Yes, but isn't it heartless to celebrate her death when her loved ones are going through ****ing hell right now?

The way I took Josy's comment was that in response to some post saying you should respect the dead, all Josy pointed out was Hitler due respect too.
It was merely a highlighting that not all the dead maybe are due respect,nothing meant as offensive to or that Margaret Thatcher was to be compared to Hitler, she never said Margaret Thatcher even acted like Hitler.

All she was doing was pointing out that they were both now dead and if you should respect all dead, should we too respect Hitler.

I doubt Margaret Thatcher was really a witch but she has been called that on here.

I got Josy's comment and saw no offence in it at all.

Stop swearing, it is not heartless, they had no loyalty to her and my guess is they are showing as much compassion for her in death as thatcher did herself to millions in life.

Exactly - your guess. You don't know for sure how they feel right now, so stop assuming things.

Leave it out we've already been through this - her beloved twins knew she she was on the off and decided not to come back to Britain ! and say ta rah !
Her son who everyone seems to overlook - is a crook and more than 1 country would like to lock him up -- poor little grieving lad - he'd be in jail if it wern't for Maggie the meglo bailing him out ! and more than once. He had to stay away so as not to shame his poor ole ma ma

Pardon me, but isn't that what you just did?

You assumed her children are going through hell, when another poster has pointed out that she was ill for a while and 2 of her children didn't bother to come into the country to see her.

as far as Im concerned she came into a britain that was a mess....and she had to fix it. labour were a disaster as usual with their 90% taxes and massive government, thatcher fixed that but she went too far and found no balance.
in the end she fixed things in the short term (5 to 10 years) but damaged the country hugely in the long term
any leader could sell off all the crown jewels, all the utilities all the transport etc
she did this it make a very tiny number of people mega rich and made the rest poor.
however she did defeat the far left which was necessary in many ways...however some of the far left was there for a reason, to regulate the economy and in particular protect workers rights. balance is key.
I also think she didnt do enough for small businesses and working clas people. as stated the more than doubling of vat enslaved the working classs and small business people, the fuel duty rises on the back of BP going private enslaved us all to fuel and hit more businesses, she increased regulation and paper work for small businesses too, the national isnurance rises hit the poor, the collapse of industry hit all the poorer working class areas.

inflation destroyed industry....she didnt find a balance, eventually inflation was forced down, she did eventually bring down interest rates. unemployment was an all time high at 3.2 million. long term jobs lost forever. I liked her beliefs on being thrifty and not wasteful I was 100% with her on that. I can also say my experince in the nhs was better in the 80s than now. nowadays there is a frightening pass the buck culture, over inflated immoral chasm at the heart of the nhs.

she was a champion of the mega rich...nearly alll the people praiisng here are the mega rich , the argument against socialism is a cartoon caricature. before socialism, you had a few thousand landowners who owned the UK, they enslaved and exploited the workers. they paid them a pittance, there was barely any health and safety either. tragedy followed tragedy. millions of poor men were sent to die in foreign fields in unwinnable wars.

all these clones like bliar and dave cameron have done is rubber stamp her radical agenda

she was the original, the person who moved us to the right, but she privatised the wrong things and deregulated the wrong areas, she took her eye off the elite financiers yet watched the little man with a magnifying glass.

regardless if you like her or not, each area needs to be studied in the cold light of day.

finally this she was a woman etc etc is sooooo boring ......we know she was a woman, yet she didnt have a chip on her shoulder about alleged oppression. she did what any smart person does, she played the hand she was dealt. she used her female wiles when necessary, but ultimately she use dher intelligence and experience. her biggest influence was in fact 2 men, her beloved dad and her beloved husband

I reject the simplifed drivel all men want to stop women like her achievce. theese men proved this is a lie. women and working class and disabled were simply way behind the rich men 100 years ago. it was simple class and economics. thatcher would never have introduced positive discrimination as she believed simple honest straight forward competition and straight forward arguing will see the best person rise to the top

I also reject this business of calling her a masculine leader because she attacked the belgrano. that us sexist pure and simple to imply war like aggression is purely male and not a female instinct. forget gender judge her on the issues.


overall she was a better PM than blair and brown and heath. but ultimately I saw her as a short term winner, but long term the nation was in many ways the loser.

Ok I will rephrase, it is my considered opinion....

Bringing the royals into the discussion isn't relevant lostalex.

Application of Godwin's Law ..... :pipe:

It is relevant actually when you are talking about what tax payers money pays for. It is relevant when you have the tax payers paying for the royals celebration be it the jubilee or even Diana's funeral. If the tax payers have to pay for that stuff, then they should also be paying for the ceremonies for the ELECTED officials of the country.

To say it's not relevant is silly. Of course it's relevant to compare tax payers paying for a rainy jubilee down the river to celebrate the royals, but people are complaining about the tax payer also giving a democratically elected state leader a proper send off?

How is that not relevant? it's putting things into perspective.

Exactly

You're unreal - get clued up eh !

Again, lostalex, educate yourself about money where the royal family is concerned before spouting your mouth off.

Forget the historical stuff, but what's relevant now in the 21st century.

Thatcher got the send off she deserved when even her own party turned against her.

She does not deserve, warrant, or even want this drain on already drained resources.

Oh yeah i'd like to add - how much security will be needed for her - most of the massive budget ? No one wanted to throw paint bombs at Diana - `get real please

I realize you were being a bit flippant and sarcastic in that response, but the truth is you'd be SHOCKED by how much the security for the Jubillee cost.

most people are of their time, maggie would be laughed out of office nowadays. but it needed someone strong to change the uk in 1979. sadly she then started to believe the hype and became pretty ignorant and totally lacking in any sense of empathy....her driver said she only ever cried once and those were tears of self pity when she was thrown out. no tears for the millions of industtrial workers and their families? no tears for pinochets victims? etc

Fine, but it's only natural to suggest that death may cause distress to relatives and friends. It's a horrible thing to do regardless, throwing parties over someone's passing.

I think that they are both well aware their mother was not held in that high a regard by much of the UK.
Seeing the strength of feeling doesn't shock me and it won't shock them either.

It's especially unsightly because this was an old woman. She hasn't been involved in politics for DECADES.

TO wait until someone is dead to behave this way, is especially appalling. She's been alive for the past 23 years since being out of office, why wait until she's dead to make your opinion known. It's just so ghetto. It really does make the people involved look so PETTY. ding dong the witch is dead, it's just so pathetic and hipster chic BS.

Have some class. seriously.

People's opinions haven't changed on her since she left office. Why would or should I say, why should they change.

People are only voicing their opinions on the woman in light of her death. Should we all just say rest in peace and praise the damn woman? No.

What makes you think people waited until she died to voice their opinions?

Her death has raised the subject again, people's opinions haven't changed.

what will bad mouthing a dead old lady do or change?
answer, nothing.

Why is it horrible - esp when you've waited years - best not to bring up her family - son a crook - daughter gay

Less said the better on the the nasty Margaret front - no wonder she decided to hide in a hotel