Idiotic thickos. Yes, another thread!!!

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

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)?

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!)

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.

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."

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.

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?

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.

Ana & pogs , Like

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

Nonu

Sometimes a small pee is all that's required.

Saucebox .

smile

POGS not comparable with Churchill!

"Men's evil manners live in brass
Their virtues we write in water".

Shakespeare gives us quotes for every eventuality!

And if you ask me, the not-really-a-state funeral is 98% a Tory political stunt.

It would have been spoken of a long time ago I think, with the Queen and Margaret Thatchers input. Probably before David Cameron became PM.

Doesn't it seem odd that someone who appears to have been so reviled by so many became Britain's longest serving Prime Minister?

Someone must have voted for her.

The £5m that is being wasted on her funeral would be better spent refurbishing our crumbling schools, or keeping our crisis mental health beds open.

I hated Thatcher, and am not alone, but out of respect for her children( no respect for her , ever) would not have partied, tempted as I was

However it is an absolute disgrace to afford her this type of funeral, at public expense, and an insult to the miners, homeless, kids stuck in high rent houses, and all the other members of society ( it does exist!!! ) whose life she ruined to make a quick buck for herself and her cronies

Merlot gran - she only beat Blair by 18 months, and he abdicated, wasn't forced out by his own party

Due to our ridiculous voting system, more people voted against her than for her, but we still got her !

Ana - had she been a man, yes I would still have hated her for ruining our country

State funerals of commoners. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_funerals_in_the_United_Kingdom
Does Maggie really match up to any of this lot? Wellington? Nelson? Gladstone? Isaac Newton?

A the risk of controversy we can't all choose who we think deserves a "good send off" or not can we? How much did that old witch the queen mothers funeral cost? What about princess Diana's? Can you imagine the money that will be wasted cost of the queens funeral (when she eventually goes not trying to hurry her off or anything) Blimey how many hospitals and schools could we build with that money? 5m will seem like a drop in the ocean.

Ana Are you actually saying that "compassion, humility and humanity" are qualities that we as women expect from other women but don't expect from men?

I can't say that I expect them from most modern politicians of either sex.

I would be quite prepared to post that I consider Tony Blair to be a loathsome and awful man. ('She was a loathsome woman' 'An awful woman') while he's still alive as well as after his death.

I didn't cheer and I think it would have been silly to do so in private and unnecessary to do so in public. ('I cheered...')

A poor excuse for something is a tired old cliché which actually has no meaning at all if you think about it. ('She was a poor excuse for a woman')

See above ('A woman entirely lacking in compassion, humility and humanity').

Yes it is all right to criticise Baroness Thatcher now she is dead – just as it was while she was still alive. I cannot see why you consider it wrong for women to criticise another woman or at least with the kind of criticism that has been voiced on Gransnet. It's not as if it degenerated into personal comments on her face, body, taste in clothes, etc. which would have been unpalatable.

Ana I had that same thought, is it just because she was a woman?

susie but she did beat Tony Blair and I think he was driven out by his own party.

absent I think she did show ""compassion, humility and humanity" it is just that these things are not so newsworthy. Surely cooking a meall in her own kitchen for a party for all her staff's children showed 2 of these? Perhaps not many know about that as it isn't so shocking. I am sure there are other cases which have gone unnoticed.

I think the difference between critiscing Hitler or whomever is that they have been dead for a long time but Mrs T has only just died and a little compassion for those who loved and cared about her is more appropriate. Even Ed Milliband managed it yesterday.

Nelliemoser wrote:
'The threads were discussing Thatchers legacy as a very divisive PM. I do not see that as "attacking her".'

The quotes I gave were examples of what, in my view, were personal attacks as not all of them were in the context of her policies or actions in government.

My wondering whether we would have treated her differently had she been a man was an afterthought.