Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Thatcher -surely last nail in her coffin
Quote by deancannock
Another bit of proof about what she knew has been released. Dispite all attempts not to release. More to follow !!!
C'mon Dean. Surely you don't believe anything in the Daily Mail? After all, it's the paper that tells more lies than any other!
"MAX....why do you always feel the need to make things political ??? That's where the tunnel is. You posted a link from 2005....from Daily Mail ( the paper that lies more than any other)"
Quote by Max777
Another bit of proof about what she knew has been released. Dispite all attempts not to release. More to follow !!!
C'mon Dean. Surely you don't believe anything in the Daily Mail? After all, it's the paper that tells more lies than any other!
"MAX....why do you always feel the need to make things political ??? That's where the tunnel is. You posted a link from 2005....from Daily Mail ( the paper that lies more than any other)"
Yes Max I was as surprised as you that such a strong Tory paper as the Mail was publishing this. It seems even they now want to distance themselves from anything to do with Thatcher....
But hey just for you.....does this link make it easier for you !!! ( I can list
more if required )
Quote by deancannock
Another bit of proof about what she knew has been released. Dispite all attempts not to release. More to follow !!!
C'mon Dean. Surely you don't believe anything in the Daily Mail? After all, it's the paper that tells more lies than any other!
"MAX....why do you always feel the need to make things political ??? That's where the tunnel is. You posted a link from 2005....from Daily Mail ( the paper that lies more than any other)"
Yes Max I was as surprised as you that such a strong Tory paper as the Mail was publishing this. It seems even they now want to distance themselves from anything to do with Thatcher....
But hey just for you.....does this link make it easier for you !!! ( I can list
more if required )
TO BE HONEST Dean, I really couldn't give a fig for any of your links. You have been bleating about others being condescending and patronising towards you when your dismissal of me providing a link to the Daily Mail in the other thread couldn't have been any more patronising and condescending and yet you quote the the Daily Mail when it suits your purpose.
Experience has taught me it's pointless debating with a hypocrite.
Quote by Max777
Another bit of proof about what she knew has been released. Dispite all attempts not to release. More to follow !!!
C'mon Dean. Surely you don't believe anything in the Daily Mail? After all, it's the paper that tells more lies than any other!
"MAX....why do you always feel the need to make things political ??? That's where the tunnel is. You posted a link from 2005....from Daily Mail ( the paper that lies more than any other)"
Yes Max I was as surprised as you that such a strong Tory paper as the Mail was publishing this. It seems even they now want to distance themselves from anything to do with Thatcher....
But hey just for you.....does this link make it easier for you !!! ( I can list
more if required )
TO BE HONEST Dean, I really couldn't give a fig for any of your links. You have been bleating about others being condescending and patronising towards you when your dismissal of me providing a link to the Daily Mail in the other thread couldn't have been any more patronising and condescending and yet you quote the the Daily Mail when it suits your purpose.
Experience has taught me it's pointless debating with a hypocrite.
So please explain the use of the word condescending when I state a fact that ( other than the now closed down NOTW ) the daily mail has issued more apologies for wrongful reporting than any other newspaper. Like or not...that's a fact. When something is reported in the Mail...and no other newspaper...I think it would be true to say...most will take with a pinch of salt. In this instance I clicked on the first link available, as you can see plenty more. I can understand you don't like the content Max !! Mrs Thatcher knew of his child sexual exploits, was warned about giving him a peerage, but she choose to ignore it, and do it anyway !! As say....more to follow as more documents are released. I am telling you now, this will be a bigger sex scandal than the Jimmy Saville expose, when all the information is in the public domain.
Quote by deancannock
Another bit of proof about what she knew has been released. Dispite all attempts not to release. More to follow !!!
C'mon Dean. Surely you don't believe anything in the Daily Mail? After all, it's the paper that tells more lies than any other!
"MAX....why do you always feel the need to make things political ??? That's where the tunnel is. You posted a link from 2005....from Daily Mail ( the paper that lies more than any other)"
Yes Max I was as surprised as you that such a strong Tory paper as the Mail was publishing this. It seems even they now want to distance themselves from anything to do with Thatcher....
But hey just for you.....does this link make it easier for you !!! ( I can list
more if required )
TO BE HONEST Dean, I really couldn't give a fig for any of your links. You have been bleating about others being condescending and patronising towards you when your dismissal of me providing a link to the Daily Mail in the other thread couldn't have been any more patronising and condescending and yet you quote the the Daily Mail when it suits your purpose.
