Thatcher's Dead.

[Rook]

That last sentence, "Protest to the government, not your peers": The protests across the country have been protesting to the government. Thatcher was once the head of the government and a vast number of people in this country don't believe that 10 million pounds should have been spent on the funeral of a woman who in the eyes of many destroyed much of what was great about Britains industry.

We've just had £11.6 million "unavoidable" arts funding cuts for this year, yet we can spent £10 million on the public funeral of a woman that many people actually detested. What is fair about that?

I fully agree that causing distress at a funeral is wrong, however with such strong opinions against her i believe she should have had a private funeral, and should not have been paraded around the capital like she was the greatest thing to have ever happened to our country.

Lastly police do need to explain what they are arresting someone for, there should ALWAYS be a reason with which to arrest someone in the first place; otherwise any police officer could just arrest anyone simply because they felt like it. There is a difference between breach of the peace and freedom of speech and expression.

If someone is arrested for turning their back on a parade to a woman they feel caused more harm than help, and it upsets people who never even knew that woman, how can it be classed as disturbing the peace? It's a peaceful protest in my opinion given the nature of the funeral. It all boils down to opinion and taste at the end of the day.

You're missing the point, it wasn't my opinion, 'breach of the peace' exists basically so a policeman can arrest you, or at the very least move you away from a scene purely because they want to. It is their explanation.

And you argue with my point of not protesting and picketing at people who do want to mourn rather than the government like its wrong then appear to agree. I'm not sang people have been provoking mourners, my point was if those were people's intentions then they should be warned/moved on/whatever else.

Many people feel just as strongly in favour of Thatcher as you do against, I'd say more people do but as ever it's the passionate negative people that shout louder. That's fine, you think whatever you want to think, I'm not here to argue that or your right to think it, but the perception of the woman's actual popularity is somewhat skewed by the more passionate people not in favour of her.

As a side, £11m in cuts is nothing, as is £10m on a funeral in this economy. The national budget deals with with figures 3, 4 even 5 orders of magnitude higher. And this is coming from someone who - despite my slightly more in-favour stance toward the woman - doesn't think the funeral was entirely appropriate.

 

[Dan]

You're missing the point, it wasn't my opinion, 'breach of the peace' exists basically so a policeman can arrest you, or at the very least move you away from a scene purely because they want to. It is their explanation.

And you argue with my point of not protesting and picketing at people who do want to mourn rather than the government like its wrong then appear to agree. I'm not sang people have been provoking mourners, my point was if those were people's intentions then they should be warned/moved on/whatever else.

Many people feel just as strongly in favour of Thatcher as you do against, I'd say more people do but as ever it's the passionate negative people that shout louder. That's fine, you think whatever you want to think, I'm not here to argue that or your right to think it, but the perception of the woman's actual popularity is somewhat skewed by the more passionate people not in favour of her.

As a side, £11m in cuts is nothing, as is £10m on a funeral in this economy. The national budget deals with with figures 3, 4 even 5 orders of magnitude higher. And this is coming from someone who - despite my slightly more in-favour stance toward the woman - doesn't think the funeral was entirely appropriate.

There has to be a reasonable explanation to use the term "breach of the peace" though. That is what i'm trying to get at. Wikipedia (and i hate to use this website as a source, but alas) states:

"The power to arrest for a breach of the Peace is usually used to remove violent, potentially violent or provocative offenders (it is not necessary for the offender himself to be physically involved in any violence) from a scene rapidly, in Bibby V Chief Constable of Essex it was also used when a person in the opinion of a Constable was likely to be the victim of a breach of the peace or an act of violence"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breach_of_the_peace#cite_note-5

Being annoyed and voicing your opinion on a public funeral that according to our current government we shouldn't physically be able to afford is in no way a breach of the peace. To remove someone based on this alone is more a gagging order.

Put the boot on the other foot: say someone is (any many are) physically distressed at the fact that Thatcher is being paraded around London like some war hero. Is that not a breach of the peace in itself?

I am trying to be as impartial as possible about this, and certainly i believe we have conflicting viewpoints. I'm well aware that many people were in favour of Thatcher's policies and what she did for our country, but then again when you look at many of the points i brought forward in earlier posts and the response to her death you can't avoid the fact that maybe some of what she did affected people in a negative way, and they should be free to voice their feelings.

Passion like that is only brought on by actual dislike, real emotion because it has affected someone's personal everyday life, not just because she was just another prime minister. I personally don't believe more people favoured her, i simply believe a lot of people don't care because they weren't affected by her or don't know what she did.

Out of curiosity have you ever ventured to any of the once lucrative mining. shipbuilding and industry driven towns that were affected during the Thatcher government? If not i implore you to do so, and ask those that were affected personally why they feel the way they do.

