Is Celebrating Death Justifiable?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

Ha, ha, yes. I was thinking about buying a caravan and living in the woods. I'm only partially joking as well!

:

---

One by the sea surely. They have static ones down at Skeggie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

One by the sea surely. They have static ones down at Skeggie.

---

I'm not going anywhere near that hell hole. I want to live in Goathland and ride around on my bike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

I'm not going anywhere near that hell hole. I want to live in Goathland and ride around on my bike.

---

:lol:

I understand.

Whether members agree with the proposition or not, it's likely that Mrs Thatcher will be remembered as a patriot. So perhaps a patriotic ditty would be appropriate. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3dD0...91CE73EB5E9770

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kasie

Against all my expectations (or call them prejudices if you will) I found the film very moving. I never expected to find myself feeling sorry for her but I thought the film tried to show her as a fallible human with a family who loved her in spite of her failings, as well as a political figure who left such a mark for good or ill on the country. Meryl Streep's performance was outstanding - for once I forgot I was watching Meryl Streep and found her portrayal realistic and sympathetic. The political issues were dealt with a light touch, it was a portrait of a woman in decline rather than an analysis of her success or failure in a position of power. Her tragedy was shown less as a fall from might than as a sad all too human decline which could afflict any one of us. I've watched a beloved family member fade in just such a way and I felt the film dealt tenderly not just with the suffering of the woman herself but with the grief it brought her family and true friends.

---

This is pure propaganda. Margareth Thatcher did not fail but on the contrary. And Streep did not portray such tragedy. Margaret's family did not suffer a bit out of it. The only thing you are lacking here is to join Emil Miller with the Nazi bologni he posted below. What an assigment he got, the poor man. ROFLMAO!!!!

Both Kasie and Juniper Woolf. The thing is that she was out of the public eye and her death brings her back into it. It's not helpful to be jubilant about her death. It doesn't help change policies. I dislike politicians, but changing public policy is hard work, so merely hating what they do is not enough. WE have to work for change. Also, changing her particular policies turned out to be more difficult than they thought:



The second miscalculation was the assumption, made until quite late in the day, that what she was doing to the country could, and would, eventually be undone. This had always more or less happened in postwar politics: little pendulum swings to the left and then to the right along the years. Now, post-Thatcher, the pendulum continues to swing, but inside a clock that has been rehung on the wall at a completely different angle.

Which I found in this longer article "The Woman Who Wrecked Great Britian":

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/09/the_...great_britain/

I understand that 2000 guests have been invited to attend the funeral, and I'm wondering whether Arthur Scargill and Denis Skinner are among them. Or will their invitations conveniently be lost in the post?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

I understand that 2000 guests have been invited to attend the funeral, and I'm wondering whether Arthur Scargill and Denis Skinner are among them. Or will their invitations conveniently be lost in the post?

---

Well if it's owt like our post it'll probably turn up after the funeral anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neely

This would be the most tasteful thing to do, but it seems we don't live in tasteful times.

---

And that, I think, is partly her legacy. Good manners, compassion , a conscious, had no role in her society. Perhaps she was right, but Britain is now a nastier place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

And that, I think, is partly her legacy. Good manners, compassion , a conscious, had no role in her society. Perhaps she was right, but Britain is now a nastier place.

---

Britain started becoming a nastier place long before Mrs Thatcher, partly as a result of living in the cloud cuckoo land of non-punitive sentencing, ushered in and fostered by her opponents and beloved of lawyers and criminals

'The deterioration in public behaviour had been caused by a naïve belief in the post-war political consensus that, because what had happened in Germany was wrong, the right way to govern a country was to renounce punitive sentencing and rely on the theory of rehabilitation to uphold the rule of law. The significance of this miscalculation was not lost on either the criminal fraternity or the legal profession, for the obvious consequence of such a policy was that criminality would flourish to the benefit of both.'

Pro Bono Publico

I agree with some of the above, but that's not what I'm talking about. Criminality has always been among us whatever the sentencing regeme.

I lived through those changes and remember the values we were taught and the certainties we knew, were suddenly overturned. Spivs and chancers thrived, dishonesty and greed were seen to be rewarded. "Working class values" were destroyed and in the vacuum the current drug and crime culture thrived.