Experience has taught me it's pointless debating with a hypocrite.
So please explain the use of the word condescending when I state a fact that ( other than the now closed down NOTW ) the daily mail has issued more apologies for wrongful reporting than any other newspaper. Like or not...that's a fact. When something is reported in the Mail...and no other newspaper...I think it would be true to say...most will take with a pinch of salt. In this instance I clicked on the first link available, as you can see plenty more. I can understand you don't like the content Max !! Mrs Thatcher knew of his child sexual exploits, was warned about giving him a peerage, but she choose to ignore it, and do it anyway !! As say....more to follow as more documents are released. I am telling you now, this will be a bigger sex scandal than the Jimmy Saville expose, when all the information is in the public domain.
Dean, here's your paragraph in full. Are you seriously trying to say that that is not patronising and condescending?
deancannock wrote:
MAX....why do you always feel the need to make things political ??? That's where the tunnel is. You posted a link from 2005....from Daily Mail ( the paper that lies more than any other )....my link was from International Business times..a well respected independent publication...dated 19th January 2015 !!!
So it's OK for you to rubbish other people when you believe you have the moral high ground yet you whinge when you believe others are doing the same to you. You are also prepared to quote newspapers when it suits your purpose yet you rubbish the same newspaper when others quote it.
As I have said, it's pointless debating with a hypocrite so I won't be responding to any more of your attempts at provocation.
clearly states it all Max....International Business Times..or the Mail article from 2005 !!!...which would you choose to believe !!
Did I say you were talking claptrap...NO...did I say I was laughing, sneering, snorting, at your comments..NO...did I at any time say that what you wrote was not what you really meant...NO.
As stated, as much as I disagree with what you may write, I will always respect your right to state it.
I will promise not to link to the Mail again....as say...in this case the facts are clear and reported widely...maybe you would like to condemn the actions taken.
Did I say you were talking claptrap...NO...did I say I was laughing, sneering, snorting, at your comments..NO...did I at any time say that what you wrote was not what you really meant...NO.
As stated, as much as I disagree with what you may write, I will always respect your right to state it.
I will promise not to link to the Mail again....as say...in this case the facts are clear and reported widely...maybe you would like to condemn the actions taken.
A couple of flaws in the debate...
Cyril Smith was not made a Peer but was Knighted. That award died with him.
Baroness Thatcher is dead. She cannot be tried for allegations about her alleged complicity nor can she exercise the right, enshrined in English Law since the Magna Carta, to defend herself and her honour - because she is DEAD.
The award of a Knighthood is not solely in the gift of a Prime Minister but a committee who makes recommendations to the Sovereign. It is therefore, IMHO (for what does a pensionable ex-pat old codger like me know) quite improper to blame the venerable Lady when it was not her gift alone and at the time there would have been no supporting evidence (yes, I believe it was still a requirement 30 years ago!) otherwise the Flicks would have prosecuted, wouldn't they?
Give it up dean. You'll be accusing Mother Teresa and the Pope of abuse before too long and calling for a public apology for witches who were drowned by ducking stool.
Calm yourself man. I'm sure your health will improve accordingly. (with all acknowledged rights to Speaker Bercow)
Cyril Smith was not made a Peer but was Knighted. That award died with him.
Baroness Thatcher is dead. She cannot be tried for allegations about her alleged complicity nor can she exercise the right, enshrined in English Law since the Magna Carta, to defend herself and her honour - because she is DEAD.
The award of a Knighthood is not solely in the gift of a Prime Minister but a committee who makes recommendations to the Sovereign. It is therefore, IMHO (for what does a pensionable ex-pat old codger like me know) quite improper to blame the venerable Lady when it was not her gift alone and at the time there would have been no supporting evidence (yes, I believe it was still a requirement 30 years ago!) otherwise the Flicks would have prosecuted, wouldn't they?
Give it up dean. You'll be accusing Mother Teresa and the Pope of abuse before too long and calling for a public apology for witches who were drowned by ducking stool.
Calm yourself man. I'm sure your health will improve accordingly. (with all acknowledged rights to Speaker Bercow)
Quote by deancannock
clearly states it all Max....International Business Times..or the Mail article from 2005 !!!...which would you choose to believe !!
Did I say you were talking claptrap...NO...did I say I was laughing, sneering, snorting, at your comments..NO...did I at any time say that what you wrote was not what you really meant...NO.
