrastructure, sold off all the state-owned utilities, encouraged selfishness and greed, masterminded the deregulation of the banks, sold weapons to third-world dictators, supported the racist policies of Enoch Powell, presided over huge unemployment and poverty, and increasing crime, ordered the murder of over 600 Argentinian sailors in a boat sailing [i]away[/i] from the Falklands, severely damaged the NHS, failed to invest adequately in Education, introduced the Poll tax, scrapped the GLC despite overwhelming numbers of Londoners opposed to such a plan, and bore a son who has been involved in all sorts of mercenary nastiness.
Lovely woman!
To be honest RudeBoy, I'm little surprised that Labrat is clearly such a huge fan of Thatcher.
I had no idea - I would have assumed that she was probably a bit too left-wing for him 😕
LOL! Good point, GG! 😀
BTW, whoever's posting the lovely tags about me, well done. Very clever. Hope you're pleased with your efforts, 'cos they mustuv taken an enormous effort for your little brain to come up with! Give yourself a pat on the back, you deserve it.
And, as they will probbly disappear, here they are, just so's everyone can see how intelligent and clever they are:
[b]'Hope RudeBoys mum dies'[/b]
So, you know my real name; you may have even met me. Shame, that you're not someone with the guts to actually say such things to my face, then.
Of course, you could use this as an opportunity to reveal your own true identity, if you've got the balls. And how you know me.
Or, you could remain a spineless coward, and hide behind the anonymity of tags; not even coming up with that stuff in a post, where your identity is clear.
What a lovely, happy bunny you are...
[i]Are you bitter about the closure of coalbrookdale,despite the fact we don't build things out of iron anymore or the closure of the ship builders of the south who made ships out of wood ??[/i]
I must be behind the times - I thought we still used a fair amount of fossil fuels?
Fred, you see this is where your arguments fall apart - in your desire to paint her as a demon, you end up saying things which are demonstrably not true!
Apartheid - go and read the letters she actually wrote to Pik Botha, she far from supported any form of apartheid or racist policies!
Belgrano - over 600? - no 323 Argentinean sailors lost on the Belgrano!
Powell - refused to give him a place on the Cabinet!
Regardless - you can't take away the Mr Whippy! THats gotta be worth everything surely...
Poverty - Higher under Blair than Thatcher
That tag is utterly uncalled for. Whoever put it there, please remove it immediately.
I agree with the "remove the tagging" thing,although i haven't got a clue where you are looking.
Aye Fred, a woman breaks down all the political barriers, defeats the glass ceiling, [b]brings an end to the cold war and the constant threat of Nuclear annihilation[/b]
Priceless 😆 I can't think of a single PM in post WWII history, more likely to bloody mindedly lead us into WWIII.
Flash, whilst having had [b]nothing[/b] to do with the tag - I'd say its entirely called for - Fred was calling for someone to die - if I think back to the Jade Goody thread, then its pretty fair to say thats crass hypocrisy, someone's mum, someone's family - willing on their death, pretty sick in my opinion.
PS. - Wondering why Fred is so worried about his real name being mentioned on the web, that he even edited his own post to remove the tab with it in? Especially when he then goes out to condemn people for hiding behind anonymity!
Belgrano - over 600? - no 323 Argentinean sailors lost on the Belgrano!
So I got a number wrong. Only 323? Oh, well that's ok then, eh?
South Africa: Thatcher's stance on this is confusing. On one hand, she refused to impose economic sanctions agaist SA, entertained Pik Botha at Chequers, and labelled Mandella a 'terrorist', and on the other, she called for Mandela's release, and claimed the British Government was 'opposed to racial segregation'. TBh, she was more concerned with British economic interests in SA, than she was of the plight of black South Africans.
Powell; had she given him a place on her cabinet, she wooduv undoubtedly lost support. She supported his views previously, mind.
As for poverty, well, depends on how you assess the matter. I think those who actually suffered povery in Thatcher's Britain might have something to say against the claims that it was worse under Blair (who's a berk, as well, btw).
She was, and still is, a nasty, selfish, uncaring person. Who has the blood of many, on her greedy, grasping dirty little hands.
