Media's Handling of Thatchers Death - Small comparison within.

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

She's getting far more praise than she deserves.


But that's your personal opinion, should the national media bow to your personal wishes and beliefs?


Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
Did you really just insinuate that current political figureheads have class? Taking your post less seriously now.


That's up to you, but yes, they have more class than people celebrating the death of an old lady.


Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
Why cant the youth celebrate her passing? She sold their future's to big companies in the name of greed. The current generation is one with everything and nothing - And it all started with her government.


This is what confuses me. Please elaborate on how she "sold their future". She didn't sell mine, I'm doing okay, and I came from a lower middle class family.


Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
She went about her business as if her decisions had no effect on anybody. Do you still think de-regulating the banks was a fantastic idea? No? Well stop singing her praises then.


Okay, now you're just becoming argumentative and not debating.
You're not offering any real substance to your argument, you're just saying "I'm right and you're wrong".
The fact of the matter is that the country was better off when she left than it was when she arrived. I might agree that the removal of regulation was a bad idea, but that same removal of regulation made the UK a capital for the biggest and most successful business at the time - banking and the service sector.

Is she supposed to be psychic and see that this would be risky thanks to the greed and corruption of the city and their politician buddies? No, of course not. She made a decision to drag the UK out of the mess of poverty it was in, removed the strangle hold of the unions and rebuilt an economic base that brought about what we now have.

I can honestly agree that deregulation was a bad move, but no subsequent government has changed that despite them being able to see the clear abuse of this deregulation, something that she could not really have known would happen.


Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
Like it or not, even after her death the facts remain - She made people destitute and obviously isnt going to be loved and cherished for it.


I can understand that, but that's only one side of the "facts". There are plenty more which show that the UK was better when she left. That's all people really need to know. Policies of a government will not suit everyone, but hers seemed to suit the majority, and it seems that her policies actually did help this country.


And what about the one in bristol? Yano, the one i linked in the OP? Anytime the police turn up anywhere with a crowed they seem to cause trouble.

Those riots were a conspiracy in themselves, 3 days to quell a small scale riot!? I smell a rat.

Let people celebrate, let them grieve her death how they feel appropriate. If people are celebrating the fact that you are dead then maybe, just maybe, there's a good reason for it.

I am no friend to the police, and I agree that there is some suspicion about their delay in dealing with it last time. I have looked into the stories about the removal of policing from the most influential and wealthy areas of London during the riots, and it seems to me that the government was using it and even orchestrating it to promote the use of harsher powers to dispel protest.
I believe I think like you on this.

But, that still does not give these people permission to riot in the streets or loot businesses. How is either going to help anyone or anything?

I've seen videos and images of Brixton last night, and that was not some orchestrated police event. That was mod mentality, the low life's of the area, destroying their own streets with mindless stupidity and drunken idiocy. Just as much of the previous riots were.

I'll say it again, just to clarify... I'm a lefty, I'm liberal, I oppose much of what the ConDem government is doing to this country. I also believe that Thatcher made a lot of mistakes, including Section 28 (which affected my life directly) and the poll tax. I remember my parents cheering on the anti-Thatcher riots in London over the tax!

But, I can also see the mess the country was in, I can see that the unions were guilty of their own violence and thuggery, and that they were holding this country back. I can see that the mining industry was already dead and costing us money when we were already struggling.
The idealistic kids I see "celebrating" know only part of the story. They know the knee-jerk tabloid BS of the day and the socialist propaganda. They follow the music of the era without considering it was written to make money and cash in on a minority sentiment.

I'm a political atheist, but I know history, and I know how to look at things objectively.




posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
Actually it is, She sold off most of the council house's and didnt build any replacements, now we have a generation of people unable to move out because landlords are expensive and getting a mortgage on your first house is impossible.



Actually, getting a mortgage was really quite easy up until 2008 when the banks fell over. I wish I had done so now, but I was waiting for other matters to be settled first in my own life. But prior to the banking crisis, you could easily get a mortgage to buy pretty much whatever home you wanted, even if you had no deposit.

Some people have really tinted glasses....


False economy, which could have been avoided if the banks weren't de-regulated. Is a house really worth upwards of 100k? I think not.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by ken10
I dunno my recolection of the late 70's was being able to walk out of one job and straight into another, as opposed to now where there are no jobs.



Oh jebus, like I have said, that is because there were swathes of State run industries where people would work for life. These industries, however, were inefficient and unprofitable.