Short memory Dean? I'm sure in your 19th Jan 2015 - 8:58am comment your opening 'lol' translates as 'laughing' (or is it scoffing in this instance?) http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopicpage/303092/520.html
Quote by deancannock
As stated, as much as I disagree with what you may write, I will always respect your right to state it.
Only if it's on your terms and in a manner palatable to you but please your constant and dare I say it repetitive demanding from others to condemn/condone or even the stamping of your feet when 'debates' don't go your way will ever help sway opinion in your favour, it's just that 'debate' individuals have their own style and if you can't hack it then move on, no-one will think any less of you for doing so.
Quote by Toots
clearly states it all Max....International Business Times..or the Mail article from 2005 !!!...which would you choose to believe !!
Did I say you were talking claptrap...NO...did I say I was laughing, sneering, snorting, at your comments..NO...did I at any time say that what you wrote was not what you really meant...NO.
Short memory Dean? I'm sure in your 19th Jan 2015 - 8:58am comment your opening 'lol' translates as 'laughing' (or is it scoffing in this instance?) http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopicpage/303092/520.html
Quote by deancannock
As stated, as much as I disagree with what you may write, I will always respect your right to state it.
Only if it's on your terms and in a manner palatable to you but please your constant and dare I say it repetitive demanding from others to condemn/condone or even the stamping of your feet when 'debates' don't go your way will ever help sway opinion in your favour, it's just that 'debate' individuals have their own style and if you can't hack it then move on, no-one will think any less of you for doing so.
I put lol at the evidence presented...being 2005....as opposed to 2015 !! Please bother to read....and yes I was defending Guls who was the one being ridiculed. No time did I put laugh, snort or snigger at peoples views......at no point did I try and tell people that they didn't mean what they wrote.....but actually mean something totally different.
Yes....it is correct you never have answered the question set about Mrs thatcher and her knowledge of paedophiles.
Instead you seem to take pleasure in being condescending, and calling people liars. And then you wonder why people have been driven from this forum, such a mids...a very good contributor and sadly missed. You seem to enjoy being totally disrespectful to anyone that does not share your view. If your aim is to rid the site of members and be left with a forum that no one but your self contributes to...well done...you are doing a good job !!
Quote by GnV
A couple of flaws in the debate...
Cyril Smith was not made a Peer but was Knighted. That award died with him.
Baroness Thatcher is dead. She cannot be tried for allegations about her alleged complicity nor can she exercise the right, enshrined in English Law since the Magna Carta, to defend herself and her honour - because she is DEAD.
The award of a Knighthood is not solely in the gift of a Prime Minister but a committee who makes recommendations to the Sovereign. It is therefore, IMHO (for what does a pensionable ex-pat old codger like me know) quite improper to blame the venerable Lady when it was not her gift alone and at the time there would have been no supporting evidence (yes, I believe it was still a requirement 30 years ago!) otherwise the Flicks would have prosecuted, wouldn't they?
Give it up dean. You'll be accusing Mother Teresa and the Pope of abuse before too long and calling for a public apology for witches who were drowned by ducking stool.
Calm yourself man. I'm sure your health will improve accordingly. (with all acknowledged rights to Speaker Bercow)
GNV....Jimmy Saville is dead.....are you saying because of this he is therefore innocent !!! Cyril Smith is dead....are you saying he was innocent as well !!! Now to be fair what Mrs Thatcher is being accused of is covering up and protecting her friends. This is a document, forced to be released thanks to your beloved Daily mail !! yes I'm as surprised as anyone else at that!! It shows she was warned about the implications of Cyril Smiths accusations, but choose to ignore it !! As I have repeatedly stated, I believe we will find a network existed in parliament and with other senior judicial figures, and other influential figures, ( of all political persuasion I may add here ) and that it will be on a scale and level of abuse we have never known before. Anyone involved in this network, and any involvement in its cover up or protection, deserves to be shamed.
Quote by deancannock
GNV....Jimmy Saville is dead.....are you saying because of this he is therefore innocent !!! Cyril Smith is dead....are you saying he was innocent as well !!!
They can't be found guilty of any crime Dean. They can be found of having taken part in or have practiced , but they can not be found guilty of any crime as you cant try in absentia as there is no mechanism.