Labby and Flashy (and any other Thatcher supporters); all well and good voicing support for her on here, but would you feel quite as vociferous, in places where people suffered as a result of her policies?
Thought not. Much safer to do so, from the comfort and safety behind yer keyboard, eh?
Flash, whilst having had nothing to do with the tag - I'd say its entirely called for
Because of course, my mum is guilty of the same crimes as Thatcher, right?
Difference is, my mum hazzunt ordered the murder of hundreds of people, or been involved in activities that have lead to the slaughter of countless others.
Am I out of order, for wishing Thatcher dead? I'm not the only one, and I'm sure many on this forum would echo my thoughts. People rejoiced when Saddam Hussein was executed; are they 'evil' as well?
I have no problem with people having a pop at me on here, because the truth is, it's the only place where you could, and get away with it. And tbh, some of my best mates slag me off far worse than I usually get on here. So, water off a duck's back, and all that.
But speak ill of my family or loved ones, and you just show yourself to be a pathetic coward. I pity you.
Labby; I'm not that bothered by your opinions, really, considering your past performance. Your hardly a fine, upstanding man, deserving of much respect, are you?
PS. - Wondering why Fred is so worried about his real name being mentioned on the web, that he even edited his own post to remove the tab with it in? Especially when he then goes out to condemn people for hiding behind anonymity!
My real name is [b]Aziz[/b].
What's yours?
BTW; wunundred!
Come on Fred, what about the Mr Whippy!
[img] 
[/img]
PS: Real name Kieran, and as for comments like:
Then I'd simply ask what the **** you would know about my personal life, however you'll note I don't feel the need to try and throw personal abuse at you every time a discussion gets a little close to the bone...your hardly a fine, upstanding man, deserving of much respect, are you?
How has this veered away from targetting the corrupt scum fleecing the public purse onto a history debate and general slagging of RudeBoy?
He's got his views, the Thatcher-lovers have theirs. She is [b]*history*[/b], concentrate on the ones drinking fine wines now at our expense whilst ordinary people lose their jobs and homes.
Since apartheid has been mentioned - is anybody else a bit ashamed of our lack of involvement in sorting out Zimbabwe, given our propensity to act as world police elsewhere?
Come on Fred, what about the Mr Whippy!
I bet you will normally have paid someone, before uttering those words Labrat.
Although I find your repeated reference to Thatcher's involvement with research into ice cream production interesting.
Because as we all know, Thatcher's research involved finding ways of inflating ice cream with air so that it would appear that there was more, than there actually was.
So long before she became 'the milk snatcher', Thatcher was earning an honest living trying to figure out new ways of ripping off children of their pocket money.
How extraordinary fitting.
No worries, coyote. I think it's a bit sad, that people allow themselves to get so worked up over stuff I post, which, I'll admit, may be a little provocative, of occasion.
I don't lose sleep over what someone posts on here. Mostly, I find it amusing, sometimes tiresome and occasionally there's stuff that is out of order. But people rarely post owt of any significant consequence. it's a forum for blethering, and the occasional bit of proper deep philosophical discussion. Oh, and bikes, if you're that way inclined.
But I can switch it off. Pity some others seem to lack this ability...
Well put, Coyote!
RudeFredBraBoy, I can assure you that the tag was not me, though I would hope that you already know that I would not stoop to that sort of level!
Flashy; you may have certain political and/or social views that may differ from mine, but what I am sure of, is that you're not malicious or dishonourable. I had no doubt that you had nothing to do with such vile spite. You're far too much of a gentleman, to stoop that low.
You, I'd have a drink with. I suspect we'd actually have a lot more in common, than we both realise!
Indeed, I would imagine so as well. Although I would have trouble if your speech is as poor as your punctuation! 😉
Now, back on topic -
How much does a TV cost?
Mine was about £800, I think. So how on earth did Kaufman think it was acceptable to buy one at nearly £9,000 and claim for it?
Am I out of touch with TV costs or something?
