G
monkeytennis said:Rjstoz said:Am I the only one who thinks that it is massively disrespectful to celebrate anyone's death? If it were someone's family member, you wouldn't drag up things which happened years ago.. That he's death has not stopped anything else from occurring compared to her leaving politics years ago. I appreciate that I didn't live through her regime, and I don't yet take party sides as parties change their policies so much these days... But to be fair celebrating anyone's death is quite a nasty thing to do.
Disagree with anyone you like for good reason and voice said opinions if you see fit, but say that the world is a better place without their influence rather than without their life.
Regards
Rodders
I have to agree. While I am too young to remember alot of what went on and the fact I don't agree with most of her policy's I think it is horrific that people have been partying because of her death. She was a wife and mother and at the end of the day they have lost someone. How would people feel if all the negative things were brought up if it was your loved one. Just shows how crazy things have gotten in my view....
shavecraft said:Whilst I don't personally feel any need to celebrate her passing I have no criticism whatsoever of those who feel the need. Perhaps you had to be around at the time or closely connected to those who suffered to understand this. As for negative things being brought up...well I , and I'm sure many others, have felt compelled to offer a critique of what she did. This is entirely justified. If nothing else than to counter the entirely predictable, but nonetheless sycophantic and highly partisan outpourings from Cameron et al. A thread like this invites just such a debate after all. If you care about the future of your family, community, country, the planet you live on then getting passionate about it is nothing to shy away from, on whatever side of the political fence you sit.
Tall_Paul said:shavecraft said:Whilst I don't personally feel any need to celebrate her passing I have no criticism whatsoever of those who feel the need. Perhaps you had to be around at the time or closely connected to those who suffered to understand this. As for negative things being brought up...well I , and I'm sure many others, have felt compelled to offer a critique of what she did. This is entirely justified. If nothing else than to counter the entirely predictable, but nonetheless sycophantic and highly partisan outpourings from Cameron et al. A thread like this invites just such a debate after all. If you care about the future of your family, community, country, the planet you live on then getting passionate about it is nothing to shy away from, on whatever side of the political fence you sit.
Very well worded. I think you've summed it up nicely.
Al H said:Labour closed more mines than thatcher, why do we never hear the moans from those miners, instead of pouring all their venom on thatcher
Seems hypocritical to me
The Mackem Shaver said:Al H said:Labour closed more mines than thatcher, why do we never hear the moans from those miners, instead of pouring all their venom on thatcher
Seems hypocritical to me
Maybe the miners realised pits did have to close but thought Thatcher had a political agenda to prove a point against their union and not intend to manage the decline of the industry in good faith. Or alternatively if Labour could close more mines than Thatcher maybe her slash and burn policy wasn't needed to save the country from the unions.
Al H said:The Mackem Shaver said:Al H said:Labour closed more mines than thatcher, why do we never hear the moans from those miners, instead of pouring all their venom on thatcher
Seems hypocritical to me
Maybe the miners realised pits did have to close but thought Thatcher had a political agenda to prove a point against their union and not intend to manage the decline of the industry in good faith. Or alternatively if Labour could close more mines than Thatcher maybe her slash and burn policy wasn't needed to save the country from the unions.
It was never ideological to close 100+ mines and put people on dole
Commie scargill was determined to bring down the Tory government and decided to strike with out a mandate, he took on thatcher and lost but is living nicely as NUM life president and the trappings that go with it.
The miners duped
Al H said:The Mackem Shaver said:Al H said:Labour closed more mines than thatcher, why do we never hear the moans from those miners, instead of pouring all their venom on thatcher
Seems hypocritical to me
Maybe the miners realised pits did have to close but thought Thatcher had a political agenda to prove a point against their union and not intend to manage the decline of the industry in good faith. Or alternatively if Labour could close more mines than Thatcher maybe her slash and burn policy wasn't needed to save the country from the unions.
It was never ideological to close 100+ mines and put people on dole
Commie scargill was determined to bring down the Tory government and decided to strike with out a mandate, he took on thatcher and lost but is living nicely as NUM life president and the trappings that go with it.
The miners duped
Al H said:To be fair to maggie the num started on her first. The union not the miners. As discussed earlier the unions had too much power to the detriment of their members, closed shop etc
Now you have the underground drivers on 30k+ trying to hold us to ransom, they would soon moan if we got driverless tubes
The Mackem Shaver said:Al H said:To be fair to maggie the num started on her first. The union not the miners. As discussed earlier the unions had too much power to the detriment of their members, closed shop etc
Now you have the underground drivers on 30k+ trying to hold us to ransom, they would soon moan if we got driverless tubes
But as you said Labour closed more mines than Thatcher (and so the argument goes around in a circle) so the decision to break the union was a political one and not in the interest of the industry. It is possible to criticise Thatcher and recognise the problems within unions.
Al H said:To be fair to maggie the num started on her first. The union not the miners. As discussed earlier the unions had too much power to the detriment of their members, closed shop etc
Now you have the underground drivers on 30k+ trying to hold us to ransom, they would soon moan if we got driverless tubes
The Mackem Shaver said:Al H said:To be fair to maggie the num started on her first. The union not the miners. As discussed earlier the unions had too much power to the detriment of their members, closed shop etc
Now you have the underground drivers on 30k+ trying to hold us to ransom, they would soon moan if we got driverless tubes
But as you said Labour closed more mines than Thatcher (and so the argument goes around in a circle) so the decision to break the union was a political one and not in the interest of the industry. It is possible to criticise Thatcher and recognise the problems within unions.
Denzle said:Al H said:To be fair to maggie the num started on her first. The union not the miners. As discussed earlier the unions had too much power to the detriment of their members, closed shop etc
Now you have the underground drivers on 30k+ trying to hold us to ransom, they would soon moan if we got driverless tubes
Who are "those miners" who moaned? Ever work underground as a miner Mate? We just fought to save our jobs.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?