So a 12 year old of the 1980's nicks a car radio, and an entrepenuer asset strips a million pound company puts hundreds out of work and makes a huge profit. guess which one of them received the Knighthood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

This is pure propaganda. Margareth Thatcher did not fail but on the contrary. And Streep did not portray such tragedy. Margaret's family did not suffer a bit out of it. The only thing you are lacking here is to join Emil Miller with the Nazi bologni he posted below. What an assigment he got, the poor man. ROFLMAO!!!!

---

Please look again - I wrote failings - not failure - there's a difference. The tragedy to which I alluded was her decline in health: if you think suffering from Alzheimers Disease is not a tragedy which affects not only the sufferer but his/her immediate family and carers, I can only think you have no personal experience of it or are not able to make the leap of imagination as to the extent of its insidious effect.

I also wrote that the film did not set out to analyse her success or failure in a position of power. I saw it as a portrait of a sick old woman, one who had once had immense power and who now, through the ravages of disease, could not even manage her day to day life. Sic transit.....

Have you seen the film, btw?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

I agree with some of the above, but that's not what I'm talking about. Criminality has always been among us whatever the sentencing regeme.

I lived through those changes and remember the values we were taught and the certainties we knew, were suddenly overturned. Spivs and chancers thrived, dishonesty and greed were seen to be rewarded. "Working class values" were destroyed and in the vacuum the current drug and crime culture thrived.

So a 12 year old of the 1980's nicks a car radio, and an entrepenuer asset strips a million pound company puts hundreds out of work and makes a huge profit. guess which one of them received the Knighthood.

---

Criminality is as old as its concept but, as in all things, it is a matter of degree. I also remember the values I was taught and, as I have pointed out, saw them being overturned long before Mrs Thatcher arrived on the scene. Yes there was an increase in criminality as some sought to take advantage of her economic reforms, necessitated by decades of political and economic mismanagement, but the forces of the ruinous status quo were too great for her to take on in their entirety and the criminal element were left to exploit the situation. The word 'spiv', incidentally, was coined as far back as WWII to describe criminals who operated in the black market.
As for the twelve-year-old thief, there are plenty among Mrs Thatcher's opponents who would, in the name of inclusiveness, also grant him a Knighthood were it possible.

What I have problem with here is the notion that society is something other than ourselves; that it develops and behaves without us knowing or consenting. We are parts of the society we are discussing here; ourselves, our family members, friends, colleagues and neighbours so, if any changes are happening, it is never without our knowing or, in some cases, consent.

I believe that Thatcher or any other leader, political or otherwise, cannot be held responsible for singlehandedly changing the way a society behaves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

What I have problem with here is the notion that society is something other than ourselves; that it develops and behaves without us knowing or consenting. We are parts of the society we are discussing here; ourselves, our family members, friends, colleagues and neighbours so, if any changes are happening, it is never without our knowing or, in some cases, consent.

I believe that Thatcher or any other leader, political or otherwise, cannot be held responsible for singlehandedly changing the way a society behaves.

---

As individuals we are integrated into society, but in order to make an objective assessment of it it's necessary for the individual to look at it from the outside.
In doing so, we cannot disassociate ourselves entirely from the subjective but, according to the degree that we are able to, we can form a more accurate idea of how society works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

What I have problem with here is the notion that society is something other than ourselves; that it develops and behaves without us knowing or consenting. We are parts of the society we are discussing here; ourselves, our family members, friends, colleagues and neighbours so, if any changes are happening, it is never without our knowing or, in some cases, consent.

I believe that Thatcher or any other leader, political or otherwise, cannot be held responsible for singlehandedly changing the way a society behaves.

---

I think there's truth in this, but the matter is complicated by there being a number of societies in the UK. It was even more marked in the 1980's where the industiral cities of the north, the Midlands, Scotland and Wales bore little in common with the leafier parts of Britain. You see it now with the Countryside Alliance and their sarcastic attitude to townies for example.

I remember when we had floods a few years ago, and the media descended on Sheffield, missing the greater problems that were occurring in and around Hull. Sheffield is of course conveniantly up the M1. Good job it wasn't Newcastle.

I think that's why attempts to define Britishness, and efforts to politically and socially unite the country are probably impossible given the great diversity that existed in the 80s and now. People might unite behind a one off common cause - The Olympics perhaps, but the Footie and the Rugby seem to merely reinforce the differences. Rugby, for example had Union and League - basically southern and northern. The football seems to represent towns and cities. Maybe in the country it's cheese chasing or polo.

