P.K. Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 Ah, PK, this would be the same Harvey-Jones who saved ICI so well that it then had to be dismembered in order to enable most of it to survive? You should choose your idols more carefully! As has been posted several times on here parameters change and industries have to change with them. Showing your inexperience here because ICI was one of the manufacturers who had to put up with Maggie. Despite insulting Maggie the extremely highly regarded J H_J got a K anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted May 10, 2009 Share Posted May 10, 2009 BTW, PK, you should read this quote from the noted mathematician John Allen Paulos when discussing things like poverty/inequality measurements: "The mathematics may be exact but the judgements, guesses and estimates supporting its applications are anything but". He's entitled to his opinion as are we all, even those who clearly slavishly worship idols whom history has shown to have feet of clay... Me, I'll stick to the facts. Another Maggie "achievement", this one from the Falklands. In all military operations the commander on the ground is recognised as being in charge. This is because he is there and knows exactly how the land lies. In a complete break from SOP Brigadier Julian Thompson was ordered by Maggie to attack Goose Green. The Argentine base at GG had no military or strategic value. Thompson knew it could have just been harried by air and naval fire and left to wither on the vine. He also knew that it was purely a political move by Thatcher. She wanted to show the Great British Public that she was getting on with it so never mind the lives that would be lost, her political career was everything. After many acrimonious exchanges between Thompson and his chain of command, with Maggie at the top, he announced "I'm going to win the islands back for them and then I'm going to leave" - because at the end of the day he has to obey orders. The completely pointless attack went ahead and many lives were lost. The Argentine commander, Italo Piaggi, also knew it was completely pointless so when given the offer he surrendered to spare more stupid deaths. Harriers and a naval gun-line could have destroyed GG without a ground assault anyway. Piaggi knew this. Come the "victory" parade, with Maggie revelling in "her" victory the commander who had actually made it all happen, Brigadier Julian Thompson, was absent. A man of courage and integrity being true to his word he had already left the service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 BTW, PK, you should read this quote from the noted mathematician John Allen Paulos when discussing things like poverty/inequality measurements: "The mathematics may be exact but the judgements, guesses and estimates supporting its applications are anything but". He's entitled to his opinion as are we all, even those who clearly slavishly worship idols whom history has shown to have feet of clay... Me, I'll stick to the facts. Another Maggie "achievement", this one from the Falklands. In all military operations the commander on the ground is recognised as being in charge. This is because he is there and knows exactly how the land lies. In a complete break from SOP Brigadier Julian Thompson was ordered by Maggie to attack Goose Green. The Argentine base at GG had no military or strategic value. Thompson knew it could have just been harried by air and naval fire and left to wither on the vine. He also knew that it was purely a political move by Thatcher. She wanted to show the Great British Public that she was getting on with it so never mind the lives that would be lost, her political career was everything. After many acrimonious exchanges between Thompson and his chain of command, with Maggie at the top, he announced "I'm going to win the islands back for them and then I'm going to leave" - because at the end of the day he has to obey orders. The completely pointless attack went ahead and many lives were lost. The Argentine commander, Italo Piaggi, also knew it was completely pointless so when given the offer he surrendered to spare more stupid deaths. Harriers and a naval gun-line could have destroyed GG without a ground assault anyway. Piaggi knew this. Come the "victory" parade, with Maggie revelling in "her" victory the commander who had actually made it all happen, Brigadier Julian Thompson, was absent. A man of courage and integrity being true to his word he had already left the service. This is typical of you, PK - start of with an arrogant statement (btw, what are "the facts" or do you completely miss Paulos' point?) which means nothing and follow it up with something totally irrelevant to the point under discusion. Exactly what could MT have done to you to induce such blind, unthinking hatred? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 This is typical of you, PK - start of with an arrogant statement (btw, what are "the facts" or do you completely miss Paulos' point?) which means nothing and follow it up with something totally irrelevant to the point under discusion. Exactly what could MT have done to you to induce such blind, unthinking hatred? He was a cook in some third-rate regiment that Maggie disbanded? S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 How very flattering Mr Sebrof. Because the British Army Cookery Course is the toughest course in the entire UK Armed Forces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted May 17, 2009 Share Posted May 17, 2009 How very flattering Mr Sebrof. Because the British Army Cookery Course is the toughest course in the entire UK Armed Forces. Really? You must be related to Slim. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 This is typical of you, PK - start of with an arrogant statement (btw, what are "the facts" or do you completely miss Paulos' point?) which means nothing and follow it up with something totally irrelevant to the point under discusion. Exactly what could MT have done to you to induce such blind, unthinking hatred? Would you mind awfully not fagging up a thread by pointlessly quoting the previous post in it's entirety. If the post you wish to comment on is a few pages back then fair enough. But not when it's the one above yours... I didn't miss the "Paulos Play" at all. Like Chinahand's attempt to muddy the waters the simple fact remains that Thatcher achieved an all time record in widening the gap in the UK between rich and poor by a massive 39 points on the Gini index. That's more than FIVE TIMES any other administrations attempt. As has been pointed out several times she did this by completely ignoring those who didn't vote for her. Revolting woman. The way she overruled the leader of the Commando Brigade in the Falklands is VERY relevant. It tells me all I need to know about Thatcher. The resignation of Julian Thompson and his absence from HIS victory parade, after he won the battles DESPITE Thatcher wasting his resources for her selfish political ends, for me really defines them both. There's Major General Julian Thompson with his honesty, decency and integrity and then there's, well, a politician like Thatcher. The comparison and differences between the two couldn't be more starkly defined. She lost the Falklands but stayed in power. He won them back and resigned. Incidentally, everything I have posted about Thatcher is easily verifiable. Which does make me wonder exactly what could MT have done to you to induce such blind, unthinking, slavish idoltary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 Which does make me wonder exactly what could MT have done to you to induce such blind, unthinking, slavish idoltary? Well, she sorted out the unions, and thus put Britain back on the road to prosperity. Had she not done so, we would be in an even worse situation than we are now. Furthermore, whilst there were elements of the Falklands campaign that can be criticised, it's biggest consequence was the collapse of an extremely unpleasant and murderous regime in Argentina. It also gave Britain back a bit of pride at a time when the country was at a very low ebb. I don't agree with everything she did, by a long chalk, but on balance, she was a Good Thing. She certainly achieved far more than any prime minister since, and many before. IMHO, of course. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.