As a final note, just to make you aware, i come from an arts background, i have many friends who look to the arts council to help fund community projects and pay their wages. I can tell you for a fact that £11.6 million pounds IS a lot of money, regardless of what the big picture is. That money could have gone to funding someones future or livelyhood, it could have taught someone skills for life or it could have created something beautiful for potential millions to enjoy.

How would you like it if your working wage was cut in half at least, and you we're told... "you aren't looking at the bigger picture, nothing we can do, the money is going to go towards a big funeral instead"




£11.6million pounds could have paid 9180 people for a basic rate job working 36 hours a week in this current economy.

 

[Rook]

If I could get government funding and become a musician for the rest of my life you bet I would, but it's not a right it's a privilege like everything else, and instead I'm paying to become an engineer instead.

And I come from a mining family

 

[estabon37]

If I could get government funding and become a musician for the rest of my life you bet I would, but it's not a right it's a privilege like everything else, and instead I'm paying to become an engineer instead.

And I come from a mining family

Well, that depends on the country and your definition of the term "right". Early political ideologists debated the balance of rights / responsibilities, and it's at the heart of every democracy that exists today. As long as you live a life that fulfils your responsibilities to the State (paying taxes, voting if bound by law, not pimping out your pets to the local weirdo, etc), then you are entitled to every right that the State is bound by Constitutional / Parliamentary law to provide, including welfare. For example, I was in the workforce for ten years, and paid a high level of tax at some jobs, so I don't feel remotely bad about receiving welfare as a student, knowing that on some days I'm just recording music at home and receiving government benefits to do so. In this sense, it's not a privilege - it's a right. And as a law-abiding, past-and-future tax paying, voting, volunteering, citizen, I've 'earned' that right through my participation in society.

 

[estabon37]

A friend of mine who is a photographer was at Trafalgar on saturday, you can read his post and view his pictures here. Not surprised that none of this was shown on our national TV, even though it is highly newsworthy. But thats a bias media for you i guess

R A D I O M O T H S

(be advised there are some NSFW pics in there)

It's a really interesting gallery to scroll through, but the text is, for me, almost surreal. I've never really thought about crowd interaction at a big social public event like that, having never attended anything of the sort. The descriptions of people just kind of yelling at each other, running off to Tesco for wine to bring back to the crowd, masks and signs and swearing - it gives a totally different impression than what I saw on the news. Thanks for sharing!

 

[Jakke]

Ok, sorry for my tardiness, and apologies to all.

Rather than go through each numbered point individually (as we could be here all day) i will highlight a few key points from it all. Also can i applaud your counter argument(s), nice to see a healthy debate here

• Firstly, whilst the housing act of 1980 did give council tenants the right to purchase their homes from their respective local authorities, due to the high unemployment rates many simply could not afford such a luxury. Those who did in many cases took out large amounts of credit to complete such a transaction, which in turn has led to the never-ending spiral of detrimental credit use in this country. I'd also like to point out that many wealthy private individuals who had savings and excess cash bought many of these council properties and to this day charge way over the odds for tenants to live in them.

This is quite true, and of course regrettable for anyone who is in favour of even a slight redistribution of wealth (which is everyone minus Penn and Teller). I would however like to point you to that this overburdening of credit happened in all of Europe, which resulted in the crash in the late 90's in Sweden. Actually, this sort of crash was brought on by a financial bubble, which was particularly prevalent in nations with strong social security nets (such as GB and Sweden). To be the devil's advocate (since I am in favour of a quite strong welfare state), increased privatization might actually save-guard against a crash of that kind. It did however not help against the last one

• Contrary to popular opinion whilst the pits were "not making individuals money" they were however heating the homes of the poor at a cheaper rate and running businesses as a FAR cheaper rate than we pay today. Industries such as shipbuilding were bringing in millions of pounds and keeping people in work. We now live in a state where those lucky enough to still learn these trades can earn you up to £100,000+ a year in countries such as Dubai. Literal BILLIONS of pounds and vital intercontinental trades could have still been created today in this country had she not wiped out a vital part of our economic infrastructure. I'd also like to add if she had not flooded many of the coal mines during her term as prime minister our electricity bills would certainly be lower than they are now, and (then state owned) companies such as BP would more than likely charge a fair amount to the general public as opposed to lining the pockets of foreign investors.

