Lewes Forum thread

Go on, tell 'em what you think


Lewes Forum New message

What a send off!

8
4
On 17 Apr 2013 at 6:11pm The old mayor wrote:
The funeral all went well. 1000's of people lining the streets. A moment of history. Quite humbling and moving. We are all human. And watched around the world by millions.
10
6
On 17 Apr 2013 at 6:58pm Confused Mum wrote:
Proud to be British
8
12
On 17 Apr 2013 at 7:01pm Red Ken wrote:
10 million quid of OUR money wasted. I wonder what that could have paid for at a hospital or two?
 
 
On 17 Apr 2013 at 7:04pm Grandpa wrote:
"Man does not live by bread alone..."
8
9
On 17 Apr 2013 at 7:16pm Southover Queen wrote:
It does seem odd, in a country banging on about austerity and how every pound must be justified even in the most deserving of cases, to mount an event of such glittering pom.
2
1
On 17 Apr 2013 at 7:16pm Southover Queen wrote:
Sorry: pomP, obviously.
9
3
On 17 Apr 2013 at 7:21pm Get real wrote:
The lions share of the money was spent to protect everone else , after all what could any terrorist inflict on her at this stage , so stop you bleating , it was all about public saftey and the protection of the mourners , if there ad of been less talk o demos made these of you bleating might have save the rest of us a few quid
5
11
On 17 Apr 2013 at 8:42pm Expat two wrote:
Thank god its all over, I can stop dancing now. It's cost me a fortune in rounds at the local bar. Can we have a Lady Voldemort's Day every year to celebrate though, just one day? All those that bought into the Maoist cult of personality that surrounds her can use it to mourn her passing on the same day, or a different one if they like.
6
8
On 17 Apr 2013 at 8:43pm drone wrote:
I am angry that she received full military honours. This cheapens the homage we pay to brave men & women who make the ultimate sacrifice
7
5
On 17 Apr 2013 at 8:53pm Get real 2 wrote:
Drone, she received full military honours because the armed forces loved her. Tony Blair is the war criminal who sent our boys and girls to their deaths over a lie.
2
 
On 17 Apr 2013 at 10:21pm grafter wrote:
Odds on for the grand daughter as future U.S President? Amazing that Mark Thatcher could produce such impressive offspring.I guess it skipped a generation.
2
5
On 17 Apr 2013 at 10:32pm red ken wrote:
DUH. There would not be a need to keep anyone safe if the damned event hadnt taken place. A standard funeral like anyone else would have sufficed. And been 9.99 million quid cheaper.
 