Quote by deancannock
Now to be fair what Mrs Thatcher is being accused of is covering up and protecting her friends. This is a document, forced to be released thanks to your beloved Daily mail !! yes I'm as surprised as anyone else at that!! It shows she was warned about the implications of Cyril Smiths accusations, but choose to ignore it !! As I have repeatedly stated, I believe we will find a network existed in parliament and with other senior judicial figures, and other influential figures, ( of all political persuasion I may add here ) and that it will be on a scale and level of abuse we have never known before. Anyone involved in this network, and any involvement in its cover up or protection, deserves to be shamed.
I don't think there is any argument as the sort of scandals and networks that have existed in Parliament especially with parliamentary privilege being given free reign in the 60's, 70's and 80's.
Jobs for the boys what! what!
The problem is going to be the will with current governments about wanting to untangle this grubby little mess.
And going back to the title of the thread... unless I'am mistaken Baroness Thatcher is already dead and buried so no more nails required.
Rogue....Exactly why I didn't use the word Guilty as technically in law they can't be tried ....but I don't hear anyone saying they are innocent !!!
It is interesting to note that the victims of Jimmy Savilles abuse, are suing some of the organisations where the abuse, took place, for compensation. This is due to the fact they say, they knew, of the abuse but turned a blind eye. If they can't find the perpetrator, guilty, even thou everyone knows he is, will they actually win compensation ?
It is interesting to note that the victims of Jimmy Savilles abuse, are suing some of the organisations where the abuse, took place, for compensation. This is due to the fact they say, they knew, of the abuse but turned a blind eye. If they can't find the perpetrator, guilty, even thou everyone knows he is, will they actually win compensation ?
Quote by deancannockit couldnt really have been that
It is interesting to note that the victims of Jimmy Savilles abuse, are suing some of the organisations where the abuse, took place, for compensation. This is due to the fact they say, they knew, of the abuse but turned a blind eye. If they can't find the perpetrator, guilty, even thou everyone knows he is, will they actually win compensation ?
If its proved that they were negligent in their care then yes, they will win compensation. How much though? well that depends, mitigating circumstances could be waiting 40 years to bring the case to court then it will be a token payout, maybe nothing more.
well...what is being said....is that some victims, (mostly at Stoke Mandville hospital where he had his own room) , complained to nurses , who indeed did bring it to the attention of management, who it seems choose to do nothing.... call that neglect or turning a blind eye because of who he was and the money he raised....you chose !!
Quote by GnV
Give it up dean. You'll be accusing Mother Teresa and the Pope of abuse before too long and calling for a public apology for witches who were drowned by ducking stool.
Calm yourself man. I'm sure your health will improve accordingly. (with all acknowledged rights to Speaker Bercow)
*Smiling* too funny, Ordinarily I'd insert a 'laugh' right here >>>
but instead I'll do just a 'chuckle' *chuckle*
Besides, not all witches were ducked n drowned ya know
*shows my broomstick*
Each to their own I suppose...personally I don't find anything remotely amusing about accusations !!
*Smiling* too funny, Ordinarily I'd insert a 'laugh' right here >>>
but instead I'll do just a 'chuckle' *chuckle*
Besides, not all witches were ducked n drowned ya know
*shows my broomstick*
Quote by Toots
Give it up dean. You'll be accusing Mother Teresa and the Pope of abuse before too long and calling for a public apology for witches who were drowned by ducking stool.
Calm yourself man. I'm sure your health will improve accordingly. (with all acknowledged rights to Speaker Bercow)
*Smiling* too funny, Ordinarily I'd insert a 'laugh' right here >>>
but instead I'll do just a 'chuckle' *chuckle*
Besides, not all witches were ducked n drowned ya know
*shows my broomstick*
Quote by deancannock
Rogue....Exactly why I didn't use the word Guilty as technically in law they can't be tried ....but I don't hear anyone saying they are innocent !!!
Again dean, sorry for repeating myself, as far back as the Magna Carta people are INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY (except perhaps in the Independent Apologist Republic of Cannock?).
When were they proven GUILTY?
Not ever? Oh dear dean. Your own test fails again
*strokes chin* Ergo Not proven guilty must equal INNOCENT.
So, instead of banging on about how GUILTY they all are, right thinking people feel that there is nothing to gain by saying "they are innocent" (your quote above, in case you have forgotten what you said already) because, well, in law, they are - INNOCENT! simples.
History wasn't your strong point at school, was it.
Quote by GnV
Rogue....Exactly why I didn't use the word Guilty as technically in law they can't be tried ....but I don't hear anyone saying they are innocent !!!
