Richard Hawley

State funeral for Thatcher
Page 1 of 9

Author:  speedyvespa [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:04 pm ]
Post subject:  State funeral for Thatcher

Anyone else here think this is an insult?

Apparently based on the belief that she 'revived Britain's post-war economic fortunes', but in apparent ignorance that it was at the expense of at least half the country.

For someone who pretty much openly despised the working classes, I don't see how this is deserved. If Clement Atlee didn't get one, she doesn't deserve one. If I understand a state funeral correctly, it's because most of the country deems it suitable.

I'd be effing surprised if this was the case with Thatch. Care to comment, anyone?

Author:  catsandbooks [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:28 pm ]
Post subject: 

I'll be opening the champagne* when she goes ... spent the entire 80s loathing and despising what she represented ... and let's not forget her own party kicked her out :roll:

There are events and images from the 80s that still haunt ... the Falklands ... the miners ... wapping ... poll tax ... 3 million + on the dole ... inner city riots ... the destruction of communities ... anyone want to add to the list? :evil:

* irony intended given my following comment

Author:  Richard Hawley [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:38 pm ]
Post subject: 

that is apaling but at least when it happens i can piss on her grave

Author:  catsandbooks [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 5:55 pm ]
Post subject: 

Author:  exapno mapcase [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 6:39 pm ]
Post subject: 

Piss on her grave? She needs a fire under her and I wouldn't wait until she died either.

It will be a major security operation as sge divided this country more than any other politician and caused untold misery and heartache. Why should society honour her when she declared there is no such thing as society

Author:  Gary [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:20 pm ]
Post subject: 

You just have to look at footage of Orgreave to see what misery she caused. I was just a kid at the time but i knew it was all wrong what was happening.
State funeral? more like a party.

Author:  hissyt [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:59 pm ]
Post subject: 

Author:  Rita [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:42 pm ]
Post subject: 

Author:  stevo [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:47 pm ]
Post subject: 

[quote="Rita"]What is wrong with Gordon Brown?
Tony Benn made the right move all those years ago, distancing himself from "New Labour".

Tony Benn, what a truly great honest sincere gentleman,

Author:  Barney [ Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:50 pm ]
Post subject: 

I must admit I got a bit excited when I saw the headline "state funeral for Thatcher" but the article was, well, a bit of a disappointment. I never get suckered in to these things but I logged on and voted. If she gets a state funeral its a fucking disgrace.

Author:  catsandbooks [ Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:01 am ]
Post subject: 

Author:  loftyeric2 [ Thu Jul 17, 2008 12:55 am ]
Post subject: 

Author:  Sir-Twangalot [ Thu Jul 17, 2008 1:20 am ]
Post subject: 

Author:  netheredge [ Thu Jul 17, 2008 4:19 am ]
Post subject: 

Right to the very end, an old rat bag.

I could start with 'that fucking thing' Thatcher.

The arguments thats been put forward for a state funeral...could well apply to Tony Blair I think. We must all bow down and pay homage to Tony Blair our great leader and rewrite history.

The similarities between that prat and Thatcher are very close...alright Thatcher was worse...but as far as war mongering goes..on a par maybe.

Why this is very controversial is all this bullshit about being a great leader e.t.c....even if you believe all that shite. In the 20th century the only other non 'royal' not to have a state funeral was Churchill.

Now that is the ultimate high for Baroness Baggage..just how much would that fucking thing like to be so closely associated with Churchill.

Well fucking thing..Winston Churchill was the leader of the country ie in war time there was no party leader. All political parties were united. United against the fascists.

'On 10 May 1940, hours before the German invasion of France by a lightning advance through the Low Countries, it became clear that, following failure in Norway, the country had no confidence in Chamberlain's prosecution of the war and so Chamberlain resigned. The commonly accepted version of events states that Lord Halifax turned down the post of Prime Minister because he believed he could not govern effectively as a member of the House of Lords instead of the House of Commons. Although the Prime Minister does not traditionally advise the King on the former's successor, Chamberlain wanted someone who would command the support of all three major parties in the House of Commons. A meeting between Chamberlain, Halifax, Churchill and David Margesson, the government Chief Whip, led to the recommendation of Churchill, and, as a constitutional monarch, George VI asked Churchill to be Prime Minister and to form an all-party government. Churchill's first act was to write to Chamberlain to thank him for his support.'

FUCK OFF THATHCER, YOU SHIT ON 'THE POOR'...and take your ego trip with you.

My hope is that you will never rewrite history.

Author:  NickD [ Thu Jul 17, 2008 9:37 am ]
Post subject: 

Page 1 of 9 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group