3
On 17 Apr 2013 at 10:39pm Frak wrote:
Or two.
 
 
On 17 Apr 2013 at 10:41pm Frak wrote:
Obviously that was in reply to grafter.
4
8
On 18 Apr 2013 at 2:31am expat two wrote:
How on earth have I forgotten the Frankie Boyle gem, from some years ago when Thatcher's funeral budget was made known; "for half that we could buy every Scotsman a shovel, they'd personally see to it that her corpse is handed over directly to Satan."
5
6
On 18 Apr 2013 at 3:15pm bastian wrote:
you mean it would have cost alot less if all that crowd of people had stayed at home rather than put themselves in danger of a terrorist attack.
She should not have had millitary honours at all- that is disgraceful.
8
6
On 18 Apr 2013 at 4:55pm Thatcherwasthebest wrote:
expat two/bastian. You are both a couple of communist tw@ts. The military loved her as did a great many people. Take your disgusting childish comments back to the playground. The lady is dead for christs sake!!!!!!!!!
1
5
On 18 Apr 2013 at 5:59pm Nixon Scraypes wrote:
Thank you for sharing your information with us,thatcherwas thebest.So expat2 and bastian are communist twats,perhaps you will give us a complete psychological profile of all forum users for our edification.While you are at it you might grace us with your opinion of yourself, we wait with breathless anticipation.
7
2
On 18 Apr 2013 at 6:01pm Sussex Jim wrote:
The lady was not for turning; and neither are her followers. Live your life according to her principles, and prosper. Her death has reminded me what she achieved, and instead of resigning to a state of despondency with the present pathetic government I am now resolved to work my way out of recession.
(Expat take note- I am now working!)
2
5
On 18 Apr 2013 at 6:40pm The Super K wrote:
On Wed 17 Apr at: 19:01 Red Ken wrote:
10 million quid of OUR money wasted. I wonder what that could have paid for at a hospital or two?
If you can build a hospital for that much they government should sign you up straight away!!!!
The budget and costs for Maggies funeral were agreed by Gordon Brown in 2008, he was the one that said the state should pay towards it... MORE LABOUR SPENDING!!!
2
4
On 18 Apr 2013 at 6:52pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Shocking waste of money. She'd be turning in her grave, if she had one.
Especially as she was worth millions. It should be paid for from her estate.
5
2
On 18 Apr 2013 at 7:14pm Thatcherwasthebest wrote:
Thatcher is perhaps most associated with the death of Britain's mining industry. There is no doubt that the figures show the number of miners collapsed under Thatcher and afterwards: in 1980, the UK had 230,000 coal miners. By 1990, only 57,000 remained. By 2004, the figure was below 6,000.
But what may be missed is that even more mining jobs were lost before Thatcher ever came into power. Over the course of the 1960s and 70s, more than 300,000 coal mining jobs disappeared, while around a million vanished between 1920 and 1980.
Thatcher was the coal industry's most visible foe, but not the one who lost it the most jobs. The root of residual anger at Thatcher lies, perhaps, in that Thatcher was the first post-war prime minister to cut such jobs without finding or creating replacement roles.
Tax payers were needlessly paying to prop up this industry because it was cheaper to import coal. This was compounded by greedy workers demanding up to 30% wage increases, together with the likes of Arthur Scargill, who had no interest in the plight of the miners. His agenda came first.
2
2
On 18 Apr 2013 at 7:30pm The old mayor wrote:
Yep. - If those mines and miners were so crucial, why didn't the Labour Party reopen them ? They too were certainly in power long enough ! She did what she had to do. Get the country back on its feet again. Even now we could do with that coal more than ever, plus we can get EU immigrants to to it. More moaning I think !
2
1
On 18 Apr 2013 at 7:33pm Sussex Jim wrote:
Just a reminder that Mrs. Thatcher secured a £75 BILLION rebate to our payments to that financial black hole known as the EU. Surely we can allow the odd £10 million for her funeral?
 
2
On 18 Apr 2013 at 7:42pm red ken wrote:
The Super K. Learn to read properly before you try making smart comments. You just look foolish. I said I wonder what £10m could pay for AT a hospital or two. I wasn't suggesting a new hospital could be built with it. Look again. Just to make sure. Go on. Look before engaging fingers next time.
Anyway does £10m = 300 nurses or thereabouts?
2
1
On 18 Apr 2013 at 10:00pm grafter wrote:
I don't begrudge her my 50p or so . Many of those moaning probably don't pay much tax anyway.I have relatives who grew up in Yorkshire mining village's. There is no doubt they were decimated but they were earning well beforehand. It was sad to see those people stranded without the resources to improve their lives.
 
3
On 19 Apr 2013 at 1:19am Expat two wrote:
Yes Jim, she did secure a 75 billion rebate. Just a shame the working and middle classes will never see a cut of it, that has long since been earmarked for the rich's 17 fold income increase. Or maybe you can tell us how its benefited the average man? Wage increases? (nope). More employment opportunities? (nope). Improved welfare system? You can answer that yourself, I'm sure.
But oh yes, although the plebs don't get the rebate but they can damn well pay for her funeral to show their appreciation for getting nothing. So can they rich - if they'd only pay some taxes.
 
2
On 19 Apr 2013 at 8:49am Frak wrote:
So Sussex Jim, you want us all to 'Live your life according to her principles, and prosper.' Some may end up financially better off (although only those at the top), but we'd all be morally bankrupt.
1
 
On 19 Apr 2013 at 9:53am jrsussex wrote:
More mines were closed under the Labour administration than Thatcher closed. The undeniable fact is that what Thatcher did was beat the unions, the left wing/communist element of which, throughout the post-war years, had systematically attempted to bring this country to its knees. The Labour administrations followed by Ted Heath were weak and gave in to the inflation busting wage demands (not accompanied by any greater production) but Thatcher stood firm and took them on. Union leaders such as Scargill and his militant friends in the engineering, electrical, steel and car industries were no friends of the British working class, they all had their own agendas. For me I am grateful that a leader emerge from the mess of the post-war years that had the bottle to stand up to them and say enough is enough.
1
 
On 19 Apr 2013 at 10:25am Southover Queen wrote:
I'm not going to go back to the all unions are bad argument, but I am going to pull Jim up on the "Live your life according to her principles, and prosper." The point about a free market is that it is a competition at all levels, and competition means that some will do better than others. That means that some will not prosper, and not through any fault of their own.

