Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 



I have heard some intellectual criticism of Thatcher’s policies on the BBC – but it was on World Service radio – specifically criticising her deregulation of the banking industry - stating that the seeds of the 2008 banking collapse were sown on her watch.

However, it would seem that the BBC has paid heed to what must have been a deluge of criticism after yesterday’s extremely bias reporting of her life and her achievements because today, I note, that they are at least making mention of some of the damage her policies caused.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that we live in a country which, purportedly, values the right to free speech – and that as such people are perfectly entitled to give voice to, and express, their contempt against the direction that Thatcher’s policies led this country.

People might think she’s being blamed for almost everything wrong with this country today and point to Blair’s time in office – but Blair was a true blue Thatcherite (remember he was asked who his political idol was and, as leader of the labour party, he named Margaret Thatcher). His reign was an emulation and continuation of her policies.

As has been noted by commentators on the BBC site the planned ceremonial funeral for her next Wednesday is simply asking for trouble and is almost comically ironic given the woman’s disdain for public financing....but then she did request it when she was alive.



She always was a woman who got what she wanted.




posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 




Your right nobody wants to work for nothing ....However...someone working for

minimum wage 35/40 hours a week comes out NO better off than someone

on benefits, who has their *benefits* plus payment of *rent* and *council tax*paid too

(the biggest outlays for the domestic budget)


*Benefits* were never intended to be a way of life only a safety net!



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   


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


As long as you walk the line , you are free. Otherwise , you are not.

You can mock prophets freely , but you can not party for her death.

Sound like the freedom and justice and equality and common sense.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   
whats worng?
edit on 9-4-2013 by mideast because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by dodgygeeza
I cannot express how disgusting it is to see people celebrating the death of an old lady, many of those celebrants being just out of school and having not even been even a twinkle in their parent's eyes when she left power.

Regardless of her politics (of which I was against for the record), she was still loved as a mother, sister and aunt and to celebrate and wish her hell is foul beyond words. I truly hope that I do not hate anyone as much as some people seem to be capable of.


she wasn't the lovable old lady from around the way that gave candy to kids etc etc

she ruined thousands no 10's of thousands of lives all across britian she will be remembered as a tryanical bitch

in the same category as many of historys scumbags



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   
I've already posted my thoughts in another thread but I think the reason people's opinion's will remain so polarised on Margaret Thatcher is that she had no compassion and cared little for the collateral damage she caused to society.

Perhaps if she'd even appeared to have cared she may have been remembered somewhat differently?



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by eletheia
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 




Your right nobody wants to work for nothing ....However...someone working for

minimum wage 35/40 hours a week comes out NO better off than someone

on benefits, who has their *benefits* plus payment of *rent* and *council tax*paid too

(the biggest outlays for the domestic budget)


*Benefits* were never intended to be a way of life only a safety net!


Easy way to solve this? Bring in a liveable wage. No one can live off of £53/£71 a week, you cant possibly cut benefits any thinner. Pay people a proper wage that rises in line with inflation. Stop abusing the working poor and trying to get them to face off against the minority on welfare.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Well people have been celebrating where I live. I'm a bit to young to be aware of what was going on with Thatcher in the 80's so I don't have any great amount of emotion invested in her either way.
What I do think is interesting is the company she kept.

Her closest adviser Sir Peter Morrison who has been linked to the Bryn alyn child abuse scandal;



A former Tory Minister last night made incendiary claims that one of Margaret Thatcher’s closest aides was implicated in one of the most harrowing child abuse scandals of recent times.

Rod Richards, a former Conservative MP and ex-leader of the Welsh Tories, made the shocking allegation that he had seen evidence linking Sir Peter Morrison to the North Wales children’s homes case, in which up to 650 children in 40 homes were sexually, physically and emotionally abused over 20 years.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Her treasurer whom she celebrated 14 Christmases with, Lord McAlpine who was investigated re. THE SAME CHILD ABUSE SCANDAL but recently threatened to sue after not being named by the media ;

www.bbc.co.uk...


.....That was when he first met Margaret Thatcher, recently elected leader of the Conservative Party. He became one of her closest and most devoted advisers and Conservative Party treasurer throughout her period in office, from 1979 to 1990. She made him a life peer, Baron McAlpine of West Green in Hampshire, in 1984. He is remembered as perhaps the most effective political fund raiser of his generation, helping to bankroll three successful general election campaigns.


And finally, her good friend Jimmy ( confirmed child abuser, frequent visitor to children's homes and hospitals and friend to royalty) who she celebrated 11 Christmases with at Chequers;




He explains that his connections with Stoke Mandeville Hospital - a few miles from Chequers - have allowed him to form these relationships, and that his friendship with Margaret Thatcher was particularly cordial. "The hospital and Chequers are four miles apart and we are their neighbours," he said. "We have a suite of rooms to take VIPs from Chequers. .....
He told Esquire: "I knew the real woman and the real woman was something else. The times I spent up there [Chequers] - Denis, me and her, shoes off in front of the fire."