That said, there are plenty of jobs around now. As I've said in other threads about work, just because there might not be one 15 mins from your house, doesn't mean there aren't any. I myself have been in pretty much continuous employment since I left school, barring a few months were I was out of work in the early 00's and I was sleeping on friends sofa's, but even then, I "got on my bike" and found work.


I don't know what planet or parallel universe you are on, but I live next to one of the biggest trading estates in Europe and we have loads of youngsters out of work....My son (nearly 18) has had to stay on at school because he can't get a job, despite applying for many.
edit on 9-4-2013 by ken10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Originally posted by Rocker2013

Originally posted by ken10


Income inequality among working-age people has risen faster in Britain than in any other rich nation since the mid-1970s, according to a report by the OECD.


Source


Right, and that's the fault of a woman who left power 20 years ago? I don't see Labour or the current ConDem government fixing that.



Actually it is, She sold off most of the council house's and didnt build any replacements, now we have a generation of people unable to move out because landlords are expensive and getting a mortgage on your first house is impossible.



I am one of those people!
But, my parents were able to buy their council house and give our family a home because of that policy. So who do I blame for me not being able to have a house, her for doing that for my parents, or all the other governments since who have done nothing to kick start house building to keep the plan going?

I know who I blame, and I blame all those governments who have failed to renew the national housing stock since then, and have allowed private building companies to buy up land and hold it, preventing development.

Once again, you're blaming one woman for the mistakes of all the corrupt governments since her. And you're ignoring the fact that she was vocally anti-corporation.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


I actually agree with you on the Gas/Water/Electric argument. These things, as vital services, should be nationally run, but not as a money sink like they were before. Maybe a 10% margin for re-investment.

As for telephones, well, as I work in the industry I have a vested interest and I can say we are much better off having been privatised and allowing competition than if we had not. Telecoms is actually a genuinely competitive market, not skewed like the Water/Power markets. Prices are exceedingly low and margins are being squeezed even further.

In the old BT (in fact, they still act like a state owned monopoly today) was still in place we would not have the networks we do today, end of.

BT are so far behind the curve and this is down to their dominant position, they feel they can dictate to the market but they are often several steps behind.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ken10
I don't know what planet or parallel universe you are on, but I live next to one of the biggest trading estates in Europe and we have loads of youngsters out of work....My son (nearly 18) has had to stay on at school because he can't get a job, despite applying for many.


Look further afield then, perhaps?

This is what I mean... "I live next to a trading estate and there aren't jobs - ergo, I cannot get a job"...

Look elsewhere?

And it is a good thing your son is still at school, it'll pay dividends later on anyway. Get him off to Uni and do a worthwhile degree, not a mickey mouse one and you'll be laughing.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


I think you've just explained that in a way that I couldn't have. Thanks


IMO, the problem wasn't privatization or deregulation itself, it's the state in which it was managed since, or rather, not managed since.

When Thatcher made these decisions it was for the improvement of the nations budget and wealth, and no one can deny that it worked. We were much better off financially after her leadership and those choices. The problems came about when governments after her did nothing to stem the greed and corruption that eventually brought about the collapse.

Perhaps she should have predicted this, and perhaps she could have changed the way it was initially done had she had the foresight.

But, it's so easy to criticize in hindsight isn't it?



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rocker2013
But that's your personal opinion, should the national media bow to your personal wishes and beliefs?


Just want them to tell both sides of the story - Which i dont feel is being done.


That's up to you, but yes, they have more class than people celebrating the death of an old lady.


Even when they're defending their right to fleece the tax payer in "expenses" ? They're animals.


This is what confuses me. Please elaborate on how she "sold their future". She didn't sell mine, I'm doing okay, and I came from a lower middle class family.


Just answered this question in a previous reply to you.



Okay, now you're just becoming argumentative and not debating.
You're not offering any real substance to your argument, you're just saying "I'm right and you're wrong".
The fact of the matter is that the country was better off when she left than it was when she arrived. I might agree that the removal of regulation was a bad idea, but that same removal of regulation made the UK a capital for the biggest and most successful business at the time - banking and the service sector.


Again, i feel that my last reply to you does have substance so i'll refer you to that post to answer this. She made the rich richer and the poor poorer, this is just the fact of things.


Is she supposed to be psychic and see that this would be risky thanks to the greed and corruption of the city and their politician buddies? No, of course not.


No but when your selling off national assets you should at least be cautious, no?


She made a decision to drag the UK out of the mess of poverty it was in, removed the strangle hold of the unions and rebuilt an economic base that brought about what we now have.


