Why do posters have to be so nasty here when they don't agree with someone? :angry: Can't we debate without all name calling and insults. Don't think I'll bother posting in this sub-forum any more. Seems you're only allowed to have the same opinions as the majority. Well sorry but we live in a Democracy.

 

think about what you put before posting m8....

 

hell ive had strong words with ALL the fellow posters in here... especially craig! lol, dont take it so personally and ride it... anyone is welcome to post here just be prepared to support your views with well thought out opinions.

Why do posters have to be so nasty here when they don't agree with someone? :angry: Can't we debate without all name calling and insults. Don't think I'll bother posting in this sub-forum any more. Seems you're only allowed to have the same opinions as the majority. Well sorry but we live in a Democracy.

 

I do agree with you here, I'm sure people could express their distaste with the issue without being so... disgusting.

 

I think Mrs Thatcher fundementally changed this country, whether for the good or the bad will depend on your ideology but I do know there are a lot of people who believe she was a great leader and so I think it's fair that they get their chance to say goodbye. There are an equal amount of people who disliked her and it's fair they should be able to express that but it's not right to insult those who they disagree with.

I have no idea who those other two posters ELPRES and Callum were/are. Do they still post? Were they banned? :o

Edited July 18, 200817 yr by Crazy Chris

Apparently the State Funeral will cost around 3 million quid with many many cops on duty as apparently they'll be expecting protests and maybe scuffles. The Queen's said to have never liked Maggie and hated her regular Tuesday meetings with her. Suppose she has to agree with the PM though on this.

Apparently the State Funeral will cost around 3 million quid with many many cops on duty as apparently they'll be expecting protests and maybe scuffles. The Queen's said to have never liked Maggie and hated her regular Tuesday meetings with her. Suppose she has to agree with the PM though on this.

 

what a waste of money... the very fact that so many people object surely is evidence that she does not deserve it.. i resent my money being used this way. hell even the queen disliked her.... even her fans must see that it aint right.

what a waste of money... the very fact that so many people object surely is evidence that she does not deserve it.. i resent my money being used this way. hell even the queen disliked her.... even her fans must see that it aint right.

 

There is going to be objections with any prime minister getting a state funeral, no prime minister wins an election with more than about 40-45% of the national vote so that leaves 55-60% of voters that did not want that person to be prime minister so any prime minister is going to have dislikers who will not want them to have a state funeral

 

If the objections of dissenters are always taken up on there will never be another state funeral

 

A prime minister getting a state funeral is to me more deserving than royals who do nothing but ponce off the taxpayer and live in untold luxury getting state funerals at least Maggie contributed something to this country and was a representative of the people having been democratically elected 3 times whereas all the royals do is leech and get a few yanks over to watch trooping of the colour and were not elected by anybody

 

Maggie or any other prime minister is more deserving to me of a state funeral than parasites like Diana and the queen mum

Hmmm, jelousy perhaps....? Tried for a job down the mines but got turned down on the grounds of being just too bloody thick....? :lol: :lol:

Now now, just because Crazy Chris hasn't worked since the 70s...

There is going to be objections with any prime minister getting a state funeral, no prime minister wins an election with more than about 40-45% of the national vote so that leaves 55-60% of voters that did not want that person to be prime minister so any prime minister is going to have dislikers who will not want them to have a state funeral

 

If the objections of dissenters are always taken up on there will never be another state funeral

 

A prime minister getting a state funeral is to me more deserving than royals who do nothing but ponce off the taxpayer and live in untold luxury getting state funerals at least Maggie contributed something to this country and was a representative of the people having been democratically elected 3 times whereas all the royals do is leech and get a few yanks over to watch trooping of the colour and were not elected by anybody

 

Maggie or any other prime minister is more deserving to me of a state funeral than parasites like Diana and the queen mum

 

id wager that no one would get as many objections as thatcher has... and i dont believe ANY living ex pm deserves one.

 

as for the royals, whilst what you say may have some grounds the problem is that a royal state funeral goes with the job. it aint open for discussion..

Now now, just because Crazy Chris hasn't worked since the 70s...

 

 

 

Shhh.. how do you know that? :o Don't believe I've mentioned that here ever. Maybe word has travelled from Haven or you're a member there under a different username. :P

Edited July 19, 200816 yr by Crazy Chris

I object to the Queen mum being called a parasite. She was the strength behind George VI when he had to pick up the pieces after the mess of his brother's abdication and she stayed in London during the war doing her royal duties. It was she more than anyone else who trained her daughter, Elizabeth, to be a queen who has given her whole life to the service of this country. The Queen Mum continued to work for her charities and carry out a huge workload of royal duties until her health failed.

 

Personally I think a lot of the glory of Thatcher was hype, drummed up by media domination. I personally disliked what she did with most of her 11 years intensely. IMHO she was one of the most divisive prime Ministers we've ever had and she set back the case for women in high office in the public service.

 

She was lucky that she had 3 terms. IMO they weren't earned on the basis of what her government achieved overall though. The Falklands saved her in 1983 and people didn't feel drawn to Michael Foot, a very clever politician but too left wing. In 1987 Neil Kinnock and his would-be cabinet threw away a victory when they acted at the Sheffield Rally as if they had already won. That gleeful cry of " Well alright!" and announcing his colleagues as the next Chancellor etc. got the wavering voters' backs up. She would definitely have lost in 1992. Her party saved her from a landslide defeat.

 

IMHO she does not deserve a state funeral.

Shhh.. how do you know that? :o Don't believe I've mentioned that here ever. Maybe word has travelled from Haven or you're a member there under a different username. :P

Yes, I post at Haven under a different name...