Again dean, sorry for repeating myself, as far back as the Magna Carta people are INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY (except perhaps in Cannock?).
When were they proven GUILTY?
Not ever? Oh dear dean. Your own test fails again
*strokes chin* Ergo Not proven guilty must equal INNOCENT.
So, instead of banging on about how GUILTY they all are, right thinking people feel that there is nothing to gain by saying "they are innocent" (your quote above, in case you have forgotten what you said already) because, well, in law, they are! simples.
History wasn't your strong point at school, was it.
So you think Jimmy Saville is Innocent ? I don't think I need to have a history lesson to tell me that. None so blind as those that do not want to see !!
Quote by deancannock
Rogue....Exactly why I didn't use the word Guilty as technically in law they can't be tried ....but I don't hear anyone saying they are innocent !!!
Again dean, sorry for repeating myself, as far back as the Magna Carta people are INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY (except perhaps in Cannock?).
When were they proven GUILTY?
Not ever? Oh dear dean. Your own test fails again
*strokes chin* Ergo Not proven guilty must equal INNOCENT.
So, instead of banging on about how GUILTY they all are, right thinking people feel that there is nothing to gain by saying "they are innocent" (your quote above, in case you have forgotten what you said already) because, well, in law, they are! simples.
History wasn't your strong point at school, was it.
So you think Jimmy Saville is Innocent ? I don't think I need to have a history lesson to tell me that. None so blind as those that do not want to see !!
I'm going to show some restraint here as I don't want to be accused of abusing the simple minded..
:roll:
Sex God
Margaret Thatcher - 13 October 1925 – 8 April 2013
Almost 2years since she died and there was a funeral.
Good
or bad :sad: , depends on your views of her.
However things have moved on and like Saville even if proven responsible for anything, where's it going to get you ?
As for Magna Carta (Latin for "the Great Charter"), also called Magna Carta Libertatum (Latin for "the Great Charter of the Liberties"), is a charter agreed by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215. First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to make peace between the unpopular King and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons. Neither side stood behind their commitments, and the charter was annulled by Pope Innocent III, leading to the First Barons' War. After John's death, the regency government of his young son, Henry III, reissued the document in 1216, stripped of some of its more radical content, in an unsuccessful bid to build political support for their cause. At the end of the war in 1217, it formed part of the peace treaty agreed at Lambeth, where the document acquired the name Magna Carta, to distinguish it from the smaller Charter of the Forest which was issued at the same time. Short of funds, Henry reissued the charter again in 1225 in exchange for a grant of new taxes; his son, Edward I, repeated the exercise in 1297, this time confirming it as part of England's statute law.
At the end of the 16th century there was an upsurge in interest in Magna Carta. Lawyers and historians at the time believed that there was an ancient English constitution, going back to the days of the Anglo-Saxons, that protected individual English freedoms. They argued that the Norman invasion of 1066 had overthrown these rights, and that Magna Carta had been a popular attempt to restore them, making the charter an essential foundation for the contemporary powers of Parliament and legal principles such as habeas corpus. Although this historical account was badly flawed, jurists such as Sir Edward Coke used Magna Carta extensively in the early 17th century, arguing against the divine right of kings propounded by the Stuart monarchs. Both James I and his son Charles I attempted to suppress the discussion of Magna Carta, until the issue was curtailed by the English Civil War of the 1640s and the execution of Charles.
The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century, and to this day.
Its perceived guarantee of trial by jury and other civil liberties, for example, led to Tony Benn's reference to the debate in 2008 over whether to increase the maximum time terrorism suspects could be held without charge from 28 to 42 days as "the day Magna Carta was repealed". Although rarely invoked in court in the modern era, in 2012 the Occupy London protestors attempted to use Magna Carta in resisting their eviction from St. Paul's Churchyard by the City of London. In his judgment the Master of the Rolls gave this short shrift, noting somewhat drily that although clause 29 was considered by many the foundation of the rule of law in England, he did not consider it directly relevant to the case, and the two other surviving clauses actually concerned the rights of the Church and the City of London.
Indeed, Magna Carta carries little legal weight in modern Britain, as most of its clauses have been repealed and relevant rights ensured by other statutes.
So shall we move on ?
OK, I'll get my anorak
Almost 2years since she died and there was a funeral.
Good
or bad :sad: , depends on your views of her.However things have moved on and like Saville even if proven responsible for anything, where's it going to get you ?