Her way of doing this was cruel and inhumane. Im not going to sit here and defend her actions. I can understand why people are celebrating her death. The unions may have had a great deal of power but completely removing them from the equation of politics i feel has done a great deal of harm to the working classes.


I can honestly agree that deregulation was a bad move, but no subsequent government has changed that despite them being able to see the clear abuse of this deregulation, something that she could not really have known would happen.


They should have changed it but latter didnt have to pander to unions so no one had to care about the working classes anymore.



I can understand that, but that's only one side of the "facts". There are plenty more which show that the UK was better when she left. That's all people really need to know. Policies of a government will not suit everyone, but hers seemed to suit the majority, and it seems that her policies actually did help this country.


Again, i disagree for reasons i posted earlier.



I am no friend to the police, and I agree that there is some suspicion about their delay in dealing with it last time. I have looked into the stories about the removal of policing from the most influential and wealthy areas of London during the riots, and it seems to me that the government was using it and even orchestrating it to promote the use of harsher powers to dispel protest.
I believe I think like you on this.


Always glad to reach a middle ground



But, that still does not give these people permission to riot in the streets or loot businesses. How is either going to help anyone or anything?


Riot? No.
Gather? Yes.
Celebrate without violence or damage to property and the like? Yes.


I've seen videos and images of Brixton last night, and that was not some orchestrated police event. That was mod mentality, the low life's of the area, destroying their own streets with mindless stupidity and drunken idiocy. Just as much of the previous riots were.


Calling people low-lifes is a bit harsh i believe. Working class people now have such a stigma in this country because they cant survive in post-thatcher's Briton - they're being blamed for it like its their own fault.


I'll say it again, just to clarify... I'm a lefty, I'm liberal, I oppose much of what the ConDem government is doing to this country. I also believe that Thatcher made a lot of mistakes, including Section 28 (which affected my life directly) and the poll tax. I remember my parents cheering on the anti-Thatcher riots in London over the tax!


Seems to be no difference between left and right these days in parliament.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by ken10
I don't know what planet or parallel universe you are on, but I live next to one of the biggest trading estates in Europe and we have loads of youngsters out of work....My son (nearly 18) has had to stay on at school because he can't get a job, despite applying for many.


Look further afield then, perhaps?

This is what I mean... "I live next to a trading estate and there aren't jobs - ergo, I cannot get a job"...

Look elsewhere?

And it is a good thing your son is still at school, it'll pay dividends later on anyway. Get him off to Uni and do a worthwhile degree, not a mickey mouse one and you'll be laughing.


Its not about my son Stu, I was just using him to show that many of theses kids who can't find jobs are not "layabouts" .



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 





Higher wages mean higher subs for the Unions, which means cosier pads for the likes of Skargill to live in rent free while collecting six figure pensions.. Proper man of the people, real workers champion....

You mean like MP's do now? Except they dip in the taxpayer pot instead of union chiefs dipping in the subs.

Whatever Scargill got out of it, at least we all could enjoy a decent life back then, not just rich folk and MP's.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ken10

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by ken10
I dunno my recolection of the late 70's was being able to walk out of one job and straight into another, as opposed to now where there are no jobs.



Oh jebus, like I have said, that is because there were swathes of State run industries where people would work for life. These industries, however, were inefficient and unprofitable.

That said, there are plenty of jobs around now. As I've said in other threads about work, just because there might not be one 15 mins from your house, doesn't mean there aren't any. I myself have been in pretty much continuous employment since I left school, barring a few months were I was out of work in the early 00's and I was sleeping on friends sofa's, but even then, I "got on my bike" and found work.


I don't know what planet or parallel universe you are on, but I live next to one of the biggest trading estates in Europe and we have loads of youngsters out of work....My son (nearly 18) has had to stay on at school because he can't get a job, despite applying for many.
edit on 9-4-2013 by ken10 because: (no reason given)


And I have three people in my family who are young and out of work, but I know they are not trying. I can open up any paper and circle at least two jobs every week that they could do, but they choose not to apply.

I'm not suggesting that all are like that, and I know there are people genuinely struggling to find any kind of work. But from my own personal experience (and that's something I have no choice but to trust) there are millions of people who resolutely REFUSE to do a job that they deem to be "beneath" them.

When I was 19 I was working minimum wage in a factory. By my mid 20's I was a security manager. By the time I was 30 I was a senior security manager. Now, at the age of 35, I run my own business from home, working my own hours, and supporting myself.