In another interview, he claimed he turned up at Chequers covered with Christmas decorations, including a bell, and the Iron Lady quipped: "You can ring my bell."

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...


www.bbc.co.uk...


A retired detective has told the BBC he reported concerns about Savile's behaviour at Stoke Mandeville in the 1970s but was not believed.

The former Thames Valley police officer, from Milton Keynes, said he was told by nurses that they tried to keep young girls away from Savile when he visited.


Maybe she just didn't notice all the paedos around her, or maybe she did know but turned a blind eye like so many politicians and public figures in the UK.
edit on 9-4-2013 by DrHammondStoat because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   
I don't understand this "Do not speak ill of the dead" business that some people pull out...

I was reading a thread on Thatcher on another forum and the same retort kept coming from the mouths of Thatcher supporters until I directed them to the running "Chavez dead" thread and these very people happily "speak ill of the dead" in that thread.

So again, it all comes down to politics and we are all hypocrites.

Just because someone has died does not mean they are now eternally free of criticism as far as I'm concerned.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by DrHammondStoat
 




My mother 10 years older than Margaret Thatcher therefor 'same generation,' and in their

generation sex was a 'non topic' and paedophiles and sex predators had not yet been

outed. and in the open as they are now. About 15 years ago my mother was horrified

to discover that a family friend who she had known all her life a very presentable

charming and entertaining man...didn't look in the least bit pervy
was a paedophile!



I had met Jimmy Saville twice, and while I am typing this I can see a similarity between

the two the 'touchy feely tickle cuddle' sort of attitude, blatantly in the open, giving the

impression that "he's obviously harmless or he wouldn't be doing it openly!! now would

he?



So it's very possible she didn't know, my mother didn't ...'innocence is always unsuspicious'



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by aaron2209
 


Problem is... some evil people seem to become good and worth of respect the moment they die... some dont. Hey... I dont understand the criteria either.



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I grew up in the 80's, so I remember her. I absolutely hated her with a passion, not just her but the entire establishment. Yet the same establishment is still there, partying over her death seems far too little far too late. It is cowardly in a lot of respects. That is what dissapoints me about Briton and the British, yes minors fought the police and we had riots here and there, but considering how many people she and he cohorts robbed of a future there should have been literally millions in the streets back in the 80's, not a few thousand here and there.

This death comes at a very strange time in Briton, very strange timing indeed, as the current Tory Government could not have been closer to thatchers mentality. You would nearly swear she picked Cameron herself personally. On top of that we are going through the same cutting to the bone, we had in the 80's, except I dread it will be worse now than then, far, far, far worse. there is not even an opposition, as the so called Labor party is now from the same elitist oxbridge establishment, with no connection to the actual real masses. all the political leaders are from London, born and bred, completely disconnected from the rest of the UK in their mentality. this too is far worse than the 80's as we the people have no one to speak on our behalf, the Labor leadership is beyond an insult.

There are many millions more in the population now than there were in the early 80's. Large chunks of our country were robbed of steady work and put onto the merry go round of temporary and very low paid jobs and benefits. Employers were given a free ride to exploit workers to the hilt. So many millions were put on a knifes edge of poverty and just staying above water, the people she sent teetering on the edge for the last 30 years will surely fall off it now, will Briton's wake up then? I doubt it, but the people do need a short sharp shock to get them rattled, it's long over due they woke the hell up.

Before her reign you never seen people sleeping in the streets, nor did you see people walking past people in the street as though it was normal. Thats the legacy she created. A culture of "every man for himself", she once said there was no such thing as society, and she was dead on, but only because she smashed it.

And thats it, the country is so fractured, people are so in it for themselves, that we as a nation will never unburden ourselves from the puppet masters, the few who demonstrate will be beaten down by the riot police, because the majority will sit back as always, even though its the same majority that are the ones who have lost the most, but they can turn on easterners and xfactor and forget their reality...and England's dreamin.

edit on 9-4-2013 by TheBlackHat because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-4-2013 by TheBlackHat because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 





>>>>>>That's £53 /£71 ...You forgot

>>>>>>Plus rent £80 / £100? depending

>>>>>>Plus council tax £30 / £40? a week

>>>>>>Child/rens benefit???