I do heartily wish that the measure of a life well lived (excluding Mrs Thatcher - I mean ordinary people) was not how much stuff you'd accumulated but what you'd contributed.
2
 
On 19 Apr 2013 at 10:59am SpeedoNot wrote:
I always get the impression when reading threads with a political theme that there is an inordinate amount of jealousy out there if someone actually does well out of life and is able, by their own ability, to "get on". What the hell is wrong with that? Should people offered a way out of poverty refuse it? Of course not. If they do take that way out, are they traitors to the class they grew up in? Some on here would say a resounding "yes". And that's my problem. All that tells me is that these people have failed in some way and are just embittered. They will end their lives (and when you're dead you are long dead) wallowing in hatred for what you perceive as gross injustice. It is not. Some people will do well out of life but worked bloody hard into the bargain. And, may I say before someone shoots me down ?? this CAN be done without trampling on the weak or disadvantaged!
2
2
On 19 Apr 2013 at 11:11am Southover Queen wrote:
Well, I don't fall into any of the "embittered" categories - I've worked hard all my life and done well in terms of accolades if not cash. There are plenty of fields of endeavour in this life which don't bring great financial rewards, but offer something quite else.

There's nothing wrong with working hard and striving to be the best at what you do. But there are different ways of doing that. Unfortunately the unregulated free market does absolutely mean that those who do succeed and accumulate more than their neighbour will mean that their neighbour will "fail" in those terms.

Suppose that, rather than working very hard in your own business, your vocation is to work with people with mental illness or - I don't know - in the police force. If our only measure of worth is based on the amount of stuff you have, those people will be failing. They'll probably live in subsidised housing because they can't afford to buy. They will probably need housing benefit and perhaps other income support. But our society would fail to function without them.

All I'm saying is that our priorities are skewed, and the "free market" libertarian mantra underlies much of it.
1
2
On 19 Apr 2013 at 1:50pm Kettle wrote:
Speedonot- i'm quite well off, actually. I still think thatcher was a monster.
2
1
On 19 Apr 2013 at 2:13pm grafter wrote:
SQ, maybe you just have the wrong sort of friends? We tend to associate with people who are productive and invest their earnings in appreciating assets. We all have our own enthusiasms, I don't disapprove of others spending as they prefer but I'd rather not subsidise their mistakes. The idea that we should look to politicians for our spiritual guidance or philosophy is bizarre.
 
 
On 19 Apr 2013 at 2:57pm Southover Queen wrote:
Sorry, grafter, but try as I might I can make no sense of that. Where do I say that politicians are the source of my spiritual guidance? And where do I advocate subsidising the mistakes of my friends?
3
 
On 19 Apr 2013 at 3:54pm jrsussex wrote:
In my progress in life I did find that very often those "working class" people that did mange to do well in life, build their own business etc, were those prepared to take a chance/risk and whilst some fail for others it was the gateway to a better life. No I do not necessarily think that success is measured by your financial standing, my own wife has worked with the elderly for a little over 30yrs and is very highly thought of by the many people she has cared for and also by her peers that work with her. She has never aspired to have her own business, she is wonderfully happy working for a company that treats her and their clients well.
3
 
On 19 Apr 2013 at 4:52pm grafter wrote:
SQ, you said "our priorities are skewed" but then admit that they are not your priorities. Do you know anyone who is a total consumer with no other interests ? I don't. The implication of your post was that people who pursue material goals are somewhat inferior to those engaged in work of social need.


This thread has reached its limit now
Why not start another one


 

Weeds for sale 130:132
Weeds for sale

Oh the irony more
QUOTE OF THE MOMENT
The Lewes Forum is one of the many great things about Lewes
Nina