I don't generally like to deal in what-ifs.. It's true that it might very well have turned out like you describe, but it's far from certain that it would. Yes, they were running cheaper than they do today, but today the industry that's left turns a profit, in the olden days of Thatcher, GB was losing money. So even if they did operate cheaper, it was still more expensive to keep 'em. The argument that they were heating homes is not really a valid one to me, as heating can be obtained from profitable sources (burning garbage like we do, for example. Not to honk our own horns, of course)

• The privatisation of state companies has dealt a massive blow to our country. Thatcher had initially hoped that UK businessmen would take over the helm and would employ more UK staff (which in an ideal world would be lovely) but the hard fact of the matter is these businessmen got to where they are through hard sell and cost cutting. If a foreign investor is willing to pay over the odds for their share in a company then they are definitely going to sell up, same applies for if work can be sent offshore at a reduced cost. Mindless privatisation is happening again in our country even today. The current government has just sold off our state funded mountain rescue service, which has been told to cut costs in order to earn more money for their investors as they have just spent a fortune on new helicopters that weren't really necessary. State companies are always better IMHO because they look after the interests of their customer base, the people, rather than making money for shareholders. Maggie didn't share this opinion, and as a result many of the jobs and trades that people would still work in today has been sent to places like India, The Philippines and China because private companies will almost always choose cost over national service.

And I agree with this, outsourcing and cost-cutting is a serious problem.

• If a VAT is lower then prices will be lower. Why would you want a high VAT when all that tax doesn't go back into your community?

My spontanious reaction would be "to make use of it in other places of the realm" (I think the british thing is rubbing off on me... ).

• Several of the points i mentioned about her having low approval rates and causing civil unrest are in relation to what we are seeing today. Why should the tax payer (most of whom don't wish to pay a penny toward the woman's funeral) fork out for her coffin to be paraded round our nation’s capital whilst people say how she was the greatest thing to ever come out of Britain? Bottom line is, many people (myself included) feel she did more harm than good, why should we pay over the odds for her funeral? I'm sure she had more than enough money to pay for it herself, and I’d rather spend that money on improving things like our NHS, our education system and our local heritage funding.

Well, the same argument can be done for any political leader. There is always going to be subsections of the population who don't want to pay for a particular leader's funeral. Because of this, I personally think that it should be afforded everyone, or no one

 

[flint757]

My vote is for no one personally.

 

[Dan]

About Time Jakke , i wondered where you had wondered off to!

1. I'm more than happy for the redistribution of weath, but you first need money to make money. The average Joe can't buy a house till they have saved for a mortgage, but many people who couldn't afford to purchase their house missed out because those who were weathy could buy in bulk. Large unemployment cuts meant that people had to tighten their purse strings. To keep an economy going you have to keep spending money, it's a major reason why we are in the financial situation we are in now. The media told us that there was no money left and it pretty much ground public spending to a halt.

2. Common misconception about industry not turning a profit. It actually was, which is why many ship building contracts were bought out by overseas and eventually made hideous amounts of profit. There are figures (which i will hunt out later for you) to support this, especially in the north of the country. I will admit that companies NEEDED to be smarter about their expenditure and DID have to cut costs in some departments, however on the whole things like flooding mines will be a really bad idea in the long run as it could potentially have been a lucrative form of obtaining fuel today.

Without sounding too left wing and opinionated my personal belief is that during this time the wealth of the nation was shifting and even out between the south and the north of the country. This won't have been to the liking of everyone.

I agree something needed to be done in order to create further wealth for the country (such as burning rubbish as you mentioned) but people with money and shares will always be bias toward their own interests.

3. I'd really like to know where they are making use of the extra VAT. We pay tax on pretty much everything nowadays and while out cost of living and expenses rise our paychecks have been either cut or frozen. It really doesn't help that our chancellor of the exchequer is a pompus idiot who blames everyone but himself and his policies for the current "unavoidable" mess we are in (once again opinion Rook ), we need someone to look at the facts and the interests of the people.

4. I only believe that state funerals should be for someone who is genuinely loved by most/all. The Queen mother was 101 when she died, she was a real inspiration for many women in the first world war and not even she had big ben turned off for her funeral. Same with Princess Dianna. The last time was for Winston Churchill who actually is a national treasure and brought the country together during the second world war rather than leaving a bitter taste in its mouth.

I know once again that this is opinion, and i'm fully aware that many feel different about this, but its the sheer magniture of the funeral even though there was HUGE protest about it. It's over and done with now, but i'd rather the money that was spent should have gone to employing nearly 10k people for the year (as noted in my previous post). She obviously had the money to pay for such an expense herself, i mean she died in a permenant room in the Ritz for crying out loud, but then again all her wealth will be inherited won't it. Circle of wealth.

 

[flint757]

IMO State funerals shouldn't exist. Everyone you mentioned had the cash to pay for their own funeral even if they were beloved. If they needed cash to make the funeral a national phenomenon then they should take donations or something otherwise we enter very subjective territory as you don't want Thatchers funeral to be state funded yet she was in fact liked by many people.

 

[Dan]

IMO State funerals shouldn't exist. Everyone you mentioned had the cash to pay for their own funeral even if they were beloved. If they needed cash to make the funeral a national phenomenon then they should take donations or something otherwise we enter very subjective territory as you don't want Thatchers funeral to be state funded yet she was in fact liked by many people.

