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

    • Pretty much, Sue, yeah. It's the perennial, knotty problem of imposing a tax and balancing that with the cost of collecting it.  The famous one was the dog licence - I think it was 37 1/2 pence when it was abolished, but the revenue didn't' come close to covering the administration costs. As much I'd love to have a Stasi patrolling the South Bank, looking for mullet haircuts, unshaven armpits, overly expressive hand movements and red Kicker shoes, I'm afraid your modern Continental is almost indistinguishable from your modern Londoner. That's Schengen for you. So you couldn't justify it from an ROI point of view, really. This scheme seems a pretty good idea, overall. It's not perfect, but it's cheap to implement and takes some tax burden off Southwark residents.   'The Man' has got wise to this. It's got bad juju now. If you're looking to rinse medium to large amounts of small denomination notes, there are far better ways. Please drop me a direct message if you'd like to discuss this matter further.   Kind Regards  Dave
    • "What's worse is that the perceived 20 billion black hole has increased to 30 billion in a year. Is there a risk that after 5 years it could be as high as 70 billion ???" Why is it perceived, Reeves is responsible for doubling the "black hole" to £20b through the public sector pay increases. You can't live beyond your means and when you try you go bankrupt pdq. In 4 yrs time if this Govt survives that long and the country doesn't go bust before then, in 2029 I dread to think the state the country will be in.  At least Sunak and co had inflation back to 2% with unemployment being stable and not rising.   
    • He seemed to me to be fully immersed in the Jeremy Corbyn ethos of the Labour Party. I dint think that (and self describing as a Marxist) would have helped much when Labour was changed under Starmer. There was a purge of people as far left as him that he was lucky to survive once in my opinion.   Stuff like this heavy endorsement of Momentum and Corbyn. It doesn't wash with a party that is in actual government.   https://labourlist.org/2020/04/forward-momentum-weve-launched-to-change-it-from-the-bottom-up/
    • I perceive the problem.simply as spending too much without first shoring up the economy.  If the government had reduced borrowing,  and as much as most hate the idea, reduced government deiartment spending (so called austerity) and not bowed to union pressures for pay rises, then encouraged businesses to grow, extra cash would have entered the coffers and at a later stage when the economy was in a stronger position rises in NI or taxes would have a lesser impact, but instead Reeves turned that on its head by increasing ni which has killed growth, increased prices and shimmied the economy.  What's worse is that the perceived 20 billion black hole has increased to 30 billion in a year. Is there a risk that after 5 years it could be as high as 70 billion ???     
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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