Quote:

---

I believe that Thatcher or any other leader, political or otherwise, cannot be held responsible for singlehandedly changing the way a society behaves.

---

Not singlehandedly of course, but nevertheless any political leader has huge influence in the direction society takes and behaves along with the media. And Thatcher's influence as leader was more than most. I remember seeing a documentary on how she conducted her meetings, it ran along the lines of - 'this is what I think, does anybody [dare to] disagree with me? OK, next item on the agenda...' A democratic dictatorship? Of course it is not as simple as saying in came Thatcher, out went community (and with it those values) in comes competition and dog eat dog, but she certainly had a central part to play in it.

There's a completed You Gov verdict on her time in power here:
http://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/04/10/...dict_thatcher/

Or it is possible to conclude that maybe the leaders elected reflect the general mood of the society... They sell certain ideas, we buy them (or not) and elect them to deliver what they have promised.

As a side note, Paul, I doubt Emil will be embracing football or rugby as a social-glue anytime soon.

I wonder whether we are secretly longing for a 19th century society where everyone knew and accepted "their places" and respected their "betters"... with the assumption that those "betters" would be us.

Of course, in a society like that, I would probably have been the semi-literate wife of a semi-literate tailor or butcher as my grandparents came from very humble backgrounds, both parents managing to get education simply because they were considered bright and sent to state supported schools on scholarships.

(The same is true for myself as well, of course. Had it not been for the scholarships, I wouldn't have been able to leave the fishing town I grew up in to study and end up living in the UK. Sorry, Emil! Another immigrant for you to put up with!)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

What I have problem with here is the notion that society is something other than ourselves; that it develops and behaves without us knowing or consenting. We are parts of the society we are discussing here; ourselves, our family members, friends, colleagues and neighbours so, if any changes are happening, it is never without our knowing or, in some cases, consent.

I believe that Thatcher or any other leader, political or otherwise, cannot be held responsible for singlehandedly changing the way a society behaves.

---

Very good point. The effects of leadership are subtle and difficult to asses. Do leaders lead - or give consent for us to go where we were going anyway.? Perhaps all Mrs T did was to remove constraints - moral and legal - and allowed people to be what they truely are.


Edit: just read above - same basic point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

As a side note, Paul, I doubt Emil will be embracing football or rugby as a social-glue anytime soon.

---

:lol: Spot on. I don't even know which one has the oval ball.

I would also add that I don't know anything about polo or cheese chasing either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

I think there's truth in this, but the matter is complicated by there being a number of societies in the UK. It was even more marked in the 1980's where the industiral cities of the north, the Midlands, Scotland and Wales bore little in common with the leafier parts of Britain. You see it now with the Countryside Alliance and their sarcastic attitude to townies for example.

I remember when we had floods a few years ago, and the media descended on Sheffield, missing the greater problems that were occurring in and around Hull. Sheffield is of course conveniantly up the M1. Good job it wasn't Newcastle.

I think that's why attempts to define Britishness, and efforts to politically and socially unite the country are probably impossible given the great diversity that existed in the 80s and now. People might unite behind a one off common cause - The Olympics perhaps, but the Footie and the Rugby seem to merely reinforce the differences. Rugby, for example had Union and League - basically southern and northern. The football seems to represent towns and cities. Maybe in the country it's cheese chasing or polo.

---

Huntin' shootin' Fishin'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

Or it is possible to conclude that maybe the leaders elected reflect the general mood of the society... They sell certain ideas, we buy them (or not) and elect them to deliver what they have promised.

As a side note, Paul, I doubt Emil will be embracing football or rugby as a social-glue anytime soon.

I wonder whether we are secretly longing for a 19th century society where everyone knew and accepted "their places" and respected their "betters"... with the assumption that those "betters" would be us.

Of course, in a society like that, I would probably have been the semi-literate wife of a semi-literate tailor or butcher as my grandparents came from very humble backgrounds, both parents managing to get education simply because they were considered bright and sent to state supported schools on scholarships.

(The same is true for myself as well, of course. Had it not been for the scholarships, I wouldn't have been able to leave the fishing town I grew up in to study and end up living in the UK. Sorry, Emil! Another immigrant for you to put up with!)

