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

    • Would wholeheartedly recommend Aria. Quality work, very responsive, lovely guy as well. 
    • A positive update from Southwark Council - “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.“  
    • A solicitor is acting as the executor for our late Aunt's will.  He only communicates by letter which is greatly lengthening the process.  The vast majority of legal people deal by modern means - the Electronic Communications Act that allows for much, if not all of these means is now 25 years old.   Any views and advice out there? In fuller detail: The value of the estate is not high.  There are a number of beneficiaries including one in the US.  It has taken almost three years and there is no end in sight.  The estate (house) is now damp, mouldy and wall paper falling off the wall. The solicitor is hostile, has threatened beneficiaries the police (which would just waste the police's time), and will not engage constructively. He only communicates by letter.  These are poorly written, curt or even hostile, in a language from the middle of last century, he clearly is typing these himself probably on a type writer.  Of course with every letter he makes more money. We've taken the first steps to complain either through the ombudsman and/or the SRA.  We have taken legal advice a couple of times, which of course isn't cheap, and were told that his behaviour is shocking and we'd be in our right to have him removed through the courts. But.... we just want him to get on with executing the will, primarily selling the house. However he refuses to use any other form of communication but letter.  So writing to the beneficiary in the 'States can take a month to get a reply. And even in this country a week or more. Having worked with lawyers in the past I am aware that email, tele and video conferencing and even text and WhatApp are appropriate means for communication.  There could be an immediate response to his questions.   Help!        
    • Labour should be applauded for bringing in the Renter's Rights Act.  But so many of you are carried away with slagging them off. Married couples with busy lives sometimes forget who did what. On this occasion Mr Rachel Reeves was sorting out the rental agreement.  Ms Reeves was a bit flumoxed with all the grief/demonsing/witch hunts she is getting so forgot to check with her other half.   Not the first or last time this will happen with couples. (That's not having a go at the post above)
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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