thommo2010 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 The nutters? Do you mean the people of Great Britain Thommo? What do you think they're going to do? How would you police such an event? With an open mind? No. Us against them mentality and it isn't the them that are causing the problem, is it? I was in London while the EDL were protesting a rally for Israel, there were more police than people and they looked fully menacing, full riot gear, shields, batons, robocop head gear, that is scary to a normal person (which give or take the odd mad moment, I am) these things are always over policed. People are generally quite nice, regardless of what you think. I mean the people who think it is acceptable to go to a funeral and protest, a person has died why would anyone think that is acceptable? It is like the riots a couple of years ago people just jumping on the band wagon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 It's not just the funeral of 'a person' though, is it? A funeral should be a private affair, this is more about being seen than paying respect which, in my opinion, is far worse than any protestor behaviour. George Osborne properly crying and everything, what is that all about? Were they mates? Bit of an age gap, weirdo. But, she liked Jimmy Saville and General Pinochet so, I suppose anything goes, they are/were Tories after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 I mean the people who think it is acceptable to go to a funeral and protest, a person has died why would anyone think that is acceptable? It is like the riots a couple of years ago people just jumping on the band wagon IMHO this rather good post sums it up: I am comfortable with it as it has to be a two way thing. If they want a ceremonial funeral paid for by the public and the right to publically spout how brilliant she was etc etc then it is only reasonable those who hold an opposite point of view and express that view equally publically I watched the clips on the lunchtime news, essentially to check that she was still dead, and a protester made the point that they would NEVER go to a private funeral to protest like that. However the service was in London and the south-east generally did very well under Thatcher. Mind you, who's idea was it to put the little Gurkha at the back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paswt Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 The nutters? Do you mean the people of Great Britain Thommo? What do you think they're going to do? How would you police such an event? With an open mind? No. Us against them mentality and it isn't the them that are causing the problem, is it? I was in London while the EDL were protesting a rally for Israel, there were more police than people and they looked fully menacing, full riot gear, shields, batons, robocop head gear, that is scary to a normal person (which give or take the odd mad moment, I am) these things are always over policed. People are generally quite nice, regardless of what you think. I mean the people who think it is acceptable to go to a funeral and protest, a person has died why would anyone think that is acceptable? It is like the riots a couple of years ago people just jumping on the band wagon Given that the funeral was at public expense and it is allegedly a free country why would anyone think it is unacceptable to protest within the law. Nothing "like the riots a couple of years ago" When Hirohito made a state visit I thought it entirely appropriate that , given the way POW's were treated , they attended his state visit and turn their backs (a calculated insult in Japan) as he passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EORH Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Why should people have to leave their community, family and friends? Isn't the simple answer because others are no longer willing to be forced to pay to keep them there? The flip side of your demand for welfare is that others are forced to pay it. Isn't that just as liberty destroying, LDV? The miners etc needed ever more subsidy. People had to pay for that - real money taken from real households. That was the essence of Maggie's point about society - you can't just go - "Oh society will pay for this" what that means is "Somebody else will pay for this." The miners were perfectly welcome to carry on doing exactly what they were doing - but they could no longer do it while demanding other people pay a subsidy for them to do it. The problem of "other people's money" is at the heart of socialism - and for all your claims that anarchism can get rid of money you are still left with one lot of people taking up the time and labour of another lot of people with all the tensions that produces if it is not felt to be a fair exchange. Subsidies like that destroy value in multiple ways - it stops a business being efficient, and it forces people to pay these businesses money that these people otherwise would have used as they wished, it forces them to give it to those who use it inefficiently. People simply couldn't afford the taxes to pay to run an economy in such an inefficient way - the electorate knew this, and that is why they elected Maggie and then re-elected her, as all the opposition had to offer as an alternative was the same old, same old of socialism and subsidies. That is the danger Labour are flirting with now, to Blair's annoyance! Why should people have to leave their community, family and friends? Isn't the simple answer because others are no longer willing to be forced to pay to keep them there? The flip side of your demand for welfare is that others are forced to pay it. Isn't that just as liberty destroying, LDV? The miners etc needed ever more subsidy. People had to pay for that - real money taken from real households. That was the essence of Maggie's point about society - you can't just go - "Oh society will pay for this" what that means is "Somebody else will pay for this." The miners were perfectly welcome to carry on doing exactly what they were doing - but they could no longer do it while demanding other people pay a subsidy for them to do it. The problem of "other people's money" is at the heart of socialism - and for all your claims that anarchism can get rid of money you are still left with one lot of people taking up the time and labour of another lot of people with all the tensions that produces if it is not felt to be a fair exchange. Subsidies like that destroy value in multiple ways - it stops a business being efficient, and it forces people to pay these businesses money that these people otherwise would have used as they wished, it forces them to give it to those who use it inefficiently. People simply couldn't afford the taxes to pay to run an economy in such an inefficient way - the electorate knew this, and that is why they elected Maggie and then re-elected her, as all the opposition had to offer as an alternative was the same old, same old of socialism and subsidies. That is the danger Labour are flirting with now, to Blair's annoyance! I think the miners wanted to carry on working,some pits were making a profit,but Maggie wanted to close most of them,as there were about 270,000 miners then,now how many are there?. As for subsidies for miners,which you say stops a business being efficient,do you agree that the same applies to farmers?