Is Celebrating Death Justifiable?

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?