When its worded like that i have to agree a little There should be a clause that voids us from paying state funerals of people we don't like haha.

Also, whilst i'm not one to complain about neg rep as everyone is entitled to their own opinion of me; Whoever chose to do so on this topic please bring your counter argument on wealth distribution to the table , i'd like to hear your point of view and why you believe i am wrong. There's no need for anonymity here.

 

[mcd]

Also, whilst i'm not one to complain about neg rep as everyone is entitled to their own opinion of me; Whoever chose to do so on this topic please bring your counter argument on wealth distribution to the table , i'd like to hear your point of view and why you believe i am wrong. There's no need for anonymity here.

My bust dude, I usually sign my neg rep. Thought I signed yours too

1. I'm more than happy for the redistribution of weath, but you first need money to make money. The average Joe can't buy a house till they have saved for a mortgage, but many people who couldn't afford to purchase their house missed out because those who were weathy could buy in bulk. Large unemployment cuts meant that people had to tighten their purse strings. To keep an economy going you have to keep spending money, it's a major reason why we are in the financial situation we are in now. The media told us that there was no money left and it pretty much ground public spending to a halt.

I agree that money should be spent, and spent wisely to help stimulate economies. The problem we face here in the US is we don't spend money, we PRINT money. That's a huge aspect of why our economy is in the tube. The more we print the less its worth, and the more we owe back to the banks.

As for distribution of wealth, I do believe that the super elite and wealthy get an easier life and can afford to research the loop holes for taxation. Leaving the middle class in America holding the bag. I believe everyone should pay their fair share. However, I also believe we are taxed WAYYYYYYYYYYYY too much, so redistribution of wealth through more taxes wouldn't help.

I also don't like the idea of redistribution due to the fact that I worked way to hard for my money, and if I want to use it to help someone that is my choice, not the governments. I'm also against a hole cornucopia of social programs.

but that's another topic

 

[Dan]

No worries dude! Pleased to see you got back to me

I totally understand where you are coming from with your point. It's a little different in the UK as we aren't printing as much money, it's more the newspapers told everyone to stop spending as we would have no money and as a result spending took a major dip, leaving many businesses to go bust and harming out economy.

What i meant by redistribution of wealth was to give those who have a chance to make more money the abillity to do so. We don't have this in our current climate and jobs are being taken away due to privatisation rather than being created to help our national economy grow.

What we have at the moment in the UK is the rich getting richer by buying up every state company they can get their hands on and turning a profit as quickly as possible. This has been shown already in the buying out of the NHS's maintenance and cleaning departments and our mountain rescue teams. Both areas have had job cuts and IMHO useless "management" roles implimented to save as much money for the shareholders as possible.

This i believe is the wrong way to go about it. New areas and new jobs should be created to further boost our economy, not attempting to poorly fix what isn't broken.

I don't wish for more money to be taken from hard earning tax payers who already pay more than their share toward public and state services. I want to government to stop thinking of their own best interests and spend our hard earned tax money of creating a more stable and economocally feasible society that future generations will be able to benefit from.

Hope thats cleared up my thought pattern

 

[vansinn]

A quite interesting article about her 'inspirations', the policies she implemented and the fallouts, lasting to present day and beyond (nwo all over the place):
PressTV - Margaret Thatcher and the decline of West

Her departure is no regret for me; I just mostly wonder how on earth it can be wonderful having such an abominative career, even though a wanted one, only to fade into dement and not even be able to remember it all.
Puts a somewhat different light on the term selling one's soul to the devil in return for eternal life.
She's gone all right; lets for a change hope rebirth doesn't work in this case..

 

[Solodini]

Interesting read, thanks.

 

[Rook]

Well, that depends on the country and your definition of the term "right". Early political ideologists debated the balance of rights / responsibilities, and it's at the heart of every democracy that exists today. As long as you live a life that fulfils your responsibilities to the State (paying taxes, voting if bound by law, not pimping out your pets to the local weirdo, etc), then you are entitled to every right that the State is bound by Constitutional / Parliamentary law to provide, including welfare. For example, I was in the workforce for ten years, and paid a high level of tax at some jobs, so I don't feel remotely bad about receiving welfare as a student, knowing that on some days I'm just recording music at home and receiving government benefits to do so. In this sense, it's not a privilege - it's a right. And as a law-abiding, past-and-future tax paying, voting, volunteering, citizen, I've 'earned' that right through my participation in society.

I'm not even gunna go into how many ways I disagree with you

I'm gunna assume you were in favour of the student protests?

 

[Dan]

I'm not even gunna go into how many ways I disagree with you

I'm gunna assume you were in favour of the student protests?

I was , but i didn't approve of both the student response or the bias (and scarce) media coverage on it. Education should be free to all who wish to better themselves. That's an entirely different topic though .

God help us when we go for this pint Rook....