Idiotic thickos. Yes, another thread!!!

POGS not comparable with Churchill!

Saucebox .

smile

Nonu

Sometimes a small pee is all that's required.

Sorry Pogs , I used a small p , I know you are not offended , well i hope not as none intended .

Ana & pogs , Like

Lilygran

Margaret Thatcher was a massive player on the Global Stage.

She is also more respected overseas. That's exactly why she is having a funeral of such stature.

Nellie, there may not be posts on this thread attacking Margaret Thatcher personally, but there are plenty on the other threads:

'She was a loathsome woman'
'An awful woman'
'I cheered...'
'She was a poor excuse for a woman'
'A woman entirely lacking in compassion, humility and humanity'

to quote but a few. Why does it seem as though more was expected of her just because she was a woman, and now that she's dead it's perfectly all right to criticise her mercilessly, although most of us on Gransnet are women? Would we feel the same about her if she'd been a man?

I'm not attacking Mrs T as a woman. I think a quasi state funeral when the previous non-royals to get one were Nelson and Churchill is a bit OTT. I didn't agree with Churchill's political stance either but he was a global figure and the PM during the war. So fair enough. But it will lead to trouble.

Janthea have you read my post?
I wrote
How would you suggest we should discuss Hitler or Pol Pot? Should we be "nice" about them just because they are dead or should we tell the truth about how much harm they did and how they affected others

Did I say or imply anywhere there that I am making comparisons between them and MT.
This is an issue about telling the truth about some dead person and not veiling over unwelcome facts just because they are dead. Whether its Pol Pot or anyone else assessing their legacies involves telling the facts they were and not delivering sychophantic eulogies.

Like "Mussolini made the trains run on time"

europeanhistory.about.com/od/historicalmyths/a/Did-Mussolini-Get-The-Trains-Running-On-Time.htm

Which seemed to me to be AnneRS point was that I felt she was making was that we should not say unpleasant truths about someone because they are dead. Which begs the question when is the truth the truth and when is it an attack."

janthea, I for one would not put Her Ladyship in the same bracket as Pol Pot and Hitler. But, although she militarily got the better of Galtieri, a fascist dictator, there is no denying that she was a supporter of Pinochet, the no less appallingly wicked dictator of Chile.

If/when (can't really remember, but possible)I referred to 'haters', I would have meant that anyone hating anything are likely to shout louder (figuratively speaking) than someone who doesn't' hate. (Well I know what I mean!)

I am far from having a 'sheep mentality'. I never for a moment supported Thatcherite policies. I was quite old enough (38) when she came to power to be able to think for myself. Her policies affect us now - and will do so well into the future. If you are suffering from the inexorable rise in electricity prices, you may like to consider the ownership of our generating and supply companies by European companies. Is this the way she 'made Britain great again' (to quote David Cameron)?

nellie Surely you are not comparing Baroness Thatcher to Hitler or Pol Pot.

I question the implication that Gransnetters who support Mrs T are somehow prevented from expressing that support.

If you look through the postings on this thread, virtually all of the personal comments come from those supporting Mrs T:

People have been described as "blinkered" or "haters" or of having: a "sheep mentality" or "delusions of grandeur"

A perfectly civilised debate has been described as a "shouting match" where people are "shot down" (who's been shouting and who has been shot down - people have just expressed their opinions and that, surely, is the point of having discussion forums)

The comment was made "what does it say about you as a person?" (the implication being that those who criticise Mrs T's legacy are somehow morally lacking)

Some people here are expressing their views as to why Mrs T was a divisive figure whose policies have had long lasting negative repercussions. Others feel that she was an inspirational figure whose policies benefited the UK. Both sides are entitled to their opinions.

annerichardson

I do not agree with the riots and parties or celebrate her death.

The threads were discussing Thatchers legacy as a very divisive PM. I do not see that as "attacking her". It is a fact that even after 23yrs out of power she is still hated in so many parts of the country for her policies and her arrogant and condescending manner. I do not think there has been a PM in the last 113 yrs who has so thoroughly divided opinion in this county and caused so much ill feeling.

If we look at the reputation of other PMs and discussed their effects on the country we should always be objective. If they were really controversial and unpopular as PMs then we should not say otherwise.

I wonder what you you regard as bad mouthing.

How would you suggest we should discuss Hitler or Pol Pot? Should we be "nice" about them just because they are dead or should we tell the truth about how much harm they did and how they affected others.
Do you think it is bad mouthing to tell the truth about them?

Greatnan Wed 10-Apr-13 14:36:17
Thank you, jingle, but I think Sel is usually pretty good at speaking for herself!

A childish and unnecessary comment. Just being unpleasant.

Greatnan why is it that you always put the worst possible interpretation on everything I post?

"Movedalot - does 'blinkered' mean 'not agreeing with me'? Are you ever blinkered or does it only apply to other people?"

You know full well that I am talking about only seeing one point of view and not admitting that there is any other view. I just don't understand why you do this all the time. What on earth motivates you?

I have used the word 'balanced' but you fail to notice that.

janthea and Annerichardson ,

x

annerichardson Wise words.

WE have argued exhaustively, I think, but new posters probably have not read through all the posts. I don't intend to rehash all the arguments - I would simply say that when a person puts themselves up for public office it is reasonable for others to comment on what they have done in that office, whether they are alive or dead.
All it says about us is that we can exercise our right to post our views without censorship, whatever they may be.

The issue is entirely relevant anne My taxes are contributing towards her funeral, and the parliamentary recall to sing her praises. I have no wish to bad mouth the dead but I am entitled to bad mouth her policies, and the resulting fallout from them, which we are still experiencing today

Exactly the point I have been trying to make on the various Mrs T threads, although I will admit to not being very articulate annerichardson.

I feel there is a type of sheep mentally going on here. Its as we say these issues after the horse has bolted I also think before following suit and attacking a person when dead what does it say about you as a person? I did not agree with all of Mrs Thatchers policies but would not want to bad mouth or celebrate a persons death.
There are plenty of current issues with our current joint government that need addressing. I wish the general public would be coming more brought together on these current issues rather than issues irrelevant to todays society and what is happening now.

Indeed. Somebody said she wanted to be cremated, but they'd run out of coal (:

Agree with Greatnan. We are all absolutely entitled to our own opinions on this site Janthea.