---

Oddly enough her mantra was "Return to Victorian Values"

Perhaps she meant hanging children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

Criminality is as old as its concept but, as in all things, it is a matter of degree. I also remember the values I was taught and, as I have pointed out, saw them being overturned long before Mrs Thatcher arrived on the scene. Yes there was an increase in criminality as some sought to take advantage of her economic reforms, necessitated by decades of political and economic mismanagement, but the forces of the ruinous status quo were too great for her to take on in their entirety and the criminal element were left to exploit the situation. The word 'spiv', incidentally, was coined as far back as WWII to describe criminals who operated in the black market.As for the twelve-year-old thief, there are plenty among Mrs Thatcher's opponents who would, in the name of inclusiveness, also grant him a Knighthood were it possible.

---

They were upgraded in the 80's to operate in the financial markets

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

(The same is true for myself as well, of course. Had it not been for the scholarships, I wouldn't have been able to leave the fishing town I grew up in to study and end up living in the UK. Sorry, Emil! Another immigrant for you to put up with!)

---

:lol: Strange that the location given beneath your avatar is: 'Not where I like to be'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

They were upgraded in the 80's to operate in the financial markets

---

Actually, as far as the financial markets are concerned they were around both before and after the 80's. Joseph Kagan and Ronald Milhench come to mind but they were certainly around during Mrs Thatcher's premiership, as I wrote about the period of financial deregulation following her arrival in Downing Street.

'Occasionally, conspiracy to defraud comes to the attention of the Serious Fraud Office and makes headline news, but one never knows of those cases that are not discovered, and the events following Roger’s meeting with his son fell into that category. The board of Opal Oil attended an extraordinary meeting held out of hours and at which no minutes were taken. What was said by those attending remained secret for the rest of their lives and resulted in a takeover by Opal Oil of Penfold Resources before news of its oil strike could force up the share price.'

Pro Bono Publico

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kasie

if you think suffering from Alzheimers Disease is not a tragedy which affects not only the sufferer but his/her immediate family and carers, I can only think you have no personal experience of it or are not able to make the leap of imagination as to the extent of its insidious effect.

---

I didn't know she had Alzheimer's. I can see how this could be a more interesting movie.

One thing I've noticed is that some call her "Mrs" Thatcher in this thread. I'm used to referring to political people by just their last names or with their first if there might be confusion. The "Mrs" sounds strange to me, but I may sound rude to others by not using it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I didn't know she had Alzheimer's. I can see how this could be a more interesting movie.

One thing I've noticed is that some call her "Mrs" Thatcher in this thread. I'm used to referring to political people by just their last names or with their first if there might be confusion. The "Mrs" sounds strange to me, but I may sound rude to others by not using it.

---

From the start of her appearance on the political scene, she was referred to as Mrs because, unlike other women who might have been in politics at that time, she epitomised the married woman who wouldn't allow familiarity except perhaps to close associates and her family. She automatically commanded respect and her interlocutors, in the media for example, recognised it. She was sometimes referred to simply as 'Thatcher' but that tended to be among the 'loony left' as they were known, or political pundits, both male and female, seeking to demonstrate their masculinity in vis a vis the woman who had been called the 'strongest man in the cabinet.'

I don't refer male politicians with their title so why should she be treated differently? Blair, Major, Cameron, Thatcher.

Wouldn't it be rather sexist to single her out in that manner?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

I don't refer male politicians with their title so why should she be treated differently? Blair, Major, Cameron, Thatcher.

Wouldn't it be rather sexist to single her out in that manner?

---

It's interesting that news readers often refer to those mentioned as Tony Blair, John Major or David Cameron but usually say Mrs in relation to Margaret Thatcher although her surname is sometimes used adjectivally as in 'Thatcherite policies' for example. I don't think she would have recognised the word sexist.

Though she was a feminist icon, she reportedly said "I hate feminism - it is poison." I think that is partly why she insisted on "Mrs" Thatcher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YesNo

I didn't know she had Alzheimer's. I can see how this could be a more interesting movie.

One thing I've noticed is that some call her "Mrs" Thatcher in this thread. I'm used to referring to political people by just their last names or with their first if there might be confusion. The "Mrs" sounds strange to me, but I may sound rude to others by not using it.

---

She was usually referred to as Mrs Thatcher, Margaret Thatcher or Maggie Thatcher at the time she was prime minister. She was usually referred to as Mrs Thatcher by newscasters and television presenters, but often as Maggie Thatcher by the public, although probably more by her detractors.

