Margaret Thatcher

There are actually more than two, agapanthus, but I'll copy my post from one of the others here:

'I think I posted on another thread - or it could have been this one - that any pro-Mrs Ts among posting Gransnet members may well not be prepared to face the negative responses they'd get if they ventured to put their views forward. Let's not pretend that wouldn't happen.'

I think that just about sums it up. And no, you're not being dim!

It seems strange that there are two threads about Lady Thatcher ,the other one mainly anti and this one pro. I was beginning to think that the whole of G N was against her until I found this thread, which is not what the opinion polls have reported.Are people too intimidated to state their positive views of her the other thread? But perhaps I am being a bit dim.

Nanan you're mischievous - they also have national responsbilities, and will be involved in busy union work. It's not a cushy job to be a union leader.

whenim64 - absolutely right in detail, 3 union leaders and 1 member for sure - so in effect that one union member is nicely represented and supported by the 3 union leaders - I'm sure their conferences, most likely held in some vast emporium to accommodate the four of them, must be enthralling. Plenty of time for conferences of course in the absence of mines.

Soop - lovely to have an alternative to the nasty hate campaigners.

She was a very great lady and deserves our thanks and respect for all she did and tried to achieve.

Nanban I went looking for the four union leaders you referred to. The Times refers to 3 union leaders and one other union member, but the article is misleading as the union leaders are in jobs that are not redundant, so correctly receiving pay, and they fulfil union duties that are still needed.

Ted Heath annoyed me for some reason or other.

I was working for the Executive Council in Plymouth during the three day week. We clerks continued to record all manner of things in large ledgers, by hand, in pen and real ink, by candlelight. We also wore our coats. 'Twas cold and the office was Dickensian.

The three day week was actually under Ted Heath. And my daughter was almost born by candlelight (at home)

I read somewhere that Harold Wilson closed 93 mines in relation to her closing 22 mines. Labour conveniently forget that fact.

Nanban

Margaret Thatcher didn't cause division - unions and unionists who wanted to control all our lives and in the process lining their own pockets who caused that and continue to - there are still 4 union leaders taking huge salaries for mines and miners that no longer exist. As for paying for her funeral - she negotiated a rebate from the EU on our behalf that to date has netted this country £75 billion pounds.

Ask every single person who has bought their council house if they resent her; ask the Falkland Islanders to name two.

bookdreamer

I absolutely agree.. I have said on another thread if the ones who caused vandalism and theft yesterday were put in a room and asked what they know of the Thatcher years, I bet they would not have a clue but will find all this an excuse for a 'jolly'.

The problem is a lot of people lost their jobs because of the actions of the unions at that time too. Their lives were also ruined and they don't forget either. Because the private sector did not have the voice the unions had they were not reported or cared about.

I agree Margaret Thatcher has caused a division in the country but to a lot of others the unions were equally as divisive and caused a hell of a lot of hardship to the populaton who had no control over union walkouts. Those years do not only belong to mine workers, they belong to all the workers who could not do a days work to feed their families too.

Merlotgran. I think the majority of people who will cause trouble won't be the people of her "reign" but trouble makers who have very little notion of even who she was and what she did to a great extent.

I think a small proportion will be young and idealistic and know what they're protesting about (as I once was) but not the majority.

I agree that a 'state' funeral will be like a red rag to bull for some. I think this will be a 'first' for the UK. Most large, public funerals are well respected whether you liked/supported/approved of the deceased or not. As a nation we are normally very respectful of the dead but not this time. A lower key funeral would be wiser given that MT was hugely unpopular with a great many people.

I suppose we have to give a thought to those whose lives and communities were ruined by her policies and attitudes. Those people will not be sad, but I agree they should be respectful in the face of a family bereavement.

You can't give in to thugs and hooligans.

It would be shameful to not give her a ceremonial funeral.

I agree that the drunken parties and burning of pictures, etc, are a disgrace, shameful and damaging the image of Britain further.

I despised what she did, and she is the only woman whose voice, demeanour, politics, etc, made me feel physically sick and angry. For me, even more than the hugely divisive effect she had on Britain, the culmination of which we see in current politics - was the sinking of the Belgrano. And for most foreigners in the world, that is really the one thing that they will always remember as a crime against humanity.

But some of the words, pictures and behaviours seen since yesterday - are just not acceptable. Criticise her and politics, even vehemently, but calling her a f** b* and c***, etc, and drinking orgies, etc- are totally out of order.

What I fear though, is the effect of a State (I know, but same as... surely) funeral at St Pauls of all places, mainly at tax payer's expense - will be like a red rag to to many bulls- and I fear terrible scenes and even a riot. Am I the only one who can see that this funeral could turn into a massive outrage and worse (the cost of security alone will be staggering- especially with Queen and PP attending). This could be the last straw for GB.

I worry too as my daughter works in the area.

Sorry Eleanorre spelt your name wrong.

Not only is the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh attending the funeral, but it is the first Prime Minister's funeral the monarch has attended since Churchill died!

Thanks Eleanor. Felt the same.

'We' don't decry Margaret Thatcher - we lived through the power cuts, trying to get to work and not knowing how/if we would get home; we lived through the mountains of stinking rubbish lying in the streets; we lived through worse riots than those we have seen recently - in fact we lived in a country brought to its knees by unions all out to protect their own selves at the expense of everyone else. And Margaret Thatcher saved this country from that and made it prosperous enough for the labour party to waste again.

Her voice, and her personna were against her - if she had been a man she would be regarded as a complete hero. During her time the press banged on about how the Queen and she detested each other and yet the Queen is voluntarily honouring her by attending the funeral - which to me speaks volumes.

We could dearly do with another, but sadly she was unique.

I agree Eleanorre , quite trashy really .

I am off now as DD has just got back from shops after buying DG"S some over priced , IMO , Clarks shoes

Yes I do Eleanore.

With you all the way. I have been horrified by some of the remarks I have heard and read. I know some will say that they have a right to express their opinion, but to me it is needless vitriol that only demeans themselves.