Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Ivydale Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Anyway, seems the haters have lost the right to

> demand Thatch doesn't get a state funeral:

>

> http://www.southeastcentral.co.uk


Because one crappy little forum with 200 members get a vote of six against one? Wow - you really do have delusions of potency.


She might get a state funeral if the govt. of the day thought it would be good for them, she would be thrown into a ditch if that helped the govt. more.


Fact is she is so near the age/death of HMQ that the powers-that-be are holding everything back until She goes - there will be nothing left to spare for a forgotten politician.

Why were the "union barons" greedy? The strike wasn't about pay - it was about pit closures and the consequent jobs losses.


Also, what other barons are you referring to? The NUM/Scargill were effectively out on their own with no support from the rest of the trade union movement - it was one the reasons why the miners were defeated.

Ivydale Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> maxxi Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Because one crappy little forum with 200

> members

> > get a vote of six against one? Wow - you really

> do

> > have delusions of potency.

> >

>

> No, because there is a link there which pretty

> much confirms the government and the Queen have

> authorised a state funeral. Now who's the crappy

> one with delusions of potency? LMAO!



Oh I see... because the DAILY MAIL says that the MAIL ON SUNDAY says it is true, well why didn't you say so straight out? no need to hide the fact. If an august body like the MAIL ON SUNDAY believes it to be the case then I am sure it is.


I mean, a paper with such a fine reputation wouldn't dream of printing such a thing with all the 'a source says' quotes to back it up if there were the slightest doubt. I aoplogise for doubting your word and can only say that the link to your wonderful forum with its distracting voting frenzy of 6 to 1 would have rocked anybody's world, and indeed it clouded the issue slightly when you could have linked directly to the MAIL.


Well you and the MAIL have put 'the haters' firmly in their place haven't you? Good for you, I'm sure she would be proud of you, and I hope your forum goes from strength to strength. I do. Really.

Chippy is spot on there. Scargill had little respect from other union leaders because they could see that he was using the miner's dispute for his own ideological ends. He wanted to defeat Thatcher more than save jobs and in turn she wanted to defeat him and the entire coal industry.


MP is quite right in that there were some profitable pits but it was an era of privatisation. I tend to think that the coal industry was shut down for many reasons...some of the blame for which lay at the feet of the unions and the government equally. The days of tax payer subsidised jobs were coming to an end, the Unions wouldn't accept change. And in addition, the idea of a nationalised industry that wasn't competitive enough to privatise irked the then Thatcher government.

Ivydale Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> maxxi Wrote:

> > Oh I see... because the DAILY MAIL says that

> the

> > MAIL ON SUNDAY says it is true, well why didn't

> > you say so straight out?

>

> I'd much rather read what a website or publication

> has to say than some no-mark anonymous internet

> geek that loves the sound of their own keyboard. I

> bet you're the sort that never goes out and lives

> in a rented basement, right?


Any website or publication? Bless you Ivydale - there are precious few innocent little souls like you left and we should treasure you while we have the pleasure of your company... though it begs the question what on EARTH you are doing listening to and responding to a cellar dwelling geek like me? I think you've got a little crush dontcha?


*draws cellar curtains, puts on foil hat and scans internet for conspiracy theories*

Laddy Muck Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I am assuming she is still alive, Mr. Medic.

> Wikipedia mentions her in the present, though I

> notice that their page was last updated on 10 July

> 2011 at 20:23.

>

> Hmmmm, that doesn't really help - does it?


*checks clock*


W-ell, its now 20:20. I haven't heard anything yet. Will get back to you at 20:22 if I hear of any further developments.

Wow!! Margret Thatcher really brings out the worst in some people; I think she will defiantly receive a state funeral be interesting to see the turn out. Will we be having the same conversation in 20 or 30 years time about Tony Blair will he have a state funeral? love him or hate him he was one of the best Labour leaders they have had to date.

Andrew Lynch wrote

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


She is one of us (you)... ...a Dulwich girl. Does anyone know where she lives exactly? Curious...


She used to live in the Dulwich Village; I don't think she lives there anymore she use to complain about having to drive through awful place called Brixton to get home her words.

She used to own one of the houses (then newly built) in the private gated development on the left as you drive West on South Circular, few yards before junction with College Rd. I think it's called Hambledon Place.


I'm not convinced she actually spent much time living there.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
    • I do hope NOT, wouldn't trust Farage as far as I could throw him, Starmer & co.  He's backed by GB News which focus's predominantly on immigration while the BBC focus predominantly on the Israel - Gazza conflict.   
    • Everyone gets the point that Corbynites try to make with the "total number of votes cast" statistic, it's just a specious one.  In 2017, Corbyn's Labour got fewer votes than May's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes). In 2019, Corbyn's Labour fewer votes than Johnson's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes); and he managed to drop 2.7 million votes or 6.9% of vote share between the two elections. I repeat, he got trounced by Boris F***ing Johnson and the Tories after the Brexit omnishambles. It is not true that a "fairer" electoral system would have seen Labour beat the Tories: Labour simply got fewer votes than the Tories. Corbyn lost twice. There is no metric by which he won the general election. His failure to win was a disaster for the UK, and let Johnson and Truss and Sunak into office. Corbynites have to let go of this delusion that Corbyn but really won somehow if you squint in a certain way. It is completely irrelevant that Labour under Corbyn got more votes than Labour under Starmer. It is like saying Hull City was more successful in its 2014 FA Cup Final than Chelsea was in its 2018 FA Cup Final, because Hull scored 2 goals when Chelsea only scored 1. But guess what - Chelsea won its game and Hull City lost. Corbyn's fans turned out to vote for him - but an even larger group of people who found him repellant were motivated enough to show up and vote Tory.
    • I guess its the thing these days to demonstrate an attitude, in this instance seemingly of the negative kind, instead of taking pride in your work and have standards then 🤷‍♀️
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...