As for Magna Carta (Latin for "the Great Charter"), also called Magna Carta Libertatum (Latin for "the Great Charter of the Liberties"), is a charter agreed by King John of England at Runnymede, near Windsor, on 15 June 1215. First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to make peace between the unpopular King and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons. Neither side stood behind their commitments, and the charter was annulled by Pope Innocent III, leading to the First Barons' War. After John's death, the regency government of his young son, Henry III, reissued the document in 1216, stripped of some of its more radical content, in an unsuccessful bid to build political support for their cause. At the end of the war in 1217, it formed part of the peace treaty agreed at Lambeth, where the document acquired the name Magna Carta, to distinguish it from the smaller Charter of the Forest which was issued at the same time. Short of funds, Henry reissued the charter again in 1225 in exchange for a grant of new taxes; his son, Edward I, repeated the exercise in 1297, this time confirming it as part of England's statute law.
At the end of the 16th century there was an upsurge in interest in Magna Carta. Lawyers and historians at the time believed that there was an ancient English constitution, going back to the days of the Anglo-Saxons, that protected individual English freedoms. They argued that the Norman invasion of 1066 had overthrown these rights, and that Magna Carta had been a popular attempt to restore them, making the charter an essential foundation for the contemporary powers of Parliament and legal principles such as habeas corpus. Although this historical account was badly flawed, jurists such as Sir Edward Coke used Magna Carta extensively in the early 17th century, arguing against the divine right of kings propounded by the Stuart monarchs. Both James I and his son Charles I attempted to suppress the discussion of Magna Carta, until the issue was curtailed by the English Civil War of the 1640s and the execution of Charles.
The political myth of Magna Carta and its protection of ancient personal liberties persisted after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 until well into the 19th century, and to this day.
Its perceived guarantee of trial by jury and other civil liberties, for example, led to Tony Benn's reference to the debate in 2008 over whether to increase the maximum time terrorism suspects could be held without charge from 28 to 42 days as "the day Magna Carta was repealed". Although rarely invoked in court in the modern era, in 2012 the Occupy London protestors attempted to use Magna Carta in resisting their eviction from St. Paul's Churchyard by the City of London. In his judgment the Master of the Rolls gave this short shrift, noting somewhat drily that although clause 29 was considered by many the foundation of the rule of law in England, he did not consider it directly relevant to the case, and the two other surviving clauses actually concerned the rights of the Church and the City of London.
Indeed, Magna Carta carries little legal weight in modern Britain, as most of its clauses have been repealed and relevant rights ensured by other statutes.
So shall we move on ?
OK, I'll get my anorak
Quote by HnS
Margaret Thatcher - 13 October 1925 – 8 April 2013
Almost 2years since she died and there was a funeral.
Good
As Prime Minister she was formidable adding much worth to the UK on the World stage, 15 years head of the Conservative party, 11 years as PM
From Argentina to the winter of discontent she was relentless, you just can't help but admire the lady.
Margaret Thatcher - 13 October 1925 – 8 April 2013
Almost 2years since she died and there was a funeral.
Good icon_ or bad icon_ , depends on your views of her.
As all polls shows...the most unpopular prime minster ever in British politics. So much so that her own party kicked her out, as a liability to the party !!
Almost 2years since she died and there was a funeral.
Good icon_ or bad icon_ , depends on your views of her.
As all polls shows...the most unpopular prime minster ever in British politics. So much so that her own party kicked her out, as a liability to the party !!
Quote by deancannock
As all polls shows...the most unpopular prime minster ever in British politics. So much so that her own party kicked her out, as a liability to the party !!
Ahh but to quote from your own posts re another
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/418643.html
People voted Mr Blair in three times......if they now turn round and say he was crap....then maybe they are the ones being hypocritical.
Mrs T, voted in 3 times and served longer than Blair
and again you're factually incorrect, this time re her 'unpopularity' not on the top of any of those lists and in some she's followed directly by Blair and as wiki states under the photo of her, she fares well in the Poll
Will you be apologising for besmirching the good ladies name? didn't think so *laughing*
please bother to read your Wikipedia link again: No where does it show the un-popularirity ratings !!
Mrs thatcher was just before the Falklands war the most unpopular prime minster in history. Once the conflict started her popularity soared..and she indeed won the next election, on that wave of popularity.
