Lady Thatcher very unwell

[KidKruger]

I agree, even if the ship has sailed back to port it's still a legit target in a war....

It may sail back tomorrow.

[ratty]

It was not a war though was it?

[Moos]

Guess that's Truman up the spout then.

[????]

She owned that horrible posh barrat house in Dulwich for about two years having bought it as a place to 'retire to' and sold it before the Lawson crash (1989/90) for a tidy profit having famously harldy ever going there, not ever living there and settling on Belgravia....so she weren't ever 'one of us'

[Marmora Man]

ratty Wrote:

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

> It was not a war though was it?

War is when one nation is using military force to subdue another. The Arentinians invaded British territory, the British used military force to evict them. You do not need a formal declaration delivered by an ambassador.

The Belgrano task group was part of a pincer movement with the Arngentinian aircaft carrier and its task group. The aim of the pincer movement was to take out the UK flagships of Hermes and Illustrious. Had UK lost either of those ships it would not have been able to provide air cover to defend its troops and regain the islands.

Belgrano was a legitimate target.

[ratty]

Thought it was a conflict!

That's what we were told at the time!

Cannot agree that Belgrano was a legitimate target - otherwise what was the point of the exclusion zone?

Still it got her re-elected so I guess it was worth it for her!

There's a song about it......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAga3ZQ0BxU&playnext=1&list=PLBF4C35DADFCBE939

I cannot accept that this woman was the Angel and Saviour that some people try to portray her as.

[mockney piers]

I remember being told quite specifically that it was a conflict, we were not at war, hence why the comment about sinking it in an Argie port would have been an act of war, but I guess when the bullets and bombs are flying the semantics aren't of much interest to anyone involved.

Regardless of the legality of the sinking, you can see why the decision was made to do so that close to the exclusion zone. As far as I know it wasn't a pincer movement, it was heading home, but we certainly weren't to know that at the time.

The real victims of the war were the poor conscripts sacrificed as a last desperate act of a brutal and loathsome regime, one that really should make some of the more vocal Thatcher haters have a bit of fucking perspective, as to my knowledge she didn't shove anyone out of aeroplanes in to the ocean at 10.000 ft (that would have given a whole new meaning to the tory wets she disliked so much) whereas I know the daughter of one such teacher, now living here.

I've also met one or two of those conscripts.

One lost several friends in his freezing trench, and following the surrender he told me he was treated much better by the Brits than by his own officers and when a British soldier gave him some chocolate it was the first food he'd had in almost a week. He bears no malice to the British at all, a country they historically are close to and admire.

My brother who lived there for a couple of years summed the Argies up nicely*. They are Italians who speak Spanish and want to be British.

*of course a ludicrous generalisation of 40 odd million people

[Loz]

The exclusion zone was for all international shipping, Argentinian or otherwise, to stay away from the area. That doesn't mean the 'conflict' was confined to that area.

[trizza]

Whilst the loss of life was regrettable, the sinking of the Belgrano ensured that the Argentinian navy played no significant role in the conflict (their Aircraft Carrier never left port). IMO the sinking may have actually saved lives in the end.

As an aside, I think we forget how risky the whole enterprise was. Certainly no pushover and was actually a very close run thing. Only britain would ship its armed forces across the globe in a white cruise ship...

If anyone is interested, i'd thoroughly recommend "Razor's Edge: The Unofficial History of the Falklands War" by Hugh Bicheno. You'd be suprised (or maybe not) just how willing certain people in government were to get rid of the falklands alltogether or provide information to help the Argentinian cause.

[Chick]

Wilhelm Wrote:

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

> Anyone fancy a pint?

I fancy a pint.

[Otta]

having bought it as a place to 'retire to'

I could be wrong, but I thought it was given to her by Dulwich Collge.

[ianr]

Dulwich College is a charity. I don't think that would have gone down well with the Commission.

I have memory of talk at the time of a gift, but the great preponderance of opinion is that it was sold to her by a Mr Pretty of Barratt, who later went on to become its CEO.

[maxxi]

Did she refer to him as "MY Pretty!"?

[Mick Mac]

Was she an apprentice ?

[Dulwich David]

maxxi Wrote:

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

> Ivydale Wrote:

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

> -----

>

> > Anyway, seems the haters have lost the right to

> > demand Thatch doesn't get a state funeral:

> >

> > http://bit.ly/rFm7m6

>

> 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.

Strange logic. How can Thatch be a forgotten politician when Meryl Streep's tipped for an oscar for playing her in a new movie?

Oh, I checked that forum you mentioned, it's got 900 members. And 7 Southwark councillors posting there..

[malumbu]

???? Do I take it that Thatch doesn't live in Dulwich any more?

OMG

Oh I am so sorry to all the residents of that posh estate for the number of times I have urinated outside and shouted the 'Maggie Maggie Maggie' chant.

So there is this pub in a place called Kings Norton. If you live in Bourneville (Cadbury's Quaker land, no pubs) this is the nearest. You walk back to Bourneville, after a few pints, and just when you are hungry there is a chip shop. And just when you have finished your chips on your walk back and if by magic (or Mr Ben) there is a wastepaper bin. And a few minutes later just when you are wanting a wee there is an appropriate wall.

I always likened the Thatch estate to that wall in Brum on my drunken cycle ride back from West Dulwich station. Only joking of course, that would be an offence.

So back to Thatch, Chumabuvmbawumgba start one of their many political songs with 'every morning I wake up and I hope Thatch is dead'. So at the end of the gig, at Womad (can you get any more liver livered liberal), this gent says, well I do like the music but I don't like the politics. What are you at a chumawumbawumba gig then for?

http://www.chumba.com/thatchep.php

[LadyDeliah]

Anyone still believe she wasn't a heartless, disgusting hag or that she had it in for Merseyside after the papers released this week?

[Marmora Man]

Lady D - you need to read the papers released under the 30 year rule more carefully and not just twitch / twitter as a knee jerk response every time Lady Thatcher's name is mentioned. Her Cabinet, under her chairmanship, discussed all sorts of options regarding Liverpool post the Toxteth riots but, in the end, provided significant regeneration funds under the control of Michael Heseltine. On today's discussion on Radio 4 Heseltine made very clear that she would not allow the "managed decline" that was one of the Treasury options put forward.

You might also note that in the released papers was a note from her criticising the proposed costs of redecorating No. 10 as too high and identifying those costs that she would bear personally.

[david_carnell]

LadyD - as much as I might agree with you in general terms about Thatcher and her legacy, MM is spot on here. It wasn't even her suggestion, it was that of Geoffrey Howe.

[DulwichDeviant]

DELETED

[Parkdrive]

I for one will shed no tears over a person that had close dealings with Pinochet.

[Dermot Kav]

Her 'dealings' with Pinochet were that his regime assisted the British govt in the Falklands War, and being an honourable person she never forgot that debt, despite any private misgivings she had about his domestic policy

[Huguenot]

I thought she came out pretty well from the cabinet papers - certainly not the cartoon monster that people want to present her as (looking at you, LadyD ;-))

[woodrot]

2012 will hopefully see Thatcher go up and meet Pinochet in the afterlife.

[Parkdrive]

Dermot Kav Wrote:

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

> Her 'dealings' with Pinochet were that his regime

> assisted the British govt in the Falklands War,

> and being an honourable person she never forgot

> that debt, despite any private misgivings she had

> about his domestic policy

He and his regime were responsible for murdering theiir own people. Despicable. Like I said I'll shed no tears for her in the same way she was that she was indifferenr to the murders of Chilean civilians.