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 I think the miners wanted to carry on working,some pits were making a profit,but Maggie wanted to close most of them,as there were about 270,000 miners then,now how many are there?. Seemingly more mines closed under Harold Wilson's labour government than Thatcher. Why isn't he denigrated like Thatcher? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Unproductive mines closed under Wilson's Labour government. The industry was fast becoming leaner, meaner and genuinely competitive - to the extent that coal was being produced cheaper than most other countries. Thatcher looked for a fight to make it look as if she was tough - then closed down as many mines as possible with no regard for their productivity or efficiency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domino Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Unproductive mines closed under Wilson's Labour government. The industry was fast becoming leaner, meaner and genuinely competitive - to the extent that coal was being produced cheaper than most other countries. Thatcher looked for a fight to make it look as if she was tough - then closed down as many mines as possible with no regard for their productivity or efficiency. Yes he was really nasty wasn't she! Just closed all them mines down because she was nasty. Probably never thought it through, or discussed it with anybody, just woke up one morning in a bit of a mood and thought ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prism10 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 I think the miners wanted to carry on working,some pits were making a profit,but Maggie wanted to close most of them,as there were about 270,000 miners then,now how many are there?. Seemingly more mines closed under Harold Wilson's labour government than Thatcher. Why isn't he denigrated like Thatcher? Wilson was denigrated. He had some dodgy businessmen friends, he had unpopular policies and the CIA disliked him. Deep down he was not as divisive as Thatcher and tried to be a one nation politician. Just like Thatcher he got dementia in old age but when he died he got a respectful send off from friends and foe alike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Unproductive mines closed under Wilson's Labour government. The industry was fast becoming leaner, meaner and genuinely competitive - to the extent that coal was being produced cheaper than most other countries. Thatcher looked for a fight to make it look as if she was tough - then closed down as many mines as possible with no regard for their productivity or efficiency. Obviously you haven't heard of 'dogma.' She (and the rest of her lackeys) wanted a fight - the miners had brought down the previous tory government, so she targeted them and didn't stop until the whole industry was destroyed. She was a vicious, nasty bitch who has now gone to the crematorium for what I hope will be a foretaste of her eternity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Domino Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Unproductive mines closed under Wilson's Labour government. The industry was fast becoming leaner, meaner and genuinely competitive - to the extent that coal was being produced cheaper than most other countries. Thatcher looked for a fight to make it look as if she was tough - then closed down as many mines as possible with no regard for their productivity or efficiency. Obviously you haven't heard of 'dogma.' She (and the rest of her lackeys) wanted a fight - the miners had brought down the previous tory government, so she targeted them and didn't stop until the whole industry was destroyed. She was a vicious, nasty bitch who has now gone to the crematorium for what I hope will be a foretaste of her eternity. In your opinion. In mine: Tongue in cheek and a Maggie supporter Yes she was really nasty wasn't she! Just closed all them mines down because she was nasty. Probably never thought it through, or discussed it with anybody, just woke up one morning in a bit of a mood and thought ..... Nice funeral today, all the anti brigade must have stayed in the pub and had a little moan amongst themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 It's not opinion. It's what happened... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Nice funeral today, all the anti brigade must have stayed in the pub and had a little moan amongst themselves. If you say so. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/margaret-thatcher/10000235/Margaret-Thatchers-funeral-protesters-turn-their-backs-on-coffin.html Nice to see the police with their backs turned to her coffin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Login Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Nice funeral today, all the anti brigade must have stayed in the pub and had a little moan amongst themselves. I was slightly surprised at the lack of numbers all around. There were obviously a few supportes but the majority seemed to be tourists or people there to see an event and it would not have mattered who it was for. If you are paying your respects are you really going to take pictures with your phone etc which many in the crowd appeared to be doing. Overall the funeral felt like an effort by her supporters to try and get the history books to write her up as being akin to Churchill etc. The empty spaces where the funeral was shown in public in the rest of the country appeared to show the level of dis interest by many Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeky boy Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Unproductive mines closed under Wilson's Labour government. The industry was fast becoming leaner, meaner and genuinely competitive - to the extent that coal was being produced cheaper than most other countries. Thatcher looked for a fight to make it look as if she was tough - then closed down as many mines as possible with no regard for their productivity or efficiency. This was quite true, I worked as a motorcycle courier in London for much of the 80s along with a few ex miners and others who's jobs had gone under the regime The bringing down of the miners union was as significant as the Falklands war to the tories. It was planned years in advance, the union was presented with a set of demands guaranteed to bring them out on strike in the early spring, when coal demand would be at its lowest for the next five months By the time demand had increased the imported coal was well organised and the miners went through a winter with no income, which eventually finished them off The battle was won and the gauntlet was thrown down to any other unions fancying a go I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.