Actually I'm interested in the cost of an armchair Flash. Quote from the Telegraph :
[i]And what of the “£800 massage chair?” How did that fit in, he was politely asked by an interviewer. He replied: “You see, I’d have more respect for you if you were honest about the figures. You know full well it is £730.”[/i]
LOL ! ...... do you think that he had to bite his bottom lip to stop grinning after saying that ?
BTW, have we agreed that this whole expenses mess is Thatcher's fault ? Although obviously New Labour are at fault for not scrapping it.
Oh .... and there was a very interesting letter in yesterday's Independent highlighting what a massive pay cut Vince Cable had to accept when he gave up his job as Chief Economist for Shell to become an MP.
Why are so few people concerned about the comparatively low wages MPs receive ? If they really want to get on and double their wages, MPs have to become ministers. Which must kind of make it very tempting to put grovelling to the party leader, before serving the interests of your constituents 😕
ernie_lynch - Member
Actually I'm interested in the cost of an armchair Flash. Quote from the Telegraph :And what of the “£800 massage chair?” How did that fit in, he was politely asked by an interviewer. He replied: “You see, I’d have more respect for you if you were honest about the figures. You know full well it is £730.”
LOL ! ...... do you think that he had to bite his bottom lip to stop grinning after saying that ?
That was, I have to say, utterly hilarious television!
£8000 for a TV is in the realms of buying your own cinema i.e not possible
Funny how Labour MPs have come out as the most corrupt from all this
Lanesra, I'm not so sure they have, to be honest. The loser here is the entire house of Commons.
Meanwhile, in the other place, Labour peers certainly have come out as the most corrupt recently.
The Commons, however? I think it's all parties who are at fault.
Lanesra, I'm not so sure they have, to be honest. The loser here is the entire house of Commons.
Or more accurately, the taxpayer.
Labour peers certainly have come out as the most corrupt recently
But wasn't that because the NotW only attempted to entrap Labour peers, and made no attempt to do the same to Tory peers ?
If they did, then I reckon we should know the names of the Tory peers who refused to accept money from NotW undercover reporters - they should surely be applauded for their honesty and integrity.
It will be interesting to see how people vote in the upcoming local/euro elections.The tories were kicked out in '97 due to sleeze and now that all the three main parties have been seemingly caught up in more sleeze,will people look to minor parties ? Surely people can't conplain about all this mess and continue to vote mainstream.I think alot will depend on the media and how much coverage they are willing to give to minor parties.
Ernie, IIRC there were Lib, Con and Ind peers who turned it down, as well as one Lab peer. Will have to go and have a look when the rugby's finished.
Yeah please do Captain, I can only find that they approached 5 peers, all of them Labour.
The Lords, Labour MP's have two members excluded (the first time since 1642)
Expenses, Elliot Morley, Margret Moran, Hazel Blears, **** from today, Shahid Malik (lots more to come out about him), Tam Dyel £18,00 for a book case the day before he retired etc etc..
But wasn't that because the NotW only attempted to entrap Labour peers, and made no attempt to do the same to Tory peers ?If they did, then I reckon we should know the names of the Tory peers who refused to accept money from NotW undercover reporters - they should surely be applauded for their honesty and integrity.
Nu Labour snouts in the trough. Thatcher was right, I hope to god you lefties/communists etc never get in again, as you've been responsible for the two worst recessions/unemployment figures that this country has ever seen
Nu Labour snouts in the trough. Thatcher was right
I didn't think Thatcher ever talked about "snouts in the trough", but tell me about it - you never know, it might improve my image of her.
Although I don't get the impression that you're that sh1t hot on facts. Because I could be wrong, but I can't see any evidence any peers have been excluded from the Lords [i]yet[/i], if that's what you mean by "The Lords, Labour MP's have two members excluded (the first time since 1642)"
Of course it's always possible that they might be, although it's not conclusive. After all, the completely corrupt Tory peer Lord Archer wasn't excluded from the House of Lords, not withstanding the fact that his ability to attend was somewhat restricted by the fact that he sitting in a prison cell as a result of his corrupt crimes 😯
I was sort of right...