It's sometimes difficult to remember that after she left office she took the title Baroness, so should formally have been referred to as Baroness Thatcher or Lady Thatcher. Baroness is a hereditary title, although passed on down the male line. I was reminded of that when I read Mark Thatcher referred to as Sir Mark Thatcher, as he would be now. I don't suppose that is going to go down very well with the general public neither. Mark Thatcher is a very contentious figure. It was suspected he made himself a millionaire as a middleman for a Tornado jet bomber contract with Saudi Arabia. Later he was involved in a mercenary venture to overthrow an African state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

Though she was a feminist icon, she reportedly said "I hate feminism - it is poison." I think that is partly why she insisted on "Mrs" Thatcher.

---

It's ironic that 'feminists' are not infrequently the least feminine women imaginable. One that I had dealings with at work was unprepossessing and full of self loathing, while another, although less physically unattractive, had a voice like a foghorn and played the saxophone. I never went along with the idea that Mrs Thatcher was particularly attractive but she was always well dressed, albeit in a matronly way, and I couldn't imagine her playing the saxophone although perhaps she did, who knows what went on behind closed doors?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

It's ironic that 'feminists' are not infrequently the least feminine women imaginable. One that I had dealings with at work was unprepossessing and full of self loathing, while another, although less physically unattractive, had a voice like a foghorn and played the saxophone. I never went along with the idea that Mrs Thatcher was particularly attractive but she was always well dressed, albeit in a matronly way, ...

---

No wonder you enjoyed reading Maugham!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

No wonder you enjoyed reading Maugham!

---

:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

Though she was a feminist icon, she reportedly said "I hate feminism - it is poison." I think that is partly why she insisted on "Mrs" Thatcher.

---

Margaret hated feminism because the need for it sprung from a sick society. She was born female. Wasn't that enough?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

Margaret hated feminism because the need for it sprung from a sick society. She was born female. Wasn't that enough?

---

I would say quite the reverse feminism disliked her because there was nothing feminine about her. Don't forget she was a peasant girl at heart. Peasantry and cities do not quite mix and as a result you get someone like her who have not quite a grasp of how modern societies link up with secular and therefore the destructive element about her was because she did not have a grasp of how and what makes societies tick.
I would say someone in her position came saw and conquered but also destroyed and uprooted evil from its own grief. The worse ever to happen to the UK. That is my opinion. She was devisive and still is and tories and labour will suffer as a consequence of it because they saw something in her they could not quite get and yet revere her. That is shocking and it will cost them their politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

Don't forget she was a peasant girl at heart.

---

:smilielol5:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emil Miller

:smilielol5:

---

Why are you laughing?
Margaret's father used to own two grocery shops. Her parentage is from the shires her root are deep seated in peasantry. Farmers is another word for it. She is no middle class she is from working class background. Research if you do not believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

Why are you laughing?
Margaret's father used to own two grocery shops. Her parentage is from the shires her root are deep seated in peasantry. Research if you do not believe.

---

I believe he's laughing because, while she may come from a "peasant" (ugh) family, calling her a peasant girl at heart implies that she was innocent, naive, and perhaps simple. None of which describes Mrs. Thatcher. At all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by *Classic*Charm*

I believe he's laughing because, while she may come from a "peasant" (ugh) family, calling her a peasant girl at heart implies that she was innocent, naive, and perhaps simple. None of which describes Mrs. Thatcher. At all.

---

Ah I got it now. I did not realise that is what it meant.
Maggie was a peasant girl through and through and her entourage getting mixed up with city scapes got to her head a bit hence the shambles of her policies.

Hang on a minute Emil, there are parallels with Joan of Arc here. A simple peasent girl, chosen by destiny to free her country from the grip of the tyrannous left, only to be betrayed by her own side at the moment of victory, and sacrificed for a weak and weedy John Major.

Yes I remember her first day in office, she turned up at 10 Downing Street with a milk churn and a milking stool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by prendrelemick

Hang on a minute Emil, there are parallels with Joan of Arc here. A simple peasent girl, chosen by destiny to free her country from the grip of the tyrannous left, only to be betrayed by her own side at the moment of victory, and sacrificed for a weak and weedy John Major.

---

Joan of Arc? I do not believe she existed. I doubt very much her story is real. She is as fictional as Robin Hood but then I might completely wrong so feel free to take it apart.
Maggie however was no no simple but more a complex stoic with no denouement if I may say so. Very randy and ferocious. I would not want to cross another like her again. Let's keep farmers to their lands it is best kept that way and fair. City is bad air for peasants.