In contrast, I see a lot of complainers using excuses to cover up for their own lack of ambition and drive. I repeat, that's not everyone, but there are a hell of a lot of young people who seem to think a well-paid job should just be handed to them.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rocker2013

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Originally posted by Rocker2013

Originally posted by ken10


Income inequality among working-age people has risen faster in Britain than in any other rich nation since the mid-1970s, according to a report by the OECD.


Source


Right, and that's the fault of a woman who left power 20 years ago? I don't see Labour or the current ConDem government fixing that.



Actually it is, She sold off most of the council house's and didnt build any replacements, now we have a generation of people unable to move out because landlords are expensive and getting a mortgage on your first house is impossible.



I am one of those people!
But, my parents were able to buy their council house and give our family a home because of that policy. So who do I blame for me not being able to have a house, her for doing that for my parents, or all the other governments since who have done nothing to kick start house building to keep the plan going?

I know who I blame, and I blame all those governments who have failed to renew the national housing stock since then, and have allowed private building companies to buy up land and hold it, preventing development.

Once again, you're blaming one woman for the mistakes of all the corrupt governments since her. And you're ignoring the fact that she was vocally anti-corporation.


Yes but you see she PROMOTED the idea of home ownership and PREVENTED more homes being built - so yes, i AM blaming her!



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by doobydoll
You mean like MP's do now? Except they dip in the taxpayer pot instead of union chiefs dipping in the subs.


What does that have to do with the price of Fish in Grimsby?


Originally posted by doobydoll
Whatever Scargill got out of it, at least we all could enjoy a decent life back then, not just rich folk and MP's.


What? Do you even remember the 70/80's? Jeebus.... It's a time I'd rather have burned from my memory, what a dreary and depressing place it was. Decent life? We had no central heating, we ate the cheapest of cheap foods, my dads car was a rustbucket and we didn't own a family home... It wasn't until 1987 that my Dad finally bought his first house and things gradually improved from there.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rocker2013

Originally posted by ken10

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by ken10
I dunno my recolection of the late 70's was being able to walk out of one job and straight into another, as opposed to now where there are no jobs.



Oh jebus, like I have said, that is because there were swathes of State run industries where people would work for life. These industries, however, were inefficient and unprofitable.

That said, there are plenty of jobs around now. As I've said in other threads about work, just because there might not be one 15 mins from your house, doesn't mean there aren't any. I myself have been in pretty much continuous employment since I left school, barring a few months were I was out of work in the early 00's and I was sleeping on friends sofa's, but even then, I "got on my bike" and found work.


I don't know what planet or parallel universe you are on, but I live next to one of the biggest trading estates in Europe and we have loads of youngsters out of work....My son (nearly 18) has had to stay on at school because he can't get a job, despite applying for many.
edit on 9-4-2013 by ken10 because: (no reason given)


And I have three people in my family who are young and out of work, but I know they are not trying. I can open up any paper and circle at least two jobs every week that they could do, but they choose not to apply.

I'm not suggesting that all are like that, and I know there are people genuinely struggling to find any kind of work. But from my own personal experience (and that's something I have no choice but to trust) there are millions of people who resolutely REFUSE to do a job that they deem to be "beneath" them.

When I was 19 I was working minimum wage in a factory. By my mid 20's I was a security manager. By the time I was 30 I was a senior security manager. Now, at the age of 35, I run my own business from home, working my own hours, and supporting myself.

In contrast, I see a lot of complainers using excuses to cover up for their own lack of ambition and drive. I repeat, that's not everyone, but there are a hell of a lot of young people who seem to think a well-paid job should just be handed to them.


Well if I just use my son again, 17 rides a moped but has passed his test in a car (can't afford the 3 grand insurance !) and has even applied for a job at Argos before xmas thinking they may have been taking extra staff on.......And I know for a fact he is not alone.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   
www.independent.co.uk...

What i find tragic is that the media have forgotten how they helped to right the wrong that was the poll tax, a true crime against poor people by revealing how the poverty stricken and physically disabled were being imprisoned for being UNABLE to pay the Poll Tax.

Read the above and see if you feel as shocked as I did when the Poll Tax was in force. It was horrific to see disabled, sick and very poor people being forced to pay the same amount in property tax as multi million and even billionaires.

The Poll Tax was Mrs Thatchers pet project and she would not drop it, according to her cabinet ministers despite the gross injustice that it was.