She soon then became massively unpopular again, and presided of massive race riots, and then quickly followed by mass rioting in the streets at the introduction of the Poll tax. Her own party, saw her as a liability, and a successful challenge lead by Michael Hesiltine forced her out of office.
Name me another Prime Minister where parties were held upon her death...and even the song The wicked Witch is Dead....made it number 1 in the charts !! ( I would add I did not condone those actions, as I stated at the time ) ..but what it does show is the deep seated dislike in the country for her.
Please note I have not added a condescending * smiling * anywhere...
Mrs thatcher was just before the Falklands war the most unpopular prime minster in history. Once the conflict started her popularity soared..and she indeed won the next election, on that wave of popularity.
She soon then became massively unpopular again, and presided of massive race riots, and then quickly followed by mass rioting in the streets at the introduction of the Poll tax. Her own party, saw her as a liability, and a successful challenge lead by Michael Hesiltine forced her out of office.
Name me another Prime Minister where parties were held upon her death...and even the song The wicked Witch is Dead....made it number 1 in the charts !! ( I would add I did not condone those actions, as I stated at the time ) ..but what it does show is the deep seated dislike in the country for her.
Please note I have not added a condescending * smiling * anywhere...
Quote by deancannock
please bother to read your Wikipedia link again: No where does it show the un-popularirity ratings !!
What you said:
As all polls shows...the most unpopular prime minster ever in British politics. So much so that her own party kicked her out, as a liability to the party !!
I've posted you a link that contains many Polls and where it's clear that your claim 'As all polls shows...the most unpopular prime minster ever in British politics' comment is factually incorrect/flawed and wrong, you can wriggle as much as you like but it's there in black and white.
But matters not, cos your other comment:
People voted Mr Blair in three times......if they now turn round and say he was crap....then maybe they are the ones being hypocritical.
puts Mrs T as also 'not being crap' given she served longer than Blair and won the same amount of general elections which leads me to think that deep down somewhere you're probably quite fond of Mrs T maybe even having some amount of respect for her?
Quite admirable is that Dean, even though you're constantly trying (but failing) to discredit her very existence. What a woman she is, you know it dontcha *smiling*
unlike some others...yes I will always have respect for other peoples views. However I can assure you, and if had read my past comments you would know, that I dislike of Mrs Thatcher comes not from the massive race riots in our streets : not from the massive poll tax riots in our streets : not from the lies she told about Hillisbough : but from the lies she told about pit closures. Documented evidence has now been released showing she indeed had a list of 53 pits she wanted closed !! On that list and was indeed closed was Littleton Colliery in Cannock. This pit was the most productive man for man pit in the whole of Europe !! This decimated a community...a community that will never forget....and yes maybe more personal to me as my brother worked down that pit, as he had done since he was 17...he now found himself on the scrapheap and unable to put food on his families table. He had never taken benefits in his life....but he knew of no other life other than working down the pit. He had no other skills to offer. In is desperation, he took his own life. So no...I will never forget what she did to my family and the community at large.
so no...I can assure you, I don't * smile * when referring to her.
so no...I can assure you, I don't * smile * when referring to her.
Quote by deancannock
unlike some others...yes I will always have respect for other peoples views. However I can assure you, and if had read my past comments you would know, that I dislike of Mrs Thatcher comes not from the massive race riots in our streets : not from the massive poll tax riots in our streets : not from the lies she told about Hillisbough : but from the lies she told about pit closures. Documented evidence has now been released showing she indeed had a list of 53 pits she wanted closed !! On that list and was indeed closed was Littleton Colliery in Cannock. This pit was the most productive man for man pit in the whole of Europe !! This decimated a community...a community that will never forget....and yes maybe more personal to me as my brother worked down that pit, as he had done since he was 17...he now found himself on the scrapheap and unable to put food on his families table. He had never taken benefits in his life....but he knew of no other life other than working down the pit. He had no other skills to offer. In is desperation, he took his own life. So no...I will never forget what she did to my family and the community at large.
so no...I can assure you, I don't * smile * when referring to her.
Then maybe you should step back once in a while as your opinions on the lady are tainted, (via personal tragedy) to the point where you appear consumed by your loathing of/for her.
wow....talk about condescending...I don't need your patronising advice on when to post..how low do you want to stoop. I'll post what I want, when I want .. as long as its with in the rules of this forum. the fact it may be not what you agree with makes no difference. The difference here is I have respect for others and their views. Maybe you would like to consider your own stance sometime.