[url= http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5581547.ece ]Our reporters posed as lobbyists acting for a foreign client who was setting up a chain of shops in the UK and wanted to secure an exemption from the Business Rates Supplements Bill. We selected 10 Lords who already had a number of paid consultancies. The three Conservative peers did not return our calls and a Liberal Democrat and an Ulster Unionist both declined to help after meeting the undercover reporters.
However, four of the five Labour peers were willing to help to amend the bill in return for retainers. Some were more forthright than others.
[/url]
Fair enough Captain, but it appears to have been loaded against Labour peers - I can't help feeling that it would have been somewhat fairer if they had also approached 5 Tory peers.
Although for me it's the peers who listened to what the undercover reporters actually wanted, and then declined to help, are the ones which come out of this smelling of roses. I'm not sure how impressed I am with the 3 Tory peers who didn't even bother to return calls 😕
Although I don't get the impression that you're that sh1t hot on facts. Because I could be wrong, but I can't see any evidence any peers have been excluded from the Lords yet, if that's what you mean by "The Lords, Labour MP's have two members excluded (the first time since 1642)"
Ernie, read the papers
Ernest it would seem there is no pleasing you. Why would they bother to return calls from somebody offering them bribes?!
Well I suppose you'd expect better manners from the Tories "Hello, Lord Fotherington-Smythe here, yes, calling in reference to the cake tin full of cash... Well, I'm frightfully sorry old boy, but I'm going to have to decline, just not my cup of tea you see. Thanks for the offer, pip pip!"
Ernie can't grasp it that Nu Labour/Labour are the most corrupt politicians out there.
Thatcher was right to smash the unions/miners/labour(communist party) as she saw that they were all corrupt and were draining the public purse
Ernie, read the papers
Well actually I was thinking that perhaps you should do ?
But hey I said, I could be wrong - got a link that any peers have actually been excluded ?
Oh btw, your comment :
"[i]you've been responsible for the two worst recessions/unemployment figures that this country has ever seen[/i]"
I was going to let it drop, but since you've told me to 'read the papers' I'd just like to point out that the '[i]worst unemployment figures that this country has ever seen[/i]' were in the 1930s and 1980s.
So hardly [i]this[/i] government's, which you appear to think I'm part of, fault 😕
But as I said - I don't think that you're too sh1t hot on facts ....
Why would they bother to return calls from somebody offering them bribes?!
Is that how you think the message on the answer phone was left : "We'd like to speak to you about giving you some cash to do some dodgy stuff" ?
LOL !
Well it seems that it did the trick with four out of five grasping hypocritical Labour peers Ernest.
Yeah, you're right - that's how they must have done it !
😀
Ernie, do me favour and **** off
Well I will **** off just as soon as you explain to me how "they face", is the same as "they have".
Or do think that there isn't any difference ? 😕
Che - it's late at night. Don't you and your other logins ever sleep?
"Aye Fred, a woman breaks down all the political barriers, defeats the glass ceiling, brings an end to the cold war and the constant threat of Nuclear annihilation,"
That's an impressive feat - I had no idea that sexism in the workplace ended in 1979 when Thatcher won the election. The Equal Opportunities Commission presumably hasn't had much to do on women for nigh on 30 years now. I guess that works in the same way that there's no more racism in the US now that Obama is President, right?
Also, like a fool I had imagined that the end of the Cold War was something to do with the collapse of the Soviet economy, nationalism in the Baltic and Caucasian republics and Central Europe, the failed Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, perestroika and the rise of environmental activist groups. I now realise that it was all down to Maggie - an especially impressive success when you consider that none of the UK/US intelligence agencies predicted the USSR's collapse or the reunification of Germany...
Che ?
[img] 
[/img]
Che ?
Yes andywhit, konabunny knows of course, that the blood of an Irish rebel ran through his veins.
konabunny - "[i]it's late at night. Don't you and your other logins ever sleep?[/i]"
No konabunny, in the small hours of the morning whilst you are safely tucked up in your bed, I keep a watchful and loving eye for any signs of stirrings on the forum.
btw, it's just the one login on IE and just one on FF. There is of course a reason, but it's surprisingly uninteresting. Obviously if you uniquely are interested, then I'll happily tell you. Although I can't believe that you are.
Is it something to do with foxes?