Read and Weep!
edit on 9-4-2013 by Elliot because: spelling
edit on 9-4-2013 by Elliot because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by ken10
 


Off topic, but you can greatly reduce insurance by getting a Telematics box installed. I only passed my test 3 weeks ago and faced an insurance bill of around £1800 (3rd party, fire and theft)- got it down to £946 with a box installed and that was fully comp too...



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 


I do not agree with you.

I think the young of this country should be allowed to celebrate this event as they would VE Day or Guy Falkes Night.

Our history should not only be remembered by people that were there as that is the fastest way to ensure that history is repeated.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rocker2013

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
The bbc has been running 24/7 coverage of thatcher's death - As if they were expecting her to rise from the dead and give a speech. During this time, they've been gageing reactions from past and current politicians who all seem to agree that her policies were fantastic and wonderful - changed the country for the better (Pretty sickening considering there all suppose to be on different ends of the scale cons/lib/labour are obviously all under the same umbrella now.)


Nope, I don't know what news you've been watching, but I've been watching Sky and the BBC and there are plenty of detractors speaking about her obvious mistakes and flaws.

The difference is perhaps that they are adults, actually lived through her government, and they have some class too. The "parties" seem to be 80% under 30, basing their opinions on an extreme leftist ideology verging on socialism. They know nothing about her time in power other than she was a Tory, and that bad things happened under her leadership.

There are certain things that people cannot criticize her for...
1. The unions had been holding the country to ransom, and she stopped that.
2. The Falkland islands were invaded, and she didn't hesitate in defending those free people by sending in our troops.
3. She worked harder than any politician in her government or the opposition throughout, and she probably worked harder than any politician since.
4. She didn't pander to bankers, capitalists or Europe. She made her decisions for the betterment of the country.
5. She fought against the federalization of Europe.
6. She didn't pander the minorities of Britain, she did what her elected wanted her to do, which was run the country and make it better than it was before she arrived.

Like her or not, agree with all of her policies or not, there are certain things that no sane person with some knowledge of history can deny.


Originally posted by SearchLightsInc
Why cant 200 people gather to celebrate her death? I thought this was a free society?


I don't see anyone stopping these people from celebrating if they wish.
I do see the police preventing violence and rioting. If you were paying any attention to what was happening in Brixton last night, you'll know that there was a skirmish, not a party. Shops were once again vandalized and looted. That is not a party, and just as I expected the police to act the last time the scum of this country went on a rampage, I expect them to act against that again.

People can have a party in the streets over the death of a frail old woman if they want. But the moment they step out of line and become a threat to the people living there then they damn well should be put down with appropriate force. We saw what happened in the UK when the police failed to act last time, so they better make sure they do their job this time and do it right from the start.


Not a Britt but I agree with you and might add....Maggie was the evil incarnate to the unions and socialist. I read or heard somewhere the GDP of England grew over 20+% under her three terms. It has been a while since she was in power so I would look at the leaders that followed her for the problems and policies of today. I do know a few British Expats living overseas who have no desire to return to mother England simply because of the taxes and socialist. Just their opinion and a small sampling obviously but those I have spoken with are old fellows who saw the good and the bad and decided to leave due to present governmental policies.

America was in the same shape with interest on loans over 21% in some cases thanks to the policies of Carter and his hand wringing inept policies. Ronald turned that around in the states by cutting taxes. I remember thinking during Carter's presidency that America could not survive another 4 years of his reign; others agreed for he did not get re-elected.

Ronald reinstalled pride in the states, cut taxes, and starting with the FAA and their union he fired the whole bunch. That was a big deal for their leaders thought the union was invincible and irreplaceable.

Were either leaders perfect...no....were they handed a bag of !@##$ and turned it into something productive for the whole and not the few....I think they did. Maggie rest in peace and say hello to Ronald for me.

P.S. it is the same in the states with regards to Ronald Regan and his passing; the socialist hated him and still do to this day.
edit on 9-4-2013 by 727Sky because: P.S.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Something else that Thatcher was a leader in.........and something i have to confess i wasn't that aware of......

Margaret Thatcher: Eco Warrior



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Onami
 


In the same vein, if you want the Young to remember, you have to tell them the context and also not try to spin it make out she was the Devil. The fact remains that without the measures taken during the 80's, the UK would have been a bankrupt cesspit. It was well on it's way to that point when she took power - yes, some of her decisions were#t popular in some quarters, but she was re-elected twice and the Tories won another election after she left, so it remains that plenty of people saw what she did as good.





 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join