Oh and I believe alcoholics get a daily allowance for drink??



posted on Apr, 9 2013 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by eletheia
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 




Your right nobody wants to work for nothing ....However...someone working for

minimum wage 35/40 hours a week comes out NO better off than someone

on benefits, who has their *benefits* plus payment of *rent* and *council tax*paid too

(the biggest outlays for the domestic budget)


*Benefits* were never intended to be a way of life only a safety net!


yes, jobs were ment to be a way of life, "a job for life", had been the culture of the working classes, thats what generations of people knew as life, fathers, grand fathers, great grand fathers. So when someone like Maggie comes along and pulls the rug from under people the next generation has no clue what to do, because their dads worked in industries..how were people ment to go from that over night into paper pushing in office jobs, by the way the vast majority of which are completely pointless and mind numbing and soul destroying. Oh and temporary and low paid.

On top of that there never were enough office or service industry jobs to go around, its a bare faced lie, nor is everyone who comes from generations of manual workers in heavy industries or factories cut out for that type of work.

The point you fail to recognized was people who have generational attitude to work cannot simply adapt and change to a completly different way of life over night or even over a generation, to think they could or even should is outrageous. Your also talking about a working class that rightly or wrongly had pride in work, pride in doing a hard days work. Where is the pride in pushing paper? where is the pride in knowing your on a temporary insecure contract, with a 100 year mortgage over your head? People like you just don't get it. there is more self respect in taking benefits for many, and excluding themselves from the slave wagery, we currently call work, because at least they feel like they are not being completely exploited, even though people on benefits are all too aware they are indeed having the p155 taken, with their 60 odd quid dole money and ghettoized neighborhoods, but it would be taken even more if they worked for the privilege. and worked for what? To make a boss rich and F all all else.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
 


Stop the presses, we have the worlds best economist here to solve all the problems!

You see, the issue with raising minimum wages is that it fuels inflation, through higher costs as a result of higher pay and also by having more money in the economy, driving up demand. You won't ever solve this issue by simply "upping the wages", the problem will still be there and in 5 years time you'll be saying "up the wages" again... It just pushes up the cost of living for everyone, effecting those on low pay the worst.

You know the difference between now and pre-Thatcher? Those "working class" poor didn't have all the luxuries we waste our money on today, this is why they got by. They didn't have mobile phones, cable TV, two cars to run, foreign holidays. The problem with many at the low end of the pay scale is they want these things so they get them, then complain the cost of living is too high, without it ever occurring to them to try and live within their means and better themselves so they can have it in the future - damn it, they want it now!!!

. My sister is a prime example. She is on benefits, her BF works cash in hand, they have their rent/council tax paid and also get al the other fluff.. They have cable TV, a 50" 3D plasma, a Range rover and drink to excess every night of the week. But they still complain about these benefit cuts and crying about "how are they going to make ends meet?" - maybe try cutting out the two bottles of wine per night, that's a good start - cut out the TV sub, get a smaller car? People have to live within their means, but as a society we have got used to the instant gratification that we simply cannot fathom it.

The problem is complex, simply waving a magic wand at it and uttering the phrase "Agracadabra - there is some cash" won't solve anything.



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 02:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by aaron2209
Just because someone has died does not mean they are now eternally free of criticism as far as I'm concerned.


No, but at least show some respect and wait for the body to be cold and 6ft under....



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by TheBlackHat
 





Where do you think that the money comes from that pays out the benefits? It doesn't

come from some magic pot that just magically keeps topped up!!


It comes from those that work paying their taxes some of them earning little more than

those who are getting benefits ...


Nobody but a magician can take more out of the pot than what is put in ... Without keeping

it replenished one day it will be empty!!!!!!!



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 02:36 AM
link   
As soon as I saw the Spice Girl Gerry halloway or what ever was involved I lost serious interest.
edit on 10-4-2013 by FreedomEntered because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


The Margeret Thatcher working class had the bare minimal. My own parents were working class in her era. And I remember we always ate the same foods, we had electric and very basic funiture. No holidays, no trips out to other places, no 100s of toys, no gadgets, no anything really. If Im honest it was pretty bad but then my parents had little education, no direction, and didnt intend on working hard , didnt even get on lol...

We had the basics. We had a roof over our heads. And we survived.

Anyway when I went to school I was shocked at the luxuries other kids had, and I realised it was due to two things ->

Their parents worked hard
And their parents were usually married ( although many not for long )


I was also told that Margeret Thatcher made it possible for the working classes to buy their homes.

The Job for life era was good. It meant security. Altho back it was alot easier to get a job, you didnt need CVs . I hate CVs, whats thats all about? I mean do the job and see if your any good. Then get hired or fired.
It puts people off when they have to have masses of education just to get a very basic job.
edit on 10-4-2013 by FreedomEntered because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2013 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by FreedomEntered
 


Same here - the only time we went abroad was when my Dad was posted. We had one, tiny, black and white TV in the early 80's, only upgrading to colour when we got to Germany (and the Army had their own Cable TV station too). I remember power cuts, waiting for the coal truck to arrive to heat the house etc....

And yes, Maggie was the one who made it possible for anyone to own their own home, something which no Government had done before, even Labour ones..





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join