Anyone watch the guys on 8 Out Of 10 Cats discussing this yesterday? :lol: Hillarious stuff. :rofl:

Anyone watch the guys on 8 Out Of 10 Cats discussing this yesterday? :lol: Hillarious stuff. :rofl:

 

Here you go:

 

8 Out Of 10 Cats (From 3:15 onwards)

I object to the Queen mum being called a parasite. She was the strength behind George VI when he had to pick up the pieces after the mess of his brother's abdication and she stayed in London during the war doing her royal duties. It was she more than anyone else who trained her daughter, Elizabeth, to be a queen who has given her whole life to the service of this country. The Queen Mum continued to work for her charities and carry out a huge workload of royal duties until her health failed.

 

Personally I think a lot of the glory of Thatcher was hype, drummed up by media domination. I personally disliked what she did with most of her 11 years intensely. IMHO she was one of the most divisive prime Ministers we've ever had and she set back the case for women in high office in the public service.

 

She was lucky that she had 3 terms. IMO they weren't earned on the basis of what her government achieved overall though. The Falklands saved her in 1983 and people didn't feel drawn to Michael Foot, a very clever politician but too left wing. In 1987 Neil Kinnock and his would-be cabinet threw away a victory when they acted at the Sheffield Rally as if they had already won. That gleeful cry of " Well alright!" and announcing his colleagues as the next Chancellor etc. got the wavering voters' backs up. She would definitely have lost in 1992. Her party saved her from a landslide defeat.

 

IMHO she does not deserve a state funeral.

 

 

Yeah the Queen Mother supported George VI immensely as he was a very weak man really.

Edited July 19, 200816 yr by Crazy Chris

Yes, I post at Haven under a different name...

 

 

OMG now you've got me wondering who you are. :lol: Maximo Mark by any chance? :o

Edited July 19, 200816 yr by Crazy Chris

Yeah the Queen Mother supported George VI immensely as he was a very weak man really.

 

If you are referring to his ill health as a child, with lung problems that eventually led to his premature death of lung cancer then you are correct. Whilst he is the most famous example of someone who had problems with his speech via a stuttering problem.

 

If you are having a go at his strength of character, then you are wide of the mark. Compared to his fascist sympathetic elder brother Edward, "old Bertie" was a sound guy.

 

After all the writers of BBC's sitcom Hi De Hi admitted that the character of Jeffrey Fairbrother was partially based on the father of our current Queen.

 

Off Topic: Is RabbitFurCoat going to change his name to Acid Tongue in September? :lol:

I object to the Queen mum being called a parasite. She was the strength behind George VI when he had to pick up the pieces after the mess of his brother's abdication and she stayed in London during the war doing her royal duties. It was she more than anyone else who trained her daughter, Elizabeth, to be a queen who has given her whole life to the service of this country. The Queen Mum continued to work for her charities and carry out a huge workload of royal duties until her health failed.

 

Personally I think a lot of the glory of Thatcher was hype, drummed up by media domination. I personally disliked what she did with most of her 11 years intensely. IMHO she was one of the most divisive prime Ministers we've ever had and she set back the case for women in high office in the public service.

 

She was lucky that she had 3 terms. IMO they weren't earned on the basis of what her government achieved overall though. The Falklands saved her in 1983 and people didn't feel drawn to Michael Foot, a very clever politician but too left wing. In 1987 Neil Kinnock and his would-be cabinet threw away a victory when they acted at the Sheffield Rally as if they had already won. That gleeful cry of " Well alright!" and announcing his colleagues as the next Chancellor etc. got the wavering voters' backs up. She would definitely have lost in 1992. Her party saved her from a landslide defeat.

 

IMHO she does not deserve a state funeral.

 

completely spot on!...

I have no idea who those other two posters ELPRES and Callum were/are. Do they still post? Were they banned? :o

 

They weren't banned as such, they were posters who would make glib, stupid remarks or points without an ounce of evidence to back things up... EL PRES was stupid kid who posted things deliberately to wind people up (his best one was changing his ID to "Hitler" and basically arguing that old Adolph was a "nice chap" really, I reported him to admin for that one...), Callum was just vague and pointless, again, made glib remarks didn't have a credible argument or back up anything he said with evidence.... Glib remarks and time-wasting topics are okay on "The Lounge", but not here.....

 

Maggie or any other prime minister is more deserving to me of a state funeral than parasites like Diana and the queen mum

 

Well, considering that the Queen Mum and Diana were considerably more respected and admired than Maggie ever was, I think you're talking utter cr@p mate..... Did Diana or the Queen Mum destroy communities, tear apart the country, commit war crimes or pass laws based upon bigotry and prejudice.....? Ummmm, nope..... I dont particularly like the Royals, but neither Diana nor the Queen Mum are as thoroughly objectionable or socially divisive than Thatch...

 

..And I wouldn't want to see Tony B-Liar be given a State Funeral either.... <_<

 

Well, considering that the Queen Mum and Diana were considerably more respected and admired than Maggie ever was, I think you're talking utter cr@p mate..... Did Diana or the Queen Mum destroy communities, tear apart the country, commit war crimes or pass laws based upon bigotry and prejudice.....? Ummmm, nope..... I dont particularly like the Royals, but neither Diana nor the Queen Mum are as thoroughly objectionable or socially divisive than Thatch...

 

..And I wouldn't want to see Tony B-Liar be given a State Funeral either.... <_<

 

They didn't get the chance to

 

Their job was to shake hands with world leaders, open fetes and so on, they did not have the responsibility Maggie had having to run a country that was in a terrible state when she took it over, having to run a country during a war, having to run a country during a global recession, the queen mum just had to drink gin all day and enjoy herself as did Diana, Maggie didn't have that luxury so of course royals are always going to be more popular